Pheu Thai - 'Amnesty bill a lesson for all'

[whybother]

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.

Moral doesn't make it legal. They've taken power by force. That would be illegal in any democratic country. Putting themselves before the courts would see them going to jail. Legally, any government they overthrew would be put back in power. What would be the point of a coup if that was to happen?

[soalbundy]

@whybother.....precisely my point.

[fab4]

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.

Well that's kind of the idea, whybother, to discourage coups, ever wondered why there have been 19 coups since 1932?

But going along with your "line of argument" - the coup leaders don't just stop at absolving themselves from being jailed for staging a coup, they absolve themselves from any prosecution for any future actions arising from that coup. This includes transgressions such as human rights abuses etc. So excuse me for complaining...............

[EnglishJohn]

"..... adding that the problem was that the bill was wrongly interpreted"

almost exactly the same words as Thaksin used.

No prizes for guessing where this release originated. To the rest of us, the original bill was fair and proper. The amended version was clearly written to benefit Thaksin. I would like to know which bit we have wrongly interpreted ??.

[whybother]

Well that's kind of the idea, whybother, to discourage coups, ever wondered why there have been 19 coups since 1932?

But going along with your "line of argument" - the coup leaders don't just stop at absolving themselves from being jailed for staging a coup, they absolve themselves from any prosecution for any future actions arising from that coup. This includes transgressions such as human rights abuses etc. So excuse me for complaining...............

Complain about the actions. Complain about the transgressions. Complain about the coup. Don't waste time complaining about them giving themselves amnesty.

It doesn't discourage coups, since a coup is already illegal, and that doesn't seem to stop them from happening.

btw, the amnesty they've given themselves only gives them amnesty for their actions relating to the coup itself, not anything after ... see section 37 of the 2006 constitution and section 48 of the 2014 constitution.

[phanangpete]

"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.

Agreed , but what i understand here is that no one seems to go to jail ie: those who in politics and abuse power ,also those hiso's in business or work for Govt, it seems that they don't recognise a crime has been committed (thhe powers that be ), they drag it out ,make the accusations then disappear at all levels.

The good 'intellectual' lawyer, like the rest herein Thailand, get about, ten percent of what the true problem is and waffle about it and never broach the real issues.

I been here ten years ,its always been like that, the Thai demise, ive now come to call it .

Edited October 31, 2014 by phanangpete

[bkkstooge]

Red shirt supporters make me laugh with their whinning cry baby this ain't democratic BS about the current administrators of this land. And the reason is there beloved darling of Isarn, drunk out his mind Pol Cap Chalerm, grovelling Tarit, maniac Nattawood etc.... would still be in power if it wasn't for this breathtakingly offensive bill and it was all you're own doing. AGAIN this current situation which you guys are foaming at the mouth about WAS ALL YOUR OWN DOING. Stop supporting thieving scum like Thaksin and find someone who does sincerely have the interests of Isarn people at heart and throw your lot in with him/her/them Jeez it really is that simple. .

[Mudcrab]

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 ..............

As usual Fab4 you leave out some critical information. Even though the Senate rejected the Amnesty Bill it would have become Law after 180 days or so anyway.

Hence the protests.

[ginjag]

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 ..............

As usual Fab4 you leave out some critical information. Even though the Senate rejected the Amnesty Bill it would have become Law after 180 days or so anyway.

Hence the protests.

Just to add to this answer, the reason Yinluck?Shin, wanted a quick snap election was knowing at that time she had a fab chance of getting back in and The 180 expired and all the amnesty would have applied and her brother cleared and back here for business (monkey) as per normal Shin style.

[smutcakes]

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 ..............

As usual Fab4 you leave out some critical information. Even though the Senate rejected the Amnesty Bill it would have become Law after 180 days or so anyway.

Hence the protests.

So you accuse him of leaving out critical information, and then put your sentence

Is your sentence correct? It was rejected by the Senate but would automatically become law anyway in 180 days? Are you sure about that?

[brucec64]

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.

If pushing through an amnesty bill is treason, then what does that make a coup?

[chongtak]

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.

No surprise here.

[See the bears]

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.

And how can we know if THE PEOPLE of Thailand are against the coup? Those attempting to protest were dragged off to the paddy wagon.

[See the bears]

Red shirt supporters make me laugh with their whinning cry baby this ain't democratic BS about the current administrators of this land. And the reason is there beloved darling of Isarn, drunk out his mind Pol Cap Chalerm, grovelling Tarit, maniac Nattawood etc.... would still be in power if it wasn't for this breathtakingly offensive bill and it was all you're own doing. AGAIN this current situation which you guys are foaming at the mouth about WAS ALL YOUR OWN DOING. Stop supporting thieving scum like Thaksin and find someone who does sincerely have the interests of Isarn people at heart and throw your lot in with him/her/them Jeez it really is that simple. .

An amnesty for Thaksin is the best way out of the whole mess. There is no doubt in my mind, and 10's of millions of Thai minds, that Thaksin was very unfairly treated. The Ratchada case was a politically trumped up joke & all those who have looked into the facts of the case & the court proceedings know this. The coup has just reinforced the ill-treatment in the minds of his supporters & as soon as martial law is lifted they will begin to express themselves.

[rickirs]

Who is there to question and challenge the military coup leaders to create for themselves legitimacy for violating the constitution? Gen. Prayut admitted the coup was unconstitutional. Unconstitutional acts are crimes against the People. But the Junta's answer to the constitutionality issue and its admitted criminal act under the constitution was to abolish the constitution. Where was the public debate and protest to address the Junta's actions? Sorry, but under martial law that would have been a crime in itself.

General Prayuth has said that "Thai people hope to see the return of a strengthened democratic system, with proper institutions to safeguard the principles of rule of law and legality, true public participation in the decision-making process, and efficient scrutiny mechanisms to ensure the transparency of operations." Such a process cannot begin with suspension of human rights and rule of law, no matter how justified.

The lesson learned is that he who holds the power over the entire governance system makes the rules. Unfortunately for the Yingluck administration, it had no such power. There was no "parliament dictatorship" becasue the bill was checked by the Supreme Court. Can anyone imagine NCPO directives being challenged by the Thai legal system?

[ginjag]

Who is there to question and challenge the military coup leaders to create for themselves legitimacy for violating the constitution? Gen. Prayut admitted the coup was unconstitutional. Unconstitutional acts are crimes against the People. But the Junta's answer to the constitutionality issue and its admitted criminal act under the constitution was to abolish the constitution. Where was the public debate and protest to address the Junta's actions? Sorry, but under martial law that would have been a crime in itself.

General Prayuth has said that "Thai people hope to see the return of a strengthened democratic system, with proper institutions to safeguard the principles of rule of law and legality, true public participation in the decision-making process, and efficient scrutiny mechanisms to ensure the transparency of operations." Such a process cannot begin with suspension of human rights and rule of law, no matter how justified.

The lesson learned is that he who holds the power over the entire governance system makes the rules. Unfortunately for the Yingluck administration, it had no such power. There was no "parliament dictatorship" becasue the bill was checked by the Supreme Court. Can anyone imagine NCPO directives being challenged by the Thai legal system?

And after 180 days......same situ, Yingluck back in and Thacksin back in Thailand.

[djjamie]

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 ..............

310 - 0 FOR the amnesty bill by the politicians representing THE PEOPLE.

82% AGINST the amnesty bill by THE PEOPLE

Surely I do not need to draw a diagram and post it again Fab4 to make it easy to understand!?

This is why reform is needed.

Take care my dear dear friend.

Edited October 31, 2014 by djjamie

[Cuchulainn]

He's fine with pictures or words of no more than 1 syllable.

[tbthailand]

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 ..............

As usual Fab4 you leave out some critical information. Even though the Senate rejected the Amnesty Bill it would have become Law after 180 days or so anyway.

Hence the protests.

actually, no, he did not leave anything out.

The Senate voted 141-0 late Monday to reject the bill after the ruling party withdrew its support. Although the more-powerful lower house can legally pass legislation without Senate approval after a 180-day wait, Yingluck and the government coalition parties have pledged that the bill will not be revived.

http://news.yahoo.com/thai-senate-kills-contentious-amnesty-bill-174137689.html

Timeline of the bill

Others here said that it was 'forced' through in the middle of the night. Yes the vote was early in the morning, because the 2nd and 3rd readings were in a 19 hour session prior to the vote. Don't know how many hours your day has, but...

Others have lambasted the red shirts for this too which shows an ignorance of the relationships between the factions in Thai politics. The red shirts did not support the amnesty bill.

[fab4]

Complain about the actions. Complain about the transgressions. Complain about the coup. Don't waste time complaining about them giving themselves amnesty.

It doesn't discourage coups, since a coup is already illegal, and that doesn't seem to stop them from happening.

btw, the amnesty they've given themselves only gives them amnesty for their actions relating to the coup itself, not anything after ... see section 37 of the 2006 constitution and section 48 of the 2014 constitution.

I'm sorry you're wrong. The relevant Section of the 2007 Constitution is Section 309

Section 309. Any act that its legality and constitutionality has been recognised by the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim), B.E. 2549, including all acts related therewith committed whether before or after the date of promulgation of this Constitution shall be deemed constitutionally under this Constitution.

http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2007/1.html

and Section 48 of the 2014 Interim Constitution has this to say

Article 48: All acts related to the seizure of power on May 22, 2014 by the NCPO and those associated or ordered by the head [of NCPO] (…) regardless of its impact on the legislature, executive and judiciary (…) and regardless of the acts carried out on, before or after said day, should those acts are considered to be unlawful, all those associated with those acts are entirely free of fault or guilt.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/125027/a-first-look-at-thailands-new-interim-constitution/

As usual "nobody can touch us" before or after.

Section 48, which gives amnesty to ‘all those associated’ with the May 22 coup, is another frequent feature of post-coup constitutions. These articles echo basic political and legal needs faced by many past coup-makers in the country, specifically, the need to push through legislation and receive impunity from ‘illegal acts committed before, during, or after [the coup]’.

http://constitution-unit.com/2014/09/08/the-more-things-change-analysing-the-2014-thai-interim-constitution/

Edited October 31, 2014 by fab4

[whybother]

I'm sorry you're wrong. The relevant Section of the 2007 Constitution is Section 309

Section 309. Any act that its legality and constitutionality has been recognised by the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim), B.E. 2549, including all acts related therewith committed whether before or after the date of promulgation of this Constitution shall be deemed constitutionally under this Constitution.

http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2007/1.html

and Section 48 of the 2014 Interim Constitution has this to say

Article 48: All acts related to the seizure of power on May 22, 2014 by the NCPO and those associated or ordered by the head [of NCPO] (…) regardless of its impact on the legislature, executive and judiciary (…) and regardless of the acts carried out on, before or after said day, should those acts are considered to be unlawful, all those associated with those acts are entirely free of fault or guilt.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/125027/a-first-look-at-thailands-new-interim-constitution/

As usual "nobody can touch us" before or after.

Section 48, which gives amnesty to ‘all those associated’ with the May 22 coup, is another frequent feature of post-coup constitutions. These articles echo basic political and legal needs faced by many past coup-makers in the country, specifically, the need to push through legislation and receive impunity from ‘illegal acts committed before, during, or after [the coup]’.

http://constitution-unit.com/2014/09/08/the-more-things-change-analysing-the-2014-thai-interim-constitution/

No, I am not wrong.

Section 309 of the 2007 constitution says that any act that is legal in the 2006 constitution will be legal under the 2007 constitution, whether it was committed before or after the 2007 constitution came into effect. That doesn't change the effect of any items in the 2006 constitution.

So, anything related to the seizure of control ON September 19 is given amnesty as per Section 37 of the 2006 constitution. This amnesty for events ON September 19 continues under the 2007 constitution.

Section 48 of the 2014 constitution is basically the same as the 2006 constitution and give amnesty for "anything in relation to the seizure of control ON May 22".

[Prbkk]

Yingluck canvassed the amnesty proposal in the lead up to the last election. She won it in a landslide. While the timing of the debate and vote was unfortunate, she could argue that she had a mandate for the proposal. Remember, it included amnesty for Abhisit and Suthep.

[whybother]

Yingluck canvassed the amnesty proposal in the lead up to the last election. She won it in a landslide. While the timing of the debate and vote was unfortunate, she could argue that she had a mandate for the proposal. Remember, it included amnesty for Abhisit and Suthep.

It wasn't the only reason people voted for PTP and I would hardly call 48% a landslide or a mandate.

What difference does it make that Abhisit and Suthep were included? They didn't want it.

[fab4]

No, I am not wrong.

Section 309 of the 2007 constitution says that any act that is legal in the 2006 constitution will be legal under the 2007 constitution, whether it was committed before or after the 2007 constitution came into effect. That doesn't change the effect of any items in the 2006 constitution.

So, anything related to the seizure of control ON September 19 is given amnesty as per Section 37 of the 2006 constitution. This amnesty for events ON September 19 continues under the 2007 constitution.

Section 48 of the 2014 constitution is basically the same as the 2006 constitution and give amnesty for "anything in relation to the seizure of control ON May 22".

Just how pedantic can you get?!! What part of "before or after the date of promulgation of this Constitution" in the 2007 constitution do you not understand? Once the 2007 constitution was promulgated the 2006 constitution is irrelevant.

The truth of the matter is the military write themselves amnesties which cover them for any actions before, during and after coups. If you can remember what your "argument" was, it was that the junta did not write an amnesty covering themselves for actions after the coup - you are wrong, they did and still do. Wriggle all you like...............

Edited November 1, 2014 by fab4

[whybother]

No, I am not wrong.

Section 309 of the 2007 constitution says that any act that is legal in the 2006 constitution will be legal under the 2007 constitution, whether it was committed before or after the 2007 constitution came into effect. That doesn't change the effect of any items in the 2006 constitution.

So, anything related to the seizure of control ON September 19 is given amnesty as per Section 37 of the 2006 constitution. This amnesty for events ON September 19 continues under the 2007 constitution.

Section 48 of the 2014 constitution is basically the same as the 2006 constitution and give amnesty for "anything in relation to the seizure of control ON May 22".

Just how pedantic can you get?!! What part of "before or after the date of promulgation of this Constitution" in the 2007 constitution do you not understand? Once the 2007 constitution was promulgated the 2006 constitution is irrelevant.

The truth of the matter is the military write themselves amnesties which cover them for any actions before, during and after coups. If you can remember what your "argument" was, it was that the junta did not write an amnesty covering themselves for actions after the coup - you are wrong, they did and still do. Wriggle all you like...............

Section 309 / 2007 says that "Any act that its legality and constitutionality has been recognised by the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim), B.E. 2549 ... ". It doesn't change any of the sections in the 2006 constitution. It just says that they are still valid. That's not pedantic. It's plain English.

[tbthailand]

Yingluck canvassed the amnesty proposal in the lead up to the last election. She won it in a landslide. While the timing of the debate and vote was unfortunate, she could argue that she had a mandate for the proposal. Remember, it included amnesty for Abhisit and Suthep.

It wasn't the only reason people voted for PTP and I would hardly call 48% a landslide or a mandate.

What difference does it make that Abhisit and Suthep were included? They didn't want it.

you may not call it a landslide, but every report on the election results did. And 48% out of 40 parties contesting an election is a landslide in my book. They also beat the next closest party by double digits. Oh, and they took 53% of the seats as well.

yup, looked like a landslide.

Abhisit and Suthep did not 'want' the amnesty because they did not need the amnesty. They weren't going to pay for their crimes ever. That gave them the luxury of denouncing the blanket amnesty. In the end, the only difference that their inclusion made was to tick off the red shirts.

[whybother]

Yingluck canvassed the amnesty proposal in the lead up to the last election. She won it in a landslide. While the timing of the debate and vote was unfortunate, she could argue that she had a mandate for the proposal. Remember, it included amnesty for Abhisit and Suthep.

It wasn't the only reason people voted for PTP and I would hardly call 48% a landslide or a mandate.

What difference does it make that Abhisit and Suthep were included? They didn't want it.

you may not call it a landslide, but every report on the election results did. And 48% out of 40 parties contesting an election is a landslide in my book. They also beat the next closest party by double digits. Oh, and they took 53% of the seats as well.

yup, looked like a landslide.

Abhisit and Suthep did not 'want' the amnesty because they did not need the amnesty. They weren't going to pay for their crimes ever. That gave them the luxury of denouncing the blanket amnesty. In the end, the only difference that their inclusion made was to tick off the red shirts.

Maybe the didn't want amnesty because they didn't commit any crimes.

[tbthailand]

Yingluck canvassed the amnesty proposal in the lead up to the last election. She won it in a landslide. While the timing of the debate and vote was unfortunate, she could argue that she had a mandate for the proposal. Remember, it included amnesty for Abhisit and Suthep.

It wasn't the only reason people voted for PTP and I would hardly call 48% a landslide or a mandate.

What difference does it make that Abhisit and Suthep were included? They didn't want it.

you may not call it a landslide, but every report on the election results did. And 48% out of 40 parties contesting an election is a landslide in my book. They also beat the next closest party by double digits. Oh, and they took 53% of the seats as well.

yup, looked like a landslide.

Abhisit and Suthep did not 'want' the amnesty because they did not need the amnesty. They weren't going to pay for their crimes ever. That gave them the luxury of denouncing the blanket amnesty. In the end, the only difference that their inclusion made was to tick off the red shirts.

Maybe the didn't want amnesty because they didn't commit any crimes.

yeah, well 'maybe'

[rametindallas]

These guys must all be Thaksin supporters. I'll demonstrate their bias.

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.

Wrong, the parliamentary dictatorship was overcome, not by democratic means as he stated, but by military coup de etat.

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.
No government has ever reformed itself after winning an election. Winning the elections means it's your turn to feed at the public trough. Reform equals no feeding at the public trough. It just won't happen.

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.
Won what election? The Thailand Supreme Court nullified it and its results. It's like it never happened so you can't use it to say what the people wanted.

"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."
"Thais should?" Thailand has been away from Absolute Monarchy for fewer than 83 years and under one dictatorship or another during most of those 82+ years. They have no idea of their responsibilities in a democracy and it is ridiculous to expect they should. Who taught them their responsibilities? No one.

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.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The military absolving itself of violating the constitution making it OK for a sitting government to forgive itself of current and past crimes/political crimes is the equivalent of, "Johnny got away with it and so should I". How childish! Anyway, the 'blanket' amnesty bill the PTP tried to pass (to benefit themselves), using every dirty trick in the book, including changing the wording of the bill from its first reading to second reading and passing it at 4 a.m. after telling the opposition to go home, was a most egregious violation of the public trust and a mockery of democracy. I expect democratic behavior from a democratically elected government.

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.

Dr. Thaksin's crime of helping enrich his wife by illegally giving his blessing to buy government property was not a 'political crime' yet it was included in the 'blanket' amnesty bill. When you say "aimed"... "especially" and refer to a group who should get amnesty but, in reality, are but a small percentage of the 27,000 crimes that fell under the 'blanket' amnesty bill, you are not being disingenuous, you are outright lying. BTW, did anyone turn up at the rallies for no particular reason? Those in jail are in jail on more serious charges than having "turned up at the rallies for no particular reason". What a lie!

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.
Anyone with a brain knew the principle beneficiary of the 'blanket' amnesty bill was Thaksin Shinawatra so he could return, white-washed, get his dirty money back, and assume the PM position they were convinced he was robbed of. Sirote Klampai-boon, you are the political tool of Thaksin.

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

As long as Thaksin continues his quest for the position of President for Life of Thailand, there will continue to be color-coded politics and conflict.

These Thaksin lackeys are teaching your children, Thailand. I'm glad they are being exposed for the propagandists they really are.

Thank you, The Nation, for illustrating that Thaksin still has his minions and is still a threat to the future of democracy in Thailand.

Edited November 2, 2014 by rametindallas