Fragmentation among red shirts highlighted by amnesty debate

[webfact]

Fragmentation Among Red shirts Highlighted By Amnesty Debate

BANGKOK: -- The question about which version of amnesty bill should be adopted by the Parliament is exposing the different ideological lines among the Redshirts movements.

Although the Redshirts have long been known as loose, fragmented groups - ranging from rural supporters of the former charismatic leader Thaksin Shinawatra and veteran politicians to urban intellectuals who push for a more liberal political system - the recent debate on the amnesty bill is particularly polarising.

When Pheu Thai Party campaigned for the election in early 2011, they promised dual efforts on granting amnesty to Redshirts protesters that are still detained for their alleged crimes during the 2010 protests and a legal prosecution of those responsible for the crackdown which left more than 90 people dead, mostly civilians.

After Ms. Yingluck Shinawatra took the helm of the government, however, the efforts turned out to be somewhat vague - and disappointing for some of her supporters.

Many political prisoners remained in jail, and legal action against the authorities at the time of the 2011 crackdown is limited to former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his former Deputy PM Suthep Thaugsuban, while the military are virtually exempted from the prosecution.

The decision not to hold the security forces accountable for their role in the crackdown appears in line with the current government′s soft approach to the military, perhaps to convince the powerful armed forces that the elected government is no threat to them and there is no need to repeat the 2006 military coup which ousted Ms. Yingluck′s brother, Thaksin Shinawatra.

The amnesty bill proposed by Mr. Worachai Hema, an MP of Pheu Thai Party, reflects that attitude. It promises amnesty to all protesters charged with crimes related to the 2010 unrest and members of the security forces. The fates of Mr. Abhisit and Mr. Suthep are not included in the bill, which means the legal case against them would continue.

Former Deputy PM Chalerm Yoobamrung went even further, proposing an amnesty bill that encompassed all sides involved in political crisis since 2006. The get-out-of-jail card extends to Mr. Abhisit and Mr. Thaksin, who was convicted in absentia of corruption charge in 2007 (he insisted it was politically-motivated charge).

Apparently frustrated by the administration′s reluctance to go after the military, group of family members of civilians killed during the military operation that ended the Redshirts mass protests in 2010 came up with their own draft of amnesty bill last week.

The group, calling itself ′Families of 2010 Martyrs′, was represented by Ms. Payao Akhard and Mr. Pansak Srithep, who each lost a child in the closing days of the 2010 crackdown - allegedly - at the hands of the military.

The ′Victims Families′ version of the bill would only give amnesty to protesters who are not charged with serious crimes such as arson attacks on private properties (those who attacked state properties are exempted out of reasoning that they were "expressing political statement"), assaults on members of the public or security forces, and looting.

The amnesty would also only cover soldiers who "did not employ unnecessary violence". That means a soldier who shot dead an unarmed protester, even when operating under authorisation from the higher chain of command, would still be put on trial for murder-related charges along with his commanding officers.

Prominent Pheu Thai politicians and Redshirts leaders, such as Mr. Weng Tojirakarn, Mr. Sombat Boon-ngarmanong, and Ms. Suda Rangupan, have accused Ms. Payao and Mr. Pansak of trying to slow down the process to pass amnesty bill by picking fight with the powerful military.

According to those opposed to the ′Victims Families′ amnesty bill, the effort to free detained Redshirts protesters should be a priority over the need to prosecute the security forces. They expressed their fear that the military would never allow Ms. Yingluck′s government to pass such a bill, ruining the chance of any little gain there might be altogether, and might even launch a military coup in retaliation.

Some Redshirts also openly questioned the motives of Ms. Payao and Mr. Pansak, indirectly accusing them of being collaborators with the rival Democrat Party which, strangely enough, had expressed its support for the ′Victims Families′ amnesty bill. [read more...]

Full story: http://www.khaosod.co.th/en/view_newsonline.php?newsid=TVRNM05EWTFPRFV6TVE9PQ==

-- KHAOSOD English 2013-07-25

[waza]

The reality is the role of the redshirts has been sidelined, there is no real opposition for this agitation group to violently protest and the RTP and their exploding tear gas shells are ready to control any mass opposition protests. Furthermore, if the proposed anti-coup laws come into effect and the defence minister has the power to direct troops to oppose any coupists, then they will be written off completely. Hopefully, then the reds will see that all along that at best they were just tools to be used and discarded by their hero Thaksin and his lickspittle red leaders and at worst they were just cannon fodder.

Edited July 25, 2013 by waza

[Robby nz]

Seems to me that the responsibility for all the deaths and destruction should be laid at the door od those who created the situation.

Like those who organized and funded the whole riots.

Not those who reacted to a situation not of their own making as they were required to do by law.

However the lie as to who was responsible for the deaths has been told over and over again so many times that even those who are telling it now believe it.

But it is the Govt of those who staged the riots who are in power so they can do whatever they like because they were elected.

[OzMick]

Arson of private property is a serious crime, but arson of government buildings is legitimate political expression. Welcome to red shirt logic, heavily influenced by self interest.

[RickBradford]

This is unfair -- you can't ask Red Shirts to choose between alternatives, since the difference between Yes and No confuses them.

As with the report during their 2010 rampage in Bangkok when the army asked a 7-11 owner how much stock had been looted, and he replied: "They took everything -- except the books."

[Tatsujin]

Arson of private property is a serious crime, but arson of government buildings is legitimate political expression. Welcome to red shirt logic, heavily influenced by self interest.

Red shirt/Thaksin/Govt logic is very simple. We can do whatever the hell we want, but everyone else has to do as we say regardless of what the law actually says.

[stoli]

Seems to me that the responsibility for all the deaths and destruction should be laid at the door od those who created the situation.

Like those who organized and funded the whole riots.

Not those who reacted to a situation not of their own making as they were required to do by law.

However the lie as to who was responsible for the deaths has been told over and over again so many times that even those who are telling it now believe it.

But it is the Govt of those who staged the riots who are in power so they can do whatever they like because they were elected.

Even in the U.S. the media calls these radicals actions just "Civil Disobedience Demonstrators", not criminals like they really are. Remember when breaking the law meant breaking the law?

[kimamey]

Does this suggest that the government is a puppet of the military?