The deputy government spokesperson clarified the legal issues regarding the postponement of the Social Security Board election, affirming that the government did not cite an administrative court order but exercised authority under regulations to prevent invalid elections and protect the rights of insured persons.
On 30 July 2026, Second Lieutenant Phattharadasmi Thongsaluaikorn, deputy spokesperson of the Prime Minister's Office, stated that in response to opinions claiming that "the court did not order the postponement of the Social Security Board election," the legal facts require consideration of both the court's order and the legal consequences on administrative actions.
The Central Administrative Court issued a temporary injunction suspending enforcement of the regulations on voter registration rights, but the court did not directly order the cancellation or postponement of the election date. At the same time, the court did not compel agencies to hold the election on 27 September 2026 without the possibility of adjusting any procedures.
The deputy spokesperson explained that when a temporary court injunction is issued, government agencies must assess its impact on the entire election process and exercise administrative law discretion to ensure all steps comply with the law. Organizing an election involves not only setting the voting date but also preparing voter lists, arranging polling stations, printing ballots, allocating budgets, and following all relevant criteria.
He added that exercising such discretion is the duty of legally empowered committees, not merely following a court order to postpone. Therefore, claims that the Ministry of Labour "cited the court to postpone the election" do not fully reflect the legal process.
The deputy spokesperson further noted that the Ministry of Labour’s regulations on the criteria and procedures for electing employer and insured persons’ representatives to the Social Security Committee, B.E. 2564 (2021), authorize the Election Committee to extend, shorten, or suspend certain election steps when necessary. Thus, if the committee finds the court order requires reviewing parts of the process such as voter lists, polling stations, ballots, budgets, or criteria to align with the court order and law, delaying some steps is an exercise of regulatory authority—not using the court order as an excuse to cancel the election as alleged.
He continued that under administrative law, government agencies must ensure the legality of every step. Proceeding with the election without assessing the court order's impact risks the election being declared unlawful by a later court ruling, potentially invalidating the election, harming the rights of over 11 million insured persons, and necessitating additional public spending for a new election, which would not benefit the insured or the public.
“The court’s temporary injunction requires the authorized committee to review the entire election process to ensure legality. The postponement results from the committee’s lawful exercise of discretion. Once the review is complete, the agency is ready to proceed with the election in accordance with the law, transparently, and safeguarding all insured persons’ rights.”