The King Prajadhipok's Institute poll revealed that over half of Thai people see the 'Thai Chai Thai Plus' program as helping to ease living expenses, with the North and South regions expressing the most positive views, while Bangkok and the Northeast still feel the support is insufficient.
On 17 July 2026, the King Prajadhipok's Institute announced the results of a survey titled 'Public Perspectives on Thai Chai Thai Plus: Usage and Impact on Living Costs,' focusing on being 'neutral, factual, and beneficial' with academic standards, aiming not to influence politics but to 'listen' to political views from the people's voices. The survey was conducted from 10-13 July 2026 among 2,000 individuals aged 18 and over across all regions of the country, with the following key findings:
1. Is the 60% government and 40% citizen co-payment ratio appropriate? (Survey by Line Today)
• 40.8% stated that the 60:40 ratio is already appropriate, the highest proportion.
• Next, 18.8% suggested switching to direct cash assistance instead of co-payment; 18.0% wanted a higher government share; 16.7% preferred returning to the original 50:50 split as in the 'Half-Half' program; 2.3% wanted to reduce the government’s share; and 3.4% had no opinion.
• By region: The Eastern region had the highest approval of the current format (74.4%), followed by the North (51.0%), South (49.1%), Central (46.3%), and Bangkok (44.7%). The Northeast was the only region with the highest demand for increased government support (46.1%).
➡ Although the majority view the 60/40 ratio as suitable, over half propose various alternative adjustments. The challenge lies in maintaining the convenience of the co-payment system while assessing the sufficiency and appropriateness of assistance for different population groups.
2. More than half see 'Thai Chai Thai Plus' as easing living costs – the North and South view the impact positively, while Bangkok and the Northeast still find it insufficient.
• 51.4% said the program greatly or fairly significantly reduces living expenses; 36.0% said it helps somewhat but is still insufficient. Combined, 87.4% believe the program eases living costs to some degree, while 10.5% say it helps little or not at all, and 2.1% have no opinion.
• By region: The North (65.6%) and South (65.3%) had the highest proportions who felt the program greatly or fairly significantly reduced costs, followed by the Central (61.7%) and Eastern (59.1%) regions. In Bangkok, the largest response was 'helps somewhat but still insufficient' (40.6%), similarly in the Northeast (45.0%).
➡ This reflects that 'Thai Chai Thai Plus' benefits the public broadly, but the level of assistance varies. Over one-third still consider it insufficient. The uneven impact may relate to differences in living costs, income, and spending patterns across areas.
. 3. Almost all used the program for basic necessities – more than half exhausted their funds within half the month, some as early as the first five days.
• 53.9% used their rights primarily for food and beverages; 41.6% spent on daily necessities. Together, these account for 95.5%. Meanwhile, 3.0% used funds for transport or program-related services, and 1.5% for other items.
• 40.0% spent their funds within the first half of the month, the highest proportion, and 18.2% spent all within the first five days, totaling 58.2% exhausting funds within the first half of the month. Meanwhile, 36.5% spread usage over the whole month, and only 3.3% did not use all their funds.
➡ The program’s funds were primarily used for essential basic expenses. The rapid depletion of funds may reflect both a strong need to use the rights and the pressure of daily living costs.
Summary from the 29th KPI Poll
The survey indicates that the 'Thai Chai Thai Plus' program targets essential expenses effectively. However, over half of participants using all funds within half a month may signal urgent spending needs and living cost burdens. Yet, this alone cannot determine fund sufficiency. Therefore, the government should consider not only the appropriateness of the co-payment ratio but also the adequacy of the funds, eligibility conditions, timing of usage, and assistance design tailored to varying living costs and income groups across regions.
