You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

April 21, 2020

Thailand’s Ministry of Labor Formalizes Further COVID-19 Relief through Social Security Fund

Subscribe to Updates

Implementing recent cabinet resolutions to introduce social security relief measures to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, on April 17, 2020, Thailand’s Ministry of Labor published two regulations under the Social Security Act (SSA) in the Government Gazette:

  • Regulation on Entitlement to Compensatory Benefits in the Event of Unemployment Due to Force Majeure from the Pandemic of Dangerous Communicable Disease Under Relevant Law Relating to Communicable Diseases B.E. 2563 (2020) (the Force Majeure Regulation); and
  • Regulation on Entitlement to Compensatory Benefits in the Event of Unemployment Due to the Effect of Economic Crisis B.E. 2563 (2020) (the Economic Crisis Regulation).

The details of the assistance measures are provided below.

The Force Majeure Regulation

The Ministry of Labor has revised the definition of force majeure  to include hazards from the COVID-19 pandemic, or other dangerous communicable diseases that affect the public under relevant law relating to communicable diseases, causing an insured person (an employee) to be unable to work, or an employer to be unable to operate their business normally.

This regulation allows the Social Security Office (SSO) to pay compensation to employees who:

  • are insured and eligible to receive unemployment benefits;
  • have to cease working temporarily between March 1 and August 31, 2020;
  • do not receive wages from the employer during the temporary cessation; and,
  • whose employment has not been terminated.  

This applies only if the circumstances above result from one or more the following force majeure  events related to the COVID-19 pandemic: 

  • The employee has to cease working because they are required to quarantine, or to comply with a COVID-19 preventive measure.
  • The employer orders the cessation of the employee’s work because the employer has to quarantine the employee, or the employer has to comply with a COVID-19 preventive measure.
  • Force majeure  causes the employer to temporarily cease normal business operations, partially or wholly, because they decide to do so, or must do so to comply with an order in accordance with laws relating to communicable diseases or emergency public administration. 

Under this regulation, employees will be entitled to receive compensation at a rate of 62% of their daily wages during the work cessation period, up to a maximum of 90 days, between March 1 and August 31, 2020 (subject to amendment by the cabinet and the Ministry of Labor from time to time). The payment will be calculated based on daily wages, but will be paid monthly. In addition, the employer is obligated to issue a certificate of confirmation containing details prescribed in the regulation.

The Economic Crisis Regulation

Insured employees under the SSA are entitled to receive benefits during periods of unemployment caused by the economic crisis between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2022 as follows:

  • If employment is terminated by the employer, the employee can receive compensation at the rate of 70% of their daily wages for up to 200 days per termination.
  • If an employee resigns, or their fixed-term employment contract ends, the employee can receive compensation at the rate of 45% of their daily wages for up to 90 days per unemployment period. 

To qualify for compensation under this regulation, the employee must have paid contributions to the Social Security Fund for at least six of the prior 15 months, counted from the date of unemployment; must have registered with the SSO; and must comply with regulations provided by the Social Security officer.

These regulations provide general criteria for employees to receive benefits from the Social Security Fund. However, they do not grant employers broad discretion to cease operations without paying wages to employees, temporarily or permanently, and employers must consider the facts on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they should do so, and to avoid unexpected costs under the Labor Protection Act. We therefore recommend that any employer planning to temporarily or permanently cease operations consider seeking legal advice before doing so.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More
August 18, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is seeking public comment on proposed amendments that would significantly expand know-your-customer (KYC) and customer due diligence (CDD) requirements for cash-related transactions at financial institutions (FIs) and specialized financial institutions (SFIs). Released on August 5, 2026, the proposed regulation would supersede BOT Notification No. 16/2569, which focused primarily on cash withdrawal transactions. The public comment period is open through September 3, 2026. The amendments reflect concerns that FIs and SFIs may be used to facilitate the movement, concealment, and conversion of criminal proceeds, potentially damaging institutional operations and public confidence in the financial system. Expanded Scope of Covered Transactions The most significant change is the broadening of the definition of “cash-related transactions.” Previously, the regulation covered only cash withdrawals and uncrossed check withdrawals. The amended regulation extends coverage to include: Cash deposits, check deposits, or receipt of funds from the public not in the form of deposit accounts; Thai baht (THB) banknote exchange (different denominations); Receipt of cash for issuing checks and drafts; and Purchase, sale, or exchange of foreign banknotes. Mandatory Identity Verification and Risk Management For all cash-related transactions, FIs and SFIs must require customers, or authorized or delegated persons, to present identification or verify their identity before every transaction, including one-time (walk-in) transactions. Specific identification requirements vary by transaction type, customer nationality, and channel (branch vs. electronic). FIs and SFIs must also establish comprehensive risk management processes and procedures for cash-related transactions. These requirements include identifying customers or authorized representatives in accordance with transaction-specific verification standards, analyzing customer behavior, implementing risk-management measures proportionate to the customer’s risk profile, and recording abnormal behavior in relevant systems. The BOT also encourages institutions to proactively guide customers toward transaction channels that offer greater traceability than cash. For corporate customers in high-risk business sectors—including foreign
Read More
August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More
August 14, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Insurance Commission (OIC) has issued guidelines clarifying the boundaries between permissible and prohibited activities for unlicensed individuals—including influencers, bloggers, and content creators—when communicating about insurance products on social media. The Good Practice Guidelines for Persons Not Licensed as Insurance Agents or Brokers Regarding the Dissemination of Insurance Content Through Digital Media B.E. 2569 (2026) took effect on July 24, 2026. Activities Requiring a License The guidelines reserve the following activities for licensed agents and brokers: Soliciting or facilitating insurance contracts. Providing personalized advice on product suitability. Recommending policy cancellation to purchase promoted products. Creating links that facilitate contract formation. Receiving performance-based compensation tied to policies or premiums generated. Importantly, boilerplate disclaimers such as “this is not a recommendation to buy insurance” will not shield individuals from liability if the OIC views the content as personalized advice or solicitation. Permitted Activities Unlicensed persons may present general educational content about insurance—such as explaining terminology, sharing industry statistics, reporting news, or sharing personal experiences—provided the content does not target specific individuals to purchase from specific companies. The guidelines also set out best practices for communication, including presenting information in a fair and balanced manner that covers both benefits and limitations, encouraging consumers to read policy terms and consult licensed professionals, verifying information from credible sources before dissemination, and exercising special care when the audience may include vulnerable groups such as persons aged 60 and older. Prohibited Practices Prohibited practices include fear-based marketing, creating artificial urgency, omitting material limitations, making exaggerated claims, falsely claiming professional credentials, using fake engagement mechanisms, and sharing false or misleading content. The guidelines also reinforce the prohibitions under section 83 of the Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 and section 78 of the Non-Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 against soliciting insurance contracts with foreign operators
Read More