Red shirts appear to be biggest losers in amnesty bill

They have been trying to defend the controversial amendment to the bill during the vetting process to extend amnesty from ordinary demonstrators to all groups in a blanket absolution.
The daring move of the vetting panel left people agape in bewilderment. Then, criticism and opposition mounted from both opponents and supporters of the Pheu Thai-led government.
But the government ignored the criticisms and decided to send the amnesty bill to the House for the second reading today. The move was unacceptable to even several wings of the red-shirt movement, except the red shirts in the Pheu Thai.
If the bill is enacted, former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and former deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban would also be absolved for their alleged roles in the 2010 bloody crackdown on red-shirt demonstrators. If that happens, the red shirts’ campaign for justice against the previous government’s leaders would have been in vain.
The red shirts have become disillusioned because the Pheu Thai has repeatedly promised the government would bring those responsible for the crackdowns and killing of demonstrators to justice to set a precedent and prevent more bloody crackdowns. But now the promise would be completely shattered.
The red shirts felt they were betrayed and just used by the Pheu Thai as a stairway to power. As a result, the red shirts have come out to campaign against the amnesty bill and to express disappointment with the Pheu Thai in an unprecedented move.
Members of the vetting panel tried to argue that the bill had to be changed to grant blanket amnesty because the Constitution prohibits discrimination in legal enforcement. They said the original draft could be deemed unconstitutional.
But this argument led to the question as to why the Pheu Thai had earlier insisted that amnesty could be granted only to general demonstrators even though several sides had pointed out that such a bill could be deemed discriminating against wrongdoers in several other cases.
Though the vetting panel claimed the bill had to be amended to prevent discrimination, suspects or convicts in lese majeste cases would still be excluded from the amnesty. So, the discrimination argument was unreasonable.
Worst of all, the Pheu Thai claimed that Abhisit and Suthep would be helped by a special power to receive immunity in the trial process so the amnesty bill’s enactment should be rushed to help free red shirts from prison.
This argument was fallacious. Effectively, the Pheu Thai leaders were saying that as Abhisit and Suthep would be acquitted anyway, they should be absolved right away without having to be tried in a court to set a precedent.
So, the Pheu Thai leaders were blaming the “invisible power”, whose existence could not be proved, for the blanket-amnesty move. The Pheu Thai leaders were doing this although they liked to criticise the opponents for jumping to their own conclusions.
Worse still, all the arguments failed to explain why Thaksin would also be absolved because the former prime minister had nothing to do with protests and demonstrations.
The Pheu Thai should have sought to undo the effects of the 2006 coup with another law instead of using the amnesty bill.
As a result, all the arguments were just excuses for their plan to help just some persons while ignoring the grassroots’ plight, as the real goal of the bill is not to grant amnesty to the people.