• 
• 

Published on February 27, 2008

When will the issue of an amnesty for the 111 banned executives of the disbanded Thai Rak Thai Party take place?

I hear that the prime minister views this matter as a possible condition for renewed conflict. In my view, this can be done in two ways. First, include amnesty provisions when amending the Constitution. In the charters of 2006 and 2007, there are clauses that provide amnesty to those who stage coups. Among the banned 111, most of them are innocent and can still be beneficial to the country in many ways. Secondly, a new law could be issued to deal with this matter.

I will discuss it with the prime minister to determine when this can be done. However, judging from what he said recently, I don't think this will take place in the near future. The prime minister said he didn't want to give priority to a controversial issue. I believe the 111 people understand him.

What's the difference between putting amnesty in the Constitution and in a new law?

By putting it in the Constitution, we may be viewed as giving too much importance to this matter. So it may be more appropriate to put it in a new law. We may have to determine later which is the better option.

When will the committee charged with studying ways to amend the Constitution be set up?

I will discuss with the prime minister about setting up the study committee. In my opinion, this committee can be formed immediately to ensure a careful study. The process should allow participation by all the parties involved and their views must be heeded. It will take considerable time for studying. This should go in line with the Prime Minister's timeframe. He said this matter would be dealt with some time towards the end of this government.

What are the issues targeted for amendment?

There are many provisions in the new Constitution that appear to apply too much restraint, some of which could cause problems when put into practice. These include the ban on elected MPs from becoming advisers to government ministers; and tough requirements for candidates of MP and senator elections. While MPs are required to declare their assets, armed forces commanders and independent agency chiefs are not required to.

What about amending the laws issued by the previous government?

There may be some laws that are favoured by Cabinet members in one administration, but become unnecessary in the next government. Certain government agencies proposed new laws during the previous government but refused to confirm they really wanted them. I think Thailand has too many laws and we should be careful about repetition when thinking about issuing new ones.

What is the progress of the bill on political office holders' conflict of interest [proposed by the previous government]?

As far as I know, it has been tabled for deliberation by the Constitution Tribunal. This law limits rights and freedom as it has an extensive interpretation of people involved with political office holders. I disagree with such laws, which abandon the traditional assumption that the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty. Provisions in this law appear to be inspired by the Thai Rak Thai Party's dissolution case. All party executives were assumed guilty even though not all of them were responsible for the offences.

When Visanu Kruea-ngam served in your post in the Thaksin government, he was called 'legal servant' by critics. Are you afraid that description may be used with you?

Visanu is younger than I am, but I can't match him in terms of capability. He used to serve in many important positions. I will perform my duty to the best of my ability. If a 'legal servant' is one who can draft laws the way the government wants, regardless of its justification, I can't do that.

The Nation