Public discussion in Thailand has increasingly focused on questions surrounding the Cambodia–Thailand border situation. “Why Thailand Start The Border Conflict with Cambodia”. Some even said “Thailand does not have to use border conflict as distraction, while Cambodia really needs this conflict”. In this regards, for policy analysis, the domestic political environment in which decisions are made. Public opinion data offers a more reliable basis for understanding this context.
This analysis draws on findings from the first KPI Poll, conducted by the King Prajadhipok’s Institute, an independent public policy research institution in Thailand. The nationwide survey was carried out between 30 November and 10 December 2025, covering 2,016 respondents aged 18 and above across all regions. The poll was designed to capture public sentiment rather than to promote political positions. Its findings are used here to assess domestic political conditions, not to infer intent.
Key findings from the poll point to widespread dissatisfaction. According to the survey, 45.7 percent of respondents believe Thai politics is getting worse, while only 9.3 percent see improvement. This indicates limited public confidence in political performance. While public sentiment does not determine foreign or security policy, it shapes the political environment in which leaders assess risks, timing, and public response.
The poll also highlights clear public priorities. The strongest demand among respondents is for a prime minister who can improve livelihoods in practical terms. Economic concerns, such as the cost of living, household debt, and income security, rank higher than ideological preferences. Anti-corruption is identified as the most urgent policy issue, reinforcing the link between economic hardship and governance quality.
Analytically, these priorities have implications for the border situation. Although the poll does not measure attitudes toward war or security policy, prolonged instability can disrupt trade, tourism, and cross-border economic activity. Such disruptions directly affect livelihoods. In this context, public expectations appear more aligned with stability and economic predictability than with sustained confrontation that produces uncertain economic outcomes.
The poll further shows that Thai politics is increasingly candidate-centered. Nearly 60 percent of respondents say they are willing to change their vote if their preferred party presents an unattractive prime ministerial candidate. In addition, 68.7 percent say early announcement of candidates affects voting decisions. This personalization of politics can narrow political flexibility, as leaders must consider how security-related decisions are interpreted by voters.
The KPI Poll does not explain the origins of the Cambodia–Thailand border situation, nor does it indicate public support for or opposition to conflict. Instead, it highlights domestic constraints shaping political decision-making. Thai public priorities emphasize economic security, integrity, and effective governance. Policies that reduce instability, protect civilian economic activity, and uphold transparency, consistent with international law and ASEAN norms of peaceful dispute management, are therefore more likely to sustain domestic credibility and contribute to long-term regional stability.