11-07-2025
MPs take up amnesty proposals
The House of Representatives on Wednesday began intense deliberations on five bills to foster social harmony and grant amnesty for political offences, submitted by MPs and citizen groups.
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.
