Parliamentarians will debate on Thursday to determine whether an amnesty bill should cover offenders of Section 112 of the Criminal Code, also known as the lese majeste law.
Nikorn Chamnong, secretary of the special House committee studying an amnesty bill, said the bill has been finalised for more than a month.
Due to the busy parliament meeting agenda, the committee's report on the bill's coverage will only be debated by parliamentarians on Sept 26, he said.
A special panel has prepared answers to various questions regarding the report, ranging from the bill's contentious points to how a committee will be formed to design the final version of the legislation.
Mr Nikorn said the special committee was inconclusive about whether the bill should cover an amnesty for Section 112 offenders.
The 35-member panel was set up early this year, as proposed by the ruling Pheu Thai Party, to conduct a study on the amnesty proposal after a bill sponsored by the now-defunct Move Forward Party, now reborn as People's Party (PP), met resistance in parliament.
The committee reached no conclusion regarding offences against the King, the Queen, the heir-apparent or regent, which are governed by Sections 112 and 110 of the Criminal Code. However, the panel has included the committee members' opinions in its report.
According to the panel, there are three opinion camps: those who want the offences excluded from the bill, those who favour their inclusion and those who want them to be included under special conditions.
Mr Nikorn said the committee's report recommends the government sponsor the amnesty bill but an amnesty should only be limited to 25 legal charges, as approved by the cabinet in 2005.
As for Section 112, he agreed it is a delicate issue which requires deeper discussion.
Meanwhile, Jakrapob Penkair, a former spokesman for prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra who recently returned to the country after 15 years of self-imposed exile overseas, said the time is not ripe to include Section 112 in the amnesty bill.
In an interview with an online news agency, he said amending the law is about compromise.
"One shouldn't feel or be made to feel [like] they've lost all or gained everything from doing it," he said.
"I don't think Section 112 should be contained in an amnesty."
