Thread: House reconciliation panel set up

Amnesty for All: What will our children say?
Anuthee Dejthevaporn
Mon, 21/10/2013

Last Friday, the House Committee on the proposed Amnesty bill decided to grant amnesty for all political offenders in the last 7 years (2006 – 2013). The news shocked many political observers: Red Shirts, Yellow Shirts, and non-partisans in the present political conflict. The decision clearly contrasted what the government of Pheu Thai party has kept telling society since it pushed this bill to parliament.

It is absolutely true that this society urgently needs amnesty for political prisoners whose past actions were inspired by political beliefs. It is also true that most legal cases against Thaksin Shinawatra since the 2006 coup were intentionally crafted by his oppositions to get rid of him. It is also true that the CRES and the government led by Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaugsuban must be held responsible for the crackdown on Red Shirt demonstrators during April and May 2010. The question is: how to bring true justice on all the cases above?

Amnesty is just one solution to bring justice to the political prisoners. Amnesty ultimately means to let go and forgive. So who should be forgiven most in the past political conflicts? Regarding this question, people with normal minds will easily realize that the masses of both sides of conflict are to be ultimately forgiven. They were aroused, inspired, and led by the leaders to do what they did, although fully conscious of their actions. In large political movements, no individual can take action in anything without leadership and organized political goals. People with normal minds will realize that riots are normal during chaos, especially when the armed forces are used to crack down on the protesters. The violent reactions are to be expected. When there is violence causing injuries, losses and deaths, the leaders of both sides are clearly the most responsible.

Of course, if we take law and order seriously, those who committed crimes must be brought to justice. But in the case of a political conflict in which law and order is also part of the problem, political agenda must be more important than the question of law enforcement. When law and order mechanisms are in the hands of an undemocratic or illegitimate regime, how could one say that law and order is going to be carried out strictly according to the democratic rule of law principles? However, this does not mean that justice must be overlooked and that the leaders of the regime or the movement must get away with what they did. But it means that the victims of political conflicts are also the victims of the law and order system, and that all their actions, inspired by political beliefs, must be carefully dealt with by a special justice mechanism.

For those victims, amnesty is ultimately necessary, because the longer they are kept in prison, the more their political allies will feel there is injustice caused by the regime controlling law and order mechanisms. On the contrary, the longer the leaders of the regime and movements are still not brought to justice, the more their oppositions will feel there is injustice in the system. It is not my duty to point out here who is guilty or not guilty according to the law. As I wrote above, a special method must be applied to the victims and amnesty is the best way to go. However, it is most stupid to apply the method to the leaders of both sides of the conflict.

‘They’ led the army to the coup in 2006 that overthrew the democratically-elected government. ‘They’ led the masses on the streets in 2008 to take over the government house and airports that caused chaos and losses to the economy. In the same year, ‘they’ led their political factions in the parliament to take over the government undemocratically. A year later, ‘they’ led their masses on the street and failed to put in enough effort to avoid losses while they could. In the same year, ‘they’ led the military under their government to shoot the people’s heads. By saying ‘they’ I am mentioning the leaders on all sides who led their masses, mechanisms, and tools to particular actions that caused losses. They may be right or they may be wrong, I have no right to point it out ultimately. But I can point it out that they all must be brought to justice, much, much more than those whom they led to actions.

This is the most basic principle that people with normal minds will see. Thailand has gone through too many political losses in which the leaders went free and never held responsible for what they did. They have always been the first people granted amnesty. On the contrary, the masses in conflicts have always been the ones put into prison or killed. All they were given is an annual memorial events. If things are going to be changed, they should receive the opposite outcome -- justice.

It is all about the right principle, as much as about the right political strategy in achieving democracy. Granting amnesty to political prisoners, whom the oppositions have always called ‘terrorists’, will never draw sufficient force to overthrow the government. An attempt to bring Abhisit and Suthep to justice will never draw sufficient force to overthrow the government. An attempt to bring Thaksin home and to put him through a correct and legitimate judiciary process again will never draw sufficient force to overthrow the government. The government is safe and sound as long as these three problems are not being drawn together under one amnesty bill. To let political prisoners out will lift the spirit of the masses and lower the spirit of the opposition. The people will protect and do anything for the government that will bring justice to the regime that committed the massacre. While Thaksin is not included in the amnesty, the opposition will never be able to draw all its forces to overthrow the government. We can clearly see that by not mixing up all these matters in one bill, the opposition has hardly any agenda to mobilize on. It has been proven that their past attempts at Uruphong Street were a mere pathetic joke.

I should stress it here again: under these conditions, the government is completely safe and sound!

However, bringing all three cases above under the same amnesty bill will surely draw sufficient forces to overthrow the government. The Yellow Shirts will come out in big numbers. The Red Shirts will lose their faith in the government as this government leaves their killed brothers without holding anyone responsible. The oppositions will see this as an opportunity to put in every effort and tool they have to overthrow the government. This is ultimately the most stupid strategy any political movement could ever think about. The clear outcome is that now the opposition has an excuse to mobilize with hope again. The rally at Urupong Street became more crowded during the past nights.

Of course, I never think Abhisit and Suthep would ever be brought to justice as long as the ‘special power’ that has protected him is still there. And I never think justice will happen in the upcoming five or even ten years from now. However, if the democratic power sticks to the right principle to bring proper justice for all, we will have something to say in the history that they have attempted their best to bring changes to this country. Abhisit and Suthep may not be brought to justice in the very near future but we will not be blamed on that. The history will say that we have done our best and it is the undemocratic forces that are to blame. This will also strategically maintain the masses’ faith in the government and to maintain the only power capable of protecting the government at any cost.

I have seen too many Red Shirt who have already lost faith in this government since the news about the ‘Amnesty for All’ bill was out. I have seen some Red Shirts blindly and hopelessly protecting this bill and that makes them look pathetic. I also begin to lose hope that this government will bring proper justice for all, and that this government will protect the democratic principle at any cost. I worked so hard recently, as a reporter, to keep repeating the ‘facts’ that the amnesty bill will never included Abhisit, Suthep, and Thaksin. Now I felt a little guilty I played a part to repeat these lies.

If I were Mr.Thaksin, I would urgently call a halt on this ‘Amnesty for All’ bill and I would push it back to the right direction. If I were the UDD, I would urgently call on all members to pressure this government to push this bill back to the right position. Sadly, I still haven’t seen any reaction from those who I hoped for.

If the ‘Amnesty for All’ bill is passed, then consider the consequences that may come. What will our children say, if one day they also get killed in a future political conflict and they have to fight for the justice all over again by themselves? What will our children say, when they realize that we, their parents, could have done some big things to create the true justice in this land for them, but sadly we didn’t?

I felt too guilty to answer this question, although I know the answer very well.

So, please, my dear government I fought for, days and nights, in 2010 and even now. My dear government I voted for. My dear government I have always thought you are democratic. Please, push this bill back to the right position before everything is too late!

______

Anuthee Dejthevaporn was a General Secretary of the Student Federation of Thailand (SFT) during the Red Shirts crack down in 2010. He has Bachelor's degree in Political Science from Thammasat University and Master of Asian Studies at Monash University, Australia. Now he works as a reporter at Voice TV, covering Thai politics.

prachatai.com

Reds: No blanket amnesty
KHANITTHA THEPPHAJORN,
ANUPHAN CHANTANA,
KORNCHANOK RAKSASERI
THE NATION




Red shirt faction plans rally; aliance warns bill will aid corrupt politicians


BANGKOK: -- RED SUNDAY, a faction of the red-shirt movement, will on Sunday organise a rally at the Ratchaprasong intersection to oppose the revised amnesty bill, its leader Sombat Boonngam-anong said yesterday.

"The rally will send a signal to the Pheu Thai Party about where the people who took part in the political struggle really stand on the amnesty issue," he said.

Sombat said blanket amnesty, if granted to the political overseers who were in charge of the crackdown on the red-shirt rally at Ratchaprasong in 2010, would in effect deny the reds the legitimacy to continue their political struggle.

He said the red shirts would apply strong pressure on the ruling party to revert back to the original draft sponsored by Pheu Thai MP Worachai Hema.

Worachai's version was designed to provide amnesty to ordinary protesters.

Proponents of blanket amnesty had no justification to cite legal equality as a reason for absolving all individuals involved, because they neglected to address lese majeste offences, he said.

Pramon Sutivong, chairman of the Anti-Corruption Organisation of Thailand, said his group would hold a press conference on Monday at Arnoma Hotel to declare its stance against the amnesty bill, which the group believes will provide blanket amnesty and cover those convicted of corruption.

Among the organisation's members are prominent business-sector groups such as the Federation of Thai Industries and the Thai Chamber of Commerce, Pramon said. These groups had acknowledged his organisation's stance and had not opposed it, Pramon said, so he hoped other such alliances would adopt the same stance.

The House ad hoc committee vetting the amnesty bill scheduled sessions yesterday(Thursday) and today to hear from members who disagree with its resolution, and to allow them to present proposals to alter the motion. Their comments would be put in a report, which will be presented to the House session during the second reading of the bill.

Committee chairman Samart Kaew-mechai, from the Pheu Thai Party, said he would not rush the meeting. However, he insisted there would be no extension of the meeting days on which the panel members could speak on altering the motion, and there would be no revision of the resolution the committee decided upon last week.

"The committee made this consideration based on the principle of forgiveness, and according to the Constitution. People who disagree can [propose to] alter the motion and let the House session decide," he said.

Samart yesterday clarified that the revised amnesty bill would not absolve those tried and convicted for corruption. He said the bill would only apply to criminal offences related to the political mayhem.

Samart intervened to clarify after the Democrats and coalition lawmakers exchanged sharp words during the committee meeting.

The Democrats demanded that the revised bill be clear on two issues - the intention in the annulling the work of the Assets Examination Commission appointed after the 2006 coup, and the assets seizure of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Payao Akahad, mother of Kamolket, a paramedic who died in the crackdown in 2010, yesterday submitted a letter to Samart. Her group, which includes relatives of the victims of the crackdown, called on the committee to amend a clause in the bill so that the people who ordered it do not get amnesty.

The group also called on the government to speed up assistance in obtaining bail for people detained during the incident, to delay the passage of the amnesty bill and to hold public hearings on the issue.

She said that unless the group received a response on its request, it would discuss the possibility of staging a rally.

Pheu Thai MP Weng Tojirakarn said he was sceptical that the revised amnesty bill could be enforced so long as coup-related immunity remained intact. Amnesty for those found guilty in coup-sponsored litigation might be voided by Article 309 of the Constitution, which upholds coup-related activities, he said.

He voiced concern that the bill in its revised version might be cancelled by the Constitution Court.

He also said amnesty would not pave way for the homecoming of fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

"The amnesty will backfire by fanning opposition to unconditional absolution, which would, in turn, create unfavourable sentiment for Thaksin," he said.

Justice Minister Chaikasem Nitisiri played down a National Institute of Develo-pment Administration opinion poll in which a majority of respondents opposed revising the amnesty bill.

Amnesty legislation should be under the purview of lawmakers, who receive their mandate through elections, Chaikasem said.

The relevant parties should allow Parliament to do its job instead of taking to the streets, he said, adding that he was in favour of granting amnesty to all sides involved in the conflict.

While coup-sponsored probes into graft cases could be revived after granting amnesty to those involved, this might not be a good idea because then the absolution would have failed to end the animosity in Thai politics, he said.

Earlier this week, Thaksin told Thai-language daily Post Today he supported the amnesty bill as it would reset relations among all political players.

Thaksin said he was not thinking of his own benefit - being whitewashed under the law and getting his assets back - but the next generation's.



-- The Nation 2013-10-25