Interview: If the government gives away AI Premium for free, will we use it to improve productivity or to check our fortunes and daily color analysis?

Original interview with Thairath Plus in Thai here: https://plus.thairath.co.th/topic/politics&society/106354

[Below is the English translation of the article]

One of the most closely watched policies of the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (DE) at present is undoubtedly the “TH-AI Passport” project, which carries a budget of 1.6 billion baht. Its primary objective is to enable five million Thai citizens to access and learn how to use artificial intelligence (AI) technology free of charge. The government views the initiative as a national investment aimed at upgrading workforce skills and preparing Thailand to fully enter the technological era.

Another clip that has gone viral on social media is Digital Economy and Society Minister Chaichanok Chidchob’s live parliamentary response to People’s Party MP Pawoot Pongvitayapan on May 28, 2026. The minister outlined a vision of making AI a basic right for citizens and set a goal of increasing the proportion of AI users in Thailand from 10.67 percent to approximately 22–23 percent, bringing the country closer to neighboring Vietnam and the global average. The objective is to ensure Thailand does not miss opportunities or fall behind the international community.

However, despite being presented as a major step forward in national development, the project has faced criticism and skepticism from multiple angles. Concerns range from the value for money of public spending and transparency in procurement processes to questions about whether the Terms of Reference (TOR) may favor certain private-sector companies.

Thairath Plus spoke with Assistant Professor Dr. Surachanee Sriyai, Chief Executive of S&I Strategic Advisory and a specialist in digital development, to analyze the background and implications of this billion-baht project and explore what national challenges it is actually intended to address.

Dr. Surachanee began by noting that while the intentions outlined in the TOR are compelling—particularly in promoting technology adoption to improve productivity and reduce inequality—there is little evidence that providing access to premium AI services can genuinely address inequality as intended.

The first issue concerns digital literacy. To truly reduce inequality, citizens must be able to use technology effectively. The question is whether the government has conducted any feasibility studies or behavioral research to understand how Thai people actually use AI. While some users utilize AI for research, education, or in-depth information gathering, many others are using it for general or entertainment purposes, such as analyzing personal color palettes or even fortune-telling. As a result, even if the government provides premium AI access, a significant portion of users may use it for personal interests rather than productivity-enhancing purposes as policymakers assume.

The second issue involves data privacy and the capacity of government digital infrastructure. Because access to the program requires registration through a government platform, expected to be through the ThaID application, digitally-literate citizens may be concerned about providing their national ID numbers and personal information without clarity regarding how the government will use that data. Although many Thais already have the ThaID application due to previous government initiatives such as the Khon La Khrueng co-payment program, questions remain about whether backend systems can support five million simultaneous users and what safeguards exist to protect citizens’ personal data.

Furthermore, although the Deputy Government Spokesperson, Lalida Periswiwatana, had explained that the project is not simply a free giveaway and that beneficiaries must complete training before receiving the benefits under a “Learn to Earn” model, the reality is that individuals who recognize the value of premium AI access are often already highly skilled users who maximize the technology’s capabilities. Government training programs, which are likely to be introductory in nature, may therefore be redundant and fail to meet their needs.

Dr. Surachanee argues that using public funds to purchase and distribute premium AI subscriptions is not an appropriate role for the state. Users who require premium AI services generally employ them for professional purposes and can generate sufficient income to justify paying for the technology by themselves, seeing them as a business investment. This raises ongoing questions about participant selection criteria and the project’s actual target audience.

Regarding the government’s explanation that direct negotiations with global AI companies may conflict with policies and increase the risks of data breach, Dr. Surachanee noted that the previous administrations, both Srettha's and Paethongtarn's, were able to negotiate directly with Google to encourage the company to establish data centers in Thailand; thus, a direct engagement with foreign companies should be a non-issue for the Thai government. Moreover, regardless of whether the government negotiates directly or through an intermediary, once Thai citizens use foreign AI platforms, their data inevitably enters the systems of those service providers. These concerns are reinforced by a recent study from the University of California, Davis titled “Tracking Conversations: Measuring Content and Identity Exposure on AI Chatbots,” published in May 2026. The study tested chatbot systems from twenty companies and found that seventeen—including ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Grok, all of which are included in this project—shared conversation data with third parties for analytics or advertising purposes. Even when information is not transmitted externally, user data is still stored on company platforms for analysis by system owners.

Within Thailand’s political landscape, a project worth more than 1.6 billion baht inevitably attracts scrutiny regarding procurement transparency. Critics have noted that implementation proceeded within only thirty-four days, which is highly unusual for a project of this scale and contrasts sharply with the months typically required for major government initiatives. This has prompted speculation about whether the process favors particular business interests. Additional concerns have been raised that the TOR was issued hastily during the political transition period following the government reshuffle in November 2025. Information from the House Committee on Budget Preparation and Monitoring has also suggested that other digital development research projects may have been canceled in order to consolidate funding for the TH-AI Passport initiative. If true, this would indicate that the government has sacrificed multiple digital development programs to concentrate resources on a single project, undermining the development of other projects that may have a greater potential in advancing the country's digital progress. At the same time, the project’s Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) remain unclear. There is little information regarding how the government intends to measure citizens’ AI literacy or determine whether the project contributes to economic development as intended.

Dr. Surachanee also highlights another important dimension: the project appears largely urban-centric and may leave other groups behind. Citizens living outside metropolitan areas and farmers in remote provinces may have limited opportunities to apply AI technologies in their daily lives. Although Thailand reports high rates of internet and smartphone penetration, closer examination of statistical data reveals that actual usage remains concentrated primarily in urban centers. Most importantly, She argues that providing free AI access is not a magic solution capable of immediately revitalizing the economy or reducing inequality as the government suggests. Generating economic productivity requires citizens to create genuine value from the technology. Yet, as noted earlier, the government has not conducted sufficient consumer behavior research to support these assumptions. Another concern involves labor market impacts. Dr. Surachanee references a recent academic article titled “The AI Layoff Trap,” in which U.S. economists warn that AI adoption will lead to long-term job displacement and could inflict severe damage on the global economy. They emphasize that this phenomenon is no longer merely hypothetical; it is not a question of whether it will happen, but rather when and to what extent it will occur. Ultimately, making AI available free of charge is not a ready-made solution to the challenges the government seeks to address. Greater emphasis should instead be placed on building foundations for responsible and ethical AI use, because AI cannot fully replace every profession or solve every problem.

Dr. Surachanee concludes by noting that while the government promotes the project based on the belief that AI serves as a tool to augment human capabilities and enhance productivity through AI-assisted work, the reality is that most organizations and individuals view the technology as a form of automation designed to replace human labor and reduce costs. This perspective aligns with remarks by Lisa Su, Chief Executive Officer of AMD, in a commencement speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). She stated that companies are not merely looking for employees who know how to use AI tools; they seek individuals who understand why and for what purpose those tools should be used, and who can apply them to solve complex problems. When the government’s starting assumptions differ from the realities of the business world, it becomes difficult for such a massive expenditure to align with the goal of strengthening national competitiveness.

As Thailand enters the AI era while still facing significant digital divides, policy efforts should focus on developing human capital alongside software infrastructure. The government must also answer a critical question: since technological progress inevitably creates both winners and losers, does the state already have adequate social safety nets and support measures in place for workers who may lose their jobs as a result of these cascading technological disruptions?