Three Documents — Side by Side

Official SSO rejection letter from Bangkok Area 4 (Silom Road), May 4 2026
📍 Bangkok Area 4 — Silom Road May 4, 2026
Signed: Phatraporn Chakraphet
Official SSO rejection letter from Nakhon Si Thammarat province, May 13 2026
📍 Nakhon Si Thammarat (South) May 13, 2026
Signed: Bunthoeng Muadchan
Official SSO rejection letter from Kanchanaburi province, May 15 2026
📍 Kanchanaburi (Central) May 15, 2026
Signed: Phisetoo Loetkeattichay
🔍 Direct Text Comparison — The Critical Paragraph
Bangkok
Silom
May 4
"The aforementioned ruling has binding effect only on the parties to that specific case. It does not apply broadly to other insured persons who were not parties to that case. For this reason, the SSO cannot reconsider the pension calculation as requested."
Nakhon Si
May 13
"The aforementioned ruling has binding effect only on the parties to that specific case. It does not apply broadly to other insured persons who were not parties to that case. For this reason, the Social Security Office cannot reconsider the pension calculation as requested."
Kanchanaburi
May 15
"The aforementioned ruling has binding effect only on the parties to that specific case. It does not apply broadly to other insured persons who were not parties to that case. For this reason, the Kanchanaburi Social Security Office cannot reconsider the pension calculation as requested."
The only difference: "Social Security Office" → "Kanchanaburi Social Security Office"

Four Reasons This Evidence Changes Everything

1
It Proves a Central Directive — Not a Provincial Error
Three offices — Bangkok's Silom district, Nakhon Si Thammarat in the south, and Kanchanaburi in the west — signed by three different officials, produced an identical text. The statistical likelihood of this occurring independently is negligible. The only logical conclusion: SSO headquarters issued a template response and instructed all provincial offices to use it.
2
It Transforms a Personal Claim Into a Systemic One
A class action lawsuit in Thailand's Administrative Court must prove that plaintiffs "suffered harm from the same act." These two letters prove that the SSO is applying a uniform national policy to every Section 39 claimant who invokes Ruling 3307/2567 — not just the two individuals who received these specific letters.
3
48-Hour Gap Confirms Coordinated Deployment
Nakhon Si: May 13. Kanchanaburi: May 15. The timing, combined with identical language, points to a centrally coordinated rollout of this response policy — likely triggered by the movement's growing visibility and the May 7 national Lawyers Council march.
4
It Is Admissible Evidence of Institutional Knowledge and Choice
The SSO was aware of Ruling 3307/2567. They chose to draft a template that explicitly acknowledges the ruling while refusing to apply it broadly. This is not ignorance. This is a documented policy decision to force individual litigation rather than apply the law.

They sent the same letter to everyone, everywhere. That proves they know about the problem — and chose not to fix it.

— Boon Arayapon, D.V.M., LL.B. — Founder, "Khor Keun Mai Dai Khor Taan"
⚡ If You Receive a Letter Like This

Do not discard it. Every SSO rejection letter citing Ruling 3307/2567 is a piece of evidence that strengthens the class action. Photograph it and share with your assigned parent volunteer via LINE, or bring it directly to your provincial Lawyers Council office.

The more provinces documented, the stronger the argument that this is a national policy — not a local decision.

See all case steps →

📋 Related Article

Read the analysis of the first rejection letter (Nakhon Si Thammarat):
Thailand's SSO Admits in Writing: "We Won't Pay Unless You Sue Us" →