Following Nick Nostitz’s very informative coverage of the opposition to what he calls “reconciliation games,” below is an unofficial translation of the four versions of the important articles of the proposed reconciliation bills.
Given the recent mayhem in parliament, the debate on the bills has been put on hold at least until the next parliamentary session in August. This has ended speculation that the third reading might be called in the House-Senate joint meeting. This is a commendable move on the part of House Speaker, Somsak Kiatsuranont, to not purposely exclude opposition to the bills, such as from the Democrats, and to heed the calls from the judiciary.
Pheu Thai suffered an embarrassing blow from its failed attempt to boycott the Constitution Court’s order to postpone constitutional amendment. When it came time for the House-Senate deliberation on the boycott, in which the ruling government needed 322 votes to pass, they merely garnered 318 votes despite their majority. Only 41 out of 149 senators agreed, while 8 MPs from Chat Thai Pattana were no shows, resulting in an angry phone call to Banharn from Thaksin. Worse, 16 Pheu Thai MPs were absent. Nattawut Saikua admits there is a “rift” within the party as to the role of the Constitutional Court as well as what should constitute the “unity bill.”
There are four versions to the proposed unity bills. Only one of them was presided over by a non-Pheu Thai member. None of the proposed bills included the Democrat Party, however. Also note that none of the proposed bills mention Article 112 of the penal code.
All official drafts can be viewed on-line at the Thai Parliament Information System.
Draft I: proposed by General Sonthi Boonyaratklin (Matubhumi Party) and MPs from Chart Thai Pattana Party, Mahachon Party, Chart Pattana Party, Palangchol Party, New Democrat Party, Pheau Thai Party
- Article 3. Anyone whose actions relating to political protests or political activities between 15 September 2005 and 10 May 2011 that were against the law shall be given amnesty. This applies to both ordinary citizens and state authorities.
- Article 4. Any pending investigation on individuals who meet the criteria of article 3 must cease and anyone who has partially served his/her term will be released immediately.
- Article 5. Any individual who has been affected by the action of individuals, groups or authorities set up by the Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy (CDRCM) will no longer be considered as an offender. Article 4 will apply to such individual.
- Article 6. Voting rights of members of political parties that were dissolved shall be reinstated.
Draft II: proposed by Niyom Worapanya and Pheu Thai MPs
- Article 3. Any individual or groups who were affected by the coup d’état on 19 September 2006 up until the day this legislation is promulgated shall be given amnesty. This includes individuals and state officials who acted on the orders of the CDRCM; individuals whose political rights have been revoked; actions relating to protest or opposition to the CDRCM; actions by independent bodies according to articles 1,2,3 and 4 of the interim 2006 constitution or the 2007 constitution.
Draft III: proposed by Nattawut Saikua and Pheu Thai MPs (Red Shirt version)
- Article 3. Anyone whose actions relating to political protests or political activities between 15 September 2005 and 10 May 2011 that were against the law shall be given amnesty. Any pending investigation on individuals who meet the criteria of Article 3 must cease and anyone who has partially served his/her term will be released immediately. However this article does not apply to terrorist acts or actions aimed to hurt the lives of others.
Draft IV: proposed by Samart Kaewmeechai and Pheu Thai MPs
- Similar to General Sonthi’s draft version
Pheu Thai then have a foot in all four camps. What does that say about the unity of their party? If they have party whips it must be an impossible task.
Nattawut’s draft stands alone in avoiding automatic amnesty for state authorities. However, if it as sloppily worded as this: “this article does not apply to terrorist acts or actions aimed to hurt the lives of others.” it will be easily shot down in flames.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I like Niyom Worapanya’s article 3: “Any individual or groups who were affected by the coup d’état on 19 September 2006 up until the day this legislation is promulgated shall be given amnesty.” So that’s every Thai, then? I wonder if courts will hear many “I committed the crime because I was affected by the coup” in order to attain amnesty. A way for Thaksin to return!! Unity in Thailand won’t come with granting amnesty to everyone, it’s more likely to come after a galvanising shock.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Can someone clear something up for me? Are the reconciliation bills referred to here the bills that the Constitutional Court made its ruling on? None of these have any relationship to Section 68 of the Constitution.
My impression, and I’d like to be corrected, is that the CC acted on a bill that proposes changes to the section that sets out how the constitution might be changed.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
What’s the intent behind the 10 May cutoff in drafts 1 and 3? Is it to protect the Red Shirts at Ratchaprasong but not the govt and military crackdown there? If so, the Reds could still be prosecuted for the post-10 May occupation, not to mention the 19 May arson. That’s an exception big enough to drive an army tank through.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Ralph said Can someone clear something up for me? Are the reconciliation bills referred to here the bills that the Constitutional Court made its ruling on? None of these have any relationship to Section 68 of the Constitution.
While the bills are likely to face constitutional problems, the Constitutional Court issued an order in relation to the constitutional amendments and NOT the reconciliation bills. The bills are unaffected by the court order.
Bkk lawyer said What’s the intent behind the 10 May cutoff in drafts 1 and 3? The cut-off is 2011 and not 2010…
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Thanks Bangkok Pundit. The way you have it is the way I had understood it. The construction of the post led me to ask the question.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
September 15, 2005 is the date the Channel 9 dropped Sondhi Limthongkul’s Muangthai Rai Sapda” (Thailand Weekly) show saying it improperly cited His Majesty the King and the monarchy on several occasions in the previous month.
It is after this date that Sondhi started his public forums at Thammasat University and later at Lumpini Park which marked the beginning of the organized campaign against Thaksin.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0