Parliamentary Privilege? Please Explain

As reported in the Bangkok Post Online today:

Link:  http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/140653/jatuporn-avoids-arrest-with-mp-status

MP Jatuporn still free, invokes privilege

By: Bangkokpost.com

Published: 15/04/2009 at 05:08 PM

QUOTE

Red-shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan, wanted for inciting the red-shirt riots in the capital city, sent his lawyer to hear police charges against him on Wednesday afternoon and claimed parliamentary privilege to delay his surrender.

Police said Mr Jatuporn, who is an opposition Puea Thai MP, had the right to exercise his parliamentary  privilege to avoid arrest until the regular House session is over.

UNQUOTE

You can click the link above to read the full article.

Maybe Khun Thanong or someone who is familiar with this "parliamentary privilege" thing help me understand under what conditions or situations could such privilege be rescinded? 

Jatuporn Prompan, being a member of Parliament, should know better than to:

(1)  Commit treason and sedition by inciting this Red Shirt followers to deliberately break the laws of the land,

(2)  Attempting to muder the prime minister in Pattaya and bangkok

(3)  Topedo the ASEAN Summit Meeting in Pattaya causing severe embarrasment to the prime minister and the country/thai people as a whole,

(4)  Riot and terrorize the peace-loving citizens and residents in Bangkok and surrounding areas,

(5)  Destroy public and private properties all over the city by hijacking and burning public buses, savagely attacking and destroying motor vehicles belonging to targeted government officials, rmpant burning of rubber tires all over the city causing harmful gases and smokes to be spread across the city, and destroying and stealing properties inside a Moslem Mosque,

(6)  Threathen to ignite a WMD in the form of compressed LPG carriers (trucks) with 8-ton cargos which would have caused unimaginable number of casualties and severe damage inside a one square kilometer radius (or maybe a bigger area) surrounding the center of the explosion,

(7)  Kill and murder unarmed civilians in areas where the Red Shirts went on their rampage

(8)  Etc., etc., etc.

Does anyone in his or her right mind believe that such a despicable DEMON deserves to be "protected" by "parliamentary privileges?" 

Let's say that he had directly killed or mudered the prime minister or some innocent people during the riots that occured, will he still be protected by such "parliamentary privileges?" 

Does this make any sense to anyone?  It surely does not make sense to me.  To me, and to many "normal" people, treason, sedition and murder are very serious crimes punishable by DEATH in most countries.  How about Thailand?