The government's latest review of the state welfare card scheme should be welcomed, instead of being condemned.
However, the review of eligible recipients raises valid questions about the reliability of the state's welfare database that governments have relied to spend billions of baht in taxpayers' money in providing financial assistance to needy groups.
Following a recent verification, the number of active beneficiaries fell sharply from about 13 million to 9.5 million which represents around 14% of the population.
That means almost 50% of the 18.8 million people who applied were deemed ineligible. Officials explain the outcome reflects the need for a more accurate screening system to find those genuinely in need.
If that explanation is correct, it raises uncomfortable questions. Since its introduction in 2017 by the Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha administration, that regime and successive governments have committed tens of billions of baht annually to the state welfare card scheme, making it one of Thailand's largest and most politically significant social welfare programmes.
If the new database is more accurate, it would suggest that a big share of the initial peak of 14.6 million people who were classified as eligible at the scheme's inception and received monthly cash assistance and other living subsidies should never have qualified in the first place. Taxpayers deserve to know how such a costly misallocation of public funds persisted for so many years.
Conversely, if the previous system broadly reflected reality, millions of low income Thais may now have lost access to benefits they genuinely need. That would represent a serious policy failure with direct consequences for some of the country's most vulnerable citizens.
Both sets of figures cannot be equally accurate. A discrepancy of several million people demands a convincing explanation.
The reduction in beneficiary numbers may well reflect a more accurate and better targeted welfare system. If so, that should be welcomed. Public assistance ought to reach those who genuinely need it, not those who merely happen to qualify under outdated or incomplete records.
Even so, the scale of the reduction raises a fundamental question of accountability. Previous governments may have spent billions of baht in taxpayers' money on people who were never entitled to those benefits.
That points to a prolonged lapse in fiscal governance and database verification that requires a thorough institutional review.
The issue raises broader questions about the quality of overall government databases. Better technology can improve targeting, but it cannot substitute for transparency.
Equally important is the need for fairness towards those who have lost their benefits, especially needy people who rely on state help and have done nothing wrong.
Some vulnerable households may have been wrongly excluded through errors in the assessment process. They should have access to a transparent appeal process, clear reasons for disqualification and a timely review of contested cases.
When such large sums are spent each year, public trust cannot rest on good will. It must be earned through accuracy, transparency, accountability and evidence.
Ultimately, the question is not simply how many people receive welfare, but whether the scheme itself remains fit for purpose, right from the start.
