No Consensus On Scope Of Thai Amnesty Law

[webfact]

No consensus on scope of amnesty law

Political Desk

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Amnesty for law violators involved in the political conflict since the coup of 2006 has become a hot topic and has led to heated public debate over who should benefit and who should be excluded.

newsjs

No accord has been reached either as to whether an amnesty - general or limited - will eventually bring about national reconciliation as espoused by the proponents. A survey by The Nation of various groups has revealed a spectrum of views, ranging from a political cure-all to object of suspicion. Many say they do not think an amnesty law alone could lead to reconciliation. They are concerned that the corrupt politicians who ignited the conflict would also benefit from an amnesty they do not deserve.

The red shirts strongly back amnesty for the protesters although some of them want protest leaders to be excluded, in order to help keep the reconciliation efforts on track.

click HERE for large image

Banjerd Singkaneti, dean of law at the National Institute of Development Administration, does not think an amnesty would lead to social reconciliation.

To reach reconciliation, the suggestions from the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) about fact-finding should be heeded. Also, the offenders should show remorse for their wrongdoings before amnesty would be granted in the final step.

"It appears political leaders are taking the protesters hostage" for them to benefit from a general amnesty too, he added. Kanit Nanakorn, the chairman of the now-defunct TRCT, said amnesty was not part of his panel's proposal.

"We presented all the proposals in the report. It depends on the people in power whether they want to do it," he said.

Somsak Kosaisuk, a former leader of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and now a leader of the New Politics Party, agreed with the idea of giving leniency to political protesters. Excluding protest leaders would in practice be difficult since it was not clear how to specify who was a leader and who was not.

WHO BENEFITS?

He also expressed concern that politicians from the ruling Pheu Thai Party might attempt to write an amnesty law in a way that benefited politicians accused of corruption, including former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

"To achieve reconciliation, all parties must first respect the law and the rules of the country. A law alone is unlikely to bring about reconciliation. All parts of society must join in the effort," he said.

Suriyasai Katasila, coordinator for the Green Politics Group and also a former leader of the yellow-shirt PAD, said nobody would oppose amnesty for ordinary protesters who disobeyed the state of emergency or traffic laws. But criminal lawbreakers, such as those assaulting officials, did not merit amnesty. They should first undergo judicial proceedings.

"I don't think an amnesty law will really create reconciliation. There are many conditions to achieve that," he said.

Trakoon Mechai, a political science lecturer at Chulalongkorn University, did not think an amnesty law could lead to reconciliation. The country's conflict involved ideological beliefs about a proper political system for Thailand. It was not a personal dispute.

"The conflict will persist even with an amnesty law," he said.

Tul Sittisomwong, leader of the royalist multicoloured-shirt movement, was also not convinced that amnesty would lead to reconciliation.

"It's just about allowing law violators to go free without taking any responsibility," he said.

The Pheu Thai-led government simply wants to help its supporters who were among the criminals.

"Protesters who did not commit criminal offences should be granted bail as quickly as possible. It's been too long for them to be denied a temporary release," he said.

"I don't think the Pheu Thai Party or the government has the right to propose or push for amnesty, as they're part of the conflict and were indirectly involved in the unrest.

There's clearly a conflict of interest."

An Army officer who took part in the 2010 operation to disperse the red-shirt protests voiced opposition to an amnesty bill. Such a law would only encourage more violent demonstrations in the future.

"People unhappy with the government will just take to the streets with no fear to the law," he said.

"The government should carefully consider this matter. Don't just think about benefits for certain groups of people."

Most of the arrested red-shirt protesters were involved in serious offences, such as arson, assault and rioting, he added.

The red shirts and their families strongly back an amnesty law. However, those surveyed by The Nation did not think the protest leaders should benefit from the law.

Somsri Sa-nguansri, wife of Kamla Chuenchom, a red-shirt protester detained for stealing government firearms, believes that clemency would help reduce anger on both sides of the conflict, which could lead to reconciliation.

Suspicion that the protest leaders of both sides would also benefit was a key obstacle to the effort to issue an amnesty law.

"So the leaders of all the political colours should declare that they don't want to be entitled to amnesty," she said.

Suda Rangkupan, coordinator of the January 29 Front red-shirt group, believes reconciliation would definitely be achieved if the amnesty bill is passed.

She blamed the political conflict on the 2006 coup and said the amnesty law should benefit people from both sides covering offences from the coup to the House dissolution in 2011.

However, the leaders of both sides should give up their right to amnesty in order to lessen the mutual distrust over the matter.

"Don't let this mistrust prevent those who deserve amnesty from getting justice," she said.

"Those are poor people who joined the protests to make their voices heard. They're not criminals." Tarit Pengdith, director-general of the Department of Special Investigation, said he was convinced that an amnesty law would be "a good thing for the country".

Most of the offences were not crimes and they stemmed from the political conflict.

"We should forgive and excuse all the parties so that our country will go forward."

Former senator Wanlop Tangkananurak supported amnesty for the ordinary protesters from all political colours, except the leaders and politicians in power at that time, those found guilty of corruption and violators of the lese majeste law.

An amnesty law could help some of the political enemies to reconcile, but the real problem would not be solved as long as the elite were still in conflict.

"The leaders and powerful people of both sides must step back to avoid confrontation. And they must denounce any act that could lead to conflict again," he said.

BUSINESS REACTION MIXED

Padermpop Songkoh, managing director of Kasikorn Securities, was unsure if such legislation could lead to reconciliation as expected. However, without any violent conflict, the economy would not be severely affected.

Thawatchai Hengprasert, head of the Federation of Thai Industries' northeastern chapter, expects the amnesty law to help ease the political tension. It was similar to the famous 66/2523 order issued by the Prem Tinsulanonda government in 1980, granting amnesty to communist insurgents and collaborators, which was credited for weakening communism in Thailand, he said.

-- The Nation 2013-02-18

[A Member]

Another major shock in the world of Thai politics, no consensus. The object of national harmony is a farce, it's all designed to get Thaksin back " legally " so he can bin his " out of politics " nonsense and answer the call from the nation to lead once again

[Roadman]

Another major shock in the world of Thai politics, no consensus. The object of national harmony is a farce, it's all designed to get Thaksin back " legally " so he can bin his " out of politics " nonsense and answer the call from the nation to lead once again

Thankfully the view of Former Senator Wanlop Tangkanurak is in a minority. That allows a strong arm Maosit group of the Ruling Party to be above the law as they wish with no consequence. Is he a friend, colleague or school chum of a Shinwatra? They think they can also sit there above the law as well.

I agree with Tui Sittisomwong. There were Reds there who were there for the right reason of trying to improve their families hopes in life, and were being body mass and rifle fodder. They would be better to hitch their wagon to their own horses if they ever wish to be heard in thai politics...it would take a few of them to work out that with corruption they are the stupid dumb ass at the bottom of the food chain who always pays but never gets to partake...here's yours 500 Bhat every 4 years when Thailand is a rich country. The Reds keep their own ignorant..one could dare to say farmed like Khwai? Those are the ones who amnesty should be applied to. Most of the rest are all criminals. And one in particular is not living in exile because of political conviction but plain old every day judicary rulings that he is a criminal and a fuguitive at that.

[AleG]

Somsri Sa-nguansri, wife of Kamla Chuenchom, a red-shirt protester detained for stealing government firearms, believes that clemency would help reduce anger on both sides of the conflict, which could lead to reconciliation.

Suspicion that the protest leaders of both sides would also benefit was a key obstacle to the effort to issue an amnesty law.

"So the leaders of all the political colours should declare that they don't want to be entitled to amnesty," she said.

Which is what Abhisit has said from the beginning, he and Suthep won't seek amnesty or avoid judicial process, and so did Yellow Shirt leaders. It's Thaksin's henchmen who want a clean slate for themselves.

Why can't the Red Shirts open up their eyes and see that, indeed, they are being used as hostages by those that claim to represent their best interests?

Oh, massive propaganda, that's why.

[alstaxi]

How about Thaksin does his jail time and the terrorists do theirs and stuff the amnesty dream in a dark hole.

[Robby nz]

Those who were just there whether they were conned into it, paid or believed in what they were doing comitted no crime so dont need amnesty.

Only those who did crimes like the the ladys husband who stole firearms ar the ones who would benefit and of course the brave leaders who stayed well in the background.

The ones who did the crimes should do the time.

No amnesty needed.

[Moruya]

Free Thaksin - with every new car

Free Thaksin - with every new house

Free Thaksin - with every tonne of rice

Free Thaksin - with every tablet PC

Free Thaksin - with every government policy

Free Thaksin - with every new legislation

I's a wonder there wasn't a free plastic effigy of him in every Christmas cracker and fortune cookie

[NongKhaiKid]

Somsri Sa-nguansri, wife of Kamla Chuenchom, a red-shirt protester detained for stealing government firearms, believes that clemency would help reduce anger on both sides of the conflict, which could lead to reconciliation.

Suspicion that the protest leaders of both sides would also benefit was a key obstacle to the effort to issue an amnesty law.

"So the leaders of all the political colours should declare that they don't want to be entitled to amnesty," she said.

Which is what Abhisit has said from the beginning, he and Suthep won't seek amnesty or avoid judicial process, and so did Yellow Shirt leaders. It's Thaksin's henchmen who want a clean slate for themselves.

Why can't the Red Shirts open up their eyes and see that, indeed, they are being used as hostages by those that claim to represent their best interests?

Oh, massive propaganda, that's why.

Years ago I discussed Thai education with an ex-girlfriend, a university graduate, as I was shocked at just how naive she, and as I was teaching at her old uni, my students were. Her explanation went to the root of the problem when she pointed out that the government and politicians in general did not want the populace to be well educated as they would be seen through and would not get away with all they do. She also explained Thai politicians etc. do not just expect to be believed, they demand it

[Fortunate1]

Do the crime, do the time. Come on, get real - this is the Land of Snarls.

[Noistar]

Another major shock in the world of Thai politics, no consensus. The object of national harmony is a farce, it's all designed to get Thaksin back " legally " so he can bin his " out of politics " nonsense and answer the call from the nation to lead once again

Thankfully the view of Former Senator Wanlop Tangkanurak is in a minority. That allows a strong arm Maosit group of the Ruling Party to be above the law as they wish with no consequence. Is he a friend, colleague or school chum of a Shinwatra? They think they can also sit there above the law as well.

I agree with Tui Sittisomwong. There were Reds there who were there for the right reason of trying to improve their families hopes in life, and were being body mass and rifle fodder. They would be better to hitch their wagon to their own horses if they ever wish to be heard in thai politics...it would take a few of them to work out that with corruption they are the stupid dumb ass at the bottom of the food chain who always pays but never gets to partake...here's yours 500 Bhat every 4 years when Thailand is a rich country. The Reds keep their own ignorant..one could dare to say farmed like Khwai? Those are the ones who amnesty should be applied to. Most of the rest are all criminals. And one in particular is not living in exile because of political conviction but plain old every day judicary rulings that he is a criminal and a fuguitive at that.

I hope you are not suggesting that the population of Northern Thailand didn't consider the content of the PTP manifesto before casting their educated vote. The fact that many official Thai documents indicate "signature or right thumb print", surely doesn't affect a person's ability to make a meaningful democratic vote.

After all, apologists, as well as the Government, are forever ramming down everybody's throats the Democratic Mandate.

If reconciliation relies on 'guidance', God help Thailand and its one party democracy

[muttley]

Somsri Sa-nguansri, wife of Kamla Chuenchom, a red-shirt protester detained for stealing government firearms, believes that clemency would help reduce anger on both sides of the conflict, which could lead to reconciliation.

Suspicion that the protest leaders of both sides would also benefit was a key obstacle to the effort to issue an amnesty law.

"So the leaders of all the political colours should declare that they don't want to be entitled to amnesty," she said.

Which is what Abhisit has said from the beginning, he and Suthep won't seek amnesty or avoid judicial process, and so did Yellow Shirt leaders. It's Thaksin's henchmen who want a clean slate for themselves.

Why can't the Red Shirts open up their eyes and see that, indeed, they are being used as hostages by those that claim to represent their best interests?

Oh, massive propaganda, that's why.

"Abhisit and Suthep won't seek amnesty" like the fine upstanding leaders they are.

That wouldn't be because they can't be prosecuted because of Section 17 of the Emergency Act, would it? Quite easy to make bs pronouncements when your ass is covered.

Section 17. A competent official and a person having identical powers and duties as a competent official under this Emergency Decree shall not be subject to civil, criminal or disciplinary liabilities arising from the performance of functions for the termination or prevention of an illegal act if such act was performed in good faith, non-discriminatory, and was not unreasonable in the circumstances or exceed the extent of necessity, but this does not preclude the right of a victim to seek compensation from a government agency under the law on liability for wrongful act of officials.

http://photo-journ.c.../#axzz2LH0RORbq

NB This is a copy of the Emergency Act enacted 2005. There is no reason to believe that the relevant section is not in the 2010 version which I cannot find ,yet. Considering its importance to the individuals concerned I feel it would be very likely written the same way.

Edited February 18, 2013 by muttley

[rubl]

Somsri Sa-nguansri, wife of Kamla Chuenchom, a red-shirt protester detained for stealing government firearms, believes that clemency would help reduce anger on both sides of the conflict, which could lead to reconciliation.

Suspicion that the protest leaders of both sides would also benefit was a key obstacle to the effort to issue an amnesty law.

"So the leaders of all the political colours should declare that they don't want to be entitled to amnesty," she said.

Which is what Abhisit has said from the beginning, he and Suthep won't seek amnesty or avoid judicial process, and so did Yellow Shirt leaders. It's Thaksin's henchmen who want a clean slate for themselves.

Why can't the Red Shirts open up their eyes and see that, indeed, they are being used as hostages by those that claim to represent their best interests?

Oh, massive propaganda, that's why.

"Abhisit and Suthep won't seek amnesty" like the fine upstanding leaders they are.

That wouldn't be because they can't be prosecuted because of Section 17 of the Emergency Act, would it? Quite easy to make bs pronouncements when your ass is covered.

Section 17. A competent official and a person having identical powers and duties as a competent official under this Emergency Decree shall not be subject to civil, criminal or disciplinary liabilities arising from the performance of functions for the termination or prevention of an illegal act if such act was performed in good faith, non-discriminatory, and was not unreasonable in the circumstances or exceed the extent of necessity, but this does not preclude the right of a victim to seek compensation from a government agency under the law on liability for wrongful act of officials.

http://photo-journ.c.../#axzz2LH0RORbq

NB This is a copy of the Emergency Act enacted 2005. There is no reason to believe that the relevant section is not in the 2010 version which I cannot find ,yet. Considering its importance to the individuals concerned I feel it would be very likely written the same way.

But, but, but, ... ... if that's so why did k. Tarit of the DSI bother to have k. 'kill me some' Abhisit charged, if he can't be prosecuted ? Why are we discussing amnesty for those who clearly do not need it?

Edited February 18, 2013 by rubl

[AleG]

Somsri Sa-nguansri, wife of Kamla Chuenchom, a red-shirt protester detained for stealing government firearms, believes that clemency would help reduce anger on both sides of the conflict, which could lead to reconciliation.

Suspicion that the protest leaders of both sides would also benefit was a key obstacle to the effort to issue an amnesty law.

"So the leaders of all the political colours should declare that they don't want to be entitled to amnesty," she said.

Which is what Abhisit has said from the beginning, he and Suthep won't seek amnesty or avoid judicial process, and so did Yellow Shirt leaders. It's Thaksin's henchmen who want a clean slate for themselves.

Why can't the Red Shirts open up their eyes and see that, indeed, they are being used as hostages by those that claim to represent their best interests?

Oh, massive propaganda, that's why.

"Abhisit and Suthep won't seek amnesty" like the fine upstanding leaders they are.

That wouldn't be because they can't be prosecuted because of Section 17 of the Emergency Act, would it? Quite easy to make bs pronouncements when your ass is covered.

Section 17. A competent official and a person having identical powers and duties as a competent official under this Emergency Decree shall not be subject to civil, criminal or disciplinary liabilities arising from the performance of functions for the termination or prevention of an illegal act if such act was performed in good faith, non-discriminatory, and was not unreasonable in the circumstances or exceed the extent of necessity, but this does not preclude the right of a victim to seek compensation from a government agency under the law on liability for wrongful act of officials.

http://photo-journ.c.../#axzz2LH0RORbq

NB This is a copy of the Emergency Act enacted 2005. There is no reason to believe that the relevant section is not in the 2010 version which I cannot find ,yet. Considering its importance to the individuals concerned I feel it would be very likely written the same way.

So where in that article does it say that Abhisit and Suthep can't be prosecuted?

Maybe it's my poor reading skills, but it seems to say:

"Section 17. A competent official and a person having identical powers and duties as a competent official under this Emergency Decree shall not be subject to civil, criminal or disciplinary liabilities arising from the performance of functions for the termination or prevention of an illegal act if such act was performed in good faith, non-discriminatory, and was not unreasonable in the circumstances or exceed the extent of necessity, but this does not preclude the right of a victim to seek compensation from a government agency under the law on liability for wrongful act of officials."

This clearly says that they are on the clean as long as their actions were proper, which I presume is something a court of law would/should decide, it their actions were to be found improper then they wouldn't be covered by this Section 17.

As a clear demonstration of why your argument is... let's say unconvincing, is the charges of attempted murder the DSI lobbed at Abhisit and Suthep, if as you argue they can't be prosecuted for the actions they took while the ED was in action then A ) why bother filling the charges?, B ) why bother even showing up to hear the charges?

The answer is that they can be prosecuted and if it would be shown that they didn't act within the parameters following the bolded if in the quoted text, then they can "be subject to civil, criminal or disciplinary liabilities".

Seriously, learn to read properly, you keep arguing things that are in complete opposition to what you quote.