The government deputy spokesperson agrees with Rakchanok's call to mobilize society to scrutinize Social Security but objects to disqualifying winners. He stresses that "authority must follow the law, not arbitrary will," noting that inspections are possible but cautioning against premature judgments based on assumptions.
On 12 Oct 2026, Captain Phatdarasmi Thongsaluaykorn, deputy spokesperson for the Office of the Prime Minister, commented on MP Rakchanok Srinok of the People's Party expressing concerns via social media about the Social Security Board election results. She noted that although candidates received many votes, without official certification, they cannot fully perform their duties and risk later disqualification.
"I agree with Ms. Rakchanok on the crucial point: encouraging the public to engage, question, and jointly scrutinize the Social Security system, because the fund directly affects the rights, welfare, and future of many insured persons. Such scrutiny is not something the government should fear but rather a vital democratic mechanism to enhance transparency and public trust in fund management," she said.
Captain Phatdarasmi emphasized the need to clearly distinguish between raising questions for oversight and making premature assumptions that state agencies might abuse power, as these differ significantly in factual and legal weight. In particular, concerns that the Social Security Office might seek reasons to disqualify election winners should be assessed based on legal authority, review procedures, and all relevant facts.
The deputy spokesperson explained that elections for employer and insured representatives on the Social Security Board fall under the Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990) and its amendments, as well as the Ministry of Labour regulations on election criteria and procedures for employer and insured representatives in 2021 and its 2026 revision. These specify qualifications, disqualifications, objection processes, and election result considerations.
Under these regulations, the Election Committee for employer and insured representatives supervises the election and reviews objections within its legal powers. Therefore, no official or agency can arbitrarily disqualify candidates at their discretion.
"Legally, there must be a clear distinction between 'having authority to inspect' and 'having authority to arbitrarily disqualify.' Inspection authority is mandated by law, but arbitrary disqualification is not authorized. Decisions on candidate disqualification must be based on legal authority, facts, evidence, and legal reasoning, not on personal satisfaction or dissatisfaction with election outcomes," Captain Phatdarasmi said.
She added that qualification checks and election objections must follow established criteria and procedures, with stakeholders exercising their rights through legally defined channels, presenting facts and evidence for a fair review by competent committees. Allegations of political connections must be evaluated to determine if they constitute legal disqualifications, not merely political opinions or support from political groups.
"The rule of law does not mean that state officials can do anything just because they have power. The greater the power, the more strictly it must be exercised under the law. If decisions affect voters’ rights, they must specify the legal basis, facts relied upon, and whether the reasoning is sufficient. Importantly, those affected must receive fairness and have legal avenues to review the exercise of authority."
The deputy spokesperson further noted the need to understand the difference between unofficial vote counts and assuming the Social Security Board position according to legal processes. Vote tallying, listing top candidates, and appointment procedures must be complete and compliant with relevant regulations, and the process should be expedited without undue delay.
"The votes of insured persons must be respected, but respecting votes does not mean exempting them from legal verification. Likewise, legal scrutiny does not imply that agencies are trying to overturn election results. These two issues must not be confused, as both voter rights and legal compliance are responsibilities of the state to protect."
The Social Security Board election on 11 October 2026 demonstrated heightened awareness among insured persons and employers in shaping the Social Security system. Minister of Labour Julpan Amornwiwat announced on 12 October that about 830,000 people voted. While counting was incomplete, this indicated a significant increase in participation compared to previous elections.
Minister Julpan congratulated candidates who received support and affirmed that the Ministry of Labour has no policy to interfere with the election process. The ministry is prepared to collaborate with all parties under a tripartite mechanism, emphasizing post-election processes in accordance with regulations so the new Social Security Board can assume duties and help develop the system for the benefit of insured persons.
Additionally, the Ministry of Labour revised election criteria through the Ministry of Labour Regulation (No. 2) B.E. 2569 (2026), published in the Government Gazette on 27 August 2026. The updates adjust certain criteria to facilitate and expand participation opportunities for insured persons and employers. Details and scope should be referred to in the regulation text.
Captain Phatdarasmi emphasized that the government is not a competitor against the highest vote recipients in the election and is ready to work with all elected groups. Once legal procedures are underway, the foremost priority is safeguarding insured persons’ interests, managing funds transparently, and fairly enhancing benefits—not political factionalism.
"I support Ms. Rakchanok, civil society, media, and all parties in closely monitoring this process. If evidence of discrimination, abuse of power, or attempts to interfere with election results arises, it must be investigated and accountability demanded seriously. No one should be exempt from scrutiny, whether elected candidates or state officials," she said.
In closing, the deputy spokesperson stated that questioning state authority is necessary in a democratic society, but effective oversight must be based on facts and law. Meanwhile, state agencies have a duty to build trust through transparency and verifiable explanations, not merely requesting public confidence without substantiation.
"I agree with the vigilance but caution against letting concern become a premature verdict. Strong democracy protects not only winners’ voices but also the credibility of the processes that give those voices meaning," she said.
"We should work together to prevent anyone from exercising power beyond the law rather than presuming in advance that the law will be used as a tool to target anyone. Ultimately, Social Security must operate for insured persons’ benefit, not for the government, any political party, or group. The votes of insured persons must be respected alongside reasonable and lawful exercise of authority," Captain Phatdarasmi concluded.