Kriengsak Chareonwongsak losses and gains

Social security for small businesses - losses and gains

Professor Dr Kriengsak Chareonwongsak
Executive Director, Institute of Future Studies for Development (IFD)
kriengsak@kriengsak.com, http://www.ifd.or.th

This article analyzes the arguments for and against changes to the 2001 Social Security policy. Previously, Social Security applied only in work places with more than nine employees; however, it now applies wherever there is just one employee in the workplace.

Last many year (2001), the Thai cabinet agreed to expand the scope of social security to cover workplaces with one to nine employees; a decision promulgated on April 1, 2001. The legislation, however, does not cover employees of the Thai Red Cross Society, state enterprizes, the agriculture sector, and housewives.
This decision was more than likely propelled by two aims - to extend the social security net throughout the country according to the current constitution, and to earn increased income from the contributions of employers and employees.

Employers need to contribute to the scheme as they have a strong influence on the risks, both directly and indirectly, to which the employees are exposed. Direct risk, for instance, involves harm at the workplace itself. In such cases, only the employer pays a contribution to the social security fund once a year, on average, 0.2-1% of the employee’s wage.

Indirect risk is risk not related directly to the work place, and includes sickness, maternity leave, death, child allowances and aged pensions. In such cases, the employers are responsible for a proportion of the contributions to the social security fund to relieve the burden on employees - this is considered a form of welfare on the part of the employers. Employers and employees pay contributions at the rate of approximately 3% of wages. In addition, the government pays a part, normally an equal amount.