Bangkok: The House of Representatives engaged in a detailed discussion regarding five draft amnesty bills, each presenting different perspectives on the scope and application of amnesty. During the proceedings, MP Rangsiman Rome emphasized the need for the amnesty to be inclusive and non-discriminatory, particularly highlighting the harassment faced by those charged under Section 112 by government officials. He urged the House not to dismiss the bill. In contrast, MP Pharadon Prisananantakul expressed opposition to granting amnesty under Section 112, citing societal disapproval and potential protests.
According to Thai News Agency, the House meeting was chaired by Mr. Pichet Chueamuangphan, First Vice President of the House. The agenda included the consideration of the draft Act on Promoting a Peaceful Society and the draft Amnesty Act. These drafts were put forth by five MPs and the public sector, including figures such as Mr. Wichai Sutsawat, Mr. Preeda Boonpleng, and Ms. Poonsuk Poonsukcharoen, among others. Although these bills were newly proposed and not yet part of the formal agenda, the meeting chairman allowed their concurrent consideration.
During the debate, Mr. Rangsiman Rome of the Prachachon Party advocated for an open and non-discriminatory approach to amnesty. He argued that legal warfare had historically targeted political dissenters, using severe legal tools, including Section 112 of the Criminal Code. He stressed the importance of a political atmosphere conducive to discussions and negotiations. Mr. Rangsiman also outlined the mechanism of a central committee to determine eligibility for amnesty, aiming to ensure fairness in the process.
Conversely, Mr. Pharadon Prisananantakul of the Bhumjaithai Party presented his party's draft, which grants amnesty for political gatherings but excludes those who violated Article 112, committed corruption, or caused serious harm. He emphasized the importance of excluding politicians from the adjudicating committee to avoid bias. Mr. Pharadon warned against granting amnesty to Section 112 offenders, fearing it might provoke further protests and societal division.
The reporter noted that while the drafts shared a common goal of political amnesty, they differed in specifics. The versions from the Ruam Thai Sang Chart Party, Kla Tham Party, and Bhumjaithai Party explicitly excluded Section 112 cases from amnesty. In contrast, the Prachachon Party and public sector proposals included these cases. Mr. Pharadon concluded by advocating for a gradual approach to amnesty, urging society to be patient and ready before extending amnesty to all.