SPECIAL REPORT
'Amnesty bill a lesson for all'
Nawakhun Manthati,
Kris Bhromsuthi
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- A year has passed since then-ruling Pheu Thai Party passed the controversial blanket amnesty bill - a move that had taught lessons to both politicians and citizens, academics said yesterday.

Ekachai Chainuvati, deputy dean of law at a private university, said the first lesson from the protests against this bill is that people have learned that they can overcome a parliamentary dictatorship via democratic means.

The second lesson that people need to realise is that according to the Constitution, national reforms can only be put in place after general elections. If reform precedes elections, then there will be no legitimate institutions acting as a legislature.

The future of Thai politics will be tough to predict without reading the new charter, as it would be a key factor in determining the country's fate.

"If the new charter is written transparently and effectively enforced so political parties and the people abide by the rules, the country will have a better future," Ekachai said.

Attasit Pankeaw, a political scientist at Thammasat University, said Pheu Thai promoted the amnesty bill ahead of the election that they won, meaning Thais should accept a democratic government agenda.

"People should be more interested in following the legislative process exercised by MPs, so they can regulate their conduct," he said. "Thais should also learn to ensure their MPs represent the people's agenda rather than that of their party or themselves."

Political scientist Sirote Klampai-boon said people have to admit that the amnesty bill was not wrong. Thailand's political history shows that amnesty bills have been passed several times shortly after military coups.

"Military juntas have put through amnesty bills many times before, so proposing this amnesty bill last year should not have posed such a problem," he said.

The blanket amnesty bill was aimed at forgiving political offences, especially those committed by anti-government protesters, and those who turned up at the rallies for no particular reason and ended up being put in prison. He said proposing amnesty on the basis of forgiving these people is legitimate, adding that the problem was that the bill was wrongly interpreted and used as a political tool to discredit political opponents.

The political conflict will likely continue, because the longstanding problem of colour-coded politics has not been solved, he pointed out.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-bill-a-lesson-for-all-30246649.html

-- The Nation 2014-10-31

When the amnesty bill was 'PUSHED' through in the most undemocratic way imaginable. That was the last straw indeed. For it amounted (in my opinion) to treason.

One of the most important spokes in the wheels of democracy is 'rule of law'. The amnesty bill was an attempt to remove 'rule of law' in 25,000 criminal cases.

An attempt to remove 'rule of law' is an affront to both king and country. All those who backed it should have literally been clapped in irons as a warning to those who may want to follow in their footsteps.

All this for one man.

Edited October 30, 201411 yr by RustBucket

Amnesty should be considered on a case by case basis by a panel of people from different parts of the country and different political persuasions. With the exception that murderers, child molesters, those guilty of treason and crimes against the state or crown never get amnesty.

Carte Blanc amnesty is totally wrong.

The blanket amnesty bill was aimed at forgiving political offences, especially those committed by anti-government protesters, and those who turned up at the rallies for no particular reason and ended up being put in prison. He said proposing amnesty on the basis of forgiving these people is legitimate, adding that the problem was that the bill was wrongly interpreted and used as a political tool to discredit political opponents.

A blatant lie, it was aimed at amnesty for one man and just happened to cover the protesters. Thanks are owed to the protesters that took to the streets to prevent it. Sutheps leadership, in my opinion, may very well be the only decent thing he has ever done although his motives are highly questionable....always.

The mention of this sordid episode should have the blood pressure rising , however Thai's are used to this , (as mentioned) , the Junta had many Amnesty's for all sorts of political hacks and for some their criminal record was suspect, one of the reasons the PTP failed , is that Thai's could see through the corruption , the non -existent transparency and many thought Thailand had moved on from the Junta controlled Governments of the past, as I have said before, some sections in Thailand live in the past glories and regret the junta type governance has disappeared , one wonders if it has, after all, look who's running the country.

Interesting comments from that staunch supporter of democracy Ekachai-chainuvati Faculty Member. Studies Peace and Conflict Studies. University of Siam.

​Strange how he views peace , would seem that he was more inclined via the puppet master to extol conflict.

​A splendid example of hypocrisy from a P.T.P. self enhancing political hack

http://rednewsliveth.blogspot.com/2014/01/ekachai-chainuvati.html

Crap. Whole Thailand have people who write such garbage then they have little hope of stepping out of the dark ages.

When the amnesty bill was 'PUSHED' through in the most undemocratic way imaginable. That was the last straw indeed. For it amounted (in my opinion) to treason.

One of the most important spokes in the wheels of democracy is 'rule of law'. The amnesty bill was an attempt to remove 'rule of law' in 25,000 criminal cases.

An attempt to remove 'rule of law' is an affront to both king and country. All those who backed it should have literally been clapped in irons as a warning to those who may want to follow in their footsteps.

All this for one man.

Is it an affront for the NCPO to write an amnesty for themselves? or are some amnesties okay?

There was a "People's Bill" forwarded for consideration. That was a bill with no political involvement. That was a bill that has no political agenda. That bill did not absolve thaksin ergo excuses were made not to push it in parliament. Remember that was a bill by THE PEOPLE.

Fast forward to the deformed cousin of the Worachai bill. It was solely politically manufactured. It was a bill that had a sole political agenda. That bill did absolve thaksin ergo excuses were made to push it through in parliament against the wished of THE PEOPLE that polled an over whelming (not a 43% majority like the 2011 elections) 82% that they did not want this amnesty bill. In fact the majority of the grass roots red shirts strongly condemned it.

So because the overwhelming majority (not the 43%) did not want the deformed cousin it was then pushed through at 4am with the PTP thinking because everyone was asleep it will be over looked (PTP logic right there folks) This was pushed through parliament (against the wishes of THE PEOPLE by a parliamentary vote of 310-0!! WOW. Hang on? One would think the whole of Thailand wanted it?? Unless of course the 310 did not represent the voice of their electorate..We know they did not. They represented 1 man. (and they compare the current "democracy reform team" to North Korea! haha muppets)

Luckily the senate did not hold the voice of the majority (not a 43% majority mind you) in contempt and the bill was overturned by 141- 0. Thanks god for rational, appointed senators.

So yes, the lesson here is THE PEOPLE can overcome a parliamentary dictatorship via democratic means.

But heay the PTP were elected by an overwhelming majority of 43% so that gives them license to be as undemocratic as they like post ballot box!!

Edited October 31, 201411 yr by djjamie

why bother with a constitution if it can be ripped up by the military without consequences.

why bother with a constitution if it can be ripped up by the military without consequences.

Why bother with the "Rule of Law" (democratic principle) when it can be ripped up by the thaksin regime.

Luckily this one did have consequences. THE PEOPLE of Thailand were against it.

It occurs to me that most of the above posters would benefit from reading about the blind men and the elephant.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

why bother with a constitution if it can be ripped up by the military without consequences.

Why bother with the "Rule of Law" (democratic principle) when it can be ripped up by the thaksin regime.

Luckily this one did have consequences. THE PEOPLE of Thailand were against it.

I agree with that as well. The point is a constitution is supposed to be something that is set in concrete and extremely difficult to dismantle, it is after all the foundation of the law of the land. My opinion is that Thaksin didn't rip up the laws of the land, he abused the spirit in which they were made by political manoeuvring, ie bribery and threats and with his large house majority just changed laws to suite himself,something that a well written constitution should have hindered, something that a common sense of morality should have stopped without the need for demonstrations but that would be asking too much of the Thai psyche.

"Political scientist Sirote Klampai-boon said people have to admit that the amnesty bill was not wrong."

He lost me right there. The bill was put through the first reading as something acceptable then amended to include Thaksin and all his crimes. It was even backdated to cover any he might have forgotten about. The result was railroaded through Parliament 310:0 in the biggest political disgrace I have ever witnessed.

The whole scheme was planned from start to finish and Thai's should never forget this low point in their history. Every one of those 310 should be in jail for abuse of power.

This 'Political Scientist' is a great example about how academics who live in classrooms and spend their time talking with other academics are virtually zero use in the real world. However, as Thailand has no experience in any of the complex issues of the world, jokers like this find a prominence way beyond their value.

All they had to do was to push the amnesty bill through WITHOUT Dubai convict and we would not have had all that mess and it would have been likely the PTP would still be in power. These people screwed themselves,

The blanket amnesty bill was aimed at forgiving political offences, especially those committed by anti-government protesters, and those who turned up at the rallies for no particular reason and ended up being put in prison.

To the best of by knowledge those who were put in prison were convicted of criminal offences in a criminal court and none were put in prison for no particular reason.

Those who were convicted of less serious offences have already been released and the ones that remain (about 30) have been convicted on serious charges such as burning public buildings.

As I noted on another topic the Yingluck administration made no effort to help them in their time in office.

The blanket amnesty bill was aimed at forgiving political offences, especially those committed by anti-government protesters, and those who turned up at the rallies for no particular reason and ended up being put in prison. He said proposing amnesty on the basis of forgiving these people is legitimate, adding that the problem was that the bill was wrongly interpreted and used as a political tool to discredit political opponents.

OK, that was the revisionists PR, let's see what actually went on:

On October 18, Pheu Thai member Prayuth Siripanich proposed an expansion of the bill's amnesty coverage to include those accused of wrongdoing by the now-defunct Assets Examination Committee.

...

Prayuth said he met Thaksin in Hong Kong several months ago, before he proposed the change to Worachai's draft.

"Once I met him, he said 'Brother, I want to go home now'. He said just that, and I knew immediately that he would like to return to Thailand through a proper channel. And a channel that can help him return is amnesty. So, it has been on my mind all the time that I must help him come home."

Of course the same guy said: "Prayuth responded: "The amnesty will not be applied to Thaksin because his legal predicament stemmed from an alleged abuse of power, with no links to political rallies."

Which shows the complete disconnect with morals and honesty of the average PTP member.

why bother with a constitution if it can be ripped up by the military without consequences.

Why bother with the "Rule of Law" (democratic principle) when it can be ripped up by the thaksin regime.

Luckily this one did have consequences. THE PEOPLE of Thailand were against it.

I agree with that as well. The point is a constitution is supposed to be something that is set in concrete and extremely difficult to dismantle, it is after all the foundation of the law of the land. My opinion is that Thaksin didn't rip up the laws of the land, he abused the spirit in which they were made by political manoeuvring, ie bribery and threats and with his large house majority just changed laws to suite himself,something that a well written constitution should have hindered, something that a common sense of morality should have stopped without the need for demonstrations but that would be asking too much of the Thai psyche.

Anything can be dismantled by someone who takes power by force.

Whats ironic is that PTP hosted a "Reconciliation Meeting" and invite Nobel Prize winners and leaders to give their views. All of them unanimously said full amnesty should be avoided as it will create more problems. PTP refuse to listen and wasted tax payers money by putting on a show trying to show they want "reconciliation", yet they avoid all the advices and push ahead with the opposite things these foreign guests said.

When the amnesty bill was 'PUSHED' through in the most undemocratic way imaginable. That was the last straw indeed. For it amounted (in my opinion) to treason.

One of the most important spokes in the wheels of democracy is 'rule of law'. The amnesty bill was an attempt to remove 'rule of law' in 25,000 criminal cases.

An attempt to remove 'rule of law' is an affront to both king and country. All those who backed it should have literally been clapped in irons as a warning to those who may want to follow in their footsteps.

All this for one man.

Is it an affront for the NCPO to write an amnesty for themselves? or are some amnesties okay?

So what you're saying is that a legal government elected "by the people" is just as bad as a coup government who takes power by force? Good comparison there.

why bother with a constitution if it can be ripped up by the military without consequences.

Yes.

No way should they have ripped up the constitution. That is there as a default law no matter what the political status is at the time.

The reason it was ripped up was so that the Junta would be able to do whatever they want in the country without consequences.

In my opinion there should be only one man in this country with the ability to do anything with the constitution and you all know who I mean here.

It should be beyond the power of anyone else to touch it.

Like I said, the reason for scrapping it was obvious to all..... impunity. They could have had a much easier time just adjusting it and closing up the holes like any civilized country would have done.

Bloody hell for god's sake.... Even Hitler never tore up the German constitution, he just added a few articles to it where he needed them.

why bother with a constitution if it can be ripped up by the military without consequences.

Why bother with the "Rule of Law" (democratic principle) when it can be ripped up by the thaksin regime.

Luckily this one did have consequences. THE PEOPLE of Thailand were against it.

I agree with that as well. The point is a constitution is supposed to be something that is set in concrete and extremely difficult to dismantle, it is after all the foundation of the law of the land. My opinion is that Thaksin didn't rip up the laws of the land, he abused the spirit in which they were made by political manoeuvring, ie bribery and threats and with his large house majority just changed laws to suite himself,something that a well written constitution should have hindered, something that a common sense of morality should have stopped without the need for demonstrations but that would be asking too much of the Thai psyche.

I'm not sure if it passed you by but even the bastard son of the 1997 constitution had checks and balances built in. The constitution cannot legislate for the major opposition party debating the bill for 19 hours and then having a hissy fit and boycotting the vote. Those checks and balances were implemented by the Senate and the Amnesty Bill was rejected. End of story. Or should have been - however certain parties (including political ones) saw an opportunity and exploited the resultant public protest to morph it into something else entirely. The results of that action by certain people are plain to be seen.

Apparently djjamie has an interesting slant on "democratic principles" depending on whom is implementing them ..............

When the amnesty bill was 'PUSHED' through in the most undemocratic way imaginable. That was the last straw indeed. For it amounted (in my opinion) to treason.

One of the most important spokes in the wheels of democracy is 'rule of law'. The amnesty bill was an attempt to remove 'rule of law' in 25,000 criminal cases.

An attempt to remove 'rule of law' is an affront to both king and country. All those who backed it should have literally been clapped in irons as a warning to those who may want to follow in their footsteps.

All this for one man.

Is it an affront for the NCPO to write an amnesty for themselves? or are some amnesties okay?

So what you're saying is that a legal government elected "by the people" is just as bad as a coup government who takes power by force? Good comparison there.

Woah - that's some leap of "logic" there! It was a perfectly valid question.

If rustbucket is so adamant that amnesties are an affront to both King and Country because they are an attempt to remove the "rule of law", surely he would be against all amnesties, whoever implements them. In case you didn't notice the PTP Amnesty Bill was rejected by the Senate and not implemented - that cannot be said for all amnesties, particularly in the last 7 years.

Edited October 31, 201411 yr by fab4

why bother with a constitution if it can be ripped up by the military without consequences.

Why bother with the "Rule of Law" (democratic principle) when it can be ripped up by the thaksin regime.

Luckily this one did have consequences. THE PEOPLE of Thailand were against it.

I agree with that as well. The point is a constitution is supposed to be something that is set in concrete and extremely difficult to dismantle, it is after all the foundation of the law of the land. My opinion is that Thaksin didn't rip up the laws of the land, he abused the spirit in which they were made by political manoeuvring, ie bribery and threats and with his large house majority just changed laws to suite himself,something that a well written constitution should have hindered, something that a common sense of morality should have stopped without the need for demonstrations but that would be asking too much of the Thai psyche.

Anything can be dismantled by someone who takes power by force.

but that shouldn't make it legal

They'll (hopefully) think again before trying to bring that piece of sh1t back again. All of this, the street protests, the coup, the riots to pardon a criminal fugitive. An animal.

A lesson for all, indeed. Som nam naa!!!

When the amnesty bill was 'PUSHED' through in the most undemocratic way imaginable. That was the last straw indeed. For it amounted (in my opinion) to treason.

One of the most important spokes in the wheels of democracy is 'rule of law'. The amnesty bill was an attempt to remove 'rule of law' in 25,000 criminal cases.

An attempt to remove 'rule of law' is an affront to both king and country. All those who backed it should have literally been clapped in irons as a warning to those who may want to follow in their footsteps.

All this for one man.

Is it an affront for the NCPO to write an amnesty for themselves? or are some amnesties okay?

So what you're saying is that a legal government elected "by the people" is just as bad as a coup government who takes power by force? Good comparison there.

Woah - that's some leap of "logic" there! It was a perfectly valid question.

If rustbucket is so adamant that amnesties are an affront to both King and Country because they are an attempt to remove the "rule of law", surely he would be against all amnesties, whoever implements them. In case you didn't notice the PTP Amnesty Bill was rejected by the Senate and not implemented - that cannot be said for all amnesties, particularly in the last 7 years.

Rejected because of an overwhelming outcry...............is it normal to push through something in government at 3-30 am ??? the reason being ???

Is it an affront for the NCPO to write an amnesty for themselves? or are some amnesties okay?

So what you're saying is that a legal government elected "by the people" is just as bad as a coup government who takes power by force? Good comparison there.

Woah - that's some leap of "logic" there! It was a perfectly valid question.

If rustbucket is so adamant that amnesties are an affront to both King and Country because they are an attempt to remove the "rule of law", surely he would be against all amnesties, whoever implements them. In case you didn't notice the PTP Amnesty Bill was rejected by the Senate and not implemented - that cannot be said for all amnesties, particularly in the last 7 years.

It's ridiculous that people complain about coup junta's giving themselves amnesty.

What do they expect? That a military commit a coup and then march themselves off to jail?

Sure, complain about the coup, but don't waste time complaining that they give themselves amnesty.

Anything can be dismantled by someone who takes power by force.

but that shouldn't make it legal

It doesn't have to be legal. They've just taken power by force. What do they care?

They'll (hopefully) think again before trying to bring that piece of sh1t back again. All of this, the street protests, the coup, the riots to pardon a criminal fugitive. An animal.

A lesson for all, indeed. Som nam naa!!!

Contanance, contanance.

Edited October 31, 201411 yr by soalbundy

Anything can be dismantled by someone who takes power by force.

but that shouldn't make it legal

It doesn't have to be legal. They've just taken power by force. What do they care?

The consequences later. It maybe that the state of a nation is such ( primarily in a fledgling democracy ) that a coup and the resulting demolition and disregard of the constitution is deemed necessary, the actions of the coup makers could be considered moral if they were prepared to answer for their actions before a court of law after the dust has settled and they are no longer in power. If, as in Germany, soldiers would consider themselves as citizens in uniform who owe allegiance to the constitution then a coup would be nigh on impossible except in the most extreme circumstances. As a British citizen i believe that we get by quite well without a written constitution.