A former election commissioner has criticised a decision by the Senate to pursue a ‘serious ethical misconduct’ case against Senator Nantana Nantavaropas, calling it a ‘biased judgement’ by the upper chamber’s majority.
In a Facebook post, Somchai Srisutthiyakorn said that although the Senate’s 130-26 vote far exceeded the required three-fifths majority to endorse the findings of an ethics panel, the ruling had set a questionable precedent that might fail to convince the public.
The public already has a dim view of the Senate given the ongoing investigations into allegations of widespread vote-rigging in the 2024 election. The vote resulted in an unusually high number of winners affiliated with the Bhumjaithai Party – now leading the government – and its base in Buri Ram province.
Ms Nantana is among the small minority of senators considered to have been elected legitimately. She has pushed unsuccessfully to delay votes in the upper house to approve appointments to powerful independent bodies – the same ones that could end up investigating corrupt senators.
The Senate ethics committee found her guilty of serious misconduct for belittling a fellow senator as ‘a pork seller’ after losing a committee seat to her.
The committee ruled that Ms Nantana’s comments showed prejudice against certain professions, disrespected human dignity and tarnished the Senate’s reputation.
Mr Somchai argued that the decision reflected double standards, noting that other senators accused of verbal or even sexual misconduct had never faced comparable disciplinary action.
The Code of Ethics for Senators follows the same ethical standards applied to members of the Constitutional Court, independent agencies, MPs, senators and cabinet ministers, he said.
It is divided into three main sections: Section 1 on ideological ethics, Section 2 on core values, and Section 3 on general ethics, he said. The Senate’s version includes an additional Section 4, which specifically governs the ethical conduct of senators and committee members in performing their official duties.
If there was any ethical violation in Ms Nantana’s case, it would likely fall under Clause 31, Section 4 of the code, said Mr Somchai.
The clause stipulates that members ‘must respect the rights and personal freedoms of other members, committee members, and individuals, refrain from using impolite language, making slanderous or sarcastic remarks, or presenting false information during meetings or debates’.
Under the code, violations of Section 1 are automatically deemed ‘serious misconduct’. Violations of other sections are not considered serious unless the behaviour, intent, position, responsibilities, age, personal record, motives, context and impact of the act justify such a classification, according to Mr Somchai.
For non-serious violations, the Senate may issue a reprimand or warning with a simple majority vote. For serious misconduct, a three-fifths majority is required to forward the case to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) for possible removal proceedings.
‘Political weapons’
The NACC must now decide whether to proceed with the case and, if so, forward it to the Supreme Court to rule on whether Ms Nantana should lose her position.
‘Ethical standards meant to guide political behaviour are now being used as political weapons,’ Mr Somchai wrote. ‘We must wait and see how the NACC and the court handle this case.’
Wat Tingsamit, a former senior judge, said he was not convinced the NACC would uphold the Senate’s ruling.
He further questioned why the alleged vote-rigging case involving 136 senators has yet to be sent to the Supreme Court by the NACC and the Election Commission (EC).
‘How long must this nation remain in darkness?’ he wrote on Facebook, alluding to alleged manipulation within the Upper House.
In a related move, a group of 10 reserve senators led by Kamrop Panyakaew petitioned the Supreme Court to order the EC to submit its findings on the vote-rigging case within a week and suspend the 136 senators implicated.
The group said the EC investigation, launched more than a year ago, has shown little progress.
The Department of Special Investigation is pursuing a separate criminal probe, focusing on alleged money laundering linked to the vote-rigging activities. It has said it needs to question about 1,200 witnesses across 45 provinces.