PM Abhisit says Thaksin must forego Thai citizenship

[Maxi101]

hmmm. my son has both thai / british citizenship so does this mean he too has to forego his thai citizenship

The son of a friend of mine got a German and Thai passport, but at the age of 18 (still plenty of years to go) he will have to decide, which citizenship he wants to keep. How old is your son?

Basically, but thats not exactly.

If he is the son by blood of the German citizen (his father) then he will be always German as we have the right of blood at the first place.

Therefor it depends on Thailand - and that choosing at 18 - with can last till 23 is German law which you didn't understood right.

Its implemented (and is citizenship after birthright = land) for children of parents who are BOTH foreigners and who are born in Germany.

And only for those.

Therfor that boy is from german view the only possibility to have 2 citizenships, as long Thai don't start trouble.

But if you have a Thai birth certificate - what could they do ?

maxi

[citizen33]

He is not speaking for the thai people.

He was installed by a Military Junta and is supported by a Military Junta appointed judiciary.

He would be better calling an election to test the peoples view on matters, rather than continuing to perpatrate Human Rights Abuses on the thai people, as detailed in the Human Rights Watch charge sheet.

No getting away from it

At any given time there always seems to be a certain number of members of the forum like you, who come day-after-day to simple parrot the same one-liners. You rarely ever expand or give any reasoning. Just trotting out the same old lines without engaging in actual debate. The good thing is these members don't last long, the bad thing is a fresh one always seems to take their place.

The forum is a better place for having a wide spectrum of views, even the extreme, but this sort of repititious droning of mistruths and lies adds nothing of value whatsoever.

The paradox as I see it is while there is a large group within the forum who take this latter side of the argument, most published analysis of recent events is closer to what is dismissed here as a tissue of 'mistruths and lies'. That is quite curious really because on most issues in, say, the Political Science literature, people line up on both sides of an argument. Yet most professional commentators regard the post-coup restoration of democracy as deeply flawed at best. They may disagree about the balance of responsibility falling on the different factions, but nobody argues that Thailand currently has a working democracy. Western constitutional law experts - a more conservative group - have tended to hold fire but, from what I've picked up, many see the demise of the 1997 Constitution as a deeply negative development. So the question that interests me is whether there is an academic version of the TV perspective that has passed the test of peer review and got into print. The nearest thing I could find on the constitutional law front is the following (not a prestige publication admittedly):

http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi...context=unswwps

Can anybody suggest anything else?

Edited February 7, 2010 by citizen33

[cdnvic]

Removed one personal attack. If you can't add anything intelligent to the discussion go play elsewhere for awhile.

[Bagwan]

I rather suspect, that his mother was present, for the birth !

This, if true, is an interesting concept. Do you think that it will ever be accepted as common practice worldwide?

It may catch on, they have been practicing a lot lately.

Especially in Pattaya!

It seems that it is now mandatory that the Mother be present during conception. That upsets a lot of w*nkers!

[Fishbucket]

Yes, abisit is now acting like the dictator the military told him he is.

When abisit was at eton, the day they lectured about democracy, he must have been wagging it.

What authority is he drawing on to say that sort of thing, certainly the army cause he's never been elected in an election.

He cannot incite events.

[Maestro]

...I would strongly advise reading The Thai Nationality Act with all amendments, including the latest 2008 amendments to get a true picture, rather than relying on misinformation for the US Office of Personnel Management. It is not very long or difficult to understand.

An English translation of the Nationality Act B.E. 2508 with all amendments until today is here:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/post-a84046-...ntil-2551..html

--

Maestro

[brahmburgers]

Abisit should have made it clear it was only his opinion he was giving, and who gives a toss about that.

He certainly was not speaking for the thai people.

He has no mandate.

He has a perfectly legal mandate as he is an elected politician & was elected by parliament to be PM.

He is not speaking for the thai people. He was installed by a Military Junta and is supported by a Military Junta appointed judiciary.

You must be thinking of Surayad. Abhisit got to the top legitimately. Get educated, CLOD.

[Ricardo]

I rather suspect, that his mother was present, for the birth !

This, if true, is an interesting concept. Do you think that it will ever be accepted as common practice worldwide?

It may catch on, they have been practicing a lot lately.

Especially in Pattaya!

It seems that it is now mandatory that the Mother be present during conception. That upsets a lot of w*nkers!

And what does winking have to do with anything ?

Actually, with the development of in-vitro fertilisation, I'm not convinced the above is true, any longer. But may be getting my medical-terms mixed-up.

[Ricardo]

Yes, abisit is now acting like the dictator the military told him he is.

When abisit was at eton, the day they lectured about democracy, he must have been wagging it.

What authority is he drawing on to say that sort of thing, certainly the army cause he's never been elected in an election.

He cannot incite events.

While I agree that the legal-position, regarding possible removal of DL's citizenship, seems unclear, I cannot agree with your later statement, that PM-Abhisit has never been elected in an election.

Firstly he was definitely elected as an MP in December 2007, also possibly in earlier elections I believe, then later in December 2008 he was elected by the sitting MPs as Prime Minister, so that's at least two elections he has won, would you care to retract your mistaken claim ?

Also your statement that the military told him he is a dictator, what evidence is there for this, another spoof Red-Shirt tape-recording or something even less substantial ?

Edited February 8, 2010 by Ricardo

[animatic]

How can one be told they are a dictator?...

So someone is dictating to another that they are the dictator?

Illogical concept.

Who came first, the chicken or the egg,

or more non sequiter political rubbish.

[rixalex]

Yet most professional commentators regard the post-coup restoration of democracy as deeply flawed at best. They may disagree about the balance of responsibility falling on the different factions, but nobody argues that Thailand currently has a working democracy.

Professional commentators? Not sure how exactly you are defining this group nor indeed how you feel able to summise their feelings as a whole. I guess you are probably talking about academics /writers and i have no doubt that this group's opinion is of great value, but i also think there's a danger if we simply assume that each and every one of them approach all topics from a position of complete neutrality. Not all of them do; i think we have to accept that.

That issue aside, i think stating that democracy is deeply flawed in Thailand, or that democracy isn't working isn't really saying anything that radical or controversial, but it also needs to be stated that this circumstance has not suddenly arisen from nowhere post 2006 coup. Indeed it's been this way for a very long time. Has it got worse, has it got better or is it simply the same? We all have an opinion on that of course. Fair enough.

What is not is the dogged, fixed, one-track view as expressed by certain members, that purely sees things from one perspective and does not accept consideration of the wider picture, nor a discussion of it. I see no point or value in returning each day repeating tedious mantras like, "Thaksin bad, Thaksin bad, Thaksin bad", just as i see no value in the cliched, "elections now, Abhisit's a puppet, elections now, Abhisit's a puppet...".

If you insist on coming to the table, bring with you some considered reasoning, and if a point you make is challenged, respond directly to it. All too often reasoning is in absense, and points challenged are simply ignored.

Here's an example: if you demand there be elections right now (not specifically addressing citizen33 here), explain in specific terms what exactly is illegal about the current government - and by that, no, i don't mean a lengthy ramble about how certain minority factions of the electorate "feel" cheated - i mean solid legal reasons, and the reasons that distinguish this government from Samak's and Somchai's. And whilst you are at it, explain how free and fair elections can be arranged right at this moment in time - if you accept that they can't be, tell me where the democracy is in that. Also tell me how will the country benefit going to the polls at a time when the economy is in crisis and for the likely outcome of having the same faces in parliament but possibly under a different banner.

from what I've picked up, many see the demise of the 1997 Constitution as a deeply negative development.

Having issues with the 2007 Constitution is one thing, feeling regret at losing the 1997 one that had been thoroughly corrupted and twisted by politicians for personal benefit, is another, and why anyone would wish to go back to that is a mystery, unless of course that person happens to have been one of the beneficiaries.

[scorecard]

Folks can site and resite the various acts and regulations about removal of a passport, but the bottom line is quite simple. Every country in the world faces the possibility that it might want to (for good and valid reasons) disown someone and cancel their passport.

Surely therefore it's just basic that all countries will have an appropriate clause in the law / the regulations which provides for cancellation.

[Asa]

Abhisit is right to say TS should renounce Thai citizenship. If TS won't, he is always Thai, until he departs this world. Nobody can take it away.

[rixalex]

Surely therefore it's just basic that all countries will have an appropriate clause in the law / the regulations which provides for cancellation.

Yep i'd say so and Thaksin surely qualifies.

But let's not forget what can be taken away can also be given back, so not such a big deal really either way. Nothing much is that permanent that it can't be undone here.

[mahjongguy]

..Every country in the world faces the possibility that it might want to (for good and valid reasons) disown someone and cancel their passport. Surely therefore it's just basic that all countries will have an appropriate clause in the law / the regulations which provides for cancellation.

True enough, but this discussion began on the topic of citizenship, nor passports, and they are related but different subjects.

In most countries, persons convicted of certain categories of crime may have their passports revoked. Just ask Gary Glitter.

But taking away one's citizenship is another matter entirely. It would, in the case of Thailand, invalidate one's ability to own property or to be the majority owner of a company or to serve in political office.

Anyway, the PM is quoted in English as saying Thaksin must "forego" Thai citizenship. That is ambiguous. It could mean it should be stripped from him, or merely that he should politely submit the proper paperwork. Does anyone here know what he actually said in Thai?

[scorecard]

..Every country in the world faces the possibility that it might want to (for good and valid reasons) disown someone and cancel their passport. Surely therefore it's just basic that all countries will have an appropriate clause in the law / the regulations which provides for cancellation.

True enough, but this discussion began on the topic of citizenship, nor passports, and they are related but different subjects.

In most countries, persons convicted of certain categories of crime may have their passports revoked. Just ask Gary Glitter.

But taking away one's citizenship is another matter entirely. It would, in the case of Thailand, invalidate one's ability to own property or to be the majority owner of a company or to serve in political office.

Anyway, the PM is quoted in English as saying Thaksin must "forego" Thai citizenship. That is ambiguous. It could mean it should be stripped from him, or merely that he should politely submit the proper paperwork. Does anyone here know what he actually said in Thai?

My Thai colleagues say it was a quick answer in the midst of a much bigger discussion, rather than a planned / one item announcement .

[Arkady]

If Thaksin's Father was born in Thailand I cannot see how citezenship could be revoked. I thinkrevokation can only be done if the Father was a naturalized thai.

I cannot find any reference for this but my wife says that Thaksin's father was born in China.

I have just looked into the biography of Thaksin by Acharn Pasuk and Chris Baker and it was apparently Thaksin's great grandfather who emigrated from China. His grandfather and father were both born in Thailand and both married Thai citizens. So Thaksin is Thai both by birth and by descent and it is impossible to revoke his citizenship.

[citizen33]

Yet most professional commentators regard the post-coup restoration of democracy as deeply flawed at best. They may disagree about the balance of responsibility falling on the different factions, but nobody argues that Thailand currently has a working democracy.

Professional commentators? Not sure how exactly you are defining this group nor indeed how you feel able to summise their feelings as a whole. I guess you are probably talking about academics /writers and i have no doubt that this group's opinion is of great value, but i also think there's a danger if we simply assume that each and every one of them approach all topics from a position of complete neutrality. Not all of them do; i think we have to accept that.

That issue aside, i think stating that democracy is deeply flawed in Thailand, or that democracy isn't working isn't really saying anything that radical or controversial, but it also needs to be stated that this circumstance has not suddenly arisen from nowhere post 2006 coup. Indeed it's been this way for a very long time. Has it got worse, has it got better or is it simply the same? We all have an opinion on that of course. Fair enough.

What is not is the dogged, fixed, one-track view as expressed by certain members, that purely sees things from one perspective and does not accept consideration of the wider picture, nor a discussion of it. I see no point or value in returning each day repeating tedious mantras like, "Thaksin bad, Thaksin bad, Thaksin bad", just as i see no value in the cliched, "elections now, Abhisit's a puppet, elections now, Abhisit's a puppet...".

If you insist on coming to the table, bring with you some considered reasoning, and if a point you make is challenged, respond directly to it. All too often reasoning is in absense, and points challenged are simply ignored.

Here's an example: if you demand there be elections right now (not specifically addressing citizen33 here), explain in specific terms what exactly is illegal about the current government - and by that, no, i don't mean a lengthy ramble about how certain minority factions of the electorate "feel" cheated - i mean solid legal reasons, and the reasons that distinguish this government from Samak's and Somchai's. And whilst you are at it, explain how free and fair elections can be arranged right at this moment in time - if you accept that they can't be, tell me where the democracy is in that. Also tell me how will the country benefit going to the polls at a time when the economy is in crisis and for the likely outcome of having the same faces in parliament but possibly under a different banner.

from what I've picked up, many see the demise of the 1997 Constitution as a deeply negative development.

Having issues with the 2007 Constitution is one thing, feeling regret at losing the 1997 one that had been thoroughly corrupted and twisted by politicians for personal benefit, is another, and why anyone would wish to go back to that is a mystery, unless of course that person happens to have been one of the beneficiaries.

Well it struck me that if one is really interested in reasoned debate, and given the space constraints of a forum, one would want to refer to the wider literature, including the academic literature, because that is generally subject to peer review. If there is no champion there for the TV view that is curious, and I have tried my best to identify a candidate but hoped you might show me one who carries more weight. In terms of the PolSci literature I tried to summarise the gist of what I had read in sober terms, so that I haven't counted Giles or the more vocal critics, but suffice it to say I do not think you will find your champion there. That is why i thought you might have more luck with the constitutional lawyers but, though they are guarded, they don't seem any more friendly to the TV view (see, for example, Ginsberg 2009). My impression is that many Western constitutional lawyers liked the 'People's Constitution', which they believed offered the possibility of a break with a past where the rule of law did not prevail. The reasons why they are less enthusiastic about the 2007 constitution are (a ) they believe it was designed partly to protect the interest group which overturned the previous legal framework (b ) they are concerned that the referendum that validated it may have been compromised and (c ) they are doubtful about the impartiality of the judiciary since the coup. These are just my impressions from talking to a few people at conferences. Again though I am still searching for the champion of the opposite view - apart from the Thai academic I mentioned. I know you will have questions but do you have any answers?

[Asa]

..Every country in the world faces the possibility that it might want to (for good and valid reasons) disown someone and cancel their passport. Surely therefore it's just basic that all countries will have an appropriate clause in the law / the regulations which provides for cancellation.

True enough, but this discussion began on the topic of citizenship, nor passports, and they are related but different subjects.

In most countries, persons convicted of certain categories of crime may have their passports revoked. Just ask Gary Glitter.

But taking away one's citizenship is another matter entirely. It would, in the case of Thailand, invalidate one's ability to own property or to be the majority owner of a company or to serve in political office.

Anyway, the PM is quoted in English as saying Thaksin must "forego" Thai citizenship. That is ambiguous. It could mean it should be stripped from him, or merely that he should politely submit the proper paperwork. Does anyone here know what he actually said in Thai?

My Thai colleagues say it was a quick answer in the midst of a much bigger discussion, rather than a planned / one item announcement .

It goes like:

5 FEB 10: Kampuchea News said Thaksin had been granted Khmer citizenship. Then Democrat spokeman picked it up and publicized the news, critisizing Thaksin as traitor.

6 FEB 10: Abhisit, taking the opportunity, shot back at reporters on the news that Thai law allow only one nationallity for each person. Thaksin must renounce his Thai nationality first, sthen he can be naturalized as Khmer.

7 FEB 10: Kampuchea goveernment denied granting Thaksin Khmer nationality.

8 FEB 10: Rumours die down.

[Mario2008]

Art 20 of the Thai nationality act seems to allow for the revocation of Thai nationality of a person who acquires another nationality out of his own free will. (Which is different from a Thai person having dual nationality by way of law, because one of the parents has another nationality or for being born on US soil for instance. This you can't choose, you just have it).

However, from past discussions about nationality I know this article is not as clear cut as it seems.

[cushendall]

hmmm. my son has both thai / british citizenship so does this mean he too has to forego his thai citizenship

i think not!!!

The thai prime minister has a british passport, also about 50,000 thai bar girls

[ballpoint]

The thai prime minister has a british passport, also about 50,000 thai bar girls

I'm sure he doesn't have that many. Where does he keep them all?

[rainman]

Can someone explain to me why Abhisit is allowed to hold both Thai and UK citizenships, and Thaksin isn't allowed to hold 2 citizenships?

[mahjongguy]

Can someone explain to me why Abhisit is allowed to hold both Thai and UK citizenships, and Thaksin isn't allowed to hold 2 citizenships?

That question has been asked and answered in this thread. It depends on the circumstances by which citizenship is acquired and it depends on which other country grants it.

[way2muchcoffee]

The thai prime minister has a british passport, also about 50,000 thai bar girls

What? The Thai PM has 50,000 Thai bar girls? He's my new hero!