Government denies citing court order to delay Social Security board election
Deputy government spokesperson clarifies that pausing the Social Security board election stems from lawful discretion to prevent nullification and protect insured persons.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
- The government denies that the Ministry of Labour cited a court order to postpone the election.
- The Central Administrative Court issued a temporary injunction suspending voter registration rules.
- Pausing procedures is authorized under the 2021 Ministry of Labour election regulations.
- The move aims to prevent the election from becoming void and protect over 11 million insured persons.
On July 30, 2026, Captain Patdarasram Thongsaluaykorn, Deputy Spokesperson for the Prime Minister's Office, addressed observations suggesting that the Ministry of Labour cited an Administrative Court order to postpone the election of employer and insured representatives to the Social Security Committee, affirming that the ministry never claimed the court ordered a postponement.
Captain Patdarasram stated that the court's temporary injunction actually required the authorized committee to review the entire election process to ensure lawful operations and protect the rights of all insured persons. The Central Administrative Court issued a temporary injunction staying the enforcement of voter registration rules, but did not directly order the cancellation or postponement of the election, nor did it mandate that the election take place on September 27, 2026, without procedural adjustments.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
The Deputy Government Spokesperson explained that when facing a temporary court injunction, government agencies have a duty to assess the order's impact on the entire electoral process, which encompasses:
- Compiling the voter registry
- Establishing polling stations
- Printing ballot papers
- Allocating budgets
- Executing all related criteria
Exercising this discretion falls under the legal authority of the committee rather than obeying a court-ordered delay, making claims that the ministry used the court as an excuse factually inaccurate. Furthermore, the Ministry of Labour Regulations on Rules and Methods for Electing Employer and Insured Representatives to the Social Security Committee B.E. 2564 empowers the election committee to extend or shorten timeframes or waive certain procedures when necessary.
In administrative law, reviewing an election process following a court injunction is a crucial measure to mitigate the risk of future nullification, which could waste state budget and undermine public trust. Understanding these legal mechanisms clarifies that temporary suspension is a prudent risk management strategy rather than a cancellation.
"The court's temporary injunction requires the authorized committee to review the entire election system to ensure lawful operations. The suspension results from the committee exercising its discretionary duties. Once the review is complete, the agency is ready to proceed with a legal, transparent election that protects the rights of all insured persons."
Captain Patdarasram Thongsaluaykorn
Finally, the government emphasized that proceeding with the election without assessing the court order's impact could risk the election being revoked or declared void if later ruled unlawful, affecting the rights of over 11 million insured persons and forcing the state to spend additional budget on a re-election.
Source: Khaosod Politics
Found something wrong in this article? Report an issue with this article
Comments
Leave a Comment