Give us 10 Years First Suggest Judicial Officers Building Scar of Doi Suthep

by CityNews

 

 

CityNews – The Court Region 5 has suggested that the judicial residences that have been dubbed the ‘Scar of Doi Suthep’ have suggested keeping and living in the village for just ten years after which a second decision would be made on what to do with it.

 

On April 22nd, Sawat Surawattananan, president of the Court of Appeal Region 5, made a statement about Chiang Mai’s campaign against the judicial residences on Doi Suthep. Apart from confirming that the project is technically legal and appropriate, he claimed that the housing was a national asset and to push for it to be demolished would be a challenging task. He suggested that the energy of the people should be on reforestation rather than on their residences.

 

Full Story: http://www.chiangmaicitylife.com/news/give-us-10-years-first-suggest-judicial-officers-building-scar-doi-suthep/

 

-- © Copyright Chiang City News 2018-4-23

I would have thought that the national asset is the forest, and not holiday homes for the elite.

Yes, of course they should be given a specially assigned law and agreement. After all, they are judges.

Is this a bad joke - or a sly strategy?

 

move in for 10 years. Then everything will be forgotten so they hope.

And they can stay forever.

 

 

 

 

He also pointed out that the demolishing a national asset is against the law – echoing the claims by Sawat earlier this week.

If that really is the case,give the houses to some homeless poor people,then the HiSo's will realise that they cannot just do

what they want.

regards worgeordie

Give us 10 years they say, yes 10 years behind bars for destroying natural forest just for homes for the so-called elite.

Looks like they're ready for the jungle life. Straw hats and all.

1 hour ago, snoop1130 said:

he claimed that the housing was a national asset

"And a great place for us to get a free summer holiday and play tourists in silly hats".

1 hour ago, sweatalot said:

Is this a bad joke - or a sly strategy?

 

move in for 10 years. Then everything will be forgotten so they hope.

And they can stay forever.

 

 

 

 

 

Well said.

 

... sly strategy...

 

Actually I see his suggestion as:

 

- A insult to all Thais,

- An indicator that these judges struggle to come up with something intelligent. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, sweatalot said:

Is this a bad joke - or a sly strategy?

 

move in for 10 years. Then everything will be forgotten so they hope.

And they can stay forever.

 

 

 

 

Yes. The psychology of these guys is very similar to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister
do they really think people are idiots?

Under Thai law, a person occupying land for 10 years (without a rental agreement)( "free rent" not being permitted) can take the land by "squatters rights".

I presume these gentlemen are aware of this law and it might even be relevant to their case !!

Quote

He suggested that the energy of the people should be on reforestation rather than on their residences.

I wonder if he sees the irony in his own statement !

17 minutes ago, cmsally said:

Under Thai law, a person occupying land for 10 years (without a rental agreement)( "free rent" not being permitted) can take the land by "squatters rights".

I presume these gentlemen are aware of this law and it might even be relevant to their case !!

 

This is becoming such a farce

Surely if the Thai judicial system  is to maintain any credibility whatsoever this is one case where all parties should immediately step  back and it should be referred to an international body such as   the International Court of arbitration?

7 minutes ago, midas said:

 

This is becoming such a farce

Surely if the Thai judicial system  is to maintain any credibility whatsoever this is one case where all parties should immediately step  back and it should be referred to an international body such as   the International Court of arbitration?

This would be based on the assumption that credibility "matters".

17 minutes ago, cmsally said:

This would be based on the assumption that credibility "matters".

Well I would have thought it would in the eyes of potential international investors? I mean if you're going to invest big big money in this country at the very least you want the assurance you will get a fair hearing if something goes wrong? Particularly if this starts to attract the attention of the international media.
The unfairness of the Thai judicial system has already been seen by the rest of the world when Jonathan Head from the BBC was victimised merely for doing his job as a reporter.

If you want to look a stupid tw-t

You should wear a silly hat

About the most stupidly transparent ploy I can possibly imagine.  

16 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

the housing was a national asset

and how long ago was this housing declared a national asset? and who declared it? Article 44?

16 hours ago, Tilacme said:

I would have thought that the national asset is the forest, and not holiday homes for the elite.

 

Another point, did anybody see any details of who will actually permanently own these houses?

 

The info. so far indicates that the village is being built from a government budget, if individual house and land ownership is transferred to individual judges, do the judges have to individually reimburse the government the full cost of 'their' land and house?

 

If not, why not?

 

 

If not, why not? Of course not!

So basically 10yrs of free living with no papers and then claim squatters rights and apply for ownership papers.Even the intellectually challenged amongst us can spot that one!

this suggestion is beyond silly. Either this person has zero intelligence or he has such a disdain for the people.. or both...Just another evidence of the level of the justice system. Appalled by the lack of reaction and comments by journalists and newspapers

He suggested that the energy of the people should be on reforestation rather than on their residences

13 hours ago, cmsally said:

I wonder if he sees the irony in his own statement !

I agree with you and would like to add it is an exquisitely revealing statement in showing his patronising attitude towards 'the people.'

2 minutes ago, fantom said:

He suggested that the energy of the people should be on reforestation rather than on their residences

I agree with you and would like to add it is an exquisitely revealing statement in showing his patronising attitude towards 'the people.'

The conclusion must be one rule for the state and another for the masses; certainly in the case of environmental impact assessments.

Lets face it the hope (on their part) is that the opposers will get tired or bored with the subject. If the demographic of the opposition is older they are hoping that in 10 years the opposition will cease to exist.

I would think that being one of those who created this mess in the first place then simple logic suggests he should be among those responsible for clearing it up.

1 hour ago, cmsally said:

So basically 10yrs of free living with no papers and then claim squatters rights and apply for ownership papers.Even the intellectually challenged amongst us can spot that one!

 

One would hope that if this ever went to court it would be instantly thrown out on the basis of the original spirit of the law which is surely meaning to help low income earners / folks with very little resources, not help wealthy unethical elites.

 

However...

 

 

15 hours ago, midas said:

Yes. The psychology of these guys is very similar to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister
do they really think people are idiots?

 

Sadly, yes they do think people are idiots.

2 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

One would hope that if this ever went to court it would be instantly thrown out on the basis of the original spirit of the law which is surely meaning to help low income earners / folks with very little resources, not help wealthy unethical elites.

 

 

 

The problem with that it that the court will be compsed of those people living in the houses.

5 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

One would hope that if this ever went to court it would be instantly thrown out on the basis of the original spirit of the law which is surely meaning to help low income earners / folks with very little resources, not help wealthy unethical elites.

 

 

Errr lets not forget the fact there is a huge conflict of interest. Why would they throw it out , when their boss is living in the subject matter of the legal case in question.

18 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

He suggested that the energy of the people should be on reforestation rather than on their residences.

Looks like he missed the point, the  energy of the people is very focused on reforestation, following the removal of the Scar of Doi Suthep.