Thai PM Abhisit Says He May Be British

[Deeral]

Unless you are born in the US you can't be president.

does the same apply here? re PM - the position is of course not the same Abhisit isn't Head of State.

It just another example of how disorganised and constitutionally unaware Thailand is.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Deeral

[Soutpeel]

Unless you are born in the US you can't be president.

does the same apply here? re PM - the position is of course not the same Abhisit isn't Head of State.

It just another example of how disorganised and constitutionally unaware Thailand is.

It that case then the UK is disorganised and constitutionally unaware then as well, as in the UK there is no law which says the PM must be British born, only they need to be a British citizen, therefore one could suggest the current US rules are discriminatory against there own citizens...

[samran]

Unless you are born in the US you can't be president.

does the same apply here? re PM - the position is of course not the same Abhisit isn't Head of State.

It just another example of how disorganised and constitutionally unaware Thailand is.

It that case then the UK is disorganised and constitutionally unaware then as well, as in the UK there is no law which says the PM must be British born, only they need to be a British citizen, therefore one could suggest the current US rules are discriminatory against there own citizens...

As far as I know, all commonwealth citizens (+Irish citizens) are eligible to be an MP in the UK.

As for 'disorganised' - well, the UK doesn't have a written constitution does it? As in other places like Australia, governance is in many instances based on 'convention' - ie how things have always been done, and will always be done.

Sounds like Deeral just wants to stick the boot in for the sake of it.

[animatic]

Abhisit may be part Lithuanian Coptic and Guatamalian Jesuit,

but then again he may not be.

The bottom line is:

Amsterdam wants him part British to file against in ICJ.

While himself noting his case stands little chance either way.

But it would give that Kuhn T. more exposure,

and hamster on a treadmill more billable hours.

The Election Commission looked at Abhisit credentials,

and passed him to be MP and thus PM...

There is nothing more to this story excluding Jatuporns fulminations and inability to hit a barn with a clump of <deleted> from 1 meter..

Edited February 26, 2011 by animatic

[Deeral]

Unless you are born in the US you can't be president.

does the same apply here? re PM - the position is of course not the same Abhisit isn't Head of State.

It just another example of how disorganised and constitutionally unaware Thailand is.

It that case then the UK is disorganised and constitutionally unaware then as well, as in the UK there is no law which says the PM must be British born, only they need to be a British citizen, therefore one could suggest the current US rules are discriminatory against there own citizens...

What a fatuous reply - I would have thought that any fool who could read would understand that it is not the actual law I'm criticising........come on! think before you answer!

[softgeorge]

Unless you are born in the US you can't be president.

does the same apply here? re PM - the position is of course not the same Abhisit isn't Head of State.

It just another example of how disorganised and constitutionally unaware Thailand is.

Different to Australia anyone can be prime minister as long as you have citizenship. You could have come over as an asylum seeker from Afganistan and end up running Australia. In fact they encourage immigrants to run for parliarment.

[Deeral]

Unless you are born in the US you can't be president.

does the same apply here? re PM - the position is of course not the same Abhisit isn't Head of State.

It just another example of how disorganised and constitutionally unaware Thailand is.

Different to Australia anyone can be prime minister as long as you have citizenship. You could have come over as an asylum seeker from Afganistan and end up running Australia. In fact they encourage immigrants to run for parliarment.

Yes - and there too the law is logical and clear!

does no-one see the point of my post?It is the CONFUSION and DISORGANISATION I was criticising, not the law as it stands

[yoshiwara]

Jatuporn is no doubt winding up the troops by saying that since Abhisit isn't really Thai, this just adds to the illegitimacy of the government, right. That is the only agenda. Any stick will do.

Edited February 26, 2011 by metisdead
Removed off topic comments.

[Ricardo]

But let me ask you what do you think why PM didn't show his THAI passport, so to make jatuporn as a clown? It would be piece of cake, don't you think so?

Good question, I think PM-Abhisit didn't do so, because he has more class than Jatuporn.

Which wouldn't be very hard, to be honest, guess that's why the Thai electoral-system needs party-vote MPs, to get people into power who nobody would elect otherwise.

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts have been removed.

[Tatsujin]

So . . . to clarify . . .

Abhisit has dual nationalities and dual passports, Thai and British.

To be PM in Thailand you need to be a Thai citizen (which he is) and does NOT need to have been born here.

The whole point of the Amsterdam case is that if he is also a British citizen, he is then able to be prosecuted/charged with 'crimes against humanity' as Britain (unlike Thailand) has ratified the Rome Statute which created the International Criminal Court who have been asked to investigate the case.

Is this all correct?

[TAWP]

He does not have British passport -- it requires someone applied for it -- but he presumably have British citizenship by virtue of being born on British soil before 1983.

Edited February 27, 2011 by TAWP

[whybother]

So . . . to clarify . . .

Abhisit has dual nationalities and dual passports, Thai and British.

To be PM in Thailand you need to be a Thai citizen (which he is) and does NOT need to have been born here.

The whole point of the Amsterdam case is that if he is also a British citizen, he is then able to be prosecuted/charged with 'crimes against humanity' as Britain (unlike Thailand) has ratified the Rome Statute which created the International Criminal Court who have been asked to investigate the case.

Is this all correct?

No.

[Ricardo]

So . . . to clarify . . .

Abhisit has dual nationalities and dual passports, Thai and British.

To be PM in Thailand you need to be a Thai citizen (which he is) and does NOT need to have been born here.

The whole point of the Amsterdam case is that if he is also a British citizen, he is then able to be prosecuted/charged with 'crimes against humanity' as Britain (unlike Thailand) has ratified the Rome Statute which created the International Criminal Court who have been asked to investigate the case.

Is this all correct?

Sorry, but no, not all correct.

Jatuporn & RA have not shown that PM-Abhisit "has dual nationalities", only that his birth to Thai parents living in the UK was legally-recorded, which probably entitles him to successfully-apply for British-citizenship.

They have also failed to show any evidence that he has ever claimed British-citizenship, or that he currently-holds/has ever-applied-for a British passport.

Statements by PM-Abhisit suggest that he travels on a Thai-passport, thus requiring a visa to enter the UK, and that he was regarded as a Thai-citizen (hence liable for overseas-student fees) when at university.

I think you're correct as-to why they might wish to prove that he is currently a British-citizen, as well as holding Thai citizenship, which seems so-far undisputed.

I would hardly say that suggesting the Abhisit can become a British MP is of topic!!!!

However quibbling as to whether or not he has a PASSPORT is pretty irrelevant, don't you think?????

Sorry to disagree, but if Abhisit currently has a British passport, than that would suggest he applied for one and wishes to hold dual-nationality, which might have legal-consequences for him with the I.C.C. or domestic Thai political-consequences, as possibly being able to be portrayed as somehow 'less-Thai', in much the same way that former-PM Thaksin's alleged Ugandan/Nicaraguan/Montenegrin passports do.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Ricardo

[animatic]

Was Pinochet British ?

Being British will not help Abhisit.

There is little to no evidence that Abhisit ordered the journalist be shot. There was loads of evidence against Pinochet.

Where is there ANY evidence that Abhisit ordered ANYONE to be shot.

None has been proffered by anyone.

Only implied to exist by political players who want him gone and themselves installed.

[TAWP]

They claim the military is actually in power in calling the shots, with Abhisit as a puppet...and then they want ICC to prosecute Abhisit for calling the shots and presumably ordering a clamp down on rioters...

This all gets very confusing...

[Nisa]

They claim the military is actually in power in calling the shots, with Abhisit as a puppet...and then they want ICC to prosecute Abhisit for calling the shots and presumably ordering a clamp down on rioters...

This all gets very confusing...

Just about everything Red leaders do and say is contradictory.

[swerver]

He was born British and became Thai when?

He became Thai when he was born to two Thai parents.

When born out of both parents of same nationality in a foreign country in some of these countries when the teenager becomes 18-year of age she/he must choose between one or the other nationality she/he holds up to that time. Do these countries strictly adhere to the law of their land? NO. Same as with naturalized citizen, some countries have a law that if the naturalized citizen does not live in the country of naturalization for a continuous period of 10-year the naturalization becomes nil and void. Do countries strictly adhere to the law of their land? NO. These and lots of other laws become an issue when a person becomes involved with some criminal law, then all of a sudden they dig up al sorts of dead cows out of the creek, which is the same the Red Shirts are doing now, dragging the klongs in Thailand. The Red Shirts would gain much more popularity by sticking to improving the lot of the downtrodden in Thailand.

[Tatsujin]

Not the best newspaper in the world, but the Mirror had an interesting article (lol):

The embattled Newcastle-upon-Tyne born politician's birth certificate reveals his real Christian name is Mark, while his place of birth was the UK's north east district of Victoria, where his childhood home was a humble two bedroom flat - 32 Marondale Avenue - the current property is worth around £69,595.

The youngest of three children, Mark Abhisit was born at Newcastle's Princess Mary Maternity Hospital in 1964, to former medical professors, Athasit Vejjajiva and Sodsai Sutabyt, a Thai Chinese (Hakka) family from Bangkok who lived in the UK.

Vejjajiva, 46, who says he still supports Newcastle United, revealed he holds dual nationality in the Thai Parliament this week. He even previously held a British passport but is understood not to have renewed it.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/most-popular/2011/02/26/thailand-prime-minister-is-actually-a-geordie-called-mark-115875-22951732/

And from another news source I can't name:

Mr Abhisit was born in Newcastle in 1964 and became a British citizen by virtue of being born there.

He is also Thai as he was born to Thai parents, the Puea Thai Party told parliament yesterday.

The British Home Office's UK Border Agency states on its website that anyone born in Britain before Jan 1, 1983, is "almost certainly a British citizen".

The only exception is a person born to certain diplomatic staff of foreign missions who had diplomatic immunity.

Mr Abhisit can formally renounce his right to British nationality but he has not done this. Mr Abhisit admitted to the House yesterday that he had not renounced his right to hold British nationality, which meant he continued to hold dual British and Thai nationality.

Apparently, according to his birth certificate his birth name is actually Mark Abhisit Vejjajiva.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Tatsujin

[Soutpeel]

Not the best newspaper in the world, but the Mirror had an interesting article (lol):

The embattled Newcastle-upon-Tyne born politician's birth certificate reveals his real Christian name is Mark, while his place of birth was the UK's north east district of Victoria, where his childhood home was a humble two bedroom flat - 32 Marondale Avenue - the current property is worth around £69,595.

The youngest of three children, Mark Abhisit was born at Newcastle's Princess Mary Maternity Hospital in 1964, to former medical professors, Athasit Vejjajiva and Sodsai Sutabyt, a Thai Chinese (Hakka) family from Bangkok who lived in the UK.

Vejjajiva, 46, who says he still supports Newcastle United, revealed he holds dual nationality in the Thai Parliament this week. He even previously held a British passport but is understood not to have renewed it.

http://www.mirror.co...15875-22951732/

And from another news source I can't name:

Mr Abhisit was born in Newcastle in 1964 and became a British citizen by virtue of being born there.

He is also Thai as he was born to Thai parents, the Puea Thai Party told parliament yesterday.

The British Home Office's UK Border Agency states on its website that anyone born in Britain before Jan 1, 1983, is "almost certainly a British citizen".

The only exception is a person born to certain diplomatic staff of foreign missions who had diplomatic immunity.

Mr Abhisit can formally renounce his right to British nationality but he has not done this. Mr Abhisit admitted to the House yesterday that he had not renounced his right to hold British nationality, which meant he continued to hold dual British and Thai nationality.

Apparently, according to his birth certificate his birth name is actually Mark Abhisit Vejjajiva.

The crux to question IMHO of whether Abhisit is actually a dual national hinges on whether he has ever exercised his right to dual nationality, if as the "Mirror" suggests he has held a British passport, this suggests that he has exercised this right and is therefore a dual national.

If he has not excercised this right as was stated in in other articles, he has travelled and studied on a visa in the UK, then he is not a dual national, but has the right to become a dual national if so desired.

Have the right to do something and actually exercising that right are not quite the same thing.

Seeing as there is no law in Thailand which prohibits dual nationality and further there is no law which states a Thai PM needs to be Thai born/ cannot hold dual nationality, the issue of whether he is a dual citizen or not is completely irrelevant.

In terms of any possible International Criminal Court invesitigation, for this to move forward, Abhisit would need to be "tried" as a UK citizen and I would be pretty sure the ICC would need concurrance/agreement with the British goverment before proceeding with any action against one if "its" citizens.

[samran]

The crux to question IMHO of whether Abhisit is actually a dual national hinges on whether he has ever exercised his right to dual nationality, if as the "Mirror" suggests he has held a British passport, this suggests that he has exercised this right and is therefore a dual national.

If he has not excercised this right as was stated in in other articles, he has travelled and studied on a visa in the UK, then he is not a dual national, but has the right to become a dual national if so desired.

Have the right to do something and actually exercising that right are not quite the same thing.

Seeing as there is no law in Thailand which prohibits dual nationality and further there is no law which states a Thai PM needs to be Thai born/ cannot hold dual nationality, the issue of whether he is a dual citizen or not is completely irrelevant.

In terms of any possible International Criminal Court invesitigation, for this to move forward, Abhisit would need to be "tried" as a UK citizen and I would be pretty sure the ICC would need concurrance/agreement with the British goverment before proceeding with any action against one if "its" citizens.

Of course he has 'exercised' the right to British Nationality. He exercised it from the moment he was born on UK soil - just like any other UK citizen. Simply by being there he excecised his right to never being kicked out from the UK and staying there as long as he d@mn well pleased.

I'm a bit confused by people who claim 'well he might have the right to British nationality but never applied for it'.

To me that is a ludicrous statement. Which UK born members who are reading this thread actually 'applied' for their citizenship? None I bet!

Edited February 28, 2011 by samran

[Credo]

There would be no reason for him to renounce his British citizenship that I can see. It was his by birth, not by plan.

The issue for many, especially males, is did they avoid military service in a country by using citizenship. In Thailand I believe it is required to either serve or offer to serve through a lottery system. If he complied with the terms of his military service, then he is a citizen of Thailand. If he avoided it , then he has some real questions to answer.

[webfact]

Related topic:

Thailand's PM Abhisit Clarifies British Nationality

Follow this link:

[samran]

There would be no reason for him to renounce his British citizenship that I can see. It was his by birth, not by plan.

The issue for many, especially males, is did they avoid military service in a country by using citizenship. In Thailand I believe it is required to either serve or offer to serve through a lottery system. If he complied with the terms of his military service, then he is a citizen of Thailand. If he avoided it , then he has some real questions to answer.

Well, avoiding military service doesn't make you any less of a Thai citizen. All it means is that you are a Thai citizen who needs to either pay a fine or do some jail time!

As for the PM's military record, well, he did become an instructor for some period of time at one of the military colleges. Abhisit supporters will say that that meant he fufilled his obligations (he certainly would have the right paperwork -- otherwise he wouldn't qualify as an MP). His opponents will say that he skipped out on basic training, and thus his documents proving his military service are false.

Truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

[Arkady]

Unless you are born in the US you can't be president.

does the same apply here? re PM - the position is of course not the same Abhisit isn't Head of State.

It just another example of how disorganised and constitutionally unaware Thailand is.

It that case then the UK is disorganised and constitutionally unaware then as well, as in the UK there is no law which says the PM must be British born, only they need to be a British citizen, therefore one could suggest the current US rules are discriminatory against there own citizens...

You seem to be "constitutionally unaware" that the UK doesn't have a constitution and even the head of state can be foreign born. George I was very German and never even learned to speak English properly, preferred to spend his time back in Hannover, but he did a reasonable job, and kept Britain out of major treasury draining wars.

Even the US constitutional requirement that the president and vice-president should be natural born US citizens is not crystal clear. At the time the constitution was promulgated the only way to become a US citizen was either to be born in US held territory or to be naturalized. Only 12 years later did citizenship law allow children born abroad to US parents to be American by birth and the constitution has never been amended to reflect that. However, a report by the Congressional Reseach Service in 2000 concluded that children born to US parents outside the US should be considered as natural born US citizens. Several candidates born overseas to US parents have attempted to run for the presidency over the years but none got to the winning post.

Obama is a man of multiple citizenships who has been British and Kenyan as well as American since birth. His British citizenship was cancelled and converted to Kenyan citizenship automatically when Kenya became independent when he was two and was then in turn automatically cancelled when he chose to retain American citizenship on reaching majority. However, Kenya very interestingly adopted a new constitution in August 2010 that permits dual nationality. Under the new constitution Obama is now entitled to recover his Kenyan citizenship automatically on application. That could be a useful little bolthole for him, if things went badly pear shaped for him in the US, in the same way that Fujimori sought refuge in Japan, taking up his jus sanguini Japanese citizenship (but ended up in the clink back in Peru anyway due to his own stupidity).

[Arkady]

The Mirror has hysterically posted a picture of Abhisit's father by mistake in its online edition.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/most-popular/2011/02/26/thailand-prime-minister-is-actually-a-geordie-called-mark-115875-22951732/

It also says that Abhisit has held a British passport in the past but hasn't renewed it. This is what I expect to come out. Abhisit's denials have been extremely unconvincing all along and it defies belief that he didn't sensibly take advantage of his British birthright and use a British passport during his many years at school and university in the UK. It is certainly unbelievable that he didn't know he was British, even in the unlikely event The Mirror is wrong and he never had a British passport.

I think it would have been better to admit when this first came up that he was a Thai-British dual national and that neither the Nationality Act nor the constitution prevent that. He might at least have done a service for his fellow Thai dual nationals around the world, instead of being furtive about it and earlier hypocritically trying to claim that Thaksin had lost his right to Thai nationality due to naturalization as an alien. Alternatively, if he really thought it a conflict of interests to hold public office as a dual national, he should have renounced his British citizenship before he first became an MP, rather than just not renewing his British passport but keeping his British citizenship in his back pocket. His "plausible denial" tactic has not been effective at all as the story unravels piece by piece. A very disappointing performance that reflects badly either on his honesty or his intelligence. BTW the way I am not a Thaksin or red shirt supporter.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Arkady

[Soutpeel]

You seem to be "constitutionally unaware" that the UK doesn't have a constitution and even the head of state can be foreign born.

Actually the England does have a "consitution" its called the Magna Carta and been around a whole lot longer than the "consitution" in the Land "O" Free

[Deeral]

"Seeing as there is no law in Thailand which prohibits dual nationality " - is this true? I've heard exactly the opposite

[hyperdimension]

The Mirror has hysterically posted a picture of Abhisit's father by mistake in its online edition.

The whole article is about one of their supposed citizens, yet they can't even get the right picture of the Prime Minister of Thailand. Even a Google image search of "abhisit vejjajiva" brings up correct pictures. It is further evidence that foreign news sources know little about what goes on in Thailand, strengthening the argument that a lot of them got things wrong when reporting about the protests last year.

Edited February 28, 2011 by hyperdimension

[samran]

"Seeing as there is no law in Thailand which prohibits dual nationality " - is this true? I've heard exactly the opposite

Who is disorganised now?

Dual nationality has been unequivocally allowed in just about all circumstances since the 1992 version of the Nationality Act. Look it up.