Mangling amnesty

Yesterday we posted on Move Forward’s proposed bill on an amnesty for political prisoners. Today, the Bangkok Post has a flawed editorial on the same topic.

The editorial acknowledges that Move Forward “has proposed a political amnesty for individuals charged in politically motivated cases since the February 2006 protests and the move could signify a step towards national unity.”

The Post editorial then trots out a view that there is a “critical flaw in the MFP’s bill [that] raises questions about the party’s true intentions.” The “flaw” in the proposed amnesty is claimed to be: “In short, junta and coup makers are not deserving of an amnesty, nor included in MFP’s proposed legislation.”

In fact, the coup makers have already been granted immunity by the courts – a long standing practice – and the actions of the junta are made lawful in the 2017 constitution:

Section 279
All announcements, orders and acts of the National Council for Peace and Order or of the Head of the National Council for Peace and Order which are in force on the day prior to the date of promulgation of this Constitution or will be issued under section 265 paragraph two, irrespective of their constitutional, legislative, executive or judicial force, as well as the performance of acts in compliance therewith shall be considered constitutional, lawful and effective under this Constitution. Repeal of or amendment to such announcements or orders shall be made in the form of an Act, except in the case of announcements or orders that, in nature, are the exercise of executive power, a repeal or amendment shall be made in the form of an order of the Prime Minister or a resolution of the Council of Ministers, as the case may be.

All matters recognised as constitutional and lawful by the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim), B.E. 2557 (2014) as amended by the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim), B.E. 2557 Amendment (No. 1), B.E. 2558 (2015) and the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim), B.E. 2557 Amendment (No. 2), B.E. 2559 (2016), including acts incidental thereto, shall be deemed constitutional and lawful.

In short, junta and coup makers already have their own “amnesty.” The double standards are breathtaking.

But the real point of the editorial is to carp about Article 112: “It cannot go without saying that the MFP’s bill also covers offenders under Section 112, the lese majeste law. This controversial inclusion is expected to lead to the bill’s rejection in parliament, raising questions about the MFP’s motives.”

In short, the Post is siding with the ultra-royalists. It claims, as do the rightist ultra-royalists, that the “primary beneficiaries are likely to be recent protesters against the Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha administration, most of whom are allies and part of the MFP network.” Like the ultra-royalists, the Post adds that the amnesty would benefit “three MFP MPs and two key figures — Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, a progressive academic, and Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, the former leader of the now-defunct Future Forward Party, who face lese majeste charges.”

The Post then contorts, saying “political protesters who committed offences due to their political beliefs should be granted an amnesty,” but not for lese majeste. Not only does this ignore the political nature of 112 and the bizarre activities of judges in convicting people – something the Post almost never reports – but it seems to favor the continued political use of Article 112.

The Post then claims that the “proposed bill may not survive passage in parliament yet the progressive party stands to benefit for gaining popularity among its supporters, as a political amnesty was a key policy in its recent election campaign.”

That is certainly true. Move Forward received the support of millions of Thais who knew that the party targeted the lese majeste law. Like the ultra-royalists, the Post writes of this huge groundswell of support for reform.