The House committee tasked with studying the amnesty bill has completed its review without reaching a consensus on whether to include offences covered under Section 112, the lese-majeste law, and Section 110 of the Criminal Code. Pheu Thai MP and committee chairman, Chusak Sirinil, announced that the panel has endorsed a report which will be submitted to the House for further deliberation. The committee arrived at resolutions on three significant issues related to the amnesty proposal, according to him.
To start, the committee concurred that the amnesty bill would encompass cases involving politically motivated offences committed from 2005 onwards. A dedicated committee will be established to scrutinize the cases, and a list of qualifying offences will be curated for their review.
“The essence of the matter is that the cases must be politically driven, and we’ll compile a list of such cases that qualify,” Chusak explained.
Moreover, the committee determined that cases falling under Sections 288 and 289 of the Criminal Code – which include murder and other grave acts leading to death – will be excluded from the amnesty bill due to their severe violation of human rights.
However, no consensus was reached regarding offences against the King, the Queen, the heir-apparent, or the regent, which are addressed by Sections 112 and 110 of the Criminal Code. The report will incorporate the diverse opinions of the committee members.
According to Chusak, the opinions expressed by committee members fell into three camps: one group advocates for the exclusion of these offences from amnesty, another supports their inclusion, and the third suggests their inclusion under special conditions.
“The committee believes that the amnesty is most likely to succeed if the government takes the initiative or helps push the proposal forward,” Chusak noted.
Nikorn Chamnong, the committee’s secretary, stated that government whips would be asked to prioritize the committee’s report, placing it high on the House agenda. The matter is expected to be discussed by the House next month.
The 35-member panel was formed earlier this year on the proposal of the ruling Pheu Thai Party, tasked with thoroughly examining the amnesty proposal after a bill from the main opposition Move Forward Party (MFP) faced pushback. The opposition largely stemmed from the MFP’s proposal to include Section 112 offences.
Commenting on the developments, Move Forward leader Chaithawat Tulathon remarked on Friday that it was agreed the amnesty issue should be reviewed by a committee, noting the complex political conflicts over the past two decades.
He expressed hope that the government and political parties would draft their own versions of an amnesty bill for submission to the House, fostering comprehensive discussion and resolution.
This bill is an absolute farce! Including lese-majeste offenders in an amnesty bill sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Completely agree, Jane! Those kinds of offences shouldn’t be taken lightly. They’re a direct insult to the monarchy.
You two are missing the point. The lese-majeste law is overly draconian and stifles freedom of speech.
Politically motivated offences from 2005 onwards? Way to go! The turmoil of those years definitely needs some reconciliation.
Reconciliation or letting criminals get away with wrongdoings? We need to be careful about offering amnesty for political gain.
Exactly, Patricia. We can’t just forgive and forget serious crimes. There need to be consequences.
And who decides if an offence was ‘politically motivated’? This criteria sounds very slippery.
Who cares about the amnesty bill? It’ll just end up getting buried in bureaucracy like everything else.
Excluding murder but considering lese-majeste? Somebody explain the logic to me because I don’t get it.
Yeah, it’s a weird line to draw. If anything, lese-majeste should be the first thing excluded.
It’s all about political pressures and trying to balance different interests. It’s not easy.
Balancing interests or just playing politics as usual?
The lese-majeste law has been used to silence critics. Including it in the amnesty bill might be a step toward modernizing our approach to free speech.
Modernizing or opening a Pandora’s box?
The committee should focus on creating a fair amnesty bill that promotes justice rather than just pandering to certain political factions.
Good luck with that in this political climate. Everyone has an agenda.
Excluding serious crimes makes sense, but the confusion around lese-majeste is emblematic of deeper issues in Thai politics. There needs to be more public debate.
Agreed, public input is crucial. Otherwise, it’ll just reflect the whims of a few politicians.
I bet this whole thing is just a ploy to distract from the real economic issues facing the country.
Move Forward Party’s pushback is understandable. These laws need revising, but I doubt the ruling party has the guts to do it right.
They’re playing it safe to keep everyone somewhat happy. It’s a no-win situation.
The only way to actually make progress is to take risks and face these controversial laws head-on.
Amnesty bills should not even be discussed! Offenders need to pay for what they did, no exceptions.
Can someone clarify what ‘special conditions’ were suggested for lese-majeste offences? This sounds pretty ambiguous.
I think it means they’re considering things on a case-by-case basis, but it’s not very clear, is it?
Exactly, Chris! We need more transparency.
If the ruling party pushes this forward without clear guidelines, it will just deepen political divides.
That’s a given in politics, unfortunately.
I’d rather have the government focus on policy rather than waste time on an amnesty bill.
Is there any historic precedent showing amnesty bills genuinely help in resolving long-standing issues?
It’s a mixed bag, Alex. Sometimes they work, but they can also fail miserably.
I guess only time will tell if this one achieves anything.
Those against including lese-majeste offences seem more interested in preserving the status quo than in real justice.
Maybe this report will actually encourage some productive discussion in the House. Fingers crossed.