Who is responsible for this amnesty mess?

The Senate on Monday night voted unanimously to reject the controversial blanket-amnesty bill. That leaves us in a situation that’s extremely rare in Thai politics.
The bill’s passage has technically been “frozen”, since the upper house has no power to quash legislation passed by the House of Representatives. The lower house still has the power to reaffirm and pass the bill once a period of 180 days has passed. Just 20 MPs are needed to trigger a vote on the bill in the lower house.
If passed into law, the bill would absolve perpetrators of all political crimes committed since 2004, including politicians convicted of corruption and criminals guilty of murder and arson.
The ruling-coalition partners – Pheu Thai, Chart Thai Pattana, Chart Pattana and Palang Chon – last Saturday vowed not to seek reaffirmation of the government-backed amnesty bill if the Senate rejected it. In their written promise to the public, the four parties said they would “respect the people’s opinion and do not want the conflict to expand”. Their move came after Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s repeated assurances failed to convince the public. Her pledges to respect the Senate’s decision were undermined when government politicians divulged a plan to revive the bill after 180 days or propose a similar alternative.
However, even the coalition’s written assurance has not convinced the public. Led by the opposition Democrat Party, thousands continue to protest against the bill at the Democracy Monument. Meanwhile civil and business organisations have maintained their opposition to a blanket amnesty.
The government claims the written promise put an end to the issue, so the protesters must now end their rallies. But many people have doubts and are asking two questions: If the bill was good enough to get 310 votes from coalition MPs, why did they allow it to be killed by public pressure? And why, if the bill is too bad or too controversial to reaffirm, did no coalition MP vote against it in the first place?
Political parties should not yield to pressure or fear when proposing legislation they believe is in the public’s interest. In doing so, they could deprive the country of a good law.
Also, lawmakers sensitive to the public interest should be able to foresee any social conflict that might arise from passing a controversial law, and not lend their votes to it. In the case of the amnesty bill, politicians could have foreseen the controversy, but they failed to envision the scale of public outrage.
The public reaction should serve as a lesson for MPs and their parties. They must ensure that any law they propose in future serves the country’s interests and does not violate moral sense. For example, there should be no more bills that would grant amnesty in cases of corruption or rights abuses.
Calls for those behind this controversial amnesty bill to stand up and accept responsibility have fallen on deaf ears. Even red-shirt supporters of the ruling Pheu Thai Party have demanded answers.
So far, no politician involved has offered even an apology.