Government Denies Citing Court Order to Delay Social Security Board Election
Government denies using a court order as pretext to delay the Social Security Board election, insisting the postponement stems from the committee's legal duty to review election procedures for compliance with the temporary court ruling.
Deputy Prime Minister's Office Spokesperson Phattarasmi Trongsluaykorn stated on July 30, 2025, that the Labor Ministry never claimed the court ordered an election postponement. However, the court's temporary protective order required the authorized committee to exercise discretionary judgment in reviewing the entire election process to ensure lawful implementation and protect insured persons' rights.
The Central Administrative Court issued only a temporary suspension of voter registration requirements but did not directly order the election cancelled or delayed. The court also did not mandate that the election proceed on September 27, 2025, without any procedural changes.
When a court issues a temporary protective order, state agencies must assess its impact on the entire election process and apply administrative law principles to ensure all procedures comply with legal requirements. Election management encompasses more than just setting a voting date—it includes compiling voter lists, establishing polling stations, printing ballots, allocating budgets, and implementing all relevant criteria.
The spokesperson emphasized that such discretionary use is the authorized committee's legal duty, not compliance with a court order to postpone. Therefore, claims that the Labor Ministry cited the court to delay the election do not reflect the full legal reality.
Under the 2021 Labor Ministry Regulation on standards and procedures for electing employer and insured-person representatives to the Social Security Board, the election committee has authority to extend or shorten election timelines or suspend certain steps when necessary.
If the committee determines that the court order requires reviewing some processes to align voter lists, polling stations, ballots, budgets, and criteria with the court ruling and law, delaying certain steps constitutes exercising powers under the regulation—not using the court order as pretext to cancel the election.
In administrative law, state agencies must ensure all procedures remain lawful. If they proceed without assessing the court order's impact and the court later rules the process unlawful, the election could be voided, affecting over 11 million insured persons and requiring government expenditure on a new election—benefiting no one.
The spokesperson concluded: "The court's temporary protective order requires the authorized committee to review the entire election system for legal compliance. The delay results from the committee's proper exercise of discretionary authority. Once the review is complete, the agency will proceed with the election."
