Assessment and recommendations

High-level national development policies

The Thai government is promoting a new economic model called Thailand 4.0 (Royal Thai Embassy, n.d.[3]), which describes a model driven by public sector innovation and co-operation with the public and private sectors. The model draws upon an open and connected, smart and high performing, and citizen-centric governance, and aims at moving towards a knowledge-based Thai economy (Jones and Pimdee, 2017[4]).

Also, Thailand has sought greater coherence in terms of how different strategies contribute to national development in the long run. For such a purpose, the government created the National Strategy Act, B.E. 2560 (2017) and issued the 20-Year National Strategy (2018-2037) (Government of Thailand, 2018[5]) with the aim of transforming Thailand into a developed country by 2037. The 20-Year National Strategy (2018-2037) breaks down long-term policy goals into actionable and measurable objectives defined in five-year mid-term plans known as the National Economic and Social Development Plans (NESDP).

In line with the above, the aim of Thailand’s 12^th NESDP (2017-2021) is to transform the Thai economy into “one that is based on services and digital technologies” and – accordingly – to modernise and decentralise the public sector, capitalise on the opportunities of public-private collaboration, increase the provision of digital services and reinforce public sector workforce digital capability (NESDC, 2017[6]).

Developing an integrated policy framework for open government in Thailand

In order to achieve the shift to Government 4.0 as foreseen by Thailand’s new economic model, relevant principles and values of openness need to be identified, discussed and reinforced at every possible opportunity (OECD, 2016[7]). In this regard, the inclusion and prioritisation of open government principles in government agendas and the mainstreamed application of those principles across the public sector are needed to promote reforms and cultural change.

Thailand’s line ministries are already implementing a number of open government initiatives and have included references to open government principles in some sectoral policy documents but in a limited and siloed fashion. A co-ordinated approach that would allow for an increase in the number of initiatives, greater coherence and synergies between the individual efforts could thus positively contribute to the open government agenda and to how the latter can contribute to the achievement of Thailand’s wider policy goals. In practice, most existing open government initiatives are implemented on an ad hoc basis and without an overarching policy framework. As Thailand is not a member of the Open Government Partnership, the government does not elaborate national action plans that select key open government initiatives. In most cases, public institutions implement open government initiatives related to stakeholder participation by fulfilling legal requirements and without following a whole-of-government and co-ordinated approach.

Defining an official concept of open government is a pivotal first step for a holistic and coherent approach to open government reforms. A single definition that is fully recognised and acknowledged by the whole public sector can facilitate the prioritisation and implementation of open government initiatives. In order to clearly define open government and move towards a more structured approach, the Office of the Public Sector Development Commission (OPDC), as the appointed co-ordinator for the open government agenda, could take the lead in creating a single definition that is accepted by the whole public sector and external stakeholders alike.

Evidence collected during the OECD’s peer review mission to Bangkok in April 2019 also showed big disparities in terms of how the Thai government is moving towards an open and connected government that advance both the open and digital government agendas in that regard. Interviews consolidated the understanding that the open and connected government agenda in Thailand is highly driven by digitalisation, while open government considerations for national development (e.g. transparency and participation) remain secondary and often subordinate to aspects of the digital government agenda.

In the long term, the government could develop a strategic document that outlines shared objectives that go beyond the different initiatives and an overall vision of what Thailand intends to achieve with open government reforms. Such a document could help Thailand take full advantage of the benefits of open government. For a more strategic approach in the long run, the OECD suggests that countries develop an independent National Open Government Strategy (NOGS). According to OECD research, such a strategy can provide the missing link between high-level commitments (e.g. the open government principles included in the National Strategy on Public Sector Rebalancing and Development) and isolated practices to ensure policy coherence across public sector organisations.

An NOGS has the potential to consolidate initiatives across government, provide strategic direction, facilitate a focus on long-term and cross-cutting goals, and ultimately change the way government and society relate. Instead of driving individual initiatives, an NOGS can enable a country to set joint priorities and lead to a whole-of-government approach in which public institutions advance towards a common vision and shared strategic objectives. Ideally, the potential strategy would also be linked to the existing 20-Year Digital Economy and Society Development Plan (2017-2036).

In particular, in light of the challenges for open government, the Thai government identified in the OECD Survey on Open and Connected Government in Thailand (2019[8]), an NOGS could have a positive impact on the consolidation of open government initiatives and the development of an open government agenda. The survey found that a “lack of or insufficient co-ordination among main public stakeholders” and “insufficient communication/awareness of the benefits of open government reforms among public officials” are viewed to be among the five most significant obstacles for open government in Thailand. Besides promoting open government and raising awareness to generate new initiatives, an NOGS should aim at rendering existing policies and initiatives more coherent and better co-ordinated by providing a common narrative and methodological setting.

Driving national development and innovation through digital government

Thailand has put in place an ambitious group of policy instruments on digitalisation, covering the digital economy, digital government and data, to support Thailand’s 12^th National Economic and Social Development Plan (2017-2021) and the evolution towards Thailand 4.0.

The 20-Year Digital Economy and Society Development Plan (2017-2036) or Digital Thailand stands as the underlying long-term vision for digitalisation of the 20-Year National Strategy (2018-2037), with a focus on six core strategies: infrastructure, digital economy, inclusion and equality, digital government, skills and the future of work, and trust (including investments, security, and legal and regulatory frameworks) (MICT, 2017[9]). The responsibilities for implementation of the specific goals and strategies lie with different government agencies (e.g. Digital Government Development Agency, DGA), under the co-ordination of the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES). In response to the related goals on digital government of the aforementioned policy instruments, the former E-Government Agency (EGA, which in 2018 became the DGA) developed the Digital Government Development Plan, which so far has been structured in three different stages: 2016-2018, 2017-2020 and 2020-2022.

The results of the survey administered across public sector organisations in Thailand for the purpose of this review confirmed a high level of awareness in terms of the existent policy instruments meant to support the digitalisation of the public sector and further development of digital government in the country.

Challenges remain, however, in terms of engaging actors beyond the usual ones within the public sector (i.e. DGA, MDES and OPDC) and also among those outside the public sector in the development of the digital government plans. Evidence from the OECD peer review mission to Bangkok pointed to the fact that the development of these instruments was not done in collaboration with a broader range of internal and external actors in the country. Public officials expressed the narrow engagement approach in the development of the Digital Government Development Plans, which left aside the views of other relevant public bodies such as the National Innovation Agency (NIA) and those from specific line ministries and other public sector organisations in charge of delivering sectoral policies (e.g. education). Also, the OECD did not find substantial evidence indicating the involvement of external actors such as citizens, civil society organisations (CSOs), businesses and academia in the development process of the Digital Government Development Plans.

Monitoring the implementation of the open and connected agenda

In Thailand, the vision for the digital government (both medium- and long-term) is clear but ensuring delivery of results will require flexibility to adjust policy measures when needed in the course of implementing the vision, reconsider government interventions if needed to target organisational efforts and drive them in a coherent fashion.

The DGA has a specific unit in charge of evaluating and monitoring digital government projects. The Digital Government Development Commission was set up in 2019 under the Digitalisation of Public Administration and Services Delivery Act, B.E. 2562 (2019) to monitor and evaluate the Digital Government Development Plan and related digital government projects.

The Digital Government Development Plan is ambitious for it covers five sub-strategies (i.e. quality of life, competitiveness, national security and safety, government efficiency, and government services) and a group of eight international indicators (e.g. the United Nations E-Government Development Index, the Open Data Index and the United Nations E-Participation Index), all in which the Thai government aims to improve its ranking as a result of the Digital Government Development Plan (Thiratitayangkul, 2019[10]).

Yet, measurements are highly driven by international indicators which, on the one hand, can help in driving a national digital government agenda that follows international best practices and benchmarks, such as OECD countries in the OURdata Index. However, on the other hand, this leaves aside the iterative monitoring controls that can help the Thai government take action or redefine the course of action, even before the end date of each Digital Government Development Plan.

Also, in terms of open government, collecting data on different open government initiatives can help to oversee results and monitor the implementation of the open government agenda. The OPDC could be charged with creating an overarching monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework for Thailand’s open government agenda. Moreover, due to its role as the co-ordinating entity for open government, the OPDC could promote the development of other public sector organisations’ own frameworks that are linked to the national framework. Following the guidance provided by the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (2017[2]), such an M&E framework with different indicators (e.g. process, outputs, outcomes or impact indicators) could be developed in collaboration with a broad array of stakeholders.

Thailand’s institutional arrangements for the implementation of an open and digital government

Thailand’s institutional governance for open and digital government is complex. Responsibilities are clear but the real challenges are at the implementation level, as expressed by public officials during the OECD’s peer review mission to Bangkok.

It is unclear how institutional plans (when available) are aligned – or will be aligned – with central development plans in the short term. This is a result of insufficient clarity and horizontal co-ordination among public sector organisations, in relation to what the 20-Year Digital Economy and Society Development Plan (2017-2036) and the Digital Government Development Plans mean in terms of implementation at the operational level. Notably, some public sector organisations with strong sectoral responsibilities did not self-identify as having a role in the digital government agenda given that they are not directly in charge of providing services to citizens and businesses.

There are some cases where ministries or other public sector organisations have taken immediate action to align their institutional agendas to the central open and connected government agenda but this approach is not widespread. This illustrates how leadership and commitment at the administrative and institutional levels are fundamental to apply digital and open connected approaches to sectoral and state policies. Yet, these cases are the exception and not the rule, as evidence from the OECD peer review mission to Bangkok and from the survey pointed to limited digital leadership at the institutional level, beyond those agencies directly involved in the digitalisation and digital government agendas.

In the case of open government, an effective institutional framework is still under development. While the OPDC is responsible for promoting the establishment of policies and mechanisms that ensure citizen participation in government, it does not yet have a clearly defined mandate for open government reforms beyond citizen participation, which is rooted in a firm legal basis.

Co-ordination and collaboration

In terms of digital government, it seems that the Thai government does not experience significant challenges in the high-level co-ordination of relevant actors within specific policy areas. In general, the survey data indicates that public sector organisations agree on the relatively good co-ordination achieved so far to advance the digital policy in Thailand at the high level and within specific sectors. For instance, the MDES has a solid management mechanism to steer the 20-Year Digital Economy and Society Development Plan (2017-2036) structured in three different work chapters: i) commissioning; ii) policy funding; and iii) co-ordination. Another example is that the National Science Technology and Innovation Policy Committee (NSTIC) chaired by the prime minister and under the supervision of the National Science Technology and Innovation Policy Office (NSTIP).

On the contrary, collaboration issues among public sector organisations in general appear to be a significant concern in Thailand. It was difficult to assess how these leading public sector organisations collaborated and worked together in practice once co-ordination is achieved at a higher level. Public officials underlined overlaps in terms of implementation and the lack of integration across different digital plans at the institutional level (OECD, 2019[8]). For instance, the Office of the National Digital Economy and Society Commission (ONDE)’s remit included digital transformation at a national level as well as an intelligence and policy design unit. However, it was unclear how they interacted with other government agencies or how they influenced them.

Also, similar to the experience of other countries, the OECD survey for this review found that the three main challenges the OPDC experiences in the co-ordination of open government policies and initiatives related to a “lack of or insufficient incentives to collaborate (career, financial, etc.) among other government institutions”, a “lack of or inadequate strategic direction” and a “lack of or insufficient political will/leadership” (OECD, 2019[8]).

Building a solid legal basis for an open and connected government in Thailand

As in most OECD countries, the National Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, which was revised in 2017, does not make a specific reference to the concept of open government. However, it contains specific provisions, notably Sections 41, 58, 59 and 77 that support the principles of transparency, accountability, integrity, stakeholder participation and access to public sector information and data. These constitutional provisions provide the political and administrative leaders of the national open (and digital) government agenda legal leverage to promote (and intervene to enforce them if needed) open government principles across the public sector. Having these principles enshrined at the highest possible legal level creates a solid legal basis and legitimates all subsequent primary and secondary legislation. Moreover, it ensures the necessary impetus for launching open government strategies and related initiatives.

Access to Information as a cornerstone of open and connected government

In terms of access to information (ATI), Thailand has made significant progress over the past years. The right to information was first recognised by the 1997 People’s Constitution and later included in the 2007 Constitution. Following the 2014 Interim Constitution, which did not contain any specific provision on access to information, today’s version of the constitution that entered into force in 2017, includes three key provisions (respectively Sections 41, 59, and 77) guaranteeing citizens’ right of information. Preceded by calls of civil society for greater transparency, the government substantiated the constitutionally protected right to access government information and adopted the Official Information Act, B.E. 2540 in 1997, which reinforced the rights of citizens in this respect. However, 23 years after its adoption, the act shows some limitations.

Thailand’s Official Information Act applies not only to the executive branch but also to the legislative (both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and institutions related to them). The judiciary is also liable under the act, with the exception of the affairs related to the trial and adjudication of cases (Government of Thailand, 1997[11]). Within the executive, the act’s scope includes state enterprises, professional supervisory organisations, independent agencies of the state and other agencies. Due to Thailand’s unitary system with a strong tradition of centralisation, the law also applies vertically to the central, provincial and local administrations.

As in 71% of OECD countries (OECD, 2011[12]), Thailand’s Official Information Act does not include any legal restrictions regarding the status of applicants. The act allows all Thai citizens to request official information from public sector organisations and information seekers are not required to provide reasons for their requests. With regard to the range of information that can be shared for public access, the law defines information extensively as all material held by or on behalf of public authorities, which is recorded in any format, regardless of who produced it. It is noteworthy that applicants do not need to provide their identity but are only required to provide contact details that are necessary for identifying and delivering the requested information.

It is crucial, however, to provide citizens with clear information on how and where to request government information. The act does not provide detailed information regarding the specific procedure concerning how to request information. Section 11 of the Official Information Act only stipulates that information seekers may request information that is not already published by making a “reasonably apprehensible mention on the intended information”. The act does not include a description of the form the request should take nor what type of requests are permitted (e.g. paper copy, electronic reproduction or inspection of files). Moreover, the law does not specify the exact place or channels to submit information requests. While the Office of the Official Information Commission (OIC) provides a downloadable form on their website, it remains unclear if this document constitutes an official form or rather represents a template form that helps requesters to file their requests (OIC, n.d.[13]). It is not specified whether entities bound by the law are required to provide online portals, service phone lines or contact persons where information can be requested. As requesters are not provided with a receipt of the request procedure, citizens seeking information will be left unclear if their request is currently dealt with. Also, responses collected as part of the OECD survey for this review showed that one of the main challenges in implementing the ATI law is citizens’ lack of awareness of the existence of the act and the benefits it can bring (OECD, 2019[8]).

In the case that an institution does not possess the requested information, it shall refer the requester to another institution. However, Section 12 of the Official Information Act does not establish an obligation for the institution to transfer the request itself. Besides this obligation to inform citizens that the information is not available, the act does not include other provisions that institutions should provide assistance to information seekers to correctly lodge their requests. In particular, in the case of requesters with special needs (e.g. illiteracy or disability), assistance to file a request could be needed. If the requested information is available but was created by another institution, the request may be transferred.

With regard to the creation of concrete timelines for the provision of information, Section 11 of the ATI law only determines that information requests shall be answered: "within a reasonable period of time" (Government of Thailand, 1997[11]). The law does not set any other fixed timeframes, which left room for public officials’ discretion and could lead to delays. To fill in this gap, the Royal Decree on Criteria and Procedures for Good Governance obliges public institutions to respond within 15 days (Government of Thailand, 2003[14]). An extension of the deadline is possible upon notice but requires an explanation of the reasons. Despite the establishment of deadlines through the Royal Decree, it has been noted that these timeframes are not always respected (Article 19, 2015[15]).

Pursuant to Section 9 of Thailand’s ATI law, the request for information is free but fees may be charged to inspect or reproduce documents. The Office of the OIC determines costs of reproduction associated with the request of information. Each institution may charge different rates but needs prior approval of the OIC.

For the case when an information request is refused, the person requesting information must be informed of the reasons for refusal. Thailand’s Official Information Act does not allow for internal appeals and differentiates between complaints and external appeals. Citizens can issue a complaint with the Official Information Board (OIB) in case the institution the request is directed to fails to act and does not comply with the law. The Official Information Board is located within the institutional entity of the Prime Minister’s Office. Due to its institutional affiliation, the board does not enjoy full independence and its respective oversight competencies are limited. For complaints, it does not therefore issue binding decisions but merely gives opinions on the complaints (Section 28). Citizens can also submit appeals against refusals to disclose information (Section 18) to the Office of the OIC, which also forms part of the PMO. The OIC will then transfer the appeal to Information Disclosure Tribunals (IDTs). Established in accordance with specialised fields of information, the IDTs make binding decisions, which are final, unless the appeal is referred to an administrative court.

Established by the 1997 ATI law, the Office of the OIC serves as a secretariat to both the OIB as well as to the IDTs. In addition to its secretariat functions, the commission functions as a supervisory and advisory body for the implementation of the law, which does not enjoy authority over other agencies. It issues recommendations on the implementation of the ATI law and submits regular reports on compliance with the Official Information Act to the cabinet. The head of the commission is a cabinet minister, who is appointed by the prime minister. Its mandate and location in the PMO do raise questions about its functional independence and objectivity in fulfilling the assigned mandate. Based on the 2017 annual report published by the Office of the OIC, challenges faced by the OIC include inadequate numbers of staff and a lack of funding.

A clear legal framework to consult stakeholders on draft legislation

A first step in creating a legal basis for the consultation of stakeholders in regulatory processes took place in the period from 2003 to 2005 with the enactment of the Regulations of the Office of the Prime Minister on Public Consultation, B.E. 2548 (2005). The law obliges relevant government institutions to conduct credible consultations with the public prior to any major regulatory project. This law was further reinforced by the new Section 77 of the 2017 Constitution, which requires government agencies to “conduct consultation with stakeholders [prior to the enactment of every law]”. It also obliges institutions to “analyse any impacts that may occur from the law thoroughly and systematically, and should also disclose the results of the consultation and analysis to the public, and take them into consideration at every stage of the legislative process” (Office of the Council of State, 2017[17]). Pursuant to Section 77 of the constitution, all draft acts are subject to public consultation before they are submitted to the cabinet for approval. To effectuate the requirement of consultation, the cabinet issued a resolution in 2017 stipulating that all draft legislation be published on a central consultation website (www.lawamendment.go.th) for at least 15 days before the agency may send the draft act together with the summarised consultation report and the impact assessment report to the secretariat of the cabinet.

Most recently, the Act on Legislative Drafting and the Outcome of Law, B.E. 2562 (2019), revises the system of regulatory policy making in Thailand, in accordance with Section 77 of the constitution. Amongst other reforms, it introduces more detailed instructions for conducting obligatory consultations at every stage of legislative drafting process, including impact assessments, holding consultation of the law and carrying out an ex post evaluation after the law has been passed (Government of Thailand, 2019[18]). Stemming from Section 13, government agencies shall consult with the public through online consultations and, in addition, may use public meetings, questionnaires and interviews. For each consultation, agencies need to publish accompanying information such as a description of the problem the draft legislation is supposed to solve, an explanation of the main ideas and principles of the draft legislation presented in simple and comprehensible language as well as a list of persons who are or may be affected by the legislation (Section 14). According to Section 15 of the act, all stakeholders participating in public consultations shall register with their corresponding address and email via a central registration system. While registration provides useful information regarding the origin of each contribution and allows for further inquiries and notification regarding the progress of the file, the lack of an opportunity to provide anonymous input may also raise data protection concerns and prevent some stakeholders from commenting.

Aside from conducting formal public consultations on draft legislation and regulations, the law does not refer to stakeholder participation in the development of strategic documents. Such consultations to improve strategic planning are currently only voluntary. Regarding the inclusion of specific provisions relating to stakeholder participation in other sectoral laws, laws for environmental and town planning contain such references. Sections 48 to 51 of the Enhancement and Conservation of the National Environmental Quality Act, B.E. 2535 (1992) (amended by the Enhancement and Conservation of the National Environmental Quality Act, B.E. 2561 [No. 2] in 2018) refer to the consultation of experts for environmental impact assessments. With Section 9, the new Town Planning Act (2019) also contains a provision on stakeholder participation.

Thailand’s set of legislation to enable stakeholder consultation in legislative processes provides a solid legal framework for all public agencies. In particular, the Act on Legislative Drafting and the Outcome of Law opens a way to yield the benefit that stakeholders can bring to policy making. From a legal point of view, it is in line with the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government. Efforts from all public sector organisations are now needed to ensure the successful and coherent implementation of the legal framework for public consultation. While all government agencies are obliged to comply with the provisions of the laws, only a move towards a more participatory governance culture will guarantee effective implementation in the future. The success in applying this legal framework will to a large extent also depend on providing adequate guidance to all public institutions conducting public consultations. In order to avoid consultation fatigue and ensure that consultations are meaningful, the government should further improve the sustainability of stakeholder participation.

Besides the consultation of citizens on already formulated pieces of draft legislation, other forms of participation to interact and engage with stakeholders in the policy-making cycle could broaden Thailand’s participatory approach. Practices that go beyond mere consultation and focus on the active engagement of stakeholders during co-design processes could bring further value. Similarly, the participation of stakeholders in budget processes represents an open government practice in many OECD countries. However, currently, such practices are not covered by any existing legislation.

Building the legal foundations for a digital government

Thailand has put in place different instruments covering different aspects related to public sector digitalisation including cyber security and digital transactions. These include: the 2002 and 2019 revised version of the Electronic Transactions Act, B.E. 2544 and No. 3, B.E. 2544 respectively; the Computer Crime Act, B.E. 2550 (2007); the Cyber Security Act, B.E. 2562 (2019); the Licensing Facilitation Act, B.E. 2558 (2015); the Personal Data Protection Act, B.E. 2562 (2019); and Cabinet Resolution 187/2558 (2015) establishing common data platform for the public sector and an integrated database on citizen information and public services. In 2019, the publication of the Digitalisation of Public Administration and Services Delivery Act, B.E. 2562 (2019) provided stronger legal support for the development of a digital government in Thailand. The act, commonly known as the digital government law, is intended to accelerate digital transformation in the public sector. It is therefore ambitious and complements previous legal and regulatory instruments on digital government and will provide a more solid legal basis to deliver the medium- and long-term goals for digitalisation in Thailand.

Agility and regulation

Thailand does have a history of introducing reforms to update its system of regulatory policy making in accordance with international good practices as explored in the previous sections and in the OECD report Thailand: Regulatory Management and Oversight Reforms: A Diagnostic Scan 2020 (2020[19]). Yet, technology and citizens’ expectations change rapidly and governments (including the Thai government) should be able to adapt and meet the needs of citizens and businesses in this fast-paced context in order to stay relevant. Thai public officials were quite vocal in this respect, as they indicated considering the legal and regulatory framework both an opportunity and an obstacle for the open and connected agenda, stressing the need to ensure the right balance between issuing new regulations and the need for adapting existing ones. They also raised concerns in relation to the capacity of the Thai government and its regulatory bodies to keep up with technological developments to avoid perpetuating or creating bottlenecks blocking the agility and capacity of the public sector to adapt and leverage technology and data in the pursue of value for society.

Applying an agile approach to regulatory activities can help the Thai government to make more informed decisions and tackle the challenges of the digital era in a more efficient fashion. In Thailand, the Office of the Public Sector Development Commission (OPDC) is aware of how bureaucracy, the lack of collaboration (including with external actors and within the public sector) and the passive cultural approach to engagement and innovation constrain the delivery of the open and connected agenda. For this reason, the OPDC self-identifies as a “mentor” that can help in driving organisational and cultural change and explore new ways of public management. Initiatives such as its Innovation Lab could be further leveraged to enable safe spaces to explore the implementation of agile regulatory initiatives in Thailand.

Funding to leverage inclusion, equality and better services

In Thailand, the Bureau of the Budget (BB) plans and allocates government expenditure to secure that line ministries, such as the MDES, count with the needed financial resources to implement the 20-Year Digital Economy and Society Development Plan (2017-2036) or Digital Thailand. The BB also has a strong political lever given its location in the PMO and the fact that the deputy prime minister chairs it.

Proposed projects are also assessed drawing upon their contribution to an integrated budget plan prepared by the BB, which covers: i) connectivity and Internet access; ii) digital government; iii) data sharing within the public sector; and iv) public officials’ digital skills. Yet, the integrated budget plan does not contemplate any specific policy elements relevant for open government. Adequate funding is crucial for efficient and sustainable implementation of open government reforms and for supporting open government priorities. Beyond the total amounts spent to support open government initiatives, it is important that funding sources are as clear and consistent as possible, appropriate recipients are identified to support the government’s open government reform goals and that funds are spent on both implementation and co-ordination. In that regard, earmarking funds for open government in the integrated budget plan could help to advance the open government agenda in Thailand.

In Thailand, open government initiatives are funded through a mixed system. The OPDC that is in charge of the open government agenda centrally co-ordinates funding of initiatives across public sector institutions, while ministries and agencies also fund their own policies and initiatives themselves. The allocation of funds through a central institution such as the OPDC may facilitate coherence and consistency of reforms and can help to ensure that all initiatives follow a national open government strategy (NOGS). Endowing the institutions responsible for implementation with their own funds can however also reduce overdependence on a single actor and may help to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the allocation of funds.

Commissioning of digital government projects: A focus on user value

The governance for a paperless government and services

As discussed in the section “Driving national development and innovation through digital government”, the OPDC, DGA, ETDA and MDES play a fundamental role in taking Thailand to the next level in terms of its digital transformation, including in building a digital government. Also, Thailand’s tradition of using legal instruments as a lever for digital transformation is reflected in how the country drew upon these mechanisms to build a paperless government.

For instance, in 2019, the OPDC, revised the Royal Decree on Criteria and Procedures for Good Governance, B.E. 2562 (2019) as a means of improving the governance for service delivery. Specifically, Section 6 of the Royal Decree requires that the provision of services and co-ordination among government agencies must be done through a central digital platform for data exchange, the Government Data Exchange Centre (GDX) – and Section 10 appoints the DGA as the body in charge of developing the GDX. For this purpose, the decree sets a two-year transitional window (subject to an extension to be requested to the OPDC) so that the heads of public agencies can move towards the full use of this platform for public service delivery and collaborative purposes.

Decree 2562 adds to the extensive list of legal and regulatory instruments for digital government and digitalisation (e.g. the Acts on Electronic Transactions, Cyber Security, and Data Protection) developed by the Thai government as presented in the section “Building the legal foundations for a digital government”.

Key enablers for digital services

The DGA is the main provider of infrastructure and the required technical support to build a paperless e-government. It promotes information sharing within the public sector and secures the delivery of public services, information and data to citizens and businesses through government platforms, among others. For this purpose, the DGA has developed different technical solutions and platforms in its pursuit to improve government-to-government (G2G) services (DGA, 2018[21]). These include the Government Information Network (GIN), as an integrated network for information sharing within the public sector, and the Government Cloud Service (G-Cloud), offering a secured government-owned tool for data storage and the hosting of cloud-based services and digital solutions.

Service design: End-to-end services that focus on users

Thailand’s government and its leading agencies are in the midst of a transitional period where legacy e-government aspects and the eagerness to move fast collide and create tension and resistance to change from different government bodies. Thai agencies comply with government regulations but fail to understand that delivering on governments’ digitalisation and digital government goals would require self-acknowledging that things should be done differently from the start.

For instance, during the OECD mission to Bangkok, public officials expressed that, in practice, the 2015 Licensing Facilitation Act, B.E. 2558, is more of a mapping exercise that identifies the availability of services rather than identifying service overlaps or opportunities to redesign underlying processes as a priority for greater service consolidation. Public officials also expressed that there is a significant regulatory burden while regulators are failing to take real action to decrease it, leading to strenuous formalities and below-optimal services provided to citizens and start-ups. This top-down approach is a legacy challenge by itself as decisions on what services should be prioritised for improvement are left to those agencies who own them, ignoring the insights and needs of the final users.

Also, results from the OECD mission to Bangkok indicate the lack of any formal principles or guidance for service owners (e.g. government agencies providing services to citizens) in relation to assessing, embedding and taking into consideration the opinions of users in an iterative fashion (e.g. when kicking off new projects or assessing ongoing delivery). Moreover, current initiatives focus on the interoperability of data systems within government but there is little indication that there were any overall standards set for technology in government, even though government agencies mentioned service interoperability and integration as key policy priorities during the OECD mission to Bangkok. This is surprising given the DGA’s strong focus on technology and data (e.g. development of platforms and technical tools). In this line, although focusing on the design stage of digital services is not currently a priority, it might be in Thailand’s interest to start with small pilot projects, built by multi-disciplinary teams. This would allow agencies, led by the DGA, to experiment with service design, based on data and user research before having to commit to a national roll-out of digital services.

One key aspect in this regard is related to the lack of capacity within the public sector to build services and other tools such as (open) software, which has led to most government projects being outsourced to third parties, often in a fragmented fashion in terms of both procurement and standards. By starting “small” with a focus on scalability, the DGA could help in building a greater understanding of the frameworks for digital services, their connection with budgetary innovation and the application of service and data standards needed to deliver full digital transformation.

The DGA could also start on building a better understanding of the capability gaps that should be addressed to meet user expectations for digital services and build a more mature digital government where service owners (agencies) are able to cope with digital transformation challenges on their own.

Delivery and access to public services: Inclusion and digital by design

The DGA provides one-stop services following a multi-channel approach through physical kiosks, mobile and web-based channels.

For this purpose, the DGA has deployed a system of Government Smart Kiosks (GSKs) across the Thai territory to address the digital divide for those citizens without access to the Internet or the required connected devices such as personal computers and smartphones. The GSKs offer the possibility for citizens to: access basic and useful information; register, apply or transact for some services such as identification verification, document delivery, data entry or issues reporting; and payment. These kiosks are available in 119 locations, including hospitals, government complexes and service points, one-stop service centres, shopping malls, provincial halls, bus terminals and schools. The GSKs have a strong focus on access to information, namely information on citizens’ financial situation, civil registers and public sector health systems. To date, the lack of a more advanced eID system in the country requires citizens to hold a smart version of the citizen’s ID card to use the GSKs network.

Adding to the accessibility focus of the GSKs, the MDES is deploying connectivity infrastructure across the national territory. For instance, the MDES is working on improving digital inclusion through the Village Broadband Infrastructure Program “Smart Thailand”. This is due to the fact that 90.1% of the population surveyed use the Internet via mobile devices and 65.6% do so through a home-based Internet, according to the 2019 “Survey of the use of information technology and communication in households” conducted by the National Statistical Office (2019[23]). In early January 2021, the MDES deployed 20 000 free Wi-Fi hotspots in public areas as the first phase of the Smart Thailand scheme. An additional 20 000 hotspots to provide coverage of 88% of districts in all 77 provinces will be rolled out as part of the programme’s second phase.

In addition, the government of Thailand launched Village Broadband Internet (Net Pracharat) as a way to bridge the rural-urban digital divide and increase Internet accessibility. The project involved strengthening the national broadband network by expanding the high-speed Internet network to reach every village in the country, such that people living in remote areas will be able to access high-speed Internet like those in the cities.

In relation to web-based access, there are approximately 2 574 government websites from 454 government agencies, and no fewer than 299 online applications that are administered by public sector organisations. All of these websites and online applications are owned, administered, updated and monitored independently. Additionally, the Thai government offers a set of government-owned mobile applications developed by different agencies accessible through the Government Application Centre (GAC) apps.go.th.

In 2015, the DGA launched govchannel.go.th as a means to provide a single window for citizens to access government information, open data, statistics, formalities and services, and relevant mobile applications (more extensive than GSKs for services). However, the GovChannel follows a more e-government approach where the platform works more as an alternative “search engine” to browse among the different available government websites (e.g. services are hosted on separate websites therefore accessible through different government domains).

The next steps would consider the underlying assimilation and integration of the different sparse website platforms providing access to such topics in view of simplifying access to public sector information, data, formalities and services. However, this will require facing the potential organisational resistance of those agencies that own the specific available domains available for access through GovChannel, and that of line ministries and other bodies administering their own government websites. Yet, the case and rationale for this reform should not be merely understood from a look-and-feel or a technical angle, but from the intricate user journey resulting from multiple available government websites.

This would also require securing a consolidated and consistent user experience through the different channels (omnichannel) rather than simply offering online access points (multi-channel) for scattered and often fragmented government websites, services and applications. For instance, both the GovChannel and Government Applications Centre (GAC) function as catalogues of websites and applications rather than single platforms for greater public services’ integration and consolidation.

Leadership

The MDES is the public sector organisation with the highest political and administrative leadership for the national data agenda, Thailand’s National Big Data Policy. Both the MDES and the DGA led the development of the data governance framework.

The DGA delivers policy recommendations on digital government transformation and data governance backed by political support too, with its government-to-government (G2G), government-to-citizen (G2C) and government-to-business (G2B) initiatives issued either as prime minister’s orders or cabinet resolutions (DGA, 2018, p. 33[25]). The DGA’s leadership and role in building a data-driven public sector are set out in B.E. 2561 (2018), a Royal Decree that established the DGA under the supervision of the prime minister and the PMO. However, the DGA should play a stronger co-ordination and enforcement role in the implementation of data governance actions at the national, regional and local levels. This again opens the discussion in relation to the role the DGA plays in the budget allocation process (as discussed in the previous sections) so that the opportunities brought by financial management mechanisms could be further levered on.

Also, public sector co-ordination and capability limitations do not only bring data governance challenges at the central level but translate into multi-level data governance issues, in particular when specific data is generated by local bodies but consumed by central authorities as an input for policy and decision making. For instance, as reported by some interviewees during the OECD mission to Bangkok, previous efforts to build bottom-up and multi-level data governance arrangements to use development data for effective policy making did not move forward. The latter happened due to the disparities in terms of data capacities, protective data management practices at the local level and the complex multi-level governance arrangements and accountability mechanisms between local, provincial and central authorities. In this light, the DGA’s devising, executing and enforcing the implementation of its G2G (including central-local data exchange), G2C and G2B initiatives at the operational level for national, department and provincial public sector organisations require imparting greater authority to the DGA to attain better co-ordination on and the coherent implementation of digital standards, digital infrastructure and digital services.

The leading role of the MDES, while inclusive and relevant, risks that public sector data initiatives under the National Big Data Policy will not be granted enough political support vis-à-vis other digital economy policy goals. clarity on leadership and accountability in an institutional governance model is a core element of good data governance. In this light, the government of Thailand should clearly identify the key public sector organisations that will officially lead public sector data governance efforts. This would require the political leadership to confer a higher degree of power to the DGA, such that the DGA has greater oversight beyond its advisory role in the context of the National Big Data Policy. This is to secure good data governance as the first step towards data access and sharing, with the publication of good quality open data.

Towards an action plan for public sector data

Thailand’s national data strategy is contained in its National Big Data Policy, which is placed within the broader national digitalisation plans for the government. The National Big Data Policy is led by the MDES and the DGA Steering Committee for Big Data, Data Centres and Cloud Computing.

Under the MDES, the ONDE has the mandate for drafting national policies on digital economy and society for the Office of the National Digital Economy and Society Commission (ONDE) and co-ordinating with DEPA (ONDE, 2020[26]) (see next section). During the OECD peer review mission to Bangkok, the ONDE shared that one of its main objectives is for big data to generate economic and social value by improving operational efficiency in production and services (ONDE/MDES, 2019[27]). As such, the National Big Data Policy is framed in the context of the larger 20-Year Digital Economy and Society Development Plan (2017-2036) or Digital Thailand. Furthermore, big data is treated as the architectural foundation on which other data initiatives and innovations are built, such as open government data, digital government services and more broadly, digital businesses and innovations (ONDE/MDES, 2019[27]).

However, Thailand’s National Big Data Policy can be made more coherent and sustainable by further clarifying its role, positioning and scope as a metadata governance instrument (i.e. a policy governing policies) that addresses data policy issues related to different sectors. The demarcation of the purposes, corresponding actions and intended outcomes for specific public sector organisations or segments need to be clear. This implies reinforcing the relevance of those areas that fall directly under the government sphere. Additionally, the government of Thailand fairs well in providing strong political support and will to create and see through its National Big Data Policy – but falls short on the operational aspect for its execution and implementation, in particular, addressing data access, sharing and re-use in the public sector.

From the outset, the government of Thailand should focus on developing a comprehensive yet specific policy instrument addressing public sector data issues at the central, subnational and local levels (i.e. open government data, data ethics in the public sector). Therefore, the Action Plan for Public Sector Data should also set the right accountability and enforcement mechanisms supported by a stronger leading role of the DGA as proposed earlier. As such, it will need to specify targets, monitoring mechanisms and impact assessments for each key stakeholder and milestone. A way to move forward in the short term could involve an inclusive approach for the development of the Action Plan for Public Sector Data in consultation with the wider ecosystem of public and private sector stakeholders.

Capacity for coherent implementation

Regulation

Regulation plays an important role in defining the set of rules around the use and treatment of data (OECD, 2019, p. 42[31]). As discussed in Chapter 3, the government of Thailand has risen to the act of solidifying and reinforcing the legislative support and guidance for its policies to build a data-driven public sector in recent years. In 2019, the National Legislative Assembly of Thailand (NLA) passed six technology-related legislations to improve and clarify the regulatory environment for public and private digital services:

• Electronic Transactions Act No. 3, B.E. 2562 (2019), and No. 4, B.E. 2562 (2019).

• Electronic Transactions Development Agency Act, B.E. 2562 (2019).

• Digital Economy and Society Council Act, B.E. 2562 (2019).

• Personal Data Protection Act, B.E. 2562 (2019).

• Cyber Security Act, B.E. 2562 (2019).

• Digitalisation of Public Administration and Service Delivery Act, B.E. 2562 (2019).

These efforts in digital reform are notable. Yet, legislation is a first step but it does not guarantee effective and sustained implementation. During the OECD peer review mission in Bangkok, the Office of the Council of State under the PMO in charge of drafting the Digitalisation of Public Administration and Service Delivery Bill shared that the legislation is intended to change the public sector culture, enforce data sharing and facilitate the operations of the Government Data Exchange Centre (GDX) and Open Government Data Centre. The prime minister of Thailand actively supports this but still faces resistance from various government agencies due to the lack of readiness and capability.

Hard and soft regulatory instruments (e.g. regulations, standards, guidelines) need to be enforced actively with strong co-ordinated efforts across the public sector. This process requires structural support such as human resources, digital infrastructure and public trust. It also calls for softer regulatory instruments that address culture and behaviour such as understanding the potential of data, growing interest and aptitude in data, and practising data ethics.

One area is the regulatory tension between data protection and data sharing. The ONDE highlighted during the OECD peer review mission in Bangkok that it has not embarked on open data or data-sharing initiatives due to restrictions and legislative burden from the data protection law. This balance between a flexible and structured approach can help to foster common understanding, alignment and coherence of data initiatives. It creates greater support for concerted actions when addressing challenges and delivering results (OECD, 2019, p. 33[31]).

Leveraging data access and sharing to deliver public value

While a strong focus on technical issues for data governance can be a weakness and mislead data policy decisions (OECD, 2019, p. 27[31]), underpinning the transition to a data-driven public sector calls for the definition of a complex set of data access and sharing arrangements, including standards and guidelines, to support the delivery of value, as explored in the technical layer of data governance.

A key working principle of the DGA’s G2G, G2C and G2B infrastructure, platforms and enablers is to link and exchange data and unlock greater public value. The DGA aims to create “an effective data management system [that is] accurate, complete, updated, and connectable promptly and securely” (DGA, 2018, p. 12[25]) to be used for developing new platforms, tools and services, such as the Government Information Network (GIN) for connecting government agencies at all levels to facilitate a wide range of applications, the Government Data Exchange Centre (GDX) for digitally transferring documents among agencies and the one-stop service for citizens to access public services.

Most initiatives for data integration are oriented around identifiable data on citizens and businesses and data related to national security and critical infrastructures, following the first phase of integrating government databases directed by the Prime Minister Operations Centre (PMOC) and the Steering Committee for the Integration of Government Databases (EGA/MICT, 2016[32]). While the central government is prioritising data, information and systems integration as the foundation for a data-driven public sector at a strategic level (EGA/MICT, 2016[32]), there is a considerable lack of operational expertise and understanding to deal with the heterogeneity of the data and the complexity of data integration at the executional level.

As identified in the previous subsections, a key challenge faced by the government of Thailand is the execution of the data plans and especially at the departmental and provincial levels. There needs to be a stronger understanding of what data are available or not, and if those data are valuable, compatible and interoperable to be used and re-used, this together with the experiences and capabilities related to data management and analytics that need to be consolidated – such that data governance can be carried out effectively. These were the challenges for the use of national data registries that are often cited in the surveys conducted by the OECD for the purpose of this review.

There are different types of data with widely different economic and social value and data value cycles. On the technical front and delivery layer for a data-driven public sector, the government of Thailand needs to have a comprehensive and coherent approach towards organising, categorising and integrating government data. Doing this step correctly can provide the leverage to achieve developments in data sharing and public trust in the government’s use of data – together with open government data as explored later in this chapter.

Establishing the role of data for public trust

The government of Thailand understands the importance of governing and managing data with trust as the backbone to improve citizens’ well-being. Its digital government services have qualified for international standards, such as the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) Security, Trust and Assurance Registry that enhances transparency in cloud computing services and the Business Continuity Management Systems (BCMS) that enable holistic management of threats to business operations (DGA, 2018, p. 30[25]). Trust is also a major component of the 20-Year Digital Economy and Society Development Plan (2017-2036) or Digital Thailand. The sixth strategy in this plan is focused on building trust and confidence in the use of digital technologies by updating laws and regulations, encouraging investments and ensuring security (Segkhoonthod, 2017[34]). This also ties tightly into the 6^th strategy of the 12^th National Economic and Social Development Plan (2017-2021) that aims to root out corruption and achieve good governance in the public administration (Segkhoonthod, 2017[34])). Measures taken under this strategy towards data ethics and the use of digital technology and tools are most critical in determining public outcomes.

Towards sound open data policies: Data availability, accessibility and re-use

In Thailand, open government data efforts are led by the DGA and OPDC. Since 2013, the DGA has had the responsibility of managing Thailand’s national centralised open data portal, the Government Open Data Centre (data.go.th). The open data portal is designed to provide open government data in easy-to-find categories and in formats that meet Thailand’s national Open Government Data Standard (DGA, 2018, p. 39[25]). As of 2018, data.go.th hosted more than 2 000 open datasets. The DGA has also published the Open Data Handbook that provides guidelines for selecting high-value datasets and co-ordinating with other government agencies, providing information and engaging with the public including inspection by the public.

In 2015, the government of Thailand released its first Open Data Strategy under the DGA with ten core principles for data publication: Open by Default, Protected where Required; Prioritised; Discoverable; Usable; Primary; Timely; Well Managed, Trusted and Authoritative; Free where Appropriate; and Subject to Public Input. These overarching requirements apply to all public sector organisations releasing open government data for public access and use.

The Digitalisation of Public Administration and Services Delivery Act, B.E. 2562 (2019), also known as the Digital Government Act, granted specific responsibilities to public sector organisations in relation to open government data. One of the main objectives of digital government development detailed under Section 4 of the act mentions the “disclosure of public data […] produced and possessed by State Agencies […] for the purpose of creating easy access to the public, promoting their involvement in and inspection on governmental operations, and enabling them to further use the data to develop innovations and services which would be beneficial to the Country in certain aspects”.

Specifically, under Section 17, public sector organisations have a responsibility to “produce the data which must be disclosed to the public under the laws on government information as digital data” and “enable the public free access without any expense”. It goes on to specify that these standards and rules on the disclosure of such data “shall be prescribed by the Digital Government Development Commission for the benefit of facilitating the people’s access to the data”. 

Yet, despite these recent developments, the leadership and co-ordination by the DGA or the OPDC is still facing some key challenges to deliver value from open data. These gaps are analysed in further detail in the following sections based on Thailand’s performance in each of the three pillars of the OECD Open, Useful and Re-usable data (OURdata) Index (OECD, 2020[39]).

Data availability

Results from Pillar 1 on “Data availability” demonstrates that while Thailand performs fairly, it still needs to greatly improve for Sub-pillar 1.1 on the “Content of the open-by-default policy” (scoring 0.19 in comparison to the Southeast Asian average of 0.12 and the OECD average of 0.22), better for Sub-pillar 1.2 on “Stakeholder engagement for data release” (scoring 0.21 in comparison to the Southeast Asian average of 0.11 and the OECD average of 0.20) and has much to improve for Sub-pillar 1.3 on “Implementation” (scoring 0.12 in comparison to the Southeast Asian average of 0.13 and the OECD average of 0.18). Overall, the results for each of the aforementioned sub-pillars contribute to Thailand’s ranking (scoring 0.52) to be slightly below the OECD average (scoring 0.59) and higher than the Southeast Asian average (scoring 0.36).

Sub-pillar 1.1 on “Content on the open-by-default policy” looks at the extent to which there are formal requirements supporting openness by default through instruments such as laws, regulations or guidelines. These foundational arrangements help to promote a public sector culture that encourages the release of open government data (OECD, 2020, p. 28[39]), which is key for Thailand. The Thai government understands the value inherent in opening up the access and use of government data to a broader ecosystem of the public sector, private sector and civil society stakeholders, as reflected in its landmark Digitalisation of Public Administration and Services Delivery Act, B.E. 2562 (2019). However, the DGA and supporting bodies should now focus on comprehensive communication and implementation across the whole public sector, since formal requirements are not enough to secure actual implementation, as measured in Sub-pillar 1.3 and discussed later. Advancing implementation would also require further deepening the use of KPIs to monitor and promote greater capacities and capabilities of its public sector organisations in working with open government data.

Sub-pillar 1.2 on “Stakeholder engagement” measures the level of engagement with stakeholders to inform open data policies and support purposeful and user-driven data publication, which is critical for value generation. Engaging stakeholders boosts the efficacy of data publication and strategic re-use as data users’ needs are better understood and addressed. This is key from a data demand point of view: open government release should not solely be based on the government’s perceived user needs or what is most requested (OECD, 2018, p. 132[40]), but also on strategic data supply (OECD, 2020, p. 30[39]).

The DGA could take a greater lead in co-ordinating efforts concerning the engagement of the open data ecosystem to understand their needs. As expressed by public officials during the OECD peer review mission in Bangkok, evidence points to minimal public interest and participation in the government’s open data and data sharing initiatives. However, this negative context is aggravated by public sector organisations strong focus on compliance – indicating, again, a cultural challenge where the publication of open data is still understood as the main outcome rather than as a means to deliver value. During the OECD peer review mission in Bangkok, public officials shared that there is still a lack of emphasis on user needs and that data demand is not being met.

This highlights the importance of involving a wide variety of stakeholders in the design process of open data policies, the identification of data needs, and the government’s key role in promoting the shift towards a user-driven open data policy. Doing so can boost the effectiveness of addressing the technical, administrative and cultural challenges during the implementation stage.

Lastly, Sub-pillar 1.3 on “Implementation” assesses the results and outputs of open-by-default policies. A key element to consider here is to make quality and value a priority when sharing open government data, as opposed to focusing too much on the quantity of data. This mandates the availability of open government data in high-value taxonomies such as business registers, transport, environmental and geographical data and their integration into the data value chains towards greater government, economic and social innovation (OECD, 2020, p. 9[39]). Results from the 2019 OURdata Index showed that OECD countries did not perform well in this aspect because creating quality open data and value requires governments to first focus on generating data that are standardised, interoperable and valuable before publication and release (OECD, 2020, p. 32[39]). The latter stage will be covered in Pillar 2 on “Data accessibility”.

Another fundamental consideration needed for the government of Thailand is how to approach the data infrastructure for open data in the implementation process. At a more technical level, a data federation model can facilitate data discoverability and reduce data fragmentation while maintaining a balance between a good level of data autonomy and ownership at the subnational levels and quality assurance at the central level (OECD, 2020, p. 9[39]). For instance, various ministries and agencies expressed during the OECD peer review mission in Bangkok that they have their own active open data initiatives but these may not be fully hosted on the central open data platform under the DGA and that they do not have knowledge of other counterparties’ initiatives. The DGA could develop data quality mechanisms and automation processes for open data and data sharing that cut across the over 400 government agencies through the Government Data Exchange Centre (GDX) and the use of the government API system. Thailand’s lower availability of data can be seen as a window of opportunity to start strengthening data governance and data quality at the source.

The DGA should take a greater lead in co-ordinating efforts for the engagement with stakeholders in the open data ecosystem early to understand their needs, invoke greater interest and participation and change the mindset and culture. It should also consider making the public consultations inclusive, innovative and encouraging of collaborations, in line with existing open government data frameworks, and strengthen stakeholder engagement with local governments and actors by providing technical-methodological support, promote good practices and strengthen capability and capacity.

Data accessibility

Results for Pillar 2 show that Thailand is slightly below the Southeast Asian average and has much to catch up on all three sub-pillars: Sub-pillar 2.1 on the “Content of the unrestricted access to data policy” (scoring 0.13 in comparison to the Southeast Asian average of 0.19 and the OECD average of 0.27), Sub-pillar 2.2 on “Stakeholder engagement for data quality and completeness” (scoring 0.13 in comparison to the Southeast Asian average of 0.07 and the OECD average of 0.14) and Sub-pillar 2.3 on “Implementation” (scoring 0.21 in comparison to the Southeast Asian average of 0.24 and the OECD average of 0.28). Overall, the results for each of the aforementioned sub-pillars contribute to Thailand’s ranking (scoring 0.48) to be just below the Southeast Asian average (scoring 0.50) and OECD average (scoring 0.70).

Sub-pillar 2.1 on “Content of the unrestricted access to data policy” looks at increasing the production and sharing of quality data that are released proactively, timely and in understandable and re-usable formats for users and machines (OECD, 2020, p. 36[39]). It specifies that there should be the provision of requirements and guidance on metadata, the active addressing of quality issues and biases throughout the data value cycle and the free provision of data (OECD, 2020, p. 37[39]).

During the OECD mission to Bangkok and in line with earlier assessments, the DGA underlined how most government agencies disclose data in non-machine-readable formats (DGA, 2018, p. 50[25]). This is because the government of Thailand has no formal requirements and only guidelines for its public sector organisations to provide data in machine-readable formats, with their associated metadata or that are interoperable, as shared in the Open Government Data Survey for the OECD and ADB report Government at a Glance Southeast Asia 2019. This poses a key challenge to derive value from data and poses a barrier to meet policy objectives in line with the Digitalisation of Public Administration and Services Delivery Act, B.E. 2562 (2019).

Sub-pillar 2.2 on “Stakeholder engagement for data quality and completeness” stipulates that the open government data portals should be treated as spaces for open engagement with the larger ecosystem rather than top-down approaches just to provide data supply. The larger goal should encourage innovation, collaboration, knowledge sharing and value creation towards enabling Government as a Platform (GaaP) (OECD, 2020, p. 39[39]). While the government of Thailand enforces standards for accessibility, it should also strengthen its stakeholder engagement and design of its central open government data portal to allow data communities and ecosystems to thrive. According to the Open Government Data Survey results for the OECD and ADB report Government at a Glance Southeast Asia 2019 (2019[30]), the feedback loop and engagement with users on the Government Open Data Centre (data.go.th) is still largely one way as users are not allowed to add a dataset or create other outputs like data visualisation and are not notified about issues or the re-use of their data. In a similar fashion, the DGA can consider creating fora for discussion and notifications on chosen datasets beyond feedback sections, where users can connect, collaborate and share ideas directly with each other on the use of the open government data – a rare practice that only several OECD countries have in place (OECD, 2020, p. 38[39]).

Sub-pillar 2.3 on “Implementation” emphasises that the non-formal requirements, cultural changes, political willingness and expertise among public officials are also a necessary part of the equation to enable the release of and access to re-usable datasets on open government data portals. The Open Government Data Survey results for Thailand in the OECD and ADB report Government at a Glance Southeast Asia 2019 (2019[30]) showed that even though there are points of contact for datasets provided on the Government Open Data Centre (data.go.th), in practice there is a very low proportion of structured data, data provided in multiple formats, data provided in machine-readable formats, the use of uniform resource identifiers, the provision of data visualisation tools and the provision of associated metadata – which is consistent with the findings that have been elaborated in-depth above.

Government support for data re-use

Pillar 3 on “Government support for data re-use” is increasingly seen by governments as a key requirement for value creation and builds upon the previous two pillars addressing the availability and accessibility of good quality government data (OECD, 2018, p. 88[40]).

Thailand performs well in Sub-pillar 3.1 on “Data promotion initiatives and partnerships” (scoring 0.22 in comparison to the Southeast Asian average of 0.12 and the OECD average of 0.16) but there is still a big gap especially for Sub-pillar 3.2 on “Data literacy programmes in government” (scoring 0.14 in comparison to the Southeast Asian average of 0.15 and the OECD average 0.21) and Sub-pillar 3.3. on “Monitoring impact” (scoring 0.04 in comparison to the Southeast Asian average of 0.06 and the OECD average of 0.14). Overall, the results for each of the aforementioned sub-pillars contribute to Thailand’s ranking (scoring 0.40) just above the Southeast Asian average (scoring 0.33) and markedly below the OECD average (scoring 0.52).

Sub-pillar 3.1 on “Data promotion initiatives and partnerships” measures the extent to which governments regularly conduct assessments, information sessions and focus groups with citizens, businesses and other stakeholders, hold co-creation and crowdsourcing events to promote data re-use and create partnerships with business incubators and CSOs that aim at solving specific public policy challenges.

Results from the OECD Open Government Data Survey also reveal that the government of Thailand does not formally encourage its public sector organisations to raise awareness among businesses on open government data opportunities but does so with citizens and non-governmental organisations. Public sector organisations are not regularly involved in any events or activities aimed at promoting the re-use of open government data, except for a few annual hackathon events. As this is well within the current scope of the DGA, the DGA should step up its leadership and initiatives in this respect. Long-term partnerships with the open data ecosystem can sustain user engagement and data re-use.

Sub-pillar 3.2 on “Data literacy programmes in the government” are indispensable for building skills and capacity in the public sector to support open data and data sharing efforts. The government of Thailand is progressing well, in general, with the creation of the TDGA that promotes, supports and provides skills and standards training between the public and private sectors, and the definition of digital and data roles as defined in the DGA Data Governance Framework and the OCSC Skills Framework.

However, Thailand is lacking the necessary human resources to unlock the full potential of a data-driven public sector and could channel more into this area. Based on the results of the Open Government Data Survey for Thailand, much more needs to be done to conduct information sessions, focus groups and training within the public sector and with government officials on the benefits, needs and methods of promoting the re-use of open government data – at all levels of the government and leadership. These programmes should raise public officials’ understanding and awareness on how data should be published and re-used within the public sector to improve internal processes, public policies and services. Finally, increasing the level of digital literacy can also help to build an organisational culture that embraces data, which the government of Thailand presently has as a programme but needs to further deploy through practical and consistent training sessions on the DGA Open Government Data Handbook. The Open Government Data Conference as a platform for internal consultation is another good channel that should be reinforced not just for feedback collection but strengthening the awareness and effective rolling-out of open government data efforts.

Sub-pillar 3.3. on “Monitoring impact” should be done by financing or conducting research on the economic, social and public sector performance impact of open government data. Indicators can include the amount of re-use of open government data and the types of re-use carried out such as data visualisations, mobile applications and news articles – through usage cases that are documented, displayed and promoted openly.

In reference to the results of the Open Government Data Survey (2019[30]), the government has not conducted research on the economic or public sector performance impact of open government data but has done so for the social impact since 2015. While building the data architecture and infrastructure for GaaP, the DGA should continue to identify, collect and display to the public good examples of re-use on centralised and local open government data within and outside the public sector. In sum, attaining this stage of opening and sharing meaningful, accessible and re-usable data to generate value for stakeholders requires data-driven and user-centric approaches – with open government data laws that oblige public sector organisations to publish and share their data in complete, updated and appropriate formats and strong user engagement in the open government data ecosystem.