I am a staunch supporter of tax measures (perhaps my personal income is not that significant to make me fear tax as much as I fear death!) Personally I believe that only the fear of death and taxes are a guarantee of real and swift change in one's life and also in one's behaviour.
For instance, I believe our tobacco tax is too low, so the number of smokers remains high. I always wonder why we allocate huge budgets to raise awareness of alcohol consumption and the peril of drunk driving, but keep the price of local beers and whiskey low. Taxation for me is not just a way for our government to replenish its coffers, or create equality in society. It is a way to deter bad consumption choices.
Such rationale is behind the Finance Ministry's idea to collect tax on some products that the authorities believe should be consumed less. Those products are sugary beverages such as sodas, tea and energy drinks. The sugary beverage taxation idea was floated early this year by the now-defunct National Reform Council (NRC).
The tax plan surged after many reports, such as those from the Thai Health Promotion Foundation, revealed that Thais consume the equivalent of 20 teaspoons of sugar per day, which is way above the health recommendations of six teaspoons daily. It was found that children aged between 10 and 14 are addicted to sugary beverages. The Foundation for Consumers once tested the sugar content in green tea beverages and found what was billed as a healthy product often contained 13 teaspoons of sugar, equal to soda beverages. There is, by the way, no tax planned for sweet things such as desserts -- strange.
Anchalee Kongrut writes about the environment in the Life section, Bangkok Post.
As expected, heavy lobbying against the proposed tax has emerged among those in the sugar industry and sugar cane planters who claim the tax will suppress demand for sugar in local markets. Some doubt if the tax can discourage consumers, while others fear an influx of sugary beverages from other countries. Many ask what the government plans to do with the huge tax revenue it will gain. Will it promote alternate beverages or promote a healthy lifestyle for kids and consumers?
Faced with this pressure, the finance bureaucrats might just drop the whole idea.
But the move in itself is no great surprise as a sugary beverage tax is hotly debated around the world. There are many countries -- England, France, Mexico, for example -- and cities like New York City that implement a sugar beverage tax. Then there are countries like Denmark, which imposed a sugar tax in 1930 only to abolish it in 2013 after an influx of sweetened drinks from nearby countries.
Despite advocating for a sugar tax, I believe the authorities can do something else to encourage consumers to eat better. First and foremost, the Health Ministry should regulate the labelling system. It should order the beverage and food industry to improve labels to inform us of the amount of sugar in their products -- in plain, laypeople language.
It is equally important the authorities provide better alternatives for the people. Access to clean and affordable, even free, drinking water to low-income communities, schools, universities and official institutes is a good start. The authorities must expand the budding networks of community-level organic food markets and provide subsidies to farmers and sellers to make good and healthy food affordable.
In schools, it is time the authorities introduced laws to phase out or limit sales of soft drinks, sugary beverages and sodas. Schools in some states in the US have pulled or limited soft drinks and sugary beverages for almost a decade. It is never too late for the Thai Ministry of Education to follow suit.
It is about time, too, that municipalities and the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration brought back drinking fountains to public streets and public places and make them sufficiently clean and safe. People might raise questions about sanitation and cleanliness. But I think society needs to move forward by focusing on how to force municipalities to spend our tax money to provide free and hygienic drinking water in public spaces such as parks and transport hubs.
Of course, people with financial means can buy bottled drinking water, green tea or cold latte. Yet, low-income people must be given a choice on whether to spend money on drinking water, which can cost them 8-10 baht per bottle, or green tea. And ... why would they buy water when they are lead to believe that green tea is healthy and gives them the chance to get rich by winning gold or cars in a lucky draw!