The political reform panel of the National Reform Steering Assembly (NRSA), chaired by Seree Suwanpanont, recently proposed an amnesty-like law under reconciliation plans pushed by the NRSA. The bill, as initially proposed, would suspend the punishment of people who had pleaded guilty in court to crimes committed during the series of demonstrations that have occurred since 2005.

However, anyone granted reprieve under the bill would be subjected to a lifetime probation, ban from staging political activities and forfeiture of voting rights.

Colour-coded political groups have rebuffed the offer, saying they preferred that the truth be uncovered and normal legal procedures followed.

Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan said yesterday he also disagreed with the proposal.

“I don’t know why they have to propose [the bill]. I think the current situation is quite smooth. They should not cause any conflict but allow the road map to move forward,” he said.

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said the government had three questions about the bill regarding the timeframe, feasibility and acceptance by the public.

He said Seree had already told him about the idea, adding that the government welcomed any move that would be beneficial for the public.

However, the deputy prime minister said the proposal must be accepted by the people or it would deepen the conflict.

“As far as I know, some people are still opposing the bill. For instance, [they might ask] what cases could such an amnesty apply to … One step is to admit in court to the crimes. The government might like this but others might not, because they think they are innocent. So, they should not have to admit to crimes they did not commit,” Wissanu said.

Wissanu plans to meet Seree to discuss the proposal tomorrow.

Meanwhile, Seree has called on political factions to propose their own recommendations regarding the bill.

“The punishment pending bill is only in its infant stage, not final. We are open to any comment from any side before reconsidering the plan,” he said. “Should anyone have a suggestion, they can propose it to us. For those who oppose the idea, we would like to hear your ideas about how you would like it to be.”

Seree told The Nation that the plan was the result of multiple discussion sessions held by the NRSA’s political reform panel including people from across the political spectrum.

He said the panel had no intention to favour a particular side or person while discriminating against others, adding that such an idea was a misunderstanding.

There have been reports that only crimes related to the seizure of airports or government compounds would be eligible for the amnesty, which would not cover crimes related to arson – some people concluded that the law would be disproportionately beneficial to “yellow shirt” groups.

Seree dismissed those concerns. “When considering the plan, we discussed the principles in general and we do not have any intention to give advantage to anyone in particular. Everyone has an equal chance to receive such an offer,” he said.

“But cases concerning Article 112 [lese majeste] and corruption would not be included in the scheme,” he said, adding that arson was a criminal offence and therefore would not be covered by the bill.

The proposal was tabled by the National Reform Steering Assembly’s political reform panel. It is expected the proposed plan would benefit “yellow shirt” activists who were involved in past incidents like the seizures of Bangkok airports.

But both political sides agreed that true reconciliation could only be achieved when the truth was discovered through the normal justice system.

“The truth [about who committed crimes] should be sought through the normal legal system. Then, those found guilty must apologise for what they have done,” said Tankhun Jitissara, a Democrat Party politician and former member of the now-defunct yellow shirt group the People’s Democratic Reform Committee.

“After that, the situation can return to normal. But if an apology comes as a result of some negotiation [like the proposal], it would not mean anything.”

Yellow shirt groups led street protests against the previous government in 2013 and 2014. The former MP said he believed both sides of the political spectrum would turn down the potential offer because of condition requiring a lifetime political ban, which would include the right to vote or engage in any political activity.

“The demonstration leaders all accepted their fate since they decided to take this path. The condition forbidding them from holding political activities makes it even more difficult for them to take the offer,” Tankhun explained.

He believes the proposal is the result of the impending constitution referendum, as the regime does not want anything to interfere.

“If we accept that, we cannot make any political move during the run up to the plebiscite,” he said. “And it goes beyond that to, after the election when the power of the current regime could possibly still linger. Once we breach the condition, the punishment is resumed,” he said.

Weng Tojirakarn, a prominent figure in the “red shirt” United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, agreed that normal legal procedures should be followed.

“The truth should be found out via the legal process. And those [protest leaders] who committed crimes must be responsible for what they have done regardless of what the penalties are,” Weng said. He added that ordinary protesters should be granted amnesty unconditionally because they only exercised their constitutional right to freedom of expression.

“Also, it would not make sense if we have to admit to crimes we did not commit. So, finding the truth is the best solution,” the red shirt leader said. Weng also agreed with Tankhun that the ban on political demonstrations was unacceptable.

“Men are political animals. Stopping them from engaging in political activities is the equivalent to executing them,” he said.

Seree Suwanpanont, the head of the political reform committee, told The Nation that the proposal was the result of multiple sessions by the panel. He insisted the panel had no intention to favour any side. Seree plans to discuss the plan with Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam tomorrow.

As many as 54.3 per cent of respondents said they understood less than 20 per cent of the draft’s content, according to survey results released yesterday by Khon Kaen University’s E-saan Centre for Business and Economic Research.

The research centre is part of the university’s faculty of management science.

Only 5.6 per cent of those surveyed said they understood between 80 and 100 per cent of the draft charter’s content. And on average the respondents said they understood only 22.9 per cent of the content. The survey was conducted between April 30 and last Friday involving 1,220 people aged 18 and older in all 20 northeastern provinces.

Almost 15 per cent of respondents said they understood between 20 and 39.9 per cent of the draft, 15.7 per cent opted for 40-59.9 per cent, and 9.6 per cent picked 60-79.9 per cent.

Regarding a question as to whether they agreed with allowing non-elected senators to vote with MPs to choose a prime minister, 56.5 per cent of the respondents said no, and the remaining 43.5 per cent said yes.

The referendum on the draft charter is scheduled for August 7.

Meanwhile, the Interior Ministry’s permanent secretary Grisada Boonrach yesterday instructed provincial governors and district chiefs to remain neutral in the run-up to the referendum.

Grisada led a teleconferencing session with provincial governors, district chiefs, kamnans and village heads from across the country. He was also joined at the ministry by senior officials including directors-generals and top executives from state enterprises under the ministry’s control.

During the meeting, Grisada instructed local administrators to work closely with the Constitution Drafting Commission and the Election Commission in preparation for the referendum.

Kritch’s remarks come at a time when lese majeste and computer crime charges have been brought against Patnaree Chankij, mother of the prominent student activist Sirawith Seritiwat, also known as “Ja New”.

The charges against Patnaree have raised public concerns about possible charges brought against the relatives of other anti-coup activists. Nevertheless, Kritch said he is not anxious about being arrested and stands firm that his behaviour was lawful.

He insists that he believes in the courts, adding that the judicial process would not punish the innocent.

Regarding his son’s case, the 63-year-old Kritch believes that Harit remains innocent as long as his case has not been adjudicated in court.

“It depends on the court and the legal process to determine whether my son is guilty,” he said. He added that if his son and Patnaree were both innocent but had been victims of slander, those responsible would pay for it.

Since his son’s arrest, Kritch says his life has been difficult because he relied on Harit to help pay his living expenses.

“I raised him and supported him until he graduated and then merely wished he could support me.”

Harit is one of eight activists who has been charged with sedition and violation of the Computer Crime Act because they allegedly administrated a Facebook page mocking Prime Minister PrayutChan-o-cha.

In addition to sedition and computer crime charges, Harit and fellow-activist Natthika Worathanyawit have also been charged with lese majeste after they allegedly insulted the monarchy via messages sent by the Facebook chat app.