Abhisit's Dual Citizenship Issue Much Ado About Nothing

[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.

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??

And you are so naive...tsk tsk. If the insurgent holds ID cards of both countries, he can slip into either country and will not be arrested for illegal entry. So do you and your children hold multiple ID cards?

[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??

And you are so naive...tsk tsk. If the insurgent holds ID cards of both countries, he can slip into either country and will not be arrested for illegal entry. So do you and your children hold multiple ID cards?

Oh, so they not have to worry about illegal entry charges do they? Well, I think you'll find that people can be charged with illegal entry if they don't enter through an official immigration port.

I don't suppose though, there'd be the small issue of outstanding terrorist charges?

And yes, my children hold multiple ID's, as do I.

[trogers]

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??

And you are so naive...tsk tsk. If the insurgent holds ID cards of both countries, he can slip into either country and will not be arrested for illegal entry. So do you and your children hold multiple ID cards?

Oh, so they not have to worry about illegal entry charges do they? Well, I think you'll find that people can be charged with illegal entry if they don't enter through an official immigration port.

I don't suppose though, there'd be the small issue of outstanding terrorist charges?

And yes, my children hold multiple ID's, as do I.

The charge of not following immigration procedure of a national is different from that of an alien entering a country illegally, the former needs prove of offense which can be avoided when there are no stamps in the passport of either country. I doubt such insurgents even carry their passports. What is to stop a Thai or a Malaysian from taking a fishing trip 3km out to sea and then returning? If he is stopped by the police on the beach, all he need to show is his ID card and be on his way.

[samran]

The charge of not following immigration procedure of a national is different from that of an alien entering a country illegally, the former needs prove of offense which can be avoided when there are no stamps in the passport of either country. I doubt such insurgents even carry their passports. What is to stop a Thai or a Malaysian from taking a fishing trip 3km out to sea and then returning? If he is stopped by the police on the beach, all he need to show is his ID card and be on his way.

Yeah, but how does holding two or more passports make one a terrorist again? This was your main contention.

Obviously you are implying that millions world over who hold more than one passport are someone pre-disposed to go out and blow up neighbouring countries?

[trogers]

The charge of not following immigration procedure of a national is different from that of an alien entering a country illegally, the former needs prove of offense which can be avoided when there are no stamps in the passport of either country. I doubt such insurgents even carry their passports. What is to stop a Thai or a Malaysian from taking a fishing trip 3km out to sea and then returning? If he is stopped by the police on the beach, all he need to show is his ID card and be on his way.

Yeah, but how does holding two or more passports make one a terrorist again? This was your main contention.

Obviously you are implying that millions world over who hold more than one passport are someone pre-disposed to go out and blow up neighbouring countries?

I not saying holding or using two passports. I am saying dual citizenship for bordering countries can be a problem, either when both these countries are at war or, misused by insurgents. And such situations are realities in this part of the world.

[asiawatcher]

It's a pity Jutaporn can't focus himself and PTP on the problems facing the country other than the continued useless attempts at character assignation, possibly at the behest of the former convicted criminal on the run, Thaksin. As a leader of the PTP rabble, it sends a clear message - don't vote for us - as we - PTP - have no real policies or directives other than at the hands of a convicted puppet master!

[IanPrince99]

I wonder what would Ms. Sodsiri (of EC) say if Tiger Wood give up golf and start to run for Thai PM.

[whybother]

I wonder what would Ms. Sodsiri (of EC) say if Tiger Wood give up golf and start to run for Thai PM.

Has Tiger Woods EVER had Thai citizenship?

[floridaguy]

I wonder what would Ms. Sodsiri (of EC) say if Tiger Wood give up golf and start to run for Thai PM.

Didn't Tiger refuse his Thai citizenship when offered? I thought I heard that on a trip here he was offered an opportunity to get his Thai ID card and Passport and he refused. I may be mistaken as I probably heard this from a drunkard in a seedy joint whilst spilling beer on my shoes...

Edited February 25, 2011 by floridaguy

[floridaguy]

I guess I will chime in. As a dual citizen I find it difficult to separate my loyalties, nor would I want to. They are a part of who I am. I love both countries dearly, but can, easier than most, see the faults in one or the other. When speaking to a Thai, I find it easier to see the faults with Thailand, whereas the other Thai may not. And vice versa. But, holding two passports does not make me any less patriotic to one country or the other than someone who holds only one citizenship.

I find the PM's situation interesting, in that he never claimed his British citizenship, and continued to use visas to enter into the country of his birth. This to me suggests very long term planning perhaps on his and his family's part; perhaps they aspired to the post of PM all along and knew that using a British passport would be used against him in politics. I can tell you that having two passports makes my traveling life much easier. I guess if I ever run for office in Thailand I better have my arguments ready.

[nong38]

I dont have a problem with his dual citizenship only a nut would give up UK citizenship just look at the benefits on offer thats why the world and his uncle want to be there. I guess its ok for Taksin though Jataporn? I would not mind being a dual national with Thai and UK, just have to decide when travelling which one you are using, as I read it the PM chooses to use Thai and would have to apply for a visa to visit Britain. The conflict of interests is a red herring it only arises if it conflicts with Britain or British interests which is not likely unless Jataphorn gets out of his box again. The England cricket team has at present 3 players at least with possible dual nationality and nobody bothers about that, so lets give the PM a break he has enough on his plate to sort out without these daft distractions.

Edited February 25, 2011 by nong38

[Thai at Heart]

I wonder what would Ms. Sodsiri (of EC) say if Tiger Wood give up golf and start to run for Thai PM.

Didn't Tiger refuse his Thai citizenship when offered? I thought I heard that on a trip here he was offered an opportunity to get his Thai ID card and Passport and he refused. I may be mistaken as I probably heard this from a drunkard in a seedy joint whilst spilling beer on my shoes...

He refused to go through the process of exercising his right to Thai citizenship at that time. He is still entitled, should he choose to take it up.

He had his reasons, some rumours say it was tax related, others say he felt that his mother had been slighted.

[webfact]

Election Commissioner Sees No Problem with PM's Dual Citizenship

An Election Commission member says she sees nothing wrong with the prime minister holding dual citizenship as alleged by the Opposition in the House session.

She explains there is no constitutional provision prohibiting Thais with dual citizenship from holding a political post.

Election Commission member Sodsri Sattayatham said there should be nothing wrong if Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva reclaims dual citizenship since Article 101-102 of the Constitution stipulate that individuals with dual citizenship are allowed to take a political post.

During the House session, the Opposition raised the issue of dual citizenship against the PM in an attempt to unseat him.

The red-shirt movement is seeking foreign intervention in the case of violent protest crackdown last year.

If Abhisit was found to be holding British citizenship, the anti-government group could raise the case with the International Court of Justice due to the fact that the United Kingdom has a pact with the world's judicial body while Thailand does not.

Sodsri added that she believed having dual citizenship should not give the holder any special political leverage.

She said the PM may be entitled to privileges in the UK as a British citizen, while in Thailand, he remains under the Thai law.

-- Tan Network 2011-02-25

[Sao Jiang Mai]

I agree with Samran and others that duel citizenship should not cause any concerns whatsoever, since a politician's life should be up to scrutiny anyway, and there has certainly been no glimpse of any untoward favouritism towards the UK! I am Thai and British and while I love both countries dearly, my loyalties are firmly in the Thai camp. I believe being half British also gives me perspective and insights into my Thainess and Thailand as a whole which has been most beneficial. I don't think this is relevant to Abhisit, since he has never claimed his British natoinality, therefore apart from supporting a football team, like a huge chunk of Thai men do anyway, how is he any less Thai? And for those who draw the Chinese card, I too have more Chinese blood in me than Thai, but have zero loyalty towards China. I don't see why people get so riled up about nationality and blood, it should be about intention, action and all the other things that is the proof of a person, not where they were born or who their parents are. Nationalism is a dangerous thing and should become less relevant in these modern times.

[jayboy]

And for those who draw the Chinese card, I too have more Chinese blood in me than Thai, but have zero loyalty towards China. I don't see why people get so riled up about nationality and blood, it should be about intention, action and all the other things that is the proof of a person, not where they were born or who their parents are. Nationalism is a dangerous thing and should become less relevant in these modern times.

I respect your post and the sentiments therein (and agree with them)

On the Chinese issue there has been much discussion of the pride in things Chinese of many Sino-Thais as China's remarkable rise has taken place over the last decade or so.At the yellow shirt PAD rallies in the past there were many indications of Chinese pride including banners "Sons of China" reflecting the mainly ethnic Chinese nature of the PAD movement (as well as racist slurs against other Thai ethnic groups ).In the first half of the twentieth century it was quite common for Thais to be concerned about Sino - Thai divided loyalties exemplified by a famous royal pamphlet.Now I think this has mostly passed whether though a triumph of assimilation or perhaps the Sino-Thai grasp of politics, business and even the military.My point is therefore while it is not particularly sensitive now the matter of Chinese ethnicity has a potential political dimension that other ethnicities simply don't.

[Krungbin]

I do believe that you are right, and you are wrong.

You are right when you state that birth on UK soil prior to 1983 automatically makes you a British Citizen. Yes, but in the eyes of the British only. If it happened that you were born in the UK but that your parents happen to be nationals of a country where " jus sanguinis" applies, you will automatically have their nationality too. And, as is the case with Abhisit, the nationality of the parents will prime in the eyes of the officials of their country.

So, for the Thaïs, Abhisit has to be only but Thaï as he never exercised his British citizenship rights.

He may be British by birth, but contrary to what you claim, he does not really enjoy a dual citizenship, and he will not up to such point in time he claims his rights to be British...

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.

[IanPrince99]

Due to mix marriages, there are quite a number of people in the south who are dual national, Thai/Malaysian. There are also quite a number of people in the east who are dual national, Thai/Cambodia. It would be interesting if the (near) future PM is a Thai / Cambodian dual national.

[Thai at Heart]

Due to mix marriages, there are quite a number of people in the south who are dual national, Thai/Malaysian. There are also quite a number of people in the east who are dual national, Thai/Cambodia. It would be interesting if the (near) future PM is a Thai / Cambodian dual national.

Just for the entertainment value to see Sondhi's head explode with rage, I would support it.

However, I think there is more likelihood of a WASP luk kreung surnamed Smith becoming PM than a dual Thai/Cambodian or Thai/Malay national. That is if we actually we would like Thailand to stay together as a country.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Thai at Heart

[TAWP]

I find the PM's situation interesting, in that he never claimed his British citizenship, and continued to use visas to enter into the country of his birth. This to me suggests very long term planning perhaps on his and his family's part; perhaps they aspired to the post of PM all along and knew that using a British passport would be used against him in politics. I can tell you that having two passports makes my traveling life much easier. I guess if I ever run for office in Thailand I better have my arguments ready.

I am more inclined to believe his parents actually didn't know that it was per automatic but thought it was something one could apply for.

And since he was born to two Thai parents residing there on a temporary basis there was never a thought to try to apply for it...

Would also explain why they paid the higher fee's etc. Never seen a Thai do that before, voluntary.

[KRS1]

Thai law doesn't state what happens if you don't choose a nationality.

the loophole...

[TimeBandit2]

Look, Thailand has treaties with the UK that recognize dual citizenship and it isn't prohibited under Thai law for a dual citizen to be Prime Minister so there is no argument.

Maybe it stems from the stupid notion that children have to give up or choose their citizenship when they become adults, but that would violate Thailand's treaty obligations and I think it may be something Thaksin just made up one day.

[jayjay0]

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.

I hold a US citizenship. having lived in Canada forr a good number of years I could have taken a citizenship in Canada with out renouncing my American one.

to do so would not have changed my actions or decisions one iota.

Some how I fail to see where the harm would be if in deed Abhist did hold a dual citizenship. The red shirts are glad to accept that there leader has more than one what is there problem with Abhist doing the same.

[Arkady]

I wonder what would Ms. Sodsiri (of EC) say if Tiger Wood give up golf and start to run for Thai PM.

Didn't Tiger refuse his Thai citizenship when offered? I thought I heard that on a trip here he was offered an opportunity to get his Thai ID card and Passport and he refused. I may be mistaken as I probably heard this from a drunkard in a seedy joint whilst spilling beer on my shoes...

He is Thai anyway because he has Thai mother, whether he has a Thai passport or not. In the same way Abhisit is British whether or not he has a British passport. So what? The ICC has already said it won't take the case which doesn't come close to qualifying. Even if the case did qualify, the UK would have to consent to Abhisit being indicted on the grounds of being a British national. This they would clearly not do because Abhisit was in Thailand, acting as Thai citizen and prime minister of Thailand, and the case is not a case of genocide or war crimes in a country without an effective justice system and doesn't affect the UK or British nationals.

On the other hand I find it somewhat offensive that Abhisit has persistently lied about his British nationality which is obvious to a 12 year old child who has spent a few minutes in the UKBA website. I find it rather unlikely that he is really so stupid as to not know he is British. I wouldn't be surprised if he did in fact have a British passport at school and university (who would go to the hassle of getting visas if they didn't have to) or if his daughters have British passports.

[Arkady]

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

Actually Thailand under the Chuan government was a very supportive signatory of the Statute of Rome that set up the International Criminal Court (ICC), not the World Court. But under Thaksin the government had change of view and refused to ratify the statute. This was partly due to US influence and maybe also due to Thaksin's own concerns about what could happen to him. The US, realising that its often dubious foreign policy frequently its citizens at risk of ICC has always been staunchly opposed to the ICC. Under Thaksin a treaty was signed between the US and Thailand agreeing to extradite each others nationals for trial at the ICC.

[whybother]

Actually Thailand under the Chuan government was a very supportive signatory of the Statute of Rome that set up the International Criminal Court (ICC), not the World Court. But under Thaksin the government had change of view and refused to ratify the statute. This was partly due to US influence and maybe also due to Thaksin's own concerns about what could happen to him. The US, realising that its often dubious foreign policy frequently its citizens at risk of ICC has always been staunchly opposed to the ICC. Under Thaksin a treaty was signed between the US and Thailand agreeing to extradite each others nationals for trial at the ICC.

"Under Thaksin a treaty was signed between the US and Thailand agreeing to extradite each others nationals for trial at the ICC."

Not to?

[Arkady]

"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.

If he didn't apply to renounce British nationality, he is British and can apply for a passport any time.

There is nothing in the Thai Nationality Act that says that in the case of a conflict of nationality Thai law should be referred to. He made this up.

Do British fee paying schools care what nationality students are? Not as far as I know and he wasn't eligible for the UK resident fees at university, which has nothing to do with nationality, because being at boarding school without a family home in the UK doesn't count as being a UK resident. If it is true that he never had a British passport and always got visas in his Thai passport, that was his choice and doesn't prove he is not a British national. Unlike US nationals, UK nationals are not banned from entering the UK on a foreign passport.

The 1965 Thai Nationality Act provides an option for Thais with foreign fathers to renounce Thai nationality between the ages of 20 and 21 but doesn't require it. Some may wish to do so, if their other nationality doesn't allow them to hold dual nationality as an adult or to avoid Thai military conscription but this is largely a hang over from previous nationality acts that did clearly prohibit dual nationality. You also have to bear in mind that in 1965 Thais with foreign fathers and Thai mothers mainly got Thai nationality through birth on Thai soil (a lesser right to Thai nationality than through blood), since nationality didn't pass through the female line until 1992.

It is good that the Electoral Commission has clearly pronounced that there is no constitutional ban on dual citizens holding public office, rather than being drawn into the argument of whether Abhisit is British or not. It would be interesting to see what the Constitutional Court would say but I don't think it will have to rule on this, since the EC has already ruled on it without any need to refer it upwards.

It is pretty clear that Amsterdam knew from the beginning that the case was a non-starter in the ICC. The UK citizenship angle doesn't make it any less hopeless and would anyway require the UK's involvement to consent to its citizen being indicted for doing something that has nothing to do with the UK in another country of which he is a citizen. The master nationality rule would have implications here. That is a dual national is not entitled to consular protection from another country in a country of which he is also a citizen. Given that rule it would be odd if the UK tried to assert a right to have him prosecuted as a Brit for acts committed in Thailand. Conversely, if Abhisit had committed a serious criminal offence while studying in the UK he would very rapidly have found that he was a British citizen and not eligible for Thai consular protection whatever passport he may have travelled on. Also the criminal repatriation would not apply, in the event he wished to be repatriated to serve the rest of his sentence in Thailand. Anyway Amsterdam's intention was clearly to provide the reds and Pheua Thai with any kind of stick to beat Abhisit with. Unfortunately being a British dual national actually makes him more of a subject of respect and envy in Thailand. Thaksin being proved to be Cambodian would be a much bigger snaffu.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Arkady