Amnesty bill for Section 112 fails, blocking escape route for Thanathorn and 44 MPs?

The draft amnesty bills from the People’s Party and civil society groups were presented in the Thai parliament on Wednesday, July 16.

However, a majority vote rejected the principles of both bills during the first reading, effectively removing them from the parliamentary agenda and forcing the proposals to start over. This has put the 'Orange Party' in a difficult position.

Both the People’s Party and civil society draft bills were seen by most MPs as offering a path to pardon individuals accused or convicted under Section 112 of the Criminal Code, concerning lèse-majesté charges. 

This raised significant concerns, as most political parties have maintained a firm stance of not tampering with the law, a position taken since the formation of the Future Forward Party, the precursor to the Orange Party. The exception, however, has been the Orange Party, which has insisted on and “addressed” the issue.

In contrast, three other amnesty bills—proposed by the United Thai Nation Party (Ruam Thai Sang Chart), the Kla Tham Party, and the Bhumjaithai Party—easily passed through the parliament.

These bills have faced criticism for allowing political figures from these parties to potentially escape accountability for actions taken during the political unrest of the past decade, such as involvement in protests or even potentially dismantling the ongoing Senate election fraud investigations.

The key moment of debate came when the People’s Party proposed a "compromise" solution to delay the discussion of Section 112 until later in the process.

This attempt, championed by Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut, leader of the People’s Party, urged MPs to vote for “abstention” in the first reading to keep the bills in the parliament for further debate. However, this proposal was ultimately unsuccessful.

Parit Wacharasindhu, a prominent member of the People’s Party and one of the key figures behind the proposed amnesty laws, has repeatedly emphasised the need for a full amnesty that encompasses all individuals, including those accused under Section 112.

He stated that no one should be left behind and called for an inclusive solution. The message, he argued, was about bringing everyone to the table for mutual dialogue, not division.

Meanwhile, lawyer and MP for Bangkok, Sasinan Thamnithinan, one of the main proponents of this amnesty bill, detailed behind-the-scenes efforts to garner support from MPs across party lines.

Sasinan explained that, despite efforts to engage in discussions and appeal for votes, several MPs expressed concerns, with some fearing the political consequences of endorsing a bill related to Section 112. Some MPs even suggested alternative approaches, such as asking for pardons instead.

The discussions revealed a significant divide, with some MPs suggesting that a more strategic, phased approach should be taken, prioritising the release of a larger group first, leaving the remainder for later. 

"What nearly everyone agrees on is, 'Release the larger group first, take out some individuals, and deal with the rest later.' Some were even more self-interested, saying, 'My people have all been released from prison already, so it's not a problem for us now,'" said Sasinan.

With these various "signals," it is now fairly clear that there is no "green light" to open discussions on Section 112 cases, either in or outside the parliament, at this time. This is due to the following reasons:

Section 112 cases are seen as directly related to lèse-majesté charges. If political parties get involved, they could face "legal warfare," potentially leading to party dissolution, as seen with the Future Forward Party and the Move Forward Party.

Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, Secretary-General of the Progressive Movement and the prophet of the Orange Party, expressed a similar view, stating that political parties today are too cowardly to vote in favour of an amnesty bill covering Section 112 cases for fear of losing their "license" to participate in the government.

Beyond the threat of "legal warfare," some are concerned that supporting the Section 112 amnesty bill may benefit the Orange Party, which includes 44 former Move Forward MPs.

These MPs are under investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) for allegedly violating ethical standards by signing a proposal to amend the Criminal Code, Section 112, three years ago. 

Additionally, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, another prophet in the Orange Party, is currently facing a Section 112 case for criticising the government’s procurement of Covid-19 vaccines, with the case still under court consideration.

Moreover, the "Red Party" ( Pheu Thai) is also implicated, with former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra facing Section 112 charges from an interview he gave to a South Korean media outlet in 2015, which allegedly insulted the monarchy. 

Thus, if the "Red Party" were to vote in favour of the Section 112 amnesty bill, it could be seen as potentially benefiting Thaksin.

Although several leaders from the Orange Party have guaranteed that individuals involved in Section 112 cases, such as Thanathorn or the 44 former Move Forward MPs, would refuse the amnesty conditions, their reasoning for pushing the bill—to assist individuals facing politically motivated charges—has yet to inspire trust from the "elite" and political voters.

The People’s Party, which is still grappling with "legal warfare" over the 44 former Move Forward MPs, finds itself in where it is difficult to move forward or backtrack.

It can no longer take an extreme public stance on Section 112, as it did when it was the Future Forward Party or Move Forward Party, due to the Constitutional Court's ruling that the dissolution of the Move Forward Party was based on its policy to amend Section 112, which was considered an attempt to overthrow the monarchy. 

The court’s ruling on this matter is somewhat "ambiguous," leaving unclear how much can be said publicly on the issue.

It’s important to remember that the "Orange Party" has already been repeatedly targeted by legal warfare. Despite only being established seven years ago, the party has been dissolved twice, and many of its leaders and MPs have ongoing legal cases, particularly related to political protests. Some, like Rukchanok Srinork, Piyarat Chongthep, MPs for Bangkok, and Chonthicha Jangrew, MP for Pathum Thani, also face Section 112 charges.

Currently, the "Orange Party," now operating under the name People’s Party, is trying to salvage its image by focusing on political reform, a new constitution, and occasionally addressing economic issues. While this approach is gaining traction with some supporters, it may not sit well with the "old Orange faction" that has been heavily focused on amending Section 112.

Now, as the "Orange Party" moves forward with its policies, it knows that any discussion related to Section 112 is constrained by the Constitutional Court's previous ruling, which could lead to another round of party dissolution.

If it backs down, as it did when it removed the Section 112 amendment policy from its website, the "Orange faction" and its allies could harshly criticise the party for shifting its stance.

The future path of the "Orange Party" remains uncertain. Will it find common ground while preserving its distinct positions, following traditional political strategies, or will it charge ahead, engaging once more in "legal warfare"? Only time will tell.