Do You Agree With The Pheu Thai Party's Amnesty Campaign?

[Buchholz]

A couple of notes on amnesty and polls.

First a complete flip-flop from the Pheu Thai Party who opposed an earlier amnesty, in fact, even threatening a resumption of street protests over it

BANGKOK: -- Pheu Thai MP Jatuporn Promphan on Thursday threatened to resume the red-shirt protest if the government endorsed the push for the amnesty bill.

"The true intention for ammesty is to allow the murderers to go free and has absolutely no benefit for the people, be they the red shirts or the yellow shirts," he said.

The red shirts will pour into the streets to oppose the amnesty, he said

and secondly, an earlier poll on amnesty and although a specific percentage is not provided in the article, the OP's 80% opposing it could be described as "overwhelming" and reflect nation-wide sentiment

Finally, when respondents were asked about their general political opinions, 93 per cent believed that the constitutional monarchy is the most appropriate system for Thailand.

An overwhelming majority are opposed to an amnesty for politicians

Edited May 30, 2011 by Buchholz

[jdinasia]

without reconciliation there will be no peace - period

Obviously both true and not true ... reconciliation (in the red sense) is intended to let one person (and those that committed violence in his name) off the hook, and that is not justice. Without justice there will be no peace, and without peace there will be no reconciliation.

Justice starts with holding elected persons and non-elected persons accountable for their actions not forgiving those that when they don't get their way resort to violence and violating the laws of the land. That mens no amnesty for Thaksin at the expense of justice ... just as it means no amnesty for the PAD leaders and the UDD leaders. A blanket amnesty for those that participated in any rally (either color) in a non-violent/non-inciteful way should be issued. However, those responsible for killing, burning, looting ... on any side of the conflict should be held accountable. That would be an example that the 'rule of law' is functioning in Thailand.

'if' you are saying both sides - then maybe that is fine but here it doesn't always work like that and I suspect there is wisdom in drawing a line at some point and moving forward with a 'reconciliation package' for those not involved with physical violence - much like in some other countries where many 'yesterdays terrorists' are todays 'statesmen'. I sincerely believe that there has to come a time.

Again, for there to be Justice ... accountability is the key. That means you have to start somewhere. Rule of Law is the vital ingredient and if they let Thaksin slide then there won't be any rule of law. Hold the leaders accountable on all sides. The PAD, the UDD (including Thaksin), the military if illegal orders were given, etc etc etc ... Nobody gets a free ride other than actual peaceful protesters from any side.

Ozmeade --- the "men in black" (according to an extremely liberal- read far-far leftist- HRW report) have been described as being part and parcel with the reds/udd/Seh Daeng's ronin. However, absolutely anyone proven to have given orders to kill anyone unarmed, or anyone that was armed but not under the color of authority, etc ... should not be exempt.

A blanket amnesty that covers the leaders (on any side) should not even be considered.

[hanuman1]

A couple of notes on amnesty and polls.

First a complete flip-flop from the Pheu Thai Party who opposed an earlier amnesty, in fact, even threatening a resumption of street protests over it

BANGKOK: -- Pheu Thai MP Jatuporn Promphan on Thursday threatened to resume the red-shirt protest if the government endorsed the push for the amnesty bill.

"The true intention for ammesty is to allow the murderers to go free and has absolutely no benefit for the people, be they the red shirts or the yellow shirts," he said.

The red shirts will pour into the streets to oppose the amnesty, he said

and secondly, an earlier poll on amnesty and although a specific percentage is not provided in the article, the OP's 80% opposing it could be described as "overwhelming" and reflect nation-wide sentiment

Finally, when respondents were asked about their general political opinions, 93 per cent believed that the constitutional monarchy is the most appropriate system for Thailand.

An overwhelming majority are opposed to an amnesty for politicians

The first quote speaks of an 'amnesty bill', the second of 'amnesty'. Are these two things the same?

I'm not sure your efforts here will have resulted in a coherent argument unless you can clearly show that they are.

[Buchholz]

A couple of notes on amnesty and polls.

First a complete flip-flop from the Pheu Thai Party who opposed an earlier amnesty, in fact, even threatening a resumption of street protests over it

BANGKOK: -- Pheu Thai MP Jatuporn Promphan on Thursday threatened to resume the red-shirt protest if the government endorsed the push for the amnesty bill.

"The true intention for ammesty is to allow the murderers to go free and has absolutely no benefit for the people, be they the red shirts or the yellow shirts," he said.

The red shirts will pour into the streets to oppose the amnesty, he said

and secondly, an earlier poll on amnesty and although a specific percentage is not provided in the article, the OP's 80% opposing it could be described as "overwhelming" and reflect nation-wide sentiment

Finally, when respondents were asked about their general political opinions, 93 per cent believed that the constitutional monarchy is the most appropriate system for Thailand.

An overwhelming majority are opposed to an amnesty for politicians

The first quote speaks of an 'amnesty bill', the second of 'amnesty'. Are these two things the same?

The second quote is a reflection of sentiment against amnesty for politicians *plural*.

The first quote regarding an amnesty bill reflects how amnesty is accomplished.

Is there another means of giving amnesty to a group of people without an "amnesty bill" being processed?

[hanuman1]

A couple of notes on amnesty and polls.

First a complete flip-flop from the Pheu Thai Party who opposed an earlier amnesty, in fact, even threatening a resumption of street protests over it

=======OPEN QUOTE===================

BANGKOK: -- Pheu Thai MP Jatuporn Promphan on Thursday threatened to resume the red-shirt protest if the government endorsed the push for the amnesty bill.

"The true intention for ammesty is to allow the murderers to go free and has absolutely no benefit for the people, be they the red shirts or the yellow shirts," he said.

The red shirts will pour into the streets to oppose the amnesty, he said

=========CLOSE QUOTE================

and secondly, an earlier poll on amnesty and although a specific percentage is not provided in the article, the OP's 80% opposing it could be described as "overwhelming" and reflect nation-wide sentiment

=====OPEN QUOTE========

Finally, when respondents were asked about their general political opinions, 93 per cent believed that the constitutional monarchy is the most appropriate system for Thailand.

An overwhelming majority are opposed to an amnesty for politicians

=====CLOSE QUOTE========

The first quote speaks of an 'amnesty bill', the second of 'amnesty'. Are these two things the same?

The second quote is a reflection of sentiment against amnesty for politicians *plural*.

The first quote regarding an amnesty bill reflects how amnesty is accomplished.

Is there another means of giving amnesty to a group of people without an "amnesty bill" being processed?

A bill is a legal document and as such can contain a wide variety of content.

'Amnesty' is a concept, applicable to a wide variety of people, groups and situations.

So to spell it out: 'Does the amnesty bill explicitly provide for the same provisions as the 'amnesty' to which the 'overwhelming majority or respondents in the second quote are opposed and are these provisions the same as the ones in Yingluck's proposal?' It all needs to hang together for your argument to work.

One presumes that Jatuporn was reacting to the bill with some knowledge of its content.

Thanks for any forthcoming clarification.

Edited May 30, 2011 by hanuman1

[Pi Sek]

Again, for there to be Justice ... accountability is the key. That means you have to start somewhere. Rule of Law is the vital ingredient and if they let Thaksin slide then there won't be any rule of law. Hold the leaders accountable on all sides. The PAD, the UDD (including Thaksin), the military if illegal orders were given, etc etc etc ... Nobody gets a free ride other than actual peaceful protesters from any side.

Ozmeade --- the "men in black" (according to an extremely liberal- read far-far leftist- HRW report) have been described as being part and parcel with the reds/udd/Seh Daeng's ronin. However, absolutely anyone proven to have given orders to kill anyone unarmed, or anyone that was armed but not under the color of authority, etc ... should not be exempt.

A blanket amnesty that covers the leaders (on any side) should not even be considered.

I have to say that I totally agree with everything you say. Of course, it will be hard to prove exactly who is accountable but the theory is sound.

In a perfect world, Sondhi Limthongkul, Pibob Thongchai and Chamlong Srimuang would have been hit by a multi-trillion Baht lawsuit and, if they couldn't pay up, they should be incarcerated at the standard rate of 30 Baht a day (or whatever it is). Kwanchai Praiphana, Jakrapob Penkair, Suporn Attawong and Arisaman Pongruengrong should have been jailed for years now, because they are violent gangsters.

I think that Nattawut Saikua and Jatuporn Promphan in particular should also have their prosecutions followed up, because their speeches and actions from March to April last year to me offer overwhelming evidence that they planned the bloodshed all along. Or maybe they were just clairvoyant (it might work in a Thai court!). I also think that Payap Panket should be pursued vigorously for his Chula hospital invasion. But the likes of Veera Musikapong didn't do much wrong other than continuing to peacefully protest (yes there were elements of the Red Shirt movement that condemned violence - although I'm not sure if they were in the majority). Thaksin, I suspect, is fully worthy of the death penalty - although in the interests of full disclosure I'll add that my suspicions have not been confirmed... yet.

As for the army, I am sure there were incidents of soldiers disobeying orders or officers giving illegal orders, because the government orders were quite clear and, from most reports I have read, what happened isn't what the government asked of the army. So some army people are going to have to get charged and prosecuted before reconciliation can happen.for.

[Buchholz]

The second quote is a reflection of sentiment against amnesty for politicians *plural*.

The first quote regarding an amnesty bill reflects how amnesty is accomplished.

Is there another means of giving amnesty to a group of people without an "amnesty bill" being processed?

A bill is a legal document and as such can contain a wide variety of content.

'Amnesty' is a concept, applicable to a wide variety of people, groups and situations.

So to spell it out: 'Does the amnesty bill explicitly provide for the same provisions as the 'amnesty' to which the 'overwhelming majority or respondents in the second quote are opposed and are these provisions the same as the ones in Yingluck's proposal?' It all needs to hang together for your argument to work.

One presumes that Jatuporn was reacting to the bill with some knowledge of its content.

Thanks for any forthcoming clarification.

According to the proposal by Chalerm (who's doing the actual writing for the inexperienced Yingluck), the amnesty would cover everyone (except Abhisit and Suthep), hence it would provide amnesty for a great number of politicians. Something the poll reflected was opposed by the general population.

[473geo]

A couple of notes on amnesty and polls.

First a complete flip-flop from the Pheu Thai Party who opposed an earlier amnesty, in fact, even threatening a resumption of street protests over it

Perhaps this line in the article provided may go some way to further assist the understanding of the comment

"Remember this survey took place a year ago when the closure of the airport and the burning buses at Songkran were still in the mind."

[hanuman1]

The second quote is a reflection of sentiment against amnesty for politicians *plural*.

The first quote regarding an amnesty bill reflects how amnesty is accomplished.

Is there another means of giving amnesty to a group of people without an "amnesty bill" being processed?

A bill is a legal document and as such can contain a wide variety of content.

'Amnesty' is a concept, applicable to a wide variety of people, groups and situations.

So to spell it out: 'Does the amnesty bill explicitly provide for the same provisions as the 'amnesty' to which the 'overwhelming majority or respondents in the second quote are opposed and are these provisions the same as the ones in Yingluck's proposal?' It all needs to hang together for your argument to work.

One presumes that Jatuporn was reacting to the bill with some knowledge of its content.

Thanks for any forthcoming clarification.

According to the proposal by Chalerm (who's doing the actual writing for the inexperienced Yingluck), the amnesty would cover everyone (except Abhisit and Suthep), hence it would provide amnesty for a great number of politicians. Something the poll reflected was opposed by the general population.

Okay, so even if Jatuporn, Yingluck and the general population were all considering the same terms of an amnesty at different times, the issue itself doesn't seem to be a deal-breaker when it comes to voting for PTP since on the one hand this PTP policy (as determined by Yingluck and her advisers) is 'opposed by the general population' and on the other, the PTP is considered by polls as currently being the party with the single biggest block of votes in the country.

[Buchholz]

The second quote is a reflection of sentiment against amnesty for politicians *plural*.

The first quote regarding an amnesty bill reflects how amnesty is accomplished.

Is there another means of giving amnesty to a group of people without an "amnesty bill" being processed?

A bill is a legal document and as such can contain a wide variety of content.

'Amnesty' is a concept, applicable to a wide variety of people, groups and situations.

So to spell it out: 'Does the amnesty bill explicitly provide for the same provisions as the 'amnesty' to which the 'overwhelming majority or respondents in the second quote are opposed and are these provisions the same as the ones in Yingluck's proposal?' It all needs to hang together for your argument to work.

One presumes that Jatuporn was reacting to the bill with some knowledge of its content.

Thanks for any forthcoming clarification.

According to the proposal by Chalerm (who's doing the actual writing for the inexperienced Yingluck), the amnesty would cover everyone (except Abhisit and Suthep), hence it would provide amnesty for a great number of politicians. Something the poll reflected was opposed by the general population.

Okay, so even if Jatuporn, Yingluck and the general population were all considering the same terms of an amnesty at different times, the issue itself doesn't seem to be a deal-breaker when it comes to voting for PTP since on the one hand this PTP policy (as determined by Yingluck and her advisers) is 'opposed by the general population' and on the other, the PTP is considered by polls as currently being the party with the single biggest block of votes in the country.

The specific connection between whether or not an amnesty bill is a deal-breaker for people on deciding to vote for PTP or not would need to be more accurately reflected in a specific poll on that aspect.

Certainly I can see a poll question where the population would side one way or another on an issue and those results conflicting with the results of a poll question asked on a separate issue.

To draw a fair conclusion, that would require a poll to incorporate both issues into a single question.

.

[jdinasia]

I have to say that I totally agree with everything you say. Of course, it will be hard to prove exactly who is accountable but the theory is sound.

In a perfect world, Sondhi Limthongkul, Pibob Thongchai and Chamlong Srimuang would have been hit by a multi-trillion Baht lawsuit and, if they couldn't pay up, they should be incarcerated at the standard rate of 30 Baht a day (or whatever it is). Kwanchai Praiphana, Jakrapob Penkair, Suporn Attawong and Arisaman Pongruengrong should have been jailed for years now, because they are violent gangsters.

I think that Nattawut Saikua and Jatuporn Promphan in particular should also have their prosecutions followed up, because their speeches and actions from March to April last year to me offer overwhelming evidence that they planned the bloodshed all along. Or maybe they were just clairvoyant (it might work in a Thai court!). I also think that Payap Panket should be pursued vigorously for his Chula hospital invasion. But the likes of Veera Musikapong didn't do much wrong other than continuing to peacefully protest (yes there were elements of the Red Shirt movement that condemned violence - although I'm not sure if they were in the majority). Thaksin, I suspect, is fully worthy of the death penalty - although in the interests of full disclosure I'll add that my suspicions have not been confirmed... yet.

As for the army, I am sure there were incidents of soldiers disobeying orders or officers giving illegal orders, because the government orders were quite clear and, from most reports I have read, what happened isn't what the government asked of the army. So some army people are going to have to get charged and prosecuted before reconciliation can happen.for.

Veera is one I would have agreed with you about, yet sadly, just after the failed negotiations in March 2010 he called for burning ... (IMHO he was told to "toe the party line" after appearing conciliatory when Abhisit & co. offered elections in 2010.)

I agree that all of the cases need to move forward --- in all situations. My personal opinion regarding individual cases may vary from yours ...

The only top level red leader that I think is safe from the needle is Weng, he was smart enough to always throw in the "non-violently" caveat after calling for action from the red mob. It would not surprise me if the courts decided that was just to avoid prosecution and that he intended something entirely different.

The thing is that all the cases need to move faster .... starting with the 2007 case against the redshirt leaders involved in the riot at Prem's which is woefully behind the prosecution of later events. I would think in the interest of fairness they should try and go sequentially ....

2007 Riot at Prem's

2008 Capture of Gov't house by the PAD

2008 Reds attack PAD at Gov't house --- 1 redshirt dies (was it murder or defense of self and others?) Samak calls for SoE immediately.

2008 grenade attacks against the PAD

2008 crackdown of Oct.

2008 PAD airport seizure

2008 grenade attacks at airport

etc etc etc

Note --- 2 cases against the PAD in 2008 have already led to convictions (TV station and Bus HiJacking)

2008

[Buchholz]

A couple of notes on amnesty and polls.

First a complete flip-flop from the Pheu Thai Party who opposed an earlier amnesty, in fact, even threatening a resumption of street protests over it

Perhaps this line in the article provided may go some way to further assist the understanding of the comment

"Remember this survey took place a year ago when the closure of the airport and the burning buses at Songkran were still in the mind."

That additional quote is actually from the 2nd article, and not the 1st article that you cite above.

I'm not so sure that people have forgotten the airport incident nor Black Songkran. They sure haven't on this forum.

[hanuman1]

A bill is a legal document and as such can contain a wide variety of content.

'Amnesty' is a concept, applicable to a wide variety of people, groups and situations.

So to spell it out: 'Does the amnesty bill explicitly provide for the same provisions as the 'amnesty' to which the 'overwhelming majority or respondents in the second quote are opposed and are these provisions the same as the ones in Yingluck's proposal?' It all needs to hang together for your argument to work.

One presumes that Jatuporn was reacting to the bill with some knowledge of its content.

Thanks for any forthcoming clarification.

According to the proposal by Chalerm (who's doing the actual writing for the inexperienced Yingluck), the amnesty would cover everyone (except Abhisit and Suthep), hence it would provide amnesty for a great number of politicians. Something the poll reflected was opposed by the general population.

Okay, so even if Jatuporn, Yingluck and the general population were all considering the same terms of an amnesty at different times, the issue itself doesn't seem to be a deal-breaker when it comes to voting for PTP since on the one hand this PTP policy (as determined by Yingluck and her advisers) is 'opposed by the general population' and on the other, the PTP is considered by polls as currently being the party with the single biggest block of votes in the country.

The specific connection between whether or not an amnesty bill is a deal-breaker for people on deciding to vote for PTP or not would need to be more accurately reflected in a specific poll on that aspect.

Certainly I can see a poll question where the population would side one way or another on an issue and those results conflicting with the results of a poll question asked on a separate issue.

To draw a fair conclusion, that would require a poll to incorporate both issues into a single question.

.

Okay, so we can't draw a fair conclusion. That's fine by me, and is often the way of the world. :jap:

[Arkady]

2. Lui Saethung, lottery seller, 59 years old

I disagree, because our country is in a mess. It would be better to solve the problem of poverty before reconciliation. The economy is getting worse, so trade is getting worse too.

Really? I remember walking down the street and lottery seller said 'farang' and pointed at me laughing. Maybe that translated to 'Hello, my friendly Caucasian brother'

Was this a blind lottery seller who sensed the farang odour walking past? He he.

[Buchholz]

The only top level red leader that I think is safe from the needle is Weng, he was smart enough to always throw in the "non-violently" caveat after calling for action from the red mob. It would not surprise me if the courts decided that was just to avoid prosecution and that he intended something entirely different.

A common prosecutor tactic could be utilized. An invitation to turn state's witness.

Spared the harshest of penalties in exchange for testimony against the others in the gang that solidifies the cases against them.

[virtualtraveller]

Sadly, though Puea Thai are making it quite clear that their main focus is t bring back Thaksin, polls indicate that the largest number of voters might well support them. So, if democracy is all about the mandate of the people then perhaps Thailand ought to continue down the route of forgiving everyone and letting the crooks rule the roost. All this talk of Thaksin not actually being guilty but instead part of plot to keep him out of poweris pure nonsense and everyone, PTP included not that!

[hanuman1]

Sadly, though Puea Thai are making it quite clear that their main focus is t bring back Thaksin, polls indicate that the largest number of voters might well support them. So, if democracy is all about the mandate of the people then perhaps Thailand ought to continue down the route of forgiving everyone and letting the crooks rule the roost. All this talk of Thaksin not actually being guilty but instead part of plot to keep him out of poweris pure nonsense and everyone, PTP included not that!

Politicians on all sides have been reconciling the crap out of this country for a hundred years (give or take).

This issue of reconciliation after major upheavals is a tradition here. So it's all very well to say what the ideal would be, but breaking a tradition and expecting one side of a divide to quietly agree to their own demise in the interests of a greater whole which has no precedent in Thai history is too much for any of the power brokers to even contemplate.

The people will vote and the majority will likely get what they want, warts and all. Coups notwithstanding.

[473geo]

When the amnesty bill is raised, the members in government must follow the will of the people and reject the proposal, if that is the wish of the majority. Then get on with governing the country.

It really is that simple

[OzMick]

2. Lui Saethung, lottery seller, 59 years old

I disagree, because our country is in a mess. It would be better to solve the problem of poverty before reconciliation. The economy is getting worse, so trade is getting worse too.

Really? I remember walking down the street and lottery seller said 'farang' and pointed at me laughing. Maybe that translated to 'Hello, my friendly Caucasian brother'

Perhaps its your sartorial elegance that prompted the outburst of hilarity.

[OzMick]

9. Wunnaphorn Luglam, motorcycle taxi driver, 22 years old

I agree, because people who are guilty should have the opportunity to change themselves. Many people in the society may not accept this, but we should give them a chance.

That's because many in society know exactly what they're dealing with, and can say with absolute certainty it won't "change themselves".

I agree, in part, with Mr Wunnaphorn. " .....people who are guilty should have the opportunity to change themselves." a nice spell in prison is a perfect chance for reflection, self - criticism and reform.

[lanna2011]

without reconciliation there will be no peace - period

Obviously both true and not true ... reconciliation (in the red sense) is intended to let one person (and those that committed violence in his name) off the hook, and that is not justice. Without justice there will be no peace, and without peace there will be no reconciliation.

Justice starts with holding elected persons and non-elected persons accountable for their actions not forgiving those that when they don't get their way resort to violence and violating the laws of the land. That mens no amnesty for Thaksin at the expense of justice ... just as it means no amnesty for the PAD leaders and the UDD leaders. A blanket amnesty for those that participated in any rally (either color) in a non-violent/non-inciteful way should be issued. However, those responsible for killing, burning, looting ... on any side of the conflict should be held accountable. That would be an example that the 'rule of law' is functioning in Thailand.

'if' you are saying both sides - then maybe that is fine but here it doesn't always work like that and I suspect there is wisdom in drawing a line at some point and moving forward with a 'reconciliation package' for those not involved with physical violence - much like in some other countries where many 'yesterdays terrorists' are todays 'statesmen'. I sincerely believe that there has to come a time.

Again, for there to be Justice ... accountability is the key. That means you have to start somewhere. Rule of Law is the vital ingredient and if they let Thaksin slide then there won't be any rule of law. Hold the leaders accountable on all sides. The PAD, the UDD (including Thaksin), the military if illegal orders were given, etc etc etc ... Nobody gets a free ride other than actual peaceful protesters from any side.

Ozmeade --- the "men in black" (according to an extremely liberal- read far-far leftist- HRW report) have been described as being part and parcel with the reds/udd/Seh Daeng's ronin. However, absolutely anyone proven to have given orders to kill anyone unarmed, or anyone that was armed but not under the color of authority, etc ... should not be exempt.

A blanket amnesty that covers the leaders (on any side) should not even be considered.

ok then let them arrest the coup leaders? the Generals etc.? logically you must support this as their action was illegal

[Buchholz]

When the amnesty bill is raised, the members in government must follow the will of the people and reject the proposal, if that is the wish of the majority. Then get on with governing the country.

It really is that simple

AFAIK, there's no provision for a national referendum contained in Chalerm's Executive Decree of amnesty for all [except Abhsist and Suthep].

I would consider a voted-on referendum as the minimum for even a scrap of credibility.

[jdinasia]

ok then let them arrest the coup leaders? the Generals etc.? logically you must support this as their action was illegal

Actually, although it was at the time illegal (it certainly wasn't constitutional!) they have adroitly managed not to be liable for those actions they took. The oath of office sworn by the military would probably get them off the hook anyways. I certainly don't see letting them off the hook for violence that occurred under their watch.

In fact, look at the posts above ... the only people I see all reasonable people wanting to see prosecuted are those responsible for inciting violence or participating in violence. Those that led the coup did neither.

Isn't it fun to figure out where to draw the line? It has to be drawn somewhere, and violence seems to be the rationale line in the sand.

Edited May 30, 2011 by jdinasia

[Pi Sek]

ok then let them arrest the coup leaders? the Generals etc.? logically you must support this as their action was illegal

As it happens, I agree - arrest the coup leaders and make them go through a process. Whilst I think that their oaths to protect the monarchy would act as a legitimate reason to break the Law by ousting Thaksin, they should be brought to account and made to answer questions as to why the coup (which, even pro-military types will agree, should be a last option) was necessary and let the Judiciary decide, even if it is a particular commission within the Judiciary to focus on the military's involvement in politics.

If the coup wasn't the last resort afterall - and there were other realistic more democratic options on the table - then yes, the coup leaders should be punished.

Subjective I know, but personally I think that the coup was necessary to advance democracy given the barmy circumstances at the time. (Others would strongly disagree.)

[jdinasia]

ok then let them arrest the coup leaders? the Generals etc.? logically you must support this as their action was illegal

As it happens, I agree - arrest the coup leaders and make them go through a process. Whilst I think that their oaths to protect the monarchy would act as a legitimate reason to break the Law by ousting Thaksin, they should be brought to account and made to answer questions as to why the coup (which, even pro-military types will agree, should be a last option) was necessary and let the Judiciary decide, even if it is a particular commission within the Judiciary to focus on the military's involvement in politics.

If the coup wasn't the last resort afterall - and there were other realistic more democratic options on the table - then yes, the coup leaders should be punished.

Subjective I know, but personally I think that the coup was necessary to advance democracy given the barmy circumstances at the time. (Others would strongly disagree.)

If I understand the Oath of Office for the military (and I am pretty sure I do ) Their oath is first to the monarchy and second to the "state" --- note it is my understanding that the state means Thailand ... not the government nor the constitution, Making it quite different than in other places (I will use the US for the example) where the oath is to uphold and defend the constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic.

[473geo]

When the amnesty bill is raised, the members in government must follow the will of the people and reject the proposal, if that is the wish of the majority. Then get on with governing the country.

It really is that simple

AFAIK, there's no provision for a national referendum contained in Chalerm's Executive Decree of amnesty for all [except Abhsist and Suthep].

I would consider a voted-on referendum as the minimum for even a scrap of credibility.

Agreed...then when the topic is raised the members of the government should insist on a referendum......it is that simple.....

[Buchholz]

When the amnesty bill is raised, the members in government must follow the will of the people and reject the proposal, if that is the wish of the majority. Then get on with governing the country.

It really is that simple

AFAIK, there's no provision for a national referendum contained in Chalerm's Executive Decree of amnesty for all [except Abhsist and Suthep].

I would consider a voted-on referendum as the minimum for even a scrap of credibility.

Agreed...then when the topic is raised the members of the government should insist on a referendum......it is that simple.....

The question becomes then, does it make it to members of the government in the form of the House of Parliament. Chalerm is speaking of an Executive Decree, which is an edict issued by the Prime Minister and does not, I believe, require House approval.

It definitely does not require a national referendum for its approval

.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Buchholz

[473geo]

When the amnesty bill is raised, the members in government must follow the will of the people and reject the proposal, if that is the wish of the majority. Then get on with governing the country.

It really is that simple

AFAIK, there's no provision for a national referendum contained in Chalerm's Executive Decree of amnesty for all [except Abhsist and Suthep].

I would consider a voted-on referendum as the minimum for even a scrap of credibility.

Agreed...then when the topic is raised the members of the government should insist on a referendum......it is that simple.....

The question becomes then, does it make it to members of the government in the form of the House of Parliament. Chalerm is speaking of an Executive Decree, which is an edict issued by the Prime Minister and does not, I believe, require House approval.

It definitely does not require a national referendum for its approval

.

As long as this process is understood, and it would appear PT are being open about the intention, then I guess the outcome of the election may then determine just how desperate the thirst for change.....and at what cost...... maybe the amnesty must be awkwardly accepted to move forward........but I believe a referendum would be the fair way to go.

[oldbookman]

What thaksin did wrong had nothing to do with politics per se. He simply used his political position to perpetrate flagrant crime. Power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absolutely. He must serve the time for his crime. Money should not determine Right. I will be utterly devastated if PT regains power.

[Buchholz]

AFAIK, there's no provision for a national referendum contained in Chalerm's Executive Decree of amnesty for all [except Abhsist and Suthep].

I would consider a voted-on referendum as the minimum for even a scrap of credibility.

Agreed...then when the topic is raised the members of the government should insist on a referendum......it is that simple.....

The question becomes then, does it make it to members of the government in the form of the House of Parliament. Chalerm is speaking of an Executive Decree, which is an edict issued by the Prime Minister and does not, I believe, require House approval.

It definitely does not require a national referendum for its approval

As long as this process is understood

I doubt that it is.

Many people, including the forum members here, seem to have the notion it would be an amnesty bill, as was opposed by the Jatuporn in the earlier quote, that would be raised, discussed, debated, and decided upon by vote in the House and Senate.

If it's an Executive Decree, it won't go through that process. Chalerm is working on it now with the potentiality that it could be finished in time for it to be signed off on the same day Yingluck assumes office (if she does).

.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Buchholz