Yingluck asylum request could spark uproar

[webfact]

OPINION

Yingluck asylum request could spark uproar

By The Nation

 

Any country approached would have to consider possible harm to Thai law and to diplomatic relations
 

Like her older brother before her, Yingluck Shinawatra could easily provoke an international diplomatic storm if or when she seeks asylum abroad on grounds of perceived political persecution. The Thai Supreme Court’s decision to sentence her in absentia to five years in jail is already controversial, but that will be nothing compared to the likely debate over any attempt she makes to seek residency in exile overseas. 

 

Despite broad support in the West, Thaksin Shinawatra – like Yingluck an elected prime minister overthrown in a military coup – has never been permitted to settle into exile in a Western country. He’s had to be content living in Dubai, where his fate has little if any effect on bilateral relations with Thailand. It remains to be seen whether bilateral ties and the respective nations’ laws will play a role if Yingluck requests asylum, but clearly the two cases are different.

 

Thaksin was convicted for allowing his then-wife to buy land from his government, a transaction overtly prohibited by the Constitution. That meant countries considering granting him asylum had to weigh Thai law and Thai sovereignty.

 

Yingluck was convicted of violating the law too, but the Supreme Court lacked a precedent for its verdict against her, so it’s more open to debate than Thaksin’s.

 

The Yingluck judgement came after Boonsong Teriyapirom, her Commerce minister, was sentenced to prison for a staggering 42 years for corruption. He had falsified 

 

documents to claim that rice the government bought from farmers was resold to the Chinese state. In fact, the court found, it was resold to private Chinese dealers with suspicious local connections. Although Yingluck was not directly implicated in the scam, she was held accountable for allowing her government’s rice scheme to be corrupted, and that was what was unprecedented about the verdict. 

 

If she seeks asylum overseas, she will repeat the main points of defence made during the trial. She will insist the rice scheme was a campaign promise that had to be honoured, it benefited the poor, she had initiated measures to guard against corruption, and the investigation was politically motivated. There turned out to be graft at the implementation level, she will say, but she should not be blamed for that.

 

The counter-argument would be that the court ruled against corruption among the scheme’s administrators, not against the scheme itself, and that Yingluck’s measures were inadequate. It will be said that rice sales to the Chinese government were faked and that Yingluck, ultimately in charge of the scheme, had to be punished as a warning to others involved in graft. The judges apparently concluded that the fake government-to-government sale was too big for Yingluck not to have known something was amiss.

 

To the legalities that would arise if Yingluck seeks asylum must be added diplomatic and other considerations. The coup that brought down her government has to be a factor, of course, but those assessing her appeal might also ponder whether Thai elected officials are actually able to fight corruption or whether it is so deeply entrenched in Thai democracy that all such efforts are doomed.

 

If Yingluck goes for asylum, the resulting row could affect the future course of Thailand and its foreign relations. The onus, however, will not be on the country from which Yingluck escaped, but on the one where she wants to live. 

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30328395

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-10-04

[AGareth2]

17 minutes ago, webfact said:

The judges apparently concluded that the fake government-to-government sale was too big for Yingluck not to have known something was amiss.

sound law? so 5 years for a maybe (beyond reasonable doubt)

 

18 minutes ago, webfact said:

Yingluck, ultimately in charge of the scheme, had to be punished as a warning to others involved in graft.

good basis for a criminal prosecution?

[Somtamnication]

Any request internationally that slaps "44" in the face, I am all for it.

[wakeupplease]

What country is going to be scared of Thailand and anything it can say or do, Laos Maybe, but don,t count on that. Money and trade is the only consideration and with the import taxes they load on overseas good that will not count for much.

 

The UK gave Rose asylum so Yingluck should sail through as political persecution can be seen by even the blind.

Edited October 3, 2017 by wakeupplease

[Samui Bodoh]

35 minutes ago, webfact said:

The onus, however, will not be on the country from which Yingluck escaped, but on the one where she wants to live. 

 

Sorry, this is mistaken.

 

Given Thailand's propensity for military coups, section 44 and the removal of judges by the Junta, the clear bias of the NACC in prosecuting political enemies and protecting political allies of the current regime, and the all-around concerns about the Thai justice system (does anyone remember 'Red Bull'), the onus will be on Thailand to demonstrate that it has a fair and impartial system. It is unlikely to be able to do this.

 

There is an un-written rule in international relations that you don't extradite deposed political leaders to the 'mercy' of the deposers.

 

Yingluck is never coming back unless she chooses to.

 

Get used to it.

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Samui Bodoh

[darksidedog]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

Any country approached would have to consider possible harm to Thai law and to diplomatic relations

I would have thought that the legal considerations of the country, especially relating to political persecution from unelected military Governments, and consideration of the transparency and legitimacy of Thailand's judicial system should come before concerns about diplomatic relations. If she applies in the UK, I would expect her to get it.

[Cadbury]

England giving asylum to Yingluck pales into insignificance compared to Thailand giving asylum to that murderous villain Pol Pot who was responsible for killing many millions of Cambodian civilians.

[LannaGuy]

The UK will never turn her back on political refugees and freedom fighters. The problem is she was 'convicted' by an unelected Military Junta and no 'red notices' will have the slightest effect. She will go down in Thai history as a form of martyr who stayed to the bitter end then had to go to avoid 'accidents' in a remote junta jail cell. 

[steven100]

She is definitely no martyr that's for sure.

She is however a convicted criminal who is wanted by the law.

[steven100]

No country will want to have anything to do with her.

[eggers]

Question is, can political asylum be granted to a legally convicted fugitive? Would a country want to risk it's relationship with Thailand?? But then money talks!!  She was convicted by the High Court of Thailand, not some trumped up conviction by a "kangaroo" court  or  forced her to flee for her life!! .....She chose to exit the building in her own time, ably assisted by her equally fugitive "Puppeteer from Dubai" brother ....pair of gutless, selfish criminals; though she's a good looker!! 

[connda]

I'm just going to state the obvious here.

If any Western country such as the US or UK grants Thaksin asylum based on political persecution, than any Thai who fears retribution for speaking out against the current unelected military regime should be able to go to the same country and request asylum too for the same reasons.  So I'm thinking, open Pandora's Box and it will spur a outflow of emigrants 'fleeing from possible prosecution for speaking out in defiance of the regime.'  

[eliotness]

34 minutes ago, steven100 said:

No country will want to have anything to do with her.

Sorry Steven but money opens many doors.

[steven100]

1 minute ago, eliotness said:

Sorry Steven but money opens many doors.

not from a convicted criminal who's wanted by the Thai government.

[yellowboat]

She has a pretty good chance.  Nobody in the Europe is fond of the current government's behavior.  She was elected and deposed.  Any elected official will have sympathy for her.   She also still represents resistance to autocracy for millions of Thais. 

[YetAnother]

2 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

and the all-around concerns about the Thai justice system (does anyone remember 'Red Bull'), the onus will be on Thailand to demonstrate that it has a fair and impartial system. It is unlikely to be able to do this.

cant imagine how they could; their track record is there for all to see; best they could do would be BS word-smithing; all could see through that

[steven100]

1 minute ago, yellowboat said:

She has a pretty good chance.  Nobody in the Europe is fond of the current government's behavior.  She was elected and deposed.  Any elected official will have sympathy for her.   She also still represents resistance to autocracy for millions of Thais. 

 

I don't think so.  Most governments will know she was involved / implemented a fraudulent rice scheme that cost Thailand billions of baht.

She's a convicted criminal ....  nothing more ... nothing less ...

[LannaGuy]

12 minutes ago, steven100 said:

not from a convicted criminal who's wanted by the Thai government.

 

 

not from a convicted criminal  deposed elected PM who's wanted by the Thai government. Military unelected Junta.

 

Fixed it for you

[LannaGuy]

8 minutes ago, yellowboat said:

She has a pretty good chance.  Nobody in the Europe is fond of the current government's behavior.  She was elected and deposed.  Any elected official will have sympathy for her.   She also still represents resistance to autocracy for millions of Thais. 

 

I see our Right Wing poster 'steven100' was confused by this accurate post which just shows he has NO clue as to what's gone on, who Yingluck is, who she represents nor that she is a standard bearer for the millions who are against autocratic rule.  

[tonray]

Perhaps if she agrees to pay the freight for the Brit expats who end up back in the UK skint after 20 years in Thailand, a deal can be arranged ?

[impulse]

1 hour ago, eggers said:

She was convicted by the High Court of Thailand, not some trumped up conviction by a "kangaroo" court  or  forced her to flee for her life!!

 

Potato, potato.

 

[elgenon]

3 hours ago, wakeupplease said:

What country is going to be scared of Thailand and anything it can say or do, Laos Maybe, but don,t count on that. Money and trade is the only consideration and with the import taxes they load on overseas good that will not count for much.

 

The UK gave Rose asylum so Yingluck should sail through as political persecution can be seen by even the blind.

I thought Laos was controlled by the Chinese?

[Cadbury]

27 minutes ago, steven100 said:

not from a convicted criminal who's wanted by the Thai government.

Correction Steven:

Self appointed and UNELECTED Thai military government.

[impulse]

22 minutes ago, steven100 said:

 

I don't think so.  Most governments will know she was involved / implemented a fraudulent rice scheme that cost Thailand billions of baht.

She's a convicted criminal ....  nothing more ... nothing less ...

 

You mean like the agriculture subsidies that just about every country grants its farming lobbies?  And their defense contractors?  And all the other corporations and trade lobbies whose donations win them votes?

 

They're all looking at her and thinking, "There but for the accident of my place of birth..."

Edited October 4, 2017 by impulse

[jak2002003]

Yingluck is requesting to go into an Asylum?  

[geriatrickid]

1 hour ago, steven100 said:

She is definitely no martyr that's for sure.

She is however a convicted criminal who is wanted by the law.

 

That is your opinion. There are multiple examples of people labeled convicted criminals who have been welcomed  in other countries. Need I remind you of Nelson Mandela, who was after all convicted of  attempting to overthrow a government through violent means? How about Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel laureate who was imprisoned by China for his anti communism beliefs. There are hundreds of examples.

 

 

1 hour ago, eggers said:

Question is, can political asylum be granted to a legally convicted fugitive? Would a country want to risk it's relationship with Thailand?? But then money talks!!  She was convicted by the High Court of Thailand, not some trumped up conviction by a "kangaroo" court  or  forced her to flee for her life!! .....She chose to exit the building in her own time, ably assisted by her equally fugitive "Puppeteer from Dubai" brother ....pair of gutless, selfish criminals; though she's a good looker!! 

 

Unfortunately, the judiciary of Thailand has a poor reputation in countries where there is a separation of church and State, where there is an independent judiciary, and where elections are sacrosanct. You can ridicule  the former Prime Ministers to your heart's content, but that does not change the reality.  The precedent has long been established because refugee and asylum judicial bodies have already accepted refugee claimants on the basis of  corruption in Thailand and the Thai court system.  How do you think Thais gained refugee status in the EU or Canada?

 

1 hour ago, connda said:

I'm just going to state the obvious here.
If any Western country such as the US or UK grants Thaksin asylum based on political persecution, than any Thai who fears retribution for speaking out against the current unelected military regime should be able to go to the same country and request asylum too for the same reasons.  So I'm thinking, open Pandora's Box and it will spur a outflow of emigrants 'fleeing from possible prosecution for speaking out in defiance of the regime.'  

 

Nope.  This is how many of the refugees to the EU, Australia, Canada and even USA  manage to obtain refugee status.  There are currently thousands of refugees crossing the USA border into Canada using this reason. 

 

31 minutes ago, steven100 said:

not from a convicted criminal who's wanted by the Thai government.

 

Give it a rest. We all get it- you don't like the former PM. OK. Now make a new  point, intelligently.

 

[YetAnother]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Any country approached would have to consider possible harm to Thai law

very far-fetched; why would they care and even if so, how could they do so ?

[steven100]

1 minute ago, geriatrickid said:

you don't like the former PM.

 

 no ... wrong ...    I don't like both former PM's who reaped billions of baht off the Thai people.

[djayz]

1 hour ago, connda said:

I'm just going to state the obvious here.

If any Western country such as the US or UK grants Thaksin asylum based on political persecution, than any Thai who fears retribution for speaking out against the current unelected military regime should be able to go to the same country and request asylum too for the same reasons.  So I'm thinking, open Pandora's Box and it will spur a outflow of emigrants 'fleeing from possible prosecution for speaking out in defiance of the regime.'  

Very good point, but the vast majority of Thais don't "speak out" about anything so the outflow might be more of a trickle - if even that. 

[Mainhattencitizen]

49 minutes ago, steven100 said:

not from a convicted criminal who's wanted by the Thai government.

Sorry Steven but you do not realise what the International Community thinks about the Thai Military Junta. She is safe for the rest of her life.