Government Backs MP's Call to Monitor Social Security Election
The government’s deputy spokesperson backed Move Forward Party MP Rakchanok Srinok’s call for close public scrutiny of the social security board election, warning that candidates could lose their rights if results are not officially certified. She urged that any oversight be based on facts and law, not assumptions, and stressed that those found guilty of discrimination, abuse of power, or election interference must be held accountable. The initiative aims to engage citizens in monitoring the social security fund, which affects millions of insured persons, and to improve transparency and public trust.
Colonel Phatdarassaym Thongsluang, deputy government spokesperson, expressed support for Move Forward Party MP Rakchanok Srinok’s urging that the public closely monitor the social security board election process. She said that if the election results are not officially announced, candidates risk having their rights revoked later, and that all parties should watch for evidence of discrimination, misuse of authority, or attempts to interfere with the vote. Any such findings must be met with serious demands for accountability, and no one—whether elected officials or state officers—should be exempt from scrutiny, which must be grounded in facts and law.
She added that the main aim is to raise public awareness and encourage participation in overseeing the social security system, because the fund’s money directly affects the rights, welfare, and future of millions of insured persons. The government does not fear scrutiny; instead, it believes oversight will improve fund management transparency and increase public trust.
The spokesperson distinguished between legitimate legal oversight and premature assumptions that state agencies might abuse power to disqualify winners. She noted that the Social Security Act of 1990, as amended, together with the 2021 Ministerial Regulation on election procedures for employer and insured‑person representatives (updated in 2026), establishes an election committee responsible for supervising the vote and considering objections. No official or agency may unilaterally strip a candidate’s rights; such decisions must be based on legal authority, factual evidence, and proper legal reasoning, not on personal satisfaction with the election outcome.
She stressed that any challenge to a candidate’s qualifications or election result must follow the procedures set out in the regulation. Allegations of political connections must be examined to see if they meet legal disqualification criteria, not merely dismissed because of political views or support from a political group. If a ruling affects a vote‑getter’s rights, the authority must cite the specific legal provision, show sufficient justification, and provide the affected party with a fair remedy and a legal avenue to challenge the use of power.
Finally, she affirmed that legal oversight is not an attempt by the state to overturn election results, but a duty to protect every vote and the lawfulness of the process. The government said it is not competing with the top vote‑getter and stands ready to work with elected representatives from all sides to safeguard insured persons’ interests and manage the fund properly.
