The Lower House risks its credibility for providing parliamentary immunity to Klatham MP Chonnaput Naksua, a suspect in criminal cases for running an online gambling website and money laundering.
On Friday, lawmakers voted 308:126, derailing an attempt by the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) to summon Mr Chonnaput for interrogation about the online gambling case.
Under the law, MPs and senators are protected by parliamentary immunity while parliament is in session. Any arrest or detention of a lawmaker requires approval from the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
The vote raises the big question of how parliament makes use of this prerogative. In principle, parliamentary immunity is created to protect MPs from being intimidated by legal weaponisation, so lawmakers can serve the public without fear.
Yet that appears not to be the case here. Mr Chonnaput is no stranger to legal trouble. Authorities detected alleged connections between him and online gambling networks around 2023, when he was president of the Nakhon Si Thammarat United football team.
He later entered politics, running for the Palang Pracharath Party before switching to Klatham under Capt Thamanat Prompow in the Feb 8 poll, when he was elected for the first time. It is a shame the party fielded him when it was well aware of his past.
Since being elected, Mr Chonnaput has made full use of his MP immunity. In March, Mr Chonnaput refused to meet the DSI after being summoned for questioning, citing the need to take the oath of office in the House.
Parliament's decision again puts the spotlight on the use of immunity. The privilege was abused notably in 1996, when then-senator Sukhum Cherdchuen, accused of masterminding a murder, used parliamentary protection to delay the legal process against him.
Many political experts urged parliament to review the MP's immunity, given the circumstances. The Chonnaput case shows that it's about time our lawmakers looked into the matter again.
Parliaments in mature democracies often exclude criminal cases from parliamentary immunity. The blanket use of it will only open the door to abuse and undermine the integrity of parliament and the democratic system.
The vote raises questions about our MPs' logic and priorities. The People's Party and the Democrat Party argued that shielding Mr Chonnaput risks undermining public trust in parliament and supported the DSI's request that he report for questioning.
The Bhumjaithai, Pheu Thai, Prachachat and Economic parties, on the other hand, opposed the request to protect the principle of parliamentary immunity.
Economic Party list-MP Chris Potranandana said immunity should be preserved to prevent the government from using legal action to intimidate opposition lawmakers.
However, he called on Mr Chonnaput to voluntarily cooperate with the justice process without relying on parliamentary protection, an unusual attempt to have things both ways, but which illustrates the issues at stake.
Lawmakers have a duty to protect trust in the parliamentary system. In some cases, immunity could serve as a shield protecting democracy and accountability from intimidation. However, parliament's decision on Friday is a step away from that direction.
