Abhisit's Dual Citizenship Issue Much Ado About Nothing

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE

Abhisit's dual citizenship issue much ado about nothing

By Kittipong Thavevong, Nerisa Nerykhieo

The Nation

The prime minister's nationality became a political issue again yesterday when opposition MP Jatuporn Promphan raised the matter during a debate in the House of Representatives on the Cabinet's performance report.

Earlier, Canadian lawyer Robert Amsterdam - hired by fugitive former premier Thaksin Shinawatra - said he would represent the red shirts in bringing a case of crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court against Abhisit, in connection with last year's dispersal of the red-shirt protests.

About 90 people were killed and some 2,000 others were injured in last year's political unrest and riots.

Amsterdam said that although Thailand is not a signatory of the world court, the case could be brought against Abhisit because he holds British nationality and the United Kingdom is a signatory.

Jatuporn yesterday enraged some politicians from the ruling Democrat Party when he asked whether the British-born Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva had renounced his British nationality. He also produced a copy of what he described as Abhisit's birth certificate issued by the British authorities.

The document's copy was also produced during the recent rally of the red shirts in Bangkok. However, in his phone-in message to the red shirts, Amsterdam did not express his confidence the ICC would accept his petition for trial.

"If he didn't abandon his British nationality, it means he is a person of two nationalities. The question is whether this country can have a prime minister with dual nationality," said Jatuporn, who is a Pheu Thai Party MP and a key leader of the red-shirt movement.

Democrat MPs Pramuan Empia and Boonyod Sukthinthai protested and said that Jatuporn was straying from the main topic of debate. The protest led to brief exchanges between Democrat and Pheu Thai MPs that involved use of expletives.

Abhisit, who is the Democrat leader, made it clear for the first time yesterday he is still holding British nationality although he has clearly shown his intention to be a Thai national.

He said that the Newcastle hospital where he was born registered his birth "just like other cases of babies born in England". He said that his parents later stated in the official documents that he is a Thai national.

"If you ask whether I applied to abandon British nationality, my answer is, 'never'. I adhere to the Thai nationality law, which states that in case of conflict regarding nationality, the Thai law should be referred to," the prime minister told yesterday's House meeting.

He said that while studying in Britain, he made it clear he intended to hold Thai nationality. He was enrolled in British educational institutions as a foreign student and had never claimed benefits as a British citizen. "And, to travel to the United Kingdom, I had to apply for a visa," he added.

Abhisit said that he suspected Jatuporn did not have the country's interest in mind when raising the issue about his dual nationality. "He wants to see Robert Amsterdam drag Thailand's internal conflict into the world court. If I apply to abandon the British nationality today, you may accuse me of trying to escape from the case in the world court," he said.

The Thai Nationality Act states that persons born to Thai parents get Thai nationality whether they are born in Thailand or in a foreign country. Regarding dual nationality, the law requires persons who get the second nationality through their foreign father, or get Thai nationality after their foreign parents become Thai nationals through naturalisation, to relinquish their Thai nationality if they intend to hold the foreign nationality. This requirement does not apply in Abhisit's case as he has opted to hold Thai nationality.

In the British Nationality Act, there is no restriction on a British national being a citizen of another country as well. British nationals who acquire another nationality do not automatically lose British nationality. Similarly, a person does not need to give up any other nationality when they become British.

-- The Nation 2011-02-25

[yellow1red1]

Thailand is not a signatory of the world court

Why not?

[whybother]

Thailand is not a signatory of the world court

Why not?

Maybe you need to be asking the government at the time the world court came into force .... in 2002.

[samran]

the article is also wrong - there is no compulsion under Thai law for someone who gets foreign nationality from a from a foreign father (or mother since 2008) to renounce Thai nationality.

Law only provides the option for one to do so, and only then, between ages 20 and 21.

[virtualtraveller]

I wish someone would 'take care' of Jatuporn, loud mouth lying son of a Buffalo. Funny how it doesn't trouble him that his paymaster Thaksin has nationality of several countries, some of them very questionable.

[Soutpeel]

the article is also wrong - there is no compulsion under Thai law for someone who gets foreign nationality from a from a foreign father (or mother since 2008) to renounce Thai nationality.

Law only provides the option for one to do so, and only then, between ages 20 and 21.

Actually Abhisit is not a dual national, it appears he has the right to be dual national but has never excercised that right, therefore there is nothing to "give up", unlike another certain gentleman who has multiple passports and actually has used the "other" passports

[webfact]

PM's nationality not a problem: Sodsri

By The Nation

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's dual nationality is not an issue barring him from contesting the elections or holding office under the Thai laws, Election Commission Sodsri Sattayatham said on Friday.

"Under Articles 101 and 102*1) of the Constitution there is no ban for dual nationality," she said.

Sodsri said under relevant laws, Abhisit was entitled to run for office and secure political appointments, including the position of prime minister. Thai laws take precedents on affairs involving Thai citizens, she said.

The issue of Abhisit's nationality came up during the performance debate on Thursday. He was born in England, hence under the British law, he was entitled to British nationality. But he said he was a Thai citizen who did not renounce the other nationality given to him at birth.

-- The Nation 2011-02-25

[geovalin]

PM's nationality not a problem:

Not a problem for anyone "normal" but for an ultra nationalist who is ready to make war for 4 km², yes this is crippling.

[trogers]

I wish someone would 'take care' of Jatuporn, loud mouth lying son of a Buffalo. Funny how it doesn't trouble him that his paymaster Thaksin has nationality of several countries, some of them very questionable.

Jatuporn is PM material... Why? He wholehearted believe lies as the truth...and many truths become lies to him in the process. A reminiscence of a disposed govt not too long ago, when a common anecdote was raised - The Emperor's New Clothes!

[Newguy70]

Dual Citizenship for a Politician is a conflict of interst,IMHO. If it is not such a big deal as the party in question is suggesting, then they should renounce one, or the other, or step down. You can't have your cake and eat it to..

:jap:

[ManOnTheRoad]

Dual Citizenship for a Politician is a conflict of interst,IMHO. If it is not such a big deal as the party in question is suggesting, then they should renounce one, or the other, or step down. You can't have your cake and eat it to..

:jap:

Agreed

[samran]

the article is also wrong - there is no compulsion under Thai law for someone who gets foreign nationality from a from a foreign father (or mother since 2008) to renounce Thai nationality.

Law only provides the option for one to do so, and only then, between ages 20 and 21.

Actually Abhisit is not a dual national, it appears he has the right to be dual national but has never excercised that right, therefore there is nothing to "give up", unlike another certain gentleman who has multiple passports and actually has used the "other" passports

I get your point, and I do like Abhisit, but I think if he claims this, he is either outright wrong or being disingenuous.

Birth on UK soil prior to 1983 automatically makes you a British Citizen (unless a child of diplomats). Similar to me, born on Australian soil prior to 20 August 1986 makes me an Australian citizen.

The UK would recognize him as a British citizen, and I dare say every British Ambassador since his return to Thailand would have quietly joked about this with him.

That he has never exercised his British citizenship is another matter, but that does not diminish the fact that he is actually British by birth (as well as being Thai by birth).I bet if he went to Britain and decided to stay there (even if he entered on his Thai passport using a tourist visa), no court would have the power to deport him, due to his citizenship gained at birth.

[samran]

Dual Citizenship for a Politician is a conflict of interst,IMHO. If it is not such a big deal as the party in question is suggesting, then they should renounce one, or the other, or step down. You can't have your cake and eat it to..

:jap:

As a dual citizen myself, I think this argument is a false one. It is like arguing that you can only love one parent, but not another.

I'm a product of two countries. The country of my mother and the country of my mother, just as I am a child of both my parents. I consider both of them home and respect them both immensely. Never in my life do i find that having more than citizenship conflicting.

Having said that, I can understand how people who aren't in my situation will never be able to comprehend this.

[trogers]

Dual Citizenship for a Politician is a conflict of interst,IMHO. If it is not such a big deal as the party in question is suggesting, then they should renounce one, or the other, or step down. You can't have your cake and eat it to..

:jap:

As a dual citizen myself, I think this argument is a false one. It is like arguing that you can only love one parent, but not another.

I'm a product of two countries. The country of my mother and the country of my mother, just as I am a child of both my parents. I consider both of them home and respect them both immensely. Never in my life do i find that having more than citizenship conflicting.

Having said that, I can understand how people who aren't in my situation will never be able to comprehend this.

Dual citizenship is a problem when it involves two bordering countries, eg. Thai-Cambodia, Thai-Burma, German-Polish (during WWII), etc.

[silp1979]

Thailand is not a signatory of the world court

Why not?

a mixture of : not interested, dragging the foot, busy organising corruption, general negative view on foreigners

[samran]

Dual Citizenship for a Politician is a conflict of interst,IMHO. If it is not such a big deal as the party in question is suggesting, then they should renounce one, or the other, or step down. You can't have your cake and eat it to..

:jap:

As a dual citizen myself, I think this argument is a false one. It is like arguing that you can only love one parent, but not another.

I'm a product of two countries. The country of my mother and the country of my mother, just as I am a child of both my parents. I consider both of them home and respect them both immensely. Never in my life do i find that having more than citizenship conflicting.

Having said that, I can understand how people who aren't in my situation will never be able to comprehend this.

Dual citizenship is a problem when it involves two bordering countries, eg. Thai-Cambodia, Thai-Burma, German-Polish (during WWII), etc.

Suppose then you'd have to argue dual Canadian-US citizenship, or dual Australian-NZ citizenship is somehow an issue as well? Do tell me how.

[silp1979]

the article is also wrong - there is no compulsion under Thai law for someone who gets foreign nationality from a from a foreign father (or mother since 2008) to renounce Thai nationality.

Law only provides the option for one to do so, and only then, between ages 20 and 21.

Actually Abhisit is not a dual national, it appears he has the right to be dual national but has never excercised that right, therefore there is nothing to "give up", unlike another certain gentleman who has multiple passports and actually has used the "other" passports

I get your point, and I do like Abhisit, but I think if he claims this, he is either outright wrong or being disingenuous.

Birth on UK soil prior to 1983 automatically makes you a British Citizen (unless a child of diplomats). Similar to me, born on Australian soil prior to 20 August 1986 makes me an Australian citizen.

The UK would recognize him as a British citizen, and I dare say every British Ambassador since his return to Thailand would have quietly joked about this with him.

That he has never exercised his British citizenship is another matter, but that does not diminish the fact that he is actually British by birth (as well as being Thai by birth).I bet if he went to Britain and decided to stay there (even if he entered on his Thai passport using a tourist visa), no court would have the power to deport him, due to his citizenship gained at birth.

then he does not have to fly around the world and spent a lot of money to find a place to live after sombody kicks him out of thailand....maybe it was in the back of his head, that in TH it is wise to have good bodyguards and a exit strategy....

[trogers]

Dual Citizenship for a Politician is a conflict of interst,IMHO. If it is not such a big deal as the party in question is suggesting, then they should renounce one, or the other, or step down. You can't have your cake and eat it to..

:jap:

As a dual citizen myself, I think this argument is a false one. It is like arguing that you can only love one parent, but not another.

I'm a product of two countries. The country of my mother and the country of my mother, just as I am a child of both my parents. I consider both of them home and respect them both immensely. Never in my life do i find that having more than citizenship conflicting.

Having said that, I can understand how people who aren't in my situation will never be able to comprehend this.

Dual citizenship is a problem when it involves two bordering countries, eg. Thai-Cambodia, Thai-Burma, German-Polish (during WWII), etc.

Suppose then you'd have to argue dual Canadian-US citizenship, or dual Australian-NZ citizenship is somehow an issue as well? Do tell me how.

When the two countries go to war. Remember what happened to American-Japanese during WWII?

[Newguy70]

Dual Citizenship for a Politician is a conflict of interst,IMHO. If it is not such a big deal as the party in question is suggesting, then they should renounce one, or the other, or step down. You can't have your cake and eat it to..

:jap:

As a dual citizen myself, I think this argument is a false one. It is like arguing that you can only love one parent, but not another.

I'm a product of two countries. The country of my mother and the country of my mother, just as I am a child of both my parents. I consider both of them home and respect them both immensely. Never in my life do i find that having more than citizenship conflicting.

Having said that, I can understand how people who aren't in my situation will never be able to comprehend this.

Are you a Politician? In my opinion, I feel that for Politicians it's a conflict of interest, As I stated prior. Please keep in mind that as a Politician they have a duty to the country that they serve. Who's intentions are you serving when you hold such a position as a politician, may I ask?

I could care less if an individual has dual citizenship, as long as he is not a politician.

:jap:

[samran]

When the two countries go to war. Remember what happened to American-Japanese during WWII?

So you should ban dual citizenship on the off-chance a nation would go to war? Silliness in the extreme banning one of the key mechanisms that allows people to understand others better.

Dual citizenship doesn't create wars, why ban it?

[samran]

Dual Citizenship for a Politician is a conflict of interst,IMHO. If it is not such a big deal as the party in question is suggesting, then they should renounce one, or the other, or step down. You can't have your cake and eat it to..

:jap:

As a dual citizen myself, I think this argument is a false one. It is like arguing that you can only love one parent, but not another.

I'm a product of two countries. The country of my mother and the country of my mother, just as I am a child of both my parents. I consider both of them home and respect them both immensely. Never in my life do i find that having more than citizenship conflicting.

Having said that, I can understand how people who aren't in my situation will never be able to comprehend this.

Are you a Politician? In my opinion, I feel that for Politicians it's a conflict of interest, As I stated prior. Please keep in mind that as a Politician they have a duty to the country that they serve. Who's intentions are you serving when you hold such a position as a politician, may I ask?

I could care less if an individual has dual citizenship, as long as he is not a politician.

:jap:

Again, I can't see what that has to do with the price of fish.

History is filled with people who have betrayed their 'own' country - despite the fact they had absolutely no cultural affinity with the people they sold out to. They are generally called 'spies'.

Or should the fact that someone who holds another passport be barred from serving in public life based on peoples automatic assumption that having that passport will make them a sell out.

Why not just bar them all together? Using your flawed logic that people will automatically be sold out, there is nothing to stop a future politician renouncing their former citizenship, entering parliament and the going on to sell out people anyway.

[trogers]

When the two countries go to war. Remember what happened to American-Japanese during WWII?

So you should ban dual citizenship on the off-chance a nation would go to war? Silliness in the extreme banning one of the key mechanisms that allows people to understand others better.

Dual citizenship doesn't create wars, why ban it?

Where you come from has a different history to that of this region. Singapore bans it due to past and potential future conflicts with its neighbours.

Thailand bans it and is still facing problems with insurgents in the South holding dual citizenship of Thai-Malaysian.

[Thai at Heart]

Dual Citizenship for a Politician is a conflict of interst,IMHO. If it is not such a big deal as the party in question is suggesting, then they should renounce one, or the other, or step down. You can't have your cake and eat it to..

:jap:

As a dual citizen myself, I think this argument is a false one. It is like arguing that you can only love one parent, but not another.

I'm a product of two countries. The country of my mother and the country of my mother, just as I am a child of both my parents. I consider both of them home and respect them both immensely. Never in my life do i find that having more than citizenship conflicting.

Having said that, I can understand how people who aren't in my situation will never be able to comprehend this.

It is clearly stated on the Home Office website which I put in another thread somewhere, that he can renounce his British citizenship anytime he wants, with the caveat that should he have renounced it to maintain or take citizenship in another country that doesn't allow dual citizenship, he can petition to have it returned anytime he wants.

Why he wasn't advised to do just this when he embarked on a political career I don't know. Shows a certain naivety about Thai politics in my opinion, considering that "selling the country" is so readily bandied around, having a PM with dual citizenship will always leave him/or her open to accusation of having potentially divided allegiance.

Would be interesting if they asked all MP's to declare their various citizenships around the world.

[samran]

When the two countries go to war. Remember what happened to American-Japanese during WWII?

So you should ban dual citizenship on the off-chance a nation would go to war? Silliness in the extreme banning one of the key mechanisms that allows people to understand others better.

Dual citizenship doesn't create wars, why ban it?

Where you come from has a different history to that of this region. Singapore bans it due to past and potential future conflicts with its neighbours.

Thailand bans it and is still facing problems with insurgents in the South holding dual citizenship of Thai-Malaysian.

Wrong on so many fronts - not to mention you have contradicted yourself.

Thailand doesn't ban it. I have dual nationality and my daughters have three passports each. There is nothing whatsoever in Thai legislation which bans natural born Thais from holding other citizenships they were born with.

Again, why this myth that somehow holding two pieces of paper in the deep south makes you an insurgent?

[trogers]

Again, why this myth that somehow holding two pieces of paper in the deep south makes you an insurgent?

No. But an insurgent makes use of this fact to slip across the border easily and legally after committing terror acts in one country. It was for this reason Singapore bans it till this day due to conflicts with Malaysia and Indonesia back in the 60s and 70s.

[Robby nz]

This from the UK registrar of births deaths and marriages:

A birth certificate is not evidence of identity and certificates printed since 1993 contain a warning to this effect. All Government departments are aware of this and, although a birth certificate may be used as part of verification procedures, a certificate will not be accepted as sole evidence of identity.

Section 31 and 32 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 legislation provides for any person to apply for a certified copy of a register entry providing they can supply sufficient information to identify the entry.

The General Register Office works closely with government departments who use certificates to help them in tackling the fraudulent use of certificates.

If you suspect your certificate is being used fraudulently you should contact the government department you believe has accepted the certificate as proof of identity or alternatively the local police .

Regards

(Name removed)

General Register Office

So the bit of paper Jatuporn was waving about does not even prove the PM's identity let alone his citizenship.

The question now should be.

Are Amsterdam and the reds using the Birth Cert they hold fraudulantly?

[jayboy]

Again, I can't see what that has to do with the price of fish.

History is filled with people who have betrayed their 'own' country - despite the fact they had absolutely no cultural affinity with the people they sold out to. They are generally called 'spies'.

Or should the fact that someone who holds another passport be barred from serving in public life based on peoples automatic assumption that having that passport will make them a sell out.

Why not just bar them all together? Using your flawed logic that people will automatically be sold out, there is nothing to stop a future politician renouncing their former citizenship, entering parliament and the going on to sell out people anyway.

I completely agree.This would be a non issue were it not for Amsterdam's stunt (though I'm not saying he doesn't raise some important and unaddressed issues) with the ICJ.It has always been known that Abhisit was born of Thai parents in the UK.He has never used the privileges associated with his place of birth, eg has always travelled to the UK on the same visa basis as any other Thai.

And yet there is something "alien" about Abhisit which is fascinating and compelling, but it is not connected to his place of birth.It is to do with his long exposure to Western value systems at elite British institutions, let us concede at the best school and one of the best universities.It is not possible in my view to have this kind of exposure and not be troubled deeply by many of the fairy tales, inanities, greedy vested interests and lies that pervade Thai politics.But he is PM and thus has to make compromises and negotiate with those unelected bodies (military, politicised courts, feudal interests etc) that eased his way to power.As a Thai he is also to some extent a creature of his environment, and at some level buys in to this nonsense.He has incidentally been very clever in hiding and distancing himself from early PAD sympathies (unlike Korn - also a decent man - whose more overt support may come back to haunt him and his PAD hardline wife).And so there is a fascinating internal struggle going on in Abhisit's mind and heart.Perhaps he is also biding his time but one thing is sure - those that propelled him to power cannot be entirely sure he will be their tool for ever.

[Thai at Heart]

This from the UK registrar of births deaths and marriages:

A birth certificate is not evidence of identity and certificates printed since 1993 contain a warning to this effect. All Government departments are aware of this and, although a birth certificate may be used as part of verification procedures, a certificate will not be accepted as sole evidence of identity.

Section 31 and 32 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 legislation provides for any person to apply for a certified copy of a register entry providing they can supply sufficient information to identify the entry.

The General Register Office works closely with government departments who use certificates to help them in tackling the fraudulent use of certificates.

If you suspect your certificate is being used fraudulently you should contact the government department you believe has accepted the certificate as proof of identity or alternatively the local police .

Regards

(Name removed)

General Register Office

So the bit of paper Jatuporn was waving about does not even prove the PM's identity let alone his citizenship.

The question now should be.

Are Amsterdam and the reds using the Birth Cert they hold fraudulantly?

Better still, who did they call to get hold of it? If its a genuine birth certificate, I am so glad to see that the British registrars are so discerning in issuing them to all and sundry.

Irrespective of this, it is public record that he was born in the Uk, at a time, when being born in the Uk conferred British citizenship. Renounce it, case closed. He can always get it back. He will live the rest of his life with a diplomatic passport anyway, so it isn't as though he will have a dire need for a British one.

[samran]

Again, why this myth that somehow holding two pieces of paper in the deep south makes you an insurgent?

No. But an insurgent makes use of this fact to slip across the border easily and legally after committing terror acts in one country. It was for this reason Singapore bans it till this day due to conflicts with Malaysia and Indonesia back in the 60s and 70s.

This has to be one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

So a terrorist (cause that is what they are), once he or she has finished blowing up infrastructure and murdering innocent civilians on Thai soil, will carefully line up to then exit Thailand on his Thai passport, and then use his Malaysian passport to enter Malaysia...giving him a chance to get caught, not once, but twice??

But, if magically he only has one passport to cross a border, that will make him somehow less motivated to blow up what he considers the enemy?

Really, you must be joking?

These blokes hide in the hills, and come out to undertake what can only be described as textbook guerrilla hit and run operations. To the extent that they cross any borders, they do so illegally, away from the authorities.

[ballpoint]

PM's nationality not a problem:

Not a problem for anyone "normal" but for an ultra nationalist who is ready to make war for 4 km², yes this is crippling.

What's this thread got to do with Hun Sen being a dual Cambodian / Vietnamese citizen?