BURNING ISSUE
Clouds of doubt over Worachai's amnesty bill
Hataikarn Treesuwan
The Nation



BANGKOK: -- THE FUTURE of the amnesty bill proposed by a group of government MPs appears to be gloomy, especially since it was linked to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and seen as providing him an opportunity to return home.

The government is pushing for the bill sponsored by Pheu Thai MP Worachai Hema and has scheduled debate on it to start on Wednesday. Owing to Pheu Thai's majority in the House, the bill should be passed quickly unless it meets strong resistance.

But strong resistance is very possible because opposition and anti-government groups believe the bill not only aims to pardon those detained for participating in political riots, but also aims to help Thaksin return home as a free man. Indeed, the Democrat Party has threatened to launch a campaign to oust the government if the bill passes a third reading.

Meanwhile, renowned lawyer Ukrit Mongkolnavin has warned Pheu Thai Party that Worachai's bill faces the risk of being deemed unconstitutional. Ukrit issued the warning through the ruling party's strategic committee, which is led by former premier Somchai Wongsawat.

The bill's Section 3 seeks to grant amnesty to people of all political affiliations, with the exception of protest leaders and those in authority. Those excluded might petition with the Constitutional Court on grounds that the bill discriminates against them, Ukrit warned.

Law experts agree that the bill's future does not appear at all rosy. Sukhumpong Ngonkham - a member of Law Reform Commission, founded under then-PM Abhisit Vejjajiva's administration - said it would take at least four to five months for the amnesty bill to become law.

However, the bill could run into obstacles at every stage. For instance, the Senate might amend the draft passed by the Lower House and then proceed to set up a joint committee to vet the amended bill. This process has no time limit.

Sukhumpong said that as Pheu Thai Party does not have majority control in Parliament, the Senate could put the bill on hold until the current House is dissolved. This would result in it becoming void unless the next government reaffirms it within 60 days of the formation of a new parliament. Many draft laws have become void under similar circumstances.

Parliamentarians could also petition the Constitutional Court if they believe some points in the bill contravene the charter.

"This does not mean that convicted protesters will be released immediately after the House votes to pass the bill in the first reading. The bill could run into problems at any time during the process," he noted.

An adviser of coalition whip Udomdet Ratanasathien said Worachai's bill contained a discriminatory provision that could violate Article 30 of the Constitution. The bill states that only people who joined rallies would be pardoned, but other amnesty bills cover everybody involved in certain events.

"The vetting committee needs to identify those who should be granted amnesty under the law," Udomdet, a Pheu Thai MP from Nonthaburi, said. He called on MPs to offer their views in a bid to clearly define the "protest leaders" who will not be eligible for amnesty.

Udomdet said he was concerned about the opposition's threat to fight "every word" of the bill, which would slow down the reading. Democrat politicians also threatened to bring the bill to the Constitutional Court's attention.

Pheu Thai MP Apiwan Wiriyachai, a former deputy House speaker, said the vetting committee could alter the bill, adding that Pheu Thai MPs on the panel may agree to include parts of the amnesty bill proposed by Ukrit. The lawyer' bill seeks an amnesty for everybody involved in political conflicts between September 19, 2006 and May 10, 2010, and Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has advised the Council of State to look into the draft.

"I agree with Ukrit's bill, but we chose not to push it through the House because people think it aims to whitewash Thaksin's wrongdoings," he said.

Meanwhile, other coalition parties do not agree with altering any part of Worachai's bill. Chart Thai Pattana Party chief adviser Banharn Silpa-archa said coalition partners supported the bill, but were against changing the original draft.

According to a key coalition leader, Pheu Thai leaders told a closed-door meeting of coalition parties on July 30 they would not alter the bill. "We expect them to keep that promise," the source said. "If Pheu Thai fails to do so, not only will the bill fail, but the government will also collapse."

Deputy Prime Minister Phongthep Thepkanjana said if the bill becomes law, the government does not need to come up with an exact list on who will benefit from the legislation.

He said state officials had a set rule of conduct on what should be done regarding this matter. The police would need to drop their inquiries, while public prosecutors would have to drop cases forwarded by police and withdraw those already submitted to court. The court would also order that cases being tried be withdrawn, while the Corrections Department would release detained protesters. But he said he did not know how long this process would take.


-- The Nation 2013-08-05

" The bill should be passed quickly unless it meets strong resistance " and just who will define " strong resistance " as this government has a very Nelsonian deaf ear as well as eye.

If anti-bill protesters take to the streets they will be countered by the reds and will give the government the room for the spin it needs to say " resistance Yes, strong No ".

They know they are playing with fire but getting him back is more important.

" The bill should be passed quickly unless it meets strong resistance " and just who will define " strong resistance " as this government has a very Nelsonian deaf ear as well as eye.

If anti-bill protesters take to the streets they will be countered by the reds and will give the government the room for the spin it needs to say " resistance Yes, strong No ".

They know they are playing with fire but getting him back is more important.

The bill could easily pass.

Just exclude Thaksin from benefitting from it.

NO problem, all solved.

Let them have there vote, it still isn't law as stated in the article, then they can tell the big man we did our best but all those other Thais who hate you so much are standing in the way home.

" The bill should be passed quickly unless it meets strong resistance " and just who will define " strong resistance " as this government has a very Nelsonian deaf ear as well as eye.

If anti-bill protesters take to the streets they will be countered by the reds and will give the government the room for the spin it needs to say " resistance Yes, strong No ".

They know they are playing with fire but getting him back is more important.

The bill could easily pass.

Just exclude Thaksin from benefitting from it.

NO problem, all solved.

No problem?????????

The reason of the bill is to let Thaksin return. If you exclude him than the bill is for what?

" The bill should be passed quickly unless it meets strong resistance " and just who will define " strong resistance " as this government has a very Nelsonian deaf ear as well as eye.

If anti-bill protesters take to the streets they will be countered by the reds and will give the government the room for the spin it needs to say " resistance Yes, strong No ".

They know they are playing with fire but getting him back is more important.

The bill could easily pass.

Just exclude Thaksin from benefitting from it.

NO problem, all solved.

No problem?????????

The reason of the bill is to let Thaksin return. If you exclude him than the bill is for what?

And that's exactly Zpete's point. If the Amnesty is really, honestly for the Thai people, exclude Thaksin; but we know the Government aren't doing it for the people or the red shirts, they don't give one monkeys (though the Thaksin supporters blindly believe they do); so as Zpete says, exclude Thaksin and then see really how much they really care about this bill and the people.

We all know the answer to that.

" The bill should be passed quickly unless it meets strong resistance " and just who will define " strong resistance " as this government has a very Nelsonian deaf ear as well as eye.

If anti-bill protesters take to the streets they will be countered by the reds and will give the government the room for the spin it needs to say " resistance Yes, strong No ".

They know they are playing with fire but getting him back is more important.

The bill could easily pass.

Just exclude Thaksin from benefitting from it.

NO problem, all solved.

No problem?????????

The reason of the bill is to let Thaksin return. If you exclude him than the bill is for what?

And that's exactly Zpete's point. If the Amnesty is really, honestly for the Thai people, exclude Thaksin; but we know the Government aren't doing it for the people or the red shirts, they don't give one monkeys (though the Thaksin supporters blindly believe they do); so as Zpete says, exclude Thaksin and then see really how much they really care about this bill and the people.

We all know the answer to that.

i'm quite sure if he unthinkable happens and Mt. T has to be excluded from the bill it would be off the agenda fast with more " important " issues to debate. Suitable BS would be fed to the masses and so many of them would believe it, mind you the man is not to be underestimated and would stir it up through his most ardent followers. This whole issue is a nightmare.

This bill and any other bill that would allow Thaksin to come home will just deepen the divide in the country. If he is allowed to come home his opponents will take to the streets. If he is not allowed to come home the red shirts will take to the streets. It is a lose lose situation. The only reasonable bill was the one proposed by the people who had relatives killed in the attempted coup. Even the Democrats back that one and it would still allow the PTP to try Abhist for murder.

I was wondering what would happen if the King refused to sign the bill after all it is one of the steps in the legalization of the bill.

Mods if you feel that question is not allowed feel free to delete it.

Queen Victoria refused to sign a Bill which would have made lesbian acts illegal. She enjoyed her sessions with Albert so much that she refused to believe that a woman could desire another woman.

Perhaps His Majesty might refuse on the grounds that in doing so he would be the architect of countrywide turmoil.

Have just heard on IN Channel news that Worachai is willing to withdraw his bill if the Dems accept amnesty by decree which would only cover protesters other than those involved in serious crime OR Mr. T. He added he had not discussed this with PTP leadership !

Given the interview with Mr. T's brother in law and how he got around Thaksin's role and past court cases where serious crimes were downplayed I doubt the Democrats will rush into agreement.

This bill and any other bill that would allow Thaksin to come home will just deepen the divide in the country. If he is allowed to come home his opponents will take to the streets. If he is not allowed to come home the red shirts will take to the streets. It is a lose lose situation. The only reasonable bill was the one proposed by the people who had relatives killed in the attempted coup. Even the Democrats back that one and it would still allow the PTP to try Abhist for murder.

I was wondering what would happen if the King refused to sign the bill after all it is one of the steps in the legalization of the bill.

Mods if you feel that question is not allowed feel free to delete it.

Agree entirely HD. As I keep on saying, this dreadful, misguided bill has all the makings of civil war amongst the lower echelons of the two factions, and yet, the PTP choose to ignore this ... although, at their peril.

Abhisit's support for the 'people's bill' is a major obstacle to Worachai's bill, essentially because it demonstrates that Abhisit is prepared to be excluded from the conditions, and therefore, so should Thaksin. It is also clear that the red shirts would gain far more from the people's bill as opposed to the "Bring Thaksin Home" bill.

I would think that the red shirts should be fully aware that if the PTP continue to ignore their bill, they are essentially being marginalised by the very people to whom they have given such strong support since they first appeared on the political stage. What further proof do they need that they have been so blatantly betrayed by their leader, and that the only thing that matters is getting him back into Thailand.

If there was any sense at all in any of this, the PTP would drop their divisive and potentially dangerous adherence to Worachai's bill; but of course there isn't an ounce of sense amongst the whole bunch of them...!

" The bill should be passed quickly unless it meets strong resistance " and just who will define " strong resistance " as this government has a very Nelsonian deaf ear as well as eye.

If anti-bill protesters take to the streets they will be countered by the reds and will give the government the room for the spin it needs to say " resistance Yes, strong No ".

They know they are playing with fire but getting him back is more important.

The bill could easily pass.

Just exclude Thaksin from benefitting from it.

NO problem, all solved.

they must also exclude all red-shirt elites. If they pass the bill to void their own crimes, the problem remains.

Have just heard on IN Channel news that Worachai is willing to withdraw his bill if the Dems accept amnesty by decree which would only cover protesters other than those involved in serious crime OR Mr. T. He added he had not discussed this with PTP leadership !

Given the interview with Mr. T's brother in law and how he got around Thaksin's role and past court cases where serious crimes were downplayed I doubt the Democrats will rush into agreement.

I doubt that - not your post - he is 'willing' to withdraw his bill. Even if he does, there are other amnesty bills all ready for the go-ahead.

What IN Channel is saying in effect that Worachai would accept a bill which corresponds to the 'People's Bill' which has already been accepted by the Democrats. Just doesn't add up.

Have just heard on IN Channel news that Worachai is willing to withdraw his bill if the Dems accept amnesty by decree which would only cover protesters other than those involved in serious crime OR Mr. T. He added he had not discussed this with PTP leadership !

Given the interview with Mr. T's brother in law and how he got around Thaksin's role and past court cases where serious crimes were downplayed I doubt the Democrats will rush into agreement.

I doubt that - not your post - he is 'willing' to withdraw his bill. Even if he does, there are other amnesty bills all ready for the go-ahead.

What IN Channel is saying in effect that Worachai would accept a bill which corresponds to the 'People's Bill' which has already been accepted by the Democrats. Just doesn't add up.

'm not sure about about how the bills out there would work but if amnesty by decree was accepted it would give PTP enough room to drive the proverbial coach and horses through the situation and keep making it up as they went along.

I don't believe him either as nothing is simple or easy with this government and you have to smell " set up " if the Dems are stupid enough to fall for it.

Just received a post from The post SMS service saying the PTP whips refuse to withdraw the bill. here we go

Have just heard on IN Channel news that Worachai is willing to withdraw his bill if the Dems accept amnesty by decree which would only cover protesters other than those involved in serious crime OR Mr. T. He added he had not discussed this with PTP leadership !

Given the interview with Mr. T's brother in law and how he got around Thaksin's role and past court cases where serious crimes were downplayed I doubt the Democrats will rush into agreement.

I doubt that - not your post - he is 'willing' to withdraw his bill. Even if he does, there are other amnesty bills all ready for the go-ahead.

What IN Channel is saying in effect that Worachai would accept a bill which corresponds to the 'People's Bill' which has already been accepted by the Democrats. Just doesn't add up.

'm not sure about about how the bills out there would work but if amnesty by decree was accepted it would give PTP enough room to drive the proverbial coach and horses through the situation and keep making it up as they went along.

I don't believe him either as nothing is simple or easy with this government and you have to smell " set up " if the Dems are stupid enough to fall for it.

Yes.

Amnesty by decree was discussed in the tape of the (alleged) conversation between Thaksin & Yutthasak which mentioned some of the ways that Thaksin can be included. I doubt very much that the Dems would agree to a decree having no doubt listened & learned from the tape.

In the graphic, they missed out one bullet point in December...." Ex-Fugitive EX-PM Thaksin returns to Thailand, as the long lost Messiah"

After all this is what this is all about

Edited August 5, 201312 yr by Soutpeel

BURNING ISSUE

Clouds of doubt over Worachai's amnesty bill

Not too sure on the Clouds of Doubt bit...but I do think Stormy Weather is heading our way

No problem?????????

The reason of the bill is to let Thaksin return. If you exclude him than the bill is for what?

To placate the red shirts. “The government risks losing Red Shirts’ support if they ignore the Worachai bill,” she said in an interview. “Its popularity will drop in this important constituency.” http://www.irrawaddy.org/archives/41042

No problem?????????

The reason of the bill is to let Thaksin return. If you exclude him than the bill is for what?

To placate the red shirts. “The government risks losing Red Shirts’ support if they ignore the Worachai bill,” she said in an interview. “Its popularity will drop in this important constituency.” http://www.irrawaddy.org/archives/41042

till now they never cared about them. Maybe some of the red shirts find out that they are abused...possible

If you will all (herein) stop trying to scare the pants off of the entire Thai population and step up to the democratic process with the enthusian and integrity of a professional, all be well in Thailand, whatever the outcome of the Worachai Bill. Just as all would have been, if your problem with Taksin Shinawatra is factural and you had sought his impeachment.

The paper that may not be mentioned is reporting that Chalerm's private members bill will be on tomorrow's agenda...