When are policy decisions actually made?

Maybe the best way to understand Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul’s confounding decision to reinforce the Thai government stance on foreigners as hostile — ordering “errant” visitors be summarily deported — is by understanding how some conclusions in this country are so foregone they appear unshakeable, while others are treated as inconceivable regardless of their grounding.

A case in point: Seeing the headline “Bangkok governor defends switch to electric rubbish trucks” was a little surprising at first glance.

Considering Thailand’s fervently proclaimed green-mindedness and its enthusiastic appetite for electric vehicles, it seems obvious that if any aspect of the capital could benefit from the introduction of a modern, low-carbon innovation, it would be waste collection.

Yet it turned out that Bangkok governor Chadchart Sittipunt’s proposal to replace the current diesel-fuelled fleet of the city with close to 1,400 electric trucks was not so straightforward.

The argument he made was that the switch would cut energy costs by about 4.75 billion baht, or 54%, over five years while also significantly cutting greenhouse gas emissions, noise pollution and the PM2.5 fine-dust pollution that is an annual plague on the entire country.

By his office’s calculations, 1,347 EV garbage trucks would consume 4.01 billion baht worth of electricity over five years, compared with the 8.76 billion baht that would be needed to fuel diesel engines. Leasing these new trucks was also said to reduce the financial burden on the city by 7-10%.

Mr Chadchart appeared just as perplexed as this writer over the resistance the idea was facing, noting that the solution has already been adopted in Pattaya, Phuket and Nonthaburi.

Council not convinced

Ultimately, the Bangkok Metropolitan Council rejected the electrification plan, citing questions over procurement and staffing for the replacement fleet.

Councillors were unconvinced that the terms for the switchover plan were sound, and that Bangkok has the infrastructure to support the change. They also expressed fears of corruption and that the designs could too easily be compromised by ill-intended forces.

These reservations echoed many points brought up by the People’s Party, which is known for its rigorous vetting of projects of public interest while serving as the opposition in parliament.

Suphanat Minchaiynunt, a People’s Party MP for Bangkok, rightfully pointed out that the capital’s administration had actually budgeted over 10 billion baht across the past three years for EV rubbish truck projects, but they repeatedly became stalled or cancelled, leaving the earmarked cash in limbo.

He said the latest proposal, requesting some 6 billion baht, did not even include terms of reference, which could mean the council was approving spending on contractors it may not want in the end.

Pilot projects were planned to prove the concept, Mr Suphanat said, but only a limited selection of companies were invited to take part and in the end no specific pilot project was ever run.

Pre-empting the governor’s point, the MP said the model of EV and the leasing format for the trucks being used in other cities differed from what was being put to the council, voiding the argument that the Bangkok plan was already in effect elsewhere.

This is all well and good. The council found reasonable doubts about a project with a hefty bill and erred on the side of caution, throwing it back to the drawing board.

So what if the city has been reviewing this worthwhile idea since 2023? It will be ready when it is ready.

Contrast all this, though, with the recently implemented TH-AI Passport project.

Though a national initiative rather than a Bangkok-only project, the programme to provide artificial intelligence access to millions of Thais could be likened to the EV garbage truck proposal, in that both are about introducing modern, paradigm-shifting innovations for the greater good of the public.

Just like the waste trucks, the TH-AI Passport plan encountered suspicions of malfeasance from the People’s Party.

Specifications locked

Documents presented by the opposition appeared to indicate that companies were prepped to take on relevant contracts almost a year prior to the project being introduced, that specifications were designed to favour certain suppliers and that the actual technical plan for the 1.6-billion-baht undertaking wouldn’t support its stated purposes.

The party’s fears were strong enough that it submitted its evidence to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), calling for a serious probe.

The government’s defence against these accusations? Simply that due process was undertaken to the satisfaction of involved officials, that Thailand risks being left in the past if it does not quickly adopt AI into daily life and, as of this week, that more than 1 million people registered to take part in the project. Surely, a free handout that many people want should be above reproach?

Similar rationales, similar contentions. One project deemed not worth the risk, the other fast-tracked to deployment.

The selective rigour is exactly how these issues, distant from one another as they are to the government’s recent fervour for deportation, relate.

Certain outcomes, as decided by those currently in office, are fixed points. Thailand needs the AI passport just like it needs to take a hard line against foreigners who “disrespect public sensibilities”.

The issue is not that these decisions are inherently flawed, it is that they seem to be pre-determined and based on an opaque consideration process that is becoming increasingly insular.

How much faster can a conclusion aligned with the initial wishes of top officials be reached, before the process of consideration is removed entirely?