Draft amendment to amnesty bill is deeply suspicious

The timing of the draft amnesty bill that the Cabinet of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra plans to put forward is highly controversial. While the details of the draft remain unclear, the amnesty plan has drawn criticism from many who question whether this decree is designed simply to pave the way for the return of fugitive former premier Thaksin Shinawatra. 

None of the Cabinet members have shed any light on this matter. In fact, the murky information surrounding the draft amnesty has fuelled speculation over the motives of the Pheu Thai-led government.

The controversy comes at a particularly bad time. The Kingdom is still recovering from the massive flood disaster, and we cannot afford another divisive issue of this staggering magnitude.

While ordinary people have joined forces to help the flood victims, the speculation over the Yingluck government’s attempt to facilitate an amnesty and political return for Thaksin can only further polarise a nation that has hardly started its reconciliation process.

Yingluck cannot deny any responsibility on this matter even though she has tried to avoid the issue. Yingluck said she was not aware of the details of the draft because was absent from the Cabinet meeting this week. She claimed that she had to stay overnight in Sing Buri during her flood-relief visit there because her Russian-made MI17 helicopter did not have radar for night flights. She deferred the matter to Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung to chair the weekly Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, when the members discussed the royal decree seeking amnesty for convicts on His Majesty the King’s birthday. Critics speculate that the move will pave the way for her brother’s return. 

It has been reported that the Cabinet endorsed the draft amendment to enable people convicted of corruption to be eligible for amnesty. In addition, it was also reported that the decree does not require convicts to serve a jail term before being eligible for the amnesty. 

If this is the case, the draft decree would make Thaksin – who fled and refused to come back to Thailand to serve a two-year jail term – eligible for a royal amnesty. Thaksin remains in self-imposed exile after he was convicted of corruption charges.

Many political groups now plan to join hands against any attempt to bend the legal process to benefit Thaksin. The amnesty might be amended in good faith, but Yingluck and her Cabinet members did not bring any sense of transparency to the process by denying any knowledge of it.

Yingluck might try to play innocent. But she cannot deny any knowledge about the details of the meeting. After all, it is her brother who is the most contentious part of this controversy. In addition, Yingluck, as the head of the government, must be fully responsible for every single decision made by the Cabinet, even if those decisions are made at unscheduled or secret meetings that she is unable to attend.

Chalerm made things worse yesterday when he declined to give details of the royal decree, irresponsibly saying that it was a secret, even though he knows well how this issue will further divide an already beleaguered nation. 

If Thaksin’s political supporters want to bring the convicted former premier back to Thailand, they should instead try other options through the normal legal procedure, instead of trying to amend a royal decree and its traditions for the benefit of one person. Thaksin can return to Thailand at any time to fight his case. But he chose to flee into self-imposed exile, and has, at times, manoeuvred the Thai political scene, via his proxies, from overseas.

Thai politicians must not use the auspicious event of His Majesty the King’s birthday, and exploit the timing of a national calamity, for their personal benefit. His Majesty the King’s amnesty is an annual event to celebrate the auspicious occasion of his birthday. Amnesties are granted each year to remind us of the human ability to be redeemed. They are not meant to create a loophole for any convict or be manipulated to serve any political purpose.