The evaluation criteria for the Election Commission Secretary-General are divided into two parts. Saeng Bunmee presented the nationwide staff assessment results over three years, showing that in 2025 the scores still exceeded 80% across all areas. However, issues remain regarding the Election Commission members’ votes and legal matters. A major structural overhaul is planned to restore the five-area system to address election management weaknesses, with implementation expected in fiscal year 2027.
On 6 June 2026 GMT+7, a reporter reported that previously there were rumors that Saeng Bunmee might lose his position as Secretary-General of the Election Commission because the commission led by Chairman Itthiporn Boonprakong had assessed his 2025 performance as failing to meet the 60% threshold. The office awaited the decisive opinion of Election Commissioner Thitiket Nuchnat before compiling and presenting the results to a mid-month meeting. It has been reported that Thitiket has already submitted his opinion on the Secretary-General’s 2025 performance to the office. Currently, besides summarizing the score data, the office is studying the legal question of whether former commissioners can assess the Secretary-General’s performance, and how the current commission should proceed regardless of the decision, to present to the Election Commission meeting for consideration.
According to the employment contract, the evaluation criteria are divided into two parts. The first part uses an academic institution-designed assessment covering four areas: 1. Planning and project work, 2. Challenging tasks, 3. Tasks following Election Commission resolutions, and 4. Governance. This 360-degree evaluation collects feedback from staff nationwide, with each area scored out of 100. These results are submitted as supporting data for the Election Commission’s further assessment. This part only serves as supplementary information and does not directly affect the final evaluation calculation.
The second part is the assessment by each Election Commissioner, each having 100 points to allocate. Commissioners may choose to consider the data from part one or not when making their evaluations.
“The Secretary-General’s 2025 evaluation scores for part one, which includes staff input nationwide, exceeded 80% in all four areas. This information was submitted to the Election Commission as supporting data in May 2026. Part two consists of the individual assessments from each commissioner submitted in early June 2026. Some former commissioners have yet to submit their evaluations, possibly questioning their authority to do so after leaving office, as previous years did not include evaluations from former commissioners. Former commissioners Pakorn Mahanop and Santhat Siriananpaiboon have formally inquired with the office about their authority to evaluate, since some have been out of office for over a year. The current commission is considering these legal issues and how to proceed.
Beyond the Secretary-General’s performance evaluation attracting political and Election Commission staff attention, lessons learned from the recent general election revealed that the current three-division provincial work structure—covering election administration and participation, political party affairs and investigations, and executive management—does not facilitate smooth election management. Moreover, the commission’s board-style operation creates gaps inconsistent with the constitution’s intentions. Therefore, it is proposed to revert to a five-division structure as before, with commissioners overseeing and being responsible for each area to improve efficiency. The office has been instructed to study restructuring and reassign work divisions to align with all seven commissioners, aiming to implement the new structure in fiscal year 2027, starting 1 October 2026.
However, at midday the same day, reports indicated that Saeng posted in the Election Commission office executives’ LINE group a document summarizing the Secretary-General’s performance evaluation scores for fiscal years 2024 and 2025. The evaluation, reflecting staff input nationwide, showed that in fiscal year 2023, for the planning area with a maximum of 30 points, he scored 24.48 points, equivalent to 81.60%.
2. For tasks following Election Commission resolutions with a maximum of 30 points, he scored 25.52 points, or 85.06%. 3. For governance management with a maximum of 20 points, he scored 16.42 points, or 82.10%. 4. For challenging tasks with a maximum of 20 points, he scored 17.43 points, or 87.53%. Overall, out of 100 points, he scored 83.92.
In fiscal years 2024 and 2025, it was notable that for tasks following Election Commission resolutions (30 points maximum), the score boxes were marked with a yellow pen instead of numeric scores. In fiscal year 2024, planning scored 25.58 points (85.27%), governance management scored 16.93 points (84.65%), challenging tasks scored 18.63 points (93.15%), but the total out of 100 points was recorded as 61.14.
For fiscal year 2025, which was reported as not passing the evaluation threshold, the scores were: 1. Tasks following the plan: 25.06 points out of 30, or 83.55%. Governance management: 16.93 points out of 20, or 83.46%. Challenging tasks: 18.43 points out of 20, or 92.13%. The total score was 60.18 out of 100.