Attorney-general Decides Against Charging Surayud

[jayboy]

I always thought ignorance of the law was no defence

A rather Western point of view actually.

TIT.

I've always found it a useful rule of thumb that those who use the expression TIT need not be depended on for much in depth knowledge about the country.And of course Hammered is absolutely right and the maxim (ignorance of the law being no defence) would be held as valid by a Thai judge as much as a British one.The OAG's action was one assumes mainly politically driven and frankly I don't have a problem with that.We should keep all this in perspective: it's not a particularly big deal and Surayud is an honourable and decent man (if when PM of dubious competence and legitimacy).

Those who blithely excuse ignorance of the law in this case should consider whether they would be so relaxed when their political enemies were involved, say - taking an example purely at random - if a serving politician accepted a modest honararium for appearing on a TV cooking programme.

[animatic]

Ah yes, quote out of context and belittle. Classic response.

In Thailand as you well know things aren't as cut and dried as

a classical western maxim like Hammered states,

and political expedience is one of the main reasons for that.

Expecting to impose western thought on Thai ways is considered rude or insulting,

so we can't expect acceptance just because it's normal for us.

So yes 'This is Thailand'; it doesn't work the same as home,

should be nothing strange to you.

But this phrase would not be commented on if I agreed with you.

So belittle away, as per usual.

Edited January 9, 2010 by animatic

[monkfish]

Were not some local farmers given prison sentences for a similar crime?

Suppose the question is, how did he really acquired the land? Corruption?

Did he buy it off someone else or were arms twisted at the local land office?

I guess the point of the red shirts is that Thaksin lives in exile for a very similar crime or not?

But did his wife not buy the land in an open Auction were there were many biders?

and did she not pay well over the asking price?

The High Court wasn't sure if the bank was a government institution so how was Thaksin supposed to know?

Could he also not claim it was a mistake?

[Credo]

Thanks jayboy, at least he didn't do something really illegal like being on a cooking show. I mean encroaching isn't a big deal like cooking, is it?

[animatic]

Of course a few rai in the deep woods for a single vacation home,

is not exactly comparable to nearly a billion baht of prime Bangkok real estate,

conveniently just re-zoned development and sold to someone in control of the

auctions operators bosses.

In principle yes same thing, as much as moral principles are followed here...

in profit making potential and value it's the difference between

stealing the Hope Diamond vs making shady change at the 7/11.

Was there any serious opportunity for "conflict of interest"

in this small land transaction gone wrong.

Lot of money at stake?

Companies profitability or ability to survive at stake?

A bureaucrats career at stake?

Did Suyayud get up in open court and lie about this purchase,

like Samak did about his fees?

This is two sides of the same coin; Hard Ball Politics,

and any chink in the armor is where the other side will try to stick a blade.

And regardless of the size the other side will trumpet a kill for their efforts,

even as their attacker proxy is dead, and the target walks away shaking his head.

Edited January 9, 2010 by animatic

[way2muchcoffee]

I secured property in Thailand which was non-title. A few months later I later secured another parcel nearby which was non-title and possibly forestry land. I took a chance, and secured both pieces, knowing that some day there might be problems. It's been 11 years, and there haven't been problems, so my wager is paying off well thus far.

But if things go pear shaped in the future, can I just say, "I didn't intend to do anything illegal" or "I didn't know these were questionable properties" ....and be allowed to keep the properties? Surayud did it (and set precedent), so why not me and anyone else who's laid claim to questionable properties - and BTW, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions in Thailand who have done so. Indeed, in just my one little village, everyone of the hundreds of homes here are built on non-titled properties.

My wife purchased similar untitled land in a village near Sa Keaw. Village head notation in a logbook, some signatures, some witnesses. Given some official looking piece of paper, but no title. That's it. Don't know whether the land is legitimate or not really. How can one know? At least the land is in a proper village. Someday someone may come and say sorry, this isn't your land, it belongs to the government or the king or someone. I haven't yet helped my wife secure funds to build on it, but might sometime in the future.

The questions become, is it criminal? Is it legal? Maybe or maybe not. The kamnan said it was legal. The neighbors said it was legal. I therefore wouldn't expect my wife to face criminal charges in any circumstance, but there is some possibility of losing the land.

There is much ambiguity in the status of land throughout Thailand. A previous poster mentioned that the land office needs to get off their <deleted> and sort the situation. I won't hold my breath though.

Edited January 9, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[way2muchcoffee]

Wow. Just read my post above. Sorry all for mangling the language. Hopefully you can work out the meaning.

Edited January 9, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Credo]

Did Suyayud get up in open court and lie about this purchase,

like Samak did about his fees?

Well the difference is, Anamatic, Surayud didn't have to go to court, did he?

Yup, all is well in Thailand--the double standard is alive and well.

[hammered]

I secured property in Thailand which was non-title. A few months later I later secured another parcel nearby which was non-title and possibly forestry land. I took a chance, and secured both pieces, knowing that some day there might be problems. It's been 11 years, and there haven't been problems, so my wager is paying off well thus far.

But if things go pear shaped in the future, can I just say, "I didn't intend to do anything illegal" or "I didn't know these were questionable properties" ....and be allowed to keep the properties? Surayud did it (and set precedent), so why not me and anyone else who's laid claim to questionable properties - and BTW, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions in Thailand who have done so. Indeed, in just my one little village, everyone of the hundreds of homes here are built on non-titled properties.

My wife purchased similar untitled land in a village near Sa Keaw. Village head notation in a logbook, some signatures, some witnesses. Given some official looking piece of paper, but no title. That's it. Don't know whether the land is legitimate or not really. How can one know? At least the land is in a proper village. Someday someone may come and say sorry, this isn't your land, it belongs to the government or the king or someone. I haven't yet helped my wife secure funds to build on it, but might sometime in the future.

The questions become, is it criminal? Is it legal? Maybe or maybe not. The kamnan said it was legal. The neighbors said it was legal. I therefore wouldn't expect my wife to face criminal charges in any circumstance, but there is some possibility of losing the land.

There is much ambiguity in the status of land throughout Thailand. A previous poster mentioned that the land office needs to get off their <deleted> and sort the situation. I won't hold my breath though.

Actually while th edifferent types of land ownership are quite complicated it is easy to establish the status of a piece of land by the papers transferred when it is bought. A lawyer would be able to answer re status and there are several types. Then there is the land that is sold without any papers or meaningless ones and that land is not legally held. Most villagers hold packages of this legally dodgy land and they are quite aware of its status. It is usually very very cheap as it is "unofficial"

[Dustybin]

Sounds like a "dodgy deal" to me.

Surely a guy of his status would have established the legalities before going ahead.

He broke the law, but clearly called a favour in, thats corrupt, thats Thailand.

[brahmburgers]

No doubt Surayud and his wife knew exactly what they were doing when they purchased the property for a pittance. Just like the millions of other Thais (and some farang) who have secured property in Thailand that they all know has no proper title. Most of the Thais who are living on such properties, first got on it for free, or a pittance. I saw an official-looking paper, dated 18 years ago, which entitled the recipient to take over a 4 rai piece of land for 60 baht (some sort of 'tax'). Last year, I secured the property from the deceased owner's son for 320,000 baht. That's a 5,333 times turnover on an investment over 18 years, for that family, ...not bad for doing no improvements on the property - a beautiful piece, by the way, with 100 meter straight-up limestone cliffs along its north side.

The Reds, who are pursuing the case against Surayud, are doing a purely political petty tactic. They hate Surayud (he took over from their hero, Thaksin), so they're doing all they can to try and find something that will get him in trouble. It's gutter muc-slinging politics, which Thaksin and his Reds excel at.

Probably most of the Reds themselves are squatting on properties without title. If the courts were to prosecute everyone in Thailand who was dealing with non-title and/or Forestry properties , it would have tens of million criminal cases to deal with - each one a can of worms.

If the Reds care a hoot about Thailand, they should put their energies toward projects that would benefit Thailand and its people. I could make a list as long as my right arm, in small font, if they want suggestions.

[Credo]

It may be politics, but the point is that suddenly Thailand decided to uphold the law with one group of people, but decided to disregard the law with another. It doesn't work so well when that happens.

[mca]

If the courts were to prosecute everyone in Thailand who was dealing with non-title and/or Forestry properties , it would have tens of million criminal cases to deal with - each one a can of worms.

But wouldn't you agree that with their carefully cultivated image of the "above it all/ beyond reproach/ best interests of the country at heart/ moral leaders/enter your own platitude" members of the Privy Council should be at the top of the list when it comes to being answerable for events.

[toybits]

Some of the things that come to my mind...

Double standard.

Chicken (on the part of the Atty General).

Some people ARE above the law.

Fishy-fishy....

You wonder which entity REALLY controls the country.

[Gary A]

My wife has no formal education. She has been offered a number of different pieces of land for a good price. She absolutely refuses to even look at a piece of land unless it has a chanote. If my wife knows it is risky if not actually illegal, why wouldn't an educated politician or senior military officer know that?

[nitecm]

Did Suyayud get up in open court and lie about this purchase,

like Samak did about his fees?

Well the difference is, Anamatic, Surayud didn't have to go to court, did he?

Yup, all is well in Thailand--the double standard is alive and well.

It is the norm

If the land office and forestry department was impartial ,it would not create this problem.

[Ricardo]

So he will lose the land, which will be repossessed, although it wasn't him that originally took over the land, but local villagers, from whom he much-later purchased it. Seems fair to me. And good to see the law being applied against yet another poo-yai.

Perhaps the same principle might apply to the people who bought land, which had been gifted to a wat, but then built a golf-course on it ? Or is that persecution of DL & his merry band ? Let them off the crime, but take away the proceeds, would that be unfair ?

Land-deeds here are a can-of-worms, nice to see that everyone can lose-out when they get things wrong, not just farangs !

This is certainly an area in urgent need of reform, whoever is in power, Thaksin did announce that his government planned to confirm many similar dodgy titles, but somehow it never got done. A familiar tale indeed.

[way2muchcoffee]

Actually while th edifferent types of land ownership are quite complicated it is easy to establish the status of a piece of land by the papers transferred when it is bought. A lawyer would be able to answer re status and there are several types. Then there is the land that is sold without any papers or meaningless ones and that land is not legally held. Most villagers hold packages of this legally dodgy land and they are quite aware of its status. It is usually very very cheap as it is "unofficial"

How very interesting. A note about our case. We just got a call. Evidently my need to go to Sa Keaw this week to get her untitled land formally titled. She has sat on this land for 5 years already. We were told that eventually the land would get titled. Evidently now is that time as all the other villagers are doing the same.

[h90]

My wife has no formal education. She has been offered a number of different pieces of land for a good price. She absolutely refuses to even look at a piece of land unless it has a chanote. If my wife knows it is risky if not actually illegal, why wouldn't an educated politician or senior military officer know that?

similar here...doggy documents and my wife don't even want to listen. Next step is to verify the documents with the government place, if they are true.

[animatic]

The simple question for the attorney general is:

Is there enough probable cause to arrest and prosecute a former PM

for the over 20 year old mistakes of others at a provincial land office.

That left a trace of a trail, but not an obvious one, that is typically pursued.

It's not like the trail of land ownership is etched on every title document,

like in many western countries. Highest end Chanotes have something

a few years back in some case, but life time histories of land use are rarely obvious.

[Credo]

So, let's see if I've got this straight. Land ownership is complicated so therefore a privy council member shouldn't be held responsible? It's not like he didn't have a bevy of staff who could check out his land title. Or maybe he wasn't aware of the government's plan to allow poor farmers to have land? This would make him a rather naive person, which I don't think he is.

I think the crux of the problem is the perceived difference in treatment between groups of people.

[brahmburgers]

Actually while the different types of land ownership are quite complicated it is easy to establish the status of a piece of land by the papers transferred when it is bought. A lawyer would be able to answer re status and there are several types. Then there is the land that is sold without any papers or meaningless ones and that land is not legally held. Most villagers hold packages of this legally dodgy land and they are quite aware of its status. It is usually very very cheap as it is "unofficial"

How very interesting. A note about our case. We just got a call. Evidently my need to go to Sa Keaw this week to get her untitled land formally titled. She has sat on this land for 5 years already. We were told that eventually the land would get titled. Evidently now is that time as all the other villagers are doing the same.

I've had non-titled property for 11 years in northern Thailand, and every time I ask the Pu Yai Ban when the villagers will get title, he always says 'two years, sure sure." He's said that every year for 11 years, probably longer. Good to hear some (Hammered and squeeze) are getting some positive action - good on ya!

My wife has no formal education. She has been offered a number of different pieces of land for a good price. She absolutely refuses to even look at a piece of land unless it has a chanote. If my wife knows it is risky if not actually illegal, why wouldn't an educated politician or senior military officer know that?

similar here...doggy documents and my wife don't even want to listen. Next step is to verify the documents with the government place, if they are true.

Some people will, some people won't. Some people see 1 ft waves in the sea and stay away for fear of drowning. Others see 9 foot waves and go rushing in for the joy of it.

Different strokes for different folks. I took a chance on several non-title properties. Had a problem with one out of five. Life's a gamble, and it was a gamble I took. Thus, for over 10 years, I've been enjoying several beautiful properties which I couldn't have afforded if they were chanod/title. ...and hope to keep enjoying the properties for decades to come.

Incidentally, up here in northern Thailand, the titled properties aren't near as nice as the non-titled ones. With few exceptions, the non-titled properties have better views, more and bigger trees, less noise/pollution, and less traffic. Part of the reason is, titled properties in Thailand are all along highways, busy roads, packed residential areas, and closer to cities.

The general rule of thumb is: the less attractive a property, in terms of tree cover/naturalness, clean air, views, noise - the more expensive it is. Odd world we live in.

[Steve2UK]

So, let's see if I've got this straight. Land ownership is complicated so therefore a privy council member shouldn't be held responsible? It's not like he didn't have a bevy of staff who could check out his land title. Or maybe he wasn't aware of the government's plan to allow poor farmers to have land? This would make him a rather naive person, which I don't think he is.

I think the crux of the problem is the perceived difference in treatment between groups of people.

The Prime Minister

GENERAL SURAYUD CHULANONT

...........

Special Assignments:

...........

* since 1997 President of Foundation for Khao Yai National Park Protection

...........

http://www.cabinet.thaigov.go.th/eng/pm_24.htm

-------------------------------------

Foundation for Khao Yai National Park Protection

...........

In 1997, Yongsak consulted with General Surayud Julanon about the intention of protecting Khao yai to its status of a natural heritage of the country. The idea of establishment of the Foundation for Protection of Khao Yai Foundation was raised in order to improve work of the old foundation by including ranger training, research, social support for all park staffers.

During the first meeting in 1997, the committee made an unanimous resolution to take more action on conservation work in Khao Yai as well as social support for all park staffers. General Sorayod became the foundation's new president.

The Foundation for the Protection of Khao Yai National Park was named in March 23, 2000.

Objectives

* Support the management of Khao Yai National Park and all activities which will result in the protection of natural resources and wildlife and the park as well as others in the country.

* Support the management of Khao Yai National Park to meet the international scheme of national park management.

* Support the improvement of work efficiency of park rangers and permanent workers by improving their knowledge, physical and mental conditions including equipment.

* Support welfare of workers and their families to encourage their morale during normal time, emergency, and risks of physical and mental injury from work.

* Support research on flora, fauna and natural resources of the park to increase knowledge beneficial to the management of the park as well as to the public.

* Support the education which will increase awareness and knowledge about the importance of the park among youth as well as adult citizens.

* Support residents around Khao Yai and other forest reserves to increase awareness and participation in protection of the park.

* Co-operate with other organisations for benefits of the society.

* No any political activities operated.

.............

http://www.khaoyai.org/engversion/aboutus.html

Edited January 11, 2010 by Steve2UK

[LaoPo]

Surayud willing to return Khao Yai Thiang land to Forestry Department: aide

An aide of Privy Councillor Gen Surayud Chulanont Monday quoted the former prime minister as saying that he is willing to return the controversial plot of 21 rai of land at the Khao Yai Thiang to the Forestry Department.

The aide, who asked not to be named, quoted Surayud said he was willing to forego his rights to the land to prevent the rifts from worsening.

But Surayud would not quit the Privy Council as demanded by the red-shirt people, the aide said.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...Thiang-land-to-

January 12, 2010 : Last updated 05:28 pm

LaoPo

[animatic]

Any bets if the house is torn down,

or it becomes an office for the Land Authorities bosses?

Or converted to some show case for meetings etc.

I some how doubt 'returned to it's natural state' will ever be in the cards.

[Samuian]

Isn't it, or wasn't it a privilege of many servants in higher places to get ownership of large plots of land?

Would be interesting to learn more about the background of how he (Suriayud) became owner of this land.

If certain pubic plot are to be allocated to the farmer's who will know first and who will take advantage of it?

remember patronage system?!

One may have had a rather similiar idea in his head when he assisted a certain, of course unknown person, to purchase

a piece of land allocated for distribution to the poor farmers of Central Bangkok around the Rajadapisek area.... some piece of worthless, muddy rise paddy - any resemblances purely circumstantial, as well the fact that Suriayud is member of the privy council, purely circumstantial - nothing to do with deliberate blackmail - nope, citizens watch!

Edited January 12, 2010 by Samuian