The Senate voted on Tuesday (28 October) to find senator Nantana Nantavaropas guilty of a serious ethics breach, forwarding her case on to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) over a remark she made about a pork vendor-turned-senator.

Following a closed-door session which lasted over 4 hours, the Senate voted 130 to 23 that Nantana had defamed and insulted another senator, a serious breach of ethics. Her case was then forwarded to the NACC for legal proceedings.

The Senate launched an investigation against Nantana after she questioned why senator Daeng Kongma, a former pork vendor, was chosen to be a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Political Development, Mass Communications, and Public Participation, while she was voted off the committee. She also criticised the selection process for using a simple majority vote and not taking into consideration the candidate’s professional background.

According to iLaw, Daeng responded by filing a defamation lawsuit against Nantana, stating that he was proud of being a pork vendor and did not like being belittled.

In a press conference held after the session, Nantana said that the vote against her was unfair, a case of Senate voting being manipulated behind-the-scenes. She stressed that she was only calling for committee appointments to be made based on professional background and proficiency, noting that some senators served on over 20 committees while minority senators often didn’t get a single appointment. She believes that the vote against her was an attempt to silence dissenting opinions.

A former dean of Krirk University’s Political Communication College, Nantana is part of a minority group in the Senate that often votes against the majority “Blue Senators” with alleged ties to the Bhumjaithai Party. She accused them of bloc voting and taking over committee appointments.

Ahead of the vote, Nantana posted on Facebook that 15 out of 22 senators on the committee that launched the investigation against her stand accused of collusion in the Senate election. She said they have issues with her because she feels that they should not be serving on the committee and should stop participating in votes. She also claims that the proceedings were done in secret and that she was not allowed to bring witnesses to testify before the committee.