The House committee studying an amnesty bill has wrapped up its work without concluding whether offences under Section 112, the lese-majeste law, and Section 110 of the Criminal Code should be included.
Pheu Thai MP and committee chairman Chusak Sirinil said the panel had endorsed a report for submission to the House for further consideration. It reached a resolution on three major issues related to the amnesty proposal, he said.
First, the committee agreed that the amnesty bill will cover cases involving politically motivated offences committed from 2005 to the present. A committee will be set up to examine cases and a list of offences eligible for amnesty will be compiled for their consideration.
“The gist of it is that the cases must be politically motivated and there will be a list of cases that qualify,” he said.
The committee agreed that cases that fall under Sections 288 and 289 of the Criminal Code (murder and other acts leading to death), which are considered serious violations of human rights, will not be covered by the amnesty bill.
Members reached no conclusion regarding offences against the King, the Queen, heir-apparent or regent, which are covered by Sections 112 and 110. However, the report will include the committee members’ opinions.
According to Mr Chusak, those expressing opinions were divided into three camps: one wants those offences excluded from an amnesty, another favours their inclusion, and the third calls for them to be included under special conditions.
“The committee believes that the amnesty is most likely to come to fruition if the government takes the lead or helps push the proposal,” he said.
Nikorn Chamnong, the committee’s secretary, said government whips would be asked to prioritise the committee’s report and place it high on the House agenda. The report is expected to be discussed by the House next month.
The 35-member panel was set up early this year as proposed by the ruling Pheu Thai Party to conduct a comprehensive study on the amnesty proposal after a bill sponsored by the main opposition Move Forward Party (MFP) met with resistance. Most of the resistance stemmed from the party’s proposal that Section 112 offences be included.
Move Forward leader Chaithawat Tulathon said on Friday that it was agreed that the issue of amnesty should be considered by a committee because the political conflict over the past two decades was so complex.
He said he hopes the government and political parties will draw up their own versions of an amnesty bill for submission to the House.
