Sasinan criticized the House Speaker for ignoring 60,000 signatures and dismissing the bill to repeal the 6 October martial law legacy, pointing out its direct relation to citizens' rights and freedoms. She urged a review of the ruling and encouraged MPs from all parties to jointly submit a counterproposal.
On 8 November 2026, Ms. Sasinan Thammanitinun, MP for Bangkok's 11th District from the People’s Party, commented on the Speaker of the House's ruling rejecting the bill to repeal the Reform Committee Order No. 41 dated 21 October 1976. Nearly 60,000 citizens had signed to propose the bill under the constitution. The Speaker justified the rejection by stating it concerned state policy and the justice process, not constitutional rights and freedoms.
Ms. Sasinan strongly disagreed with the ruling, explaining that criminal penalties restricting freedom of expression directly relate to citizens' rights and freedoms. The Reform Committee Order No. 41, issued after the 6 October 1976 incident, increased penalties in 12 criminal offenses involving expression, communication, and criticism, including defamation of the monarch, defamation of individuals, contempt of officials, and contempt of court.
The clearest example is Section 112 of the Criminal Code. Originally, under the 1956 Criminal Code, the penalty was up to 7 years' imprisonment without a minimum sentence. The coup order No. 41 increased this to imprisonment from 3 to 15 years. This change is not merely numerical but alters the legal fate and consequences citizens face when exercising freedom of expression.
Ms. Sasinan further stated that Section 34 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of opinion, speech, writing, printing, and communication. Therefore, laws imposing penalties on expression are directly linked to protecting constitutional rights. The key question is not whether the bill includes criminal penalties but whether it aims to protect citizens' rights and freedoms.
If all criminal law amendments are interpreted solely as state power issues, preventing citizens from initiating laws to protect their rights, then the constitutional right to propose legislation loses its meaning. The Speaker's power should not be used to override the will of the people in this way.
Ms. Sasinan said this issue is not just history; the wounds from the 6 October coup legacy continue to impact and imprison citizens' freedoms today. According to the Human Rights Lawyers' Center as of 2 November 2026, at least 51 political detainees remain in Thailand, 33 charged under Section 112, with 23 denied bail during their trials. By the end of October, courts had ruled in no fewer than 228 Section 112 cases. These figures show that the penalties from the coup order 50 years ago still affect people's lives today.
Although the 2026 Promotion of Social Peace Act is now in force, the amnesty law excludes Section 112 cases, even for juveniles under 18 at the time of the offense. Many citizens are still left vulnerable to laws originating from the coup order. As a lawyer who has handled these cases, she understands that imprisonment means lost life time, broken families, and an irretrievable future. True reconciliation cannot occur if the government and parliament allow these dark-era laws to continue restricting freedoms without review.
Ms. Sasinan proposed three recommendations to resolve the issue:
1. The House Speaker should review the ruling and publicly disclose the legal reasoning and criteria transparently so the public can scrutinize the use of power.
2. The House of Representatives should open space to consider the bill and promote its submission through MPs from all parties, bringing the principle of repealing the coup-era legal legacy into formal parliamentary debate.
3. The government must expedite justice for those left behind, especially detainees or those affected by politically motivated cases related to freedom of expression.
“Fifty years after the 6 October incident, we should not let its legacy continue costing citizens their freedom. The nearly 60,000 voices who signed the constitutional petition should not be stopped solely due to the discretion and interpretation of one person,” Ms. Sasinan concluded.