MP Challenges Social Security Board Vetting of Political Party Ties
MP Suhasawat Khumkhong questioned the Social Security Office's legal basis for vetting board candidates with ties to political parties, arguing that the law does not disqualify ordinary party membership or receiving party support. He warned officials against letting personal feelings override legal provisions and called for the SSO to respect the law and the voices of insured members.
Suhasawat Khumkhong, the People's Party MP for Chonburi, posted on Facebook on October 13, 2026, under the heading 'Social Security Office (SSO) will review applicants linked to political parties – which legal provision will you use?' He said he saw news that the SSO would consider social security board applicants who have ties to political parties and wanted to know when such ties became an offense, since the law clearly states what is allowed and what is not. The Social Security Act of 1990, Section 8/2(9), lists disqualifications for individuals who are political officials, hold political positions, are local council members, local administrators, committee members, advisors, or party officials, unless they have been out of such positions for at least three years. However, the law does not forbid being an ordinary party member, receiving support from a party, or having a relationship with a party as a basis for losing eligibility. Suhasawat stressed that feelings of officials are not the law; if someone lacks the qualifications set by law, they should be examined accordingly, but if someone has not violated any legal prohibition, officials have no right to create new conditions to disqualify them. He also noted that the Ministry of Labour Regulation on Election Procedures, 2021, Section 23(10), similarly lists disqualifications related to political positions without banning party support. Suhasawat concluded that the SSO's duty is to verify applicants' qualifications according to the law, not to cast broad suspicions about political connections and use them as grounds for disqualification. Importantly, those elected to serve as board members have a duty to oversee the SSO, not to let the SSO select only those it prefers to oversee it. He therefore demanded that the SSO clarify which legal authority allows it to scrutinize applicants merely for receiving party support, and if no such authority exists, officials should not let their feelings or the office's power supersede the law or the voices of the insured.
