Jump to content

Amnesty Opponents To Rally Nationwide


Flashermac

Recommended Posts

Both sides of divide need to recognise their blind spots

 

by Pravit Rojanaphruk

 

 

As both sides of the political divide escalate the mutual animosity, mostly shouting at one another instead of trying to be mutually empathetic, two issues need to be demystified.

 

First, why do non-red-shirt opponents of the controversial blanket amnesty bill not care much about finding the truth behind the 2010 bloody crackdown on red-shirt protests, which cost nearly 100 lives - mostly on the red side - and ended in impunity?

 

Second, why do pro-Thaksin Shinawatra red-shirts seem utterly unconcerned by the alleged corruption and abuse of power verdicts against Thaksin, the ousted and fugitive former premier?

 

Let me try to tackle the two questions, beginning with the first.

 

First, life in Thailand can be rather cheap for ordinary folks, some will argue. We see and hear stories of crime and murder every day. So what if some people were killed, some may say? This is not the first time. We experienced it in 1973, 1976, 1992, 2008 and 2010. (And it's unlikely to be the last as long as no one is held responsible.)

 

Such an explanation alone is inadequate. Underlying the lack of concern or sympathy to address the issue is the belief that the red shirts are bad people. According to such a narrowly defined moralistic code, bad people are valued less than good people, possibly less than human, and their death is irrelevant.

 

In fact, this writer can still recall some who expressed satisfaction at the deaths of red shirts during the dark months of April and May 2010. And to be fair, when a yellow-shirt protester, Angkhana Radabpanyawut, aka Nong Bow, was killed in a separate protest against the Somchai Wongsawat administration on October 7, 2008, some red shirts also expressed the feeling that she deserved to die. Some even called her a whore.

 

Now, the second "mystery" is this: Why are reds so oblivious to the alleged corruption and abuse of power verdicts against Thaksin by the court?

 

Some reds would readily argue that Thaksin was a victim of the September 19, 2006 military coup that ousted him, and insist that the legal procedures following the coup were influenced by the coup-makers, one way or the other.

 

A coup is wrong - but it never occurs to some reds that both sides, i.e. Thaksin and the coup-makers, could be wrong or less than honest in different ways. For those reds to recognise that Thaksin may not be as altruistic as he projects himself to be, they would argue that all politicians are more or less like that - and at least the public's benefiting from his populist policies.

 

Some even argue it's unfair if all politicians can be scrutinised but not the monarchy institution, which is protected by the lese majeste law.

 

Both sides continue to see only their issues and their sides of the debate and are now doing their mighty best to ignore others' points of view.

 

Mutual hatred and indifference cannot bring about positive political change, but love for the society we share can. Are we going to allow Thailand to descend into yet another round of chaos, violence and coups by not trying to understand each other's point of view?

 

 

http://www.nationmul...d-30219455.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Pheu Thai braces for the worst

 

 

The ruling Pheu Thai Party is preparing for the worst-case scenario on Wednesday when the Constitutional Court announces its ruling on the proposed amendment of the Constitution, a decision that could bring the government down.

 

The opposition Democrats and some senators have asked the court to rule on whether the bill to amend the Constitution, which was sponsored by 312 lawmakers, is lawful.

 

Last week, key members of both Pheu Thai and the Democrats analysed possible scenarios for the court's judgement. Both agreed the chances that the court would hand down a verdict that is in favour of the government were very slim.

 

Pheu Thai chief Jaruphong Ruangsuwan said yesterday that he was worried about the court judgement, as it might pose a risk to the party and eventually seal the fate of the government under Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

 

Under the proposed amendment, all 200 senators would be elected, rather than having 76 elected and 74 appointed as currently. Also, the amendment would allow the relatives and spouses of sitting parliamentarians to run. The opposition is worried that the amendment would allow the government to bring its associates into the Senate easily.

 

Analysts see three likely choices for the court.

 

One is for the court to declare the charter amendment unconstitutional and order the process stopped, even though Yingluck has already submitted the amendment to the Palace for royal endorsement. The second would extend the first option by requiring the 312 MPs and senators who sponsored the charter-amendment bill to take responsibility.

 

The third would be for the court to rule the amendment unconstitutional on grounds that it attempts to change the country's system of government. The court could then dissolve the ruling parties that supported the amendment, including Pheu Thai, and ban their executives from politics.

 

That means four political parties would be disbanded and 55 politicians banned for five years, including 19 executives of Pheu Thai, 11 of Chart Thai Pattana, 17 of Chart Pattana and eight of Phalang Chon. Among them, four are ministers - Pheu Thai leader Jaruphong, his deputies Kittiratt Na-Ranong and Plodprasop Suraswadi, plus Phalang Chon leader Sontaya Kunplome.

 

Yingluck could survive the ruling, but the Democrats would pressure her to take responsibility, said a senior Democrat member, who has joined in the rally at Democracy Monument.

 

"Democrat MPs have warned her to delay the submission [of the charter-change legislation] for royal endorsement, but she decided to rush the process. She cannot deny responsibility," he said.

 

Legal experts at Pheu Thai hope that the court would simply rule the amendment unconstitutional and order it stopped, but there is also a high possibility that the court would go so far as to outlaw parties involved.

 

The key concern is that four or five top Pheu Thai Party executives are among the 312 lawmakers who sponsored the charter change.

 

Three of the nine justices are likely to have dismissed the petition citing a lack of authority to rule on the constitutional amendment, Pheu Thai experts said. They are Chut Chonlavorn, Boonsong Kulbupar and Udomsak Nitimontree.

 

The new member, Twekiat Menakanist, might also excuse himself or abstain from voting, as he has not worked on the case from the beginning. The ruling could then come down to the opinions of five justices, they said.

 

If the court ruling favours the opposition, it could calm protesters led by senior Democrat Suthep Thaugsuban. But red-shirts would probably take to the streets instead.

 

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Pheu-Thai-braces-for-the-worst-30219885.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note: The Senate was made partly appointed to try to transform it into a legislative body which would actually consider legislation passed by the lower house, not simply rubber stamp it as had been happening. Pheu Thai hates the fact that it does actually do that and wants to put it back the way it was.

 

Will this cause renewed protests and more counter protests once again? :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abhisit says Tarit framed him, Suthep over 2010 riots

 

 

Department of Special Investigation director-general Tarit Pengdith skewed the facts in order to frame suspects who are the subject of criminal indictments relating to the 2010 riots, the Democrat Party leader told a court Monday.

The Criminal Court convened an inquiry session to hear Abhisit Vejjajiva testifying as plaintiff, before deciding whether his suit against Tarit would merit judicial review.

 

"The state of emergency was declared in the face of havoc wreaked by armed men in black, but this fact was omitted from the prosecution statement against me," Abhisit said.

 

Abhisit contends that Tarit abused his power by fabricating criminal indictments against him, as the then prime minister, and his then deputy, Suthep Thaugsuban, in relation to deaths that occurred during the riots.

 

In his statement to the court, he said that only the National Counter Corruption Commission had a mandate to prosecute political office holders.

 

He voiced suspicion that the DSI and the Office of the Attorney General had conspired to frame him and Suthep in order to pressure opposition lawmakers to accept the amnesty bill.

 

One month before the indictments were issued, Cabinet member Chalerm Yoobamrung revealed in the House that he had inside information about the pending charges, Abhisit said.

 

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Abhisit-says-Tarit-framed-him-Suthep-over-2010-rio-30219965.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chalerm assigned to head protest monitoring

 

 

Labour Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung said Tuesday that he has been assigned by the prime minister to monitor the anti-government protests by various groups.

 

Chalerm said the situation control room of the protests has been set up at the Labour Ministry.

 

The situation monitoring officials will hold a meeting at 10 am everyday, Chalerm said.

 

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Chalerm-assigned-to-head-protest-monitoring-30220036.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...