Piyabutr slams MPs over S112 amnesty
On his Facebook account, Mr Piyabutr wrote on Friday that politicians were reluctant to support an amnesty for political expression, including cases involving Section 112 of the Criminal Code, or the lese majeste law, because they did not have "permission".
He said these politicians were concerned about being stripped of permission to be in government or the opportunity to become the government. He suggested that had they been given the green light, many would have reversed their stance.
Mr Piyabutr said one of the responsibilities of MPs is to make laws, which raises the question as to who these MPs represent if his assumption is true. He said that politicians in this day and age were more "cowardly" than those in the past.
His criticism drew a strong backlash from Thanakorn Wangboonkongchana, a list-MP from the United Thai Nation (UTN) Party, which also proposed a reconciliation bill called the "Promote Peaceful Society Bill".
He accused Mr Piyabutr of distorting facts and stirring divisiveness, saying political legitimacy was given by the people who selected the MPs to represent them in the House, so any amnesty bill must be thoroughly examined.
Mr Thanakorn defended the UTN-sponsored bill, which was criticised by People's Party (PP) list-MP Rangsiman Rome during the debate as being selective and tailored to certain groups.
He said the party's version sought to grant amnesty to general political offences that were non-violent in nature and that an independent committee would be appointed to screen amnesty cases to ensure fairness.
He said that lese majeste offences were a national security issue and granting amnesty could encourage more violations.
He urged Mr Piyabutr and Mr Rangsiman to stop using radicalism to deepen divisiveness. "Stop throwing tantrums when things don't go your way. Change your mindset to be in line with constitutional principles. Don't see every case as a political case," he said.
Phai Lik, secretary-general of the Klatham Party, said the party did not support any amnesty for lese majeste offences. Its "Promote Peaceful Society Bill" was among the five bills being examined.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bangkok Post
7 hours ago
- Bangkok Post
Info now the key weapon
The cyberattacks launched to complement Cambodian information operations (IO) have again exposed the weak cybersecurity policy in Thailand. The government must be more proactive in defending the country's online spaces, or risk losing control of the ever-more-important flow of information during times of crisis. While the Royal Thai Army (RTA) seems to be hands-on in protecting the country, the government seems to be clueless about what to do to stem the surge of cyber attacks believed to come from legions of Cambodian-sponsored bots let loose by state-sponsored hackers. Social media has been flooded with propaganda, doctored content and sensational fake news that supported a Cambodian agenda, burnishing the Thai army as the aggressor and painting Cambodia as the victim. These attacks are not limited to social media, either, as the databases of some local governments, private sector entities and Thai media also reported being attacked by keyboard warriors. The big question is whether the government and responsible agencies are up to the challenge. During this conflict, the Thai government seems to be on the back foot as it scrambles to deflect misinformation and fake news while at the same time, losing the opportunity to shape the narrative and give Thailand's perspective. The government does not seem to be forceful enough in pushing out news of the indiscriminate attacks by Cambodian troops on Thai civilians and hospitals or Cambodia's illegal use of anti-personnel landmines. Of course, the weakest links have turned out to be the very state agencies responsible for regulating and controlling cyberspace. The Ministry of Digital Economy and Social Development is nowhere to be seen. The public, netizens or even netizens do see or know which agency is responsible for cyberattacks, or which organisation or committee they can turn to for factual data or technical support. Therefore, the public has been forced to seek information from reliable media outlets and professional fact-checking bodies that should have already been effectively disseminated by the government. The government cannot afford to let our cyberspace become so porous, so vulnerable. Indeed, experts such as Narinrit Prem, Vice President of the Thailand Information Security Association (TISA), are already warning of more cyberattacks and the spread of malware that could wipe vulnerable databases such as those of local hospitals. Mr Narinrit says Cambodian IOs are born of a well-prepared and coordinated strategy -- the very things that Thailand lacks. He is also calling on the government to pool its information technology resources to provide support and advice for website owners or local administrations on how to improve their cybersecurity. In the meantime, he has encouraged the government and media to educate society and netizens about how to consume online news and post content more responsibly and for the public benefit. In the long term, the government must show its seriousness by allocating a far greater budget, as well as creating a national team of experts, to oversee the country's cyber protection. This is not policymaking that can wait. Cyberattacks are part of this border conflict and should serve as a warning that the very fabric of warfare is changing. In the boundless battlefields of cyberspace, a few highly skilled combatants may soon be all that's needed to bring slow, inert and passive countries to their knees.
Bangkok Post
7 days ago
- Bangkok Post
Senate panel backs amnesty for ‘reckless, impulsive' youth
A Senate committee is backing an amnesty for young people who may have committed political offences out of recklessness or impulsiveness according to a spokesman. The Senate Committee on Political Development, Public Participation, Human Rights, Liberties and Consumer Protection convened on Tuesday to review four amnesty bills, three of which are also before a House committee. The House on July 16 passed three amnesty bills out of the five under consideration during first reading. The three bills that passed came from the United Thai Nation, Khru Thai and Bhumjaithai parties. The bills that did not pass were proposed by the People's Party and a civil society group backed by 36,723 signatories. The Senate committee, however, invited all five sponsors to give more details about their bills. Four showed up but Bhumjaithai was not represented, said Senator Pornchai Wiriyalert, the committee spokesman. He said the committee aimed to assess whether the bills could lead to national reconciliation after two decades of political conflict, while also addressing growing public criticism. Sen Pornchai said the four amnesty bills can be categorised into two types. The first type clearly specifies which offences would be covered by the amnesty. This approach allows for swift adoption, as those found guilty under the defined offences would automatically receive amnesty once the laws are passed. However, it is viewed by many as potentially unjust, as it could be seen as favouring one side over the other. The second type does not pre-define offences but instead proposes a review committee to evaluate individual cases. While this allows for more thorough and case-by-case consideration, it may result in lengthy deliberations, he said. Sen Pornchai said some bills propose granting an amnesty for serious criminal offences, such as terrorism, treason (Section 113 of the Criminal Code), illegal arms possession (Section 114), or arson, while excluding those charged under Section 112 (the lese-majeste law), which carries penalties of three to 15 years in prison. He added many of these Section 112 cases involve non-violent online activities, such as posting or sharing content on Facebook, with some offenders receiving prison terms exceeding 20 years. The committee said that if Section 112 offences were politically motivated rather than intended to cause unrest, they should be eligible for an amnesty. As the proposed bills include the formation of committees to evaluate cases, the Senate committee also urged that these bodies be inclusive and not dominated by any single political side.
Bangkok Post
22-07-2025
- Bangkok Post
Senate won't wait for scandal verdicts
The Senate yesterday overwhelmingly rejected a motion to delay approvals for Constitutional Court and Election Commission (EC) nominees and vowed to proceed with the crucial votes today. The 130-7 vote against a motion to postpone approval of nominees for key positions in two independent agencies saw 13 abstentions. The vote came despite potential conflicts of interest involving sitting senators who are facing legal charges for alleged collusion in last year's Senate election. The charges are being laid against them primarily by the EC, one of whose members could be selected by the Senate. Nevertheless, the Senate yesterday blocked an urgent motion to delay the selection and approval of the Constitutional Court and EC. The motion cited an ongoing legal case related to the alleged poll collusion involving at least two-thirds of sitting senators. Following a two-hour closed-door meeting, the Senate voted to reject the motion. The Senate will proceed today with its scheduled agenda that includes approval of two nominees for vacant positions on the Constitutional Court, and of one nominee for the EC. Sen Nuntana Nuntavaropas, a vocal critic of the selection process, warned that moving forward with appointments while the legitimacy of many senators remains under investigation undermines public trust. She referenced findings from Investigation Committee No.26, jointly formed by the EC and the Department of Special Investigation, to probe vote-rigging allegations involving 229 senators. She argued that since these same senators will vote to appoint officials who may later oversee or adjudicate their cases, it represents a clear conflict of interest. "If approved, the new EC member will have the authority to file charges to the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Court justices will hold the power to rule on the legitimacy of the Senate appointments. Proceeding under these circumstances is fundamentally unethical." When asked whether delaying the vote could constitute a violation of Section 157 of the Criminal Code regarding malfeasance in office, Sen Nuntana responded that legal scholars have already clarified that postponement is within the Senate's rights. She likened it to a defendant selecting the judge in their own trial. "Once cleared, senators can vote without casting doubt on the legitimacy of the process," she added. She further argued that if no replacements are confirmed, current officeholders in independent agencies can remain in their roles temporarily. "Waiting won't harm the process, but rushing could damage the credibility of these institutions." Sen Pisit Apiwatthanaphong, however, insisted delays could result in independent bodies being unable to form quorums, thereby stalling critical legal proceedings. He warned that failing to act might also put senators at risk of violating Section 157. He acknowledged public concern but pointed out that under the Constitution, the Senate is empowered to perform this duty. "Criticism is inevitable, but as long as we act within our constitutional bounds, our responsibility is clear," Sen Pisit said. When asked about proposals to delay the vote for eight months to allow court proceedings to conclude, Sen Pisit replied that such a move could leave bodies like the EC, Administrative Court, or Constitutional Court unable to function effectively. "We have to fulfil our constitutional role and ensure that justice continues without interruption."
