Thailand is set to introduce an amnesty bill for politically motivated cases aimed at unravelling two decades of political conflict, but this has fuelled another heated debate, particularly on royal defamation cases, which several political parties want excluded from amnesty.

Long road to amnesty

After approximately 6 months of deliberation, the House Committee studying an amnesty bill finally concluded their report and submitted it to the President of Parliament in June. A parliamentary review of the report was initially scheduled for Thursday (3 October), but has been delayed.

Chusak Sirinil, the Committee chair and Minister Attached to the PM’s Office, revealed that parliament’s review of the report must be put off following suggestions from the coalition parties, saying further discussion is needed to find a common ground among both the coalition and opposition parties.

It was reported that a few days ago, one coalition partner, the United Thai Nation Party, strongly opposed the report, saying it lacks clear approaches on how to deal with royal defamation cases. Meanwhile, the Party insisted that royal defamation cases must be excluded from any amnesty bill.

The opposition People’s Party disagreed with postponing the review of the report, arguing that it merely represents opinions and proposals for drafting an amnesty bill, and there is no need to postpone the review.

Why is an amnesty important?

According to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, since the 2006 coup, at least 5,027 people have been prosecuted for exercising their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Almost a third of these prosecutions occurred between 18 July 2020 and 31 January 2024, during which at least 1,947 individuals were prosecuted in 1,268 cases for political crimes resulting from the exercise of their fundamental freedoms, with 216 cases involving 286 minors under 18.

The bill aims to cover offences related to “politically motivated acts”, which the report defines as actions based on ideas related to political conflict or aiming at achieving a specific goal during a time of conflict.

The report concludes that an amnesty bill should cover the period from 1 January 2005 to the present, which will include the Yellow Shirt movement in 2005, the Red Shirt movement in 2010, and the recent mass protests in 2020.

The report suggests that the cases be classified into three categories: major, minor, and sensitive cases.

Major cases include those related to national security, treason, terrorism, the Assembly Act, and the Computer Crime Act. On the other hand, minor cases encompass offences against state officials, as well as crimes involving life and bodily harm. The sensitive cases involve royal defamation cases which have become a major point of contention.

Contention over royal defamation cases

Thailand's royal defamation law dates back to the era of absolute monarchy. The 1976 coup marked a significant turning point when the law's penalty was increased to 3-15 years imprisonment, making it one of the strictest royal defamation laws in the world. This legacy has persisted to the present. Use of the law escalated during mass protests in 2020.

According to TLHR, as of August 2024, at least 273 people have faced royal defamation charges.

The report by the Committee shows a difference of opinion on how to handle royal defamation cases. Some Committee members oppose amnesty in all royal defamation cases, others support an amnesty but with conditions, and a third faction supports unconditional amnesty.

Paiboon Nititawan, Deputy Chair of the Committee, argued that granting amnesty to defendants in sensitive cases would provoke more conflict in society since several people oppose it. He was concerned that an amnesty for the royal defamation cases would weaken the protection of the monarchy, pointing to a Constitutional Court ruling in the Move Forward Party case which emphasized that the monarchy is protected by the Constitution, and this protection cannot be amended by any means “that are not the lawful legislative process.” Paiboon noted that such an amnesty would contradict both the Constitution and the Court ruling.

Chaitawat Tulathon, a member of the Committee who supports conditional amnesty for royal defamation cases, insisted that granting an amnesty for royal defamation cases is not the same as proposing amendment of the law. He emphasised that many offences under the law were related to political expression.

He further explained that, under a conditional amnesty, an amnesty committee would be established to review individual cases before defendants entered an amnesty programme with measures to prevent re-offending.

An amnesty programme would provide a safe space for dialogue, bringing together the defendant, state officials, and other relevant parties to discuss the motives and causes behind each case.

On the other hand, Sasinan Thamnithinan, the Committee spokesperson, advocated for unconditional amnesty, arguing that many cases were politically motivated, and many charges were exaggerated and disproportionate to the actual acts.

Apart from differences of opinion inside the Committee, some coalition parties, including United Thai Nation, Palang Pracharath, and Bhumjaithai, strongly oppose including royal defamation cases in an amnesty bill.

As the debate continues, the final version of an amnesty bill remains uncertain given the different perspectives of several parties, and the highly sensitive nature of the issue.

Amnesties in Thai political history

There have been efforts to enact amnesty bills since Thailand changed its form of government to a democratic regime with the King as Head of State in 1932. Over the years, at least 23 amnesty bills have been introduced, 11 of which absolved military juntas from the crime of overthrowing civilian governments in coups. The most frequent reason given was the need for reconciliation and harmony, but many times it turned out otherwise.

Of the 23, only 3 absolved those who participated in significant mass protests arising from political conflicts, such as in the 1973 uprising, the Thammasat Massacre in 1976, and Black May. Notably, no previous amnesty bill addressed royal defamation cases.

In 2013-2014, Former PM Yingluck Shinawatra attempted to pass an amnesty bill, but it led to the downfall of her government. The proposed bill sought to cover individuals from both sides of political conflicts, including Abhisit Vejjajiva, Suthep Thaugsuban, and her brother, former PM Thaksin. This sparked opposition from several parties, including supporters of her own Pheu Thai Party. The then-opposition Democrat Party accused the government of using the bill as a pretext to absolve Thaksin, who was in exile at that time, and to clear the way for his return to Thailand. Increasing unrest eventually pushed the military to answer calls from anti-government right-wing forces to step in and take power.

The most recent amnesty was included in the 2014 interim Constitution, drafted by the military junta led by Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, then-head of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO). The amnesty covered all acts, whether or not they violated the constitution, committed following NCPO orders or actions related to the 2014 coup.