How the bill was pushed through
The Nation



BANGKOK: -- SINCE THE SENATE is expected to debate the amnesty bill by Friday or next Monday, with the deadline for the bill's final passage set at 60 days, the House pushed the bill through to its third and final reading with a 310:0 vote in the early hours of yesterday. Four abstained.

Senate Speaker Nikom Wairatpanij explained that the upper chamber would not address the issue of whether the bill was a fiscal issue as the House had already ruled out the government's fiscal responsibility.

He also reminded opponents of the bill to reconsider their stance, arguing that the bill was designed to absolve those involved in the political mayhem.

"Street protesters should ask themselves why they are against amnesty, when it is meant to reduce political conflicts," he said.

The House rushed the bill through the marathon second reading, which began on Thursday, and at 2.35am yesterday morning - in the midst of heated protests and delay tactics - the lawmakers were still debating Article 2 of the bill.

Pheu Thai's Pichet Chuamaun-gphan eventually moved to end the debate and cast a vote on the Article in order to break the deadlock. After a 314:40 vote on Article 2, the House moved on to Article 3 and half an hour into the debate, a recess was called.

Soon after the House reconvened at around 3.20am, a number of Democrat MPs launched a protest against House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont, saying he was being unfair. Their protests were ignored as government lawmakers went ahead with pushing Article 3 with a 307:0 vote.

Proponents of the amnesty bill subsequently pushed through the remaining five Articles in quick succession, passing them in less than an hour. Soon after completing the second reading, the House quickly voted on the third reading, approving the bill's final passage. The 19-hour debate came to an end at 4.25am yesterday.

Coalition chief whip Amnuay Klangpha insisted that the bill had not been pushed through speedily at the order of former PM Thaksin Shinawatra, as has been alleged by the opposition. The voting was completed because the opposition refused to take the floor, he said.


-- The Nation 2013-11-02

Democracy.........

Democracy.........

Wrong : mockcracy

Just so wrong on many levels. My Thai boss said today she feels completely embarrassed by her country today. Many Thais will be disgusted at this, how can they say it will absolve political mayhem? They've made it ten times worse.

The root of the mayhem is Thaksin, no-one or thing else.

Democracy.........

I know that was sarcasm, but it actually is "Democracy" . . . the sheeple got the Govt and Dictator they voted for. If they couldn't see further than the ends of their noses (or the 500 baht and empty promises they were made) then that's something to remember for next time they vote. Live with it or change it cos you got what you asked for.

"....not a fiscal issue" Buaha haha, erg, chortle.

I guess giving 46 billion baht (plus % over several years) to a person, from government coffers, is not a fiscal issue.

Next he'll tell you he's got a swimming pool filled with liquid platinum, and a mastodon serving tea in the pantry.

"Street protesters should ask themselves why they are against amnesty, when it is meant to reduce political conflicts," he said.

The guy has gotta be smoking something stronger than ganga. The Thaksin amnesty will reduce political conflicts like raw gas will put out a campfire. Ok, fess up, who spiked the cool-aid at government house?

"....not a fiscal issue" Buaha haha, erg, chortle.

I guess giving 46 billion baht (plus % over several years) of from government coffers, is not a fiscal issue.

Next he'll tell you he's got a swimming pool filled with liquid platinum, and a mastodon serving tea in the pantry.

No. No. NO. You've got it wrong. This bill has nothing to do with Thaksin getting his 46 billion baht back.

That comes after the bill has passed, when Thaskin walks into court and says "See I did nothing wrong. Give me my money back".

Democracy.........

I know that was sarcasm, but it actually is "Democracy" . . . the sheeple got the Govt and Dictator they voted for. If they couldn't see further than the ends of their noses (or the 500 baht and empty promises they were made) then that's something to remember for next time they vote. Live with it or change it cos you got what you asked for.

Very true . The current government were elected by the majority of the people and this majority were from poor and under developed areas who gave their support for less than thirty pieces of silver and allowed for these elected officials to syphon off huge sums of government money for their personal gain. They were simply used and disgarded owing to their myopic viewpoint and lack of insight and education.

"....not a fiscal issue" Buaha haha, erg, chortle.

I guess giving 46 billion baht (plus % over several years) of from government coffers, is not a fiscal issue.

Next he'll tell you he's got a swimming pool filled with liquid platinum, and a mastodon serving tea in the pantry.

No. No. NO. You've got it wrong. This bill has nothing to do with Thaksin getting his 46 billion baht back.

That comes after the bill has passed, when Thaskin walks into court and says "See I did nothing wrong. Give me my money back".

Saying that this bill won't return the money to Thaksin is like saying that dropping a flower pot from a tenth floor won't break it; you see, when you drop it it's not broken, what gravity and the collision between the flower pot and the pavement do is completely unrelated to the act of dropping the pot in the first place and surely one can't be responsible for the outcome, right?

Democracy.........

I know that was sarcasm, but it actually is "Democracy" . . . the sheeple got the Govt and Dictator they voted for. If they couldn't see further than the ends of their noses (or the 500 baht and empty promises they were made) then that's something to remember for next time they vote. Live with it or change it cos you got what you asked for.

Very true . The current government were elected by the majority of the people and this majority were from poor and under developed areas who gave their support for less than thirty pieces of silver and allowed for these elected officials to syphon off huge sums of government money for their personal gain. They were simply used and disgarded owing to their myopic viewpoint and lack of insight and education.

nearly right...but they werent elected by the majority..of the poeople...only a majority of the vote...otherwise your spot on sir.....

Very true . The current government were elected by the majority of the people and this majority were from poor and under developed areas who gave their support for less than thirty pieces of silver and allowed for these elected officials to syphon off huge sums of government money for their personal gain. They were simply used and disgarded owing to their myopic viewpoint and lack of insight and education.

nearly right...but they werent elected by the majority..of the poeople...only a majority of the vote...otherwise your spot on sir.....

No. They didn't get a majority of the vote, only 48%. What they managed to do was get the majority of the seats in parliament.

He also reminded opponents of the bill to reconsider their stance, arguing that the bill was designed to absolve those involved in the political mayhem.

Except of course that it was then amended during the process, to also absolve his own party's 'Big Boss', too.

The Speaker denied many proposed-amendments to the Bill, then denied speaking-rights to Opposition-MPs who had been promised them, and thus might be thought to have connived at ramming it through, but at least his own party will be delighted with his 'impartial' behaviour.

And the above instruction 'reminder', to reconsider views with which he doesn't agree, is merely the icing on the cake.

Yay for Red Parliamentary-'Democracy' !

Corruption from the beginning to the end, the poor get poorer and the rich even more richer,.....sounds like ditactorship

I guess some people will never get it .Whether you are a Red Shirt Yellow Shirt of Pink Shirt ( Pink is for lady boys) This grudge fighting about this whole thing has gotten to a point where it can really hurt all Thais

Its time to move on get over it Thaksin is ONE MAN and there are many who where involved in the protests. As a American I look on and see the pettiness of this all. They are now fighting for the sake of fighting no Democracy. Democracy is the rule of the majority. Not the rule of a Mob no matter what your T shirt color is.

This needs to be resolved for your children and their future This is the main reason . Look into the eyes of your child Then ask yourself Do I really care about all of this or the future of your children

This is the only reason you should protest. Is the plight of one man or many going to effect your children If you answer is NO then move on

With Nikom making comments like that he's wholly unsuitable to be speaker of the senate, too biased, Senate is supposed to keep an eye on the government's parliamentary activity, not try and facilitate it. Sad that someone in charge of such an important body believes this bill will lead to reconciliation when we are seeing quite the opposition in reaction, even from govt's own supporters.

I guess some people will never get it .Whether you are a Red Shirt Yellow Shirt of Pink Shirt ( Pink is for lady boys) This grudge fighting about this whole thing has gotten to a point where it can really hurt all Thais

Its time to move on get over it Thaksin is ONE MAN and there are many who where involved in the protests. As a American I look on and see the pettiness of this all. They are now fighting for the sake of fighting no Democracy. Democracy is the rule of the majority. Not the rule of a Mob no matter what your T shirt color is.

This needs to be resolved for your children and their future This is the main reason . Look into the eyes of your child Then ask yourself Do I really care about all of this or the future of your children

This is the only reason you should protest. Is the plight of one man or many going to effect your children If you answer is NO then move on

If you want to stand idly by while corrupt politicians and other criminals get their crimes white washed, then that's up to you. Other don't want to do that.

Let's get real. If a government took 46 billion of your money (wow, I wish!) away, wouldn't you do just about anything to get it back?

It just amazes me that so many farangs rant and rail against this government, when you have no vote, no way at all to influence anything. It's the Thai people who have to sort it all out, for good or ill.

Wear a helmet. It's the law.

Let's get real. If a government took 46 billion of your money (wow, I wish!) away, wouldn't you do just about anything to get it back?

It just amazes me that so many farangs rant and rail against this government, when you have no vote, no way at all to influence anything. It's the Thai people who have to sort it all out, for good or ill.

Wear a helmet. It's the law.

Frank James a fair comment so why are you actually active here in this particular topic if you feel that you or we have no influence upon matters?

I always wore my helmet even 22 years ago when I came here long before it became law here

Just so wrong on many levels.  My Thai boss said today she feels completely embarrassed by her country today.  Many Thais will be disgusted at this, how can they say it will absolve political mayhem?  They've made it ten times worse.

 

The root of the mayhem is Thaksin, no-one or thing else. 

Takes two sides to have an argument - many to blame, and lots of blame to go around - don't be so myopic

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

Let's get real. If a government took 46 billion of your money (wow, I wish!) away, wouldn't you do just about anything to get it back?

It just amazes me that so many farangs rant and rail against this government, when you have no vote, no way at all to influence anything. It's the Thai people who have to sort it all out, for good or ill.

Wear a helmet. It's the law.

Yes, but I wouldn't expect so much support from people that get nothing from it.

Senate Speaker Nikom Wairatpanij explained that the upper chamber would not address the issue of whether the bill was a fiscal issue as the House had already ruled out the government's fiscal responsibility.

He also reminded opponents of the bill to reconsider their stance, arguing that the bill was designed to absolve those involved in the political mayhem.

Well there you go, looks like it will sail through this stage as fast a greased pig.

..."Street protesters should ask themselves why they are against amnesty, when it is meant to reduce political conflicts," he said....

In response, dear sir, I say...

The government should ask themselves why a bill they designed meaning to reduce political conflicts is having the exact opposite effect. More over, if the bill is not having the desired effect, why does the government not retract it and rethink to formulate a bill which does accomplish the stated goals of reconciliation?

sent from my mobile

Just so wrong on many levels. My Thai boss said today she feels completely embarrassed by her country today. Many Thais will be disgusted at this, how can they say it will absolve political mayhem? They've made it ten times worse.

The root of the mayhem is Thaksin, no-one or thing else.

No, though I disagree with the amnesty, Thaksin isn't the root cause, just a symptom. Decades of poverty, inequality, inequity are the causes. Thaksin profited because of an intransigent ruling class. As much blame should be cast towards them - the amaat - as it is towards him. In fact, it'd be better to stop talking about blame and start talking about systemic reform...

Just so wrong on many levels. My Thai boss said today she feels completely embarrassed by her country today. Many Thais will be disgusted at this, how can they say it will absolve political mayhem? They've made it ten times worse.

The root of the mayhem is Thaksin, no-one or thing else.

No, though I disagree with the amnesty, Thaksin isn't the root cause, just a symptom. Decades of poverty, inequality, inequity are the causes. Thaksin profited because of an intransigent ruling class. As much blame should be cast towards them - the amaat - as it is towards him. In fact, it'd be better to stop talking about blame and start talking about systemic reform...

If Thaksin decided to stop trying to get back and just continued with his international business ventures, then there wouldn't be all this political trouble now, and the government and the red shirts and the poor people of Thailand could move forward and deal with reform.

The end result lies squarely with PTP and it's supporters, let it he on your head the out come from this Amnesty bill , what lies in store for Thailand, is in the hands of a selected few, including Thaskin, lets see now what happens.

Just so wrong on many levels. My Thai boss said today she feels completely embarrassed by her country today. Many Thais will be disgusted at this, how can they say it will absolve political mayhem? They've made it ten times worse.

The root of the mayhem is Thaksin, no-one or thing else.

No, though I disagree with the amnesty, Thaksin isn't the root cause, just a symptom. Decades of poverty, inequality, inequity are the causes. Thaksin profited because of an intransigent ruling class. As much blame should be cast towards them - the amaat - as it is towards him. In fact, it'd be better to stop talking about blame and start talking about systemic reform...

If Thaksin decided to stop trying to get back and just continued with his international business ventures, then there wouldn't be all this political trouble now, and the government and the red shirts and the poor people of Thailand could move forward and deal with reform.

Yes, completely agree with that. Yet if it weren't for Thaksin I think there would've been a similar populist movement that arose at some point, probably resulting in inevitable strife, simply because of the way the country was/is structured when it comes to class and hierarchy. Something was going to snap at some point. As for the current conjuncture though, yeah, you're right, if Thaksin had hung on for a few years and done nothing, he'd probably be able to have come back quietly a few years down the line and no further harm would've been done. I wish he'd have chosen that route.

To be fair Thailand created the monster so as they say, you reap what you sow. If the people of the North/North East hadn't been treated like slaves for the last gazillion years, then this probably wouldn't have happened. Thailand created a gap in politics which Thaksin filled. You offer poor uneducated people a slither of a better life and they will take it.

Just so wrong on many levels. My Thai boss said today she feels completely embarrassed by her country today. Many Thais will be disgusted at this, how can they say it will absolve political mayhem? They've made it ten times worse.

The root of the mayhem is Thaksin, no-one or thing else.

No, though I disagree with the amnesty, Thaksin isn't the root cause, just a symptom. Decades of poverty, inequality, inequity are the causes. Thaksin profited because of an intransigent ruling class. As much blame should be cast towards them - the amaat - as it is towards him. In fact, it'd be better to stop talking about blame and start talking about systemic reform...

If Thaksin decided to stop trying to get back and just continued with his international business ventures, then there wouldn't be all this political trouble now, and the government and the red shirts and the poor people of Thailand could move forward and deal with reform.

Yes, completely agree with that. Yet if it weren't for Thaksin I think there would've been a similar populist movement that arose at some point, probably resulting in inevitable strife, simply because of the way the country was/is structured when it comes to class and hierarchy. Something was going to snap at some point. As for the current conjuncture though, yeah, you're right, if Thaksin had hung on for a few years and done nothing, he'd probably be able to have come back quietly a few years down the line and no further harm would've been done. I wish he'd have chosen that route.

But can you imagine how much face, and subsequent money! he lost in 2005! You can imagine him sitting in his lair plotting his revenge.

Corruption from the beginning to the end, the poor get poorer and the rich even more richer,.....sounds like ditactorship

And in what period in Thailand therefore does you word 'Dictatorship' Describe

As I recall there was an actual reduction of rural 'poverty' when Thaksin was the PM.......I wonder if that is why so many vote for him?

"Street protesters should ask themselves why they are against amnesty, when it is meant to reduce political conflicts," he said.

If it was meant to reduce political conflicts, it would not include Thaksin, Abhisit and Suthep. It is designed to bring back the man from afar, and that is all.