After an intense panel meeting, the Social Security Fund (SSF) Board has turned down a new pension formula for being “overly complex.” This revelation comes from Assoc Prof Sustarum Thammaboosadee, a dedicated board member and coordinator of the Progressive Social Security Team. Despite this setback, Thammaboosadee hasn’t thrown in the towel—instead, he’s rolling up his sleeves for round two next month. He expressed his regrets for not yet convincing the board but remains unwavering in his mission to drive meaningful reform in March.
With change in the balance, more than 300,000 individuals insured under Section 39 stand to be impacted. These individuals, once formally employed, have continued their SSF journey, contributing through self-insurance. The crux of the new pension formula is its dynamism; it’s designed to adjust based on both inflation and living cost fluctuations. Imagine a salary from two decades ago, let’s say 5,000 baht, suddenly catching up with today’s inflation rates—it’s an update that has the potential to drastically increase pension values.
Thammaboosadee shed light on the financial implications, explaining that accommodating this recalculated pension would indeed demand more SSF spending on these 300,000 members. However, the research team is confident this won’t throw the fund’s sustainability off course. Forecasts suggest that over a decade, the revised pensions will draw approximately 60 billion baht from a robust 2.6 trillion baht fund. That’s a significant figure, but one the SSF is expected to absorb without jeopardizing its future.
Pushing back against assumptions, Thammaboosadee also confirmed that the new pension calculation had received the green light from a sub-committee in October, with submissions made to the SSF just the previous day. Yet, crucially, he emphasized that the revisions wouldn’t encroach on the rights of employers and employees covered by Section 33, thanks to additional contributions integrated into the formula from both parties.
As the meeting drew to a close, the verdict was clear: recalibrate the formula and re-present it. Thammaboosadee voiced suspicions regarding the delay in decision-making, hinting that it might be linked to their vigorous, no-nonsense questioning of the board. Yet, he’s quick to rally the public’s attention to ensure the fund’s management stays transparent and open to public scrutiny—it’s the least they deserve, considering the SSF’s status as the nation’s largest public fund, currently valued over a staggering 2.65 trillion baht.
With 24 million subscribers relying on its welfare and financial safety net, this isn’t just about money; it’s about securing futures. The story isn’t over yet; stay tuned. March could bring a new chapter to this saga of financial reform and public welfare.
I think Thammaboosadee’s initiative is long overdue. Pension values need to reflect the current cost of living!
Sure, but changing the formula risks destabilizing the whole fund. It’s not as simple as just raising payments.
I understand the risks, but if we don’t adapt, thousands can’t maintain a decent quality of life. Isn’t that the real risk?
I agree with Sofia. Many elders struggle to make ends meet today, even with a pension. Reform needs to happen.
This revised formula seems theoretically sound, but practically, can the SSF sustain such massive payouts without affecting its future obligations?
According to the research, yes. If they forecast wisely, adjustments are possible without harming the fund’s sustainability.
The forecasts are just estimates. No one can predict the future economy with certainty, Dr. Wilson, and you know this.
Why wasn’t this implemented sooner? People have been calling for reform forever, it feels like just more bureaucracy.
Possibly because no one wants to take responsibility for any backlash if changes don’t pan out as planned. Bureaucracy is all about avoiding accountability.
I just don’t understand why the board is stonewalling. Maybe there’s some hidden agenda we don’t know about?
This whole situation makes me nervous. Inflation rises, but pensions stay the same. That isn’t fair on retirees!
Honestly, why can’t they agree on something straightforward? People depend on these pensions to live.
It’s never straightforward when money and people’s livelihoods are involved. There are always multiple factors at play.
The real question should be, why is the board so hesitant about transparency? Public scrutiny is necessary for accountability.
Thammaboosadee’s efforts would be more convincing if they had clear action plans. Until then, I’m skeptical.
I believe that criticism comes with the territory. Thammaboosadee should implement clear guidelines soon to gain more support.
I think those opposed are just scared of change. The formula reflects modern economic realities and we need to adapt.
It’s not about fear; it’s about ensuring that change doesn’t bring unintended consequences. Caution isn’t the same as resistance.
At least it seems like Thammaboosadee is listening to the public, unlike some others in the government.
Pensions should be self-managed. Relying on the government fund will always lead to problems.
Not everyone has the capacity or resources for self-management. Government support offers security that individuals can’t guarantee.
Trust me, self-management sounds great until you experience a financial crash or unexpected illness.
Everyone’s talking numbers, but the reality is, pension reform isn’t just about figures; it’s about people’s lives on a fundamental level.
True, but if the financial aspect isn’t stable, then it affects far more than just numbers and people’s livelihoods become jeopardized anyway.
It’s a valid concern, Oliver. We need humane and financially sound solutions.
Public scrutiny is key. The board should be out there making things transparent to all stakeholders involved.
I worry that if we don’t act soon, many won’t have the pensions they were promised. It’s about keeping promises!