The current policy attracting attention from the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (DE) is the "TH-AI Passport" project, with a budget of 1.6 billion baht. Its primary goal is to enable 5 million Thais to access and learn to use artificial intelligence (AI) technology free of charge. The government views this as a national investment to upgrade workforce skills and prepare Thailand to fully enter the technology era.
Another viral clip shows Minister Chaiyachon Chidchob of the Ministry of Digital Economy responding live to MP Pawut Pongvitayapanu of the People’s Party on 28 May 2026. He outlined a vision to make this technology a basic right for citizens and set a target to increase AI usage from 10.67% to between 22% and 23%, close to neighboring Vietnam and the global average, so Thailand does not miss opportunities or fall behind the international community.
Despite hopes that it would be a major step in national development, the project has faced criticism and doubts on many fronts, including the cost-effectiveness of public spending, transparency in procurement, and concerns that the Terms of Reference (TOR) might favor certain private companies.
Thairath Plus spoke with Associate Professor Dr. Suratchanee Sriyai, CEO of S&I Strategic Advisory and an expert in digital development, to analyze the background and impact of this billion-baht project and to find out what it can actually deliver for the country.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Suratchanee pointed out that although the stated intent in the TOR to promote technology use to improve work efficiency and reduce inequality is interesting, in practice, it is not yet believable that granting advanced or Premium AI access will truly solve inequality as intended.
The first issue is digital literacy—the ability to understand and use digital technology. To genuinely reduce inequality, people must effectively use technology. But the question remains: has the government studied or understood the behavioral patterns of Thai users?
Some users apply AI for research or deep information searches, but many use it for general or entertainment purposes, such as analyzing daily color tones or even fortune telling. Therefore, if the government grants Premium access, some people may use it for personal, everyday matters rather than applying it effectively as the government envisions.
The second issue concerns data privacy and the efficiency of the government app’s backend system. Since users must register through a government system, likely the ThaID app, those knowledgeable about digital matters worry about submitting personal ID numbers and data without clarity on how the government will handle this information. Although many have the ThaID app from previous policies like the Khon La Khrueng project, there are concerns whether the backend can handle 5 million concurrent users without issues and how the government will robustly protect citizens’ data.
Moreover, although Deputy Spokesperson Lalida Pertwiwatna explained that the project does not give free rights but requires users to complete training (Learn to Earn), in reality, those who value and want Premium access tend to be experts already fully utilizing the technology. The government’s expected basic-level training may not meet their needs and could duplicate existing knowledge.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Suratchanee believes that purchasing and distributing high-level AI packages with public funds is not the government’s role because Premium AI users typically use it professionally and can afford to buy Premium themselves. This leaves the project ambiguous regarding participant selection criteria and the true target group.
Regarding the government’s explanation that direct negotiations with global AI developers might violate their policies and risk data leakage abroad, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Suratchanee noted that the previous administration successfully negotiated directly with Google to establish a Data Center in Thailand. Furthermore, whether through direct or intermediary negotiation, when using foreign platforms, Thai users’ data ultimately enter the systems of these 12 providers regardless.
These concerns align with recent research from the University of California, Davis titled "Tracking Conversations: Measuring Content and Identity Exposure on AI Chatbots," published in May 2026. It tested chatbots from 20 companies and found that 17—including ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Grok, all part of this government project—send conversation data to third parties for analysis or advertising. Even if data are not sent externally, user information remains stored on platforms for the owning companies' analysis.
In Thai political circles, this 1.6-billion-baht project is scrutinized for transparency in procurement, which took only 34 days—unusually fast for large projects that typically require months. This has raised suspicions of favoritism toward certain business groups. Additionally, questions arose about the rushed announcement of the TOR during the government transition in November last year.
Furthermore, information from the House of Representatives' Budget Oversight Committee suggests possible cancellation of other digital development research projects to reallocate funds into the TH-AI Passport project. If true, it implies the government sacrificed several digital development initiatives to invest in this single project.
At the same time, the project’s key performance indicators (KPIs) remain unclear because there is no defined method for the government to measure citizens’ AI literacy levels or criteria to assess whether the project achieves the desired economic development.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Suratchanee also highlighted that the project mainly benefits urban residents (urban-centric) and may leave behind others, such as people outside metropolitan areas and remote farmers. Although reports show high internet and smartphone access in Thailand, detailed statistics reveal actual usage is concentrated mostly in urban areas.
Importantly, she believes that granting free AI access is not an immediate tool to revive the economy or reduce inequality as the government claims. Economic productivity gains require people to creatively harness technology, yet the Thai government has not studied consumer behavior to support this.
Another concern is the labor market impact. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Suratchanee referenced a recent academic article titled "The AI Layoff Trap," where U.S. economists warn that AI’s arrival will cause long-term job losses, potentially severely damaging the global economy. This phenomenon is not hypothetical but inevitable and certain (not if, but will).
Ultimately, providing free AI access to the public is not a ready-made solution to the government’s challenges. The government should focus more on establishing responsible and ethical AI usage foundations, since AI cannot replace or complete all types of work.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Suratchanee concluded that while the government pushes the project believing AI is a tool to augment humans (AI-assisted humans) and boost productivity, in reality, most organizations and people see this technology as automation used to replace labor and reduce costs.
This aligns with AMD CEO Lisa Su’s speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) graduation ceremony, stating companies seek not only personnel who know how to use AI tools but those who understand why to use them and can solve complex problems. Thus, when the government’s problem framing differs from business reality, the large budget investment is unlikely to align with national capability development.
Entering the AI era in Thai society, which still has a significant digital divide, should focus on developing human resources alongside software. The government must answer whether it has social safety nets and support measures in place to assist those displaced by the resulting job losses, as technological progress inevitably creates winners and losers.
#ThairathPlus #Thairath #AI