BANGKOK, Thailand – Health advocates and an economic expert have opposed a proposed amendment that would end the additional 2% alcohol and tobacco tax funding for Thailand’s Health Promotion Fund, warning that the change could increase the government’s budget burden and make health-promotion work more vulnerable to political intervention.
Prof. Dr. Prakit Watheesathokkij, chairman of the Action on Smoking and Health Foundation Thailand, criticised the draft amendment to the Health Promotion Fund Act proposed by Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul and others. Public consultation on the draft is open from September 30 to October 14, 2026.
The proposal would end the additional collection from alcohol and tobacco taxes that currently provides funding for the Thai Health Promotion Foundation, known as ThaiHealth, and instead have the organisation receive funding through the government’s annual expenditure budget. Prakit said ThaiHealth currently receives about 4 billion baht a year from the additional 2% levy. He argued that removing the levy could benefit alcohol and tobacco businesses by reducing their costs and giving them greater flexibility over pricing and marketing. He also questioned whether the proposed system would ensure that the money currently collected through the additional levy would return to the government budget. Prakit urged the prime minister to reconsider the proposal, saying there was still time to withdraw it.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Worakorn Samkoses, a member of the National Economic and Social Development Council’s Council of Experts, also raised concerns about replacing the earmarked tax with ordinary government budget allocations.
Worakorn said ThaiHealth was established around the principle of an earmarked tax, with an additional levy on alcohol and tobacco used to fund preventive health programs. He said the model was intended to give health-promotion work greater independence and flexibility while complementing the work of government agencies. He argued that shifting the funding source would require the government to shoulder the cost through its regular budget. He also warned that annual budget allocations could make funding less predictable and affect the continuity of long-term health programs.
Worakorn said distributing health-promotion fnding through government ministries could also reduce coordination across programs and create more opportunities for political influence, including the allocation of projects to particular areas. He added that if lower alcohol and tobacco taxes resulted in lower prices and increased consumption, the resulting health costs could outweigh the additional revenue available to the government. Both experts said the debate should consider not only fiscal discipline but also how effectively public money is used and the long-term consequences of changing the funding model for preventive health work.
