EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEWS
Bill 'would cover basic protesters on both sides'
Opas Boonlom
The Nation


Payo

PAYAO AKAHAD, mother of Kamolked Akahad - a paramedic shot and killed at Wat Pathum Wanaram on May 19, 2010 - and Punsak Srithep, father of 17-year-old Samapun ('Cher'), who was killed in crossfire on May 15, 2010, were instrumental in pushing for the so-called "Bill proposed by relatives of the victims in the April-May 2010 crackdown".

In excerpts below, the two answer some questions about the bill:

Q : This version of the proposed amnesty bill covers minor offences such as those facing fines or prison terms of no more than two years. If red shirts were penalised for such offences, they would be redundant, since more than two years have elapsed. Why the need?

Payao: Although those facing light punishment may have all served their terms, there's a thousand or so people still in hiding and wanted under the emergency decree. If the amnesty bill is passed, they can resume a normal life.

Q : Will members of the anti-Thaksin People’s Alliance for democracy (PAD) benefit from this bill too?



Payao: Except for their leaders, yes - including those who shut down Suvarnabhumi airport. This bill covers people who protested on all sides. The stress is on ordinary protesters. As far as I am aware, some PAD protesters who were not granted bail are still in prison.

Q : What about those sentenced for arson at various provincial halls? Will they be granted amnesty too?



Historically, past political protests have involved the burning of state buildings that symbolise the power of the government and those responsible received amnesty. Our version covers those involved in arson too.

Q : The bill doesn’t cover those who intentionally harmed others, or set fire to private property. Will that give the red shirts a bad name?

Payao: We wrote it this way because there have been rumours about "men-in-black" using weapons or burning down private property. We do not believe they were red shirts so they won't be effected.

Q What about granting amnesty to officers who did not resort to excessive force? Will that lead to amnesty for Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaungsubhan too?

Payao: According to the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES), if officers fire a shot it must be aimed below the knee [of the target]. Those firing above that level will not be covered by the amnesty. Abhisit and Suthep will not be covered, because their actions led to the deaths of 20 people at Kok Wua Intersection. They didn't order soldiers to cease firing and allowed the practice to continue until May 2010. That was clearly an act of aggression.

Q Will the amnesty cover thos who violated the lease majeste law too?

Punsak: Article 3 (3) of the bill covers those who violated laws affecting national security in relation to political events that occurred between September 19, 2010 and May 9, 2010. This means that those who violated the lese majeste law fall into that category too. Initially, it wasn't the intention of the drafters to grant amnesty to those accused under the lese majeste law. At the time, we were only thinking about bystanders who watched the burning of provincial halls, but were arrested and prosecuted by mistake … The courts will have the final decision in each case.

-- The Nation 2013-07-22

This proposal has too many good intentions and not enough for Thaksin to ever succeed considering who is in power.

This proposal has too many good intentions and not enough for Thaksin to ever succeed considering who is in power.

It's a pity because I think this would be supported by the Democrats.

This proposal has too many good intentions and not enough for Thaksin to ever succeed considering who is in power.

It's a pity because I think this would be supported by the Democrats.

They have already announced they support it.

But why is ANYONE getting amnesty for breaking the law? You do the crime, you do the time. Or is accountability and responsibility a foreign concept here? Shit, what am I talking about, of course it is.

This proposal has too many good intentions and not enough for Thaksin to ever succeed considering who is in power.

It's a pity because I think this would be supported by the Democrats.

They have already announced they support it.

I did think they had but I always try to be careful on here in case I've read something that isn't true. At least you've confirmed my thoughts.

But why is ANYONE getting amnesty for breaking the law? You do the crime, you do the time. Or is accountability and responsibility a foreign concept here? Shit, what am I talking about, of course it is.

I think this would be a special case. Her proposal comes closer to reconciliation than any other proposal.

Like she said some of the ones still in jail if tried right away would could have been found guilty and done their time and be out now. This is one of those many times where legal and Justice are two completely different things.

As for burning down civic buildings they should not receive amnesty it is just putting the seal of approval on it. Why not just say it is OK to reach into a tax payers private wallet and take money out of it.

Also she tends to blame some of the red shirt actions in the black shirts and they will be subject for prosacution.

In other words the red shirts should not have to take responsibility for all their actions. Just say Oh it was this guy in a black shirt.

Last but most important why was Thaksin not mentioned. Is there to be special consideration to be given to those who pay for and make phone calls urging people to break the law. She mentions Abhist who was just doing his job why not Thaksin?

Off topic post has been removed, this relates to the events in 2010, trying to drag Thaksin into the equation is off topic.