The collapse of recent sessions of the House of Representatives due to the lack of a quorum is a serious threat to the political institution -- but not one that is unprecedented in the history of Thai democracy.
Despite the fact that the prime duties of MPs are to serve as legislators, meaning they should attend their "office" (the House) to vet draft laws, it is common knowledge they often skip House sessions, or act childishly and irresponsibly by asking their friends (other MPs) to sign in on their behalf.
Such behaviour usually occurs whenever a sitting government has a decisive majority. Under such circumstances, MPs from a majority faction are emboldened by their majority votes and sometimes feel at liberty to skip any sessions they may see as being low priority.
Sometimes, their no-shows are so brazen that opposition parties opt to "teach them a lesson" by asking for a quorum count to expose these irresponsible representatives to the public.
Sadly, the collapse of House sessions has become the new normal under the current government.
Initially, Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha pointed the finger at the opposition when such failed sessions were reported late last year. However, it later transpired that coalition MPs had been skipping sessions, particularly during scrutiny of a controversial bill on toxic chemicals.
This has sparked debate about who should be responsible for making sure the quorum is complete -- the government or the opposition?
In principle, the majority-holding government cannot deny it has a responsibility to ensure all of its MPs turn up for such sessions. But in reality, some MPs who hold administrative positions -- such as cabinet ministers or secretaries of ministers -- may have a legitimate reason to not be able to attend, such as a coinciding field trip or function that forces them to miss a session or two.
Previously, some drafters of the Thai constitution attempted to fix this by requiring that MPs who were about to become cabinet ministers relinquish their list-MP status so the party could find a replacement for them, in order to avoid such quorum-related problems. But such a solution failed to find favour among government or opposition politicians alike.
More often than not, absentee MPs simply disappear without any good reason, much to the chagrin of voters. This shifts the onus to the media to serve as a watchdog, sniffing around to find out what is barring them from conducting their parliamentary duties, and making sure they are penalised accordingly if they cannot prove a valid exemption.
On top of this, it is an open secret that several MPs sign their names early in the day and sneak out later.
Of course, we cannot blame the quorum shortage entirely on the government. The opposition is also part of the problem.
Since parliament opened in 2019, MPs from both sides ignored 16 important sessions, causing unjustifiable delays to a number of draft laws, several of which were of the utmost importance. A few debates on crucial issues were also put on hold.
Due to the incomplete quorum, some sessions were brought to an early end. Last year saw reports that around a dozen sessions had been called off before counting in order to avoid embarrassment.
But last week's collapses -- three in total -- were seen as going overboard even by current standards.
This is important as Pheu Thai MP Jullapan Amornwiwat made it clear recently that he, and possibly other MPs in the opposition faction, used the collapsed sessions as a tactic to justify calls for the House to be dissolved, thus heightening pressure on Gen Prayut to resign.
Several MPs were reportedly present in the chamber but chose not to identify themselves for the count. They deserve a slap on the wrist, to say the least. Such conduct is a disservice to voters given that it has caused long-awaited bills to be further stalled.
These include one to increase pensions from 600-1,000 baht to 3,000 baht, and another that seeks to break up monopolies in the alcohol industry, as proposed by the Move Forward Party.
It is well-known that when a government with a thin majority runs the country, the opposition has more bargaining power, particularly in pushing for difficult laws.
If Pheu Thai members wish to flex their muscles, they can opt out from the name calling but still report to House staff before the count is over. This would help constitute a quorum and allow more responsible MPs to conduct their duty of scrutinising laws.
Such a tactic could also "teach the government a lesson" without damaging the public interest.
Mongkol Bangprapa is a senior reporter covering politics for the Bangkok Post. He is president of the Thai Journalists Association (TJA).
