Debate began on Wednesday (9 July) in parliament on five proposed amnesty bills for prosecutions deemed political crimes. However, the House Speaker abruptly adjourned the session before parliament could finish the debate and vote on the bills.

Three of the bills were proposed by the People’s Party, the United Thai Nation Party, and a Thai Teachers for the Peoples Party MP who has since joined the Klatham Party. The Bhumjaithai Party proposed a fourth but its version had yet to be added to the agenda.  It was going to be debated after receiving permission from the House Speaker.

A fifth bill backed by 36,723 voters was proposed by the Network for People’s Amnesty, a civil society group. This latter bill is often referred to as the “People’s Amnesty” bill.

The bills were previously scheduled to go before parliament on 9 April, but the debate was postponed as parliament was discussing the US tariff increase and did not have enough time.

Amnesty for people charged with royal defamation remained a point of contention ahead of and during yesterday’s debate. Of the five bills, only the version explicitly proposing amnesty for the charge was the People’s Amnesty bill.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) lawyer Poonsuk Poonsukcharoen spoke in parliament as a representative of the voters who backed the bill. She said that the Network considered royal defamation a political prosecution, noting that of the 51 political prisoners remaining in detention, 32 were charged with it. She also raised issues with how the law is enforced. People accused of royal defamation often have difficulties obtaining bail and while not explicitly ordering defendants to be tried in secret, courts often refuse to summon evidence and prohibit the release of information about trials.

“Let’s say this parliament says that every defendant will be eligible for amnesty except [those charged with royal defamation] … of the 51 people in prison, 32 - 62% - will remain in prison. You’d be granting amnesty to a minority,” Poonsuk said.

Drafts proposed by United Thai Nation, Klatham, and Bhumjaithai all do not grant amnesty to those charged with royal defamation. United Thai Nation MP Thanakorn Wangboonkongchana explained that amnesty should not be granted because the law exists to protect the monarchy and national security, and the Constitutional Court has ruled that amending it is treasonous. He also said that pro-monarchy people might protest if amnesty is granted to people charged with royal defamation, and alleged that young people charged with royal defamation were being controlled by a ‘spiritual leader’ who should stop egging them on.

The People’s Party version does not specify which offences should be eligible for amnesty, proposing instead that all cases be subjected to review by a committee. People’s Party MP Rangsiman Rome said during the debate that the party wanted to cover all groups of people. He also said that the bill did not list specific offences because political prosecution takes many forms, from major criminal charges like royal defamation to minor offences like those under the Public Cleanliness Act or the Sound Amplifier Act. He hopes that using minimum requirements will assure that everyone is covered by the bill.

Noting the large number of people have been charged with royal defamation, he said that the officers who prosecuted them often did not look at the facts and evidence in detail, or consider whether the accused was fairly treated. Because of this, he worries that new political conflicts will arise.

“If we frame [the law] too narrowly, how can we move forward? How can we be sure that every single citizen involved in these conflicts are granted amnesty?” Rangsiman asked.

Student activist Thanapat Kapeng spoke in parliament in support of the People’s Amnesty bill. He noted that he is facing three counts of royal defamation, one of which requires him to travel to Narathiwat to attend police and court appointments because complaints can be filed anywhere. Acknowledging that some see him as a radical and a threat to national security, he explained that he only wanted to exercise his civil rights to promote change.

Responding to comments made by some MPs that young activists had been brainwashed and manipulated, Thanapat said that people who took part in the protests were merely exercising their right to freedom of expression, believing that as citizens in a democratic regime, they had the right to express their views.

Thanapat also said that the royal defamation law has been used as a form of judicial harassment, and that granting amnesty without including those facing charges would leave contemporary political divisions unresolved. He feels that granting them amnesty and giving them equal rights as citizens would help to restore the country’s judicial system and democracy.

Activist Benja Apan, who is facing 8 counts of royal defamation, also spoke in parliament. Responding to a comment made by former Democrat Party leader Jurin Laksanawisit that no amnesty has ever been granted for royal defamation, Benja said that this was inaccurate. The 1978 Amnesty Act, which granted amnesty for those prosecuted for participating in the 4 - 6 October 1976 protest at Thammasat University, grant amnesty for all charges, including royal defamation.

Responding to a comment made by United Thai Nation MP Thanakorn Wangboonkongchana that people who went into political exile were privileged, Benja said that, of the 20 activists who have gone into exile since the pro-democracy protests, none came from a privileged background. It is not easy to live in a foreign country, she said, especially for people who have no money and don’t speak local languages.

“They are just people who don’t want to keep fighting in an unjust justice system,” she said, adding that it has been extremely difficult to get courts to summon evidence in royal defamation trials.

“People who are in jail, or who are about to be jailed, and the people who are in exile … it’s all because of [the royal defamation charge] … What kind of peace will it be if you don’t include [them]? Is it just going to be peace for you? If you say that you want to move on together and start over, why are you not giving young people a chance to move on with you?”

After Benja spoke, First Deputy House Speaker Pichet Chuamuangpan, acting as speaker during the session, adjourned the meeting. Debate is expected to continue next Wednesday (16 July).