Press "Enter" to skip to content

Parliament Debate on Extending Amnesty to Section 112 Offenders Set for September 26, Says Nikorn Chamnong

Order Cannabis Online Order Cannabis Online

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.

31 Comments

  1. grower134 September 22, 2024

    Allowing amnesty for Section 112 offenders is a slippery slope. It will open the floodgates for disrespect towards the monarchy.

    • Maya Chakraborty September 22, 2024

      Disrespect? More like giving people the freedom to express their opinions without fear of unjust punishment.

      • grower134 September 22, 2024

        Freedom of speech is important, but it should never come at the expense of national stability and respect for our institutions.

      • FreedomFighter45 September 22, 2024

        National stability through fear isn’t stability. It’s suppression. The lese majeste law is outdated and draconian.

  2. Samantha R. September 22, 2024

    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.

  3. LiamJ September 22, 2024

    The committee’s division shows that there is no easy answer. Balancing respect for the monarchy and human rights is tricky.

    • grower134 September 22, 2024

      Finally, someone gets it. It’s about balance and not extremism from either side.

  4. Naomi V. September 22, 2024

    I find it interesting that Jakrapob Penkair opposes the inclusion of Section 112. It seems like even seasoned politicians are cautious.

    • Patel_Raj September 22, 2024

      He’s right to be cautious. Modernization should be gradual. Sudden changes can lead to chaos.

      • Whizkid1999 September 22, 2024

        Modernization is essential. Holding onto old laws is what causes stagnation. Look at other progressive nations.

      • Naomi V. September 22, 2024

        Gradual modernization has its merits. It’s about finding a pace that the society can handle without backlash.

    • Maya Chakraborty September 22, 2024

      Or maybe he’s just playing it safe to avoid backlash. It’s often about political survival.

  5. Peter Nguyen September 22, 2024

    If the bill only covers 25 charges as per 2005 cabinet approval, it’s barely scratching the surface of needed reforms.

  6. Eleni September 22, 2024

    It’s ironic that a law meant to protect the monarchy could be causing more division among the people. Something’s got to change.

  7. Hassan R. September 22, 2024

    Couldn’t agree more Eleni. Division is the last thing we need now.

  8. Margaret Kane September 22, 2024

    The debate might be riveting, but remember, real lives are on the line here. People have suffered under this law.

  9. Pontus September 22, 2024

    I doubt anything productive will come out of this debate. Politicians will just argue without making any real progress.

    • Saida_M September 22, 2024

      Let’s hope you’re wrong. Sometimes debates can pave the way for real change, even if it takes time.

    • Peter Nguyen September 22, 2024

      Debates are the first step to change. You have to bring issues to the forefront before you can solve them.

  10. Marina S. September 22, 2024

    Why is the government sponsoring this bill now? Could it be a distraction from other pressing issues?

  11. Scholar29 September 22, 2024

    Amnesty for lese majeste offenders would signal a shift towards a more democratic society. It’s a long overdue change.

  12. Henry T. September 22, 2024

    People often forget that laws evolve with society. Section 112 might have been necessary once, but is it relevant now?

    • Larry D September 22, 2024

      Exactly, Henry. Societies grow and their laws should reflect that growth.

    • FreedomFighter45 September 22, 2024

      That’s the whole point! Holding onto archaic laws puts us behind other nations.

  13. grower134 September 22, 2024

    Well, until the debate happens, all we have are opinions. Let’s see what Parliament decides.

  14. Joe A. September 22, 2024

    Regardless of the outcome, this debate is putting a critical issue under the spotlight, and that’s a win.

  15. LiamJ September 22, 2024

    You couldn’t have said it better, Joe. Awareness is the first step to change.

  16. Elle_M71 September 22, 2024

    I just hope whatever decision is made, it’s in the best interest of the people and not for gaining political points.

  17. Whizkid1999 September 22, 2024

    It’s always about politics, Elle. Rarely about the people.

  18. Eleni September 22, 2024

    That’s the sad truth, Whizkid. Hopefully, this time it will be different.

  19. FreedomFighter45 September 22, 2024

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the government actually listened to the people for once?

  20. Order Cannabis Online Order Cannabis Online

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More from ThailandMore posts in Thailand »