The chance of an amnesty bill for political offenders, including those charged with lèse majesté, appears doomed after the House of Representatives rejected, by 270:149 votes yesterday, the observations made by a House panel on a report on how to draft an amnesty bill for political offenders. Five MPs abstained.
The ruling Pheu Thai party is clearly split on the panel’s observations, as the majority of MPs, including most MPs from the coalition parties, voted against. Most of the 151 votes in favour came from the opposition People’s party.
Before the vote yesterday afternoon, Deputy House Speaker Pichit Chuamuangphan provided a last chance for MPs and House panel members to debate the panel’s observations and report on how to draft the amnesty bill.
Former Move Forward party leader Chaithawat Tulathon said that political offences and lèse majesté are inseparable and, if an amnesty bill is to be drafted for all political offenders, with the exception of lèse majesté offenders, political conflicts will not be resolved and reconciliation will not be achieved.
He said that conditional amnesty for lèse majesté offenders would, however, be acceptable.
People’s party MP Sasinan Thamnithinan said that many people do not know the full details of many who have been charged with lèse majesté offences and that the lèse majesté law has been used as a political tool to persecute opponents.
People charged, prosecuted or convicted on lèse majesté charges should be given the chance to be freed and to resume their normal life in society, she said.
Former Democrat party leader Jurin Laksanawisit, however, said he rejected both the panel’s observations and its report, noting that approval of both of them would pave the way for the enactment of an amnesty bill to exonerate all lèse majesté offenders.
The House panel chairman, Chusak Sirinil of the Pheu Thai party, said that the panel did not decide whether lèse majesté offences should be included in an amnesty bill, because the issue is sensitive and divisive, so the panel agreed that that no decision should be made.
He maintains, however, that the panel’s report on how to draft such an amnesty bill would be beneficial in the future, when amnesty bills are proposed to the House for consideration.
As for the observations on the report, he said they are not binding on any agency.
