People's Party Demands Probe Into Sin Tax Fund Reforms
The user wants a short summary of the article, 1-2 sentences, 120-220 characters, max 240. Must be in English only. No quotes, no labels, no markdown. Just the summary text. Key points from article: - People's Party MPs submitted urgent mot
People's Party MPs submitted an urgent motion urging the establishment of a special committee to study legal reforms for four funds that currently receive sin tax revenue, warning that 1.4 trillion baht could disappear from the system. They also questioned the role of Prime Minister's Office spokesperson Ekapap Phiriphiset in defending the changes.
At 11:45 a.m. on October 29, 2026, at Parliament, MP Natthaya Boonphakdee, alongside other People's Party MPs, announced the party would propose an urgent motion to the House Speaker to form a special committee to review reform of three funds and one organization: the Thai Health Promotion Fund (ThaiHealth), the Thai Public Broadcasting Service (Thai PBS), the Elderly Fund, and the National Sports Development Fund.
Natthaya said that over the past month, MPs had submitted four draft bills to change funding from sin tax allocations to annual budget appropriations, citing a desire to maintain fiscal discipline per government policy. However, the People's Party views the amendments as having wide-ranging impacts: 1) disrupting continuous care for vulnerable groups, 2) threatening public media independence, and 3) hindering health risk control efforts that regularly confront large industries.
"Without secure and continuous funding, operations protecting citizens will be affected, as will long-term fiscal burdens. There should be careful assessment of whether changing the funding source is worthwhile," Natthaya said. "Also, there is uncertainty: if all four laws are amended without other legal mechanisms to guarantee that the additional revenue of about 1.4 trillion baht per year will not disappear from the system, any leakage or change could become a collective loss for society."
Natthaya added that changing the funding source does not solve transparency issues; it is about administrative power. Previously, these funds were already overseen by the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers, and ministers who could directly use administrative power to improve governance without converting them into annual budget agencies.
Importantly, previous public hearings on the four amendments found 60-80% opposition. Over the past 2-3 weeks, civil society groups have submitted letters opposing the changes. The party does not want legislative proceedings to advance without listening to the public.
Thus, the urgent motion seeks a special committee to develop suitable reform proposals, not a legislative rush.
When asked about past disputes between opponents of the sin tax funding change and Ekapap Phiriphiset — a former tobacco advocate now speaking for the Prime Minister's Office — Bangkok MP Phanthil Nuamchoem said the question should be directed at Ekapap.
However, today the House Committee on State Enterprises, Independent Agencies, State-Owned Enterprises, Public Organizations, and Funds invited relevant parties including the funds and Bhumjaithai party-list MP Supachai Chaisamut. Supachai did not attend but sent Ekapap to provide information instead, raising questions.
