“Chaiwat” reveals that the Amnesty Committee has a split opinion on Section 112.

Parliament, 'Chaiwat' reveals that the Amnesty Committee has a split voice on Section 112, with some proposing conditions, hoping that the House will listen with maturity and without conflict. Mr. Chaiwat Tulathan, MP of the Move Forward Party, as a member of the House of Representatives' Special Committee to Study the Guidelines for the Amnesty Act, revealed that today is the last meeting of the Special Committee. Tomorrow (26 July 2024), there will be an official summary report to be included in the House of Representatives' agenda for consideration as soon as possible. For the main points, the special committee saw that this amnesty would not be able to be enacted as a law like in the past when specific offenses were determined or specific cases would be amnestied, because the cases that occurred during the period of political conflict for almost 20 years had a variety of offenses and events. Therefore, the law must be enacted to be as consistent with the facts as possible, namely, proposing the establi shment of an amnesty committee to determine which cases should be granted amnesty, along with defining that politically motivated crimes mean actions that are based on crimes related to political conflicts or that aim to achieve a political goal during times of conflict or political unrest, from 2005 to the present. As for the amnesty for crimes under Section 112 of the Criminal Code, the special committee from the Move Forward Party agreed with the amnesty under Section 112, but there were still differences of opinion in the special committee. Therefore, all forms of thought were combined for the House of Representatives to consider comprehensively, divided into 3 groups. 1. I do not agree with the amnesty under Section 112. 2. I agree with the amnesty under Section 112 as for other crimes . 3. I agree with the amnesty under Section 112, but it is a conditional amnesty. Mr. Chaiwat admitted that the special committee had many concerns. If there was an amnesty for Section 112 cases, there would be proble ms of expression as in the past, leading to legal action. There was a proposal that there should be conditions that passed 2 elements: 1. Proposing that the amnesty committee have the power to set conditions in order to enter into the consideration of amnesty. 2. There should be measures to prevent repeated offenses. The accused or perpetrator must come to state the facts about the reasons and motivations for the alleged acts, along with a process to open a safe space for discussion between the perpetrator and the accused with the conflicting parties and security officials to exchange facts. However, the conditions for repeat offenses in each case are different, depending on the circumstances of each case. The important point is that while the case is still in the amnesty consideration process, there is a proposal that there should be initial justice measures, such as delaying the prosecution, granting bail, or temporarily dismissing the case, because cases with such conditions may take longer to consider t han other cases. For measures to prevent recidivism, there may be other measures after receiving amnesty, such as violating conditions that may result in the loss of the right to amnesty, measures for periodic reporting, or a reconciliation process, etc. In addition, some special committees have proposed not granting amnesty immediately, but rather holding discussions before considering amnesty. The special committee agreed that serious human rights violation cases, especially those involving life, should not receive amnesty. When the report is submitted to the House of Representatives for consideration, the Cabinet should promptly consider drafting the government's amnesty bill. While the law is still in the works, justice should be served. However, after the report has been considered by the House, it will be forwarded to the Cabinet and agencies in the justice process, who will be asked to return a report to the House within 60 days on the progress of implementing the proposal. While the opinions of ma ny political parties are still different, most do not support amnesty for Section 112 cases. The Move Forward Party is not that organized. Although we have one opinion, we listen and try to understand the opinions of those who have concerns on this issue. Even working in the special committee, we have different opinions, but we listen to each other's opinions and try to find the most acceptable proposal. For example, the conditional amnesty proposal is an attempt to understand each other. The report to be submitted to the parliament will include the opinions of all parties. 'I hope that the atmosphere in the parliament will not be one of conflict, but an atmosphere where we try to listen to each other, consider every issue thoroughly and with maturity. If the atmosphere in the parliament is still not reconciled, and there is no openness to listen to each other, the enactment of laws to reduce political conflict will not be achieved,' said Mr. Chaithawat. Source: Thai News Agency