SEREE SUWANPANONT, chairman of the political reform committee under the National Reform Steering Assembly (NRSA), has said he will continue pushing for the controversial “punishment pending law” despite strong opposition.

“I am not discouraged. This is the responsibility that I have to take on,” he said yesterday.

Seree’s remark came in response to strong criticism over the proposal of the law, which would let people involved in political turmoil off without penalty provided they pled guilty in court. The law covers political uprisings since 2005.

The current proposal also stipulates that people who accept the amnesty would forfeit their voting rights and be barred from political activity.

Seree said this scheme was the best solution, especially when compared to a blanket amnesty bill.

“This method follows legal procedure and allows cases to be brought to an end in court. This is similar to cases being tried at the youth court, where juveniles plead guilty and are allowed to go home if the court chooses not to issue a verdict,” he said.

Seree added that the scheme was part of reconciliation under the reform master plan, which consists of six key points.

“At least nine panels have conducted studies that have yielded tonnes of paper. Most of the studies have suggested that an amnesty plan should be put forward,” he said. “The studies done by Anek [Laothamatas, leader of the now defunct reconciliation panel] also proposed a similar approach, including the introduction of amnesty bills.”

He went on to say that the political reform panel also planned to invite political factions to discuss the issue, so if there are problems, they can be resolved them cooperatively.

“It’s a shame that they are opposing an idea that could be advantageous for everyone. It would benefit ordinary protesters [as opposed to leaders],” he said. “Now, it’s become political – almost as if you care more about your own interests over people’s interests.”

He added that the scheme could offer one possible outcome while protest leaders who did not want to plead guilty could continue fighting in court.

As for Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan’s remark, which was seen as opposing the scheme, Seree said Prawit only wanted the proposal to be withdrawn if it caused conflicts. He added that Prawit’s remark was not necessarily a negative sign.

However, Seree said the proposal had to be reviewed in many stages, and the final decision on whether it becomes law will lie with the government and the National Council for Peace and Order.

“It is still in its infancy, everything is negotiable. We can definitely talk if anybody sees any problems in any of the conditions,” Seree said.

The panel will also discuss the proposal with Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam, he said.

Meanwhile, relatives of the Black May 1992 Heroes showed up at Parliament yesterday to voice their opposition to the proposed law.

Group leader Adul Khiewboriboon said he agreed that the fragmented society should be brought together, but he was against the idea of suspending punishment.

“I understand that this is only part of the study done by Anek’s panel … But the protesters were only exercising their right to freedom of expression. Whether guilty or not, they will be forced to plead guilty,” he said, adding that the condition to revoke people’s voting rights also violated their constitutional rights and freedom.

He pointed out that Seree’s proposal does not cover people facing charges in relation to national security. “I am not judging, but it’s time we reconcile. Yet, using ‘national security’ as an excuse will only deepen conflicts. To achieve proper reconciliation, it would need [to include] not just the government and politicians, but also the relatives of those affected by the turmoil.

“If Prawit, as a true powerful figure in the NCPO, or anybody else is able to bring about real reconciliation, then the relatives will surely support this person to become the next PM,” Adul said.

Phayaw Akkahad, whose daughter Kamolked Akkahad, or “Nong Ked”, died in the 2010 protest, said many cases relating to the political turmoil were being processed and Seree’s proposal would only interfere.

“The protest leaders might gain an advantage, but what about the relatives of those who died in the protests?” she asked, adding that the scheme would meet severe opposition and fail.

“I am not against reconciliation, but am against discrimination. For instance, the punishment of those who seized the national airport will be suspended, but not that of those who committed arson,” Phayaw said.