Page 10 - kpiebook66022

สถาบันพระปกเกล้า
King Prajadhipok’s Institute

Executive Summary
The Assessment of the Parliament’s Performance for the Year 2022

This assessment of the Thai parliament’s performance for the year 2022 was
undertaken based on the criteria and framework of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU)
in order to present the evaluation results and recommendations to the members of
parliament. The study considered the National Assembly composed of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, which were established according to the provisions of
the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, B.E.2560 [2017], covering a period from
March 24, 2019 to the closing of the second year’s first session on September 25, 2020.

The assessment process employed a mixed methods research approach, combining
qualitative research methods such as documentary research, focus group meetings, and
World Café format, which divided participants into three groups, each assessing a different
aspect of the Thai Parliament’s performance. The three groups were as follows:
Group 1: issues of public representation and duties related to legislation;
Group 2: transparency, accessibility of the Parliament, and awareness of the
Parliament’s responsibilities;

Group 3: examination of the administration and participation in international policies.
Forums were was organized in four regions of the country: Northern region in Lampang
Province; Northeastern region in Sakon Nakhon Province; Central and Eastern regions in
Rayong Province; and Southern region in Songkhla Province. Additionally, group meetings
were conducted to respond to questionnaires and interviews were conducted with expert
members and professionals from various sectors, including members of parliament, former
members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, academics, social activists,
media representatives, independent organization officials, and former executives of
the Senate and the House of Representatives.

For the quantitative research component, data was collected through questionnaires
and analyzed using descriptive statistics. The sample groups were divided into three
categories. The first group consisted of specific individuals, including former members of
the House of Representatives, high-ranking government officials, media representatives,
representatives from social organizations, NGO executives, representatives from local
government, private sector representatives, and various academic experts. The total
number of such participants was 16. The second group consisted of experts and

VI