In a spirited response to mounting criticism, Labour Minister Phiphat Ratchakitprakarn has stepped forward to counter the People’s Party’s (PP) allegations against the Social Security Office’s (SSO) spending habits. Painting a vivid picture of the oversight landscape, Phiphat aimed to dispel the notion that the management of the Social Security Fund (SSF) is a carefree expenditure bash. He underscored the fact that the Social Security Board, which steers the financial ship, is elected rather than appointed, hinting at a democratic backbone to its operations.
The minister’s pointed comments were a direct response to Rakchanok Srinok, a feisty PP MP for Bangkok, who had taken to her social media platform over the weekend to voice concerns about the SSO’s financial prudence. Her accusations revolved around alleged lavish spending on overseas travel, training escapades, and glossy public relations campaigns.
But hold your horses, Phiphat declared! There’s more to the story, and it’s not the fairy tale of unchecked spending that some might have you believe. Nestled under the watchful eye of the Ministry of Labour, the SSO serves as the engine room for the SSF, catering to a broad constituency that includes employees, employers, and government agencies. In fact, the current Social Security Board is a rich tapestry of 21 members, with seven hailing from the Progressive Social Security group, a faction intimately linked to the PP itself.
Delving into the numbers that make the SSF tick, Phiphat shared some eye-opening figures. He revealed that a modest 3% of the SSO’s colossal budget is carved out for the management of the fund, a far cry from the 10% permissible by regulations. In other words, there’s no unbridled financial carnival here — a point he passionately emphasized.
Swatting away claims of extravagant overseas adventures, Phiphat attested to the SSO’s unwavering adherence to stringent travel guidelines. Officers jetting off to foreign lands must do so shrouded in the humdrum of regulated cabin classes, ensuring that journeys don’t morph into a whirlwind fantasy cruise.
One particular accusation had eyes rolling: the rather grandiose sum of 400 million baht allegedly splashed on printing calendars for eager recipients. But wait! That seemingly lavish figure, Phiphat divulged, spans an impressive eight-year period. When you slice it down to a manageable 50 million baht annually, and consider that these calendars are destined for the hands of 12 million individuals, the expense suddenly seems far more reasonable as part of the SSF’s public outreach endeavors.
Yet, no tale is complete without acknowledging the hiccups along the way. Phiphat expressed regret to the ever-patient 25 million members of the SSF, who occasionally found themselves tangled with the hotline woes — an unfortunate consequence of those pesky limited lines.
I think Phiphat is doing a great job defending the Social Security Office. The numbers make sense; 3% of the budget is reasonable for administration!
Are you kidding? Even if it’s 3%, are we sure they are using that effectively? Sounds fishy to me.
But think about it, if 10% is allowed by regulations and they only use 3%, they might be doing something right.
The notion of printing calendars is absurd in today’s digital age. What a waste of money…
Not everyone is tech-savvy, Victor. Consider the demographic they’re addressing.
I actually appreciate the calendars. It’s good to have something tangible for those who are not into digital gadgets.
Fair points, but those funds could still be reallocated to more pressing issues than paper!
Overseas travel for government officials is just another burden on the environment. We should be cutting back, not defending it.
Face-to-face meetings are more effective in building international relations. Some travel is essential.
If travel is necessary, there should be more focus on sustainability and alternative solutions like virtual meetings.
I totally support Rakchanok Srinok! Transparency is key, yet the Social Security Office seems to have a lot to hide.
But the SSO seems quite transparent with their budget usage, as outlined by Phiphat.
Transparency isn’t just about stating numbers. It’s about ensuring people understand and trust where each dollar goes.
I’m fed up with hotline issues. For such a big organization, you’d think SSO could fix that!
Agreed. Waiting times are ridiculous; this needs to be prioritized.
Not to mention the time wasted trying to reach them. It’s complicated for members too.
A financial audit should be standard for any public spending to quell these disputes. Objectivity can calm all sides.
Why isn’t the SSO using better technology to streamline its operations? Investing in modern infrastructure could solve many of these issues.
It’s all talk from politicians. What really matters is what’s being done behind closed doors. Actions speak louder than words.
I’ve been part of a public board before, and elected positions don’t always mean unchecked power. It’s not perfect, but it’s a start.
Totally, Rachel. Any chance to vote is an opportunity for more accountability.
Isn’t it ironic how much fuss is made about overseas travel when more important issues are at home needing urgent attention?
But travel is part of strengthening the country’s global position too. Can’t ignore international platforms.
I want to see more data on how the SSF benefits its contributors directly. Numbers can be manipulated to paint a pretty picture.
Honestly, any initiative like calendars, if engaging communities, is worth it. But more transparency is always better.
Phiphat’s defense doesn’t cut it for me. It’s all semantics. Real change is needed, especially in management.
You might be right, but at least there is an ongoing debate that could spark change.
I love a good debate, but much of this sounds like they are arguing for the sake of it, rather than finding solutions.
Whether it’s mismanagement or not, the whole system seems outdated. A revamp seems overdue.