A proposal to restructure Thai PBS’s budget by touching on “sin taxes” has drawn views from a former NBTC member who sees it either as a move to tighten state budgets or political interference. He notes that while budget cuts from sin taxes are possible, the change could undermine media independence.
Following a proposal by MP Supachai Jaisamut and colleagues from the Bhumjaithai Party to amend the Thai PBS Act before the House of Representatives, the key point is to abolish the collection of organizational maintenance fees from alcohol and tobacco taxes, known as “sin taxes,” and shift Thai PBS’s revenue source to the annual government budget. This budget would require approval from the Budget Bureau, Cabinet, and both the House and Senate. The proposal has sparked concerns about Thai PBS’s future operational independence.
Thairath Online’s special news team interviewed Dr. Prawit Leestapornwongsa, former chair of the NBTC Consumer Protection Subcommittee, who believes that any overhaul of the current budget system must start with a systematic evaluation. It should not be changed without clear objectives. Questions should be asked about how much Thai PBS’s current budget impacts government finances, why the funding method needs changing, how the government views Thai PBS’s performance, and whether the change will truly improve matters.
From a management perspective, if the country truly needs to save budget, the first step is to identify the root cause. If sin tax revenues allocated are too high, the allocation ratio can be reduced without switching entirely to the national budget system. Linking the budget to annual government appropriations introduces uncertainty and risks political interference.
Dr. Prawit traces the origin of public media in Thailand back to the political wounds from the May 1992 events, when media was suppressed and people turned to cable TV or foreign media. This led to the push for “free television” such as iTV.
However, iTV’s business model failed due to high costs and miscalculations of revenue, prompting the idea to establish Thai PBS with an “independent budget” model funded directly from sin taxes. This was designed to avoid affecting other parts of the national budget and reduce reliance on commercial advertising.
“Its original spirit is that of free media. The government should ask itself whether this change is destroying the spirit of free media,” he said.
In response to arguments that moving to a normal budget system might improve efficiency or reduce excess budgets, he personally believes that the original funding model allows the organization to forecast budgets and plan with stability. Switching to an annual allocation means public media survival depends on government priorities each year. If a government does not value media or faces budget deficits, Thai PBS’s funding could be cut immediately, directly impacting its role as a public broadcaster.
Therefore, reforming media organizations or institutions is possible but must start with evaluating efficiency, value, and identifying real problems. If problems exist, they should be addressed. But if there are no problems, causing disruption is creating problems rather than solving them.