Academics Warn Health Fund Law Change May Hurt Disease Prevention
Academics and legal experts warn that a proposed amendment to Thailand's Health Promotion Fund Act, backed by Deputy Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, could weaken disease prevention efforts by undermining the earmarked tax on tobacco and alcohol. They say the tax already has oversight and its declining revenue shows its link to reduced consumption of harmful products, urging broad public consultation before any changes. The experts stress that health promotion requires systematic measures, not just education, and warn the amendment could threaten civil society independence.
Academics specializing in health and law have raised concerns about a bill to amend the Health Promotion Fund Act, which was introduced by Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister Anutin Charnvirakul and his team through the legislative initiative of members of parliament. They emphasize that the excise tax on tobacco and liquor – known as the earmarked tax – is a vital mechanism for reducing health‑risk factors and sustaining health promotion, and they argue that any amendment should include wide public consultation and be examined for its suitability and potential impact on civil society independence.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Witaya Kulsubun, a board member of the Health Promotion Fund (ThaiHealth) and executive of its plan committee 1, said the earmarked tax is a tool used by many countries, especially for taxing products that pose health risks to curb consumption. In Thailand, the tax is collected on tobacco and alcohol and funneled to ThaiHealth, which operates under multiple layers of oversight: internal audits, financial audits, reports to the legislature, and evaluations by committees appointed by the Cabinet on the recommendation of the Finance Minister. He added, half‑jokingly, that if consumption of those products ever fell to zero, ThaiHealth would become unnecessary, but the current decline in earmarked‑tax revenue already reflects the link between tax income and reduced use of risky products, making it feasible to collect the tax alongside the Fiscal Discipline Act.
Citing 25 years of domestic and international evidence, Witaya noted that ThaiHealth’s work has contributed to falling smoking and alcohol rates and increased physical activity. He stressed that effective health promotion cannot rely solely on public education; it needs systemic measures such as tax policy, consumption controls, health‑supportive environments, and sustained community participation.
Asst. Prof. Udom Ngammeangsakul, Dean of the Law School at the University of Phayao, acknowledged that proposing the bill via MPs is constitutionally permissible. However, he urged that amendments dealing with budget allocation and public health‑support mechanisms must clearly explain their rationale, necessity, and possible effects, and must allow relevant agencies, academia, and the general public to participate broadly to ensure a careful, transparent, and all‑sided deliberation.
