Parliamentary Immunity, Land Bridge Committee Rejection, New AI Scheme | Morning Coffee Briefing

A lot of activity in parliament

It’s a long weekend in Thailand, but here is another edition of The Coffee Parliament’s Morning Coffee Briefing to start your week. I will also have another article out tomorrow about the Bangkok governor election, so today’s briefing will focus mostly on parliamentary activities.

This week’s Thailand top three:

1. Parliament voted not to allow the DSI to question Kla Tham NP Chonnaput Naksua

2. A bid to form a special committee to further evaluate the Land Bridge proposal was rejected

3. Controversy brews over a government scheme to give free pro AI subscriptions to five million users

1. Kla Tham MP protected by parliament

The House of Representatives voted to shield Kla Tham MP Chonnaput Naksua from a Department of Special Investigations (DSI) request to question him. Chonnaput has been embroiled in legal controversy, with the Attorney-General backing charges against him on alleged illegal online gambling and money laundering. MPs enjoy parliamentary immunity while the house is in session, so for any DSI case to proceed, the Speaker of the House of Representatives must grant permission. 308 MPs voted to protect Chonnaput, while 126 voted in favor of allowing the DSI to question him.

Of the 308 MPs, almost all were from Kla Tham and the government coalition. That Kla Tham would vote to defend one of their own MPs is unsurprising, but why the government MPs? Bhumjaithai’s spokesperson said that the party feels he should cooperate with the DSI without needing a parliamentary vote, while some MPs argued that the principle of parliamentary immunity must be protected. There is already speculation, however, that this is a sign that the government coalition still wants to preserve some level of friendship with Kla Tham in case they are brought in as a future coalition partner. (In fact, the original decision to exclude Kla Tham was a genuine surprise).

Undoubtedly, this was an expensive use of the government’s political capital. Judging from the social media response, even those who are generally favorable towards Bhumjaithai are unhappy with how the government MPs acted in this case. Thai Pakdee leader Warong Dechgitvigrom has found another rallying cry to add to his crusade against perceived parliamentary over-indulgence: he is now calling for the abolition of parliamentary immunity.

2. No special committee to further study Land Bridge

The House of Representatives also voted this week to reject the formation of a special committee to further study the government’s proposal to build a “land bridge” in Southern Thailand. (See here for more about Bhumjaithai’s revival of this mega-project). People’s Party leader Natthaphong Rueangpanyawut argued that a committee is needed to find a truly sustainable proposal for southern development, while Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva called the scheme a “geographical illusion” that risks environmental destruction and bringing Thailand into an unwanted geopolitical spotlight.

For the government’s part, a Bhumjaithai MP argued that studies about the land bridge have already been conducted and there is no need to study this over and over; what matters, he argues, is truly listening to the people. Deputy Prime Minister Phiphat Ratchakitprakan says that he is still waiting for the results of another study.

3. Controversy over AI scheme

Digital Economy Minister Chaichanok Chidchob is spearheading a scheme called the “TH-AI Passport” which would aims to provide free access to “pro” AI tools to 5 million Thais. The primary goal, according to the Ministry of Digital Economy, is to lift Thailand’s relatively low AI adoption rate, which lags behind some of its neighbors.

This week, PP MP Pawoot Pongvitayapanu (a tech guru) raised several questions about the scheme in parliament. This included its high cost (around 1.6 billion baht) and short bidding period, along with questioning whether the winner of the bid has been “locked” by one of the scheme’s procurement specifications (the winner of the bid must be able to advertise the scheme in at least 1,500 convenience stores). He also asked why the government is not procuring AI subscriptions differently from a global tech company. Chaichanok, in parliament, argued that this scheme is urgently needed to increase Thailand’s AI capabilities. He said accusations about the short bidding period are inaccurate as the procurement process began five months ago. Chaichanok also noted that government procurement rules made direct procurement with a global tech company difficult, and that he also wanted to build up Thailand’s local AI ecosystem.

That is unlikely to be the end of the matter, as opposition politicians continue raising questions about various aspects of the scheme on defining “pro” capabilities and data ownership. One question that I have is whether procuring “pro” AI subscriptions will truly raise Thailand’s AI adoption rate (is that not aimed more at heavy users who would already be using AI)? I also have a lot of thoughts on AI giveaways here.