TRCT chief urges leniency for lese majeste cases

Harsh enforcement of Article 112 could hurt monarchy, Kanit says

Kanit na Nakhon, chairman of the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand, has called for judges to treat lese majeste offenders more leniently amid mounting revulsion against the "harsh" punishment meted out in recent cases.

"For certain offences, although there are affected parties, the judicial process does not have to take action at all - especially if the affected parties are public figures," Kanit said in a recent exclusive interview with The Nation.

Judges should show mercy and suspend jail terms rather than impose penalties strictly in line with Article 112 of the Criminal Code, he said.

Invoking Article 112 too severely could backfire on the monarchy, especially now that certain groups in society are campaigning for the repeal of the article, which they said was being used as a tool by the powers-that-be against opponents, he said.

Kanit said he is writing an article about his stance towards Article 112 that he is certain would draw criticism when it is published.

As examples of clemency, he cited the decisions by former commerce minister Uthai Pimchaichon and former prime minister Prem Tinsulanonda not to take action after they were physically assaulted.

Uthai was attacked with a bag of excrement but did not press charges, while Prem was hit by a Ramkhamhaeng University student, but allowed the student to go home scot-free, he said.

Had police taken legal action against the two attackers, Uthai and Prem might have suffered a negative image, he said.

"These incidents may be applied to the case of the monarchy," he said.

Although Article 112 prescribes the maximum jail terms, judges do not have to hand down sentences for imprisonment, he said.

Jintana Kaewkhao, an environmentalist, was another case where the principle of clemency should have been applied, he said.

Jintana served 59 days of a four-month prison sentence after she was convicted of participating in a violent protest against a power-plant project, but the judge should have completely suspended the jail term because it did not bode well for either side, he said.

In its latest report, the TRCT claimed that the main cause of the current political conflict was the violation of the rule of law related to the Constitution Court's ruling in the first asset-concealment case against then prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The court ruled in favour of Thaksin, saying he did not intend to conceal his shares.

Kanit said the Constitution Court erred when it counted the opinions of the two judges who declined to rule on the concealment charge as votes for acquittal, along with the votes of the six judges who ruled that Thaksin was not guilty. Thaksin was acquitted by a majority of eight votes.

The two judges violated legal principles by declining to consider and rule on whether Thaksin had concealed his shares. Worse still, the votes of the two judges were counted as acquittal votes for Thaksin, he said.

Had the Constitution Court followed the law, Thaksin would not have become as big an issue in Thai politics as he has, Kanit said.

Kanit said he did not fear that the TRCT's report related to Thaksin's asset-concealment case would stir up criticism against the TRCT and lead to the rejection of its proposals.

"The question of whether the TRCT's study will fail will have to be answered by society and the media," Kanit said.

"We have presented an academic view. We simply presented the fact that the court did not abide by the law in Thaksin's case."