Why the amnesty bill has caused a split between Pheu Thai and the red shirts

[webfact]

THAI TALK
Why the amnesty bill has caused a split between Pheu Thai and the red shirts
Suthichai Yoon
The Nation


Nattawut Saikuar

BANGKOK: -- According to Nattawut Saikuar, the passage of the "blanket amnesty" bill by the House of Representatives in the wee hours of November 1 has posed a most difficult challenge for the relationship between the red shirts and the ruling Pheu Thai Party.

The red-shirt leader, currently also deputy commerce minister, admitted to a gathering of red-shirt supporters over the weekend that he had been put in a "very difficult" position, having to prevent further splits between ruling party and the red-shirt movement.

A wing of the red-shirts has publicly and vehemently opposed Pheu Thai's ramming through of the amnesty bill, which opens the way for clemency to be granted to Democrat leaders Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaugsuban, whom they label "murderers", responsible for the deaths of at least 91 people during their 2010 crackdown on

anti-government protests.

Ironically, on the same evening, the two Democrat leaders were also holding a rally against the amnesty bill, which they oppose for a totally different reason - that a wholesale amnesty would clear former premier Thaksin Shinawatra of all his wrongdoings.

The red shirts, of course, would like to see Thaksin return to Thailand "to fight his case". Pheu Thai MPs, in voting in overwhelming numbers for the bill, were hoping it would bring Thaksin home as a free man.

Why, then, are some red shirts against the bill?

Nattawut perhaps summed up the sentiment of the red shirts who oppose the bill when he told supporters:

"My message to premier Thaksin is that, nobody hates you. We all want you to come home, but you should return in a graceful manner…"

The eloquent red-shirt leader was responding to a rumour reportedly spread by Pheu Thai MPs that he and other "hard-core" red shirts were in fact trying to prevent Thaksin from coming back.

"That is a malicious rumour spread against me," Nattawut declared. He said he hoped his latest message would not be twisted by certain Pheu Thai MPs when they report back to Thaksin.

The growing "misunderstanding" between Pheu Thai and the red shirts isn't just speculation fanned by the opposition or the anti-Thaksin groups. Nattawut admitted that things had never been this bad between the supposed allies.

He and three others in the party decided to abstain from the vote on the amnesty bill to show their dissatisfaction with a Pheu Thai move that would "betray" the red shirts.

"I have no problem if my action results in my being ousted from the party or my Cabinet portfolio. If I have to choose, I will always decide to be a red shirt rather than a Cabinet member or an MP," he declared, to loud applause from his audience.

Is it time the red shirts formed their own political party?

Nattawut raised the question himself - and then answered it in the negative. "No, if we form our own party, the votes would be split and the Democrats would win the election."

What probably struck many as a crucial shift, however, was when he announced, perhaps for the first time, that the Pheu Thai Party should not take the red shirts' votes at the next election for granted.

"Let me make it clear. The Pheu Thai Party must now realise that votes from the red shirts do not necessarily have to be cast in favour of the party anymore," he said. Yet, another loud and prolonged ovation greeted his dramatic statement.

It doesn't augur well for the Yingluck government, whose strategy of last resort if the ongoing political stand-off spins out of control would be to dissolve Parliament and call a snap election.

Attempts will continue at all levels to patch up the rift between the red shirts and Pheu Thai. Charupong Ruangsuwan, the party's nominal head, told the Matichon daily earlier this week:

"We believe that the party and the red shirts are not divided. Our two-pronged strategy is like the rails and the train. We have to be together at all time to bear the burden of developing the country. We are like a married couple. Yes, we may have some quarrels sometimes and we may have different ideas at times, but we are not thinking of a divorce. As the leader of the Pheu Thai Party, let me declare that the party is not thinking about divorcing the red shirts."

But while there was only one scenario for Pheu Thai in case of a new election, the amnesty bill has spawned a new degree of uncertainty for both Thaksin and Pheu Thai.

It's almost impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.


-- The Nation 2013-11-07

[ramrod711]

The eloquent red-shirt leader was responding to a rumour reportedly spread by Pheu Thai MPs that he and other "hard-core" red shirts were in fact trying to prevent Thaksin from coming back.

"That is a malicious rumour spread against me," Nattawut declared. He said he hoped his latest message would not be twisted by certain Pheu Thai MPs when they report back to Thaksin.

Why would Nattawut be concerned about what PTP MPs report to Thaksin, he's only Yinglucks caddie.

[boomerangutang]

In a more civil society, a nut like Nattawut wouldn't be allowed to vote on a bill which excuse himself from legal proceedings. He and others politicians should 'recuse' themselves re; conflict of interest issues. Indeed, Yingluck should do the same, as she stands to gain hundreds of thousands of baht (or millions, indirectly) if the Amnesty travesty becomes policy. Maybe that will be her excuse for not showing up for debates.

Reds splitting from PT is like hyenas splitting from wild dogs on a carcass. They're just two groups of opportunists, both trying to get rich by any means possible, and they have a slightly differing perspective on how to shaft the Thai people (should we shaft them while they're lying down, or while they're down on hands and knees?).

[Emptyset]

In a more civil society, a nut like Nattawut wouldn't be allowed to vote on a bill which excuse himself from legal proceedings. He and others politicians should 'recuse' themselves re; conflict of interest issues. Indeed, Yingluck should do the same, as she stands to gain hundreds of thousands of baht (or millions, indirectly) if the Amnesty travesty becomes policy. Maybe that will be her excuse for not showing up for debates.

Reds splitting from PT is like hyenas splitting from wild dogs on a carcass. They're just two groups of opportunists, both trying to get rich by any means possible, and they have a slightly differing perspective on how to shaft the Thai people (should we shaft them while they're lying down, or while they're down on hands and knees?).

Who're the opportunists, the red shirt leaders or the ordinary red shirts, or both? Why can't we allow for a mixture of motivations? I've no doubt that there was a mixture of opportunism and genuine idealism amongst the red shirt leadership, with some motivated by one more than the other. People like Kwanchai strike me as more opportunist. For them, it's perhaps all about gaining a foothold in the patronage enterprise that is Thaksin Inc. Proving you can mobilize a mass of supporters will hopefully lead to ministerial posts and other rewards. For people like Weng, who've been involved in political movements all their life, it's more about ideals. Perhaps misguided ideals, but ideals nevertheless. Jatuporn always struck me more as an opportunist, but, then again, he was a student leader during the 1992 protests (and was one of the last people on stage as the bullets started flying). So perhaps he has moments where he recalls that youthful idealism, the principles he believed in back in 1992, and perhaps those principles sometimes even defeat his desire to get ahead in cynical machine party-politics. I don't know.

Nevertheless, instead of dismissing all red shirts a priori as opportunists, why not look at what some of them are actually saying:

“I came here to fight because I want to set principles in this country. That’s why I have fought with my heart and my life. When someone died, I hoped their deaths would be worth it. We don’t want any money because it is impermanent….However what would make the lives lost permanent is legal prosecution that would set the principles, that would prevent any killing in the future. This is what the people wanted, not the money.”

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3733

[EvilDrSomkid]

The eloquent red-shirt leader was responding to a rumour reportedly spread by Pheu Thai MPs that he and other "hard-core" red shirts were in fact trying to prevent Thaksin from coming back.

"That is a malicious rumour spread against me," Nattawut declared. He said he hoped his latest message would not be twisted by certain Pheu Thai MPs when they report back to Thaksin.

Why would Nattawut be concerned about what PTP MPs report to Thaksin, he's only Yinglucks caddie.

If Nattawut calls this a malicious rumour, that could mean that it is true. PTP and the red shirts have more power now. Should Thaksin return scott free, he would draw all the power to him again. Thailand Inc. CEO orders, staff obeys.

Yingluck would have to hand over the reigns to big brother should he return. Chalerm might get a bigger position again. Who says that everything is 100% tight between the Shin siblings? A public mutiny? No chance. It is surprising Yaopawa has not taken over yet.

A split between PTP and red shirts would certainly be disastrous for the PTP, but I don't think the Dems would win an election because of it.

[Crushdepth]

Nuttawut eloquent? Last I saw he was being dragged off to a veterinary clinic for some post-exposure rabies vaccination.

[klauskunkel]

We all want you to come home, but you should return in a graceful manner…

like so: skipping. hopping and dancing, throwing your hat in the air...

[lostmebike]

Criminal

[FangFerang]

If the senate approves that bill it will undermine the current government entirely. The yellow shirts clearly want the reins back. The smartest and most vile way to return to power would be to let the bill pass in the senate....and light the firecracker.

That prospect is alarming, at the least.

[boomerangutang]

In a more civil society, a nut like Nattawut wouldn't be allowed to vote on a bill which excuse himself from legal proceedings. He and others politicians should 'recuse' themselves re; conflict of interest issues. Indeed, Yingluck should do the same, as she stands to gain hundreds of thousands of baht (or millions, indirectly) if the Amnesty travesty becomes policy. Maybe that will be her excuse for not showing up for debates.

Reds splitting from PT is like hyenas splitting from wild dogs on a carcass. They're just two groups of opportunists, both trying to get rich by any means possible, and they have a slightly differing perspective on how to shaft the Thai people (should we shaft them while they're lying down, or while they're down on hands and knees?).

Who're the opportunists, the red shirt leaders or the ordinary red shirts, or both? Why can't we allow for a mixture of motivations? I've no doubt that there was a mixture of opportunism and genuine idealism amongst the red shirt leadership, with some motivated by one more than the other. People like Kwanchai strike me as more opportunist. For them, it's perhaps all about gaining a foothold in the patronage enterprise that is Thaksin Inc. Proving you can mobilize a mass of supporters will hopefully lead to ministerial posts and other rewards. For people like Weng, who've been involved in political movements all their life, it's more about ideals. Perhaps misguided ideals, but ideals nevertheless. Jatuporn always struck me more as an opportunist, but, then again, he was a student leader during the 1992 protests (and was one of the last people on stage as the bullets started flying). So perhaps he has moments where he recalls that youthful idealism, the principles he believed in back in 1992, and perhaps those principles sometimes even defeat his desire to get ahead in cynical machine party-politics. I don't know.

Nevertheless, instead of dismissing all red shirts a priori as opportunists, why not look at what some of them are actually saying:

I came here to fight because I want to set principles in this country. Thats why I have fought with my heart and my life. When someone died, I hoped their deaths would be worth it. We dont want any money because it is impermanent.However what would make the lives lost permanent is legal prosecution that would set the principles, that would prevent any killing in the future. This is what the people wanted, not the money.

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3733

To me, they're all barking up the wrong tree. Some may be barking angrily, and some barking wimpishly, but they're all missing the point (of Democracy) by a country mile. They still accept money to vote a certain way. They still believe the campaign promises that they'll all get a lot more money. They still think Thaksin is good for Thailand. The last point is the most ridiculous. It's like thinking nuclear radiation is good for a day-care center. When Reds start showing a modicum of civility and decency, I'll sit up and listen to what they say.

[bigbamboo]

The eloquent red-shirt leader was responding to a rumour reportedly spread by Pheu Thai MPs that he and other "hard-core" red shirts were in fact trying to prevent Thaksin from coming back.

"That is a malicious rumour spread against me," Nattawut declared. He said he hoped his latest message would not be twisted by certain Pheu Thai MPs when they report back to Thaksin.

Why would Nattawut be concerned about what PTP MPs report to Thaksin, he's only Yinglucks caddie.

But the caddie is also holding the Pheu Thai MP's balls.

[indyuk]

IMO opinion the 'Red Shirts' as a cohesive group do not exist. Redshirt quangos are not and never have been a single Juristic entity. Some individual Redshirt Quangos have roots that go back to the revolution in Loas and before. I am sure that any action that is supported by every Redshirt quango only comes in to existence after much hard bargaining and at times animosity. Some Redshirt quangos are extreme and hard left in their politics

[maoribrotha]

Every political movement is a broad church...they have to be....as real human beings coalesce on some, not all interests. The Red shirts and the Yellows will have diverse views within...as do the Democrats and Republicans...or Labour v the Conservatives. To assume any different is to have a Sesame Street / Play School view of politics.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand