"Ice Rakchanok" led the parliamentary committee to the Social Security Office to inspect the budget for the new Social Security Board election, aiming to continue the previous work she had been following. She expressed confidence that with the appointment of a new Social Security Secretary-General, there would be no problems.
On 2 Jun 2026 GMT+7, Ms. Rakchanok Srinok, MP from the Prachachon Party and Chair of the Committee on the Study and Monitoring of Budget Management, along with committee members, visited the Social Security Office to discuss and monitor budget spending. They also followed up on the case where the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) did not express an opinion on the Social Security budget. The latest documents from the Social Security Office indicated incomplete tracking of its own assets, prompting a request to know when this issue would be resolved and how the figures would be corrected or the assets recovered and recorded in the system. Another matter under scrutiny was the Social Security application, which calculates and disburses contribution benefits such as maternity pay, unemployment compensation, and old-age payments. Concerns arose that the 850 million baht backend project for this application may have been fraudulent from the start, ultimately harming insured persons who are now unable to claim benefits. The committee sought updates on how the Social Security Office plans to resolve this problem.
Ms. Rakchanok added that another pressing issue was the election of the Social Security Board, for which a budget of up to 300 million baht was allocated. Additionally, there was a related publicity budget of 300-400 million baht. However, it appeared that publicity efforts were largely driven by private and civil society groups campaigning independently rather than by the Social Security Office itself. From comments she had read, many insured persons experienced registration problems. She wanted to know at which step the insured persons encountered difficulties and how the process could be made easier for employers to register, noting that employer board members' turnout in the last election was very low—only a small fraction of about 500,000 eligible voters.
Ms. Rakchanok emphasized that this visit was made in her capacity as chair of the budget oversight committee, aiming to foster smooth discussions with the Social Security Office. She said she did not intend to be confrontational and hoped for cooperation, which would bode well for collaborative work, especially since a new Secretary-General had now been appointed.
When asked why the budget oversight committee chose to review the Social Security Office's budget among the first agencies, Ms. Rakchanok explained that several agencies had been scheduled for site visits, including the Social Security Office, the Budget Bureau, the Comptroller General's Department, and the Office of the Auditor General. She acknowledged that they aimed to continue efforts from the previous parliamentary term, particularly monitoring the Social Security Office’s budget—a matter she had been tracking continuously from the start. She clarified that this was not about pursuing personal issues but rather a shared consensus within the committee that this oversight would benefit the public by allowing the committee to monitor budget spending progress on-site.
She affirmed that she did not have conflicts or problems with the Social Security Office but noted that previous requests for cooperation had often gone unmet. She believed that with the new parliamentary term and a new Secretary-General, better cooperation could be expected. Ms. Rakchanok reiterated that she did not seek confrontation and that smooth coordination and collaboration would be preferable.
Regarding the Social Security calendar, she said anyone interested should register to elect Mr. Panatthai Luan to lead the initiative to reinstate the Social Security calendar policy. Those who did not want the calendar could also register to elect board members who oppose it. She supported democratic freedom, emphasizing that candidates could campaign on their policies freely. However, she affirmed that if the Social Security calendar policy was reinstated, she would rigorously audit the budget spending. If evidence of specifications being locked in or any group benefiting from the project emerged, she considered it her duty to thoroughly investigate and follow up.