The Prayut Chan-o-cha government certainly does not shy away from introducing new laws. Whether or not the laws are any good is a different matter.
While presiding over the annual meeting of the National Economic and Social Development Board, the prime minister boasted of his government's success in introducing 401 new laws -- or 130 a year on average -- of which, 230 have come into effect.
He went on to claim his government has outdone its predecessors. The number apparently demonstrates the hard work done by the coup-installed National Legislative Assembly (NLA).
Soonruth Bunyamanee is deputy editor, Bangkok Post..
But the PM forgets that swift legislative passage can give rise to concerns about reckless consideration on the part of lawmakers.
There are grounds for such concern. In several cases, Gen Prayut, in his capacity as the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) chief, has had to invoke his special power under Section 44 to solve problems incurred from careless consideration in such processes. A case in point is the new migrant labour law. The prime minister has had to make use of the special law to put enforcement of some clauses on hold.
The labour law, which contains harsh punishments for both civil and criminal wrongdoings associated with the illegal hiring of migrant workers, with fines ranging from 400,000 to 800,000 baht per illegal worker hired, has drawn complaints from local employers who say they had no idea about the law until it had been implemented. Some 30,000 Myanmar workers were left stranded by their employers and had to rush back to their homeland as a result.
The controversial labour law, like many others, demonstrates a lack of public participation in law enactment. This is against the spirit of the charter which champions, in Section 77, the principle of public participation in law enactment from the outset.
The constitution stipulates that the state should introduce laws only to the extent that it is necessary. Prior to the enactment of every law, the state should conduct consultation with stakeholders, analyse impacts that may occur from the law thoroughly and systematically, and also disclose the results of the consultation and analysis to the public and take them into consideration at every stage of the legislative process.
But widespread complaints show those involved did not heed the charter's spirit.
With regards to the migrant labour law, the Labour Ministry claimed it had opened up for public consultation over the legislation and the public had received all relevant information. But most private sectors and migrant labour activists say they never participated in the consultation process that the ministry insists it had organised.
It's the same case for many other laws.
Last Tuesday, the NCPO resolved to invoke Section 44 to ease the impact on basket fish farmers nationwide following the promulgation of the new Thai Shipping Act on navigation in Thai waters.
On March 7, the cabinet approved two executive decrees amending the act aimed at combating illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, but farmers who raise fish in baskets along rivers and canals claim it will double the fees they pay for water usage to the Marine Department and they would face massive fines if they fail to abide by the new law.
Defending the public participation and the consultation procedure, the government and state agencies that sponsor new legislation insist they complied with the constitution's requirements for law enactment.
The cabinet on April 4 prepared guidelines for state agencies suggesting the public consultation process for new legislation is assumed complete if a bill is uploaded online and people are allowed to access the site and leave comments for at least 15 days.
So most state agencies opt to use this online channel instead of organising a consultation forum to gather opinions, particularly from stakeholders directly affected from new legislation, and claim the public consultation requirements have been met.
Does this really reflect the public consultation procedure the charter demands?
When the 20-year national strategy and reform bill was passed on June 21, it received only eight comments on its website as part of the public consultation process. Despite such a poor response to a law that will affect the entire population over the next 20 years, the NLA regarded the process as complete. It's doubtful these state agencies really want to know the people's will.
Another shameful example is a new national park bill. The Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation uploaded a draft bill on its website even though many people who live in the forests, major stakeholders of the bill, may not have access to the internet.
Of course there were actual consultation forums that aimed to gather views from stakeholders for some laws, but judging from the way the forums were organised, the process is more or less cosmetic.
Take the recent consultation forums for the controversial new legislation facilitating the universal healthcare scheme, which took place in four regions. Each participant wishing to comment was allocated a maximum of three minutes. The forums ended with civil health networks walking out.
It seems these forums are held only to justify the laws' enactment. They are not a real quest to find out the peoples's will.
Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam seems to realise the problem. Last week, he ordered the Public Relations Department to make more of an effort to inform people about the enforcement of new laws and how they will be affected. But it's doubtful anything will come of it.
If the government plans to introduce or reform hundreds of laws, them it must respect the will of the charter, and make people's participation more meaningful by gathering public opinion before and not after a law comes into effect.