Thailand ready to face sea-home builder in court

[hotchilli]

3 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

Surely with today's technology a few clicks can tell if he is in or out of Thailand's waters?

The only clicks Thailands junta are familiar with are the safety catches on rifles.

[mike787]

1 hour ago, peter14 said:

Thailand is failing everything.. the expat and tourist exodus continues...

Thailand just screwed their own PR on this one...but they don't care!!! They never will, much like Thai driving=high death toll and draconian immigration...just another stupid day in the LOS.

[chrisinth]

IMO the Thai government (?) are using this as a precedent for any future cases. Whereas it seems stupid to have this reaction to only one floating seastead, I believe the original plans is to increase the number to 20(?) by the project owners.

 

Even 20 isn't really a big influence, but if permission is given what is to stop another project, by any other nationality, and expand to 200/400/1000 units?

 

Then it becomes a problem.

[oslooskar]

1 hour ago, MartinKal said:

Have you ever wondered why China is building defences along its Eastern, Atlantic, seaboard?

We can only wish they would have no reason to excuse this.

Where is China's Eastern, Atlantic, seaboard?

[holy cow cm]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

4 hours ago, holy cow cm said:

the question is then where was it built?

It was built according to the government at a Thai "boat yard." It hasn't been established publicly as to the vessel owners. But note that while Chad Elwartowski is a US citizen, his girlfriend Supranee “Nadia Summergirl” Thepdet is a Thai national.

This as where it was built will add fire to the Navy and Gov officials as in their eyes is a national security interest perpetrated on Thai soil. Some heads are going to roll. The navy are no bed of roses by all means.

 

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

4 hours ago, holy cow cm said:

bypassing customs rules = a crime

What customs rules? Customs taxes imports. Exports are taxed by the inbound nation - in this case there is no taxing nation.

As the Thai government is claiming complete sovereignty over the seastead's alleged anchor site, the seastead then never left Thailand! Albeit maybe a VAT has to be paid by the buyer (who has not been confirmed) to the Thai boat yard but that has little relevance to the sea-home leaving the Thai mainland. Another possible nuance is if the seastead vessel is in Thai citizen Supranee's name (again we don't know the owner), is it a crime for her to put the seastead out to sea (assuming the builder complied with marine laws for construction of the vessel)?

How about paper work and an export license for one. Everything needs to be accounted for, and this certainly had a lot of commercial value as it was for a commercial purpose. I happen to know a bit or two about the export industry. The Thai government is claiming it as a National security issue. And is in fact the Seastead a real sea vessel as in true description? I would think no.

 

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

4 hours ago, holy cow cm said:

if you leave the 12 mile Thailand zone you have bypassed immigration

We don't know what kind of visa Chad has to know what immigration rules apply nor do we actually know that immigration was bypassed. Immigration typically has offices at major marine ports and I'd suspect that a seaport that builds boats will have immigration presence to be aware of foreigners entering and leaving the harbor. The girlfriend is a Thai citizen which is not an immigration issue. 

To repeat, if the government claims complete sovereignty over the EEZ, the seastead and occupants never left Thailand! Thus, immigration issues are not a factor. Note that Chad has not been convicted of any crime. Yet, the government appears to have presumed him guilty and as such cancelled his visa. I guess now the government can also charge Chad for overstay without a visa. What happened to the rule of law?

Rule of law? Let's see how the immigration issues comes out to play how I stated. If in fact he had exited through the Thai immigration with stamp, there is no issue of his visa being canceled. Also the Customs issues. Too many variables leaving all of this up to pure speculation. 

[Puccini]

5 hours ago, Youlike said:

Who put that concrete pillar into the seabed? And who's gonna remove it?

This is the first time I see a concrete pillar mentioned. Where did you read it?

[Ulic]

Just wondering if he stamped in and out of immigration every time he came ashore. If he is claiming it as a sea-stead and not part of Thailand I would think that this would be necessary. Even for his wife. 

[Puccini]

16 minutes ago, Ulic said:

...Even for his wife. 

In the news reports, I have seen "partner" mentioned and "girlfriend". Now you mention "wife". What exactly is she?

[Redline]

6 hours ago, Youlike said:

Who put that concrete pillar into the seabed? And who's gonna remove it?

That’s the hilarious part, it’s floating ????????

[Redline]

31 minutes ago, Ulic said:

Just wondering if he stamped in and out of immigration every time he came ashore. If he is claiming it as a sea-stead and not part of Thailand I would think that this would be necessary. Even for his wife. 

Right

[Srikcir]

24 minutes ago, holy cow cm said:

Let's see how the immigration issues comes out to play

An area I have no knowledge so welcome to stand informed for the following.

• The 113 km trip on the Hua Hin to Pattaya ferry obviously leaves Thailand territorial waters (albeit may remain within the EEZ), thus leaving from and returning to sovereign Thai borders.
• Must foreign passengers who hold a visa of some kind go again through immigration border check points at both ends, requiring a new entry visa or a re-entry permit at the destination port? I suspect the answer is "special conditions" apply that departing and arriving foreign passengers aren't required to be subjected to any standard immigration procedures.

So the literal reading of the immigration laws may not be the final word in the case of the alleged illegal seastead occupants.

Of course reality is that the junta decides all government actions and Prayut's badge of ultra nationalism and candidate for PM tends to color what exactly is the rule of law. The NCPO is legally permitted to make up rules of law without legislative oversight.

39 minutes ago, holy cow cm said:

How about paper work and an export license for one.

To what extent does one need an export license when leaving with personal property? There is no claim that the seastead is intended as a base for commercial activities. Thai authorities called the seastead a "sea-home." Typically a home is considered personal property.

Now if (to speculate) the sea-home in situ:

• were to be sold to subsequent new owners with a profit motive, that might then qualify as a commercial activity. Then Thailand should have legal grounds to prevent the sale or condition sale upon removal of the sea-home from the EEZ.
• were to be leased to third parties with a profit motive, ditto the above.

There's no indication that such events have occurred.

The government might have best waited to see how events might evolve and gather more information about the nature of original/current ownership that might give it a better case, ie., before the International Court.

But I don't think the government gave much thought of laws outside the reach of the junta's judicial influences and Chad's intent to involve the International Court may have caught the government off-guard. If the government was smart, it would be very careful of its public statements about the sea-home. It could become plaintiff's evidence against the government in a IC trial.

 

[sawadee1947]

7 hours ago, colinneil said:

This matter is being used to divert peoples attention away from other happenings here, nothing else.

Criminal code, kingdoms security, laughable just laughable.

It's just the top up being a hub for world wide jokes of unthinkable nonsense

[tifino]

if they had tried for a better grip onto foresight, instead of foreskin; the future security of the shoreline might have been improved!

[Srikcir]

28 minutes ago, Redline said:

That’s the hilarious part, it’s floating ????????

It's like a motorless RV

or motorless house boat.

Detach anchor and away you go.

[VocalNeal]

4 hours ago, Srikcir said:

How does this small seastead impede marine navigation?

By not having a radar reflector and navigation lights.

[holy cow cm]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

An area I have no knowledge so welcome to stand informed for the following.

• The 113 km trip on the Hua Hin to Pattaya ferry obviously leaves Thailand territorial waters (albeit may remain within the EEZ), thus leaving from and returning to sovereign Thai borders.
• Must foreign passengers who hold a visa of some kind go again through immigration border check points at both ends, requiring a new entry visa or a re-entry permit at the destination port? I suspect the answer is "special conditions" apply that departing and arriving foreign passengers aren't required to be subjected to any standard immigration procedures.

So the literal reading of the immigration laws may not be the final word in the case of the alleged illegal seastead occupants.

Of course reality is that the junta decides all government actions and Prayut's badge of ultra nationalism and candidate for PM tends to color what exactly is the rule of law. The NCPO is legally permitted to make up rules of law without legislative oversight.

To what extent does one need an export license when leaving with personal property? There is no claim that the seastead is intended as a base for commercial activities. Thai authorities called the seastead a "sea-home." Typically a home is considered personal property.

Now if (to speculate) the sea-home in situ:

• were to be sold to subsequent new owners with a profit motive, that might then qualify as a commercial activity. Then Thailand should have legal grounds to prevent the sale or condition sale upon removal of the sea-home from the EEZ.
• were to be leased to third parties with a profit motive, ditto the above.

There's no indication that such events have occurred.

The government might have best waited to see how events might evolve and gather more information about the nature of original/current ownership that might give it a better case, ie., before the International Court.

But I don't think the government gave much thought of laws outside the reach of the junta's judicial influences and Chad's intent to involve the International Court may have caught the government off-guard. If the government was smart, it would be very careful of its public statements about the sea-home. It could become plaintiff's evidence against the government in a IC trial.

 

Kind of hard to say when the Gulf of Thailand at that point you mentioned is bordered by Thailand on both sides. Lets' just wait for the next information to come out as it was an obvious commercial venture and intent here is as much as doing. You are correct on Prayuth's and the Juntas position, but this probably more falls into Prawit's hands as he is more the senior and supposedly the real boss above Prayuth. 

[toenail]

This waiting until the structure is built then investigate seems to follow buildings that are finished in Thailand then the government starts looking into  building infringements or codes... look at the tower between Bali pier & “Buddha hill” in Pattaya. Now it is an eyesore because of stopping the final construction instead of before. ????????????

[mike787]

1 hour ago, VocalNeal said:

By not having a radar reflector and navigation lights.

it's another example of how stupid thai immigration is, these are the same idiots that make unreasonable demands and keep raising bar on us foreigners, all they want is tea money and us out!

[simon43]

Just wondering if he stamped in and out of immigration every time he came ashore. If he is claiming it as a sea-stead and not part of Thailand I would think that this would be necessary.

 

If he has been stamped in and out by immigration, surely that's confirmation that the seastead is not within Thailand jurisdiction - it's in international waters.

[gunderhill]

13 hours ago, webfact said:

and welcomed the threat of a lawsuit by its builder

Smacks  of childlike behaviour

[josephbloggs]

1 hour ago, mike787 said:

it's another example of how stupid thai immigration is, these are the same idiots that make unreasonable demands and keep raising bar on us foreigners, all they want is tea money and us out!

What are you talking about?  What has not having navigation lights or radar reflectors got to do with Thai immigration?

 

And I have never been asked for tea money in 24 years of living here.  How many times have immigration asked you for it?

 

 

[connda]

This is where in needs to go - International court.  They need an internationally biding precedent, which will then be ignored by those with the most guns.

[AtoZ]

On 4/22/2019 at 3:24 AM, webfact said:

“The Thai government would be glad if a lawsuit is filed. We want a lawsuit to be filed so that we will have a chance to explain the truth,” Wissanu said.

Sure, because Thai law and judges are worth less than dust. Whatever the master desires will happen. 

[AtoZ]

On 4/22/2019 at 10:36 AM, alanrchase said:

I wonder what the reaction would be if Mexicans or Muslims started putting seasteads 13 miles off the coast of the USA?

Positive encouragement to move the F there?

 

Considering that muslims crap their mosques all over the West (thanks to our snowflakes) while keeping their countries "pure"?

[BestB]

So Thailand has a chance to speak the truth ? So now Thailand is lying? Or who and what is stopping Thailand from telling the truth now?

[impulse]

On 4/27/2019 at 9:17 AM, connda said:

This is where in needs to go - International court.  They need an internationally biding precedent, which will then be ignored by those with the most guns.

 

It would be interesting to see how the International Court handles a case where a floating object is anchored, stationary, and occupied by foreigners in a country's contiguous zone.  Not nearly as settled as the 12 mile limit, the 24 mile contiguous zone has a different set of limitations. 

 

I cannot imagine that it hasn't been addressed before, with existing precedents.