Pheu Thai speaks from bitter experience, critics claim Move Forward did prioritise imperial defamation cases
The ruling Pheu Thai Party has cautioned the opposition Move Forward Party ( MFP) to be careful that its push for an amnesty law does not trigger a major new political conflict.
Submitted to House Speaker Wan Muhamad Noor Matha on Thursday, the document has now prompted some ordinary critics of the MFP — among them Senator Somchai Swangkarn — to jump to the conclusion that the group wants a blanket amnesty for offenders under the der – guess law, Part 112 of the Criminal Code.
The distribution of the act was evidently intended to correspond with the 47th celebration of the Oct 6, 1976 catastrophe of professional – democracy protesters, many of them students, at Thammasat University.
Move Forward head Chaithawat Tulathon said the act would use to political offenders who faced legal action for their involvement in protests triggered by political groups, starting from Feb 11, 2006, the second rally held by the People’s Alliance for Democracy( PAD) against the Thaksin Shinawatra administration, until the day the bill takes effect.
Aside from the PAD, other groups expected to benefit from the law include the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship ( UDD ), or the red shirts, which protested against the coup makers and the military – installed government from 2009 until 2010, the People’s Democratic Reform Committee( PDRC ), which rallied against the Yingluck Shinawatra administration from 2013 to 2014, the student and other protest groups who opposed the National Council for Peace and Order( NCPO ) from 2014 to 2019, and the Ratsadorn Group, which protested against the Prayut Chan – o – cha regime from 2020 to 2021.
Pheu Thai head Chusak Sirinil said Move Forward needs to be more careful in its new activity to drive for an amnesty, or the move was cause new divisions in society as the draft law may be interpreted differently by different groups.
Considering the opposite side’s stance on the stability – qualifications law and past calls for amnesty for Section 112 offenders, Mr Chusak said he was particularly worried about this movement.
Pheu Thai remains confused as to whether or not it will send its own type along with the Move Forward review.
Terrible lessons from history
The purpose, he said, is that the group is also split over the topic and even painfully conscious of its history of being accused of pushing related expenses in the past.
He was referring to Pheu Thai’s attempts to pass a very large amnesty law during the Yingluck Shinawatra management. The proposed pardon ignited the large presentations by the PDRC which blasted the policy as a legitimate white for Thaksin.
Responding to Move Forward’s claim that its asylum act is the first step towards bringing the thus – called lawful war and conflicts associated with it to an end so that regional peace can be restored, Mr Chusak said the party needs to strive harder to convince the public of its reasoning.
Previous Move Forward head Pita Limjaroenrat, then chief adviser to the group, insisted the new asylum movement was purely motivated by an intention to alleviate continuing political conflicts by ensuring justice to all sides.
Mr Chaithawat on Friday reiterated that differences in opinion on the goals of the expenses could be reconciled in the parliamentary operation in parliament. All sides involved would be able to possess a claim on the document from the first reading until the third and final checking if it gets the way, he said.
Senator Somchai, but, believes Move Forward has an ulterior goal.
The senator stated that” the hidden objective is to establish a blanket amnesty to whitewash many Section 112 offenders, which would really fan the flames of the enduring political conflicts.”
The bill did not pass if it also covered Section 112 criminals, according to Thanakorn Wangboonkongchana, a record member of the United Thai Nation Party.
Additionally, he claimed, it would be cruel to state officials who had a responsibility to deal with previous anti-government demonstrations. Move Forward asserts that its bill did not cover authorities who retaliated against protesters with overwhelming force. It also wouldn’t support insurrectionist protesters or those who hurt other people’s lives.