Amnesty crossroads looms again

Thailand is back where it began. The amnesty issue has resurfaced after charter drafter Anek Laothamatas proposed that the issue be considered by the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC). His suggestion has sparked a fresh round of debate. Whether to pardon those charged with crimes related to past political conflicts remains a controversial issue. Argument rages over whether amnesty is the key to much-needed national reconciliation and, if so, whether now is the right time.

In raising the issue, Anek, who chairs a CDC sub-panel responsible for national reform and reconciliation, was testing the waters. The first question to consider: who would be in charge of the process? In legal terms there are two options – a shortcut and the normal process – but all parties would need to agree for either approach to be pursued.

The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) could ask the government to sponsor an amnesty bill. And, if the government believes this as an important issue in need of urgent attention, it could exercise its power to issue an executive decree. That’s the shortcut.

The legal logistics of the process are simple enough, but not so the new round of debate. Politicians have responded swiftly. Sceptics view it as a new “toy” of the NLA, or insist that amnesty would not aid reconciliation as long as the truth about any political conflict remains under wraps. On the other side, the pro-amnesty camp maintains that an official pardon is a prerequisite for reconciliation.

Meanwhile public reaction remains muted, making it difficult to gauge. It could be too early, or perhaps people are not being properly informed. The atmosphere is reminiscent of the hush that preceded the storm the last government fomented by approving a blanket-amnesty law.

Mistakes like that should serve as a reminder to the current regime that rushing into action brings dire risk. During Yingluck Shinawatra’s tenure the public had no idea that such sweeping legislation could be passed in the middle of the night. Nor did the government realise it was effectively signing its own death warrant.

The situation was fragile then, and it’s no more stable now. The military government has made reform its priority and reconciliation its ultimate goal. In the meantime it’s juggling several hot potatoes, including the upcoming impeachment case against former premier Yingluck. Can the government handle amnesty at the same time, or might it prove to be too much?

If it does decide to act on the amnesty proposal, the government must be prepared for old wounds reopening. A return to such divisiveness would only make our complicated predicament worse. But, if the government is determined to go ahead, it must learn from its predecessor’s primary mistake and engage the public in a national information campaign. 

Initially, the Yingluck government showed similar good intentions toward forging reconciliation. In the end, though, it not only missed that goal, it helped push the country into extreme division. The present government must learn from that debacle but, first, it must ask whether amnesty is essential to reconciliation.