Jump to content

Listen to Pattaya FM105

View New Content  

Abhisit Sees 'Whitewash' Move Behind Reconciliation Bill


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Lite Beer

Lite Beer

    L.B.

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,577 posts

Posted Today, 06:15

Abhisit sees 'whitewash' move behind reconciliation bill
The Nation on Sunday

BANGKOK:-- Opposition and Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said yesterday the opposition would move to oppose the reconciliation bill, as it believes the legislation aims to whitewash individuals who committed wrongdoing in connection with Assets Examination Committee (AEC) cases.

Abhisit was speaking following reports that the bill would be tabled for House deliberation this week. He said the content of the bill did not aim to bring about reconciliation, but only to benefit people connected to the government.

"I feel concerned about the content of the bill. Many people viewed it and found it unaccept-

able because it destroys the legal system and justice system. The government is determined to systematically process the legislation and ignore problems faced by the public that are more urgent, such as the rising cost of living. The bill should be suspended and a committee should be appointed to look at it,'' he said.

Abhisit and Nakhon Si Thammarat Democrat MPs also took to the stage at a ceremony to open a school there, calling on locals to oppose the reconciliation bill.

"The government is pushing for constitutional amendment and the reconciliation bill to whitewash people who committed offences during the political turmoil, remove the party dissolution law and help Thaksin Shinawatra over his corruption cases. The Democrat Party strongly opposes this and will do everything possible to object to the law if it is tabled in the House this week,'' he said.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra denied that the Pheu Thai Party was pushing for the reconciliation bill to be tabled for parliamentary deliberation on Wednesday and Thursday, saying the party had not resolved the matter and that other parties - not Pheu Thai - handled the bill. She said Pheu Thai had not discussed the bill, but the ruling party would not issue a law to benefit one person.

Pheu Thai deputy spokesman Jirayu Huangsab said Matubhum Party leader Sonthi Boonyaratglin had made a careful decision before tabling the reconciliation bill for House deliberation.

He was responding to a move by a group of MPs and senators who are seeking a Constitution Court ruling on whether the reconciliation bill violates Article 309 of the Constitution.

Jirayu denied that the bill aims to restore to Thaksin all the money confiscated from him by the state, and denied that AEC cases against Thaksin would be dropped as alleged.

Election Commissioner Sodsri Satayathum said Parliament must discuss whether the reconciliation bill aims to whitewash those who committed wrongdoing in AEC cases. She had no comment on whether the bill was aimed at nullifying the AEC and all its rulings, based on the fact that the agency was established by a coup-installed government. "This issue must be discussed in Parliament. I have not seen the reconciliation bill, but I believe that it aims to bring about amnesty and rehabilitation,'' she said.

Asked if she agreed that the bill was aimed at "whitewashing" individuals who committed offences, Sodsri said the issue was reconciliation and compromise. "Any law can be passed if Parliament approves it. For those who want to oppose the law, they have to think about whether the country can move forward by doing that. We have to turn to each other and listen to each other's opinions," she said.

Meanwhile, Senator Kamnoon Sithisamarn called on Sonthi to clarify his intention in tabling the reconciliation bill, since he was the one who established the AEC to investigate Thaksin, but now wants the House to pass a bill that, according to Kamnoon, would give Thaksin legitimacy.

"Anyone can cite reconciliation, but the legal procedures must be correct. You cannot write by hand but delete with something else."

If the bill aims to whitewash Thaksin, he said it would face public opposition both inside and outside Parliament. And the amnesty law must distinguish between protest leaders and regular people, and not involve Thaksin.


-- The Nation 2012-05-27



#2 Thaddeus

Thaddeus

    Pointy Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,776 posts

Posted Today, 09:21

Quote

She said Pheu Thai had not discussed the bill, but the ruling party would not issue a law to benefit one person.

But one person and all his helpers will be fine.

#3 OzMick

OzMick

    Platinum Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,909 posts

Posted Today, 09:31

"And the amnesty law must distinguish between protest leaders and regular people...."

Well there goes another basic priciple of democracy.

There is but one law for all, namely that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity -- the law of nature and of nations.  Edmund Burke

#4 whybother

whybother

    Gold Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,323 posts

Posted Today, 09:35

View PostOzMick, on Today, 09:31 , said:

"And the amnesty law must distinguish between protest leaders and regular people...."

Well there goes another basic priciple of democracy.

There is but one law for all, namely that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity -- the law of nature and of nations.  Edmund Burke

I think he's referring to "regular people who just happened to be there" and "protest leaders who organised and incited the regular people".

The followers should be given amnesty, and the organisers / inciters shouldn't.

#5 rixalex

rixalex

    A Live Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,592 posts

Posted Today, 09:41

View PostThaddeus, on Today, 09:21 , said:

Quote

She said Pheu Thai had not discussed the bill, but the ruling party would not issue a law to benefit one person.

But one person and all his helpers will be fine.
They'll no doubt throw in a few token whitewashes for some on the other side to keep them quiet and make it appear like it is all part of some grand and noble reconciliation plan.

#6 OzMick

OzMick

    Platinum Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,909 posts

Posted Today, 09:46

View Postwhybother, on Today, 09:35 , said:

View PostOzMick, on Today, 09:31 , said:

"And the amnesty law must distinguish between protest leaders and regular people...."

Well there goes another basic priciple of democracy.

There is but one law for all, namely that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity -- the law of nature and of nations.  Edmund Burke

I think he's referring to "regular people who just happened to be there" and "protest leaders who organised and incited the regular people".

The followers should be given amnesty, and the organisers / inciters shouldn't.
A law can be applied proportionally to degree of responsibility and participation, but should be applied to all. Even if it was merely a reprimand for civil disobedience, the message that this was NOT the right thing to do has to be proclaimed.

#7 hellodolly

hellodolly

    hello dolly

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,074 posts

Posted Today, 10:17

I liked this parft
"Election Commissioner Sodsri Satayathum said Parliament must discuss whether the reconciliation bill aims to whitewash those who committed wrongdoing in AEC cases. She had no comment on whether the bill was aimed at nullifying the AEC and all its rulings, based on the fact that the agency was established by a coup-installed government. "This issue must be discussed in Parliament. I have not seen the reconciliation bill, but I believe that it aims to bring about amnesty and rehabilitation,''

She hasn't seen the bill but believes it is about to bring amnesty and reconciliation.
If it gives all the criminals responsible for the 2010 fiasco amnesty. I hardly think it will bring any reconciliation. It will just deepen the differences.

It will just be a way of saying if you don't like the government and you have the money it is OK to block off business and bring some to a standstill while you occupy public road ways, and if that dosen't work go ahead and try to burn Bangkok down.

A very dangerous precedent to set.

#8 retarius

retarius

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted A minute ago

Mr Credibilty speaks...so desperate to be relevant....but is anybody listening?



 


Sponsored by ...

Quick Navigation   View New Content Site search: