Based on the recommendations of the 2021 Integrity Review of Thailand, this chapter finds that although Thailand has introduced the Central Law Portal, further efforts to organise and streamline information are necessary to reach its full potential. The findings suggest that Thailand could reinvigorate efforts to enhance the transparency in law-making processes, engage stakeholders more effectively during the early stages of legislative development, and strengthen regulations to safeguard public policymaking from undue influence.
Advancing Public Integrity in Thailand
Recent Progress and Priorities for Reform
Abstract
Strengthening participation in the policymaking process is a multifaceted means to foster public scrutiny, ensure accountability provide information to individuals and ultimately reinforce citizens’ trust in government. Stakeholder participation includes all the ways in which stakeholders, including citizens, can be involved in the policy cycle and in service design and delivery. All stakeholders should be granted equal and fair opportunities to be informed, consulted, and actively engaged throughout all phases of the policy cycle, while ensuring that the process is protected against undue influence and policy capture. (OECD, 2017[1]). While in principle policy makers should pursue the public interest, in practice they also need to acknowledge the existence of diverse legitimate interest groups and consider the costs and benefits for these groups (OECD, 2020[2]). However, experience has shown that policy making is not always inclusive and at times may only consider the interests of a few, usually the financially and politically powerful. Experience has also shown that lobbying and other influence practices may be abused through the provision of biased or deceitful evidence or data, and the manipulation of public opinion, leading to suboptimal policy outcomes with potentially widespread consequences across sectors and the economy as a whole (OECD, 2017[3]; OECD, 2024[4]).
The 2021 Integrity Review highlighted Thailand’s economic progress but noted that the perceived transparency of government policy remained low compared with OECD Members and several other Southeast Asian countries. The 2021 Integrity Review also emphasised that fostering integrity and transparency in public policy making is essential for building inclusive and equitable societies and preventing policy capture. While recognising Thailand’s efforts in this direction through the implementation of broader anti-corruption measures the Review recommended that Thailand could further improve the quality of its regulatory framework and introduce a more coherent approach to promote transparency and integrity in decision making (OECD, 2021[5]).
Findings from the 2024 OECD Trust Survey indicate that across OECD countries, public policy decisions are often perceived as being diverted away from the public interest toward special interests and those of the “powerful,” thereby undermining democratic values and reinforcing a sense of exclusion and inequality within the democratic system The results of the 2024 Trust Survey also show that citizens who feel confident about participating in policymaking and being heard report significantly higher levels of trust in government compared to those who do not. (OECD, 2024[6]).
This chapter takes stock of the implementation of the recommendations formulated in the 2021 Integrity Review and makes proposals for further action.
The 2021 Integrity Review found that, although Thailand has a solid constitutional and legal basis for stakeholder engagement in policymaking, significant gaps remain in regulating how different stakeholders, particularly from the private sector, interact with public officials. The absence of clear rules was found to increase the risks of unequal access, policy capture and conflict of interest, prompting recommendations to develop specific guidelines on stakeholder–official interactions and to embed related principles in ethical standards for civil servants and parliamentarians. The 2021 Review also noted that, despite existing legal requirements for public consultation, implementation was inconsistent due to weak procedures, limited transparency and broad ministerial discretion, resulting in consultations that were often optional, poorly publicised and too late to influence policy. To strengthen fairness, transparency and trust, the 2021 Review recommended establishing clearer standards and creating a centralised digital portal to enable more meaningful and accessible participation.
While efforts have been made to guide interactions between public officials and stakeholders, Thailand could further strengthen its approach by developing a clear, comprehensive and coherent regulatory framework
Thailand could initiate discussions to develop clear and comprehensive regulations on interactions between stakeholders and public officials.
The 2021 Integrity Review found that Thailand had foundational legal provisions in place, such as Section 77 of the Constitution and the Act on Legislative Drafting and Evaluation of Legislation B.E. 2560 (2019), that promote stakeholder engagement in policymaking. At the same time, the Review found that Thailand still lacked specific regulations governing how stakeholders, particularly from the private sector, interact with public officials. This regulatory gap was found to create risks of unequal access, policy capture, and conflict of interest (OECD, 2021[5]). To address this, the Review recommended that Thailand initiate discussions to draft specific rules or guidelines to regulate interactions between different stakeholders and public officials during policy making (e.g. mandatory disclosure of stakeholders’ names and activities and/or requirement for public officials and/or lobbyists to register information about lobbying in a lobbying register) (OECD, 2021[5]). Additionally, Thailand was recommended to include a directive in the Code of Professional Ethics for the Civil Service or provide a set of rules or principles establishing how public officials and policy makers must be contacted or how they should interact with private stakeholders. Such regulations should not aim to prevent or reduce such public-private-engagements, but they should establish safeguards and standards to ensure that relevant interests are represented fairly and effectively in policymaking (OECD, 2024[7]). In Thailand, the drafting of the Code of Ethics for Parliamentarians was identified as an opportunity to include these dispositions (OECD, 2021[5]).
Stakeholders noted that since the 2021 Integrity Review, the Government of Thailand has continued to encourage public agencies to promote stakeholder participation in decision-making through the “Participatory Governance Category” of the Public Sector Excellence Awards. These awards are granted by the Office of the Public Sector Development Commission (OPDC) to government agencies that demonstrate a commitment to fostering and developing effective public administration that responds to people’s needs, grounded in accountability and public participation. Nevertheless, the criteria used to assess agencies for this award remain unclear, as does the overall impact of the award process itself.
Both the Code of Ethics for Senators and Committees, B.E. 2563 (2020), and the Code of Ethics of Members of the House of Representatives and Committees, B.E. 2563 (2020), establish general principles requiring public interest to be placed above personal gain and the avoidance of conflict of interest. Additionally, the Secretariat of the House of Representatives has publicised a No Gift Policy that prohibits officials from accepting any gifts in connection with the performance of their public duties (House of Representatives, 2025[8]). However, neither Code nor policy provide concrete rules or guidelines on how public officials and policymakers may be contacted, or how they should engage with private stakeholders (Senate, 2020[9]; House of Representatives, 2020[10]). The same applies to the new Code of Ethics for Parliamentary Officials that was issued in July 2024 (Thailand Parliamentary Ethics Committee, 2024[11]).
The Office of the Council of State (OCS) indicated that the Law Reform Commission, as a body within the OCS, had conducted a review of consultations and based on its findings, formulated recommendations on engagement with private sector stakeholders. This initiative is a step toward regulating lobbying and influence activities. However, there are still no official mechanisms in place to regulate or prevent large companies from privately contacting ministers and policymakers during the policymaking process. Such unregulated interactions pose risks of conflict of interest and may create opportunities for undue influence or bias in public policy decisions (OECD, 2024[7]). At the same time, the OECD Public Integrity Indicators show that nearly half of OECD member countries (44%) have already put lobbying regulations in place, demonstrating growing recognition of the importance of transparency and integrity in policymaking (Figure 6.1).
Note: Data not provided for Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Israel, Japan and Switzerland. Dark columns represent OECD Member countries and light ones non-Members.
How to read: In 2025, Czechia fulfilled 80% of criteria on regulation and 56% on practice.
Source: OECD (2025[12]), OECD Public Integrity Indicators, https://oecd-public-integrity-indicators.org/.
Given the ongoing absence of clear regulations on interactions between public officials and stakeholders during legislative drafting and broader policymaking, the recommendation from 2021 remains valid, namely that Thailand could consider initiating discussions to develop comprehensive rules governing such public-private engagements. These rules could, for example, require the disclosure of stakeholders’ names and the activities they carry out and if they intend to influence policies or could specify that stakeholders who want to influence policies should be registered (OECD, 2021[5]). Such measures would complement the existing Codes of Ethics by providing specific rules to prevent undue influence and promote transparency.
Following the launch of the Central Law Portal, Thailand could further centralise consultations on the Portal and provide clear guidance to public agencies to conduct earlier, more inclusive, and more effective stakeholder engagement via the Portal
Thailand could include specific guidelines on the processes, methods and timeframes for stakeholder engagement in the new Act on Public Consultation.
The 2021 Integrity Review found that Thailand has made strides in institutionalising public consultation through legal frameworks like the Act on Legislative Drafting and Evaluation of Legislation B.E. 2560 (2019), which require stakeholder engagement and impact analysis before enacting laws. Nonetheless, implementation was found to remain weak despite these formal requirements, hindered by limited consultation information, inadequate notice periods, and the absence of standardised procedures. In addition, the Rule of the Office of the Prime Minister on Public Consultation B.E. 2548 (2005) provides that public consultations are generally optional and become mandatory only when the anticipated impact on the public is significant. This was found to grant ministries substantial discretion in deciding whether and how to conduct engagement processes. In practice, this meant that consultations were not carried out consistently, were poorly publicised, and often occurred too late in the legislative process to influence outcomes (OECD, 2021[5]). To address these shortcomings, the 2021 Integrity Review recommended that the Digital Government Agency develop a centralised digital portal to enhance transparency and accessibility, drawing on best practices from OECD Member countries to strengthen public trust and encourage greater civic participation (OECD, 2021[5]).
Since the 2021 Integrity Review, the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Index indicates a marked improvement in participatory policymaking in Thailand during 2022-2024 (Figure 6.2). This development may reflect the impact of the Central Law Portal, launched in July 2021 in accordance with the Act on Legislative Drafting and Evaluation of Legislation B.E. 2562 (2019), which mandates in Section 11 the establishment of a central public consultation system (Office of the Council of State, 2019[13]).
Note: Based on the expert estimates and index by V-Dem. It combines information on the extent to which citizens are active in diverse organizations which choose and influence policymakers. It ranges from 0 to 1 (most active).
Source: Our World in Data (2024[14]), Civil Society Participation Index, 2004 to 2024, https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/civil-society-participation-index?tab=chart&time=2004..latest&country=~THA&mapSelect=~THA.
The Office of the Council of State (OCS) indicated that the Act on Legislative Drafting and Evaluation of Legislation B.E. 2562 (2019) (hereafter: the 2019 Act) was due for an ex-post review at the end of 2024. The resulting review is expected to be finalised by end of 2025 and to include recommendations for improving the rules and guidelines on public consultation.1 In its current version, the 2019 Act obliges state agencies proposing draft legislation or regulations to conduct public consultations. While agencies retain flexibility in selecting consultation methods (e.g. consultation meetings, interviews, focus groups, questionnaires etc.) they are required to conduct an online public consultation through the central platform for public consultation (Section 13 of the 2019 Act) (Office of the Council of State, 2019[13]).
Indeed, since the 2021 Integrity Review, one significant development has been the inauguration of Thailand’s Central Law Portal (https://law.go.th) (Box 6.1). The Portal serves as a centralised platform for all public consultations in Thailand and facilitates compliance with the requirements under the 2019 Act. In March 2022, the Law Reform Commission also issued a notification to expand the Portal's scope to include consultations on subordinate regulations (OECD, 2025[15]). In accordance with Section 11 of the 2019 Act the OCS and the Digital Government Development Agency are jointly responsible for providing, maintaining, and developing this central portal (Office of the Council of State, 2019[13]).
The Central Law Portal (https://law.go.th) is a digital platform jointly developed by the Office of the Law Reform Commission and the Digital Government Agency to enhance transparency, public engagement, and legal accessibility in accordance with the Act on Legislative Drafting B.E. 2562 (2019).
The platform is supposed to serve as a centralised legal information hub and a mechanism for public consultation, allowing government agencies to solicit feedback on draft laws and enabling citizens to submit comments directly to responsible authorities.
The initiative is being implemented in two phases: the first establishes an online system for commenting on draft legislation and assessing legal effectiveness; the second aims to develop a comprehensive national legal database. Key features include secure data protection, real-time tracking of legislative progress, and open access to legal texts for reference and future analysis.
Additionally, the platform facilitates agency-stakeholder communication, including a web-board section (i.e. online discussion board or forum integrated within the consultation platform, where agencies and stakeholders can post messages, comments, or questions and engage in threaded discussions). Currently, this feature operates on an opt-in basis, allowing agencies to choose whether to use it for their consultations. However, OCS plans to transition to an opt-out policy, embedding a web-board in every consultation by default.
The pilot implementation involves a range of agencies, including the Department of Women’s Affairs and Family Development, Department of Intellectual Property, Department of Labour Protection and Welfare, Office of the SEC, and the Food and Drug Administration, among others.
Given the inherent limitations of the online platform in its current form to effectively reach all stakeholder groups, agencies are encouraged to employ complementary consultation methods to ensure inclusive participation.
Note: For more detailed information on the Central Law Portal, see OECD (2025[15]).
Sources: DGA (2025[16]), “Central Law Portal”, https://law.go.th/; survey responses received from Thai stakeholders; OECD (2025[15]), Regulatory Reform in Thailand: Reinforcing an Effective Regulatory Environment, https://doi.org/10.1787/7892759c-en.
According to the OCS, since the portal’s launch, over 240 government agencies have enrolled on the platform. Between 2022 and the first half of 2025, 240 agencies initiated 3484 online consultations via law.go.th. However, 912 consultations received no public response, while 1168 consultations received only 1 to 9 responses.
In addition to the Central Law Portal, the Secretariat of the Parliament has also created its own public consultation portal (https://www.parliament.go.th/section77/index.php) dedicated to the development of primary laws. The portal itself focusses only on the publication of primary laws but includes several of the same features as the Central Law Portal, such as outlining the timing of engagements, which agency is leading the proposal, as well as what is the current status of their engagement (i.e. open for opinions or summarising the opinions). Over 225 legislative proposals have undergone public consultations via the Parliament’s website (OECD, 2025[15]).
Thailand has expanded the use of digital tools to support stakeholder engagement, mirroring trends in OECD Member and partner countries that are increasingly adopting centralised online platforms for participation (OECD, 2023[17]). However, the existing channels in Thailand (the Central Law Portal and the Parliament’s portal) have overlapping features, which can create confusion for citizens. To improve clarity and accessibility, Thailand should work toward consolidating all consultations through a single, central platform, with the Central Law Portal serving as the primary entry point.
Aside from putting in place digital tools for consultations, cultural and procedural shifts will also be necessary to ensure meaningful engagement. Evidence from other OECD public governance reviews points to the fact that public consultation in Thailand, when carried out, is not dynamic and aims at complying with regulations rather than on extracting value from these exercises (OECD, 2022[18]). Indeed, governance reviews noted a tendency to primarily engage with established partners, often referred to as “usual suspects” (OECD, 2025[15]). Moreover, consultation often appeared to be announced at short notice and organised without a standardised protocol (OECD, 2025[15]). Indeed, during fact-finding missions for this report, the OCS noted that while public agencies are responsible for involving stakeholders early in the policy-development process, most still view public consultation primarily as a procedural requirement and therefore tend to initiate it only after a draft has already been prepared.
The actual conduct of public consultations via the Central Law Portal could be further improved, considering that meaningful stakeholder engagement helps safeguard the public interest, enhances inclusiveness, fosters ownership of policy outcomes, and can support innovative solutions (OECD, 2017[3]). Beyond consulting citizens on already drafted legislation, Thailand should expand opportunities for public participation earlier in the policymaking cycle. In doing so, Thailand could consider adopting or re-using existing OECD practical guidance on citizen and stakeholder participation, such as the OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes and the OECD Deliberative Toolbox (OECD, 2020[19]; OECD, 2022[20]). Furthermore, the government could provide additional guidance to public agencies that clearly outlines the processes and timelines for conducting consultations through the Central Law Portal. In line with other OECD public governance reviews, such guidance could also recommend consultation methods that enable more comprehensive and timely feedback, while reaching a broader and more diverse group of relevant stakeholders (OECD, 2025[15]).
The 2021 Integrity Review recommended that Thailand strengthen transparency and access to information by clarifying and improving procedures under the Official Information Act, enhancing the independence and capacity of the Official Information Commission, and expanding the availability of public data through more accessible digital platforms. To build trust in decision-making, the 2021 Review advised increasing openness around legislative processes, such as publishing “legislative footprints” that document interactions between policymakers and stakeholders and requiring public officials to disclose their agendas. It also called for greater transparency regarding the composition, activities and outputs of advisory bodies in both the executive and legislative branches, alongside clearer rules on stakeholder representation and conflict of interest.
This section takes stock of recent developments regarding the following proposals for action included in the 2021 Integrity Review, aimed at promoting transparency and access to information on decision making:
Thailand could consider including in the new Official Information Law guidance for citizens requesting public information and a more detailed mandate and requirements for the Information Commission.
Thailand could consider providing a legislative footprint and making legislative discussions open to the public.
Thailand may consider requiring policy makers to make their agendas open and accessible to the public.
Thailand could consider increasing the level of transparency with respect to the composition and activities of advisory bodies in the executive and legislative branches.
Building on the expansion of information channels, Thailand could further harmonise and clarify information-request procedures for citizens and strengthen the independence of the Information Commission to ensure sustained and effective access to public information
Thailand could consider including in the new Official Information Law guidance for citizens requesting public information and a more detailed mandate and requirements for the Information Commission.
The 2021 Integrity Review noted that Thailand’s framework for transparency and access to information has faced several challenges, particularly with regards to the clarity and accessibility of procedures for citizens seeking public data (OECD, 2021[5]). The Official Information Act B.E 2540 (1997), that allows people to request official information from a state agency, was noted to lack detailed guidance on request processes, timelines, and institutional obligations, limiting its effectiveness. The structure and capacity of the Official Information Commission also raised concerns, as it convened infrequently, lacked enforcement authority, and was closely tied to the executive, affecting its independence. Efforts such as the GovChannel platform2 marked progress in centralising access to information, though significant gaps remained in terms of data availability. Comparisons with international practices, such as those in Mexico and Indonesia, highlighted potential avenues for strengthening Thailand’s legal and institutional frameworks. These included the strengthening and further promotion of the independence of Thailand’s Information Commissioner (OECD, 2021[5]).
Under the Official Information Act B.E. 2540 (1997) (hereafter: Official Information Act) authorities are required to provide public access to a broad range of information upon request, including cabinet resolutions, agency structures, policies, regulations and budgets (Government of Thailand, 1997[21]). However, the Act does not provide detailed information regarding the specific procedure concerning how to request information (OECD, 2022[18]). Section 11 of the Act only stipulates that the request has to be comprehensible and cannot be for an excessive amount of information or made too frequently without reasonable cause (Government of Thailand, 1997[21]). An Official Information Board oversees the disclosure process and manages appeals against information request denials. The Act permits authorities to withhold information that could harm the monarchy (Section 14), or that might threaten national security, international relations, law enforcement, or individual privacy (Section 15). However, citizens can also submit appeals against refusals to disclose information (Section 18) to Information Disclosure Tribunals (IDTs) or the Official Information Board (OECD, 2022[18]).
In March 2021, the Cabinet approved amendments to the Official Information Act. These draft amendments were subsequently submitted to the House of Representatives for consideration. Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and journalists expressed criticism over the draft amendments, stating that they threatened to severely curb freedom of information. A key concern with the draft amendments were their proposed expansion of the types of information that can be withheld. Moreover, they also proposed to introduce penalties, up to 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine of 200 000 baht (EUR 5400), for any individual who discloses such restricted information (Sutthichaya and Wongsaranon, 2021[22]; iLaw, 2021[23]). Following the dissolution of the House on 20 March 2023, the draft amendments to the Official Information Act lapsed in accordance with Section 147 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2560 (2017).3 Consequently, the Official Information Act remains in place without any amendments.
While the Official Information Act does not include a description of the form the request should follow nor what type of requests (e.g. paper copy, electronic reproduction or inspection of files) are permitted (OECD, 2022[18]), the Act on the Carrying Out of Public Service via Electronic Means B.E. 2565 (2022) has streamlined the process for accessing official information. The 2022 Act requires all public agencies to accept electronically submitted applications, including those seeking access to official records (OCS, 2022[24]). It also mandates that agencies must process and respond to such requests through electronic means. As a result, citizens are now legally entitled to request official information from any public agency via digital means, such as email, and receive timely electronic responses (OCS, 2022[24]).
The Official Information Act does not specify the exact place or channels to submit information requests. While the Office of the Official Information Commission (OIC) provides a downloadable template form on their website, other institutions and agencies can use their own forms to help file requests (OECD, 2022[18]). The OIC also provides information on public information rights under the Official Information Act on its website (www.oic.go.th), including e-learning modules and videos. In accordance with the Official Information Act, the Secretariat of the Senate has established an Information Centre to serve as a central point for public access to official information via a request system (Senate, 2025[25]).
While Thailand has made clear progress in improving access to information through electronic means, notably by providing request templates on the OIC’s website and through the Senate’s Information Centre, the current variety of channels and request formats can appear overwhelming and disorganised. OECD best practices show that it is crucial to provide citizens with information on how and where to request government information to enable and guide them on their quest for public information (OECD, 2022[18]). A first step toward harmonising procedures could be the development of a single, standardised online request form (OECD, 2022[18]) made available across all agency websites. In addition, the respective roles of GovChannel and the Senate’s Information Centre should be clarified and streamlined to ensure citizens know which platform serves as the primary access point for information requests. Additionally, more detailed information should be provided regarding the specific procedure concerning how to request information (OECD, 2022[18]).
Furthermore, the Official Information Commission continues to face several limitations as noted in the 2021 Integrity Review: it has minimal staffing, meets only three to four times per year, does not issue binding decisions, and lacks authority over other agencies. The Information Commissioner, who chairs the Commission, is appointed by and dependent on the Prime Minister’s Office, changing with each administration (OECD, 2021[5]). These factors compromise the Commission’s independence. Moreover, the Commission does not issue binding decisions and does not have a mandate or authority over other agencies. Independent oversight bodies should have their own budgets, appointment criteria, and autonomy from the executive branch (OECD, 2020[2]).
Indeed, stakeholders consulted for this report noted that the mandate of the Official Information Commission will be reassessed in the ongoing ex post review of the Official Information Law. Although earlier reform efforts did not come to fruition, Thailand could now use the ex post review to develop concrete recommendations for legal amendments aimed at strengthening the independence of the Information Commissioner, for example by introducing clear appointment criteria and providing an independent budget, as already recommended in the 2021 Review (OECD, 2021[5]). Furthermore, the ex‑post review of the Official Information Act could serve as a basis for broader reform towards clarifying and streamlining procedures for information requests, as well as strengthen proactive transparency and open access, thereby advancing toward an open government, understood as “a culture of governance that promotes the principles of transparency, integrity, accountability and stakeholder participation in support of democracy and inclusive growth” (OECD, 2017[1]). Any changes should align with and complement the Act on the Carrying Out of Public Service via Electronic Means B.E. 2565, ensuring coherence between transparency rules and digital public service delivery. Moreover, reform efforts should not move in a direction that restricts or limits access to information, as was concerningly the case with certain proposed draft amendments to the Official Information Act (see above).
With the launch of the Central Law Portal, Thailand has taken an important step towards establishing a legislative footprint; it could now build on this progress by further enhancing the Portal’s functionality, ensuring timely and systematic updates, improving user experience, and integrating direct links to existing cabinet meeting summaries and parliamentary broadcasts
Thailand could consider providing a legislative footprint and making legislative discussions open to the public.
The 2021 Integrity Review highlighted that many OECD countries have adopted transparency measures such as "legislative footprints," which document interactions between legislators and stakeholders during the policymaking process. The Review found that although Thailand has made strides in enhancing public access to and understanding of legislation, its policies primarily emphasise citizens’ compliance rather than transparency in decision-making. To build greater citizen trust, Thailand was recommended to increase transparency by providing detailed information about legislative processes, including discussions in committees and consultations with stakeholders (OECD, 2021[5]).
Since its launch in August 2021, the Central Law Portal for public consultation enables citizens to track the progress of draft legislation and regulations throughout the enactment process and to contact the agency responsible for each legislative project. However, stakeholders in fact-finding interviews emphasised that the effectiveness of the Portal depends on agencies consistently updating the status of draft legislation. Public agencies are required not only to conduct public consultations through the Central Law Portal but also to publish the results of those consultations on the platform. These results should include opinions submitted via the portal as well as feedback gathered through other consultation methods.
The Act on Legislative Drafting and Evaluation of Legislation B.E. 2562 (2019) also requires the Central Law Portal to have a database of registered stakeholders. The agencies would then have access to this database and could reach out to relevant registered stakeholders for their respective consultation. These interactions would then be recorded for public scrutiny. However, stakeholders consulted for this report noted that this feature is still pending due to several legal and practical obstacles.
In addition, the Government of Thailand’s website publishes summaries of cabinet meetings in its news section after they take place. Moreover, both the House of Representatives and the Senate provide live broadcasts of debates in parliamentary sessions, allowing the general public to listen to discussions on draft laws and other matters under consideration.4. Overall, Thailand has made positive steps towards providing citizens information on different legislative stages.
However, in its current form, the Central Law Portal appears to be in a preliminary, beta-like stage rather than fully operational. While the intended features are promising, technical issues, such as non-functional links and incomplete sections, limit its effectiveness. To realise its full potential, further investment is needed to enhance the platform’s functionality, ensure timely content updates, and improve overall user experience. Additionally, to streamline existing materials, the Central Law Portal could provide links or references to existing cabinet meeting summaries and live broadcasts of parliamentary sessions.
Building on existing efforts to promote transparency, Thailand may reconsider requiring policymakers to make their agendas open and accessible to the public
Thailand may consider requiring policy makers to make their agendas open and accessible to the public.
The 2021 Integrity Review noted that in Thailand there were no regulations or guidelines that require or suggest that public officials involved in regulatory processes make their agendas available to the public. Thus, it was recommended that the Thai Government consider including such a disposition in the draft amendments to the Official Information Act B.E 2540 (1997). Additionally, the Review suggested for a similar requirement to be discussed in the Ethics Committee of the House of Representatives and included in the rules of procedure or the future code of conduct for parliamentarians (OECD, 2021[5]).
Since 2021 no progress has been made in ensuring the publication of policymakers’ agendas, which would allow the public to see whom officials are meeting and the topics under discussion. The Codes of Ethics of both the Senate and the House of Representatives have remained unchanged and still do not require the publication of officials’ agendas (House of Representatives, 2020[10]; Senate, 2020[9]). Likewise, the 2024 Code of Ethics for Parliamentary Officials contains no provision requiring that their agendas be made publicly accessible. However, the Code empowers the Ethics Committee to issue regulations necessary for its implementation. One such regulation could introduce a requirement to disclose agendas, potentially through publication on the website, as a way to enhance transparency and uphold the principles of the Code.
Overall, the recommendation from the 2021 Integrity Review remains valid: Thailand may consider requiring public officials involved in regulatory processes to make their agendas publicly accessible. As was already suggested in the 2021 Integrity Review, a provision to make policy makers agenda public could be introduced in the context of reforming the Official Information Act (OECD, 2021[5]). As an alternative, the Ethics Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate could consider recommending the publication of agendas as a measure for the effective implementation of their respective Codes of Ethics. Across the OECD, several countries have adopted an “open agenda” approach in line with the Public Integrity Indicators, under which ministers’ agendas are published online and clearly disclose whom the minister met, in what capacity, and the subject matter discussed during each meeting (see examples from the UK and Spain in Box 6.2) (OECD, 2025[26]).
Open agendas initiatives in Spain
In Spain, the agendas of elected members of the government have been published online since 2012, on the government website. The agenda lists daily the visits and meetings in which members of the government participate. Each item discloses at least:
the minister in charge, and other minister(s) assisting
the time of the meeting
the organisation met or visited
In October 2020, the Boards of both Houses of the Spanish Parliament adopted a Code of Conduct for members of the Congress and the Senate, which requires the publication of the senators’ and deputies' agendas, including their meetings with lobbyists. An agenda section is available on the webpage dedicated to each deputy.
Diaries available in the United Kingdom
In the UK, the Ministerial Code requires cabinet ministers to make their ministerial diaries available to the public. The relevant Department publishes them on a quarterly basis. The information details ministers’ external meetings and any meeting with newspaper and other media proprietors, editors and senior executives, regardless of the purpose of the meeting. The Code of Conduct for Special Advisors also requires special advisors to disclose meetings with newspaper and other media proprietors, editors and senior executives, on a quarterly basis.
Source: OECD (2021[27]), Lobbying in the 21st Century: Transparency, Integrity and Access, https://doi.org/10.1787/c6d8eff8-en.
Despite general efforts towards increasing transparency, Thailand could take more concrete steps relating to advisory bodies in the executive and legislative branches by publicly disclosing their membership and activities
Thailand could consider increasing the level of transparency with respect to the composition and activities of advisory bodies in the executive and legislative branches.
The 2021 Integrity Review noted that Thailand could enhance transparency around the composition and activities of advisory bodies within its executive and legislative branches, which play a significant role in shaping public policy. Although these bodies, ranging from institutionalised groups like the Joint Public and Private Sector Consultative Committee to ad-hoc parliamentary committees are central to decision making, the Review found that there was limited public access to information about their members, meetings, and outputs. This lack of transparency was found to raise risks of undue influence and to weaken public trust. The Review suggested that Thailand could introduce clear regulations to ensure public disclosure of committee membership, meeting minutes, and advisory outputs. Measures could also include balanced stakeholder representation, stricter conflict-of-interest rules, helping to safeguard integrity and accountability in the policymaking process (OECD, 2021[5]).
Since the 2021 Integrity Review, there has not been any notable progress in increasing the level of transparency with respect to the composition and activities of advisory bodies in the executive and legislative branches in Thailand. Despite their varied relevance and functioning (either as institutionalised, long-term bodies, such as the Joint Public and Private Sector Consultative Committee, or as more informal and ad-hoc entities, such as the sub-committees within the National Research Council), these advisory bodies are key in decision making and should therefore be subject to high standards of transparency and integrity (OECD, 2021[5]).
In fact, the capture of such advisory groups by private interests to exert influence has been identified as an emerging risk to the integrity of policy making. When, for example, corporate executives advise governments as members of an advisory group, they act not as external lobbyists or stakeholders, but as part of the policymaking process with direct access to decision makers (OECD, 2014[28]). Therefore, the OECD Recommendation on Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying and Influence clearly recommends Adherents to “implement transparency and integrity frameworks for all those that provide advice to the government, notably advisory and expert groups […]” (OECD, 2024[4]). Hence, the recommendation from the 2021 Integrity Review remains that the Government of Thailand could consider developing clear regulations regarding its advisory bodies and establish transparency criteria for their composition and advice provided to policy makers. Ireland’s Transparency Code for working groups and Norway’s guidelines on the use of independent advisory committees may serve as useful examples in that regard (Box 6.3).
Transparency Code for working groups in Ireland
In Ireland, any working group set up by a minister or public service body that includes at least one designated public official and at least one person from outside the public service, and which reviews, assesses or analyses any issue of public policy with a view to reporting on it to the Minister of the Government or the public service body, must comply with a Transparency Code.
The following information must be published on the website of the public body on its establishment:
names of chairperson and members, with details of their employing organisation (if they are representing a group of stakeholders, this should be stated)
whether any members who are not public servants were formerly public officials
terms of reference of the group
expected timeframe for the group to conclude its work
reporting arrangements
In addition, the agenda and minutes of each meeting must be published and updated at least every four months. The chairperson must include with the final or annual report of the group a statement confirming its compliance with the Transparency Code. If the requirements of the Code are not adhered to, interactions within the group are considered to be a lobbying activity under the Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015.
Guidelines on the use of independent advisory committees in Norway
The Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation has developed guidelines entitled “Committee Work in the State. A guide for leaders, members, and secretaries in government study committees”. Regarding the composition of these committees, the document specifies that there needs to be a balanced composition of interests:
“- If the committee is to help clarify issues that are subject to academic disagreement, it is important that the composition is not skewed from an academic standpoint.
- If the goal of the committee, in addition to acquiring knowledge, is to agree on common goals and values, it is important that the composition reflects different interests, experiences and standpoints.” (Government of Norway, 2024[29])
Regarding conflict of interest, the document warns that the work method and the effectiveness of an advisory committee can be weakened by members who cannot comment on an independent basis and constantly need to clarify the assessments with the business or organisation to which they belong. As a result, the guidelines specifies that members should “explain any commitments that may involve conflict of interests”.
Sources: Government of Ireland (2015[30]), Transparency Code, Prepared in Accordance with Section 5(7) of the Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015, https://www.lobbying.ie/media/5986/2015-08-06-transparency-code-eng.pdf; Government of Norway (2024[29]), Utvalgsarbeid i staten, https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/utvalgsarbeid-i-staten/id2629750/.
The 2021 Integrity Review recommended that Thailand strengthen enforcement and awareness around stakeholder engagement by creating a centralised platform that consolidates public consultation information and statistical data, allowing for clearer insights across agencies and consultation mechanisms. It also urged the government to enhance citizen participation in lawmaking by launching awareness-raising and communication campaigns on how to propose legislative bills, helping citizens understand procedural requirements, improve proposal quality, and engage more meaningfully in the legislative process.
This section takes stock of recent developments regarding the following proposals for action included in the 2021 Integrity Review, aimed at strengthening enforcement and stakeholder engagement awareness raising:
Thailand could further its efforts to centralise and systematise all information (including statistical data) concerning public consultations by developing a single platform.
Thailand may develop awareness-raising campaigns and communication efforts to strengthen citizens’ rights to introduce legislation.
While Thailand has made significant progress with the launch of the Central Law Portal, enhanced efforts are needed to further centralise and systematise all information (including statistical data) concerning public consultations on the Portal
Thailand could further its efforts to centralise and systematise all information (including statistical data) concerning public consultations by developing a single platform.
The 2021 Integrity Review acknowledged Thailand’s efforts to centralise and systematise information on public consultations on one single platform, which would help address the issue that this information is still being disaggregated by State agencies. The absence of centralised statistical data was found to limit effective performance assessment and public accessibility. Therefore, the 2021 Review recommended that Thailand enhance its efforts by developing a single platform that includes comprehensive statistical data, enabling the identification of trends, weaknesses, and comparative analysis across issues, agencies, and consultation mechanisms.
In 2021, Thailand launched the Central Law Portal, providing a centralised interface that compiles all ongoing public consultations of the administration (DGA, 2025[16]).The Central Law Portal does indeed provide some statistical data, including for example the number of government agencies conducting public consultations or draft legislation open for public consultation per year.5 Nevertheless, the Central Law Portal in its current version has not centralised all (statistical) data on consultations. In fact, the Parliament also hosts a platform for submitting opinions on draft laws, which also discloses data and statistics on the number of draft acts that have undergone public hearings (Parliament of Thailand, 2025[31]). Furthermore, Thailand’s Digital Government Development Agency (DGA) is running an open government data portal, which contains more than 11 000 open datasets, and numerous guides and resources that can help government agencies publish open data (ODI, 2024[32]).
In fact-finding questionnaires for this report, the Senate noted that information related to public consultations remains scattered across multiple agencies and platforms, including various ministries and government bodies with their own websites. Furthermore, the Senate stated that centralising consultation data remains challenging due to inconsistencies in the types and formats of information collected across agencies, the use of incompatible technologies, limited budgets for developing a comprehensive central platform, and a shortage of skilled IT personnel needed to manage and integrate such systems effectively.
While Thailand has made significant strides with the launch of the Central Law Portal, there remains room for further streamlining statistics and data on public consultations. Thus, Thailand could enhance efforts to centralise and systematise all information (including statistical data) concerning public consultations on the Central Law Portal.
Given uneven levels of public awareness about engagement channels, Thailand could intensify awareness-raising campaigns and communication efforts to strengthen citizens’ rights to introduce legislation
Thailand may develop awareness-raising campaigns and communication efforts to strengthen citizens’ rights to introduce legislation.
The 2021 Integrity Review found that Thailand grants its citizens the right to propose legislative bills, a practice in line with many OECD countries. However, the Review found that this mechanism has proven largely ineffective, with only ten citizen-initiated bills submitted since 1997 and none passing due to technical issues and lack of political support. To address these challenges and strengthen citizen participation in lawmaking, the Review proposed the conduct of awareness-raising and communication campaigns to educate the public on legislative requirements and processes (OECD, 2021[5]). Such efforts would enhance citizens’ understanding of their rights, improve the quality of proposals, and encourage more meaningful engagement in shaping public policy (OECD, 2021[5]).
The Act on Legislative Drafting and Evaluation of Legislation B.E. 2562 (2019) mandates that the Central Law Platform provides a channel for receiving petitions or recommendations from the public and relevant organisations regarding the repeal, reform, or amendment of existing laws (OECD, 2025[15]). Since 2022, the Central Law Portal has also expanded its usage to include public consultation on subordinate regulations (OECD, 2025[15]). In alignment with the original intent of the legislation, the OCS highlights that the Central Law Platform is designed to accept submissions in the form of general concepts, identified issues, or societal “pain points,” rather than requiring the submission of fully developed draft legislation. This inclusive approach aims to foster broader public engagement by reducing barriers to participation.
Stakeholders highlighted results from a perceptions survey of 300 participants conducted by OCS, which showed that half of respondents were unaware that they had the right to provide input or participate in consultations on policy matters. Notably, younger participants generally perceived opportunities for engagement as easier. Thai stakeholders interviewed for this report recognised the limitations of online consultations, noting that they cannot reach all groups, and expressed a clear determination to increase participation in consultation processes over the next five years.
Indeed, meaningful stakeholder engagement safeguards the public interest, enhances the inclusiveness of policies, inspires ownership over policy outcomes and can also support innovative solutions (OECD, 2017[3]). A prerequisite for successful stakeholder engagement is the effective communication about it, which enables every stage of the participatory process, from mobilising citizens to promoting transparency and strengthening public understanding of the policy issues at stake (OECD, 2022[20]). In particular, all stakeholders must be granted equal and fair opportunities to be informed and consulted, and actively engaged throughout all phases of the policy cycle, with specific efforts dedicated to reaching the most relevant, vulnerable, underrepresented or marginalised groups in society (OECD, 2017[1]). In Thailand, there remains significant room for improvement in public and private organisations’ understanding of the rules and procedures for consulting on draft legislation and policymaking. Thus, the recommendation from 2021 remains that Thailand could strengthen its awareness-raising efforts to help citizens better understand consultation processes and more effectively articulate their interests to policymakers.
Fostering regulations on stakeholder engagement and participation in policymaking
Consider the development of comprehensive rules governing interactions between stakeholders and public officials.
Expand opportunities for public participation earlier in the policymaking cycle by providing clear guidance to public agencies on consultation processes and timelines and by promoting consultation methods that facilitate timely, inclusive and comprehensive feedback from a broad and diverse range of stakeholders.
Promoting transparency and access to information on decision making
Use the ex-post review of the Official Information Act to develop concrete recommendations for legal amendments aimed at strengthening the independence of the Information Commissioner.
Further invest in enhancing the Central Law Portal’s functionality, ensuring timely updates, improving user experience, and integrating links to existing cabinet meeting summaries and parliamentary broadcasts.
Consider requiring public officials involved in regulatory processes to make their agendas publicly accessible.
Develop clear regulations regarding advisory bodies in executive and legislative branches and establish transparency criteria regarding their composition and the advice they provide to policy makers.
Strengthening enforcement and stakeholder engagement awareness raising
Enhance efforts to centralise and systematise all information (including statistical data) concerning public consultations on the Central Law Portal.
Strengthen awareness-raising efforts to help citizens better understand consultation processes and more effectively articulate their interests to policymakers.
References
[16] DGA (2025), “Central Law Portal”, Thailand Digital Government Development Agency, https://law.go.th/.
[30] Government of Ireland (2015), Transparency Code, Prepared in Accordance with Section 5(7) of the Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015, https://www.lobbying.ie/media/5986/2015-08-06-transparency-code-eng.pdf.
[29] Government of Norway (2024), Utvalgsarbeid i staten, https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/utvalgsarbeid-i-staten/id2629750/.
[21] Government of Thailand (1997), Official Information Act B.E. 2540 (1997), https://www.rdpb.go.th/MediaUploader/images/staticpage_office_ORDPB/ORDPB%20Information%20Centre/act40_EN.pdf.
[8] House of Representatives (2025), Report on Establishing a No Gift Policy Culture, https://web.parliament.go.th/assets/portals/9/fileups/228/files/%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%A3%E0%B9%89%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%92%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%98%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%A1 No Gift Policy.pdf.
[10] House of Representatives (2020), Regulations concerning the Code of Ethics of Members of the House of Representatives and Committees, https://www.senate.go.th/assets/portals/93/fileups/253/files/Ethics_hr2563.pdf.
[23] iLaw (2021), “New Draft of the Information Act: License to Conceal Public Information”, https://www.ilaw.or.th/articles/4643.
[24] OCS (2022), Act on Carrying Out of Public Service via Electronic Means, B.E. 2565 (2022) (Unofficial Translation), Office of the Council of State, https://lawreform.go.th/uploads/files/1667961793-fzd72-1f3cw.pdf.
[32] ODI (2024), Empowering Thailand’s digital government with open data, Open Data Institute, https://theodi.org/insights/reports/empowering-thailands-digital-government-with-open-data/.
[12] OECD (2025), OECD Public Integrity Indicators, OECD, Paris, https://oecd-public-integrity-indicators.org/.
[26] OECD (2025), Public Integrity Indicators, OECD, Paris, https://oecd-public-integrity-indicators.org/indicators/1000097/subindicators/1000404.
[15] OECD (2025), Regulatory Reform in Thailand: Reinforcing an Effective Regulatory Environment, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7892759c-en.
[7] OECD (2024), Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/968587cd-en.
[6] OECD (2024), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results: Building Trust in a Complex Policy Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en.
[4] OECD (2024), Recommendation of the Council on Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying and Influence, OECD/LEGAL/0379, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0379.
[17] OECD (2023), Open Government for Stronger Democracies: A Global Assessment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5478db5b-en.
[20] OECD (2022), OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.
[18] OECD (2022), Open and Connected Government Review of Thailand, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e1593a0c-en.
[27] OECD (2021), Lobbying in the 21st Century: Transparency, Integrity and Access, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c6d8eff8-en.
[5] OECD (2021), OECD Integrity Review of Thailand 2021: Achieving Effective Integrity Policies and Sustained Reform, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e8949f1b-en.
[19] OECD (2020), Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en.
[2] OECD (2020), OECD Public Integrity Handbook, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ac8ed8e8-en.
[1] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Open Government, OECD/LEGAL/0438, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/public/doc/359/359.en.pdf.
[3] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity, OECD/LEGAL/0435, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0435.
[28] OECD (2014), Lobbyists, Governments and Public Trust, Volume 3: Implementing the OECD Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264214224-en.
[13] Office of the Council of State (2019), Act on Legislative Drafting and Evaluation of Legislation B.E. 2562 (2019), https://www.lawreform.go.th/uploads/files/1679990577-pxqwu-qsydx.pdf.
[14] Our World in Data (2024), Civil Society Participation Index, 2004 to 2024, https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/civil-society-participation-index?tab=chart&time=2004..latest&country=~THA&mapSelect=~THA.
[31] Parliament of Thailand (2025), “Bill open for public comment under Article 77 of the Constitution”, https://www.parliament.go.th/section77/index.php.
[25] Senate (2025), Government Information Center, https://www.senate.go.th/view/13/%E0%B8%A8%E0%B8%B9%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%A2%E0%B9%8C%E0%B8%82%E0%B9%89%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%B9%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%82%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A3/TH-TH.
[9] Senate (2020), Regulations Concerning the Code of Ethics of Members of the Senate and Committees B.E. 2563 (2020), https://www.senate.go.th/assets/portals/93/fileups/253/files/Ethics_Senate2563.pdf.
[22] Sutthichaya, Y. and S. Wongsaranon (2021), “New Official Information Law allows more government secrecy”, Prachatai.com, https://prachataienglish.com/node/9193.
[11] Thailand Parliamentary Ethics Committee (2024), Code of Ethics for Parliamentary Officials, https://web.parliament.go.th/assets/portals/52/news/2492/1_2492.pdf.
← 1. At the time of writing this Review, no additional information had been made available concerning the status of the ex-post review of the 2019 Act.
← 2. The Information Center for Government Contact provides information on contacting government agencies in the form of a public manual, which will help facilitate the public in the search for information, preparation for studying the process of using the service, as well as being able to express their satisfaction after receiving the service for the evaluation of the achievement of government services (https://info.go.th/question-answer).
← 3. Based on responses provided to the fact-finding questionnaire.
← 4. Live broadcast of Senate: SenateChannel Thai. An example of a live broadcast of a House of Representatives meeting can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJNz3iyOcdg&t=68s.