Parties split on amnesty report

The ruling Pheu Thai Party and its coalition partners are firmly opposed to any attempts to include lese majeste in the list of offences that would be pardoned under any new political amnesty bill.
They reiterated their stance last Thursday, as the House of Representatives reviewed a report prepared by a special House committee studying options for a bill, which drew mixed reactions from lawmakers from both camps.
The report outlined the results of the committee’s research into various forms of an amnesty that could be pursued.
The committee outlined three possible options — full amnesty, conditional amnesty, or no amnesty — which lawmakers are scheduled to vote for later this week.
Those from the opposition party, the People’s Party (PP), advocated including offences outlined under Section 112 of the Criminal Code, also known as the lese majeste law, while MPs in the government coalition disagreed with the extension of an amnesty to those convicted of lese majeste.
The chairman of the special panel, Chousak Sirinil, told the House that granting an amnesty won’t erase the fact that undermining the monarchy remains an offence under the Criminal Code, adding the amnesty push is meant to encourage conflict resolution and foster harmony, not add to problems.
Thailand has passed 23 amnesty laws to date, he said.
Mr Chousak, who is also Pheu Thai’s legal expert, said the committee’s report does not favour a particular option, as the objective was to provide more information for lawmakers to consider, including the possibility of delaying prosecution or dropping charges in cases that do not represent the public interest.
However, he said the government is not obliged to follow the committee’s suggestions.
As lese majeste offences are politically sensitive, stakeholders must consider all possibilities when drafting an amnesty bill, he said.
Opposing S112 inclusion
Wisut Chainarun, a Pheu Thai MP and chief government whip, said the report has nothing to do with the four amnesty bills that will be tabled to parliament separately by PP and some other parties.
“They are just the committee’s findings. The government or other agencies are not obliged to act on them. The report is not a precursor to any amnesty bill,” Mr Wisut said.
“It is impossible to include all kinds of offences in an amnesty bill.
“Some political offences could be pardoned under the bill … but Pheu Thai will not allow Section 112 offences to be included. Other coalition parties will also oppose such inclusion,” Mr Wisut said.
“Without [the inclusion of] Section 112, deliberation of an amnesty bill should go smoothly. Moreover, we are in no hurry. We also have to gauge the public mood,” he said.
If the House votes to accept the report and backs one of the options floated by the committee on Thursday, the process will continue with the government.
However, it is up to the cabinet to follow the report’s suggestions. Pheu Thai MPs will meet before the vote to discuss whether they agree with the committee’s findings, he said.
Mr Wisut said the House may not finish the deliberation of any amnesty bill in the current session because parliament will be in recess in the next two weeks.
Key omissions
Yutthaporn Issarachai, a political science lecturer at Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University who sits on the House committee, said any amnesty bill will not cover offences that led to the dissolution of the Move Forward Party (MFP) which is the PP’s predecessor.
Offences outlined under the Political Parties Act won’t be included in any amnesty bill, he said.
On Aug 7, the Constitutional Court ruled to dissolve the MFP and ban 11 executive members from politics for 10 years on the ground the party jeopardised the constitutional monarchy and national security.
MFP’s demise came after the Election Commission sought the party’s dissolution for allegedly violating Section 92 of the law on political parties.
The section authorises the court to dissolve any party posing a threat to the constitutional monarchy.
“The current amnesty push is likely to succeed if Section 112 offences are not included,” Mr Yutthaporn said, adding further discussions should be held to find common ground on politically sensitive cases.
Report ‘a stepping stone’
Natthawut Buaprathum, a PP list-MP, said he believed the House committee’s report should serve as a stepping stone to resolving conflict through an amnesty bill.
“Once the report is deliberated by the House and discussed by the public, parties will have to listen to public opinion.
“There is still time for the public to make sense of the report and by that time parties may change their minds,” he said.
“The report should serve as a stepping stone. We want to see further steps to be taken until an amnesty is achieved.
“We want all involved to put aside political prejudices and work together to find a way around political conflict,” Mr Natthawut said.
Asked if the push for a political amnesty will lead to fresh conflict, he said it would be best to discuss the issue to gather diverse opinion.
However, he said he did not expect all offences listed in the report, such as offences causing death, grievous bodily harm and offences against rights and liberties, in addition to lese majesty offences, would be pardoned under any amnesty bill.