Understanding The Proposed Amnesty Bill

[ice1318]

This is one of those subjects were it's embarrassing to admit that you don't understand so when it comes up I just nod and make the right noises.

Seems to me that the Bill proposes to free all those currently held pending trial in relation to political violence and disorder from 19 September 2006 to 10 May 2011.

Doubtless the vast majority of those locked up are innocent with a small majority being responsible for inflicting the physical violence.

I presume that the issue is that freeing everyone isn't acceptable to a number of people. The guilty shouldn't be allowed to walk away unpunished. Keep all those suspected locked up until things become clear. That would be understandable for a number of months. The problem being that the authorities haven't the evidence to differentiate as to who did what and if they don't have that evidence now, some 2 years on, they're unlikely to ever have it. So why not be honest, recognize the situation, accept it ain't going to change and proceed with the Bill.

I'm sure that there are those who would disagree, especially those personally affected.

One thing I most definitely don't understand is how Thaksin enters into the equation. This is a Bill relating to political violence and / or disorder. His convictions, in absentia, were of a financial nature.If I've not followed developments with the Bill (entirely possible as I'm often abroad) and it now has a ridiculously broad scope ie anyone guilty of a political offence or a charge that he or she claims to be politically motivated then that makes sense.

Over to you.

[sbk]

Not really Isaan related, moving to General

[GuestHouse]

The Governmenr could very easily pass an amnesty bill freeing those who have been convicted in a court of law AND who have served time in gaol. Such an amnesty would receive broad support from all sides.

The difficulty comes when the Government profess to want to pass an amnesty which would wipe the slate clean for people convicted in a court of law but who have gone on the run to avoid going to gaol.

Note: Spending time as a convict behind bars precludes all future political appointments (and has a few loss of big face impacts).

The term 'government professes to' is applicable where the government have a majority in the house and could, but do not, pass the amnesty law their puppet master wants. His frustration over this is vented occasionally - but look, what was the first political visit made by his sister and with whom did she feel it necessary to have a wee chat so soon after election victory?

So the people convicted will remain behind bars, pawns to be played in a game in which one man wants to stay out of prison while an undisclosed number of people (clearly many in his own camp) are intent on keeping him out of Thailand.

Edited April 26, 2013 by GuestHouse

[whybother]

Some of the proposed bills (and there are about 10 versions) suggest that any "political" convictions that came about through the coup should also be expunged (is that the right word?).

In relation to Thaksin, that means any conviction that came about through an investigation by a group created by the coup generals should be dropped. Even if it was the courts and judges that existed before the coup that made the conviction, because the evidence was gathered by a coup created group, the conviction gets dropped.

In relation to red shirts, most of the versions will give them amnesty if they were just there, and not doing anything. Some versions will also give amnesty to people convicted of burning down provincial buildings. Some versions will give amnesty to the leaders that incited the protesters to do everything that they did.

[Robby nz]

There are so many different versions and so little detail given of any of them that it is impossible to understand, but then that's probably how its supposed to be.

So far we don't seem to have been told which version or combination of versions is favored and I wonder if the opposition has been given any more info than the rest of us.

Are there any who were just there, be they Yellow or red shirted, and committed no specific crime other than being there actually in jail?

I understood that all those who have been convicted and jailed have been convicted of specific crimes like burning buildings.

I suspect there will be others who are have still to have charges heard against them who are in jail on remand because the powers that be don't think them important enough to post bail for.

There are of course the leaders who have the cash, position in parliament or backing to be able to post bail who are still walking around free, those are the ones who should be in jail for causing all the trouble in the first place.

[Stradavarius37]

Who cares? Doesn't affect you one little bit...