What's in a dress? Does what one wears demonstrate one's ability and goodness?
As parliament awaits the arrival of the second Prayut Chan-o-cha-led government, our attention has been brought to ponder on this question.
Pannika Wanich, the Future Forward Party's spokeswoman, was last month criticised by a fellow MP and an appointed senator for not wearing an all-black outfit to mourn the death of former prime minister and elder statesman Gen Prem Tinsulanonda. She wore a black-and-white pant suit but that was apparently not good enough for her detractors.
A disabled FFP MP drew criticism and ridicule for wearing shorts to House meetings. Social media heckles eventually died down after it was clarified that the MP has the House President's permission to wear shorts to assist his mobility.
A hill-tribe ethnic MP, also an FFP member, who wore traditional clothing on the first day was also criticised for lacking a sense of decorum.
Last week, a number of female MPs from the FFP showed up in Thai traditional garb and immediately drew flak mainly from Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP) members, particularly Ratchaburi MP Parina Kraikup.
Following the latest controversy, arguments raged in parliament and on social media.
According to the pro-government side, a strict dress code is needed to maintain decorum and respect for this sacrosanct institution. Parliament is not a venue for making a fashion statement, they say.
From the opposite aisle came the rebuttal that one's choice of clothing is a right of expression and diversity should be encouraged in an institution that represents all of the people.
Opposition supporters say people should pay attention to issues of more importance being debated in the House rather than trivial matters like clothing choices.
The argument has now moved to a House panel entrusted with drafting rules of conduct that will also cover dress code.
While the FFP may be guilty of disrupting the conventional parliamentary protocol on dress code and issues relating to local cultures and practices, the party has been far from negligent in its duty.
As a matter of fact, FFP members have been diligent in bringing various issues of public concern to the government's attention.
The government, on the other hand, has so far shown little regard to the House, its members, and by extension the people.
Very few government MPs have made significant contributions to House debates. Often the area designated for government parties is a sea of empty seats.
Few ministers have shown up to answer questions, and those substituting for the absent ministers have been unable to answer questions adequately.
Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, now prime minister for a second time, hasn't turned up once. He has probably been occupied with trying to gather all the rogue monkeys in the same cage, so to speak.
In the end, he has succeeded in forming a cabinet ready for the King's endorsement ahead of delivering the government's unified policy statement to parliament.
But this has put government supporters in a very awkward position. The process of forming the cabinet has been roundly criticised for taking an overly long time, and the final list of cabinet members has fallen short of expectation.
The cabinet is seen as a collection of incompatible politicians out to make deals for themselves rather than working for the country's interests.
Some cabinet members have unsavoury backgrounds. One has been convicted and jailed on drug charges in Australia. One was involved in a fraudulent bank loan deal years ago that saw all accomplices except himself convicted. Some were involved in public land or forest encroachment. Some were or still are "influential" persons.
Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam, the government's legal wizard, calls the new cabinet "an iron boat", supposedly capable of steering through the troubled waters ahead.
But to many observers, it is more like a dilapidated wooden boat with a new coat of paint and not a very good paint job at that.
The way Mr Wissanu tries to defend some of the troublesome cabinet members reflects how the military regime-turned-semi-democratic government has dug the country even deeper into an ethical quagmire.
Under the military junta and now this new regime, conservative supporters have not been able to deliver convincing counter-punches to the more liberal opposition. This is for obvious reasons.
Various freedoms have been heavily suppressed. The economy has dipped into the doldrums and is now facing an even bleaker future. The regime has been shunned by western countries. Independent organisations have been stacked with people loyal to the regime. Government operations are mostly opaque.
It must be extremely frustrating to supporters because it's hard to find positive, concrete accomplishments to justify the regime except the dubious claim that the country "is peaceful".
So regime supporters have been resorting to witch-hunting instead, often accusing opponents of being disloyal to the monarchy and chastising them to "go live in another country if you're not happy with Thailand".
And they nit-pick, finding fault with any little thing like proper dress code or making unsubtle innuendoes.
In their frenzy to protect the regime, they overlook one important fact. Incompetence, lack of transparency and ethical indifference cannot be covered up by clothes alone, no matter how "proper" they are.
Wasant Techawongtham is a former news editor of the Bangkok Post.