The policy debate over the past two days has shown that the political rifts in Thai society have not faded away, according to an academic.
"They [speakers and observers] refuse to listen to each other," said Mana Treelayapewat, dean of the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce's School of Communication Arts.
"They share no common views. They all have their own targets."
He added that people are also conflicted over whether an evaluation of the recent government's performance should be allowed.
Many youngsters surprisingly did pay attention to the debate, but some were only waiting to see when Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha would lose his temper, Mr Mana said, after monitoring both social media and the parliamentary to and fro.
Mr Mana refused to evaluate the performance of Gen Prayut but said the reactions he had seen from social media were not so positive.
"This is the reflection of the rifts in society. The past five years cannot mend the conflicts. If we don't fix this, it could get worse and lead to violence," he said.
Meanwhile, Stitorn Thananithichote, the acting director of the Office of Innovation for Democracy under the King Prajadhipok Institute said Prime Minister Prayut deserves credit for the government's performance.
The opposition has favoured talking over zeroing in on the merits or flaws of the proposed policies, he said.
He added that the prime minister's commitment to the debate has kept cabinet ministers on their toes and described it as a development that will help aid government checks and balances.
He also said the policy debate had more substance compared with previous debates, as a result of conversations between lawmakers and cabinet ministers.
"His engagement in the policy debate is putting ministers on alert. It's progress. If Gen Prayut sees the importance of the legislative branch, the lawmakers will be encouraged to scrutinise the government in a constructive way," he said.
However, he said that overall, the debates focused more on character and strategies rather than on the pros and cons of the policies.
For example, several new MPs were familiar with the House meeting regulations, but disrupted the meetings anyway, he said. He also criticised some veteran MPs for trying to turn the debate into a "show".
Somjai Phagaphasvivat, an academic from Thammasat University, said neither side did their homework, especially the opposition MPs who failed to point out flaws in the government's proposed policies.
According to Mr Somjai, the government's policies are designed to address urgent issues and fail to address what are known as structural problems.
"If the opposition MPs focus on their character and making the audience feel good, we aren't going to get a new breed of lawmakers," Mr Somjai added.