The opposition People’s Party (PP) is calling on the coalition to reconsider its decision made on Monday to indefinitely delay the House’s review of a new amnesty bill. The bill, proposed to heal the aftermath of previous political conflicts among various factions, is seen as crucial by many. Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut, leader of the PP, questioned the rationale behind shelving the scheduled review of the study’s findings, which was supposed to happen tomorrow.
Natthaphong emphasized that the study’s findings were merely opinions on how the new amnesty bill should be crafted and would carry no legal weight. “More importantly,” he noted, “those entangled in legal battles due to their past political activities deserve and are eagerly awaiting legal remedies.”
On Monday, in a twist, PM’s Office Minister Chousak Sirinil, who chairs the House’s special committee on the matter, announced that the coalition had agreed to pause the House review. This would allow more time for parties to discuss the findings and reach a consensus. The strategy, according to Mr. Chousak, was designed to secure an agreement among coalition members on the amnesty bill, ensuring its smooth passage through the House.
Meanwhile, Chaithawat Tulathon, former leader of the now-defunct Move Forward Party (MFP), the predecessor of the PP, voiced his perspective. Despite the varied opinions across different groups regarding the political amnesty bill, he firmly believes that societal consensus deems amnesty the key to fostering reconciliation among these factions.
Mr. Chaithawat pointed out that the ramifications of political conflicts, which originated before the coup on September 19, 2006, and have continued up till 2020, persist and hamper national reconciliation efforts. “The only contentious issue left concerning the amnesty bill is whether those prosecuted under lese majeste charges should also be granted amnesty,” he highlighted.
This, according to Chaithawat, is the true reason behind Chousak’s decision to defer the House review of the study’s findings. He suggested that the Pheu Thai Party might be concerned that addressing the lese majeste issue could destabilize the coalition, causing them to avoid it altogether.
Chaithawat is adamant that the House should not delay reviewing the study findings, especially since four drafts of the new amnesty law are ready for House deliberation. These drafts, he mentioned, predominantly come from the defunct MFP, Democrat Party, Thai Teachers for People Party, and United Thai Nation Party.
I honestly don’t understand why they’re delaying this. Seems like the endless legal battles only divide people further. Just get on with it!
Agreeing with Aaron here. The delay just makes it seem like they have something to hide. Why can’t they be more transparent?
This is what politics always is—stall and say you’re ‘deliberating.’ Sick of it.
But isn’t it better to be thorough and make sure everyone is on the same page first? Rushing could lead to more problems down the road.
@Larry Davis: Thoroughness is important, but endless delays only worsen public distrust. They’ve had more than enough time.
Larry, we’ve seen this movie before. They use ‘thoroughness’ as an excuse to never actually do anything. It’s infuriating.
What about those facing lese majeste charges? They can’t just ignore that! The coalition must be afraid of the backlash.
Lese majeste charges are a sensitive topic. Addressing it could open a can of worms. But you’re right, they shouldn’t ignore it.
Why should people who insult the monarchy get a free pass? They did something illegal. Accountability matters!
Natasha, sometimes the laws themselves are flawed. Shouldn’t we question outdated laws too?
Exactly, Michael. It’s about time we re-evaluate such laws. Societies should evolve.
Bringing up the 2006 coup again is tiring. Let’s focus on moving forward and not get stuck in the past.
But history shapes our present. Ignoring it isn’t wise.
Absolutely. We can’t ignore historical context if we want to understand today’s issues.
PP just wants to rush this bill through for their own gain. There’s no real interest in national reconciliation.
That’s a bit cynical. Maybe they genuinely care about settling old scores?
Hard to believe politicians ever act without self-interest. Jenna, wake up!
I think postponing the decision makes sense. It allows more debate and might lead to a more robust solution.
While debate is good, how long can they keep postponing? It’s starting to look like a stall tactic rather than real discussion.
Fair point, Luke. But sometimes taking a bit longer can prevent hasty mistakes.
Completely surprised that some people think amnesty should cover lese majeste. It’s a serious offense in Thailand!
Would amnesty really heal old wounds, or is this just political theater?
What do they mean by ‘reaching a consensus’? Sounds like endless bickering to me.
Probably endless bickering, Sarah. But that’s politics for you.
Haha, true, Jason. Maybe a consensus is just too optimistic.
Why are they even considering defunct parties’ opinions? They have no current political power.
Because those opinions still represent significant segments of society. It’s not about power, but about representation.
Healing is important, but accountability is too. Letting everyone off the hook doesn’t feel right.
Sounds like the coalition is more interested in avoiding conflict than actually solving anything.
Do you think the delay has anything to do with upcoming elections? Could be a calculated move.
Without a doubt. They are all playing politics here.
Chousak’s strategy might seem wise, but it also smells like cowardice. Deal with the issues head-on!
We need this amnesty bill. People have suffered enough. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Justice also means ensuring the right people are held accountable. Can’t just sweep everything under the rug.
Tyler, agreed. But we’ve waited long enough. There must be a middle ground.
This is all a waste of time. Nothing meaningful will come out of it, as usual.
I feel like we’re stuck in a loop. Political maneuvers, delays, more debates… When will it end?
It ends when politicians start caring more about the people than their own agendas.
Natthaphong makes a point; those entangled in endless legal battles do deserve a resolution. How long can they wait for justice?