Rubber-stamp NLA will rebound on junta  

The two laws in question – the Computer Crime Act and the Sangha Act – might seem unrelated. One involves crimes committed with the help of computers or similar devices, and the other regulates the Thai monastic world and the currently incomplete business of appointing a new Supreme Patriarch, the highest-status monk in Thai Buddhism.
The manner in which the NLA passed the amendments drew much criticism, especially for the lawmakers’ seeming haste in making their deliberations.
The legislators quietly acceded to the introduction of the Computer Crime amendment in the first reading. They then ignored strong opposition from a large group of netizens when they voted to pass the bill in its second and third (final) readings. An online campaign by opponents of the amendment managed to gather more than 300,000 signatures against a toughened cybercrime law they said would also stifle freedom of expression.
However, NLA members either dismissed those concerns or ignored them entirely, voting unanimously to pass the bill, 168 to 0.
Their deliberations on the amended Sangha Act were even swifter. On December 26 reports emerged that the legislative assembly would consider the amendment. NLA whips discussed it on the following day and it was tabled at the assembly two days later, on December 29. Lawmakers then passed the amendment in three consecutive readings on a single day – which is unusually fast. After spending little more than an hour deliberating the bill, they once again gave a unanimous green light, voting 186 to 0. Among those voicing dissatisfaction at the hasty proceedings this time was a large group of Buddhist monks.
Was it necessary to pass the amendments so swiftly, without allowing sufficient time for the NLA to debate the pros and cons? 
In deliberating on a new law, it is important to allow full and frank debate between supporters and opponents, so that reasons for the change can be given and potential dangers ahead flagged up.
Hasty enactment of laws without heeding opposing arguments will also result in reduced credibility for the new legislation. It also  leaves the legislative assembly open to the charge that it is serving the interests of certain groups rather than of the public as a whole.
During debate on the amendments, one NLA member claimed to be to be representing the Thai public. That claim is demonstrably false: Like all of his colleagues, he owes his position as lawmaker to those who seized power from a government elected by the Thai public. In truth, NLA members’ allegiance lies with the junta, not with ordinary citizens. 
It will no surprise if we see public protests against new laws passed without public input. These laws were enacted through an illegitimate process and are thus undeserving of their place in the statute book.