RECONCILIATION
Give amnesty to protesters, not leaders: big parties
NITIPOL KIRAVANICH
THE NATION

Nipit

Heads of parties and colour groups 'happy to fight any charges in court'

BANGKOK: -- Members of the Democrat and Pheu Thai parties insisted yesterday that an amnesty bill should cover only ordinary protesters - not the leaders of political groups, parties or colour-coded groups.

The justice system, they said, should be allowed to play an important role in solving many issues and prolonged disputes in the country.

The proposal for an amnesty bill was discussed by a charter drafters’ subcommittee on Monday, as a way of accomplishing true reconciliation.

Anek Laothamatas, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC)'s sub-panel responsible for chapters on national reforms and reconciliation, suggested an amnesty covering political protests going back to 2005, and possibly including protest leaders and military officers.

Former Democrat MP Nipit Intarasombat said he disagreed with the suggestion as it could lead to another rally and protests.

"Perhaps CDC members were not in the rally and do not understand the importance of the previous protest against the blanket amnesty bill," the Democrat member said.

Nipit explained that the previous protest covered two big issues including a blanket amnesty bill - for wrongdoers and for the previous government that sought to amend articles in the previous charter. He said if the country went back to the proposed amnesty bill, it could ignite more demonstrations.

"However, I agree with Anek on granting amnesty for ordinary people who participated in rallies because most came forward and protested peacefully," Nipit said.

However, leaders whose followers lost their lives in the unrest could be seen as having broken criminal laws, he said, and they had to face charges and defend themselves under the justice system.

Asked whether the red-shirt leaders should also be included in the amnesty bill or not, Nipit said "I heard those red-shirt leaders had insisted on not being included in the bill and they insisted on proving themselves in court for the cases they faced."

He said those found guilty should not be a part of an amnesty. But if they were charged under criminal laws, they could seek a royal pardon.

United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) leader Weng Tojirakarn insisted an amnesty bill must cover only protesters. Their leaders, such as the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), People's Alliance for Democracy, former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and even his [Weng's] group of red-shirt leaders should be excluded.

"I still insist that amnesty should only be granted to people who participated in the rallies, because if the leaders are included in the bill it could lead to an excuse for a government ordering the military to execute our citizens," said the Pheu Thai member, adding that the reds were willing to face any charges in court.

"I am concerned that if the protest leaders are pardoned, they would see themselves as untouchable and later they could come back and use military force against the citizens," he said.

Weng explained that bringing true reconciliation lies within the justice system. But if the justice system was not neutral or strengthened, reconciliation could not be promoted.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Give-amnesty-to-protesters-not-leaders-big-parties-30248554.html


-- The Nation 2014-11-26

Due credit to Weng and agree with him. One thing though is one could easily replace the "ordering the military to execute citizens" with "allowing fugitive people court convicted criminals the right to have their henchmen to organise and close their eyes to their paid thugs executing citizens".

Roadman post # 2

Due credit to Weng and agree with him. One thing though is one could easily replace the "ordering the military to execute citizens" with "allowing fugitive people court convicted criminals the right to have their henchmen to organise and close their eyes to their paid thugs executing citizens".

Indeed the proposal on the face of it seems to be a fine idea and extremely egalitarian, however the quote posted above highlights a delightful escape clause which to my my mind and I think many others will come to realize that in truth the bill would indeed be not too far removed from enabling the notorious Nuremberg Deference plea by any who may be charged under the provisions of the bill if it became law.

As far as I know, peaceful participants in the "rallies" weren't charged and don't require amnesty. People who committed crimes during the "rallies" should not get it. Granting amnesty to an old lady using a clapping device and singing Thai songs, while lumping her in with a few arsonists and murderers seems unfair to the old lady.

Members of the Democrat and Pheu Thai parties insisted yesterday that an amnesty bill should cover only ordinary protesters

There were tens of thousands of 'ordinary protesters'. Are they imprisoned? No. It is not a crime to peacefully protest. Do any of the 'ordinary protesters' need amnesty? No.

So, who needs this amnesty? Certainly not 'ordinary protesters'. Is it for those in jail for protesting in a non-peaceful way? If you went over the line and got arrested, sorry, but no amnesty for you. The courts are the place to decide you fate. Why should arsonists and rock throwers get amnesty? Law and Order is already a limited commodity in Thailand.

Amnesty is the camel's nose under the tent and the present method of Royal Pardons should be sufficient.

It is funny to read that PTP 'insisted' that an amnesty bill cover only ordinary protesters. They are only a year and a government too late to come to that way of thinking.

Give amnesty to nobody

Did the crime now do the time

If they start to differentiate between who gets and who does not ... poopoo will hit Le Fan

If they make a blanket amnesty bill just for the protesters then what about the paid protester whos only purpose for being there was to collect their money! Or the gunmen there? Blanket means covering all of them... it would let many free that deserve punishment

No Amnesty, follow the damn law and get on with it already. Only people preaching for amnesty are the law breakers, why else would you want it? I mean there were some innocent folks who got arrested and wrongly accused, they can sort it out in court. Most of the one who were held a long time were protesters leaders from various levels of the hierarchy.

United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) – seems Weng didn’t succeed at being against dictatorship though he seems pleased with the government he got. For the next elections maybe he should change the organization’s name to United Front for Dictators Against Democracy; could still keep the same initials UDD though.

If they make a blanket amnesty bill just for the protesters then what about the paid protester whos only purpose for being there was to collect their money! Or the gunmen there? Blanket means covering all of them... it would let many free that deserve punishment

If it's "just for the protesters" then it isn't a "blanket amnesty", is it?

"The proposal for an amnesty bill was discussed by a charter drafters’ subcommittee on Monday, as a way of accomplishing true reconciliation."

Reconciliation is a scam in itself. Break the law, create havoc, threaten to burn the city down without any morals, then when you get caught out say 'let's forget the past'.

Break the law - accept the consequences, wherever they may fall.

Accept the consequences both in terms of punishment for crimes committed, and also as a building block towards a civil society where the law is respected.

United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) – seems Weng didn’t succeed at being against dictatorship though he seems pleased with the government he got. For the next elections maybe he should change the organization’s name to United Front for Dictators Against Democracy; could still keep the same initials UDD though.

Are you getting your people mixed up?