Government sets vote on amnesty bill for Friday

[Thaddeus]

"I'll be ready to face a punishment by the party. My abstention will not be a wrongdoing but I want to remind the party of what should be right," Weng said.

If it's not right, then vote against it, weak p&@%ks.

Apart from the sentiments of a couple of posts above this one and below the one I am quoting, fence sitting and covering your own arse is normal in Thai politics.

Nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all, the needle returns to the start of the song, and they all sing along like before.

[webfact]

UPDATE:
Dems to take to streets
NIPHAWAN KAEWRAKMUK
HATAIKARN TREESUWAN
THE NATION

'Goal is to block amnesty, not bring down govt; mass rally kicks off at Samsen train station

BANGKOK: -- THE SNAP decision of the opposition Democrat Party to call a nationwide rally starting today came on Tuesday night. It followed House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont's impromptu decision on the same day to call a special meeting of the House today to deliberate the blanket amnesty bill in the second and third readings.

The Democrat Party meeting on Tuesday feared the government would rush to pass the bill in one day, leaving it too late for them to call a rally, a party source said.

However, the Democrat Party's goal for this mass rally is to block the blanket amnesty law or force the government to withdraw the bill - but not to overthrow the government, the source said.

The source said the party was well aware that even if the government were to be toppled, it would eventually be re-elected.

The latest version of the bill would grant amnesty to all who were involved in political protests between September 19, 2006 and August 8, 2013, with the exception of those accused of violating the lese majeste law.

Any strategy outside the Parliament, or street rallying, will be led by Surat Thani MP Suthep Thaugsuban and Phatthalung MP Nipit Intarasombat. They have coordinated their alliances, including with former People's Alliance for Democracy leaders Chamlong Srimuang, Somkiat Pongpaiboon and Panthep Pourpongpan, and the Green Group's Suriyasai Katasila.

In preparation to lead the protests, five leading Democrats have resigned their positions on the party's executive board. The five are deputy leaders Korn Chatikavanij, Thaworn Senneam, Issara Somchai and Siriwan Prassachaksattru and party executive Satit Wongnongtaey. They will keep their House seats, however.

The resignations were meant to pre-empt any attempt to dissolve the Democrat Party, or any lawsuit, by citing their direct involvement in the street protests. All will take the lead on the rally stage.

Finding a budget to support the rally should not be a problem as key party leaders will pool their money.

The rally against the amnesty bill will start from 6pm today at Samsen Railway Station in Bangkok. The venue was chosen as the rally site because it is outside the Internal Security Act area and also an open space.

The MPs expect to mobilise around 50,000 protesters within the first three days and more, the source said.

"We don't want a prolonged rally but a quick finish," another source said.

If more people joined the rally, the opposition would announce a step up on Sunday for a further measure, he said. He added they would ask the protesters for a move to deny the government's power on Monday.

If the government persists with the bill, the party will continue the rally and wait until the International Court of Justice's verdict on the Preah Vihear case on November 11.

For the opposition's strategy to defeat the bill in the Parliament, party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva will take the leading role, with chief opposition whip Jurin Laksanawisit.

Filibusters will be used during the House meeting today.


-- The Nation 2013-10-31

[Ricardo]

Filibusters will be used during the House meeting today."

All the Dems' proposed-ammendments have been rejected, by the supposedly-impartial Speaker & his deputy, what a democracy !

And I would bet that, with the Parliament-security already briefed by the Speaker, anyone who wants to speak against the Act will be given short shrift, and hustled out of the room.

Yay for Red-Democracy In Action !

Edited October 30, 2013 by Ricardo

[edwinchester]

Rather worrying that the Dems are now linking a legitimate protest against blanket amnesty with the ICJ decision on Preah Vahear. Appealling to nationalistic nutjobs is not the way to go.

[waza]

Rather worrying that the Dems are now linking a legitimate protest against blanket amnesty with the ICJ decision on Preah Vahear. Appealling to nationalistic nutjobs is not the way to go.

That could be the catalyst that dissolves the government, if the truth comes out about the Preah Vahear deal all bets are off.

[whybother]

Rather worrying that the Dems are now linking a legitimate protest against blanket amnesty with the ICJ decision on Preah Vahear. Appealling to nationalistic nutjobs is not the way to go.

It isn't the Democrats that are linking the protests. It's one of the other groups. Stupid to link them IMO.

[edwinchester]

Rather worrying that the Dems are now linking a legitimate protest against blanket amnesty with the ICJ decision on Preah Vahear. Appealling to nationalistic nutjobs is not the way to go.

 

It isn't the Democrats that are linking the protests.  It's one of the other groups. Stupid to link them IMO.

Post #32, third paragraph from the end. Dems waiting for ICJ verdict.

[fab4]

"I'll be ready to face a punishment by the party. My abstention will not be a wrongdoing but I want to remind the party of what should be right," Weng said.

If it's not right, then vote against it, weak p&@%ks.

I can sort of see your point but that would indicate that the red shirts who voted that way would be agreeing with the democrats.

If they abstain, it takes away their vote from the total that would be expected from the PTP but they are also regarded as part of the quorum, i.e the vote count. So effectively it achieves the same result but without showing tacit support for the democratic party. An abstension vote is also used when there is conflict of interest at stake, which there certainly is here. The UDD want an amnesty, just not the one being pushed through.

So it's all very easy for you to call them weak "whatevers" from behind your keyboard but in reality they are stuck between a rock and a hard place and as far as I can see this is the best reaction.

[waza]

"I'll be ready to face a punishment by the party. My abstention will not be a wrongdoing but I want to remind the party of what should be right," Weng said.

If it's not right, then vote against it, weak p&@%ks.

I can sort of see your point but that would indicate that the red shirts who voted that way would be agreeing with the democrats.

If they abstain, it takes away their vote from the total that would be expected from the PTP but they are also regarded as part of the quorum, i.e the vote count. So effectively it achieves the same result but without showing tacit support for the democratic party. An abstension vote is also used when there is conflict of interest at stake, which there certainly is here. The UDD want an amnesty, just not the one being pushed through.

So it's all very easy for you to call them weak "whatevers" from behind your keyboard but in reality they are stuck between a rock and a hard place and as far as I can see this is the best reaction.

Yes your right Fab4, they have to choose between their morals, their duty of care to their members and justice for the blood of their comrades, and Thaksin, they chose Thaksin

That's red leadership and red democracy for you.

[whybother]

"I'll be ready to face a punishment by the party. My abstention will not be a wrongdoing but I want to remind the party of what should be right," Weng said.

If it's not right, then vote against it, weak p&@%ks.

I can sort of see your point but that would indicate that the red shirts who voted that way would be agreeing with the democrats.

If they abstain, it takes away their vote from the total that would be expected from the PTP but they are also regarded as part of the quorum, i.e the vote count. So effectively it achieves the same result but without showing tacit support for the democratic party. An abstension vote is also used when there is conflict of interest at stake, which there certainly is here. The UDD want an amnesty, just not the one being pushed through.

So it's all very easy for you to call them weak "whatevers" from behind your keyboard but in reality they are stuck between a rock and a hard place and as far as I can see this is the best reaction.

If they don't agree with the amnesty bill, then they ARE agreeing with the Democrats, even if it is for different reasons.

If they don't want the amnesty bill to pass, then they should vote against it.

[virtualtraveller]

Incredible. A reading and debate on a bill usually takes some time, the objective of three readings is to send it back for tweaking and amendment. At the very least a controversial bill should allow all parties time to debate. First reading took two days. All of a sudden the second and third reading get rushed through, the whole country is objecting it seems, yet opposition aren't even given a chance to speak. What a farce! And they wonder why everyone is taking to the streets. I really can't see this being promulgated to an act without a lengthy court challenge. The procedure has not been conducted properly. This will blow up in Peua Thai's face because they have left themselves no escape route, it's all or nothing.

[rubl]

"I'll be ready to face a punishment by the party. My abstention will not be a wrongdoing but I want to remind the party of what should be right," Weng said.

If it's not right, then vote against it, weak p&@%ks.

I can sort of see your point but that would indicate that the red shirts who voted that way would be agreeing with the democrats.

If they abstain, it takes away their vote from the total that would be expected from the PTP but they are also regarded as part of the quorum, i.e the vote count. So effectively it achieves the same result but without showing tacit support for the democratic party. An abstension vote is also used when there is conflict of interest at stake, which there certainly is here. The UDD want an amnesty, just not the one being pushed through.

So it's all very easy for you to call them weak "whatevers" from behind your keyboard but in reality they are stuck between a rock and a hard place and as far as I can see this is the best reaction.

I must admit that after your explanation I really (and almost) start to feel sorry for those honest, hardworking, democracy minded Pheu Thai party list MPs and UDD leaders Dr. weng, Nattawut, Korkaew. Between Scylla and Charybdis, imagine. Maybe they should ask Hamlet for Yorick's skull.

[Thaddeus]

Incredible. A reading and debate on a bill usually takes some time, the objective of three readings is to send it back for tweaking and amendment.

Not here, they have only been told to thank it three times.

Any independent thought cancels the cheque.