Just because something is dormant, it doesn’t mean it’s dead. That was how sceptics described efforts in parliament to push through an bill granting amnesty to political offenders in the name of social healing after years of bitter divisions in the country.
These efforts have reached the stage where an ad hoc House committee has finalised a study on the design of the amnesty bill, which has run into problems over whether offenders of Section 112 of the Criminal Code, or the lese majeste law, should be granted an amnesty too.
Critics have argued that most lese majeste offenders, particularly those charged in connection with the youth-led protest movement in recent years, are facing the consequences for defaming the monarch, which is a criminal offence and for that reason, they should be punished.
A source noted only two parties, the ruling Pheu Thai Party and the main opposition People’s Party (PP), backed an amnesty covering lese majeste law violators.
No other parties have stepped forward to support them.
Even the opposition Thai Sang Thai Party has warned that including Section 112 violators among amnesty beneficiaries would derail the law’s original goal of absolving political offenders.
Critics have chastised Pheu Thai and the PP for having a vested interest in making an “all-in” amnesty law a reality.
Pheu Thai’s alleged de facto leader, Thaksin Shinawatra, was arraigned on June 18 on lese majeste and computer crime charges, which stem from comments he made during an interview with the South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo on May 21, 2015.
Thaksin allegedly defamed the monarchy by claiming privy councillors supported the 2014 military coup that ousted his younger sister, Yingluck Shinawatra.
Thaksin was released on 500,000-baht bail and is prohibited from leaving the country without court permission.
The PP, on the other hand, has a lot riding on the youth-led protest leaders and members — several of whom are being tried or were convicted on multiple lese majesty counts — being amnestied.
The movement trumpets reform and advocates radical changes to Section 112, deemed by conservatives as vital for defending the monarchy. The reforms sought by the protest group, which commands a large student and young voter following, are closely aligned, if not identical, to those of the Move Forward Party (MFP), which was dissolved for allegedly attempting to overthrow the constitutional monarchy. The MFP was reborn as the PP.
The source said the PP stands to gain more than it loses from having youth-led protest leaders exonerated with an amnesty law.
The party, through successive dissolutions of its predecessors going right back to the Future Forward Party, could be running out of luminaries among its leadership, who exude magnetism and the calibre needed to maintain and expand the PP’s support ahead of the next general election in three years.
Leaders of the youth movement, such as former human rights lawyer Anon Nampa, currently jailed on a lese majeste charge, could fill a void in the party, according to the source.
However, some observers have argued that admitting protest figures to a political party has significant risks. For one, there is no telling if, after an exoneration, they will insult the monarchy again, which could cause the party’s downfall.
Many observers believe the prospect of Section 112 offenders being incorporated into an amnesty bill that will be passed by parliament is very slim, and the Senate is unlikely to support it.
A credible gauge of the Senate’s stance on the issue may be the Bhumjaithai Party’s position not to support an amnesty law covering lese majeste offenders. After all, some 150 of the 200 senators have been labelled as having a “blue” affiliation. Blue is the colour of Bhumjaithai.
As resistance mounts against the amnesty push in parliament, the House study panel has delayed tabling its report on the bill to lawmakers for consideration.
The PP and Pheu Thai are pushing for an amnesty to be accepted by parliament. However, the push is stalled pending a parliamentary debate on the study panel report.
According to the panel, there are three camps: those who want the Section 112 offence excluded from the amnesty bill, those who favour its inclusion, and those who want it included under special conditions.
Last week, the study report reached parliament, and a lengthy debate got underway, only to be cut short by Deputy House Speaker Pichet Chuamuangpan, who adjourned the session. Mr Pichet said he had to call a halt as the debate had become a drawn-out affair and inconclusive.
Nikorn Chamnong, secretary to the study committee, said the committee’s report recommends the government sponsor the amnesty bill but an amnesty should only be limited to 25 crimes.
As for Section 112, he agreed it is a delicate issue which requires deeper discussion.
Despite what some observers have interpreted as the committee’s aptness to backtrack on its commitment to have an amnesty bill enacted, the source said the moves seeking amnesty for Section 112 offenders may be losing momentum. However, they can eventually succeed as long as Pheu Thai and the PP are up for it.
The Senate may not pose a hindrance if Pheu Thai can cut an irresistible political deal with Bhumjaithai, compelling it to soften its opposition to Section 112 offenders gaining an amnesty.
Signs point to ominous times
Despite not yet accepting a petition against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and the Pheu Thai Party, the Constitutional Court’s request for details from the Office of Attorney-General (OAG) is expected to create unease within the ruling party, according to political observers.
Pichet: Had to halt debate
First, the petition in question was lodged by lawyer Teerayut Suwankesorn, who previously earned recognition for his petition asking the court to order the then Move Forward Party (MFP) to cease all activities related to the lese majeste law.
The court ruled in Mr Teerayut’s favour in January this year, and the ruling triggered a series of events that resulted in the disbandment of the MFP and political bans for the party’s executives.
Next, the accusation against Thaksin echoed those made against the MFP. Mr Teerayut also requested that the court stop Thaksin from committing actions that might undermine the constitutional monarchy by influencing the Pheu Thai Party.
Mr Teerayut outlined six key events to back his allegation against the Pheu Thai patriarch.
They covered Thaksin’s extended stay at the Police General Hospital (PGH), the government’s plan to negotiate with Cambodia over territorial claims and the Pheu Thai’s charter rewrite bid. They all involved Thaksin pulling the ruling party’s strings, according to Mr Teerayut.
The government policy statement delivered to parliament by PM Paetongtarn Shinawatra, his daughter, also reflected Thaksin’s vision outlined at a forum on Aug 22.
A gathering of core coalition party figures at his Bangkok home to find a prime ministerial candidate after Srettha Thavisin was removed from office on Aug 14, and the coalition expulsion of a faction led by Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP) leader Gen Prawit Wongsuwon, were examples of the influence exerted over Pheu Thai, the petitioner alleged.
And should Mr Teerayut’s claim stick, the case is shaping up to be more than just a legal battle, according to observers. It will be a fight for survival for the party and its leader, Ms Paetongtarn, who has had a more difficult start as premier than most of her predecessors.
Thanaporn Sriyakul, director of the Political and Public Policy Analysis Institute, told the Bangkok Post that the court’s action clearly demonstrates court president Nakharin Mektrairat’s commitment to supporting public scrutiny of politicians and political parties.
Mr Teerayut initially submitted the complaint with the OAG on Sept 24, asking it to investigate and forward the case to the Constitutional Court for a ruling. He went on to file the complaint directly with the court after the OAG failed to act on his request within 15 days.
According to Mr Thanaporn, the court’s request for information from the OAG can be seen as a signal that the court might step in and consider the petition itself if the OAG fails to act.
Of the six events listed by Mr Teerayut, the one surrounding Thaksin’s extended stay at the PGH can put Thaksin in a particularly tight spot, considering the court’s rulings regarding actions that undermine the constitutional monarchy, said the analyst.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was the first independent agency to look into the matter and submitted its damning findings to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to consider further action.
The NHRC concluded that the Department of Corrections (DoC) gave privileged treatment to Thaksin, and both the DoC and the PGH helped Thaksin serve all his jail time in comfort in the PGH instead of a prison cell or in the DoC’s hospital.
Mr Thanaporn expressed scepticism about the Pheu Thai legal team’s ability to counter the allegations, saying the party rarely won cases brought before the Constitutional Court and other independent agencies.
According to the analyst, Thaksin’s only legal victory was in 2001 when the Constitutional Court ruled 8:7 in his favour to clear him of an asset concealment charge. He narrowly escaped a political ban and removal from office.
The NACC had charged Thaksin with failing to declare the transfer of shares worth more than 600 million baht to his driver, gardeners and close associates, although he did declare ownership of a 60-billion-baht stake in Shin Corporation.
“It is the only time he won a case. He can’t rely on the party’s legal team and will need to employ similar tactics [as he did in the asset concealment case] to get himself out of this situation, especially since he coined the phrase, ‘politics is the art of mystery’,” said Mr Thanaporn.
However, Pheu Thai heavyweight Chousak Sirinil said earlier that the accusation against Thaksin and the party lacked sufficient grounds to be considered actions aimed at undermining the constitutional monarchy.
Mr Chousak, who is the ruling party’s legal adviser, argued that the petitioner tried to draw a comparison between Pheu Thai’s actions and those that led to the court’s ruling against the MFP.
He insisted that the two cases were entirely different.