The bustling corridors of the Social Security Fund (SSF) offices are buzzing with palpable tension these days, after the SSF Board recently turned down a proposed new pension formula for being “too complicated”. The air of disappointment was shared by many, none more so than Assoc. Prof. Sustarum Thammaboosadee. As a board member and coordinator for the Progressive Social Security Team, he expressed his regrets over not being able to persuade the board to accept the new pension calculation methodology. However, like any persistent advocate worth their salt, he’s gearing up for a renewed attempt at the forthcoming meeting this March.
This new pension mechanism is crucial, particularly for those insured individuals under Section 39 — individuals who have transitioned from employment to self-managed SSF contributions. A staggering 300,000 people find themselves in this bracket, and the proposed formula aims to adapt their pensions in sync with inflation and the undulating cost of living, a herculean task indeed.
For instance, an individual’s contributions based on a salary of 5,000 baht from two decades ago would be dynamically adjusted to reflect today’s economic realities. Certainly, the SSF would incur additional expenditures to accommodate these adjustments, expectedly more so for these 300,000 insured members. Yet, the research team assures that these changes won’t undermine the fund’s sustainability. Astonishingly, in a decade, this revised pension mechanism would require an investment of approximately 60 billion baht, a mere fraction of the behemoth fund which stands at an impressive 2.6 trillion baht.
The formula didn’t just come out of thin air; it was meticulously vetted and pre-approved by a sub-committee last October before finally reaching the SSF Board’s table. Prof. Thammaboosadee was unwavering, asserting that this formula would not encroach upon the rights of employers and employees under Section 33, thanks to incremental contributions from both parties factored into the fresh calculations.
Despite the endorsement from the sub-committee, the Board’s resolution leaned towards revision, asking the team to return with a refined formula. This unexpected detour didn’t sit well with Thammaboosadee, who speculated that the delay might be a repercussion of the team’s assertive questioning tactics. “Could it be our vigorous inquisition that stalled decisions?” he mused, his gaze fixed on an uncertain horizon.
With anticipation hanging like a cloud, he called on the public to remain vigilant, advocating for transparency and accountability in the management of the fund. Surely, for a fund of such magnitude — the largest public fund in the nation worth over 2.65 trillion baht serving the welfare and financial security of 24 million subscribers — nothing short of open scrutiny would suffice.
As the calendar flips to another day in February 2025, Prof. Thammaboosadee stands poised, preparing for the next round. In the arena of safeguarding people’s futures, his resolve remains unshaken. For it is in these very discussions that the seeds for a more equitable tomorrow are planted.
I can’t believe the SSF Board turned down a formula that helps so many people! They’re just scared of change.
It’s not about being scared, Jane. The formula might actually be too complex for proper implementation.
Complexity should not be an excuse when it comes to improving lives. They should just figure it out!
Exactly, Sasha. They should hire smart people to make it work.
I agree with Jane. Sometimes the bureaucracy is just too slow and conservative.
60 billion baht isn’t much when you compare it to the overall fund. The board needs to wake up.
It’s still a lot of money. The fund needs to make sure it’s sustainable in the long run.
But what good is sustainability if the current pensioners suffer? Prioritize people!
Balancing current needs and future sustainability is the real challenge here.
Shouldn’t the SSF just adapt and modernize their systems to accommodate complex formulas? Seems outdated to reject it.
Adapting systems isn’t as easy as it sounds. It requires time and significant investment.
Maybe it’s time they invested in the future instead of clinging to archaic ways.
Why is it always about the bottom line? Pensions should be adjusted to inflation for god’s sake!
Thammaboosadee seems determined, but he’ll need more than just determination to get this approved.
True, Larry, but he’s got public interest on his side. That counts a lot.
Let’s hope so, Rose. The board needs a shake-up sometimes to move forward.
Maybe the board’s indecision is a power play. Keeping things ambiguous gives them more control.
I support more transparency, but let’s not forget that good governance can’t be rushed.
Governance at a turtle’s pace doesn’t help those who urgently need better pensions.
With inflation on the rise, we need innovative solutions now more than ever.
Innovative yes, but workable and understandable at the same time. It’s a balance.
Surely, Pete, but the urgency is real for many pensioners living on the edge.
300,000 people could greatly benefit. What’s taking so long for approval?
I feel like there’s something we aren’t being told about why the board rejected it.
Behind-the-scenes politics maybe? Transparency isn’t always present in these matters.
The skepticism around the formula only underscores the need for regular public updates.
It’s commendable that Thammaboosadee is pushing for transparency. Public funds need that.
Isn’t it time we start trusting experts’ recommendations? Their job is to analyze these complex issues.
Pension reform is never easy. Hopefully, the new meetings in March will be insightful.