Thai editorial: Amnesty crossroads looms again

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
Amnesty crossroads looms again
The Nation

This time we need a national debate - on whether amnesty is necessary for reconciliation, and, if so, how to make it happen

BANGKOK: -- Thailand is back where it began. The amnesty issue has resurfaced after charter drafter Anek Laothamatas proposed that the issue be considered by the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC). His suggestion has sparked a fresh round of debate. Whether to pardon those charged with crimes related to past political conflicts remains a controversial issue. Argument rages over whether amnesty is the key to much-needed national reconciliation and, if so, whether now is the right time.

In raising the issue, Anek, who chairs a CDC sub-panel responsible for national reform and reconciliation, was testing the waters. The first question to consider: who would be in charge of the process? In legal terms there are two options - a shortcut and the normal process - but all parties would need to agree for either approach to be pursued.

The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) could ask the government to sponsor an amnesty bill. And, if the government believes this as an important issue in need of urgent attention, it could exercise its power to issue an executive decree. That's the shortcut.

The legal logistics of the process are simple enough, but not so the new round of debate. Politicians have responded swiftly. Sceptics view it as a new "toy" of the NLA, or insist that amnesty would not aid reconciliation as long as the truth about any political conflict remains under wraps. On the other side, the pro-amnesty camp maintains that an official pardon is a prerequisite for reconciliation.

Meanwhile public reaction remains muted, making it difficult to gauge. It could be too early, or perhaps people are not being properly informed. The atmosphere is reminiscent of the hush that preceded the storm the last government fomented by approving a blanket-amnesty law.

Mistakes like that should serve as a reminder to the current regime that rushing into action brings dire risk. During Yingluck Shinawatra's tenure the public had no idea that such sweeping legislation could be passed in the middle of the night. Nor did the government realise it was effectively signing its own death warrant.

The situation was fragile then, and it's no more stable now. The military government has made reform its priority and reconciliation its ultimate goal. In the meantime it's juggling several hot potatoes, including the upcoming impeachment case against former premier Yingluck. Can the government handle amnesty at the same time, or might it prove to be too much?

If it does decide to act on the amnesty proposal, the government must be prepared for old wounds reopening. A return to such divisiveness would only make our complicated predicament worse. But, if the government is determined to go ahead, it must learn from its predecessor's primary mistake and engage the public in a national information campaign.

Initially, the Yingluck government showed similar good intentions toward forging reconciliation. In the end, though, it not only missed that goal, it helped push the country into extreme division. The present government must learn from that debacle but, first, it must ask whether amnesty is essential to reconciliation.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Amnesty-crossroads-looms-again-30249488.html


-- The Nation 2014-12-10

[worgeordie]

Give amnesty to the pawns who where used by the leaders,

but never to the people who knowingly promoted violence,

destruction,and hatred,they need to be quickly brought to

justice,if found guilty ,go straight to jail.

regards Worgeordie

[chainarong]

Amnesty has no place in a democracy , if you do the crime , you do the time , how F!@@in plainer can I make it.

[Pikeybkk]

funny that, was that not the reason for the protests, because Yingluck said we should forgive and forget to move the country on...but now it is fine when its for their own raggedy asses....Hub of hypocrisy

[billd766]

Give amnesty to the pawns who where used by the leaders,

but never to the people who knowingly promoted violence,

destruction,and hatred,they need to be quickly brought to

justice,if found guilty ,go straight to jail.

regards Worgeordie

That must apply to ALL parties and shirt colours equally.

[billd766]

funny that, was that not the reason for the protests, because Yingluck said we should forgive and forget to move the country on...but now it is fine when its for their own raggedy asses....Hub of hypocrisy

Yhat WAS the reason for the protests as the PTP lied in parliament and said that the first version of the amnesty bill would be debated the following day so the Democrats went home.

The PTP read the first bill, amended that to the second bill and amended THAT one to include Thaksin and rammed it through at 04.30 in the morning with no debate as there was NO Democrat opposition.

Try doing a little research before you post.

[Robby nz]

I wonder just who is going to get this amnesty, if it ever comes about ?

As far as I know the ordinary people who were at any of the protests have never been charged with anything, not even illegal assembly.

It is only the leaders and those who actually committed crimes who have been charged or are being sought for crimes that would be forgiven.

Will it forgive those who burned buildings, busses or other private or Govt property, those who fired shots or grenades, those who took to stages and urged others to break the law.

If so then it is wrong for there are victims from all these actions and forgiving those who trespass against you may be fine in theory but not in practice.

The ordinary people who took part in any protests of whatever color who were there because they thought they were doing the right thing for the right reason at the time have no need for amnesty.

Although this idea now looks to have been dropped :

CDC's Anek abandons his amnesty proposal
Nitipol Kiravanich,
Khanittha Thepphajorn
The Nation

Too many people misread his aim for reconciliation and a better society

BANGKOK: -- Anek Laothamatas, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee's subcommittee on reconciliation, gave up trying to seek amnesty for conflicting parties, saying his proposal was misinterpreted.

Full story: http://www.thaivisa....nesty-proposal/

[GuestHouse]

PTP back to its single policy again.

[whybother]

funny that, was that not the reason for the protests, because Yingluck said we should forgive and forget to move the country on...but now it is fine when its for their own raggedy asses....Hub of hypocrisy

There was a lot of support for a basic amnesty that didn't include leaders by all sides.

The reason for the protests was that a late change included Thaksin and his corruption cases. It also included Abhisit and Suthep, so there was opposition from the red shirts too.

[mikemac]

funny that, was that not the reason for the protests, because Yingluck said we should forgive and forget to move the country on...but now it is fine when its for their own raggedy asses....Hub of hypocrisy

Yes, you are right, Yingluck did want everyone to forgive and forget, but not to move the country on. She wanted (her brother wanted) everyone to forgive the Shins for all their past lies, sins and crimes and just forget they ever happened, wipe their slate clean so to speak.

A lot of people saw through this new set of lies, found out about the amnesty sneaky deal, the rice scam etc etc etc and well you know what happened next.

Cannot believe how many so-called intelligent, educated foreigners have been conned by these rogues.

[bino]

Sounds like somebody got to Anek and made him an incredible offer if he could get the amnesty included into the new constitution. I wonder how much was in the pastry box?

[rickirs]

Amensty for political acts as defined by the 2007 Constitution is a viable vehicle towards national reconciliation. Basically, this amnesty would reset the political environment back to October 2013 for new government elections wherein all political parties and candidates would begin on an equal footing if other election reforms are instituted. No amnesty can reconcile ideological differences as would be expected to exist in a democratic society.

Amnesty for criminal acts defined by the Organic Laws would be unjustifiable, albeit it was part of the national reconciliation for the reunification of South Africa. Since the Thai Supreme Court ruled that the murder charges against both Suthep and Abhisit should be tried as political crimes by government office holders and not subject to the Administrative Criminal Court system, they with Yingluck would probably receive political amnesty. To the extent that Suthep/PDRC participated in nonviolent insurrection might be a borderline issue for political amnesty and might better be addressed by the Privy Council; amnesty for the Junta, its subordinate, and sub-ordinates was already endorsed.