No rallies over impeachment, Prayut warns

[tbthailand]

The Democrats were not there as they had been tol that the bill would be debated the following day so they went home. After they had gone a revised bill was introduced and passed followed by the 3rd version of the bill which was rammed through at 4.30 am without the opposition Democrats being informed.

As for your statement that the bill would have been passed anyway that just shows the contempt that the PTP always had for the people of Thailand. You vote us in and we will do things our way and if you get something out of it, just think yourselves lucky as we will ALWAYS get more.

If you think that is the way a political party should run a country then I feel sorry for you and all your ilk. No, on second thoughts I pity you.

for point 1, I beg to differ:

The 500-member House of Representatives passed the bill after 19 hours of acrimonious debate, which culminated in the entire opposition walking out of the chamber and refusing to vote. The bill was then passed with the 310 members from the pro-Thaksin ruling coalition left in the house voting for it and no votes against. It must now be approved by the Senate to become law.

For point 2 regarding contempt for the Thai people, you must not understand what it means in a democracy to have a majority. My country is voting tonight and in all likelihood the Republicans will have a majority in the house and in the senate.

Do you understand what that means in a democracy? That means that the have the votes to pass legislation. The amnesty was part of their platform before the elections in 2011. Do you remember that? That is not contempt, that is fulfilling a promise made to voters.

Now before you get all huffy and puffy and go off on me about it - I'll repeat what I have said before - I thought and still think that the amnesty bill was a bad idea - the first version and the revised version. But what we're talking about here is your indignation at the PTP for doing what was legal, within the procedures of the assembly, and - some could argue - an obligation to the voters since in Thailand the party is obliged to act on campaign promises.

For point 3, I really don't need your pity. I understand how democracy works. It is messy business. I don't personally always like or agree with the results. I had to live with 8 years of Bush (and other Americans who loved Bush will now have to live with 8 years of Obama - that's the way the cookie crumbles)... But as an American, I don't actually LIKE living under a military cant-use-the-d-word-ship.

So in summary, no, the dems weren't 'tricked', yes they did boycott the vote, no it was not a parliamentary abuse. It was just a stupid bill.

Wasn't there a number of versions tabled? Wasn't their an amendment after the first reading that wasn't strictly in accordance with parliamentary procedure?

Was it that amendment that specifically was introduced to whitewash Thaksin?

Wasn't there a recording leaked of Thaksin talking to the Deputy Defense Minister about amnesty and suggesting maybe only 10k would protest?

All academic - Thaksin and PTP misjudged the level of reaction among the Thai people. I know many who voted PTP in 2011 but went to protest against the amnesty bill. That caught PTP off guard. If they'd been smart, they would have resigned and called the election much earlier. But they tried to hang on at all costs trying to ride out the storm until the bill rejected by the senate came back to the lower house and been voted into law.

There is now an appointed government in office following a coup which removed a floundering caretaker government. I agree with some of your posts, that it will be some time before things change. But, although democratically elected according to the Thai election laws, the previous administration did not act in a way that would be allowed in most modern democracies. Don't forget they also tried to muffle social media and the press when it suited, did nothing about the police corruption and undermined the justice system when it suited. A return to a Thakin controlled Shin family government is not a return to democracy.

"The passage of the bill apparently caught the opposition and the government's opponents off guard as the third reading vote was caught at about 4am, immediately after the last article of the bill was passed in the second reading."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-bill-sails-through-third-reading-30218475.html

Of course in 'real' democracies a government which proposes a blanket amnesty bill with a clause on amnesty 'to all charged in politically-motivated cases' and changes the coverage period to include their own two years in office, would be forced to step down and be under immense scrutiny as to for what they thought they might need amnesty themselves.

Anyway, this time no rallies, neither pro nor contra.

are you still trying to imply that some how the democrats were 'fooled'? because they were not.

Even the Nation reported that the democrats were there until late in the night and then, 'Democrat MPs staged a walkout so no one voted against the bill.'

Whether you agree with the bill or not, and I do not, the Nation even provided the rational behind the immediate vote:

Chief coalition whip Amnuay Klungpha said the coalition needed to rush the bill through the third reading because the government expected that protesters would besiege Parliament later Friday to prevent MPs from entering the t compound to vote.

hmmmmm

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[JAG]

Something, at some stage, is going to be the spark that ignites the fire that unleashes the full force of a citizenry demanding their rights and freedoms be restored.

This could be it!

Yes, something will eventually become that spark. I'm not sure that this will be it, memories of "live fire zones" in 2010 are still a bit raw.

Im not convinced though, despite the posturing of many establishment figures, (and their enthusiastic supporters on TVF, who are even less concerned with due process, evidence and the other inconveniences of a justice system), that the Junta would want to push it that far.

[JAG]

come on make my day red scum

Tell me, do you see yourself as a sort of geriatric neofascist Clint Eastwood, riding in amongst the tumbleweed to save the Thai People from themselves?

[JAG]

Shows how vulnerable they really are.

What cannot continue forever will not, one day.....

Yes, one day......

[binjalin]

Shows how vulnerable they really are.

What cannot continue forever will not, one day.....

perfect... one day... more to say but cannot be said TODAY

[fab4]

Any decision to impeach Yingluck requires three fifths of total votes - or 132 votes.

Ooohh, the suspense.... how will the vote turn out???????

These NLA stooges will vote exactly how their told to vote, just like with the Junta budget - not a single dissension.

Or perhaps like the PTP voted 312 to 0 to pass the Thaksin amnesty bill at 4.30 am when there was no opposition in the house. Those PTP stooges certainly earned their "extra salary" that night.

And do you know why there was no opposition in the house? It was because they boycotted the vote and walked out. Opposition - not worthy of the name.

[fab4]

"The passage of the bill apparently caught the opposition and the government's opponents off guard as the third reading vote was caught at about 4am, immediately after the last article of the bill was passed in the second reading."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-bill-sails-through-third-reading-30218475.html

Of course in 'real' democracies a government which proposes a blanket amnesty bill with a clause on amnesty 'to all charged in politically-motivated cases' and changes the coverage period to include their own two years in office, would be forced to step down and be under immense scrutiny as to for what they thought they might need amnesty themselves.

Anyway, this time no rallies, neither pro nor contra.

Apparently not all off topic posts are off topic........................

[rubl]

"The passage of the bill apparently caught the opposition and the government's opponents off guard as the third reading vote was caught at about 4am, immediately after the last article of the bill was passed in the second reading."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-bill-sails-through-third-reading-30218475.html

Of course in 'real' democracies a government which proposes a blanket amnesty bill with a clause on amnesty 'to all charged in politically-motivated cases' and changes the coverage period to include their own two years in office, would be forced to step down and be under immense scrutiny as to for what they thought they might need amnesty themselves.

Anyway, this time no rallies, neither pro nor contra.

are you still trying to imply that some how the democrats were 'fooled'? because they were not.

Even the Nation reported that the democrats were there until late in the night and then, 'Democrat MPs staged a walkout so no one voted against the bill.'

Whether you agree with the bill or not, and I do not, the Nation even provided the rational behind the immediate vote:

Chief coalition whip Amnuay Klungpha said the coalition needed to rush the bill through the third reading because the government expected that protesters would besiege Parliament later Friday to prevent MPs from entering the t compound to vote.

hmmmmm

Interesting justification. Democratic anti-government protests against a 'blanket amnesty bill' which even grants amnesty to the government's own two years in office whereas nothing they did had any relation to the 2006 - 2010 period and here a democracy lover sees nothing wrong with a rushed vote?

Peculiar type of democracy

[rubl]

"The passage of the bill apparently caught the opposition and the government's opponents off guard as the third reading vote was caught at about 4am, immediately after the last article of the bill was passed in the second reading."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-bill-sails-through-third-reading-30218475.html

Of course in 'real' democracies a government which proposes a blanket amnesty bill with a clause on amnesty 'to all charged in politically-motivated cases' and changes the coverage period to include their own two years in office, would be forced to step down and be under immense scrutiny as to for what they thought they might need amnesty themselves.

Anyway, this time no rallies, neither pro nor contra.

Apparently not all off topic posts are off topic........................

yours still being here you mean?

I corrected some misunderstanding. Read it, you may learn something

[fab4]

"The passage of the bill apparently caught the opposition and the government's opponents off guard as the third reading vote was caught at about 4am, immediately after the last article of the bill was passed in the second reading."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-bill-sails-through-third-reading-30218475.html

Of course in 'real' democracies a government which proposes a blanket amnesty bill with a clause on amnesty 'to all charged in politically-motivated cases' and changes the coverage period to include their own two years in office, would be forced to step down and be under immense scrutiny as to for what they thought they might need amnesty themselves.

Anyway, this time no rallies, neither pro nor contra.

are you still trying to imply that some how the democrats were 'fooled'? because they were not.

Even the Nation reported that the democrats were there until late in the night and then, 'Democrat MPs staged a walkout so no one voted against the bill.'

Whether you agree with the bill or not, and I do not, the Nation even provided the rational behind the immediate vote:

Chief coalition whip Amnuay Klungpha said the coalition needed to rush the bill through the third reading because the government expected that protesters would besiege Parliament later Friday to prevent MPs from entering the t compound to vote.

hmmmmm

Interesting justification. Democratic anti-government protests against a 'blanket amnesty bill' which even grants amnesty to the government's own two years in office whereas nothing they did had any relation to the 2006 - 2010 period and here a democracy lover sees nothing wrong with a rushed vote?

Peculiar type of democracy

and it's a peculiar type of "democracy loving person" that ignores protesters besieging parliament to prevent MP's from voting, after the opposition had boycotted the vote, ( the same crowd of "democracy loving protesters" that successfully physically restrained Thai Citizens from voting )....................

[fab4]

"The passage of the bill apparently caught the opposition and the government's opponents off guard as the third reading vote was caught at about 4am, immediately after the last article of the bill was passed in the second reading."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-bill-sails-through-third-reading-30218475.html

Of course in 'real' democracies a government which proposes a blanket amnesty bill with a clause on amnesty 'to all charged in politically-motivated cases' and changes the coverage period to include their own two years in office, would be forced to step down and be under immense scrutiny as to for what they thought they might need amnesty themselves.

Anyway, this time no rallies, neither pro nor contra.

Apparently not all off topic posts are off topic........................

yours still being here you mean?

I corrected some misunderstanding. Read it, you may learn something

No, my explanation of the reality of the Amnesty Bill Vote was removed. Your variation on reality remained but has since been removed. Oh, and your correction of some misunderstanding? - I don't recall you correcting anything on this thread.

[rubl]

"The passage of the bill apparently caught the opposition and the government's opponents off guard as the third reading vote was caught at about 4am, immediately after the last article of the bill was passed in the second reading."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-bill-sails-through-third-reading-30218475.html

Of course in 'real' democracies a government which proposes a blanket amnesty bill with a clause on amnesty 'to all charged in politically-motivated cases' and changes the coverage period to include their own two years in office, would be forced to step down and be under immense scrutiny as to for what they thought they might need amnesty themselves.

Anyway, this time no rallies, neither pro nor contra.

are you still trying to imply that some how the democrats were 'fooled'? because they were not.

Even the Nation reported that the democrats were there until late in the night and then, 'Democrat MPs staged a walkout so no one voted against the bill.'

Whether you agree with the bill or not, and I do not, the Nation even provided the rational behind the immediate vote:

Chief coalition whip Amnuay Klungpha said the coalition needed to rush the bill through the third reading because the government expected that protesters would besiege Parliament later Friday to prevent MPs from entering the t compound to vote.

hmmmmm

Interesting justification. Democratic anti-government protests against a 'blanket amnesty bill' which even grants amnesty to the government's own two years in office whereas nothing they did had any relation to the 2006 - 2010 period and here a democracy lover sees nothing wrong with a rushed vote?

Peculiar type of democracy

and it's a peculiar type of "democracy loving person" that ignores protesters besieging parliament to prevent MP's from voting, after the opposition had boycotted the vote, ( the same crowd of "democracy loving protesters" that successfully physically restrained Thai Citizens from voting )....................

Uh, you got the sequence wrong it would seem.

The third reading and vote was rushed forward as someone feared parliament might be besieged. The Democrats having the third reading forced on them elected not to vote.

Anyway, don't worry, PM Prayut seems to agree with you and told all not to protest

[rubl]

"The passage of the bill apparently caught the opposition and the government's opponents off guard as the third reading vote was caught at about 4am, immediately after the last article of the bill was passed in the second reading."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-bill-sails-through-third-reading-30218475.html

Of course in 'real' democracies a government which proposes a blanket amnesty bill with a clause on amnesty 'to all charged in politically-motivated cases' and changes the coverage period to include their own two years in office, would be forced to step down and be under immense scrutiny as to for what they thought they might need amnesty themselves.

Anyway, this time no rallies, neither pro nor contra.

Apparently not all off topic posts are off topic........................

yours still being here you mean?

I corrected some misunderstanding. Read it, you may learn something

No, my explanation of the reality of the Amnesty Bill Vote was removed. Your variation on reality remained but has since been removed. Oh, and your correction of some misunderstanding? - I don't recall you correcting anything on this thread.

Read again, all still there.

tbthailand wrote

"The 500-member House of Representatives passed the bill after 19 hours of acrimonious debate, which culminated in the entire opposition walking out of the chamber and refusing to vote. The bill was then passed with the 310 members from the pro-Thaksin ruling coalition left in the house voting for it and no votes against. It must now be approved by the Senate to become law.

...

So in summary, no, the dems weren't 'tricked', yes they did boycott the vote, no it was not a parliamentary abuse. It was just a stupid bill."

and I corrected

""The passage of the bill apparently caught the opposition and the government's opponents off guard as the third reading vote was caught at about 4am, immediately after the last article of the bill was passed in the second reading."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-bill-sails-through-third-reading-30218475.html

"

Anyway, drink some more coffee. Maybe helps to clear your head. In the mean time try not to rally and protest too much.

[tbthailand]

"The passage of the bill apparently caught the opposition and the government's opponents off guard as the third reading vote was caught at about 4am, immediately after the last article of the bill was passed in the second reading."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-bill-sails-through-third-reading-30218475.html

Of course in 'real' democracies a government which proposes a blanket amnesty bill with a clause on amnesty 'to all charged in politically-motivated cases' and changes the coverage period to include their own two years in office, would be forced to step down and be under immense scrutiny as to for what they thought they might need amnesty themselves.

Anyway, this time no rallies, neither pro nor contra.

are you still trying to imply that some how the democrats were 'fooled'? because they were not.

Even the Nation reported that the democrats were there until late in the night and then, 'Democrat MPs staged a walkout so no one voted against the bill.'

Whether you agree with the bill or not, and I do not, the Nation even provided the rational behind the immediate vote:

Chief coalition whip Amnuay Klungpha said the coalition needed to rush the bill through the third reading because the government expected that protesters would besiege Parliament later Friday to prevent MPs from entering the t compound to vote.

hmmmmm

Interesting justification. Democratic anti-government protests against a 'blanket amnesty bill' which even grants amnesty to the government's own two years in office whereas nothing they did had any relation to the 2006 - 2010 period and here a democracy lover sees nothing wrong with a rushed vote?

Peculiar type of democracy

you didn't answer the question, dear troll uncle rubl. I'll get back to that in a second, but first let me add that

(1) protests calling for a military 'intervention', protests against elections, and protests proposing extra-constitutional means to change government are not 'democratic'. What you mean is that the protesters had the right to protest. That is true. And the government did not try to stop them from exercising that right.

(2) I did not comment on how the bill was passed except to point out that it was within the legislative rules. My opinion was not offered and you cannot infer whether I feel their actions on the passage of the bill were 'right or wrong'.

(3) my opinion of the bill has been stated many times.

Now back to the question - maybe you will someday just answer a question with an actual response.... or maybe not.

are you still claiming that the Dems were somehow 'fooled', or not?

[tbthailand]

Apparently not all off topic posts are off topic........................

yours still being here you mean?

I corrected some misunderstanding. Read it, you may learn something

No, my explanation of the reality of the Amnesty Bill Vote was removed. Your variation on reality remained but has since been removed. Oh, and your correction of some misunderstanding? - I don't recall you correcting anything on this thread.

Read again, all still there.

tbthailand wrote

"The 500-member House of Representatives passed the bill after 19 hours of acrimonious debate, which culminated in the entire opposition walking out of the chamber and refusing to vote. The bill was then passed with the 310 members from the pro-Thaksin ruling coalition left in the house voting for it and no votes against. It must now be approved by the Senate to become law.

...

So in summary, no, the dems weren't 'tricked', yes they did boycott the vote, no it was not a parliamentary abuse. It was just a stupid bill."

and I corrected

""The passage of the bill apparently caught the opposition and the government's opponents off guard as the third reading vote was caught at about 4am, immediately after the last article of the bill was passed in the second reading."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-bill-sails-through-third-reading-30218475.html

"

Anyway, drink some more coffee. Maybe helps to clear your head. In the mean time try not to rally and protest too much.

you did not 'correct' but rather you misunderstood, or maybe you did not read the article that you linked to - see the article you linked to actually states crazy things like:

The second reading began Thursday in a slow process apparently because the opposition used the delaying tactic of debating every part of the bill starting from the bill's title and introduction.

and

With the lengthy debate, the second reading of Article 3, which seeks to grant blanket amnesty, started at 2.40am.

and

When the deliberation of Article 3 began, the Democrats tried to protest, saying the meeting should be halted as there was no need to rush to finish the second reading.

and

Democrat MPs staged a walkout so no one voted against the bill.

And, rubl - that is the article that you provided.

So feel free to correct the information that I provided with an article that you provided which says the same thing...

jeeeeezzzzuuuuzzz

[rubl]

You did not 'correct' but rather you misunderstood, or maybe you did not read the article that you linked to - see the article you linked to actually states crazy things like:

The second reading began Thursday in a slow process apparently because the opposition used the delaying tactic of debating every part of the bill starting from the bill's title and introduction.

and

With the lengthy debate, the second reading of Article 3, which seeks to grant blanket amnesty, started at 2.40am.

and

When the deliberation of Article 3 began, the Democrats tried to protest, saying the meeting should be halted as there was no need to rush to finish the second reading.

and

Democrat MPs staged a walkout so no one voted against the bill.

And, rubl - that is the article that you provided.

So feel free to correct the information that I provided with an article that you provided which says the same thing...

jeeeeezzzzuuuuzzz

I guess in your country its normal that the opposition is obstructed.

Anyway, theNation article had

"With the lengthy debate, the second reading of Article 3, which seeks to grant blanket amnesty, started at 2.40am."

"The second reading of Article 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 took only about an hour."

"The controversial amnesty bill sailed through the third reading with 310 to 0 votes early Friday morning."

"House Speaker Somsak Kiartsuranon closed the meeting at 4.25am."

Democracy in a hurry.

[smutcakes]

You did not 'correct' but rather you misunderstood, or maybe you did not read the article that you linked to - see the article you linked to actually states crazy things like:

The second reading began Thursday in a slow process apparently because the opposition used the delaying tactic of debating every part of the bill starting from the bill's title and introduction.

and

With the lengthy debate, the second reading of Article 3, which seeks to grant blanket amnesty, started at 2.40am.

and

When the deliberation of Article 3 began, the Democrats tried to protest, saying the meeting should be halted as there was no need to rush to finish the second reading.

and

Democrat MPs staged a walkout so no one voted against the bill.

And, rubl - that is the article that you provided.

So feel free to correct the information that I provided with an article that you provided which says the same thing...

jeeeeezzzzuuuuzzz

I guess in your country its normal that the opposition is obstructed.

Anyway, theNation article had

"With the lengthy debate, the second reading of Article 3, which seeks to grant blanket amnesty, started at 2.40am."

"The second reading of Article 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 took only about an hour."

"The controversial amnesty bill sailed through the third reading with 310 to 0 votes early Friday morning."

"House Speaker Somsak Kiartsuranon closed the meeting at 4.25am."

Democracy in a hurry.

Lol, well you are looking a little but silly here