Foreign Ministry 'has authority' to revoke Yingluck's passport

By The Nation

 

Deputy PM Wissanu Krea-ngam

 

BANGKOK: -- There is no need to use absolute powers under Article 44 of the Constitution to revoke the Thai passport of fugitive former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, as the Foreign Ministry’s authority alone should be sufficient, Deputy PM Wissanu Krea-ngam said on Sunday.

 

Wissanu was responding amid moves to revoke Yingluck’s passport following her flight from justice shortly before being convicted and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment by the Supreme Court for negligence in her government’s rice-pledging scheme.

 

The Thai passports of her brother, former PM Thaksin Shinawatra, were revoked in 2015 after he gave a press interview in South Korea. The Foreign Ministry said then that the ex-PM’s remarks were a threat to national security.

 

Yingluck disappeared a day or two before the Supreme Court was due to the read the verdict in her case.

 

While she has the constitutional right to appeal, the recently enacted bill on political office holders’ in criminal cases would require her to personally file the appeal, Wissanu said.

 

Reacting to reports that Yingluck might seek political asylum in the UK, Wissanu said it was debatable whether she qualified for political asylum.

 

“If her argument was that she was overthrown [in a coup], she could have made a case if had she chosen to flee then,” he said. “But she fled recently. It is another case. I don’t know if she still can cite that reason”.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/breakingnews/30328221

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-10-02

Which one.............

Oh for Pete's Sake

Why not do something useful like by a pair &

revoke the illegal hold on your country by a group of tin soldiers?

1 hour ago, mania said:

Oh for Pete's Sake

Why not do something useful like by a pair &

revoke the illegal hold on your country by a group of tin soldiers?

I am glad they did grow a pair and removed these Shin plague from Thailand!! I hope they continue to go after these baby killers and make sure they never have any influence in Thailand politics again, business too.

let them not be too hasty, they may want see who the next elected PM is first, this could back fire

Think she would have just left her passport on the table in the foyer.  Would have saved them the trouble of revoking it. 

 

2 hours ago, webfact said:

The Thai passports of her brother, former PM Thaksin Shinawatra, were revoked in 2015 after he gave a press interview in South Korea. The Foreign Ministry said then that the ex-PM’s remarks were a threat to national security.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me ?  What can he say that would cause such tremendous upheaval ?  Did revoking his passport shut him up ?  Those sorts of actions by the junta do weigh on the minds of those granting asylum.  

*bit off topic* Anyone knows who was the first to come up with the rice scheme plan (Putting rice into warehouses waiting for a better price)? Wasn't YL right?

Can't remember. Has Boss had his passport revoked?

4 hours ago, mania said:

Oh for Pete's Sake

Why not do something useful like by a pair &

revoke the illegal hold on your country by a group of tin soldiers?

Travelling the country again after five years, I get the distinctive idea a lot is done all over the country.

Five years ago it was as if the country had come to a standstill.

I can only say the country is going forward.

Not backwards like five years ago..

 

Anybody can tell me how many "drugusers and sellers" we're killed during T's government?

Can't remember anything like that after Yingluk.....

Edited October 2, 20178 yr by hansnl

Haha what a joke, obviously she will not use the argument that she was overthrown in a coup. As strictly speaking she was not acting caretaker PM at the time of the coup. 

 

The argument will most likely be that she dId not receive a fair trial: One claim that is NOT debatable.

11 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

The argument will most likely be that she dId not receive a fair trial: One claim that is NOT debatable.

Says you... and a handful of others who deny the Rule of Law exists ... a treasonable concept!!

5 hours ago, webfact said:

There is no need to use absolute powers under Article 44 of the Constitution to revoke the Thai passport of fugitive former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra

There is no need to specifically invoke Article 44 because the Prayut government has implicit absolute power.

Cases in point:

• In May 2015 Prayut ordered government authorities to revoke all passports which are held by the former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra - without specifically invoking Article 44.  https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/829195-prayut-to-revoke-all-thaksin’s-passports/
• Royal Thai Police make warrantless searches and arrests without invoking Article 44.

The rule of law under absolute authority is "whatever."

39 minutes ago, wirat69 said:

Says you... and a handful of others who deny the Rule of Law exists ... a treasonable concept!!

The fact that Thailand is currently being ruled by people who broke the law, is the best proof that rule of law does not exist in Thailand. 

 

Furthermore, that was not what I claimed, I claimed she did not receive a fair trial.

Edited October 2, 20178 yr by sjaak327

One assumes that any Article 44 edict, which would require Royal "approval", needs to be avoided for obvious reasons.

 

One assumes that whichever "authority" issued said passport(s), can revoke them given some set of documented rules/laws? So "technically" she was "found guilty" of a "crime", and that would seem to be grounds for revocation of a passport? Thailand has so many, many, many laws which are probably applicable. And if they can't find one, maybe just have the NLA pass one tomorrow?

 

However, it seems like no one really wants to get too involved in this matter, right now. The "optics" aren't great - and too much of a witch-hunt might bolster her request for asylum, and there really is no rush. 

 

Edited October 2, 20178 yr by mtls2005

7 hours ago, mania said:

Oh for Pete's Sake

Why not do something useful like by a pair &

revoke the illegal hold on your country by a group of tin soldiers?

It is quite obvious that the Junta people know nothing about International laws. Not really surprising when you consider they do not even know the Thai laws.

Well get on with it then and stop posturing!

15 hours ago, yellowboat said:

Think she would have just left her passport on the table in the foyer.  Would have saved them the trouble of revoking it. 

 

Indeed, it's probably on the coffee table in her house. 

Real Circus now......?

14 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

One assumes that any Article 44 edict, which would require Royal "approval"

That assumption may not be correct.

Prayut's use of Article 44 is enshrined in the "Royal approved" 2017 Constitution. Therefore, it would be redundant that any Order issued under Article 44 would require an additional "Royal approval." In addition the Constitutional Court recognized the legitimacy of Article 44 Orders as law of the land - no other approval (ie., NLA) is required.

retroactive laws  are dangerous principles to set

Just passing the buck. 

3 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Well get on with it then and stop posturing!

seems most often the news here is people Saying they are going to do something rather than actually doing it

27 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

retroactive laws  are dangerous principles to set

agreed, that puts the whole system at risk