Amnesty Talk Puts Reconciliation Further Out Of Reach: Thai Talk

[webfact]

THAI TALK

Amnesty talk puts reconciliation further out of reach

By Suthichai Yoon

The Nation

The Pheu Thai Party, which is expected to emerge with the most House seats after the July 3 election, has listed "amnesty for all parties concerned" as a top item on the agenda in its campaign pledge for national reconciliation.

The incumbent Democrat Party, on the other hand, has painted that move as nothing more than an attempt to clear the way for ousted former premier Thaksin Shinawatra to be absolved of guilt and be able to return to Thailand under the amnesty.

Political clemency is supposed to be an exercise to resolve national conflicts and to relaunch a country with a clean slate. But in the case of pre-election Thailand, at this point the proposed amnesty could add to the prevailing polarisation. In fact, it might split the country further.

Politicians in all camps may benefit from a general amnesty. The red shirts and yellow shirts may also see some, if not all, charges against them lifted if a blanket clemency is proclaimed. But there remains the big question of whether "charges of a criminal nature" could be incorporated into the so-called "national reconciliation" plan.

In other words, would Thaksin also be granted amnesty in this general pardon?

If so, would the whole scenario be interpreted as a Pheu Thai ploy to offer a general amnesty with only one single purpose: to get Thaksin back into the country without having to serve his two-year prison sentence handed down by the court over a land deal when he was prime minister?

The court verdict was legally a "conflict-of-interest" issue, not a case that arose from his political activity. But Thaksin and his political allies have argued all along that everything that has happened since the September 19, 2006 coup that overthrew his government is politically motivated.

Thaksin has portrayed himself as a victim of the establishment. He has attacked not only the military and the Privy Council president, but also the judicial system. His opponents have, however, pointed to his blatant abuse of power, including several cases of conflict of interest that benefited his own political clique.

But the verdict of the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders remains in force. He can't seek amnesty without first admitting guilt and serving at least part of the term.

Thaksin has insisted that he won't spend time behind bars, even for one day. His political lieutenants have worked hard to find a legal way out of the court sentence. When his previous nominees - Somchai Wongswasdi and Samak Sundaravej - were made prime minister, desperate attempts were made to grant Thaksin an amnesty of one kind or another, to no avail.

Nattawut Saigua of the Pheu Thai party and a red-shirt leader said on a television programme that Thaksin is not the priority of the party's amnesty move. "We want to get the country out of the current trap of conflicts. It seems the Democrats can't get over the Thaksin issue," he said.

Chamni Sakdiseth, a key member of the Democrat Party, argued on the same television programme last Thursday: "You must admit that Thaksin is the main source of conflict and every move undertaken by Pheu Thai is related to Thaksin."

Now, Thaksin's sister, Yingluck, is poised to fill that position again. She has also made amnesty a campaign issue.

She has yet to tell the public how she is going to handle this highly sensitive issue except to repeat, in response to every question on this topic: "We won't do anything that would benefit only one person."

And of course that "one person" can't be anyone else except Thaksin.

No doubt, the more Thaksin himself talks about national reconciliation, the more he introduces divisiveness into the issue.

-- The Nation 2011-06-09

[MILT]

It is a blatant attempt to get Thaskin back into Thailand and more than likely return all that money that was legaly extracted. Why the whole of Thailand cannot see this is mind boggling. The only thing that is important to the PTP is one man and his fortune not a nation. I hope and pray that the Thai people voice their vote with the good of all of Thailand in their minds.

[maewrocks]

It is a blatant attempt to get Thaskin back into Thailand and more than likely return all that money that was legaly extracted. Why the whole of Thailand cannot see this is mind boggling. The only thing that is important to the PTP is one man and his fortune not a nation. I hope and pray that the Thai people voice their vote with the good of all of Thailand in their minds.

MILT; everyone knows it is a blatant attempt to get Thaksin back. PT have made it as clear as possible. I mean; picking his sister and calling her a clone; making an amnesty one of your leading policies; slogan is Thaksin thinks, Peua Thai acts!!!

They have made it obvious to the electorate and the voters will tell us what they want. If PT is voted in (& that means have a substantial margin over the Dems), then he will come back. The Ratchada case was undoubtedly politically motivated and trumped up, by the military installed judiciary who were dirty at having their budget cut and their influence marginalised. Hopefully he will come back and under closer scrutiny use his obvious talent in politics & leadership to help the country.

[moe666]

It is a blatant attempt to get Thaskin back into Thailand and more than likely return all that money that was legaly extracted. Why the whole of Thailand cannot see this is mind boggling. The only thing that is important to the PTP is one man and his fortune not a nation. I hope and pray that the Thai people voice their vote with the good of all of Thailand in their minds.

MILT; everyone knows it is a blatant attempt to get Thaksin back. PT have made it as clear as possible. I mean; picking his sister and calling her a clone; making an amnesty one of your leading policies; slogan is Thaksin thinks, Peua Thai acts!!!

They have made it obvious to the electorate and the voters will tell us what they want. If PT is voted in (& that means have a substantial margin over the Dems), then he will come back. The Ratchada case was undoubtedly politically motivated and trumped up, by the military installed judiciary who were dirty at having their budget cut and their influence marginalised. Hopefully he will come back and under closer scrutiny use his obvious talent in politics & leadership to help the country.

Whats your tie to Thaksin? do you really think he would give you the time of day for all of your support of him on Thaivisa

[whybother]

MILT; everyone knows it is a blatant attempt to get Thaksin back. PT have made it as clear as possible. I mean; picking his sister and calling her a clone; making an amnesty one of your leading policies; slogan is Thaksin thinks, Peua Thai acts!!!

They have made it obvious to the electorate and the voters will tell us what they want. If PT is voted in (& that means have a substantial margin over the Dems), then he will come back. The Ratchada case was undoubtedly politically motivated and trumped up, by the military installed judiciary who were dirty at having their budget cut and their influence marginalised. Hopefully he will come back and under closer scrutiny use his obvious talent in politics & leadership to help the country.

What PTP needs is a majority, not a substantial margin. If they don't get more than 50%, then a majority of the people DON'T want Thaksin back.

The Ratchada land case was a clear case of conflict of interest. As PMs wife, she was not allowed to do transactions with the government, and he was not allowed to sign off on it.

Edited June 9, 2011 by whybother

[Ricardo]

It is a blatant attempt to get Thaskin back into Thailand and more than likely return all that money that was legaly extracted. Why the whole of Thailand cannot see this is mind boggling. The only thing that is important to the PTP is one man and his fortune not a nation. I hope and pray that the Thai people voice their vote with the good of all of Thailand in their minds.

MILT; everyone knows it is a blatant attempt to get Thaksin back. PT have made it as clear as possible. I mean; picking his sister and calling her a clone; making an amnesty one of your leading policies; slogan is Thaksin thinks, Peua Thai acts!!!

They have made it obvious to the electorate and the voters will tell us what they want. If PT is voted in (& that means have a substantial margin over the Dems), then he will come back. The Ratchada case was undoubtedly politically motivated and trumped up, by the military installed judiciary who were dirty at having their budget cut and their influence marginalised. Hopefully he will come back and under closer scrutiny use his obvious talent in politics & leadership to help the country.

I feel that you're forgetting the several other cases, against the former-PM, which are stalled only by his continuing voluntary absence. This is not a case of one politically-motivated charge being rammed-through by the military after the coup, as is made clear by the judges, when they rule in-detail. Although one can understand how it suits DL to try to present things that way.

If PT have a substantial margin over the Dems, but get only 30%-40% of the proportional-vote, then that would not give a PTP-led coalition-government free-reign to over-ride the law, with a selective-amnesty that covers Thaksin or red-shirt leaders, but not PM-Abhisit or Suthep. The OP is right that an amnesty would be divisive. Thailand is a democracy (of sorts) with the rule-of-law (which governments must work within), not a dictatorship where a fragrant or charismatic or popular-leader can do anything they want, and where family-ties over-ride the laws. That is surely what the coup was all about ? !

I share your wish for Thaksin's return, but that's up-to-him, he's currently on-the-run from a democracy where the courts have found him guilty and sentenced him, not in-exile from a military-dictatorship, as one might have argued from September-2006 up until January-2008. He did undoubtedly achieve something useful, in his early political-career, when he made the plight/votes of the poor more-important on the political-scene. Now his most-useful function is to show that not-even a former-PM is totally above-the-law, as he might have thought, going by some of his actions and sayings when in-power.

That was a long time ago, the country & economy have moved-on, and it would be unhelpful for him to continue to promote or encourage division as he has done, let-alone violent-conflict on-the-streets. Had he been willing to return, and live quietly, he might well have been home long-since. But he does not admit his mistakes or crimes, he merely wants to return and take over power again, step back into 'his' (his only ?) role, and run the country ... that's not democracy and anyway time has shown that many of his policies were not-entirely altruistic or successful.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Ricardo

[CosmicSurfer]

Screw Amnesty.... Corrupt Politician should be thrown into Jail.. Period.

There is no other way to stop the Rampant Corruption of the Political and Legal process...

Take off the Kid Gloves.... Jail the BUMS!!!!

CS

[OzMick]

It is a blatant attempt to get Thaskin back into Thailand and more than likely return all that money that was legaly extracted. Why the whole of Thailand cannot see this is mind boggling. The only thing that is important to the PTP is one man and his fortune not a nation. I hope and pray that the Thai people voice their vote with the good of all of Thailand in their minds.

MILT; everyone knows it is a blatant attempt to get Thaksin back. PT have made it as clear as possible. I mean; picking his sister and calling her a clone; making an amnesty one of your leading policies; slogan is Thaksin thinks, Peua Thai acts!!!

They have made it obvious to the electorate and the voters will tell us what they want. If PT is voted in (& that means have a substantial margin over the Dems), then he will come back. The Ratchada case was undoubtedly politically motivated and trumped up, by the who were dirty at having their budget cut and their influence marginalised. Hopefully he will come back and under closer scrutiny use his obvious talent in politics & leadership to help the country.

"..........Ratchada case was undoubtedly politically motivated and trumped up............" It well may have had political motivation, but are you disputing the facts of the case which was a clear case of corruption? Was the Burma telco loan not at least a little obvious? What about the share nominees, and changing of laws to avoid tax and benefit his own company? Are these merely cases of "..... his obvious talent in politics & leadership......."?

"........ military installed judiciary......" Which members of the judiciary were installed by the military?

You seem to think that a political party purporting to represent 50%+ of the Thai voters but dancing to one man's tune is a good thing. What should we call this, a popular dictatorship perhaps? How does this reconcile with Thailand's constitutional monarchy? And exactly how do you think this popular dictatorship will be viewed by the ultra-conservatives, many in yellow and quite a few in green?

[rubl]

MILT; everyone knows it is a blatant attempt to get Thaksin back. PT have made it as clear as possible. I mean; picking his sister and calling her a clone; making an amnesty one of your leading policies; slogan is Thaksin thinks, Peua Thai acts!!!

They have made it obvious to the electorate and the voters will tell us what they want. If PT is voted in (& that means have a substantial margin over the Dems), then he will come back. The Ratchada case was undoubtedly politically motivated and trumped up, by the military installed judiciary who were dirty at having their budget cut and their influence marginalised. Hopefully he will come back and under closer scrutiny use his obvious talent in politics & leadership to help the country.

My dear friend k. Natthawut has just said "the Pheu Thai Party has no policy to issue amnesty for fugitive former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra if it is elected to be a new government." Of course I believe him, don't you ?

[swillowbee]

... but of course, an amnesty to return Thaksin to Thailand is the Pheu Thai priority ... it is why the party was created.

... seems the very vocal opposition by voters to this bloody corruption of the Pheu Thai Party is a bit more blowback than Thaksin anticipated, and is not the issue he hoped would ignite voters in his favor ... maybe he is is not so universally loved as this miscreant believes.

... Thaksin is arguably the galvanizing variable in this election ... his participation assures the sides remain light years apart, Thailand remains deeply divided and that no social reconciliation or political reform will be possible ... we might expect hereforward for Pheu Thai to downplay this plan ... who but the most stupid could NOT believe that "Pheu Thai = PM Thaksin".

... Thaksin will tear this country apart.

Edited June 9, 2011 by swillowbee

[oldbookman]

Unfortunately, as the 2nd U.S. president, John Adams, proclaimed in the 1700s, democracy with political parties is doomed to polarization and consequent ineffectiveness. So Thailand, your own political polarization is nothing new. Just check out the U.S. of A. With PT in power, nothing will change from the present or the past. It's just all part of the governmental game. Only if all political parties are disbanded and outlawed will representatives and administrations ever govern with altruism, each person acting/voting with her/his own individual beliefs and the needs of constituents. Inasmuch as in this "real" world this will never come to pass, we must be content with a balance of power as the only barrier to the absolute corruption of absolute power. Put simply, it doesn't matter a whit who wins the election. Nothing will change. And that's the best we can hope for.

[anterian]

MILT; everyone knows it is a blatant attempt to get Thaksin back. PT have made it as clear as possible. I mean; picking his sister and calling her a clone; making an amnesty one of your leading policies; slogan is Thaksin thinks, Peua Thai acts!!!

They have made it obvious to the electorate and the voters will tell us what they want. If PT is voted in (& that means have a substantial margin over the Dems), then he will come back. The Ratchada case was undoubtedly politically motivated and trumped up, by the military installed judiciary who were dirty at having their budget cut and their influence marginalised. Hopefully he will come back and under closer scrutiny use his obvious talent in politics & leadership to help the country.

What PTP needs is a majority, not a substantial margin. If they don't get more than 50%, then a majority of the people DON'T want Thaksin back.

The Ratchada land case was a clear case of conflict of interest. As PMs wife, she was not allowed to do transactions with the government, and he was not allowed to sign off on it.

Is retroactive legislation ethical. If you park in a street and later that day the Council erect "No Parking" signs, will you accept the parking ticket on your car when you return?

[anterian]

Unfortunately, as the 2nd U.S. president, John Adams, proclaimed in the 1700s, democracy with political parties is doomed to polarization and consequent ineffectiveness. So Thailand, your own political polarization is nothing new. Just check out the U.S. of A. With PT in power, nothing will change from the present or the past. It's just all part of the governmental game. Only if all political parties are disbanded and outlawed will representatives and administrations ever govern with altruism, each person acting/voting with her/his own individual beliefs and the needs of constituents. Inasmuch as in this "real" world this will never come to pass, we must be content with a balance of power as the only barrier to the absolute corruption of absolute power. Put simply, it doesn't matter a whit who wins the election. Nothing will change. And that's the best we can hope for.

Very true, a balance of power is the only real safeguard of democracy, unfortunately it is also its greatest weakness. As several have said, democracy is not a good form of government, but it the best that the human race have so far invented.

[whybother]

What PTP needs is a majority, not a substantial margin. If they don't get more than 50%, then a majority of the people DON'T want Thaksin back.

The Ratchada land case was a clear case of conflict of interest. As PMs wife, she was not allowed to do transactions with the government, and he was not allowed to sign off on it.

Is retroactive legislation ethical. If you park in a street and later that day the Council erect "No Parking" signs, will you accept the parking ticket on your car when you return?

Generally, no.

Where was the retroactive legislation in this case?

"The court said Thaksin violated Article 100 of the 1999 National Counter Corruption Act". http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/10/22/opinion/opinion_30086557.php

[anterian]

What PTP needs is a majority, not a substantial margin. If they don't get more than 50%, then a majority of the people DON'T want Thaksin back.

The Ratchada land case was a clear case of conflict of interest. As PMs wife, she was not allowed to do transactions with the government, and he was not allowed to sign off on it.

Is retroactive legislation ethical. If you park in a street and later that day the Council erect "No Parking" signs, will you accept the parking ticket on your car when you return?

Generally, no.

Where was the retroactive legislation in this case?

"The court said Thaksin violated Article 100 of the 1999 National Counter Corruption Act". http://www.nationmul...on_30086557.php

The selling agency at the time of the auction was seen as not being a government agency, hence no conflict of interest. The court later ruled it was a government agency, hence a conflict of interest.

either way, as wives are second class citizens in Thailand, Thaksin was compelled by Thai law to endorse his wife's bid for the land.

Interestingly, the purchase was deemed valid and Thaksin's wife faced no charges over the deal, just Thaksin.

You really need to read the full transcript of the case to get the full flavour of what took place. It always reminded me of a famous "untouchable" American gangster who was finally arrested for tax evasion.

[animatic]

What PTP needs is a majority, not a substantial margin. If they don't get more than 50%, then a majority of the people DON'T want Thaksin back.

The Ratchada land case was a clear case of conflict of interest. As PMs wife, she was not allowed to do transactions with the government, and he was not allowed to sign off on it.

Is retroactive legislation ethical. If you park in a street and later that day the Council erect "No Parking" signs, will you accept the parking ticket on your car when you return?

Generally, no.

Where was the retroactive legislation in this case?

"The court said Thaksin violated Article 100 of the 1999 National Counter Corruption Act". http://www.nationmul...on_30086557.php

The selling agency at the time of the auction was seen as not being a government agency, hence no conflict of interest. The court later ruled it was a government agency, hence a conflict of interest.

either way, as wives are second class citizens in Thailand, Thaksin was compelled by Thai law to endorse his wife's bid for the land.

Interestingly, the purchase was deemed valid and Thaksin's wife faced no charges over the deal, just Thaksin.

You really need to read the full transcript of the case to get the full flavour of what took place. It always reminded me of a famous "untouchable" American gangster who was finally arrested for tax evasion.

Partly correct, Thaksin's side deemed it not a government agency, but a court ruling later deemed it WAS one.

A big difference from passing retroactive legislation or executive rulings to make it so.

As to only Thaksin being charged, by law he signed to permit the wife to buy, that was HIS illegal action, hers was not illegal since SHE was not a politician in office. Hers not being ilegal doesn't make HIS suddenly not ilegal too.

2 different sets of actions.

Her purchase and his signing for permission.

In any case the deal was stopped and she actually profited on getting HER money returned.

The flavor of the case, was that Thaksin signed a document that broke the law.

This was the easiest and fastest case to nail him on since it was very clear cut, cut and dried, and theoretically good to hold him so the more complicated cases could be brought to court, but before his final appeal he scarpered and never came back. And thus the other cases are in abeyance until he comes to court, and hence his big push to get 'political amnesty' and then a huge push to call ALL cases against him political cases, and not simple legal cases he has avoided.

Edited June 10, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

Unfortunately, as the 2nd U.S. president, John Adams, proclaimed in the 1700s, democracy with political parties is doomed to polarization and consequent ineffectiveness. So Thailand, your own political polarization is nothing new. Just check out the U.S. of A. With PT in power, nothing will change from the present or the past. It's just all part of the governmental game. Only if all political parties are disbanded and outlawed will representatives and administrations ever govern with altruism, each person acting/voting with her/his own individual beliefs and the needs of constituents. Inasmuch as in this "real" world this will never come to pass, we must be content with a balance of power as the only barrier to the absolute corruption of absolute power. Put simply, it doesn't matter a whit who wins the election. Nothing will change. And that's the best we can hope for.

No, we can hope for graduated positive change for the betterment of all citizens, in a natural and safe for all way.

Not by mad jerks and wheezes cause by greedy phsycophants and power-mad proto-tyrants.

John Adams also said, and most all of which will apply well to Thailands present day :

" A government of laws, and not of men.

Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.

Democracy...

while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

In politics the middle way is none at all.

Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.

Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak.

The essence of a free government consists in an effectual control of rivalries.

The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.

The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

When people talk of the freedom of writing, speaking or thinking I cannot choose but laugh. No such thing ever existed. No such thing now exists; but I hope it will exist. But it must be hundreds of years after you and I shall write and speak no more.

I must not write a word to you about politics, because you are a woman. "

Edited June 10, 2011 by animatic

[anterian]

Partly correct, Thaksin's side deemed it not a government agency,

but a court ruling later deemed it WAS one.

A big difference from passing retroactive legislation or executive rulings to make it so.

As to only Thaksin being charged, by law he signed to permit the wife to buy,

that was HIS illegal action, hers was not illegal since SHE was not a politician in office.

In any case the deal was stopped and she actually profited on getting HER money returned.

The flavor of the case, was that Thaksin signed a document that broke the law.

This was the easiest and fastest case to nail him on since it was very clear cut, cut and dried,

and theoretically good to hold him so the more complicated cases could be brought to court,

but before his final appeal he scarpered and never came back.

One aspect of law is "intent" . In this case there was "reasonable doubt", the selling agency had a management board appointed in part by the BOT. It became a question of was the BOT a government agency or autonomous. Does for example the BOT set interest rates or the government through the Finance Minister?

Thaksin signed the document because the law required him to do so, in doing so he unwittingly broke another law based on a retrospective decision.

Further, and as you say, it was indeed her money not his, she through her family was independently rich.

Thaksin scrammed when he realised that the powerful in Thailand were out to get him by any means.

This has been rehashed ad nauseam in many blogs at the time, including Thai and expat legal experts particularly in one which I apparently am not allowed to mention here.

It is like Samak being kicked out of office for being on a cookery show, legitimate yet nonetheless petty and vindictive.

[Buchholz]

still attempting to feebly rehash concluded cases from 3 years ago that were definitively decided upon..... but by all means, knock yourself out.

[gregb]

[Hopefully he will come back and under closer scrutiny use his obvious talent in politics & leadership to help the country.

You must love the idea of civil war if you want him back. Look on the bright side...maybe someone you love will be one of the first victims in the deadly violence sure to ensue if he ever tries to come back in anything other than a body bag. Then you can finally have a real reason to embrace the tyranny of Thaksin's regime.

Let's all pray Thaksin simply disappears forever. Then maybe, we can all have some peace.

[Ricardo]

<snip for brevity>

It is like Samak being kicked out of office for being on a cookery show, legitimate yet nonetheless petty and vindictive.

"petty and vindictive"

Well I guess that DL was really peeved, when his nominee showed some signs of being his own man, so 'advised' his party's executive not to renominate Samak, but put in his brother-in-law instead ?

"Legitimate yet nonetheless petty and vindictive" does indeed sum that episode up, and "Thaksin Thinks, Pheu Thai (as it now is) Acts", this perhaps is why some farangs are less-than-willing to accept widespread assurances, that there will be no revenge if/when 'the Man' ever does return ?