On September 15, 2025, the Thai government’s ambitious Soft Power policy took center stage, promising to reshape the nation’s cultural landscape and economic future. In a series of public announcements and parliamentary debates, officials revealed the sheer scale of investment: a staggering 752 billion baht allocated for the 2025 fiscal year alone, with total planned support for the creative and cultural sectors reaching 1,300 billion baht. These numbers have sparked both optimism and intense scrutiny, as politicians, experts, and the public try to untangle what this means for Thailand’s international image and the lives of everyday citizens.
The Soft Power policy, as outlined by the government and reported by TOJO NEWS, aims to elevate Thailand’s cultural diplomacy, leveraging everything from film to food in an effort to strengthen the country’s influence on the global stage. The policy is not just about art and entertainment; it is a calculated economic strategy. Officials project that by 2027, the Soft Power sector will contribute a jaw-dropping 5,000 billion baht to the national economy, with a potential to create value up to 8,000 billion baht. The government’s confidence in these projections is evident in its willingness to pour unprecedented sums into the sector.
Central to the government’s strategy is the OFOS initiative—One Family One Soft Power—launched in 2024 with a budget of 227 billion baht and ramping up to 752 billion baht in 2025. The program’s mission is bold: train 20 million Thais in creative skills over four years, and generate 20 billion baht in revenue by the end of 2025. The government has pitched OFOS as a flagship project, intended to democratize access to opportunities in creative industries, from culinary arts to digital content production.
But not everyone is convinced the investments are translating into real results. According to TOJO NEWS, Apisit Laisatruklai, a member of parliament from the People’s Party and a persistent watchdog on Soft Power spending, raised concerns about transparency and effectiveness. He pointed out that the much-publicized Soft Power budget is not managed by a single agency—THACCA, the supposed coordinating body, has not even been formally established as a government entity. Instead, funds are dispersed across various ministries and departments. For instance, film initiatives sit with the Department of Cultural Promotion, while culinary programs are handled by the Ministry of Industry. This diffusion, Apisit argues, makes oversight challenging and accountability diffuse.
Apisit’s scrutiny didn’t stop at bureaucratic structure. He revealed that, despite the government’s stated 635 billion baht Soft Power budget for 2024, the real figure is far higher when additional allocations for major events and ministry-led initiatives are included. In 2024, the total Soft Power budget exceeded 3,000 billion baht, and in 2025, it soared past 5,000 billion baht. Over two years, nearly 8,000 billion baht has been earmarked for Soft Power-related projects, an unprecedented sum in recent Thai history.
Yet, the flagship OFOS program has struggled to meet its ambitious targets. OFOS was designed to train 20 million Thais in creative skills by 2027, but so far, the numbers fall short. In the past two years, only 20,355 people have completed training, a fraction of the goal. The culinary component of OFOS, for example, aimed to produce 10,000 new Thai chefs in 2024, but only 1,300 trainees participated. Critics argue that these figures raise questions about the program’s reach and impact, especially given the scale of investment.
Despite these setbacks, government officials remain steadfast. They maintain that Soft Power is not a quick fix, but a long-term investment in human capital and national prestige. The policy’s supporters point to the potential for job creation, export growth, and enhanced international reputation. The government’s projections—contributions in the trillions of baht to the economy by 2027—are seen as both a goal and a justification for the massive outlays.
But the debate around Soft Power spending is not just about numbers. It taps into broader questions about economic opportunity, inequality, and the role of the state in shaping the lives of its citizens. As reported by Spring News, longevity and quality of life are increasingly linked to wealth and access to opportunity. Research cited in their coverage shows a stark gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest segments of society—up to 13.5 years. The implication is clear: policies that expand access to education, training, and economic participation can have profound effects not just on GDP, but on the health and happiness of the population.
In this context, the Soft Power policy takes on added significance. If the investments succeed in democratizing access to creative industries, they could narrow the gap in opportunity and well-being. But if the benefits accrue mainly to those already privileged, the policy risks reinforcing existing inequalities. The government’s challenge, then, is to ensure that the billions spent on Soft Power are not just fueling headline-grabbing events or elite cultural exports, but are genuinely opening doors for ordinary Thais.
The political dimension of the issue cannot be ignored. The recent departure of Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra led to the dissolution of the Soft Power Strategy Committee, raising questions about continuity and oversight. Nonetheless, the 3.9 billion baht budget for the 2026 fiscal year—already approved by parliament—will still be distributed among relevant agencies, from film promotion to culinary training. Apisit and other lawmakers have vowed to keep a close eye on how these funds are used, promising ongoing scrutiny regardless of which party holds power.
As Thailand embarks on this grand experiment in cultural investment, the stakes are high. The Soft Power policy represents both an opportunity and a test: can a nation harness its creativity and heritage to drive economic growth and social progress, or will bureaucratic complexity and missed targets undermine the promise? For now, the world—and the Thai public—will be watching closely, eager to see whether this wave of investment delivers the transformation its architects have promised.
In the coming years, the true measure of success will not be found in budget sheets or grand projections, but in the lived experiences of millions of Thais whose futures hang in the balance.
