Thai lawmakers have agreed that an amnesty should be granted to people charged with political crimes related to street protests over the last two decades. However, they disagree on whether lese majeste should be included in the new amnesty law.
The dispute, which cuts across MPs and parties in the government and opposition camps, concerns whether those who break Article 112 of the Criminal Code should be granted pardons.
Better known as the lese majeste law, Article 112 criminalises insults or threats against the King, the Queen, regent, or heir to the throne. Violation carries a penalty of between three and 15 years in prison.
‘Sensitive cases’ to be omitted
The dispute over the proposed amnesty resurfaced late last month when the House of Representatives voted 270-152 against the conclusion of a report prepared by the House special committee tasked with studying guidelines on drafting the new law.
Although the 35-member panel is dominated by government appointees and headed by legal expert Chusak Sirinil from the ruling Pheu Thai Party, the majority of MPs who voted against the conclusion were from coalition parties.
Support for the concluding remarks, meanwhile, came mainly from the opposition People’s Party, successor to the Move Forward Party.
Most MPs from the opposition camp’s conservative Palang Pracharath Party also voted against the report. Only 11 of Pheu Thai’s 142 MPs voted to endorse the report’s conclusion.
The report did not advocate including lese majeste in the list of offences eligible for amnesty. Instead, it simply pointed to the “sensitive nature” of criminal cases against protesters charged with violating Article 112 and the related Article 110, asserting that these could renew the political conflict.
Article 110 of the Criminal Code covers acts of violence against the Queen or the heir to the throne and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment – or capital punishment if the act is deemed to threaten life.
The report also stated that committee members were split into three groups – one opposed to amnesty in “sensitive cases”, one supporting amnesty for sensitive cases, and a third backing conditional amnesty for such cases.
Panel chief Chusak, also a Prime Minister’s Office minister in Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s government, said the report is merely a guideline, and the government is not obliged to follow its recommendations when mulling the amnesty law.
He said, however, that the report would be taken into account when the Lower House considers four amnesty bills in the next session of Parliament, which is due to start on December 12.
Fellow committee member Chaithawat Tulathon, who served as Move Forward Party leader and former opposition chief, said the House's decision meant there was only a slim chance of the Cabinet considering the lese majeste issue.
He also expressed doubt that the government would propose its own amnesty bill, calling this a setback for efforts to resolve lingering political division and achieve national reconciliation.
Four amnesty bills
Four amnesty bills have been proposed separately for parliamentary deliberation. Three have been drafted by political parties, namely, Move Forward/People’s Party, United Thai Nation, and Thai Teachers for People.
The fourth has been put forward by the People’s Amnesty Network (PAN), a coalition of civil groups and activists.
The proposed draft laws comprise between nine and 14 articles covering offences committed during all political conflicts since 2005.
Only the PAN bill includes amnesty for lese majeste offences. The amnesty laws proposed by the United Thai Nation and Thai Teachers for People do not cover lese majeste offenders or those convicted of corruption.
The PAN bill covers a variety of offences committed since the September 2006 coup, including lese majeste, those stemming from trials in military courts, and violations of the state of emergency and Referendum Act under the 2017 Constitution.
The Move Forward bill does not mention lese majeste, although the party has strongly campaigned for amendment of Article 112.
The bills proposed by Move Forward and the civil network do not allow amnesty for state officials involved in crackdowns on protesters or those who ousted a government or the Constitution in violation of Article 113 of the Criminal Code.
Pheu Thai is also poised to propose a fifth amnesty bill. Chusak revealed that at the party’s October 29 meeting, most of its MPs supported the idea of submitting an amnesty bill that excludes offences under Articles 110 and 112.
However, the ruling party had not submitted its amnesty bill as of October 30, when the latest parliamentary session ended.
Establishment vs People’s Party
This was the first time that Pheu Thai had taken a clear stance on the matter. The ruling party had previously been vague on whether lese majeste should be included among the offences eligible for amnesty.
A senior party figure said during campaigning for last year’s general election that all offences that “are not criminal by nature” should be eligible.
Article 112 loomed large for Pheu Thai when former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who is regarded as the party’s patriarch and de facto leader, was indicted in June for allegedly defaming the monarchy.
However, senior Pheu Thai figures, including his daughter and party leader Paetongtarn Shinawatra, insisted the case against Thaksin would not affect Pheu Thai’s stance on the new amnesty law.
The case stems from comments Thaksin made to a South Korean newspaper in 2015, when he claimed that privy councillors backed the 2014 coup that ousted his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra’s government.
Every other coalition party – Bhumjaithai, United Thai Nation, the Democrats, and Chart Thai Pattana, most of whom are considered conservative – are opposed to including lese majeste in the amnesty legislation.
Palang Pracharath, a military-backed conservative party, has come out against including lese majeste in the new amnesty law, despite having been cast into opposition after ejection from the Pheu Thai-led coalition.
The opposition-leading People’s Party is the only major party that does not oppose amnesty for lese majeste offenders, although its bill does not clearly state that those charged with violating Article 112 should be eligible for pardon.
During its previous incarnation as Move Forward, then-leader Chaithawat stated that pardoning those charged with lese majeste was necessary to ease the political conflict and invite reconciliation.
