Growing criticism of parliamentary committees, a key oversight mechanism in a democratic system, should be a cause for concern.
The issue was recently highlighted by Pawoot Pongvitayapanu, a party-list MP from the People's Party, who warned that many parliamentary committees are plagued by duplication, inefficiency and potential conflicts of interest.
One major problem is overlap. Multiple committees in both the House and Senate often examine the same issues, leading to repeated summonses of senior officials who must appear before different panels to answer essentially identical questions. This places an unnecessary burden on the bureaucracy and wastes both time and public resources.
Another concern is that some MPs and senators sit on several committees simultaneously. In practice, this often means members rushing from one meeting room to another, signing attendance sheets before leaving for other sessions. Such arrangements raise questions about whether committee members can effectively perform their duties.
Critics have also questioned the committee allowance system. Members receive meeting allowances of 1,500 baht per session, meaning those serving on multiple committees can collect several thousand baht a day. While there is nothing inherently wrong with compensation, the current structure may create incentives that prioritise attendance over meaningful participation.
Mr Pawoot, a first-term MP with a private-sector background, also noted that some committees fail to review existing studies and reports, resulting in duplicated work rather than building on previous findings.
The root of the problem may lie in how committee seats are allocated. Appointments are often based on political quotas rather than expertise or genuine need. There have even been allegations that certain committee positions, such as adviser or secretary, are treated as political favours or sought after for the influence they may provide in dealings with state agencies.
More troubling are claims that some committee members use information obtained through committee work for personal gain. If true, such behaviour would undermine public confidence in parliament's oversight role.
Mr Pawoot has proposed replacing paper attendance sheets with facial-recognition systems or electronic time-recording devices.
The aim is to ensure members remain present throughout meetings rather than simply signing in and leaving. He has also suggested members who attend less than 70% of a meeting should lose their allowance and voting rights for that session.
Technology could also help address duplication. Parliament should establish a central database allowing committee secretariats to determine whether a particular issue has already been studied by another panel. Such a system would encourage coordination, reduce overlap and improve the quality of committee work.
Transparency must also be strengthened. Simply recording attendance is not enough. Parliament should provide the public with information about committee participation and lawmakers' performance.
House Speaker Sophon Zarum should not ignore these concerns. Such reforms are necessary not only to ensure the prudent use of taxpayers' money but also to restore public trust in parliament. As a cornerstone of democratic checks and balances, the legislature must be transparent, accountable and open to scrutiny.
