Regulatory Reform in Thailand

Consultation, co-ordination, communication, and collaboration are essential components to the regulatory policy-making cycle. Engagement with stakeholders helps to maintain transparency and accountability in the policymaking process and provides important input towards evidence-informed lawmaking. The OECD’s 2012 Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance (OECD, 2012[1]) indicates that governments should “adhere to principles of open government, including transparency and participation in the regulatory process to ensure that regulation serves the public interest and is informed by the legitimate needs of those interested in and affected by regulation”.

Since the OECD's initial review of Thailand's stakeholder engagement framework in 2020, minimal developments have occurred to its procedures and framework. Section 77 of Thailand’s Constitution and the 2019 Act continue to mandate that, “prior to the enactment of every law, State [agencies] should conduct consultation with stakeholders and analyse any impacts that may occur from the law thoroughly and systematically.” The only exemption to this rule is if the legal act relates to the preservation of national safety and security. OCS has produced subordinate regulations to the 2019 Act, which set forth guidelines for conducting stakeholder consultations. Box 3.2 provides more information on the regulations which are set out under this scope.

One significant development which has occurred to Thailand’s stakeholder engagement framework has been the inauguration of Thailand’s Central Law Portal (law.go.th). The Central Law Portal now serves as a centralised platform for all public consultations in Thailand and facilitates the only form of consultation mandated under the regulations of 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.

This section assesses the extent to which these new developments have enhanced the framework of stakeholder engagements in Thailand. Additionally, it will address whether these developments have aligned with the recommendations made in the 2020 OECD report. Ultimately, the focus of this section will be to emphasise how Thailand’s stakeholder engagement framework could be further aligned to meet international best practices for stakeholder engagement.

Likewise to Chapter 2 (RIA in Thailand), Box 3.2 provides an overview of the recommendations that were mentioned as part of the 2020 OECD review of Thailand (OECD, 2021[3]). Most of these recommendations addressed procedural elements of Thailand’s framework for stakeholder engagement.

In general, while Thailand has made efforts to enhance its stakeholder engagement framework by adopting new tools and broadening the scope of engagement through recent reforms, fundamental gaps persist in the framework that must be addressed going forward. As mentioned in the introduction, the framework for stakeholder engagement in Thailand largely remains as what was described in the 2020 review (OECD, 2021[3]). Therefore, following an overview of the key developments adjusted to Thailand’s stakeholder engagement framework, such as the Central Law Portal, the OECD will review some of the procedural elements of Thailand’s stakeholder framework and showcase areas where further considerations could be adopted.

Thailand has made progress in adopting digital tools to enhance its stakeholder engagement process. The Central Law Portal, which officially replaced the former public consultation platform lawamendment.go.th, now centralises all communications related to government developments across the administration. Inaugurated into Thailand’s law-making system in August 2021, the Portal reflects the government's commitment to strengthening transparency, participation, and accountability in the legislative process.

The Portal was designed in consultation with the public to address their needs and the use of the platform, and several pilot projects with public agencies were conducted to aid in the system’s development. The use of the Central Law Portal is also the only mandated approach for public consultations in Thailand. OCS and the Digital Government Development Agency are jointly responsible for providing, maintaining, and developing this central system in accordance with Section 11 of the 2019 Act.

The Portal features a centralised interface that compiles all ongoing public consultations of the administration. It provides additional details like whether the ongoing consultation is for an ex ante assessment of a primary law or secondary regulation, or if the consultation pertains to an ex post review of a regulation i.e., measuring the achievement of the objectives of the law in the Thai context. In the landing area the portal provides details on the name of the legal drafts under review, the State agency leading the proposal, and a countdown indicating the number of days left on the consultation for comment. When selecting specific proposals to comment on, State agencies must demonstrate the rationale and necessity of the law, the must also conduct an analysis by of the available information and evidence and show that it will not impose unnecessary burden upon the people, or that all burdens will be justified based on the objectives and needs of the regulatory draft (as described in Section 12 of the 2019 Act). In terms of the information that is provided to stakeholders, Section 14 of the 2019 Act deems the following:

• What is the problem and what is the necessity of drafting the legislation, including the purpose and expected outcomes.

• Explanation(s) of the rational or important issues of the draft legislation in simple language.

• Persons who are or may be affected by the impacts or potential impacts of the law (including livelihood, occupation, economic, social, environmental, or other impacts; and,

• The necessity for the permit system, committee system, and criminal punishment, including the rules on the exercise of discretion by State Officials.

• This information can also be accompanied by a questionnaire led by the leading State agency to elicit stakeholder feedback on various aspects of the draft law. Supporting documents, such as the draft law itself or a summary of opinions from other engagements, can also be included for stakeholder review.

In terms of accessibility, the Portal welcomes all stakeholders to share their feedback. Its notification feature encourages users to register and receive alerts regarding bills of potential interest. Furthermore, the OECD noted that State agencies continue to actively promote consultations through their social media channels or official government websites. Section 15 of the 2019 Act also mandates OCS to register stakeholders on the Central Law Portal “in the interest of public consultation” and may additionally list stakeholders they believe should be consulted. The Portal's design complies with Thailand’s personal data protection laws, prioritising user anonymity and safeguarding freedom of expression.

The protocol for sharing summaries of consultations remains unchanged from what was described in the 2020 review (OECD, 2021[3]) following the consultation process. State agencies uphold the responsibility for integrating consultation results into the RIA and sharing a summary of opinions resulting from the consultations through the Portal. Additionally, OCS has indicated plans for further development of the Central Law Portal to include a centralised repository for all legal acts in Thailand. Presently, OCS has relaunched a modernised legal database on its own website (https://ocs.go.th/council-of-state/#/public/browse) to serve as the current central registry of regulations in Thailand. In the future, however, this portal will be further complimented by the features of the Central Law Portal. The development of the central legal repository on the Central Law Portal is currently in a beta phase.

Since its launch, the Portal has attracted considerable attention from stakeholders. In 2022, it received over 36 000 comments and facilitated consultation on more than 800 projects. By 2023, this engagement surged to over 90 000 comments (see key facts on the Central Law Portal are noted in Box 3.3) and OCS has indicated that a future priority for the administration will be on how to manage more effectively the collection and analysis of these comments. The launch of the Central Law Portal has also expanded its usage to include public consultation on subordinate regulations. In March 2022, the Law Reform Commission issued a notification to formally extend this scope of the Portal to include public consultations of subordinate regulations, which aligns to key reform mentioned in the Chapter on RIA.

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.

The Parliament of Thailand has also established a committee on public consultation and RIA to improve oversights of these processes. Since August 2022, this committee has been tasked with reviewing the summary of public consultations and RIA reports and determining the sufficiency. In the event that any Committee member finds the application of stakeholder engagement to be insufficient, they are empowered to require a review and renewal of procedures. This oversight complements the responsibilities of OCS and offers opportunities for advancing the adoption of best regulatory practices concerning stakeholder engagement throughout the Thai administration.

Despite the implementation of the Central Law Portal and the strengthening of stakeholder engagement procedures in Thailand's parliament, there remain opportunities to enhance elements of Thailand's stakeholder engagement framework.

Therefore, comparing Thailand’s stakeholder engagement framework against OECD’s Best Practice Principles for Stakeholder Engagement for RIA (OECD, forthcoming[6]) and the 2012 OECD Recommendations (OECD, 2012[1]), the OECD concluded with the following assessments:

The 2019 Act introduces a comprehensive approach to stakeholder engagement, recommending that government agencies initiate consultations even before beginning to draft legislation. The Act outlines multiple stages for stakeholder involvement, including during the development of key policy ideas, principles, and draft law concepts, as well as throughout the post-enactment evaluation process (i.e., ex post reviews).

Despite these provisions, Thailand's stakeholder engagement framework could benefit from more precise guidelines about who should be consulted and at what stages. While the 2019 Act requires government agencies to share information about potentially affected parties, there is a critical need to actively seek participation from diverse groups, especially vulnerable populations. The OECD's draft Best Practice Principles for Stakeholder Engagement for RIA emphasises the importance of involving all significantly affected and potentially interested parties, both domestic and foreign, to ensure comprehensive and inclusive perspectives (OECD, forthcoming[6]).

Discussions with state agencies revealed a common tendency to primarily engage with established partners—often referred to as “usual suspects”. Many agencies rely on the Central Law Portal for outreach and conduct consultations predominantly in later stages of the regulatory policy cycle. Consequently, there should be a consideration for state agencies to proactively reach out to stakeholders who are typically underrepresented in political processes or considered more vulnerable.

Encouragingly, Thailand demonstrates flexibility in stakeholder engagement approaches. Section 13 of the 2019 Act formally recognises multiple consultation methods beyond the Central Law Portal, including consultation meetings, interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires. The OECD noted instances of agencies using focus groups or public hearings to gather early-stage feedback. However, current questionnaires tend to be narrowly focused on stakeholder agreement or disagreement with specific elements of draft legislations. There is significant potential to develop these tools to capture more nuanced and comprehensive feedback. Box 3.4 provides an overview of five instruments that are commonly viewed as best practice for performing stakeholder engagements and consultations.

To enhance the stakeholder engagement process, regulatory oversight could be expanded to ensure policymakers make explicit efforts to involve a wide range of relevant stakeholders. This might involve systematically tracking and monitoring the number and types of public consultations conducted by various agencies, which could help showcase best practices and guide state agencies in selecting appropriate tools for inclusive engagement.

Positively, as noted earlier in the chapter, both the Office OCS and the Parliament have the authority to reject stakeholder engagements they deem insufficient. In such cases, they can mandate a new public consultation or conduct one themselves. Clear guidance from the regulatory oversight body to state agencies about acceptable stakeholder engagement practices could help avoid such situations as well as provide a clear basis for assessment by the OCS.

Similar to the issue highlighted in the RIA chapter regarding the lack of forward planning in legislative developments in Thailand, it is crucial to consider how this impacts stakeholders' ability to plan for meaningful engagement. Stakeholder engagement demands significant resources from both the administration and the public. Therefore, clarity on upcoming developments is essential to ensure that both parties have allocated resources appropriately and have also set aside sufficient time for effective engagement.

In discussions between the OECD and private stakeholders, there was a common agreement that improved visibility of regulatory developments would enhance their participation and preparedness for public consultations. While the Central Law Portal notifies registered users of newly posted consultations, stakeholders noted that this system alone did not always sufficiently enhance their readiness to provide feedback. This was mainly due the fact that notifications would only be granted once a new consultation was already posted. The system also only alerted individuals who had previously used the Portal and/or had taken previous initiative to register and receive notifications.

Additionally, OECD best practices also note that government should not only provide stakeholders with clear timelines for stakeholder engagement activities, but it is also important that government provide stakeholders with sufficient periods to submit their views. In this respect, stakeholders frequently described the current minimum engagement period of 15 days,1 mandated by the 2019 Act, as being insufficient for providing adequate evidence-informed feedback.2 While in this respect, the OECD does not generally prescribe or recommend a minimum period for engagement, it does acknowledge that many countries have suggested a minimum period of 30 or 60 days (or longer, when the regulatory proposal is particularly complex) (OECD, forthcoming[6]).

In most cases, draft RIA reports are not shared in advance as part of ex ante consultation with stakeholders.3 Again, this is likely because RIAs in Thailand are produced quite late in the legislative process, usually only before a legislative draft is submitted to Cabinet for further deliberation. RIAs are only shared following the closing of consultation and prior to the submission of the legal draft to the Cabinet for approval. As noted in Chapter 1, OCS’s opinions on the quality of RIA also are not made public or made accessible to the public, even post the regulatory policy-making procedure.

However, as OECD best practice suggests that stakeholder engagement is closely integrated into the procedures for developing RIAs. This entails providing stakeholders with access to documents and opportunities to update them, where relevant, with pertinent information and validate information where applicable. Delayed access to documents could significantly limit stakeholders’ ability to offer critical input into the regulatory policymaking process. It could also undermine the quality of information used to support evidence-based and inclusive policymaking within the country.

It is worth emphasising that stakeholder engagement should not be the sole source of information for informing a RIA. At times, the OECD observed that State agencies believed stakeholder consultation was the sole element of completing a RIA. But it should be made clear, that while both tools are complementary to each other, they both very different in terms of their objectives. A RIA should include both qualitative and quantitative information to critically assess the positive and negative effects of regulatory and non-regulatory options. This assessment should provide decision-makers with evidence to support the most effective outcomes. Stakeholder engagement, on the other hand, should support the regulatory policymaking process (including RIA) by introducing new inputs, innovative ideas, and public evidence to policymakers regarding policy problems. It can also be used to strengthen accountability within the government’s policymaking system and strengthening overall the human approach to regulatory policymaking.

Engagement with stakeholders should be viewed as a reciprocal process. The way governments handle and evaluate stakeholder feedback is likely to influence future stakeholder engagement in consultations (OECD, 2021[7]). Maintaining consistent and transparent dialogue will demonstrate active listening by the government and underscore its appreciation for stakeholders' investment of time and resources in providing meaningful feedback.

In Thailand, while state agencies are required to provide summaries of public consultations, these summaries do not appear to offer full transparency regarding the perspectives of participants involved in these processes. Under the 2019 Act, stakeholders receive post-consultation reports that include only high-level details on the issues discussed, a general overview of received opinions, and an outline of whether regulatory draft principles were adjusted based on these opinions. This practice, consequently, appears to contrast with that of most OECD Members and good practice, where participant viewpoints are typically shared as part of results of stakeholder engagement4 (OECD, 2021[7]).

Additionally, Thai state agencies are not required to respond to individual stakeholder feedback. They only must address comments which are highly critical of the regulatory act. Therefore, many stakeholders interviewed often felt as if their contributions had little impact or validity on Thailand’s regulatory process, resulting in a perceived lack of transparency and engagement in the regulatory process.

In this way, two potential approaches could be considered to advance the engagement between the government and its stakeholder. First, there could be opportunities to build upon the successes of the Central Law Portal by incorporating features that enhance how government agencies interact with stakeholders (or how stakeholders interact among themselves). In some OECD countries, online consultation portals have been enhanced with features allowing participants to view real-time comments and provide direct feedback where applicable. For example, in the Slovak Republic, if a comment on a draft regulation receives more than 500 reactions from other stakeholders during a public consultation, the regulator is obligated to respond and engage in dialogue with stakeholders (OECD, 2021[7]). This could be a beneficial approach for Thailand, particularly as this considers a proportional response to addressing the most significant comments.

An alternative approach could be to mandate policymakers to respond to all comments resulting from consultations. In several OECD Members, direct responses to comments are integral to their stakeholder engagement processes. Examples highlighted in the 2021 OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook include countries like Colombia, Costa Rica, and Mexico, where policymakers are required to provide written responses to comments received during public consultations (see Box 3.5 for more information) (OECD, 2021[7]).

That said, implementing either approach, should they be contemplated, would require amendments to Thailand’s legislative drafting framework to ensure these are absorbed as a common practice. It would additionally require substantial administrative capacity and resources. Responding to comments during these processes can be resource-intensive task, and it cannot be understated that it would create new demands for the administration to manage and handle effectively.

Finally, a core component of a comprehensive stakeholder engagement framework is the training and manuals provided to policymakers to plan successful engagements. Civil servants should be systematically made aware of and trained in using different stakeholder engagement techniques.

Like in the case of RIA, there is currently no government wide manual that provides policymakers guidance on how to conduct stakeholder engagement. Thailand has developed PowerPoint presentations that outline some key considerations for listening to stakeholders' opinions. However, this information appears to remain quite high-level, offering policymakers only general descriptions of the role of the Central Law Portal, its mandated use, and some basic information on how to identify direct and indirect stakeholders for engagement. It also provides some basic descriptions on how to solicit useful feedback from stakeholders and ensure active listening from the side of the government.

In this way, there is considerable scope to widen the type of information that is shared with policymakers to plan more effective stakeholder engagements. OECD Best Practices outlines that civil servants responsible for drafting and reviewing regulation should be aware, not only, of their obligation to engage with stakeholders, but should also be trained in techniques to gather effective input from stakeholders (OECD, forthcoming[6]). As mentioned as a recommendation within the 2020 OECD report, this could include adopting approaches such as stakeholder mapping and/or becoming familiar with deciphering when to use diverse approaches for engagement. It could also include information on how to set purposeful objectives for engaging with stakeholders and managing meaningful forms of communication.

Encouragingly, similar to RIA, there appeared to be a general desire among policymakers to strengthen capacities for good regulatory practices, extending to stakeholder engagement. Training and guidance could therefore elevate the quality of regulatory policymaking within the country as well as ensure a stronger participatory approach to policymaking. Guidance should also be extended to all levels of policymakers, including senior civil servants, as this would maintain clarity on the effect of stakeholder engagements and how it could be relevant for sustaining a comprehensive regulatory framework.

This chapter examines Thailand's efforts to strengthen its stakeholder engagement framework. While the country has made notable strides, including the implementation of the Central Law Portal and improvements in parliamentary-level engagement, the overall approach to stakeholder consultation remains largely consistent with the 2020 OECD Report.

Significant opportunities continue to exist to enhance Thailand’s stakeholder engagement framework in order to fully align with international best practices in collaborative policymaking. Thailand, however, does demonstrate a genuine commitment to progress and continuous improvement in this regard.

The following recommendations have been suggested and build on the assessments of the 2020 review (OECD, 2021[3]):

• Continue to fully implement the tools and guidance outlined in the 2019 Act. The 2019 Act provides a whole-of-government approach for good regulatory practices within the country. Therefore, all provisions within the guidelines should be maximised to their fullest extent possible. The Government of Thailand also consider adjusting the following elements of its regulatory framework, by considering the following:

  • Reinforce oversight of engagement practices across the administration to ensure diversity of perspectives, while OCS and the Parliament have the authority to reject regulatory proposals that do not align with good regulatory practices, including stakeholder engagement, they should also actively advocate for diverse stakeholder engagement approaches. Their oversight should focus on ensuring stake agencies are vigilant about maximising inclusivity in the engagement process.

  • Extending the minimum consultation period. To reinforce inclusivity in the policymaking process, stakeholders should be granted a sufficient period to provide feedback. This is particularly relevant for complex or highly technical regulatory proposals. While the OECD does not have a mandated period that it advises, international best practice generally suggests a period of 30 to 60 day for feedback (OECD, 2018[8]; OECD, forthcoming[6]).

  • Adopt a monitoring and reporting system of consultations to keep track of the type and number of public consultations organised by various ministries and agencies. This could help provide greater oversight of all engagement practices across the administration and share good practices in their application, and refine procedures, where needed.

  • Improve forward planning of consultations and sharing these plans with stakeholders to support their planning. Policymakers can equally benefit from the sharing of forward plans with stakeholder to help them predict high-impact regulations and when to allocate additional time and resources to support sufficient engagements. This recommendation also aligns with the point mentioned in the earlier chapter on Regulatory impact assessment in Thailand for “instituting a forward planning process”.

  • Ensure that all pertinent documents are shared with stakeholders, both before and after the adoption of a regulatory proposal. This entails sharing draft RIAs during pre-adoption engagement practices, ensuring stakeholders have a comprehensive understanding of the analysis conducted and the opportunity to supplement this analysis with practical insights, data, and experiences. This practice would also align with OECD Best Practice, which details that stakeholder engagement should be closely integrated with RIA.

  • Develop a practical manual outlining procedures for planning, conducting, and managing consultations throughout the regulatory policymaking cycle. Using the momentum of the Central Law Portal, Thailand – specifically OCS as the regulatory oversight body – could develop more hands-on guidance or manuals for policymakers that addresses how to conduct inclusive consultations more comprehensively (i.e., discussing the role of implementing various consultation methods and ensuring sufficient time for engagements), introduces tools such as stakeholder mapping (to manage a balance of perspective of perspectives), and effectively shows how to addresses and incorporate consultation feedback. The manual could also emphasise transparency in Thailand’s policy-making process and align with recommendations from the OECD's Integrity Review of Thailand (OECD, 2018[4]) and (OECD, 2021[5]) which focus on reducing undue influence and bias in Thailand’s policy-making procedures.

• Finally, leveraging the developments of the Central Law Portal to consider new methods of supporting a more reciprocal relationship between the government and the public during stakeholder engagement procedures. Consultation and communication with stakeholder should be a two-way process. Therefore, Thailand could consider adding features to the Portal to publish stakeholder comments and the responsible agency’s reaction. It could also consider publishing draft RIA before stakeholder consultation which would allow stakeholders to comment on both the underlying analysis and the draft regulation.5 Additionally, it could explore developments that establish accountability for policymakers to respond to stakeholder feedback and showcase how and whether feedback has been used to update the regulatory draft and RIA analysis.

[2] OECD (2022), Supporting Regulatory Reforms in Southeast Asia, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aad87f86-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.

[7] OECD (2021), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/38b0fdb1-en.

[3] OECD (2021), Thailand Regulatory Management and Oversight Reforms: A Diagnostic Scan, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2dbaa2e5-en.

[4] 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.

[8] OECD (2018), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264303072-en.

[1] OECD (2012), Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264209022-en.

[6] OECD (forthcoming), Best Practice Principles on Stakeholder Engagement in Regulatory Policy, OECD.