Last week, the House of Representatives passed in the second and third readings an amnesty bill for political offences. The bill prohibits amnesty for royal defamation, while the House rejected an amendment which would opened a door to amnesty for those charged as minors.

Officially known as the Promotion of a Peaceful Society Bill, the bill was returned to parliament for its second and third readings from an ad-hoc drafting committee which combined three versions proposed by the United Thai Nation Party, the Bhumjaithai Party, and a Thai Teachers for the Peoples Party MP who has since joined the Klatham Party.

Two other bills were proposed, one by the Network for People’s Amnesty and another by the People’s Party, but were rejected in the first reading.

During the debate, People’s Party MP Sasinan Thamnithinan, a former human rights lawyer, proposed an amendment to Section 3 of the bill so that those charged before they were 18 will be granted amnesty. Sasinan submitted a reserved opinion to parliament and proposed the amendment during the session, saying that she would like minors facing political charges to benefit from the bill. She noted that the committee and the House are concerned about amendments to Section 3, which states that people charged with royal defamation will not be granted amnesty. She proposed that the section be amended so that this restriction would not apply to people who were charged as minors.

She noted that amnesty for royal defamation has been a contentious issue since the bills were proposed, and that there have been criticisms that passing the bill without amending Section 3 would mean leaving behind some political prisoners. She said that she proposed an amendment so that young people facing political charges would be free to return to normal life, to go to school or work.

Meanwhile, former Move Forward Party leader Chaithawat Tulathon proposed an amendment to Section 3 to grant conditional amnesty for people facing royal defamation charges. He said that his proposal is already a compromise, and that refusing amnesty for some charges would mean the bill is unable to achieve its goal of building peace in society.

Several opposition MPs objected, saying that it would be against the bill’s principles which states that royal defamation defendants would not be included, and that the committee has added another section specifically for cases involving minors.

The House of Representatives eventually voted 184 to 133 in favour of the version of Section 3 as written by the committee, rejecting the amendments proposed by Sasinan.

Section 9/1 of the bill was added by the committee. It states that anyone charged while they were under 18 years old can file a petition with the Peace Promotion Committee to have the committee submit a rehabilitation plan to the public prosecutor so they would be subjected to special measures instead of facing a criminal charge. The committee could also ask the public prosecutor to request a court order ending the case without a verdict under existing laws on juvenile and family court procedures. The House voted 276 to 1 with 2 abstentions to approve the section.

The House then voted 280 to 0, with 2 abstentions to pass the bill in its third reading. It will be forwarded to the Senate for three more readings before it becomes law.

The bill has been criticized by civil society for being selective, as it prohibits amnesty for royal defamation, while the list of eligible offences in the Annex does not include the charge of harming the Queen or her liberty under Section 110 of the Thai Criminal Code. On the other hand, it grants amnesty for those charged with overthrowing the government under Section 113 and terrorism under Section 135.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights lawyer Khumklao Songsomboon told iLaw that although the bill proposed a solution for charges against minors in Section 9/1, minors charged with royal defamation are unlikely to benefit from the bill as they have all gone through the legal procedure. Those charged with royal defamation must first be indicted and plead guilty before they are eligible for alternative measures under the Juvenile and Family Court and Procedure Act. They would then be required to follow a behavioural rehabilitation plan before their case is dismissed.

If the defendant pleads not guilty, Khumklao said that they will be subjected to a lengthy and complicated process. After being released on bail, they must meet with a counselling official from the Juvenile and Family Court. They must follow any recommendation made by the official and participate in activities organized by the court, otherwise they may be deemed to have violated bail conditions. They are effectively under the court’s control before a verdict is even delivered. 

Khumklao said that of the 24 royal defamation cases involving minors, only three are still ongoing. One is being considered by the Supreme Court and two by the Appeal Court. The defendants in these cases pleaded not guilty because they do not believe they did anything wrong and chose to fight the charges instead of undergoing rehabilitation, which would require them to plead guilty.

Khumklao questions how Section 9/1 would be useful. Those who plead not guilty are unlikely to benefit, she said, noting that they would have already opted for the alternative measures if they wanted to. Others have complied with conditions since they were charged by the police and have completed the process. Conditional amnesty would instead be additional burden for them.