Amnesty and reconciliation bills won't be merged: MPs

Pheu Thai MPs on the House committee vetting the amnesty bill have dismissed speculation that the ruling party would merge it with "reconciliation" bills that grant amnesty to all – including ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra – and pardon convicts or suspects charged with lese majeste offences.

Pheu Thai MP for Samut Prakan Worachai Hema is a member of the House special committee vetting the bill. He was also a writer of the amnesty bill now being considered by the House. He said offenders under Article 112 of the Criminal Code were criminal, not political cases, and the House committee vetting the amnesty bill must write clearly in it that the amnesty does not include offenders who broke the lese majeste law.

Worachai said his bill was drawn from principles different from ‘national reconciliation’ bills, in terms of segregating groups that would be pardoned. ‘Reconciliation’ bills would pardon everyone, but his bill does not pardon protest leaders or lese majeste offenders.

He suggested the committee should put down exactly who "the leaders" are and who would not be entitled to amnesty. Examples would be the 24 defendants charged with terrorism, including Thaksin, five core leaders of the People’s Alliance for Democracy in the airport seizure cases, and murder allegations against Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva and Centre for Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) director Suthep Thaugsuban.

Committee member and Pheu Thai MP for Chiang Rai Samart Kaewmeechai said it was not legally possible to merge a ‘reconciliation’ bill with the amnesty bill because the two bills focused on different concepts – reconciliation bills pardon everyone, but the amnesty bill pardons only protesters and not protest leaders.

"The committee cannot merge two bills with different principles during the vetting process," he said.

He said the committee might resort to the Criminal Code to explain who the leaders were, as they could be key players, or people who hire, order, instigate, or support others to protest. They would not be entitled to amnesty.

Democrat MP for Phatthalung Nipit Intarasombat, who is also on the committee, said offences that should be pardoned were political offences committed against the state or the private sector to cause political change. However, those who receive amnesty must not have harmed life and assets, such as seizing Government House, the Parliament or airports – not burnt down provincial halls or state premises.

"If people who burnt down provincial halls are pardoned, we have no guarantee that there will not be such violence in the future because this will set a precedent for future events," he said.

Committee member Kaewsan Atibodhi disapproved of Worachai’s bill over its segregation of who should be pardoned.

He said the bill had to look at types of offences and not particular offenders. He said the type of offences that could be pardoned were political. These include laying siege to Parliament, Government House – but not killing people, damaging assets or burning down properties, he said.

Worachai’s bill leaves loopholes for a majority decision by the House committee to have a final say over controversial points. As government MPs have a majority on the committee, the public will have to wait and see if this bill will bring peace, or more conflict.