But six years later, that sense of optimism is being replaced by widespread disillusion and cynicism - so much so that more and more people are viewing tomorrow's Senate election as a futile political exercise.

The first directly elected Senate has no way of denying the brunt of the blame for the loss of public faith in its ability to function as a counterbalance to politicians controlling the House of Representatives and the executive branch. Instead of helping buttress the badly needed checks and balances in the face of a powerful government wielding an overwhelming majority, the Senate became so politicised that it could not maintain even a semblance of independence.

It was bad enough that the upper house was seen as more of a rubber stamp, but it was even worse that at times it operated as if it were an extension of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's political empire. Many senators defied the fundamental principle that the Senate should be non-partisan by openly siding with the government on issues in which they were supposed to exercise independent judgement based on public interest.

One of the Senate's most important tasks is appointing members of independent bodies, such as the Election Commission (EC), the Constitution Court and the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC), which are considered to be crucial elements of the political reform enshrined in the 1997 Constitution. And that is where people feel the role of the Senate was a big letdown.

Instead of making sure that qualified people with respectable records were appointed to these independent agencies, the majority of senators allowed themselves to be manipulated by the powers that were. These mechanisms that were central to the system of checks and balances ended up being stacked with officials connected to the ruling party.

It's no wonder then that the EC lost all shred of credibility by serving at the government's beck and call in managing the April 2 election, while the Constitution Court can no longer claim to be the ultimate protector of the supremacy of the Constitution. The once-powerful NCCC has also been reduced to being a mere toothless tiger.

Several senators themselves could not hide their disappointment with their own colleagues in the upper house. Damrong Puttan, who left his successful television talk-show business to enter the Senate race in 2000, openly blasted the elected senators for their lack of efficiency and sense of purpose.

Writing in his thesis for a master's degree in political science, Damrong proposed that the Senate be appointed rather than elected. He suggested that the Privy Council, an advisory body to His Majesty the King, be tasked with appointing the 200-seat Senate, to make sure that it was made up of able people of publicly acceptable background.

Damrong was one of the handful of outgoing senators who tried to live up to the people's expectations through a conscientious effort to play the role of whistle-blower. They often had to fight with their more passive colleagues in the Senate, to try to hold politicians and bureaucrats accountable for their actions and keep a check on abuse of power by members of the executive branch.

One of the biggest blows to the credibility of the outgoing Senate was the charge that many senators were on the payroll of politicians linked to the Thai Rak Thai Party. That probably explained why some senators were eager to water down issues that were politically damaging to the ruling party or vote in accordance with political whim.

If members of the public grew disillusioned with the first elected Senate, there is even less incentive for them to be inspired by the prospect of another one whose members owe their loyalties to political parties that bankroll their candidacies.

Even though election law dictates that Senate candidates be politically non-partisan, it's an open secret that the majority of the candidates in the Senate race are connected to major political parties, especially Thai Rak Thai. Canvassers of some of these parties have been campaigning on their behalf in defiance of election law, which prohibits political campaigning by Senate candidates. Rampant vote-buying has also been reported in many constituencies.

But tomorrow's Senate election is not without candidates who possess respectable backgrounds and proven track records. Free from political interest and determined to devote themselves to serving the cause of democracy, these candidates offer a glimmer of hope that despite its many flaws, the second elected Senate will still be represented by people committed to upholding the public interest and not subject to political manipulation.

Let's hope that the vigorous political spirit triggered by the ongoing political crisis that led to the "no vote" phenomenon in the April 2 snap election will again manifest itself in tomorrow's Senate election. Only an active exercise of voting rights based on informed decision can prevent the Senate from being dominated by political interest.

But for the Senate really to be able to function as an effective mechanism for checks and balances, its electoral process definitely needs to be reformed. As things stand today, it's getting more and more difficult to draw a distinction between senators and MPs as far as their ascension to power and legislative performance is concerned.

Just like most of the other independent bodies, the Senate has become a casualty of what is known as "Thaksinomics". The much-talked-about political reform that supposedly tops the agenda of the next government will be meaningless unless it also touches upon the Senate.

Thepchai Yong