Under the tripartite system, an employer and employee each contribute the equivalent of 5 per cent of a worker's salary to the fund - currently between a minimum of Bt83 and a maximum of Bt750 per month - while the government contributes another, variable portion.

Another proposal supported by academics and labour organisations seeks to transform the entire SSO into an autonomous public agency. Proponents of this drastic approach reason that SSO administrators, handpicked by politicians at the Labour Ministry, cannot be trusted to faithfully serve workers insured under the social security system.

These people have a valid point to make, as one has only to look back at the allegedly blatant manipulation of the SSO by politicians during the five and a half years of the corruption-prone Thaksin administration. Some top SSO executives were accused of pandering to the former prime minister's populist policies and allowing their political masters at the Labour Ministry to negatively influence the management of the Social Security Fund.

Allegations and counter-allegations are rife about the SSO's deviation from sound governance and good stewardship of the Social Security Fund. Some past and present administrators have been accused of introducing new, wasteful services that mimic the previous government's populist policies or of favouring certain interest groups at the expense of insured workers. Examples abound of questionable investments in the property and capital markets that were not subjected to stakeholder scrutiny, which could potentially result in huge losses.

One problem with the Surayud government is that it has shown little interest in investigating any of the allegations of wrongdoing at the SSO. The allegations include a change in payment arrangements for pre-natal/child delivery assistance, dental healthcare provision that appeared to benefit private hospitals and investment in the allegedly overpriced Wattachak Building, among other things. Disappointingly, the government has failed to thoroughly investigate to find out whether any of the alleged wrongdoing has actually been committed and by whom. This means, of course, that corrective measures cannot be taken to minimise the damage and the wrongdoers might not be brought to justice. Worse, it also entrusted the Labour Ministry to commission studies on how it should reform itself.

It is not too difficult to guess which approach the Labour Ministry and the current SSO leadership prefer. They have already made known their favourable response to the least change possible - by turning only the SSO investment arm into an autonomous public agency while keeping the SSO under the thumb of politicians. The government must make sure that the Labour Ministry and the current SSO leadership, who seek to maintain the status quo, do not succeed. The SSO was set up to provide a wide range of services for members including medical care and cash for maternity leave, unemployment benefits in the event of disability, through to pensions and death benefits. The Social Security Fund may have grown quickly, but that should not give the SSO cause for complacency. That is because the trickle of payouts in relation to the huge cash inflow will begin to reverse in the coming years as members start reaching retirement age.

The government owes it to workers covered by the SSO, and indeed taxpayers, to make the whole of the SSO an autonomous public agency. Only by putting it beyond the reach of political interference can the SSO - one of the country's few successful, mostly self-financed welfare systems - continue to be a gift that keeps on giving.