Govt, Pheu Thai Party play risky game on amnesty

After repeatedly insisting that the bill is not designed to help former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the coalition-leading party has shown its true colours.
The truth was exposed on October 18 when the special House panel vetting the bill approved a proposal made by Pheu Thai member Prayuth Siriphanich to amend Article 3, which is the heart of the bill. The amendment would extend the amnesty to cover Thaksin’s legal cases.
As expected, the move led to strong opposition from all sides. Criticisms were aimed at the government, Pheu Thai and especially the ad hoc House panel. No-holds-barred attacks came from the Democrat Party and all groups opposed to the bill.
Worse still, from the government’s point of view, strong opposition was also mounted by red-shirt leaders, who are seen as allies of the administration.
Weng Tojirakarn, a red-shirt MP, told a press conference that the red shirts would not accept the full-fledged amnesty agreed upon by the vetting panel. Weng insisted that the red shirts wanted the government to adhere to the original version of the bill put forward by Worachai Hema, which aims to help ordinary red shirts.
In the face of the immediate and strong opposition, Pheu Thai leaders and some senior members of the government tried to pacify critics by offering explanations for the amendment of the bill. The more they tried to defend the move, however, the worse the government looked in the eyes of the public.
The amendment of the bill to benefit Thaksin shows that the government is no longer shy about pushing for its goals in full. Earlier, the government flexed its majority muscle to push for the passage or approval of certain controversial articles in the charter-amendment bills, despite strong criticisms.
Apparently believing that time is running out, the government has decided it can no longer be timid about its goals. It apparently felt that it would be too late if the government waited for criticism to die down first.
Prayuth tried to defend his proposal by saying that the amendment of Article 3 was not aimed at helping anyone in particular, and that the amnesty bill would not lead to the return to Thaksin of Bt46 billion in assets seized from him. He said he would bet his life on the issue, and insisted the bill would benefit all sides.
It appears clear that the government and Pheu Thai coordinated these moves, and that it was no coincidence.
This can be seen in the fact that on the day the ad hoc House panel voted to widen the amnesty, the government declared that enforcement of the Internal Security Act would be extended to November 30.
Lt-General Paradorn Pattanathabut, the secretary-general of the National Security Council, told the Cabinet that the ISA enforcement had to be extended for three reasons. First, ISA enforcement would deter violence at political rallies. Second, the normal laws would not be sufficient to allow officials to control the situation. Third, ISA enforcement would allow the authorities to prevent protesters from besieging Parliament and blocking MPs from working.
It has yet to be seen whether the mounting opposition and criticisms can persuade the government and Pheu Thai to step back. It is particularly important that the opposition has also come from the red-shirt movement, which has been allied with Thaksin.
Now, the government and Pheu Thai must seriously weigh up whether pushing the amnesty bill is worth the risk of losing support from the red-shirt movement.
If it wrongly assesses the situation, the game could become dangerous – or could even be over – for Pheu Thai.