MPs take up amnesty proposals
Opening the session, Deputy Speaker Pichit Chuamuangphan presided over the presentation of the bills: the "Promote Peaceful Society Bill" by MP Wichai Sutsawat (United Thai Nation Party); "Promote Peaceful Society Bill" by MP Preeda Boonplerng (Klatham Party); "Amnesty for Political Offences Bill" by the People's Party (PP); the "People's Amnesty Bill" backed by 36,723 voters and Poonsuk Poonsukcharoen; and "Promote Peaceful Society Bill" by Bhumjaithai Party leader Anutin Charnvirakul -- a late submission.
During the debate, PP list-MP Rangsiman Rome called for a broad, non‑discriminatory amnesty, citing abuse of Section 112 of the Criminal Code or the lese‑majeste law to silence dissent.
He said the PP-sponsored bill omits specific offences and deadlines, entrusting a central committee -- comprising judiciary, parliamentary, and government representatives -- to vet eligible cases. The measure does not set a cutoff date for such cases.
He said the bill is designed this way because, historically, the state has used "legal warfare" to target citizens with dissenting political views. This includes harsh application of laws such as Section 112, as well as minor infractions like public cleanliness laws or failure to carry an ID card, to harass political opponents.
"In many Section 112 cases, state officials have filed charges without examining the facts, evidence, or ensuring fairness, which only deepens conflict," he said.
By contrast, Bhumjaithai MP for Ang Thong, Paradorn Prisnanantakul, said his party firmly believes those who violated Section 112 cannot be granted amnesty.
"Doing so could spark new unrest and prolong protests. If a full amnesty isn't possible, then at least some groups should benefit. We must remove certain elements from the equation to move forward," he said.
Mr Paradorn acknowledged that some individuals would not benefit from the bill, but expressed hope that in the future -- once society is more open to dialogue and those individuals show remorse -- the issue could be revisited.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bangkok Post
5 hours 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
2 days ago
- 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."
Bangkok Post
2 days ago
- Bangkok Post
'Progress' in joint rail ticketing bid
The government has made significant progress in amending two key regulations which it hopes will pave the way for the introduction of the 20-baht fare cap across Bangkok's electric rail network, Transport Minister Suriya Jungrungreangkit announced yesterday. Mr Suriya said the changes to the Mass Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand (MRTA) Act and the Joint Ticketing System Management Act -- which will facilitate the establishment of a joint ticketing support fund -- will be submitted to the House of Representatives by Aug 7. Once the amendments are approved by the House, the revised acts will be put up for a public hearing, as required by the law. Under the proposed system, the MRTA will transfer revenues from managing the city's rapid transit network to the Ministry of Finance, which will then compensate private rail operators for losses incurred under the 20-baht fare policy. The compensation will be calculated based on actual passenger data, Mr Suriya said. He said he was confident that the MRTA would be able to generate enough revenue to sustain the scheme, which the government hopes will help lower living costs, promote the use of public transport, and reduce congestion, accidents, and pollution in the capital. He also reaffirmed the government's commitment to implementing the 20-baht policy by Oct 1. The initiative will cover eight electric rail lines in Bangkok and its suburbs, which span over 276.84 kilometres of tracks and 194 stations. Mr Suriya said he held a meeting with Bangkok governor Chadchart Sittipunt and private rail concessionaires last week, during which all stakeholders expressed strong support for the scheme. A source at the Ministry of Transport noted that the policy's success hinges on the timely enactment of three legislative measures. They are the Railway Transport Act, which sets regulatory standards for the sector; the Joint Ticketing System Management Act, which creates a unified fare system across public transit; and the MRTA Amendment Act, which permits the agency to use its revenue, especially from the profitable MRT Blue Line, to subsidise less profitable services, such as the Red Line, Airport Rail Link, Green Line, and Gold Line, through the new fund.
