Bangkok: Amidst the intense election atmosphere, many Thai political parties' campaign policies still revolve around "handouts"-whether it's debt relief, cash handouts, cost of living reductions, or subsidies for utilities. The crucial question is: do these policies truly help the country in the long term, or are they merely buying time and shifting the burden to the future?
According to Thai News Agency, former Finance Minister Teerachai Poovanatnarubal clearly pointed out that the biggest challenge in this election is not nationalism or international conflict, but rather the economic problems affecting people's livelihoods, competitiveness, and fiscal stability, which are entering a critically vulnerable point.
For over a decade, Thailand has employed fiscal policies to stimulate the economy using a "double-action" approach, focusing on short-term consumption boosts through cash handouts or subsidies for daily expenses. This has resulted in only temporary GDP growth but has failed to enhance long-term income-generating capacity or competitiveness.
The result is that public debt has doubled from around 6 trillion baht to over 12 trillion baht, while the country's competitiveness has barely improved. Neighboring ASEAN countries have steadily surpassed Thailand, and Thailand's economic growth rate is projected to decline to only around 1.5% in the near future.
Professor Teerachai compared borrowing money to distributing it for consumption to a company that borrows money to pay salaries but doesn't invest in building factories or the tools to earn a living; ultimately, it will not be able to continue.
The former finance minister reiterated that the government has only two sources of funding. One solution is to increase revenue through taxation, and the second is to borrow more money, which means increasing public debt.
The problem with current election campaigns is that they only focus on "what the people will get," but never explain who will pay and how long the country can bear this burden. While it's true that distributing 100,000 baht a month to citizens is feasible, the ultimate goal is the bankruptcy of the entire nation.
Even more worrying is the lack of a regulatory role in compelling political parties to rigorously disclose the sources of their funding, leading the public to make decisions based on empty promises but a lack of fiscal responsibility.
Professor Teerachai did not reject helping the public or using fiscal policy, but suggested that every baht spent must enhance the country's competitiveness, whether through investment in infrastructure, developing workforce skills, education in value-added fields, or creating opportunities for communities to become self-reliant.
Incurring debt to create "tools for earning a living" is acceptable because it helps a country have the capacity to repay its debt in the future. However, incurring debt for short-term comfort is irresponsible and shifts the burden to future generations.
The heart of a sustainable democracy is transparency. Credible political parties should have the courage to tell the public that if they want to help a particular group, who they need to collect money from, what taxes need to be increased, and what structural benefits will result, instead of creating the image of "freebies," because in reality, money never falls from the sky.
Professor Teerachai advised the public to be cautious in this election. Anyone offering to distribute money should be questioned, and people should not be misled into believing that policies that don't disclose their funding sources are the true solutions for the country.
Thailand stands at a crossroads, between populist politics that prioritizes "comfort today but burdened with debt tomorrow," and politics that dares to think, dares to speak, and dares to invest in the future-not flashy, but sustainable.
This election, therefore, is not just about choosing a party or an individual, but about deciding whether Thailand will move forward with "handouts" or with its "true potential."