Pheu Thai has no choice but to bite its lip on retreat

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
Pheu Thai has no choice but to bite its lip on retreat
Attayuth Bootsripoom

BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's statement about the controversial amnesty bill on Tuesday should have reduced the political temperature somewhat. However, it was hardly viewed as a signal for the government to retreat.

The statement that she read out on the state-run media was largely confusing and went round in circles.

The clearest message may be this part: "I want to plead for the senators, those appointed and those elected, to use their discretion while deliberating the bill. It is well known that the Senate is beyond interference. So I hope the senators will deliberate on the bill on the basis of forgiveness and compassion so as to dispense justice equally for those with grievances and pain.

"The deliberation on amnesty should factor in the country's interest. Regardless of the outcome of the Senate's decision, be it to disagree with, to withhold or to revise the bill, I believe the members of Parliament, who cast the vote for the bill's passage, will accept the result for the sake of national reconciliation."

The amnesty bill has passed deliberation by the House of Representatives, and it is now up to the Senate to decide whether to reject it.

If the upper house votes against the bill, it will be returned to the lower chamber. However, there is a grace period of 180 days before the House of Representatives can vote on whether to reaffirm a bill rejected by the Senate, according to the Constitution.

In her statement, the prime minister appeared to avoid making it sound like the government was interfering with the Senate. She seemed to be trying to avoid creating a perception that she was telling the senators to be independent from any political intervention.

However, as it turned out, shortly after the PM made her statement, a group of elected senators led by Senate Speaker Nikom Wairatpanij called a press conference to promise that they would vote to "block" the amnesty bill. They explained that the bill contained some "inappropriate features and flaws", though some of these very senators had earlier voiced support for the bill.

In the evening, the ruling Pheu Thai Party, which easily managed to push the amnesty bill through the House of Representatives thanks to its majority, also called a press conference to signal that it was retreating following widespread public opposition.

What happened that caused the government, the ruling party and senators to change their stance overnight? One undeniable fact is the widespread public outrage against the amnesty bill from a diverse group of people and organisations. These include the middle class, professional groups and scholars. These people have created enormous pressure against the government.

The ruling politicians appeared to have become aware that they made a wrong assessment about opposition to a blanket amnesty. It was, therefore, wise for them not to stand against the tide, or they could get booted out of power.

However, the ruling party is now in an awkward position. A clear retreat over the matter would not bring them any credit or praise, as the ball is now in the Senate's court. It is the upper house that will get a hero's welcome from the public if the senators vote to reject the amnesty bill - and it is now highly likely that most senators will vote against the measure.

Pheu Thai has suffered a lot of political bruising recently, due to infighting in the party and souring ties with its red-shirt supporters, who oppose a blanket amnesty.

The party's support for the amnesty, which critics say is aimed at whitewashing its patriarch Thaksin Shinawatra's wrongdoings, has negatively affected its popularity among the electorate.

The ruling party was forced to do something in order to help improve its poor standing. It had to retreat, although it did not actually want to do so.


-- The Nation 2013-11-07

[ChrisY1]

The Shinawatra clan retreat on this bill ???.....Dont think they have the courage to accept such a loss of face......

[monkeycountry]

A video clip was posted yesterday showing a red shirt MP telling a crowd of red shirts that they would let the senate reject the bill, so the demonstrators would go home, and then in 180 days apparently they could push the bill through without approval of the senate.

His remarks made it clear that Yingluck has no intention to leave the decision to the senate as she claimed in the press conference, but more importantly, is it correct that after the 180 days parliament can push the bill through without approval of the senate?

[ramrod711]

The clearest message may be this part: "I want to plead for the senators, those appointed and those elected, to use their discretion while deliberating the bill. It is well known that the Senate is beyond interference. So I hope the senators will deliberate on the bill on the basis of forgiveness and compassion so as to dispense justice equally for those with grievances and pain.

It is well known that the senate is beyond interference she says, she didn't add that PTP was seeking to change the way that the senate is appointed or elected so that it can more easily be interfered with.

[chainarong]

The senators have a duty to Thailand, not to a former Prime Minister nor to supporters to any political party , they have a duty to rule of law not to support law breakers or persons who have committed a criminal offence, the senators must up hold the good for Thailand the nation, There are back door provisions to pass this bill however the more messages Yingluck Shinawtra and the PTP receive the less likely the bill will be passed, with out more protests and unrest, something they cannot ignore. I rest my case.

[coma]

The clearest message may be this part: "I want to plead for the senators, those appointed and those elected, to use their discretion while deliberating the bill. It is well known that the Senate is beyond interference.

I thought their duty was to their constituants.

[huanga]

PTP's strategy should be to let the Senate reject the bill from the get-go so the House get to deliberate it again in 180 days. And this time around, the House will not need the Senate's approval to pass it into law. Since they have a House majority, it will almost be a given. During these 180 days, obviously they will crank up their amnesty PR machine and hoping the general climate against this bill will change!

On the Democrat's' front, they should be hitting iron when it's hot. They want to out-rightly revoke the bill because the general public's sentiment is on their side now. Can they do it and will the general public persevere to revoke the bill? We will all wait and see. PTP is now saying all the right thing up to the point of bill's revocation. Disperse the crowds, do some damage control and we will see again in 180 days!

Twist here is whether this government be dissolved and new election be called? Interesting but turbulent time ahead. Buddha bless Thailand but please kill all the politicians so a true harmony can be restored!

Edited November 7, 2013 by huanga

[soi41]

"The statement she read out on state-run media was largely confusing and went round in circles"

That is our Yingluck!!

Try a square one next time!

[deckard]

A couple of months ago some astrologers predicted big trouble for the goverment to occur mid October . Well looks like they were correct apart from it happening a month or so late .

[tingtongteesood]

After such a loss of face, this is usually the point where the Thai loser goes home and gets his gang of mates and his gun and comes back to commit murder. I am sure PT won't take this lieing down....

[mikemac]

"The statement she read out on state-run media was largely confusing and went round in circles"

That is our Yingluck!!

She was probably holding the page upside down, that's why it was confusing.

Fellow PTP members thought she had picked up a new language on one of her official shopping sojourns.

Not surprising that her loyal followers, both Thai and "imported", have a similar low mentality. The blind leading the blind, so to speak.

[indyuk]

The Shinawatra clan retreat on this bill ???.....Dont think they have the courage to accept such a loss of face......

Hi Chris Y1; I'm sure they do. After all the mistake that they made was to be too democratic in that they allowed six different views to be pasted into the draft bill. The normal thing to do when lobbyists present you with drafted 'article(s)' is to melt them down and distribute each article (or appear to) across the text loosing enough edge (from the lobbyists) for your text to dominate yet meanwhile burying enough of the lobbyist(s) words in the text for them to feel that that they got something.

[indyuk]

A video clip was posted yesterday showing a red shirt MP telling a crowd of red shirts that they would let the senate reject the bill, so the demonstrators would go home, and then in 180 days apparently they could push the bill through without approval of the senate.

His remarks made it clear that Yingluck has no intention to leave the decision to the senate as she claimed in the press conference, but more importantly, is it correct that after the 180 days parliament can push the bill through without approval of the senate?

Hi Monkeycountry; IMO I think that you misunderstand. The Thai Senate scrutinizes, advises and recommends. The a bill is returned to Parliament after scrutiny it is conjoined with the Senate's advice and recommendations in the shape of edits to the bill that convey the Senate's advice and recommendations. After 180 days the Government can hold a vote on whether the Bill should Pass into Law. If a majority of the house vote in favor the Bill becomes law there and then without any further referral to anyone or any institution.

How ever the Bill should reflect the advice and recommendations of the Senate in it's text.

Edited November 7, 2013 by indyuk

[whybother]

A video clip was posted yesterday showing a red shirt MP telling a crowd of red shirts that they would let the senate reject the bill, so the demonstrators would go home, and then in 180 days apparently they could push the bill through without approval of the senate.

His remarks made it clear that Yingluck has no intention to leave the decision to the senate as she claimed in the press conference, but more importantly, is it correct that after the 180 days parliament can push the bill through without approval of the senate?

Hi Monkeycountry; IMO I think that you misunderstand. The Thai Senate scrutinizes, advises and recommends. The a bill is returned to Parliament after scrutiny it is conjoined with the Senate's advice and recommendations in the shape of edits to the bill that convey the Senate's advice and recommendations. After 180 days the Government can hold a vote on whether the Bill should Pass into Law. If a majority of the house vote in favor the Bill becomes law there and then without any further referral to anyone or any institution.

How ever the Bill should reflect the advice and recommendations of the Senate in it's text.

The 180 day wait only applies if the senate reject the bill. If the senate amends the bill, it goes through 3 readings in the senate, and then the house can vote on the amended version immediately.

[Spare]

Likely the army would consider moving in this weekend:

Scenario 1: Another bloodless GOOD coup

Scenario 2: Another round of life firing at protesters.

[kcore]

A video clip was posted yesterday showing a red shirt MP telling a crowd of red shirts that they would let the senate reject the bill, so the demonstrators would go home, and then in 180 days apparently they could push the bill through without approval of the senate.

His remarks made it clear that Yingluck has no intention to leave the decision to the senate as she claimed in the press conference, but more importantly, is it correct that after the 180 days parliament can push the bill through without approval of the senate?

Hi Monkeycountry; IMO I think that you misunderstand. The Thai Senate scrutinizes, advises and recommends. The a bill is returned to Parliament after scrutiny it is conjoined with the Senate's advice and recommendations in the shape of edits to the bill that convey the Senate's advice and recommendations. After 180 days the Government can hold a vote on whether the Bill should Pass into Law. If a majority of the house vote in favor the Bill becomes law there and then without any further referral to anyone or any institution.

How ever the Bill should reflect the advice and recommendations of the Senate in it's text.

The 180 day wait only applies if the senate reject the bill. If the senate amends the bill, it goes through 3 readings in the senate, and then the house can vote on the amended version immediately.

Or, excuse me as I am not to familiar with Westminster governments, they can refuse to accept or block the bill, in which case it is dead on arrival?

[whybother]

 

A video clip was posted yesterday showing a red shirt MP telling a crowd of red shirts that they would let the senate reject the bill, so the demonstrators would go home, and then in 180 days apparently they could push the bill through without approval of the senate.

His remarks made it clear that Yingluck has no intention to leave the decision to the senate as she claimed in the press conference, but more importantly, is it correct that after the 180 days parliament can push the bill through without approval of the senate?

Hi Monkeycountry; IMO I think that you misunderstand. The Thai Senate scrutinizes, advises and recommends. The a bill is returned to Parliament after scrutiny it is conjoined with the Senate's advice and recommendations in the shape of edits to the bill that convey the Senate's advice and recommendations. After 180 days the Government can hold a vote on whether the Bill should Pass into Law. If a majority of the house vote in favor the Bill becomes law there and then without any further referral to anyone or any institution.

How ever the Bill should reflect the advice and recommendations of the Senate in it's text.

 

 

The 180 day wait only applies if the senate reject the bill.  If the senate amends the bill, it goes through 3 readings in the senate, and then the house can vote on the amended version immediately.

Or, excuse me as I am not to familiar with Westminster governments, they can refuse to accept or block the bill, in which case it is dead on arrival?

The senate can't kill the bill. They can accept it. They can amend it, which will mean it goes back to the house for them to vote on the amendments. Or they can reject it, which means that it goes back to the house and they have to wait 180 days before they can do anything with it. The house can probably kill it when it us sent back, before the 180 days, but I am not clear on what else they can do after the 180 days. They may be able to forward it to the king for sign off without senate acceptance, or they might be able to amend it and go through the process again.

I know in Australia (same basic system), they send it back to the senate either amended or not without the 180 day wait. If its unchanged and the senate reject it again, then its dead.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app