A proposal that the 2001 Thailand-Cambodia memorandum of understanding (MoU) on joint development in the Gulf of Thailand be debated in parliament warrants support.
While the People's Party (PP), the main opposition party, welcomed the proposal by Pheu Thai list-MP Noppadon Pattama, a former foreign affairs minister who was in office when the Preah Vihear issue ignited conflicts in Thai society in 2008, it's the ruling party that is ironically ruling out the idea.
The proposal aligns with Section 152 of the constitution which allows lawmakers to inquire about complicated issues without voting.
Such debate should help clear up any public misunderstanding or misinformation as some political groups are campaigning for the revocation of the MoU that was signed by the former Thaksin Shinawatra government and its counterpart in Cambodia.
The MoU is a framework for the negotiations on the development of disputed maritime areas in the Gulf of Thailand, also known as overlapping development area or ODA.
The Pheu Thai-led government has put the ODA project, mentioned by Thaksin during his vision forum in August, on its priority list just as groups of opponents, mostly those who brand themselves as ultra-nationalists, have reiterated their calls for the abolition of the MoU. They cite concerns over the potential loss of Koh Krut, an island in Trat province.
Attempts by the government to allay people's fears have not so far been successful. In that case, parliament could play a crucial role.
While throwing his full support behind the proposal by Mr Noppadon, PP leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut said he believes the debate should be held behind closed doors because "the government is in the negotiation process, so some details should remain confidential."
Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Phumtham Wechayachai is cautious as the move could involve the project's opponents. He said such a session might not be helpful.
The government is about to form a joint technical committee (JTC), comprising experts from various agencies, to negotiate with their Cambodian counterparts.
But Mr Phumtham and the ruling party should reconsider, and give parliament a chance.
In principle, parliament should be a safe place where tough issues can be discussed so all the parties including the Senate can help find solutions with transparency. The MoU is a case in point.
Such a debate session should be an efficient mechanism that can prevent certain groups from politicising the issue.
Apart from the proposed parliamentary debate, the House should consider forming a special panel to study the project, similar to the special panel on the recent amnesty bill.
The government should know it's a lack of public trust that has stalled this project and caused it no end of bother since claims were first aired that it could result in Thailand negotiating away its own territory.
Only when the government gains people's trust that all the ODA endeavours are based on mutual benefit, without any hidden agendas, will it clear all obstacles.
In this sense, it needs to make use of parliament, and open and constructive debate, as a first step that can help ensure trust and transparency among the public. If not, the ODA will just land it in trouble.