The National Human Rights Commission revealed that forcing staff at Si Chomphu Subdistrict Administrative Organization (SAO) in Khon Kaen Province to undergo blanket urine drug testing violates their rights. It recommended that the Ministry of Interior review the 'White Interior Project' implementation to ensure stricter controls and safeguards against rights violations.
On 10 April 2026, Mr. Wasan Phailiklee, a commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), disclosed that the NHRC received a complaint in September 2025 from a staff member of Si Chomphu SAO. During a staff meeting on 17 March 2025, the SAO chief (the second respondent) informed that the Si Chomphu District Chief (the first respondent) mandated all personnel to undergo drug testing. Refusal to comply would affect future employment. The complainant felt compelled to take the test, which yielded a positive urine result. The complainant viewed the district chief’s blanket urine drug testing without reasonable suspicion and without consent, as well as the SAO chief pressuring them to resign after positive results, as violations warranting investigation.
The NHRC reviewed all facts, relevant laws, and human rights principles, noting that the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand guarantees personal rights and bodily integrity. State officials may only infringe on such rights if authorized by law. According to the Narcotics Act Section 115(3) and the Narcotics Case Procedure Act B.E. 2550 (2007) and amendments, authorized officials may test for drugs only when there is necessity and reasonable belief that the person uses narcotics.
Investigation found that the blanket urine drug testing under this complaint was conducted as part of the 'White Interior Project'—a Khon Kaen protection operation to monitor state officials’ compliance with laws, discipline, and ethics. The project deemed blanket testing necessary to avoid discrimination among personnel in the same unit. However, while this rationale may serve the public interest, it does not meet the legal criteria for such testing under the applicable laws.
.
Therefore, the Si Chomphu District Chief did not obtain the complainant’s consent before testing, and warned that those refusing would have their supervisors informed to ensure full compliance. This constitutes coercion and pressure inconsistent with the 'White Interior Project' guidelines, which require voluntary, non-coerced consent. The absence of true consent infringes on the individual’s rights and bodily integrity. At this stage, the NHRC accepts that blanket urine drug testing without obtaining consent as described in the complaint constitutes a human rights violation.
Moreover, blanket urine drug testing collects personal health information that can affect the individual later. For example, if drugs are detected, the person is expected to voluntarily undergo treatment under the law. If treatment is refused and the person is a civil servant or state official, who must comply with stricter laws, discipline, and ethical standards, the Ministry of Interior’s procedures require their supervisor to take disciplinary and legal action.
.
Regarding the complaint that the SAO chief coerced the complainant to resign after a positive drug test, facts show the complainant submitted a resignation letter in March 2025, two days before the drug test. This evidence is insufficient to conclude that the resignation was directly forced by the SAO chief or that the complainant resigned to avoid disciplinary or legal action. Additionally, NHRC staff were unable to contact the complainant for further information, so there is insufficient evidence to determine whether the SAO chief violated human rights.
.
For these reasons, at the NHRC meeting on 31 March 2026 concerning human rights protection and promotion, the commission resolved to recommend that the Ministry of Interior and the Department of Provincial Administration review the practical implementation of the 'White Interior Project' to strengthen safeguards against human rights violations. It urged establishing a clear, written consent form with unambiguous, easily understood language, allowing individuals to withdraw consent freely and without coercion. This would confirm the principle of voluntary consent and serve as guidance for officials. The NHRC also emphasized instructing officials not to abuse authority or apply social pressure to compel individuals to sign consent forms before undergoing drug testing.