Senator Nantana Nantavaropas on Monday grilled the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (DES) over the B1.6bn TH-AI Passport project during a parliamentary session, questioning its transparency and stated benefits.
The senator raised nine concerns about the scheme, which involves planned spending of 1.6 billion baht to procure 12 AI models, providing up to 5 million Thais with access to professional AI services. Ms Nantana noted that the project's terms of reference (ToR) were drafted and the bidding process completed within just 34 days, arguing that the speed raised questions rather than confidence.
She asked why the project was designed to cover five million user accounts and what criteria would be used to allocate them. She also questioned why the AI services had to be procured through an intermediary, and whether the "AI Pro" package offered was genuinely a premium product or merely a basic version already available free of charge to the public.
Furthermore, she criticised a requirement in the ToR for advertising on 1,500 convenience-store screens, asking why such services would be promoted through physical retail outlets rather than digital platforms.
Ms Nantana also raised concerns about the winning bidder, noting its contract extension for MotoGP and previous involvement in setting reference prices for other ministries.
Deputy DES Minister Nan Boonthida Somchai rejected suggestions that the procurement process was unusually rushed, stating the 34-day period did not cover the entire process and followed standard government procedures.
Ms Nan said the project was a pilot scheme to expand access to AI tools among Thais aged 15 and above. Responding to questions about the intermediary, she said the project involved eight providers and 14 platforms, making direct negotiations impractical.
She also defended the convenience-store advertising, citing estimates that as many as 20 million people visit such stores daily.
The ministry will hold a public forum on June 11 to gather feedback. Ms Nantana, however, said the scheme is poor value for taxpayers and a waste of public funds.
