Thai govt to 'clarify' amnesty draft

[webfact]

POLITICS
Govt to 'clarify' amnesty draft
The Nation



Governors, chiefs ordered to explain 'Democratic nature' of amnesty measure

BANGKOK: -- THE INTERIOR MINISTRY will make full use of all the mechanisms at its disposal to clarify issues related to the amnesty bill, Minister Charupong Ruangsuwan said yesterday.

He said he had ordered provincial governors and district chiefs to explain to the people that the amnesty bill is in keeping with democratic principles.

As well, these officials must closely follow news about any anti-government movement and report it to the ministry. Third, they must try to persuade such movements to carry out their protests or other activities within their own provinces instead of mobilising to Bangkok.

The fourth point of Charupong's order is that provincial and district officials must evaluate the situation in their areas of responsibility and report it regularly.

He denied allegations that force would be used to stop people joining mass rallies that are being mobilised by anti-government groups.

Some of these groups are set to meet this week to plan a massive rally opposing the blanket amnesty bill, which they interpret as potentially benefiting fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

A House of Representatives panel vetting the government's amnesty bill last Friday voted to rewrite a clause, as proposed by Prayuth Siripanich, committee member from the ruling Pheu Thai Party, to include as beneficiaries people facing legal action in cases stemming from post-coup investigations.

The original draft proposed by Pheu Thai MP Worachai Hema did not grant amnesty to people convicted in criminal cases aside from political protest and did not cover protest leaders or the people who ordered the bloody 2010 crackdown.

Charupong said the new version of the bill would comply with Article 30 of the Constitution that says all people are protected equally under the law.

Drafting a law granting amnesty selectively would therefore be illegal, he claimed.

Meanwhile, giving amnesty would bring reconciliation and allow the country to move forward, he said. Asked to comment clearly on whether the new version of the bill would allow Thaksin to get his seized assets back, Charupong said the amnesty law had nothing to do with that.

Thaksin might ask the court to order the return his assets, but that would be a separate issue.

Democrat MP and legal expert Nipit Intarasombat said the new version of the bill would be against Article 309, the provision of the 2007 Constitution that protects the coup-makers from the consequences of their actions. Therefore, he claimed, it is the legitimate duty of the people to oppose the bill.

National Anti-Corruption Commission member Vicha Mahakhun said yesterday that passage of the new version of the bill would affect the NACC's investigation of the cases against Abhisit and his deputy Suthep Thaugsuban.

He said the principle of equality should not undermine principle of the rule of law, and no part of the Three Sovereign Powers - the administrative branch, the legislative branch and the judiciary branch - should interfere in the work of another part.

Meanwhile, Uthai Yodmanee, a leader of a rally by the Students' and People's Network for Thailand Reform at the Urupong intersection in Bangkok, said many groups had come out to join the gathering.


-- The Nation 2013-10-24

[waza]

"He said he had ordered provincial governors and district chiefs to explain to the people that the amnesty bill is in keeping with democratic principles."

Democracy is based on the "rules of law" and that law is applied to everyone in equal measure. Amnesty for crimes committed are a perversion of that principle as the rule, of law is subverted for some members of society to give them immunity from the crimes they have committed. If the government was genuine in their desire to keep within democratic principles then there should be no amnesty for anyone, judge them all and let justice decide their fate, without political interference.

Edited October 23, 2013 by waza

[NongKhaiKid]

The bill is in keeping with Mr. T and PTP's principles and they are a long way off being democratic.

[slapout]

The author of this bill and the man responsible for the attachment for Thaksin's benfit cannot judge the legaletly of either and now the Provincal governors are to explain it to the general people??? If this is an example of 'democary' I would hate to see what is considered a one part/family goverenment.

[LuckyLew]

Thailand is as close to being a democratic country as is North Korea

How can you explain something to the people of Thailand when it does not exist in Thailand?

[Local Drunk]

"He said he had ordered provincial governors and district chiefs to explain to the people that the amnesty bill is in keeping with democratic principles."

​How very democratic of him.

[Tatsujin]

Have you noticed how often they need to "clarify" things? This happens EVERY time they are trying to pull a fast one and got caught out a bit. Pity the sheeple can't see it.

[marell]

Absolutely incredible. You couldn't even begin to make this stuff up. Guess 'bizarre' really is a limitless concept.

[AleG]

Charupong said the new version of the bill would comply with Article 30 of the Constitution that says all people are protected equally under the law.

Drafting a law granting amnesty selectively would therefore be illegal, he claimed.

Drafting a law granting amnesty selectively would therefore be illegal, he claimed.

Isn't that exactly what they are doing?

[Neilly]

POLITICS

Govt to 'clarify' amnesty draft

'All our people are innocent and should be given amnesty...all the opposition are guilty and have to go to jail'

There, clarified

[siampolee]

One senses that there is a realization within the ranks of this puppet government that perhaps all is not well regarding the public's attitude to imposing a new political dynastic dictatorship specializing in nepotism and corruption upon the country hence this move coupled with the comment of a ''Royal decree'' being issued.

If one casts ones mind back some 17 years Thaksin actually started he had no desire to be Prime Minister.I don't think I am able to qute the source here due to T.V.F. policy however it was made in an article about Thaksin in a special issue insert of a Thai newspaper celebrating 50 years of publication in a non Thai language format.

Thaksin as do his puppets need to remember that, ''Liars need good memories.'' Now it would seem as if all those multi faceted mindsets of Thaksin along with his clones and puppet's seem to be fragmenting all around them.

The Truth will inflict a fatal injury upon Thaksin and his ilk

[Baerboxer]

"Thaksin might ask the court to order the return his assets, but that would be a separate issue"

First it wasn't going to benefit Thaksin in anyway. Then he might get amnesty but not the money he originally stole back. Then it will be a panel headed by his little sister puppet who decide who gets amnesty. Now, if he does get amnesty, then he "might" ask the court to return the assets it seized because he stole it.

Just get's better and better. Note - PTP always refer to the loot as "his assets". The court seized them because they were obtained illegally. How can they be his? By insisting on referring to them as "his assets" are PTP challenging the court, and possibly in contempt? Doubt they'd care anyway.

Where are all the pro PTP TV posters - Rich Teacher, Fab 4 , Indyuk, Muttley etc etc. Their comments on the amnesty draft and its progress would be interesting, given their love of democracy.

[indyuk]

The bill is in keeping with Mr. T and PTP's principles and they are a long way off being democratic.

An Amnesty agreement is in keeping with international law. The whole point of an Amnesty is to protect the people from the internecine activities of minority groups that have sized the lives of the people by preventing normal and harmonious behaviour throughout the Nation.

An Amnesty cannot be focussed upon a selected group with in a populous that is deserving of peace, security and harmony.

amnesty   Use Amnesty in a sentence

am·nes·ty [am-nuh-stee] Show IPA noun, plural am·nes·ties, verb, am·nes·tied,am·nes·ty·ing.

noun

1.

a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses, against a government, often grantedbefore any trial or conviction.

2.

Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole.

3.

a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.

[indyuk]

"He said he had ordered provincial governors and district chiefs to explain to the people that the amnesty bill is in keeping with democratic principles."

Democracy is based on the "rules of law" and that law is applied to everyone in equal measure. Amnesty for crimes committed are a perversion of that principle as the rule, of law is subverted for some members of society to give them immunity from the crimes they have committed. If the government was genuine in their desire to keep within democratic principles then there should be no amnesty for anyone, judge them all and let justice decide their fate, without political interference.

This recommendation would tear this country to shreds and quite possibly lead to civil war.

[GeorgeO]

"He said he had ordered provincial governors and district chiefs to explain to the people that the amnesty bill is in keeping with democratic principles."

Democracy is based on the "rules of law" and that law is applied to everyone in equal measure. Amnesty for crimes committed are a perversion of that principle as the rule, of law is subverted for some members of society to give them immunity from the crimes they have committed. If the government was genuine in their desire to keep within democratic principles then there should be no amnesty for anyone, judge them all and let justice decide their fate, without political interference.

This recommendation would tear this country to shreds and quite possibly lead to civil war.

Whereas the approach of the current government is unlikely to lead to such an outcome....???!!

[gemini81]

Quite the opposite: trying to dupe the public and blow smoke up people's a*sses and paint it as something good and not self-serving as well as totally sinister; let alone the negative results if this came to materialize.

[indyuk]

"Thaksin might ask the court to order the return his assets, but that would be a separate issue"

First it wasn't going to benefit Thaksin in anyway. Then he might get amnesty but not the money he originally stole back. Then it will be a panel headed by his little sister puppet who decide who gets amnesty. Now, if he does get amnesty, then he "might" ask the court to return the assets it seized because he stole it.

Just get's better and better. Note - PTP always refer to the loot as "his assets". The court seized them because they were obtained illegally. How can they be his? By insisting on referring to them as "his assets" are PTP challenging the court, and possibly in contempt? Doubt they'd care anyway.

Where are all the pro PTP TV posters - Rich Teacher, Fab 4 , Indyuk, Muttley etc etc. Their comments on the amnesty draft and its progress would be interesting, given their love of democracy.

I have already responded on the issue of Amnesty and reconciliation. Thailand needs both urgently.

[waza]

"He said he had ordered provincial governors and district chiefs to explain to the people that the amnesty bill is in keeping with democratic principles."

Democracy is based on the "rules of law" and that law is applied to everyone in equal measure. Amnesty for crimes committed are a perversion of that principle as the rule, of law is subverted for some members of society to give them immunity from the crimes they have committed. If the government was genuine in their desire to keep within democratic principles then there should be no amnesty for anyone, judge them all and let justice decide their fate, without political interference.

This recommendation would tear this country to shreds and quite possibly lead to civil war.

OMB, red history in the making, Thaksin had to force an amnesty to save Thailand's soul, he did it for the children.

What a load of rot, the number of Thais charged over this rebellion number in the hundreds, 90% have been released and compensated. The only ones to gain from this amnesty are the leaders, organisers, agitators and those that funded the insurrection. Most of these people have been found innocent due to a lack of evidence. Abhisit and Suthep don't want an amnesty, so that just leaves a convicted criminal and fugitive from justice to benefit. He is the whole focus of this machination that is tearing at the social cohesion, polarising Thai society and challenging democracy and the rule of law. Furthermore, there doesn't appear to be a large segment of the population supporting this amnesty and a growing mass movement against it, including segments of the Redshirt movement. In my estimation there is greater risk to stability in Thailand from proceeding with this corrupt endeavour than in abandoning it to the rule of law.

Edited October 24, 2013 by waza

[khunken]

 

"Thaksin might ask the court to order the return his assets, but that would be a separate issue"

First it wasn't going to benefit Thaksin in anyway. Then he might get amnesty but not the money he originally stole back. Then it will be a panel headed by his little sister puppet who decide who gets amnesty. Now, if he does get amnesty, then he "might" ask the court to return the assets it seized because he stole it.

Just get's better and better. Note - PTP always refer to the loot as "his assets". The court seized them because they were obtained illegally. How can they be his? By insisting on referring to them as "his assets" are PTP challenging the court, and possibly in contempt? Doubt they'd care anyway.

Where are all the pro PTP TV posters - Rich Teacher, Fab 4 , Indyuk, Muttley etc etc. Their comments on the amnesty draft and its progress would be interesting, given their love of democracy.

I have already responded on the issue of Amnesty and reconciliation. Thailand needs both urgently.

 

No it doesn't. Yes, the country does need reconciliation but not 'or else' which is the PTP method. The amnesty issue has always been about freeing the master criminal from all charges, conviction & returning his ill-gotten gains.

Just about every group involved - except Thaksin - has spoken out against the move and when red shirt groups are against it - albeit half-heartedly - PTP has very little support for the move except for the Thaksin acolytes, including those on this thread.

If this version of amnesty ever gets to see the light of day, it will divide the country even more with a possible violent outcome.

[tingtongteesood]

"He said he had ordered provincial governors and district chiefs to explain to the people that the amnesty bill is in keeping with democratic principles."

Democracy is based on the "rules of law" and that law is applied to everyone in equal measure. Amnesty for crimes committed are a perversion of that principle as the rule, of law is subverted for some members of society to give them immunity from the crimes they have committed. If the government was genuine in their desire to keep within democratic principles then there should be no amnesty for anyone, judge them all and let justice decide their fate, without political interference.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ! Abhisit has been quoted as saying that all this stupid 'amnesty' would accomplish is to further divide the country. I nave to agree, it is a BAD idea !

[bigbamboo]

"He said he had ordered provincial governors and district chiefs to explain to the people that the amnesty bill is in keeping with democratic principles."

Democracy is based on the "rules of law" and that law is applied to everyone in equal measure. Amnesty for crimes committed are a perversion of that principle as the rule, of law is subverted for some members of society to give them immunity from the crimes they have committed. If the government was genuine in their desire to keep within democratic principles then there should be no amnesty for anyone, judge them all and let justice decide their fate, without political interference.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ! Abhisit has been quoted as saying that all this stupid 'amnesty' would accomplish is to further divide the country. I nave to agree, it is a BAD idea !

I concur with both of the above.

The only way to go with any amnesty is to leave it to the courts or failing that the highest authority in the land.

If the Shinawats love their king and country I'm sure they will see that too.

[whybother]

An Amnesty agreement is in keeping with international law. The whole point of an Amnesty is to protect the people from the internecine activities of minority groups that have sized the lives of the people by preventing normal and harmonious behaviour throughout the Nation.

An Amnesty cannot be focussed upon a selected group with in a populous that is deserving of peace, security and harmony.

amnesty   Use Amnesty in a sentence

am·nes·ty [am-nuh-stee] Show IPA noun, plural am·nes·ties, verb, am·nes·tied,am·nes·ty·ing.

noun

1.

a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses, against a government, often grantedbefore any trial or conviction.

2.

Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole.

3.

a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.

What a load of <deleted>. There is no international law on amnesty. The are no national laws on amnesty. Amnesty is given selectively and in rarely specific situations.

[timewilltell]

"He said he had ordered provincial governors and district chiefs to explain to the people that the amnesty bill is in keeping with democratic principles."

Democracy is based on the "rules of law" and that law is applied to everyone in equal measure. Amnesty for crimes committed are a perversion of that principle as the rule, of law is subverted for some members of society to give them immunity from the crimes they have committed. If the government was genuine in their desire to keep within democratic principles then there should be no amnesty for anyone, judge them all and let justice decide their fate, without political interference.

This recommendation would tear this country to shreds and quite possibly lead to civil war.

OMB, red history in the making, Thaksin had to force an amnesty to save Thailand's soul, he did it for the children.

What a load of rot, the number of Thais charged over this rebellion number in the hundreds, 90% have been released and compensated. The only ones to gain from this amnesty are the leaders, organisers, agitators and those that funded the insurrection. Most of these people have been found innocent due to a lack of evidence. Abhisit and Suthep don't want an amnesty, so that just leaves a convicted criminal and fugitive from justice to benefit. He is the whole focus of this machination that is tearing at the social cohesion, polarising Thai society and challenging democracy and the rule of law. Furthermore, there doesn't appear to be a large segment of the population supporting this amnesty and a growing mass movement against it, including segments of the Redshirt movement. In my estimation there is greater risk to stability in Thailand from proceeding with this corrupt endeavour than in abandoning it to the rule of law.

Let them carry on for it might be the last chance Thais get to dispose themselves of this evil administration, save themselves from dictatorship disguised as democracy Hun Sen style and open the eyes of the Jon-thinking masses. Bring on the (non-violent) discord and let people stop to think what they want before the next election