Building on the recommendations of the 2018 Integrity Review of Thailand, this chapter identifies the adoption of the Ethical Standards Act (2019) as a key milestone in fostering and mainstreaming a culture of integrity across the public administration. Nevertheless, further efforts are needed to enhance co-ordination between the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the Office of the Civil Service Commission, and the Public Sector Anti‑Corruption Commission, particularly regarding awareness-raising, training, and the development of practical guidance to help officials understand ethical principles and translate them into daily behaviour.
Advancing Public Integrity in Thailand
Recent Progress and Priorities for Reform
Abstract
The OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity sets out the main pillars for building a culture of integrity in the public sector (OECD, 2017[1]). A holistic approach to public integrity requires going beyond laws and regulations and ensuring public values are deeply rooted in the behaviour of individuals and organisational structures (OECD, 2017[1]) (OECD, 2020[2]). This includes a shared and accepted understanding of ethical standards, norms and values, as well as developing and adhering to practical tools to implement them. Therefore, cultivating a culture of integrity includes providing guidance and training for public officials to apply integrity standards in the workplace (OECD, 2017[1]).
Chapter 2 of the 2018 Integrity Review found that, although the Code of Professional Ethics for Civil Servants had been generally known within the Thai public sector, civil servants would benefit from a more comprehensive training programme to support the application of the Code in their daily duties. It was recommended that the Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) assume a consolidated mandate for public sector integrity, including leading a review of the Code of Professional Ethics for Civil Servants and taking primary responsibility for ethics training and awareness-raising among civil servants. Additionally, it was recommended that the Office of the Civil Service Commission (OCSC) could focus on integrating public integrity into human resource management (HRM) processes across the public service, including recruitment and career development. The present chapter takes stock of the implementation of recommendations formulated in the 2018 Integrity Review and makes proposals for further action.
The 2018 Integrity Review assessed Thailand’s policies and practices for promoting integrity across the public service and highlighted several areas for improvement. It recommended strengthening guidance on the Code of Professional Ethics for the Civil Service, particularly by giving the PACC a clearer lead role in training, advice and oversight, while also better integrating integrity into human resource management and ensuring more consistent enforcement of standards. The 2018 Integrity Review further called for a more robust monitoring and evaluation framework for integrity policies. This section takes stock of recent developments in implementing these recommendations.
While consolidation of institutional mandates is no longer necessary following the adoption of the Ethical Standards Act, increasing coordination among relevant agencies would help maximise the impact of integrity training and awareness raising efforts
Thailand could consolidate its anti-corruption training and awareness-raising efforts for the public sector in PACC, which should be the leading agency for drafting and reviewing the Code of Professional Ethics for Civil Servants.
The 2018 Integrity Review found that civil servants are generally familiar with the Code of Professional Ethics for Civil Servants. However, they struggle to apply its abstract principles in real-life situations (OECD, 2018[3]). The 2018 Integrity Review also underlined that the NACC, PACC, and OCSC conduct ethics training and awareness-raising activities, but the quality, content, and format vary, and their impact is not measured. There has been little co-ordination amongst the three institutions in developing curriculums, training materials, or monitoring systems, leading to inefficiencies and duplication of effort.
This has hindered the effective promotion and implementation of integrity standards among Thai civil servants. It was therefore recommended that the PACC be granted a consolidated mandate for public sector integrity, encompassing the review of the Code of Professional Ethics for Civil Servants as well as the development of ethics training and awareness-raising initiatives for civil servants. This would ensure consistent messaging, aligned curricula, and efficient use of resources, such as developing online courses (OECD, 2018[3]).
In 2019, Thailand enacted the Ethical Standards Act B.E. 2562 (2019), which sets out seven core ethical principles to guide the development of ethical codes within all government agencies (Box 3.1) (OCSC, 2019[4]). Thus, the Act serves as a baseline for ethical norms that state agencies must include when drafting Codes of Ethics for their respective personnel. This ensures consistency and a uniform standard of ethical conduct across the public sector, in alignment with Section 76, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2560 (2017) (OCSC, 2019[4]).
“Section 5: Ethical Standard means the criteria for moral behaviour of state officials, which shall consist of the followings:
- to adhere to the principal institutions of the country, namely, the nation, the religion, the King and the democratic form of government with the King as Head of State
- to have honesty, integrity, good conscience and responsibility
- to be courageous in making decisions and acting morally
- to think more of the common good than of one’s own individual gain and have public mind
- to have result-based determination
- to perform duties on fairly and without unfair discrimination
- to be a good role model and maintain the good image of public service.
The ethical standard under paragraph one shall be used as the main principles in enacting the Code of Ethics of state agencies prescribing the criteria in performing duties of state officials which relates to morality, to be moral maintained by state officials in performing duties, a judgment of right and wrong, a decent or indecent act including the maintenance of virtue and avoidance of vice.”
Source: OCSC (2019[4]), Ethical Standard Act, B.E. 2562 (2019), เล่ม 1 พ.ร.บ ทางจริยธรรม_ภ.อังกฤษ แก้ไข ล่าสุด 140920 แก้คำผิด.indd
As mentioned above, the Ethical Standards Act prescribes that central personnel administration agencies have the duty to create Codes of Ethics for public officials. Central personnel administration agencies include the Civil Service Commission, the Committee for Civil Service in Higher Education Institutions, Teacher Civil Service and Educational Personnel Commission and the Police Commission, amongst others (OCSC, 2019[4]). As of February 2025, more than 20 state agencies have enacted their own Codes of Ethics in alignment with the Ethical Standards Act (OCSC, 2025[5]).
The OCSC, as the central personnel administration agency for civil servants, developed in 2021 a new Code of Ethics for Civil Servants (Box 3.2), replacing the previous Civil Service Code of Ethics from 2009.
Thailand’s Code of Ethics for Civil Servants, developed by the Office of the Civil Service Commission (OCSC), outlines seven core ethical principles that civil servants must adhere to:
Loyalty to the Nation’s pillars – Upholding the Nation, Religion, Monarchy, and democratic governance with the King as Head of State.
Integrity and honesty – Performing duties lawfully, transparently, and accountably, and rejecting corruption or abuse of power.
Moral courage – Making fair decisions, opposing wrongdoing, and exercising discretion free from bias or personal interest.
Public interest over self-interest– Avoiding conflicts of interest and maintaining a clear boundary between private and official roles.
Effectiveness and Accountability – Ensuring efficiency, effectiveness, and value in public service delivery, including appropriate use of technology.
Fairness and impartiality – Acting without discrimination and maintaining political neutrality.
Role model and Public Trust – Upholding the dignity of the civil service and gaining public trust through respectful, modest, and disciplined behaviour.
The Code applies not only to civil servants, but also to board members, government employees, contract staff, and other public officials under the civil service system. It also requires that civil servants who are subject to additional professional codes of conduct comply with both the general and profession-specific standards.
Moreover, the Code stipulates under clause 4 that guidelines for the conduct of civil servants under this Code of Ethics shall be as prescribed by the Office of the Civil Service Commission (OCSC).
Note: This summary is based on an unofficial English translation.
Source: OCSC (2021[6]), Code of Ethics for Civil Servants, https://www.ocsc.go.th/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/pramwlcchriythrrmkhaaraachkaarphleruue.pdf.
In accordance with clause 4 of the Civil Service Code of Ethics, the OCSC has established Guidelines for the Conduct of Civil Servants to supplement the ethical standards prescribed in the Code. These guidelines consist of a list of “dos and don’ts” to guide civil servants’ behaviour (OCSC, 2021[7]).
Civil servants must consistently uphold ethical standards and conduct themselves with integrity and moral virtue by adhering to the following dos and don’ts.
Dos
- Be loyal to the nation, take pride in being Thai, protect national interests, and safeguard confidential matters related to national security.
- Participate in the development of the country, contributing to its progress and prosperity.
- Apply the moral principles of one’s respected religion in performing official duties.
- Promote and support religious activities, preserve and uphold the religion, and contribute to its sustainable development.
- Show respect, loyalty, and devotion to the monarchy, support and participate in royal celebration activities and events.
- Perform official duties with honesty, integrity, transparency, and accountability.
- […]
Don’ts
- Do not engage in any conduct that tarnishes the image or reputation of the nation.
- Do not perform any act that could threaten or undermine national security.
- Do not express words, gestures, or actions that insult, belittle, or show disrespect toward any religion.
- Do not obstruct or interfere with religious observances or the maintenance and promotion of religion.
- Do not behave, speak, or act in any way that shows disrespect or disloyalty toward the monarchy.
- Do not seek or accept personal benefits through improper or unethical means.
- […]
Source: OCSC (2021[7]), Guidelines for the Conduct of Civil Servants under the Civil Servants’ Code of Ethics,
ว92564-แนวทางการปฏิบัติตนของข้าราชการพลเรือนตามประมวลจริยธรรมข้าราชการพลเรือน.pdf.
Section 20 of the Ethical Standards Act (2019) stipulates that state agencies are responsible to oversee the implementation of their Codes of Ethics in accordance with the Act. As such, state agencies are also empowered to organise training programmes, promote understanding, and establish incentive measures to encourage and reinforce ethical behaviour among government officials. Additionally, they may establish measures to address violations of ethical standards or non-compliance with the Code of Ethics as part of broader personnel management, in accordance with the regulations applicable to each specific category of state official (OCSC, 2019[4]).
Moreover, section 8 of the Ethical Standard Act (2019) establishes the Ethical Standards Committee (ETC) as the national-level body responsible to oversee the coherent use of the seven core ethical principles of the Ethical Standards Act across all government agencies. Based on Article 13 of the Ethical Standard Act (2019) the ETC is responsible for advising the Council of Ministers on ethical policies and strategies, setting measures to implement and apply the Code of Ethics across the public sector, and promoting the capacity of state officials to understand and follow ethical standards. Its duties include proposing incentives to strengthen ethical compliance, supervising and evaluating how agencies implement ethical standards and reviewing agencies’ annual reports on ethics. The ETC also interprets and resolves issues arising from the application of the Act and carries out any additional functions assigned by the Council of Ministers (OCSC, 2019[4]).
The ETC is chaired by the Prime Minister or a designated Deputy Prime Minister, with a representative from the Civil Service Commission serving as deputy chair. Its membership includes five ex officio representatives from key personnel commissions, namely, the Committee for Civil Service in Higher Education Institutions, the Teacher Civil Service and Educational Personnel Commission, the Police Commission, the Commission on Local Government Personnel Standards, and the Defence Council, as well as up to five qualified individuals appointed by the Prime Minister. The Secretary-General of the Civil Service Commission serves as both a member and secretary of the ETC, and may designate an officer from the Office of the Civil Service Commission to assist in carrying out the Committee’s functions (OCSC, 2019[4]).
Thailand has made commendable progress in mainstreaming ethical principles across the public sector through the Ethical Standards Act as an overarching framework and the ETC as national-level body ensuring the coherent application of the Ethical Standards Act. However, several national bodies are still involved when it comes to raising awareness and providing training on ethical conduct. As the central agency responsible for personnel administration, the OCSC is tasked with promoting and monitoring compliance with the Code of Ethics for Civil Servants. To this end, the OCSC regularly organises workshops to familiarise public officials with ethical principles (OCSC, 2015[8]). Moreover, OCSC features infographics on its website, explaining each of the seven core principles of the Ethical Standards Act. (OCSC, 2025[9]). In addition to the OCSC, the Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) is the main agency of the executive branch in preventing and suppressing corruption provides training for civil servants and state officials, including courses aimed at strengthening good governance and combating corruption, as well as other related lectures. PACC disseminates information on corruption prevention and suppression, as well as on the implementation and oversight of public policies. Furthermore, the Office of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) also plays a key role in promoting ethical conduct across all sectors, with a focus on preventing misconduct related to conflicts of interest and raising public awareness and understanding of such issues.
Therefore, as was noted in the 2018 Integrity Review, the NACC, PACC, and OCSC each continue to conduct ethics training and awareness-raising activities, with distinct yet complementary mandates. The OCSC focuses on the Code of Ethics, the PACC on the prevention and suppression of corruption, and the NACC on conflicts of interest. However, the overall impact of these efforts could be strengthened through improved co-ordination among the three bodies. Greater co-ordination would enable Thailand to maximise the effectiveness and reach of training and awareness-raising activities.
While progress has been made to develop practical guidance on conflict of interest, Thailand could expand guidance materials to address the full scope of ethical principles under the 2021 Code of Ethics for Civil Servants
To strengthen the application of the Code of Professional Ethics for Civil Service, Thailand should offer civil servants practical examples of ethical dilemmas and include specific guidelines for resolving them.
The 2018 Integrity Review recommended strengthening the practical application of Thailand’s Code of Professional Ethics for Civil Service by providing civil servants with concrete examples of ethical dilemmas and clear guidelines for resolving them, as the framework was often too abstract for everyday use. Developing in-class and online training modules based on practical scenarios was recommended to improve understanding and promote consistent application. The 2018 Integrity Review also found that Anti‑Corruption Operation Centres in several line ministries had issued handbooks on managing conflicts of interest. It recommended that further support from PACC could include mapping common ethical challenges, such as gift-receiving, and promoting practical solutions through the network of Anti-Corruption Operation Centres.
Since then, in 2020, the Office of the NACC has developed a Handbook for Prevention of Conflict of Interest that classifies conflicts of interest into 10 categories and provides guidance to public officials subject to the conflict-of-interest provisions contained under Sections 126 and 127 of the Act on Anti-Corruption B.E. 2561 (2018) (see Chapter 4 on Conflicts of Interest). NACC has developed an online “Course on Prevention of Conflict of Interest”, available on its official website (NACC, 2025[10]). This course is intended for government agencies, state officials, and interested members of the public who wish to strengthen preventive measures within their organisations or deepen their personal understanding of conflict-of-interest prevention (NACC, 2025[10]). Additionally, the NACC provides a comprehensive “anti‑corruption toolbox” on its website, which includes corruption case studies, references to relevant legal frameworks, academic papers, and other useful resources (NACC, 2025[11]).
While the development of these materials is commendable, it would be beneficial to strengthen their linkage with the Ethical Standards Act and related Codes of Ethics, as well as cover other ethical dilemmas and situations not necessarily related to conflict of interest. Currently, these instruments seem to operate in isolation, despite forming part of the broader integrity system in Thailand. An effective code of ethics should be clearly linked to all related documents and legislation that form part of the broader integrity system (OECD, 2020[2]). As stated, NACC’s materials focus primarily on conflicts of interest and do not address the remaining six principles outlined in the Code (see above Box 3.2). Consequently, there remains a significant gap in guidance regarding the overall application of the Code where all seven principles are taken into account.
To better support civil servants in applying the provisions of the Code of Ethics in their daily work, Thailand could develop guidance materials addressing ethical dilemmas more broadly, extending beyond conflict of interest. This initiative could be led by the OCSC, as the agency responsible for the Code of Ethics. In Canada, for example, the government website features “A Discussion Guide to the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector” to “demystify” the Code. The Guide explains the meaning behind each principle in detail and provides examples of ethical dilemmas (Box 3.4).
By recognising that principles from the Public Sector Code only become meaningful when they are not confined to words on a page but become living principles applied daily among public officials, the Discussion Guide was developed with the purpose to:
Demystify the code.
Stimulate thinking and dialogue about how best to apply the values.
Provide examples of how the expected behaviours are demonstrated.
Define key terms.
Answer some common questions about the code.
The Guide is intended to help all public servants integrate the concepts from the Public Sector Code into every aspect of their professional lives, from day-to-day decision-making and policy development to routine operational work, regardless of their level or position.
Below is an example of how the principle of “Respect for People” is elaborated in the Guide:
Source: Government of Canada (2013[12]), Values Alive: A Discussion Guide to the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector, https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/values-ethics/code/values-alive-discussion-guide.html.
Progress has been made to develop practical guidance on conflict of interest; however, Thailand could take steps towards developing more specific guidance, considering at risk factors and positions
To increase prevention and management of conflicts of interest, Thailand should include a definition of conflict of interest in its Code of Professional Ethics for the Civil Service.
This recommendation has been integrated into Chapter 4, which sets out the follow-up analysis and recommendations regarding conflicts of interest prevention and management (see section on “Preventing and managing conflict of interest”).
To strengthen compliance with the provisions of the 2021 Code of Ethics for Civil Servants, OCSC could publish aggregated statistics and case law on sanctions for ethical misconduct
To strengthen compliance with the provisions of the Code of Professional Ethics for Civil Service, PACC and OCSC could disseminate information on the available and the applied sanctions for misconduct.
The 2018 Integrity Review revealed that many civil servants were largely unaware of the disciplinary sanctions outlined in the Civil Service Act, B.E. 2551 (2008), which includes measures such as written reprimands, salary deductions, dismissal, and expulsion. The Review stressed that to promote compliance with the Code of Ethics, it is crucial that civil servants are both informed of these sanctions and see them actively enforced. The Review suggested that the PACC and the OCSC could play a key role in raising awareness by disseminating information on disciplinary procedures. It further recommended publicising anonymised disciplinary cases and related statistics to deter misconduct and strengthen public accountability (see also Chapter 5).
Since 2018, some development can be observed regarding the Integrity Review’s recommendations. The Office of the NACC publishes information on cases involving state officials who have seriously violated ethical standards or committed corruption on its website (www.nacc.go.th), albeit only for corruption related offences.
Moreover, in 2023, the OCSC published “Measures for Handling Cases Where Civil Servants Violate or Fail to Comply with the Civil Service Code of Ethics and the Ethical Regulations of Government Agencies”, which detail how to report, investigate, and sanction ethical misconduct, but not including case law and the type of sanctions imposed to officials. Overall, agencies must report any ethical sanctions imposed to the Office of the Civil Service Commission (OCSC). Therefore, based on this information, the OCSC could publish aggregated statistics and general characteristics of cases of misconduct, as a way to strengthen compliance with the Code, and as the original recommendation suggested (see for example Box 3.5). As already highlighted in the 2018 Integrity Review, such publication would bring several benefits. Firstly, the data could provide evidence of specific risk patterns across sectors or organisations. Secondly, making information about sanctions and management responses publicly available would help dispel perceptions of impunity (OECD, 2018[3]).
In Canada, the Department of Justice published in 2025 its first Annual Report on Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing. The report summarises the cases related to misconduct and wrongdoing during the fiscal year 2024-2025. The objective of this report is to increase visibility on the processes to address allegations of wrongdoing and misconduct.
In 2024–2025, the Department of Justice Canada reported seven confirmed breaches of its departmental Values and Ethics Code, demonstrating a transparent and proportionate approach to addressing misconduct. Breaches fell into three categories:
Inappropriate or unprofessional behaviour (4 cases): Cases included disrespectful communications toward managers, intimidating or belittling language toward colleagues, and aggressive conduct in the workplace. Responses ranged from letters of expectations and administrative measures to progressive discipline, including written reprimands and unpaid suspensions.
Breach of integrity (2 cases): One employee submitted falsified documentation at the time of appointment, resulting in termination following investigation. In another case, an employee attempted to offer a financial settlement without proper authorization; corrective measures are pending.
Undue use of influence or access to resources (1 case): An employee misrepresented themselves to gain unauthorized access to a secure IT room. The matter resulted in a verbal reprimand and a review of access control procedures to prevent recurrence.
By categorising cases and outlining corrective measures, this approach illustrates good practice in promoting ethical culture, proportional accountability and organisational learning.
Source: Department of Justice Canada (2025[13]), First Annual Report on Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing at the Department of Justice 2024-2025, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cp-pm/aramw-ratiar/aramwdj-ratiarmj/docs/cs-25-273-misconduct-and-wrongdoing-report_2024-2025_eng.pdf.
By integrating the implementation of the Code of Ethics into the ITA, Thailand has made significant progress; Thailand would benefit from further refining the criteria within the ITA to more effectively assess civil servants’ understanding and practical application of the Code
Under the leadership of NACC and in consultation with PACC, a systematic review of the implementation of the Code across government agencies should be integrated in the annual Integrity and Transparency Assessment (ITA) of government.
The 2018 Integrity Review recommended that, under the leadership of the NACC and in collaboration with the PACC, the implementation of the Code of Conduct should be integrated into Thailand’s annual Integrity and Transparency Assessment (ITA). At that time, the Code was not linked to the ITA or the National Anti-Corruption Strategy, limiting its impact. Evidence indicated that monitoring the implementation of codes of conduct is associated with a reduction in integrity violations (Chokprajakchat and Sumretphol, 2017[14]). Moreover, the Review argued that integrating the Code into the ITA would also enhance the assessment’s credibility by transforming it from a procedural checklist into a meaningful tool that reflects actual ethical behaviour. This would address a key shortcoming in the National Anti-Corruption Strategy, which currently lacks specific indicators for organisational integrity. The Review suggested that by assessing the implementation of the Code through data on staff training, knowledge assessments, and compliance with policies like gift regulations, the ITA could serve as a meaningful performance indicator for public institutions. This approach would reinforce the message that public integrity and organisational performance are mutually reinforcing, thereby helping to embed integrity standards into daily operations (OECD, 2018[3]).
Interviews conducted for this report underlined that since 2023, public agencies undergo a systematic review of their implementation of the Code of Ethics as part of ITA. Specifically, agencies must implement at least two measures to strengthen institutional ethics. Such measures can include 1) publicly disclosing a Code of Ethics adopted in compliance with the Ethical Standards Act (2019),1 2) the establishment of ethical advisory teams to provide guidance on ethical matters, 3) the development of “Dos and Don’ts” guidelines to clarify acceptable conduct and mitigate ethical grey areas, and 4) the provision of ethics-related training or ethics promotion activities. All such measures are to be aligned with the National Strategy on Ethical Standards and the Promotion of Public Integrity. In Fiscal Year 2025, 442 out of 448 government agencies (98.66%) subject to the Ethical Standards Act (2019) reported having implemented at least two such institutional ethics measures.
By integrating the implementation of the Code of Ethics into the ITA, Thailand has made significant progress and has largely fulfilled the recommendation of the 2018 Integrity Review. However, the assessment criteria primarily measure agencies’ compliance with the Ethical Standards Act (2019), placing less emphasis on evaluating civil servants’ actual understanding and internalisation of ethical standards. At present, two of the four criteria focus on the mere existence of codes and related guidelines. Thailand could consider introducing more detailed assessment questions or criteria to better capture the practical implementation of the Code of Ethics. These should go beyond verifying the mere presence of codes and guidelines and instead emphasise the number, quality, and impact of training sessions and awareness campaigns conducted for civil servants. As suggested in the 2018 Integrity Review, questions to assess the implementation of the Code of Ethics could cover the number of staff trained on integrity issues, number of staff passing knowledge tests on the Code of Ethics, and the level of adherence to the gift policy (OECD, 2018[3]).
Recognising the role of HRM practices in fostering public integrity, the OCSC could further mainstream and operationalise integrity principles throughout human resource processes in the civil service, especially in recruitment and career development
Since human resources management (HRM) practices may contribute to public sector integrity, OCSC could consider further mainstreaming integrity in human resources processes in the civil service, including in recruitment and career enhancement.
The 2018 Integrity Review highlighted that Human Resources management (HRM) play a crucial role in promoting public sector integrity, yet in Thailand, HRM processes, particularly recruitment and career advancement, remain largely disconnected from the public integrity agenda. The Review found that the OCSC, as the lead agency for HRM in the public sector, has significant potential to mainstream integrity into these processes. Recruitment and performance evaluation were identified as the two key entry points through which integrity could be integrated into HRM. The Review suggested that during recruitment, values should be clearly communicated and background checks could be introduced. Moreover, performance evaluations could be used not only discuss objectives and past performance but also as space for transmitting integrity values and expectations and discussing public ethics and conflicts of interest. Finally, including integrity in the criteria for the professional development of the public servants could also be considered.
Little progress has been achieved in this area since 2018. The OCSC’s Guidelines for the Formulation of Ethical Regulations for Government Agencies stipulate that agencies shall integrate ethical behaviour, as set out in the Ethical Standards Act, the Code of Ethics, and the agency’s own ethical regulations, into its personnel management processes, ensuring consistency between ethical principles and human resource practices (OCSC, 2024[15]). During fact-finding interviews conducted or this report, the OCSC noted that the recruitment of civil servants is merit-based and considers candidates’ ethical conduct, ensuring that the process is transparent and accountable. However, there is no evidence of integrity policies being integrated into HRM practices. For example, there is no evidence of any tools being used to assess adherence to and knowledge of ethical principles during recruitment processes and performance reviews (e.g. ethical test as part of the recruitment exam paper, or ethical test applied during promotion processes, or integrity being part of performance assessment).
According to OECD good practices, integrity measures in merit-based systems should cover the selection, appointment and recruitment, but also be integrated throughout the whole career of public servants, including performance management, trainings and development opportunities, pay systems, discipline and dismissal (OECD, 2020[2]). To foster public integrity in the Thai civil service, the recommendation from 2018 remains that the OCSC could enhance the integration of integrity principles throughout civil service HR processes, especially in recruitment and career development.
To strengthen integrity in the legislative branch, Thailand could continue increasing the effectiveness of integrity policies of the House of Representatives and the Senate by installing independent integrity officers and clarifying the procedures for gifts and benefits
To strengthen integrity in the legislative branch, Thailand could increase the effectiveness of integrity policies of the House of Representatives and the Senate, including in developing and implementing the code of ethics.
The 2018 Integrity Review found that Thailand’s House of Representatives and Senate each have their own Codes of Conduct, but these lack clear rules or procedures on accepting, declaring, or returning gifts and benefits. Oversight is handled by the Ethics Committee for Parliamentary Agencies made up solely of members of parliament, which risks fostering self-protection and has resulted in no sanctions being issued. To strengthen integrity, it was recommended that Thailand amend the Codes to include a clear gift policy for members of Parliament (MPs) and appoint an independent integrity officer to oversee implementation of the Codes, ensuring consistent ethical standards across both chambers (OECD, 2018[3]).
In 2020, by virtue of the Constitution of Thailand, the Senate established its own ethical standards appropriate to its duties, along with criteria and mechanisms for promoting and enforcing the ethics of senators and committees. These are set forth in the Code of Ethics for Senators and Committees, B.E. 2563 (2020), and are structured along four parts. Under Part One Rule 6) of the Code, senators shall not accept gifts, assets, or other benefits except as permitted by applicable laws, regulations, rules, or recognised customary practices (Senate, 2020[16]). Furthermore, the Senate reports that members and the Standing Committees have collectively declared their commitment to anti-corruption under the initiative “Transparent Senate: United Against Corruption.” In line with this commitment, the Secretary-General of the Senate has officially announced a "No Gift Policy", prohibiting the acceptance of gifts, tokens, or any other benefits before, during, and after the performance of duties (Senate, 2024[17]). The Senate reported that all executives within the Secretariat of the Senate have formally joined the "No Gift Policy" declaration. Moreover, Secretariat officials have signed a joint declaration of intent to strengthen the agency’s standards as a model of integrity and transparency (the “Honest Office” initiative). These efforts seek to signal the Senate’s commitment to promoting an ethical society and to establish clear procedures for reporting gifts.
The Senate further recognises that while exceptions remain for gifts given in accordance with traditional customs or as permitted by specific laws and regulations, the Secretariat of the Senate has set a strategic goal for 2026, to introduce an Official Gift Registry for all executives and personnel. The registry will be intended to strengthen oversight of gift-related matters and enhance institutional transparency.
Similarly, the House of Representatives, by virtue of the Constitution of Thailand, enacted a Code of Ethics of Members of the House of Representatives and Committees B.E. 2563 (2020) (House of Representatives, 2020[18]). In addition, the Secretary-General of the House of Representatives announced a No Gift Policy for Fiscal Year 2025 which instructs all executives and government officials to:
Refrain from receiving and giving gifts, assets, or any other benefits arising from the performance of official duties, whether before, during, or after the execution of such duties.
Apply this practice on all occasions and during all festive periods (House of Representatives, 2025[19]).
If a Senator is believed to have violated the Code of Ethics, the law provides for a first assessment by the Ethics Committee of the Senate, consisting of members of the Senate. The Ethics Committee evaluates the facts and evidence, determines whether a senate member has breached ethical rules and recommends appropriate action (Senate, 2020[16]). Its findings are submitted to the Senate Plenary, composed of 200 independent members from diverse professional backgrounds, which considers the report in a confidential session in order to safeguard individual privacy rights. If the Senate Plenary concludes that a violation has occurred, it may issue a warning or reprimand. However, if the violation is considered a serious ethical breach, the President of the Senate must refer the matter to the NACC for further legal action (Senate, 2020[16]). In interviews conducted for this report, stakeholders provided that the NACC can refer the case to the Supreme Court; if the Court accepts the case, the Senator is suspended during the proceedings. If found guilty, the Senator is removed from office, loses the right to run for election (and possibly to vote for up to ten years), and becomes permanently ineligible for political office.
The Senate has reported that between November 2024 and January 2026, the Senate’s Ethics Committee has received a total of 13 complaints requesting investigations into conduct that may constitute violations of, or failures to comply with the ethical standards applicable to Members of the Senate. Of these 13 complaints, 10 were dismissed by resolution of the Ethics Committee on the grounds that they lacked sufficient merit or evidence to proceed. Two complaints were concluded by the Ethics Committee with a resolution to refer the matters to the Senate Plenary for further deliberation. In one of these cases, the Senate Plenary determined that the conduct constituted a serious breach of ethical standards and subsequently referred the matter to the NACC for further proceedings.
Similarly, in the House of Representatives, an Ethics Committee examines possible violations of the Code. If credible evidence shows that a member or committee violated the Regulations, the Committee may discipline them with measures such as a warning, reprimand, apology before the House, or public condemnation (House of Representatives, 2020[18]). If no credible evidence exists, or if the breach is not serious, the Committee must dismiss the complaint. The Committee’s decision is final and reported to the House. However, if evidence indicates a “serious” ethical violation, the Committee will forward the case to the House for consideration. If at least two-thirds of all House members resolve that a serious violation occurred, the President of the House must refer the matter to the National Anti-Corruption Commission for further legal action (House of Representatives, 2020[18]). The House of Representatives reported that, in in the fiscal year 2025, its Ethics Committee received a total of 43 complaints. Following its review, the Ethics Committee did not find any Member of the House of Representatives to have violated the Rules on the Code of Ethics for Members of the House of Representatives and Committee Members.
The ability to refer serious ethical violations to the NACC marks an improvement. However, neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives has established independent integrity officers to oversee the implementation of their respective Codes of Ethics. Instead, oversight remains under the Ethics Committee for Parliamentary Agencies, which is composed of members from its own house. Consequently, the concern of self-protection, as previously noted in the 2018 Integrity Review, persists (OECD, 2018[3]). With respect to gifts, it is commendable that both Codes establish a prohibition on accepting gifts. However, an exception remains for gifts given in accordance with customary practice or those permitted by law, regulations, or rules, yet the procedure for handling such cases is not clearly defined. It is encouraging that the Senate is planning to set up of an Official Gift Registry in 2026. It would be advisable that, even when a gift is permissible, the gift should still be disclosed and recorded in the official registry to ensure transparency (OECD, 2020[2]; OECD, 2004[20]).
Towards a culture of integrity in the public sector
Improve co-ordination between the NACC, PACC, and OCSC to maximise the effectiveness and reach of their training and awareness-raising activities.
Develop comprehensive guidance materials to address ethical dilemmas more broadly and ensure that guidance reflects and integrates all seven core principles of the Code of Ethics.
Publish aggregated statistics and case law on sanctions for ethical misconduct to strengthen compliance with the provisions of the 2021 Code of Ethics for Civil Servants.
Improve the ITA assessment by shifting its focus from formal compliance with the Ethical Standards Act (2019) toward evaluating civil servants’ understanding and internalisation of ethical standards, through more detailed criteria measuring the scope, quality, and impact of ethics training and awareness-raising activities.
Enhance the integration of integrity principles throughout civil service HR processes, especially in recruitment and career development.
Increase the effectiveness of integrity policies of the House of Representatives and the Senate by installing independent integrity officers and clarifying the procedures for gifts and benefits, notably thorough the set-up of a gift registry.
References
[14] Chokprajakchat, S. and N. Sumretphol (2017), “Implementation of the code of professional ethics for Thai civil servants”, Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 38, pp. 129-135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2016.03.004.
[13] Department of Justice Canada (2025), First Annual Report on Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing at the Department of Justice 2024-2025, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cp-pm/aramw-ratiar/aramwdj-ratiarmj/docs/cs-25-273-misconduct-and-wrongdoing-report_2024-2025_eng.pdf.
[12] Government of Canada (2013), Values Alive: A Discussion Guide to the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector, https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/values-ethics/code/values-alive-discussion-guide.html.
[19] 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.
[18] 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.
[11] NACC (2025), “Anti-Corruption Toolbox”, National Anti-Corruption Commission, https://www.nacc.go.th/categorydetail/20210314195056128/toolbox?.
[10] NACC (2025), Anti-SLAPP Law (No. 2), B.E. 2568 (2025), National Anti-Corruption Commission, https://nacc.go.th/english/categorydetail/2019122712514151207005112EK12853/20250606182339?.
[5] OCSC (2025), Code of Ethics for Government Officials, Office of the Civil Service Commission, https://www.ocsc.go.th/?post_type=knowledge&p=104429.
[9] OCSC (2025), Infographic 7 Ethical Standards under the Ethical Standards Act B.E. 2562 (2019), Office of the Civil Service Commission, https://www.ocsc.go.th/?post_type=knowledge&p=104220.
[15] OCSC (2024), Guidelines for the Formulation of Ethical Regulations for Government Agencies, Office of the Civil Service Commission, https://www.ocsc.go.th/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B4%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%B5%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%AA%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%94%E0%B9%89%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%A2-6.pdf.
[6] OCSC (2021), Code of Ethics for Civil Servants, Office of the Civil Service Commission, https://www.ocsc.go.th/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/pramwlcchriythrrmkhaaraachkaarphleruue.pdf.
[7] OCSC (2021), Guidelines for the Conduct of Civil Servants in Accordance with the Civil Service Code of Ethics, Office of the Civil Service Commission, http://ว92564-แนวทางการปฏิบัติตนของข้าราชการพลเรือนตามประมวลจริยธรรมข้าราชการพลเรือน.pdf.
[4] OCSC (2019), Ethical Standard Act, B.E. 2562 (2019) - Unofficial translation, Office of the Civil Service Commission, https://op.mahidol.ac.th/la/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%B9%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%B7%E0%B8%AD-%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%9A-%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%90%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%88%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B4.
[8] OCSC (2015), “Campaign to Raise Awareness and Strengthen the Moral, Ethical and Disciplined Network of Civil Servants and Government Officials”, Office of the Civil Service Commission, https://www.ocsc.go.th/?post_type=news&p=105487.
[2] OECD (2020), OECD Public Integrity Handbook, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ac8ed8e8-en.
[3] OECD (2018), OECD Integrity Review of Thailand: Towards Coherent and Effective Integrity Policies, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264291928-en.
[1] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity, OECD/LEGAL/0435, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0435.
[20] OECD (2004), Managing Conflict of Interest in the Public Service: OECD Guidelines and Country Experiences, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264104938-en.
[17] Senate (2024), “Announcement of the Secreataroiat of the Senate on No Gift Policy”, https://www.senate.go.th/assets/portals/1/files/ITA62/68/NoGiftEnglish.pdf.
[16] 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.
← 1. In the case of local government bodies, three separate codes must be presented for the ITA assessment: the Code of Ethics for local administrators, the Code of Ethics for local council members, and the announcement issued by the Local Personnel Administration Standards Committee concerning the ethical standards for local government employees.