No amnesty for on-the-run lawbreakers: PM Prayut

[webfact]

POLITICS
No amnesty for on-the-run lawbreakers: PM
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- PRIME MINISTER Prayut Chan-o-cha maintained yesterday that amnesty should not be given to those who have escaped the long arm of the law.

He made the declaration while shooting down a proposal by members of the Reform Steering Council (RSC) for general amnesty to people involved in political conflicts.

The PM said only those lawbreakers who have entered or are entering the justice process would be considered for amnesty. Those who are still in hiding would not be eligible, he said.

"You should follow the law. I don't like it when people threaten that the country will not be peaceful unless there is amnesty. Let them try it," Prayut said.

He was speaking after chairing a meeting on the national economic-development strategies for the next 20 years.

Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan also voiced his opposition to the proposed amnesty.

"You need to pass the justice process first. You can't just expect amnesty immediately. The legal process should be followed step by step," he said.

Some newly appointed members of the RSC have suggested that the idea of amnesty, proposed by the now-defunct National Reform Council's reconciliation subcommittee, should be revived.

Proponents of the idea are mainly members of the new council from political parties.

Paiboon Nititawan, a former NRC member, said it was possible to achieve reconciliation as part of national reform.

He supports amnesty for people who were engaged in previous political activities, but not those in political positions such as former senators and members of the House of Representatives.

Kamnoon Sidhisamarn, a council member and former NRC member, said that although the RSC had no direct authority over amnesty, he expected the matter to be discussed by the council soon.

He said the NRC subcommittee had studied the related issues of amnesty, reform and reconciliation.

Another RSC member, Kasit Piromya, disagreed with pushing the reconciliation plan as part of national reform as it would not comply with the objectives of national reforms.

"This is not right and it misses the point," he said, adding that the RSC was not in the business of assisting wrongdoers.

Kasit said that following the justice system was needed in order to build reconciliation.

Meanwhile, the leader of the People's Democratic Reform Foundation opposed the idea that the RSC should push for amnesty as part of national reform and reconciliation.

Akanat Promphan, secretary-general of the foundation, said the council should focus on reforming the country, not reconciliation.

"The RSC should carry on the work of the NRC. It should focus on urgent issues, such as power distribution, inequality and police reform," Akanat said.

Akanat, who once staged a demonstration against the Yingluck Shinawatra government after its blanket amnesty bill, said reform and reconciliation should not mix or "people will get confused and there will be obstacles in reforming the country".

Jatuporn Prompan, leader of the red shirts, said he did not think the council would help the country achieve reconciliation but that the prime minister could.

As the reconciliation effort must get all parties engaged, accepting divergent views is needed to attain it, he said.

Adul Keawboriboon, a member of the defunct reconciliation commission, said that in order to achieve national reform, reconciliation and unity must exist first.

He said the result of the reconciliation plan's study was accepted by the Cabinet, the National Legislative Council and the NRC, which means it was useful for bringing about reconciliation.

"A new reconciliation commission could now be set up, regardless of whether we have a new constitution," Adul said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/No-amnesty-for-on-the-run-lawbreakers-PM-30270422.html


-- The Nation 2015-10-08

[Reigntax]

But PM, didnt you immediately seek an amnesty for yourself and cohorts for treason.

Another case of look after your mates and stuff everyone else.

Reconciliation or re con civilians?

[heybruce]

Talk of justice and following the law with no mention of the coup, suspension of the constitution the law is based on, and amnesty for those who staged the coup.

A debate on reconciliation versus reform, with no hint of reconciliation or a coherent statement of reforms 16 months after the coup.

It's a good thing we have those Dusit polls telling us everything is fine, otherwise the whole thing would look like a tragic farce.

[noitom]

Preposterous Thai nonsense.

[tbthailand]

PRIME MINISTER Prayut Chan-o-cha maintained yesterday that amnesty should not be given to those who have escaped the long arm of the law.

however, for those who "stick around" and appoint themselves "PM", ... amnesty? Sure, no problem....

Edited October 7, 2015 by tbthailand

[NongKhaiKid]

No amnesty and no effort to bring them back to face justice.

[MaiChai]

Will Yingluck go to jail? Very unlikely. Actually how many rich Thais are there in jail? Not many. Thus why did Taksin run away? Suppose it must be about loss of face?

[phoenixdoglover]

rec·on·cil·i·a·tion

ˌrekənˌsilēˈāSH(ə)n/

noun

1. 1.

   the restoration of friendly relations.

   "his reconciliation with your uncle"

   synonyms: reuniting, reunion, bringing together (again), conciliation,reconcilement, rapprochement, fence-mending; More
2. 2.

   the action of making one view or belief compatible with another.

   "he aims to bring about a reconciliation between art and technology"

Nope. Not happening. They must have picked the wrong word in the translation.

Edited October 8, 2015 by phoenixdoglover

[yellowboat]

Will Yingluck go to jail? Very unlikely. Actually how many rich Thais are there in jail? Not many. Thus why did Taksin run away? Suppose it must be about loss of face?

Do not believe the good general is talking about his Hi-So clan. He is talking about anybody who stood against his coup where he immediately granted himself amnesty and god like powers. Why are so many still worried Thaksin when the good general has the ability to do real damage to Thailand.

[oneday]

-10 for reconciliation.

[SOTIRIOS]

...ex-P.M......???

...'Jetset Monk'......???

...'Red Bull Hit-and-Run'.....???

[FangFerang]

They obviously don't have anyone specific in mind.

[lamecn]

People in Europe, who went underground during World War II, to fight the Nazis, became heroes after the war. Had the Nazis won the war they would have been executed.

[Baerboxer]

Will Yingluck go to jail? Very unlikely. Actually how many rich Thais are there in jail? Not many. Thus why did Taksin run away? Suppose it must be about loss of face?

The case Thaksin was convicted of was a minor almost trivia case when compared to the very serious charges he faces and would have to go to court on if he were here. E.g. the Krungthai Bank case were co-defendants got very long sentences.

He ran to avoid all of those.

[jesimps]

Will Yingluck go to jail? Very unlikely. Actually how many rich Thais are there in jail? Not many. Thus why did Taksin run away? Suppose it must be about loss of face?

The case Thaksin was convicted of was a minor almost trivia case when compared to the very serious charges he faces and would have to go to court on if he were here. E.g. the Krungthai Bank case were co-defendants got very long sentences.

He ran to avoid all of those.

He ran to fight another day. He'd have been a dead man if he'd stayed.

[rubl]

Anyway, no amnesty for on-the-run-lawbreakers. As not all here seem to understand let me try to explain. Those who broke the law and are on the run will not get amnesty. This does not say anything about those who are not on-the-run.

[sawadee1947]

"You need to pass the justice process first. You can't just expect amnesty immediately. The legal process should be followed step by step," he said.

Justice? Where?

[EnglishJohn]

Will Yingluck go to jail? Very unlikely. Actually how many rich Thais are there in jail? Not many. Thus why did Taksin run away? Suppose it must be about loss of face?

The case Thaksin was convicted of was a minor almost trivia case when compared to the very serious charges he faces and would have to go to court on if he were here. E.g. the Krungthai Bank case were co-defendants got very long sentences.

He ran to avoid all of those.

He ran to fight another day. He'd have been a dead man if he'd stayed.

So why didn't he come back when PTP were in power and face the charges then ?. He would every protection money and power could provide.

The answer is clear to anyone who is capable of thinking about it : he is guilty and he knows it. No amount of hypocrisy on your part can change the obvious.

[EnglishJohn]

This amnesty would have been made already if Thaksin had not made his cronies commit that disgusting abuse of power and change it in the early hours. And in doing so, he threw all those people supporting him who would have benefited under a bus purely for his own benefit. Such is his regard for his followers.

People should realise that there will never be reconciliation while Thaksin is in the picture. He will not let it happen. He is finished and will never come back if it does. He needs red-shirts to hate his enemies - and luckily for him it seems there are plenty of those who are still gullible enough to believe his lies without being able to see right through them like other people can. Or maybe they do see through them- but he is their best chance to get rich, and I have seen enough posts here to know hypocrisy is no problem at all to the average red-shirt.

[heybruce]

Anyway, no amnesty for on-the-run-lawbreakers. As not all here seem to understand let me try to explain. Those who broke the law and are on the run will not get amnesty. This does not say anything about those who are not on-the-run.

We understand Prayut's position. We also understand the hypocrisy of it. Some people don't seem to understand that.

[mark131v]

What about if you have a Ferrari and a very rich family......

Apologies if this has been mentioned many times bur it is late and I cant be arsed looking

ps John you seem a bit mad mate, chiiiill!!!

[rubl]

Anyway, no amnesty for on-the-run-lawbreakers. As not all here seem to understand let me try to explain. Those who broke the law and are on the run will not get amnesty. This does not say anything about those who are not on-the-run.

We understand Prayut's position. We also understand the hypocrisy of it. Some people don't seem to understand that.

Well, obviously the 'we' which probably refers to 'you' doesn't understand even with my explanation. Of course if you feel like you require a separate topic for 'not-on-the-run' lawbreakers, please contact one of the mods.

[speedtripler]

Will Yingluck go to jail? Very unlikely. Actually how many rich Thais are there in jail? Not many. Thus why did Taksin run away? Suppose it must be about loss of face?

The case Thaksin was convicted of was a minor almost trivia case when compared to the very serious charges he faces and would have to go to court on if he were here. E.g. the Krungthai Bank case were co-defendants got very long sentences.

He ran to avoid all of those.

Those guys spent about 3hours in jail before they all suffered from "serious illness" and had to be transferred to "hospital jail" which I hear has private rooms, aircon and a better food menu

Billionaires don't do hard time in Thai,everyone from the guards to the warden will bend the rules for the right price

[Skywalker69]

Will Yingluck go to jail? Very unlikely. Actually how many rich Thais are there in jail? Not many. Thus why did Taksin run away? Suppose it must be about loss of face?

The case Thaksin was convicted of was a minor almost trivia case when compared to the very serious charges he faces and would have to go to court on if he were here. E.g. the Krungthai Bank case were co-defendants got very long sentences.

He ran to avoid all of those.

He ran to fight another day. He'd have been a dead man if he'd stayed.

He'd have been a dead man if he'd stayed.

Why? It was his friend Samak Sundaravej whom was PM and Thaksins party whom was in carge when Thaksin fled.

[heybruce]

Anyway, no amnesty for on-the-run-lawbreakers. As not all here seem to understand let me try to explain. Those who broke the law and are on the run will not get amnesty. This does not say anything about those who are not on-the-run.

We understand Prayut's position. We also understand the hypocrisy of it. Some people don't seem to understand that.

Well, obviously the 'we' which probably refers to 'you' doesn't understand even with my explanation. Of course if you feel like you require a separate topic for 'not-on-the-run' lawbreakers, please contact one of the mods.

Obviously you think the important words are "on-the-run". Everyone else thinks the important words are "amnesty" and "lawbreakers".

I know it's futile, but I'll try to explain: Granting oneself amnesty for what most countries consider to be treason, failure to investigate ample evidence of corruption in ones own ranks, but refusing to consider amnesty for corruption committed long ago strikes many as self-serving hypocrisy.

[rubl]

Anyway, no amnesty for on-the-run-lawbreakers. As not all here seem to understand let me try to explain. Those who broke the law and are on the run will not get amnesty. This does not say anything about those who are not on-the-run.

We understand Prayut's position. We also understand the hypocrisy of it. Some people don't seem to understand that.

Well, obviously the 'we' which probably refers to 'you' doesn't understand even with my explanation. Of course if you feel like you require a separate topic for 'not-on-the-run' lawbreakers, please contact one of the mods.

Obviously you think the important words are "on-the-run". Everyone else thinks the important words are "amnesty" and "lawbreakers".

I know it's futile, but I'll try to explain: Granting oneself amnesty for what most countries consider to be treason, failure to investigate ample evidence of corruption in ones own ranks, but refusing to consider amnesty for corruption committed long ago strikes many as self-serving hypocrisy.

Ah, so 'we' are now 'everyone else'?

'no amnesty for on-the-run lawbreakers', not even bailjumping ones.

Anyway, some of the 'everyone else' suggested a counter-coup to restore the previous government. Of course that would be a 'good' lawbreaking as it would be essential to some criminals on the run.

So, "refusing to consider amnesty for corruption committed long ago strikes many as self-serving hypocrisy". It seems you start the push to make 'amnesty for long time ago corruption' sound reasonable. What's a few billions ten years ago, heybruce? Anyone who can't forgive some clever criminals to have cheated the taxpayers must be a hypocrite for sure.

No amnesty, not even for Abhisit and Suthep although they never asked for it. No amnesty, not even for Thaksin although he didn't hesitate to mobilise armed and violent non-red-shirt terrorists to get what he wanted. No amnesty.

[heybruce]

We understand Prayut's position. We also understand the hypocrisy of it. Some people don't seem to understand that.

Well, obviously the 'we' which probably refers to 'you' doesn't understand even with my explanation. Of course if you feel like you require a separate topic for 'not-on-the-run' lawbreakers, please contact one of the mods.

Obviously you think the important words are "on-the-run". Everyone else thinks the important words are "amnesty" and "lawbreakers".

I know it's futile, but I'll try to explain: Granting oneself amnesty for what most countries consider to be treason, failure to investigate ample evidence of corruption in ones own ranks, but refusing to consider amnesty for corruption committed long ago strikes many as self-serving hypocrisy.

Ah, so 'we' are now 'everyone else'?

'no amnesty for on-the-run lawbreakers', not even bailjumping ones.

Anyway, some of the 'everyone else' suggested a counter-coup to restore the previous government. Of course that would be a 'good' lawbreaking as it would be essential to some criminals on the run.

So, "refusing to consider amnesty for corruption committed long ago strikes many as self-serving hypocrisy". It seems you start the push to make 'amnesty for long time ago corruption' sound reasonable. What's a few billions ten years ago, heybruce? Anyone who can't forgive some clever criminals to have cheated the taxpayers must be a hypocrite for sure.

No amnesty, not even for Abhisit and Suthep although they never asked for it. No amnesty, not even for Thaksin although he didn't hesitate to mobilise armed and violent non-red-shirt terrorists to get what he wanted. No amnesty.

You are always entertaining rubl. First you try to play topic police, then you go off topic by bringing up a counter-coup. Are you planning something you want to share with us?

Repeating what I posted, keeping it in context, was:

"Granting oneself amnesty for what most countries consider to be treason, failure to investigate ample evidence of corruption in ones own ranks, but refusing to consider amnesty for corruption committed long ago strikes many as self-serving hypocrisy."

How do you feel about amnesty for treason?

[rubl]

Well, obviously the 'we' which probably refers to 'you' doesn't understand even with my explanation. Of course if you feel like you require a separate topic for 'not-on-the-run' lawbreakers, please contact one of the mods.

Obviously you think the important words are "on-the-run". Everyone else thinks the important words are "amnesty" and "lawbreakers".

I know it's futile, but I'll try to explain: Granting oneself amnesty for what most countries consider to be treason, failure to investigate ample evidence of corruption in ones own ranks, but refusing to consider amnesty for corruption committed long ago strikes many as self-serving hypocrisy.

Ah, so 'we' are now 'everyone else'?

'no amnesty for on-the-run lawbreakers', not even bailjumping ones.

Anyway, some of the 'everyone else' suggested a counter-coup to restore the previous government. Of course that would be a 'good' lawbreaking as it would be essential to some criminals on the run.

So, "refusing to consider amnesty for corruption committed long ago strikes many as self-serving hypocrisy". It seems you start the push to make 'amnesty for long time ago corruption' sound reasonable. What's a few billions ten years ago, heybruce? Anyone who can't forgive some clever criminals to have cheated the taxpayers must be a hypocrite for sure.

No amnesty, not even for Abhisit and Suthep although they never asked for it. No amnesty, not even for Thaksin although he didn't hesitate to mobilise armed and violent non-red-shirt terrorists to get what he wanted. No amnesty.

You are always entertaining rubl. First you try to play topic police, then you go off topic by bringing up a counter-coup. Are you planning something you want to share with us?

Repeating what I posted, keeping it in context, was:

"Granting oneself amnesty for what most countries consider to be treason, failure to investigate ample evidence of corruption in ones own ranks, but refusing to consider amnesty for corruption committed long ago strikes many as self-serving hypocrisy."

How do you feel about amnesty for treason?

So, not so amusing heybruce, back to your old tricks of accusing others of the twisting and turning you do. Nothing left in real arguments I guess.

Anyway, no amnesty for on-the-run-lawbreakers. As not all here seem to understand let me try to explain. Those who broke the law and are on the run will not get amnesty. This does not say anything about those who are not on-the-run.

[sjaak327]

How do you feel about amnesty for treason?

So, not so amusing heybruce, back to your old tricks of accusing others of the twisting and turning you do. Nothing left in real arguments I guess.

Anyway, no amnesty for on-the-run-lawbreakers. As not all here seem to understand let me try to explain. Those who broke the law and are on the run will not get amnesty. This does not say anything about those who are not on-the-run.

Supposedly those lawbreakers are serving their sentence, or in the case of the coup makers, already received their amnesty. You are trying to side step the issue of the latter and hide the utter hypocrisy of the recipient of that amnesty in the OP.

He cannot and should not talk about the law, as he has quite clearly showed everyone he doesn't follow the law.

[h90]

But PM, didnt you immediately seek an amnesty for yourself and cohorts for treason.

Another case of look after your mates and stuff everyone else.

Reconciliation or re con civilians?

A coup is only illegal if unsuccessful. If successful it is the legal new government (if you doubt that read some history).