Experts Oppose Anutin's Plan to Cut Thai Health Fund Tax
Prof. Dr. Prakit and Prof. Dr. Varaporn strongly oppose the bill proposed by Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul to defund ThaiHealth from sin taxes.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
- Prof. Dr. Prakit Vathesatogkit opposes the draft bill ending the 2% sin tax allocation for ThaiHealth.
- He asserts that only alcohol and tobacco corporations will benefit from this legislative change.
- Prof. Dr. Varaporn Samakoses warns that relying on the national budget creates fiscal burdens and political risks.
- Public hearings for this controversial amendment run from September 30 to October 14, 2026.
A major public health controversy unfolded on October 2, 2026, as prominent Thai scholars strongly pushed back against proposed legislative amendments. Prof. Dr. Prakit Vathesatogkit, chairman of the Action on Smoking and Health Foundation, voiced fierce opposition to the draft amendment of the Thai Health Promotion Foundation (ThaiHealth) Act. The public hearing period for this bill runs from September 30 through October 14, 2026, centering on a proposal to eliminate the 2.5% earmarked tax collection from alcohol and tobacco products that traditionally funds ThaiHealth, replacing it instead with annual government budget allocations.
The draft legislation was brought forward by Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul and his cabinet. The official rationale behind the move is to maintain fiscal discipline standards in accordance with Section 26 of the State Fiscal and Financial Discipline Act of 2018. This statute suggests that laws levying specific taxes or fees for designated government agencies should be repealed if they conflict with overarching fiscal consolidation principles, notwithstanding certain transitional exemptions.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
The reliance on earmarked taxes from alcohol and tobacco has historically granted ThaiHealth financial independence and stability, shielding public health initiatives from annual budgetary fluctuations and shifting political landscapes. Transitioning such independent public health funds directly into the central government budget process introduces structural debates over administrative autonomy and long-term funding security.
Meanwhile, Prof. Dr. Varaporn Samakoses echoed similar concerns, criticizing the shift as an impractical arrangement that will inevitably increase the burden on regular state expenditures. He highlighted the potential danger of heightened political interference in the foundation's operations, emphasizing that numerous countries worldwide admire Thailand's unique independent health promotion funding model and aspire to replicate it.
"Only alcohol and tobacco companies benefit. I believe someone advised Anutin to do this, and it is still not too late to back down."
Prof. Dr. Prakit Vathesatogkit
Prof. Dr. Prakit further stressed that pushing forward with this legal revision would primarily advantage liquor and cigarette manufacturers. He expressed strong suspicion that external advisors might have influenced the Prime Minister's policy direction and urged the administration to withdraw the proposal while there is still time.
Source: Khaosod Politics
Found something wrong in this article? Report an issue with this article
Comments
Leave a Comment