Parliamentarians are set to lock horns on Thursday over a highly anticipated debate: Should an amnesty bill extend to offenders under Section 112 of the Criminal Code, commonly known as the lese majeste law? Nikorn Chamnong, the secretary of the special House committee tasked with studying the amnesty bill, recently revealed that the bill has been ready for over a month.
However, given the jam-packed parliament meeting agenda, lawmakers will only get their chance to debate the bill’s coverage on September 26th. Nikorn noted that a special panel has meticulously prepared answers to a plethora of questions regarding the report. These questions range from the bill’s controversial points to the composition of the committee that will be responsible for designing the final version of the legislation.
Despite the extensive preparation, the special committee remains divided on whether the amnesty should extend to Section 112 offenders. This 35-member panel was established earlier this year, at the behest of the ruling Pheu Thai Party, to delve into the depths of the amnesty proposal. This came after a bill, sponsored by the defunct Move Forward Party—now resurrected as the People’s Party (PP)—faced significant resistance in parliament.
The committee couldn’t reach a consensus on offenses against the King, Queen, heir apparent, or regent, governed by Sections 112 and 110 of the Criminal Code. Nonetheless, the panel has included varying viewpoints in its report. According to these findings, three distinct camps have emerged: those advocating for the exclusion of these offenses, those in favor of their inclusion, and a middle ground faction that supports inclusion but under special conditions.
Nikorn stated that although the committee’s report recommends that the government sponsor the amnesty bill, it advocates that the amnesty should be restricted to 25 legal charges as approved by the cabinet back in 2005. When it comes to Section 112, he acknowledged that it is an extremely sensitive issue necessitating deeper discussions.
Meanwhile, Jakrapob Penkair, a former spokesman for Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra who recently ended a 15-year self-imposed exile, weighed in on the hot-button issue. In a candid interview with an online news agency, he contended that the time is not yet ripe to include Section 112 in the amnesty bill.
Expounding on his stance, Jakrapob stressed that amending the lese majeste law is fundamentally about compromise. “One shouldn’t feel or be made to feel like they’ve lost all or gained everything from doing it,” he argued. “I don’t think Section 112 should be contained in an amnesty.”
As the debate looms, the stakes remain high and the atmosphere is electric. Lawmakers, activists, and citizens eagerly await the outcome, knowing that the decision could shape the socio-political landscape of the nation for years to come. With a blend of passion, principle, and pragmatism at play, Thursday’s parliamentary showdown promises to be nothing short of riveting. Stay tuned.
Allowing amnesty for Section 112 offenders is a slippery slope. It will open the floodgates for disrespect towards the monarchy.
Disrespect? More like giving people the freedom to express their opinions without fear of unjust punishment.
Freedom of speech is important, but it should never come at the expense of national stability and respect for our institutions.
National stability through fear isn’t stability. It’s suppression. The lese majeste law is outdated and draconian.
Including Section 112 in the amnesty bill is a political move by the People’s Party to gain more support. It’s not about justice.
The committee’s division shows that there is no easy answer. Balancing respect for the monarchy and human rights is tricky.
Finally, someone gets it. It’s about balance and not extremism from either side.
I find it interesting that Jakrapob Penkair opposes the inclusion of Section 112. It seems like even seasoned politicians are cautious.
He’s right to be cautious. Modernization should be gradual. Sudden changes can lead to chaos.
Modernization is essential. Holding onto old laws is what causes stagnation. Look at other progressive nations.
Gradual modernization has its merits. It’s about finding a pace that the society can handle without backlash.
Or maybe he’s just playing it safe to avoid backlash. It’s often about political survival.
If the bill only covers 25 charges as per 2005 cabinet approval, it’s barely scratching the surface of needed reforms.
It’s ironic that a law meant to protect the monarchy could be causing more division among the people. Something’s got to change.
Couldn’t agree more Eleni. Division is the last thing we need now.
The debate might be riveting, but remember, real lives are on the line here. People have suffered under this law.
I doubt anything productive will come out of this debate. Politicians will just argue without making any real progress.
Let’s hope you’re wrong. Sometimes debates can pave the way for real change, even if it takes time.
Debates are the first step to change. You have to bring issues to the forefront before you can solve them.
Why is the government sponsoring this bill now? Could it be a distraction from other pressing issues?
Amnesty for lese majeste offenders would signal a shift towards a more democratic society. It’s a long overdue change.
People often forget that laws evolve with society. Section 112 might have been necessary once, but is it relevant now?
Exactly, Henry. Societies grow and their laws should reflect that growth.
That’s the whole point! Holding onto archaic laws puts us behind other nations.
Well, until the debate happens, all we have are opinions. Let’s see what Parliament decides.
Regardless of the outcome, this debate is putting a critical issue under the spotlight, and that’s a win.
You couldn’t have said it better, Joe. Awareness is the first step to change.
I just hope whatever decision is made, it’s in the best interest of the people and not for gaining political points.
It’s always about politics, Elle. Rarely about the people.
That’s the sad truth, Whizkid. Hopefully, this time it will be different.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the government actually listened to the people for once?