Introduction

The Thai parliament is notorious for its contentious power struggle and lowquality debates. The role of policy analysis in parliamentary work is questionable. Based on a series of interviews with senators, members of the House of Representatives and parliamentary administrators, the central argument of this chapter is that Thai parliamentarians have attempted to incorporate policy analysis tools into their legislative tasks. However, their attempt is hampered by the fusion-of-power parliamentary system and the current constitution that is premised against elected officials. Furthermore, the research and administrative services provided by the parliamentary administration are limited, worsening the information asymmetry between the executive and legislative branches.

Political journalists in Thailand enjoy an annual tradition of giving satirical names to politicians occupying top leadership positions in government.1 In 2021, ‘parasites’ and ‘termites’ were chosen to mock the two chambers of the national legislative branch. Members of the House of Representatives or members of parliament (MPs) were dubbed ‘termites in a rut’ as they always appeared to keep themselves busy with their political survival and power struggle at the expense of the public interest. Parliamentary debates and committee meetings were frequently disrupted by a lack of quorum (Bangkok Post, 2019). On the other hand, the senators appointed by the former National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO)2 were described as ‘parasites’ due to their connection to the senior junta figures and their insidious manoeuvring of the legislative process to ensure

continuity of the NCPO's work (Bangkok Post, 2019). The two monikers suggest that both the upper and lower houses of the Thai parliament did not take their duties seriously. Policy analysis in the Thai parliament seems out of the question. Contrary to the political satire, this chapter argues that Thai senators and MPs have attempted to incorporate policy analysis tools into their work. However, the legislators’ use of evidence in legislative agenda setting may appear uncommon or even unlikely in the public eye for two reasons.