Today marks the last day of the four-year term of the House of Representatives, whose performance over the past few years has been slammed by critics as only somewhat acceptable, if not poor.
On this occasion, the Bangkok Post asked several political pundits to rate the performance of the country's 25th House of Representatives across its three core functions, namely passing legislation, preventing abuses by the government, and bringing attention to problems in their constituencies.
A waste of taxpayers' money
Wanwichit Boonprong, a political science lecturer at Rangsit University, gave parliament a score of 40 out of 100.
He said the House deserves a low score due to the fact that MPs were too keen on engaging in political games, which on various occasions resulted in the collapse of House sessions that were called to deliberate crucial pieces of legislation.
If he was to rate the House of Representatives' performance separately from the Senate, he said he would give the former 60 out of 100, and 40 out of 100 for the latter.
"Criticisms about their performance have simply fallen on deaf ears," said Mr Wanwichit.
"Worse still, they wasted four years of their time in office obsessing about amending the constitution, which only led to minor changes in how the election is organised to benefit certain political parties," he said.
Legislators from small parties, in particular, didn't really serve the public, he pointed out.
That said, MPs did a relatively better job in addressing the public's concerns and keeping the government in line, compared to senators, Mr Wanwichit said.
The cabinet, meanwhile, often did not pay sufficient attention to motions filed by opposition MPs to pursue the government's response to a problem.
In fact, Mr Wanwichit said, a number of ministers targeted in such motions often hid behind their expert staff and/or representatives, which would then respond on their behalf.
The House also failed to kick out MPs who were found to have engaged in unethical behaviour and/or committed abuses, he said.
"Most MPs who were dismissed by the House did not lose their jobs because they were forced out by a House mechanism. Instead, they were only fired following investigations launched by an independent panel set up to investigate their wrongdoings," Mr Wanwichit said.
As for the frequent collapse of House sessions due to the lack of quorum, Mr Wanwichit said the media should expose MPs who were responsible, so voters could decide on their own if they want to vote for those politicians in the next election or not.
In many cases, it was a deliberate tactic to stall deliberations on a crucial matter, he said.
For instance, two sessions meant to discuss the bill on media ethic promotion collapsed because the Senate wanted to the delay the deliberation of the next item on the government's agenda, which was the amendment that would effectively remove the Senate's power to influence the selection of the next prime minister, Mr Wanwichit said.
Senate support lacking
Assoc Prof Yuttaporn Issarachai, a political science lecturer at Sukhothai Thammathirat University, said the House of Representatives deserved 70 out of 100 while the Senate should receive only 30 out of a 100.
He said he gave the Lower House 70 points even though it did not pass as many laws as it should have, because it actually had ensured that each of the bills underwent extensive scrutiny before they were passed into law.
And despite its limitations, the House of Representatives proved that it had tried its very best to keep the government's powers in check, he said.
The Upper House received only 30 out of 100 because it failed to support the Lower House in performing its duties, adding it only cared about protecting the interests of the government above all else, he said.
And while the Lower House had at times successfully drawn the government's attention to a number of public problems which required prompt responses, the Upper House rarely, if ever, did something along those lines, he said.
Olarn Thinbangtieo, a political science lecturer at Burapha University, meanwhile, gave both the House of Representatives and the Senate each 40 out of 100, saying while the Lower House was often stuck in political wrangling, which frequently ended up in a collapse of a House session, the Senate lacked independence.
"All in all, both performed their duties very poorly, and they were a waste of taxpayers' money," he said.
Opposition 'tried its best'
Julapun Amornvivat, a Pheu Thai MP for Chiang Mai and an opposition whip, said the opposition bloc performed very well in keeping the government's powers in check by calling for a censure debate every year over the past four years.
Many instances of abuses and corruption in the government were exposed in these debates, while major issues such as drought, violence and violations of the youths' freedom of political expression were often debated in the House of Representatives, he said.
This is because the opposition had worked hard to ensure the cabinet gave sufficient attention to these matters and consequently took action to address them, he said.
"The opposition has always listened to the public," he said.
Govt 'no lame duck'
Chinaworn Boonyakiat, a Democrat MP for Nakhon Si Thammarat and government whip, insisted the government had successfully passed many important pieces of legislation.
Among them were the amendments to the charter which regulate election processes, as well as changes to several orders issued by the now-defunct National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), as well as other outdated laws, he said.
Mr Chinaworn said the collapse of 31 House sessions over the past four years -- a record high -- was due to weaknesses in the current constitution, which allowed the number of political parties to mushroom, rendering the system unstable.
When asked about important bills which have already been approved in principle but failed to pass into law before the House's term ends, he said Section 174 of the constitution stipulates that the new government is duty-bound to pass them within 60 days of assuming office.
These include the Cannabis and Hemp Control Bill, National Education Bill, Fisheries Bill, Civil Partnership Bill, Marriage Equality Bill and several more bills aimed at reforming the country.
Senator Somchai Sawaengkarn, meanwhile, defended the Senate's role, saying that overall the senators have done a good job, especially in the area of screening the draft bills.
