Charter-change debate a freeforall failure : academics

 They also said the House Speaker was not impartial and failed to manage the debate.Somphong Jitradab, a lecturer in education at Chulalongkorn University said the marathon meeting was lacklustre and repetitive and the climate didn't lend itself to a positive amendment of the charter.
He said legislators failed to uphold the national interest during the reading and resorted to political games and manoeuvres that benefited each political party. The public did not gain anything from the live telecast of the debate, Somphong added. Politicians should recognise that the community is fed up.

Somphong urged each party to train committed politicians to have a conscience because house debate has become a freeforall with noone listening and without any clear conclusion. The lecturer criticised all political parties and gave them failing marks, adding Thailand was moving backward when it came to parliamentary debate and said House Speaker Somsak Kiartsuranont was partial, not effective in controlling the meeting, and was not decisive. “It is as if there was an order [directing the House Speaker to be like that],” said Somphong.

Legislators on both sides also resorted to verbal abuse and sarcasm, said Somphong, and he urged the whips from both parties to rein in their members. Abusive words broadcast on television reflect badly on everyone.

“These people, calling themselves honourable [Members of Parliament] are ruining themselves and displaying their low quality and mentality,” he said. “If children watched the debate, it could eventually be disastrous for Thailand.”

 Sukhum Buansakul, an independent political scientist, said the mood of the jointhouse reading was more like child’s play with the opposition trying to protest as often as possible despite knowing they would lose the vote, while legislators on the government side were trying to push things ahead. Sukhum admits however there are some people who like the use of fiery and abusive words.

 “The reading was not beneficial to people and society and it was like a competitive game between the government and the opposition. It's going nowhere and making their image even worse,” said Sukhum.

 Asadarng Panikbutr, another independent political scientist, said he felt Parliament was regressing and the meeting was not beneficial to the country. He urged the media not to report the abusive words used by legislators.

Parliamentary ombudsman Phanit Nitithan said politicians should follow Parliament's ethical guidelines otherwise the public will become fed up with politics.

 She said MPs should not treat the 2008 ethical guidelines as just a piece of paper.

 “If they stick to them I believe inappropriate behaviour will decrease,” said Phanit. "The country can move ahead and benefit too."