Amnesty Bill ignites widespread debate in Thai society
By English News

BANGKOK, Oct 22 – Parliamentary deliberation of Thailand's controversial Amnesty Bill has triggered heated public debate and criticism which could lead to a political showdown soon.

The opposition Democrat Party, which has strongly opposed the bill since its first reading, has vowed to join several activist groups in staging a mass protest against the bill.

They claimed that the Amnesty Bill would relieve ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra of any responsibility for his legal offences.

The Democrat Party has contemplated anti-government gatherings with several hardline groups early next month.

Samart Kaewmeechai, chairman of the House committee scrutinising the Amnesty Bill, said it was impossible to please everybody but the committee strictly followed the principle of amnesty and equality under the law.

He said Mr Thaksin would be pardoned only for his involvement in criminal cases during the latest coup, but the bill would not entitle him to a return of his seized assets.

He claimed that the scrutinised bill was aimed at political reconciliation and finding a resolution to the country’s long-standing conflicts.

Mr Samart said those proposing changes to the original bill would be invited to give their explanations on Thursday and the scrutinised Amnesty Bill should be submitted to the House of Representatives for the second reading early next month.

Prompong Nopparit, spokesman of the ruling Pheu Thai Party, said opponents of the Amnesty Bill who planned a mass rally next month were the same old activist groups who put the blame on former prime minister Thaksin.

“I can reassure that ex-premier Thaksin is neither involved in the Amnesty Bill nor the move to return his confiscated assets,” he said. “Some people are trying to trigger political conflicts with the desire to topple the government.”

He called on the opposition party to fight against the Amnesty Bill in Parliament instead of engaging in road-side political activity and using people as their political tool.

Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said he would fight head-on against pardoning those involved in corruption, adding that the House scrutiny committee was attempting to speed up the meeting so that some MPs would not make it.

Tida Thavornseth, leader of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), the Red Shirt group, said the UDD advocated the original Amnesty Bill, proposed by Pheu Thai MP Vorachai Hema, and opposed the version agreed by the House scrutiny committee.

She said the UDD would not rally at the moment but would await Parliament’s resolution on the issue.

“We agree with amnesty for the people, but not for those who ordered the crackdown (on people). We disagree with any move to topple the government,” she said.

Interior Minister Charupong Ruangsuwan has instructed provincial governors and district officers nationwide to create understanding among people on the Amnesty Bill.

He said he was confident the political situation would be controllable. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2013-10-22

"He called on the opposition party to fight in Parliament instead of engaging in road-side political activity and using people as their political tool"

Short memory???

What debate?

Am I missing something?

Red shirts not against amnesty for Thaksin, but opposed to absolving of Abhisit, Suthep: Pheu Thai deputy spokesman

BANGKOK: -- Pheu Thai deputy spokesman Anusorn Iamsa-ard said Tuesday that Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjjajiva should not waste his time trying to drive wedge between the red-shirt people and former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra regarding to the amnesty bill.

Anusorn said the red-shirt people were opposed to the amendment of the amnesty bill to grant blanket amnesty to all people because they did not want to see former prime minister Abhisit and former deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban absolved for the crackdowns on red-shirt protesters.

Anusorn said the red shirts were not opposed to amnesty for Thaksin as Abhhisit had claimed.

-- The Nation 2013-10-22

Nattawut disagrees with amended amnesty bill

BANGKOK: -- Deputy Commerce Minister Nattawut Saikuar, a red-shirt leader, Tuesday expressed his disagreement to the version of amnesty bill that would provide blanket amnesty to protest leaders and leaders of the previous government.

Nattawut said he did not want to be benefited by the bill and he wanted the leaders of the previous government to be tried in court for ordered the crackdowns on the demonstrators.

He said he wanted court cases against the previous government to set precedence for future government not to use force to suppress the people.

-- The Nation 2013-10-22

He said Mr Thaksin would be pardoned only for his involvement in criminal cases during the latest coup, but the bill would not entitle him to a return of his seized assets.

He claimed that the scrutinised bill was aimed at political reconciliation and finding a resolution to the country’s long-standing conflicts.

With that being the case can it be explained how involvement in a criminal matter can be pardoned in what is claimed to be political pardon agenda?

This puppet government indeed seem to have got its strings somewhat tangled.

Liars need to have good memories , it would seem as if the P.T.P. puppets are indeed suffering from the onset of the Alzheimer affliction thus memory recall is somewhat distorted concerning the aims of this bill and what has been said and what is being said and done to who and why for what

Edited October 22, 201312 yr by siampolee

Red shirts not against amnesty for Thaksin, but opposed to absolving of Abhisit, Suthep: Pheu Thai deputy spokesman

BANGKOK: -- Pheu Thai deputy spokesman Anusorn Iamsa-ard said Tuesday that Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjjajiva should not waste his time trying to drive wedge between the red-shirt people and former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra regarding to the amnesty bill.

Anusorn said the red-shirt people were opposed to the amendment of the amnesty bill to grant blanket amnesty to all people because they did not want to see former prime minister Abhisit and former deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban absolved for the crackdowns on red-shirt protesters.

Anusorn said the red shirts were not opposed to amnesty for Thaksin as Abhhisit had claimed.

-- The Nation 2013-10-22

Of course they aren't opposed to amnesty for Thaksin ! This WHOLE bill has been about NOTHING but trying to give him amnesty !

And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if, immediately after giving Thaksin amnesty, if they decided the bill was a bad idea and voted to rescind it (which would also prevent anyone else from gaining any benefit from it of course).

It is so blatantly obvious what they are trying to do and why, but they can't admit it of course. This way they can pretend that it is for some lofty ideal, knowing full well it's complete BS.

It just gets worse and worse. The double standards, hypocrisy and out and out lies being told now are unbelievable.

“I can reassure that ex-premier Thaksin is neither involved in the Amnesty Bill nor the move to return his confiscated assets,” he said. “Some people are trying to trigger political conflicts with the desire to topple the government.”

What a load of crap, Thaksin runs the whole show. As for the desire to topple the government, big mistake, let these goons continue to display their incompetence.

There's more truth to be found in bullshit.

"He called on the opposition party to fight in Parliament instead of engaging in road-side political activity and using people as their political tool"

Short memory???

800px-Red_Shirt_Army,_Bangkok,_Thailand.jpg

From the picture of the Parliament there is no one there to fight with.

Beggars belief.

Democracy, rule of law, justice - my arse!

"He called on the opposition party to fight in Parliament instead of engaging in road-side political activity and using people as their political tool"

Short memory???

800px-Red_Shirt_Army,_Bangkok,_Thailand.jpg

And how do you effectively fight against an unjust proposal when the PTP has a majority of members on the House committee, including the Chair, and can simply push through their own edited version of the proposal...?

Weren't House committees always supposed to be impartial...?