Prachachat MP Challenges Government on Social Security Board Powers
Prachachat Party MP Sahatsawat Kumkhong challenged the government's defense of the Social Security Bill, arguing that term limits for board members and ministerial appointment powers are explicitly written in the Cabinet draft. He demanded answers on why the bill restricts insured persons' representation rights and elevates a minister-appointed audit committee, dismissing the government's "premature allegations" claim as an evasion of structural concerns.
"Sahatsawat" Counters Deputy Government Spokesperson: Don't Use 'Premature Allegations' to Dodge Social Security Bill Questions — Board Term Limits and Ministerial Appointments Exist in Cabinet Draft, Not Imagination
November 12, 2026 — MP Sahatsawat Kumkhong of the Prachachat Party addressed the case where the Advisor to the Minister of Labour and the Deputy Spokesperson for the Prime Minister's Office responded to Prachachat's criticism of the Social Security Bill (Cabinet version). After reading both sides' clarifications, he stated directly that the government is using the phrase "premature allegations" to avoid answering critical questions embedded in the legal text. The issue is not whether anyone can read minds, but whom the draft law empowers, who appoints them, and what benefits the insured actually receive.
Sahatsawat outlined five key points. First, critiquing a law's impact does not require proving the drafters' hidden intent. He does not claim secret documents exist, but society can verify from the text who appoints which board members, what powers they hold, and whether the insured are restricted from choosing their own representatives. The government may argue there is no proof of intent to block anyone, but it must answer why board terms are limited to three years with a single term, and why the minister-appointed Audit Committee plays a significantly elevated role.
Sahatsawat noted the Deputy Spokesperson acknowledged both term limits and Audit Committee independence are still adjustable. If concerns exist, they should be urgently clarified and fixed, not dismissed as political allegations.
Second, the government should not tout existing benefits from the 2022 draft as new achievements. Many benefits promoted, including the "3 Requests" measures, were already in the Social Security draft that passed the Cabinet in 2022, which the Labour Minister's Advisor also admitted. He did not say increased benefits are useless and agrees the insured deserve them, but highlighting benefits cannot obscure questions about power structures or make concerns about board interference disappear. If the government truly acts for the insured, it must explain why provisions affecting representative selection and fund oversight are designed this way.
Third, regarding the Audit Committee, he did not claim this committee has administrative authority over the Main Board in all matters. The fact remains its members are ministerially appointed, and the draft clearly assigns them internal control, risk management, and governance roles. Although regulation approval requires Main Board consent, the appointer remains the Minister.
Fund auditing is necessary, but the mechanism must be independent, with tightly defined powers, and must not allow political actors to install people who direct audits of representatives elected by the public. Since the government admits the origins and scope of duties are still adjustable...
