Advancing Public Integrity in Thailand

Thailand has demonstrated a strong commitment to public integrity through the development and implementation of ongoing national strategies, but their impact could be improved with stronger monitoring and evaluation to ensure accountability and achievement of policy objectives. Broader consultation with stakeholders during the policy development phase could enhance a whole-of-society approach for public integrity.

• Enhance the strategic framework of public integrity and anti-corruption strategies by conducting a thorough risk assessment; measure implementation against broader, evidence-based indicators; and establish regular monitoring and evaluation reporting cycles.

• Streamline and separate corruption prevention and enforcement mandates across the Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) and National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to reduce complex workflows and promote efficiency for case management and policy development.

• Strengthen the merit-based system for appointing NACC commissioners to promote and uphold its independence.

• Reinforce the role of Anti-Corruption Operation Centres by clearly defining their core activities and responsibilities.

The adoption of the Ethical Standards Act (2019) marks an important step in strengthening integrity in Thailand’s public administration. However, improved coordination among key anti-corruption bodies is still needed to enhance awareness, training, and practical guidance for public officials.

• Strengthen co-ordination among the NACC, PACC and OCSC to enhance the overall impact, effectiveness and reach of their existing ethics training and awareness-raising activities.

• Develop comprehensive guidance materials that address all seven ethical principles under the 2021 Code of Ethics for Civil Servants.

• Improve the Integrity and Transparency Assessment (ITA) by refocusing it from formal compliance to measuring civil servants’ understanding of ethical standards and the impact of ethics training and awareness activities.

Thailand has established mechanisms to manage conflict of interest and require asset declarations as key tools for promoting integrity and preventing corruption in the public sector. While the framework is well developed, particularly through the oversight of the NACC, challenges remain in ensuring effective implementation, verification, and follow-up. Strengthening enforcement, guidance, and transparency would further enhance the preventive impact of these measures.

• Centralise conflict-of-interest management under PACC and separate it from investigation roles to improve coordination and oversight.

• Clarify conflict-of-interest rules with practical definitions, examples, and targeted guidance for high-risk officials.

• Expand mandatory asset and liability disclosures to cover all senior public officials and other at-risk officials, using a risk-based approach.

• Strengthen post-employment rules and monitoring, including tailored cooling-off periods, and risk-based compliance analysis.

Thailand should strengthen coherence, fairness, and efficiency in its disciplinary system by reducing fragmentation across sector-specific regimes and reinforcing safeguards to ensure objective, impartial, and timely decision-making. Professionalising disciplinary investigations through registries of trained investigators or shared disciplinary services would improve consistency and quality across agencies.

• Strengthen legal safeguards for supervising and disciplinary officials, including by establishing a merit-based selection process, adequate job security and competitive remuneration.

• Improve coherence across sector-specific disciplinary regimes and clarify institutional roles and mandates.

• Introduce clear and reasonable timeframes for each stage of disciplinary proceedings, including initiation, investigation, decision-making, and sanctions.

• Strengthen coordination between disciplinary and criminal regimes, including clearer protocols for lawful information exchange and parallel investigations.

While Thailand has a solid constitutional and legal basis for public consultation and has made notable progress through digital tools such as the Central Law Portal, implementation remains uneven, and risks of policy capture persist due to gaps in regulation, limited guidance, and inconsistent practices. The absence of clear rules governing interactions between public officials and stakeholders, continues to expose policymaking to undue influence. Enhancing transparency in decision-making, through stronger access-to-information frameworks, improved oversight of advisory bodies, and clearer disclosure of policymaker agendas would further safeguard integrity.

• Initiate discussions to develop comprehensive rules governing public-private engagements to prevent undue influence in policy making and strengthen transparency.

• Enhance the functionality of the Central Law Portal by ensuring timely updates and integrating links to Cabinet meeting summaries and parliamentary broadcasts, with a view to establishing it as a comprehensive “one-stop shop” for legislative information and public consultations.

• Strengthen awareness-raising efforts to help citizens better understand consultation processes and more effectively articulate their interests to policymakers.

Thailand has recently introduced public disclosure protections through amendments to the Organic Act on Anti-Corruption in 2025 to protect public reporting. Despite these improvements, current laws do not explicitly provide protections to reporting persons in or associated with the workplace, nor do they establish the scope of protected disclosure, retaliatory measures or protections against retaliation. As such, significant gaps remain in Thailand’s accountability systems for safeguarding public integrity.

• Unify existing legislation relating to protection of reporting persons into a consolidated and comprehensive whistleblower protection framework to protect workplace disclosures and clarify internal and external reporting channels and procedures.

• Enhance understanding of the difference between witness and whistleblower protection laws to promote clarity about the appropriate legal standards and practices applicable.

• Foster a culture of openness in public administrations where employees can raise questions and concerns in a confidential and safe environment, allowing issues to be detected and addressed proactively before they become too damaging.