After the experiences of his six-year term in Thailand's first elected Senate, Chirmsak concluded that the concept of "non-partisan" senators enshrined in the Constitution does not work.

His view was shared by Banjerd Singkaneti of Thammasat University, who said existing rules and regulations governing the senatorial election were politically unrealistic.

According to the 1997 charter, which mandates that the Senate should be an elected body, the 200-member upper house is supposed to be impartial so as to serve as an effective check-and-balance mechanism on the government.

Consequently the election law bars senatorial candidates from being members of political parties. Candidates are also barred from campaign activities such as holding rallies and making public speeches. They are allowed only to put up small signboards in designated public places or hand out cards to introduce themselves to the public.

In other words, the Constitution tries to make the senators as non-political as possible, which is essentially impractical in the real world of politics. Given this constitutional flaw, it's not surprising that the majority of successful candidates in Wednesday's Senate election are merely extensions of the existing power base of political parties.

The ruling Thai Rak Thai party is reportedly behind nearly 100 senators elect, while the Democrat, Chat Thai, Mahachon and Pracharaj parties have unofficially supported 22, six, four and two respectively.

If senators are considered just members of Parliament, which is what the results indicate, then the entire Senate election should be scrapped since it's redundant and a waste of taxpayers' money.

Otherwise the charter should be amended to change how we elect senators and what powers they wield so that the Senate can truly check and balance the House of Representatives and the government.

In that case senatorial candidates should be allowed to be members of political parties and to campaign for votes, but there should also be an extensive educational campaign to inform the public, especially in rural and remote areas, of the differences between the roles of MPs and senators before the system is changed.

Changing the system could even be counterproductive if the majority of voters are still not politically mature enough to understand the different functions of MPs and senators.

For instance, US senators are supposed to protect the interests of their respective states. In the UK, members of the House of Lords play a role similar to that of our Senate.

Our senators should focus on screening legislation submitted by the government, selecting and confirming the appointment of nominees to key independent bodies set up under the Constitution and initiating impeachment proceedings against holders of public office who commit serious offences.

To play these roles effectively, senators should be more partisan rather than non-partisan.

"If we try to stipulate that this or that elected body should be impartial when it's still tied to political interests, it's not possible to have impartiality, because politicians will in the end intervene to protect their own interests," said Banjerd of Thammasat University.

His statement is borne out by the term of the first elected Senate, during which the number of so-called "independent" senators fell from a rough estimate of 80-90 at the start to 30-40 at the end.

The same looks to be true of the incoming senators, as more than half of those elected won on partisan politics.

Given this fact, we should support amendments to the Constitution to reform the system so that candidates can belong to parties and can campaign, while voters are educated to treat candidates to the House and the Senate differently.

For instance, if one major party controls the lower house and heads the government, then it is desirable to elect more members of opposition parties to the Senate to balance power.

This will truly strengthen the system of checks and balances that is at the core of democratic governance.