New version of the Thai amnesty bill faces a tough journey

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
New version of the amnesty bill faces a tough journey
Jintana Panyaarvudh

BANGKOK: -- It is unlikely the latest revised amnesty bill presented by the 35-member vetting panel on Friday, offering blanket amnesty to law offenders involved in political conflict, will pass the legislative process easily.

The most controversial point in the revised version is the expansion of the bill's coverage to include those accused of wrongdoing by the now-defunct Assets Examination Committee (AEC), which was set up after the 2006 coup to investigate alleged irregularities by the Thaksin Shinawatra administration.

The AEC investigations resulted in several cases against those politicians, including one that led to an imprisonment verdict against Thaksin.

In October 2008, the Supreme Court sentenced the ex-prime minister to two years in jail for abuse of power in the Ratchadaphisek land scandal, after his then-wife bought a state-seized land plot for much lower than the market price.

In February 2010, the court seized Bt46 billion of Thaksin's assets believed to have been earned from abuse of power, while other cases against him have been suspended while he is a fugitive abroad.

Apart from resistance from government critics, opposition parties not to mention red and yellow-shirt supporters, which could lead to a huge protest, there are some controversial legal points to discuss.

The first question is whether the revised bill goes against the principles of the original version.

Obviously, in the revised version, major changes were made to Article 3, which would not have granted an amnesty to the fugitive ex-prime minister, protest leaders and authorities involved in the 2010 crackdown on protesters.

The change proposed by Prayuth Siripanich, a panel member under the Pheu Thai quota, is deemed to go against the original bill, which was put forward by Worachai Hema, Pheu Thai MP for Samut Prakan and co-leader of the red shirts.

The principle of Worachai's version stated that the bill would benefit only those facing charges related to political rallies and expression. It did not mention any corruption cases.

The second argument is whether the bill's new version is financial law.

The point is that if the bill allows the seized money to be automatically returned to Thaksin, it would be considered a finance-related bill, which needs the prime minister's endorsement before it is proposed to the House of Representatives.

Article 143 of the current Constitution states that in case of doubt as to whether a bill is a financial bill, "it shall be in the power of a joint sitting of the House Speaker and President of the all 35 standing committees to make a decision thereon".

When the bill was deliberated in the House in the first reading in August, House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont told the chamber that he had no doubts about Worachai's amnesty bill, so he did not call the meeting.

Pheu Thai tried to tone down the issue, saying the vetting panel did not mention returning the money to Thaksin, so the bill was not financial law. If the ex-PM wanted his money back, he could petition the court. However, the opposition party raised concerns that the Thai taxpayer would then have to return Bt50 billion in total to a person who was convicted for corruption.

The third question is whether the bill violates Article 309 of the Constitution.

Article 309 states that "all matters guaranteed by the 2006 interim Constitution as lawful and constitutional, including all acts related to such matters whether before or after the promulgation date of this Constitution, shall be considered constitutional under this Constitution". This article means to protect the actions of the coup-makers and related acts of other organisations, in this case the AEC, as constitutional.

Legal experts say that if any acts or organisations stated in the Constitution are to be nullified, it should be done by amending the charter, not by issuing an ordinary bill.

The vetting panel expects the amnesty bill to be forwarded to House of Representatives for the second and third readings early next month.

All three legal points would eventually go to the Constitutional Court, which will decide whether the bill is unconstitutional, as the opposition Democrats and some senators will definitely petition the court after the bill passes the Parliament.


-- The Nation 2013-10-22