Please log in to reply 16 replies to this topic

[Lite Beer]

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

[Thaddeus]

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.

[OzMick]

"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

[whybother]

OzMick, 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.

[rixalex]

Thaddeus, 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.

[OzMick]

whybother, on Today, 09:35 , said:

OzMick, 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.

[hellodolly]

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.

[retarius]

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

[prefabs]

retarius, on Today, 11:23 , said:

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

So you think everything is above board and hunky dory?

[rixalex]

retarius, on Today, 11:23 , said:

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

Clearly his face not square enough for your taste.

[drdoom6996]

Thaddeus, 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.

+1

[Arkady]

"Abhisit sees 'whitewash' move behind reconciliation billl"

A master of understatement.

[jayboy]

OzMick, on Today, 09:46 , said:

whybother, on Today, 09:35 , said:

OzMick, 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.

But in the view of millions of Thais the redshirt protest was the right thing, a entirely justifiable stand against anti democratic forces - in the tradition of 1973,1976 and 1992.This was also the view shared around the civilised world.So please do not assume that your distorted morality is taken as the norm.

[rixalex]

jayboy, on 52 minutes ago, said:

But in the view of millions of Thais the redshirt protest was the right thing, a entirely justifiable stand against anti democratic forces - in the tradition of 1973,1976 and 1992.

I would suggest that In the view of millions of Thais the redshirt protest ceased being the right thing, ceased being an entirely justifiable stand against anti democratic forces, when they started with all the antidemocratic violence and destruction in Bangkok and other selected locations.

jayboy, on 52 minutes ago, said:

This was also the view shared around the civilised world.

So now a few Western media outlets of your choosing, speak for the civilised world. Who knew..

[Thaddeus]

jayboy, on 52 minutes ago, said:

OzMick, on Today, 09:46 , said:

whybother, on Today, 09:35 , said:

OzMick, 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.

But in the view of millions of Thais the redshirt protest was the right thing, a entirely justifiable stand against anti democratic forces - in the tradition of 1973,1976 and 1992.This was also the view shared around the civilised world.So please do not assume that your distorted morality is taken as the norm.

Even a distorted sense of morality is better than no morality at all.

As Oz and Why state.... laws should be applied evenly and proportionately to everyone.

[jayboy]

rixalex, on 23 minutes ago, said:

jayboy, on 52 minutes ago, said:

But in the view of millions of Thais the redshirt protest was the right thing, a entirely justifiable stand against anti democratic forces - in the tradition of 1973,1976 and 1992.

I would suggest that In the view of millions of Thais the redshirt protest ceased being the right thing, ceased being an entirely justifiable stand against anti democratic forces, when they started with all the antidemocratic violence and destruction in Bangkok and other selected locations.

jayboy, on 52 minutes ago, said:

This was also the view shared around the civilised world.

So now a few Western media outlets of your choosing, speak for the civilised world. Who knew..

If your thesis is correct it's odd that the Thai people elected a party with strong affiliations to the redshirt movement to a comfortable victory.

As to foreign views most were sympathethic to the redshirt cause.If you can name a few reputable sources who took a different view let's hear about them.

[OzMick]

jayboy, on 52 minutes ago, said:

OzMick, on Today, 09:46 , said:

whybother, on Today, 09:35 , said:

OzMick, 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.

But in the view of millions of Thais the redshirt protest was the right thing, a entirely justifiable stand against anti democratic forces - in the tradition of 1973,1976 and 1992.This was also the view shared around the civilised world.So please do not assume that your distorted morality is taken as the norm.

What a load of cobblers. Perhaps to you and your pinko mates, but you need no distortion of morality to abhor mob violence, murder and arson, with such headline grabbers as blood-pouring and hospital invasions.
That is the core of the problem; these people were fed a mixed diet of lies and half-truths by paid propogandists,  and many still believe it to be true. That their violent attempt to overthrow a legitimate government was doing the right thing. That torching other people's businesses and homes was justifiable.
If the mass of people had accepted the early elections offered, they might have some justification. That they stayed after it became obvious this would end in bloodshed condemns them.