In the end, only four members of parliament abstained from voting for the controversial amnesty bill that seeks to absolve any illegal political activities between 2004 to August 2013.
The opposition Democrats simply walked out of the chamber and boycotted the voting, allowing the bill to pass the third and final reading with a vote of 310 to 0. The four abstainers were Worachai Hema, Nattawut Saikuar, Dr Weng Tojirakarn and Khattiya Sawatdiphol. Since all of them are leading members of the red-shirt movement, close to a hundred of whose supporters were killed during the violence of 2010, the display of their disapproval for the bill by abstaining from the vote was too gentle a protest.
It's not an astounding event that former deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban and dozens of his fellow Democrat members have taken to the streets and assumed the role of flag bearers leading rallies against the proposed amnesty bill.
Because of their roles in authorising the crackdown three years ago, former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Mr Suthep have been formally indicted for murders. Although they stand to benefit from the proposed bill, both of them have insisted that they acted within the law and are willing to stand trial instead of accepting the legal whitewash.
Considering that the bill, if passed into law, would work as a tool that could turn the time back and pretend that nothing has happened over the past many years legally - no military coup was made, no armed clashes occurred and no criminal charges were filed against anyone - it's the red-shirt leaders who should be marching up front and leading a mass protest against it now.
The reason is simple. The amnesty bill could make it appear as if many things have not happened in legal terms but it won't return to life people who were dead because of the political conflicts and clashes during the past many years.
The red-shirt leaders, who mobilised these people out onto the streets under the motto of fighting against double-standards and inequalities in the country, owe it to the dead and their relatives to fight against the proposed bill to the bitter end.
It's true that most if not all of the red leaders have come into the fold of Pheu Thai Party after it won the election in 2011. It's also true that the party's executives ordered its MPs to toe the party line and vote in favour of the bill. Those who did as they were told despite their personal disagreement, including core leader Korkaew Pikulthong, betrayed the philosophy of their own movement. Those who abstained are in need of moral courage.
The Democrats may have their reasons for opposing the amnesty bill but the red-shirt leaders have an obligation, even an ideological conviction, to stand up against it for the sake of their fallen brethren and for their own commitment to causes that they have chosen to fight for, as they told the public at least.
Despite vast diversities within the red-shirt movement, there are some fundamental beliefs that are the basis from which all shades of the red shirts were born - the fight for equality and democratic rights.
The proposed bill that will give a wholesale amnesty to everyone without a due justice process goes against everything that the red shirts have fought for. It seeks an exemption instead of compliance to the rule of law. It provides amnesia where accountability should have prevailed.
The red-shirt leaders' meek response to the proposed bill is an abstention from confirming their own conviction in the eyes of their supporters and the public at large.