House rejects draft bills seeking amnesty for lèse majesté offences
The House of Representatives rejected two draft amnesty bills today, which seek to grant amnesties to all political offenders, including those convicted on lèse majesté charges (Section 112 of the Criminal Code).
The House did, however, pass three bills, which seek amnesties for political offenders, excluding those convicted on lèse majesté charges.
The two rejected draft amnesty bills were:
· The one proposed by former leader of the now defunct Move Forward party, Thawatchai Tulathon and supporters. The House voted 319:147 to rejecting the draft, with six abstentions.
· The one proposed by Poonsuk Poonsukcharoen, of Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, which was seconded by 36,723 people. The House voted 306:149 to reject the draft, with 20 abstentions.
The three draft bills approved by the House were:
· One proposed by United Thai Nation MP Vichai Sudsawat, by 299:0 votes, with 172 abstentions.
· One proposed by Preeda Boonploeng of the Kla Tham party, by 311:0, with 158 abstentions.
· One proposed by Bhumjaithai party leader Anutin Charnvirakul, by 311:3 votes, with 147 abstentions.
Both the ruling Pheu Thai and the opposition People’s party did not propose any amnesty bill to the House for deliberation.
The House then appointed a 32-member panel to scrutinise the three approved drafts, with the one proposed by the United Thai Nation to be used as the core bill during the scrutiny process.
During the debate today, People’s party MP Sasinan Thamnithinan asked why all political offenders are to be granted amnesty, while those convicted on lèse majesté charges will be left in prison.
“While we are talking about promotion of peace and reconciliation, to do away with conflicts, we are abandoning a group of people,” she said in her address to her fellow MPs.
“Some people say I am stupid or crazy for talking about the impossible, but I believe, deep in my heart that, if we do not talk about Section 112 today, it will be raised for discussion one day. We cannot escape this truth,” said Sasinan.
Yingcheep Atchanont, representing civil society, explained why lèse majesté convicts and defendants should be pardoned, like other political offenders, by citing the cases several innocent people who are not protest leaders, but were jailed for expressing their views on Section 112. “Mongkol” [sic], for example, was given 75 years, which was commuted to 54 years, for 29 Facebook posts regarding the lèse majesté law.
He said he could not understand why those who were involved in the closure of the airports, the shutting down of government offices and in causing hardship to a lot of people are to be pardoned, while those accused of committing lèse majesté are not.