Seree Suwanpanont, chairman of the National Reform Steering Assembly’s political reform committee, carefully avoided the term “amnesty”. Nevertheless, his proposal is to lift the threat of penalties against those who have pleaded guilty to crimes committed in connection with the last decade of political unrest. Included in this category would be protesters who occupied and shut down road intersections, state agencies and airports. However the proposed law would not cover cases of corruption, arson and lese majeste.

Defending the proposal, Seree, a lawyer, explained the idea of suspending penalties wasn’t new but was already incorporated in the penal code. He said that to benefit, offenders would first have to confess before the court. Fugitives and those who refused to confess to their crimes would not be eligible.

Anyone granted a reprieve would be subject to life-long probation, banned from political rallies or inciting unrest and forfeit their voting rights for life. Failure to comply would trigger the original punishment.

“Penalty suspension differs from amnesty. When granted amnesty, offenders are not subject to any prohibitions. But penalty suspension will come with a lot of prohibitions attached, to help prevent offenders from re-offending,” Seree explained.

The proposal met with vociferous opposition from the rival political groups that led street protests over the past decade. Key figures from the red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) and the now-defunct yellow-shirt People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) have spoken out against the idea.

One-time PDRC spokesman Akanat Promphan said that none of the group’s leaders were seeking any form of amnesty.

“We made considered judgements before acting [in committing the alleged offences]. We will accept whatever the court rules,” he said. “Nobody can deny the need for reconciliation. But nobody should try to link it to amnesty or any form of whitewashing of the wrongdoing.”

UDD chief Jatuporn Prompan said, “We did not do anything wrong. Why should we confess?”

He added that he would continue with his court battle.

It was hardly surprising that both groups disagreed with Seree’s proposal. The PDRC took to the streets to protest against the bill for a blanket amnesty pushed by the Yingluck Shinawatra government, and will be reluctant to betray that original principle.

Meanwhile the UDD maintains it is innocent regarding the many offences committed during the political unrest in 2009 and 2010. It also claims that, by suspending penalties against those who seized airports, the proposal seemed aimed at benefiting a particular group of people. Seizure of an airport comes under the Terrorism Act and is thus no ordinary political offence, say UDD leaders.

The proposal is a hot potato now scalding the hands of the government. Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan reportedly voiced his opposition on grounds that such a law could deepen the political conflict.

One question that remains unanswered is why such a proposal was made in the first place. Did Seree have a political motive? Was it a case of personal political ambition?

Even if his motives were sincere and not self-interested, he cannot escape the accusation of political naivety. After all, the political conflict was not confined to protest leaders, and granting them an amnesty of sorts in exchange for their exit from politics would not put an end to the conflict.

Many ordinary people are also involved in the political turmoil, whose roots lie in fundamental differences of opinion on matters of national importance. While those differences remain unsettled, reconciliation will never be reached. And efforts like Seree’s won’t help get us to that destination.

attayuth@nationgroup.com