Citizenship Issue Emerges To Haunt Abhisit

[webfact]

STOPPAGE TIME

Citizenship issue emerges to haunt Abhisit

By Tulsathit Taptim

It's about the highest law of the land.

And yet if something is not spelt out unequivocally, the people in power should know that constitutional wills sometimes dosn't need to be described word for word. It's as much about conscience as it is about legal interpretation. We have heard it all before. Or have we?

At least, we didn't hear it from Chaturon Chaisaeng when his boss, Thaksin Shinawatra, was embroiled in the share concealment scandal, the repercussions of which the whole country is still feeling today.

Chaturon, in a blog post slamming Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva over the UK "citizenship" controversy, sounds right in most, if not all, of his arguments. Abhisit can't say "others can do it" because he's not just an ordinary Thai citizen. That Abhisit has not invoked or abused his UK rights doesn't justify keeping those rights. The Charter isn't clear on the prime minister's post and dual citizenship, but those with good conscience should be able to tell what the constitutional wills are and abide by them. There has been no problem with those "rights" of Abhisit so far, but what about in the future? And so on.

Chaturon's line is that if the Constitution Court rules in Abhisit's favour on this one, "it will be great fun". That is exactly what this newspaper said when the Constitution Court let Thaksin off the hook in 2001 while on the same day finding a Thai Rak Thai MP guilty of a similar offence (which was a lot lesser in magnitude). We don't have to ask where Chaturon was at that time, because we know. He was in the Thaksin government.

(Before we proceed, let's assume that Chaturon's every reference to the "Constitution" was generically speaking. Thaksin, Pheu Thai and the red shirts do not cherish this present Charter, so it doesn't make sense to believe that Chaturon was sticking his neck out for an "undemocratic, military-installed" Constitution.)

Can Abhisit hold the right to claim UK citizenship? That's debatable. Should he keep it? Like Chaturon said, of course not. Chaturon rightly cited the case of a Peruvian president who fled corruption charges to Japan, the country where he also "belonged", in a bid to stay safe from Peru's legal reach. (Let's also forgo the mini irony of the red shirts' legal representatives attempting to use Abhisit's UK "citizenship" as a channel to take him to the International Criminal Court for last year's "Bangkok massacre". The Peruvian case is Chaturon's solid argument, as it demonstrated that a leader holding dual citizenship can lead his country into all kinds of trouble.)

Chaturon's biggest problem is that, where Thaksin was concerned, he failed to use the same logic that has led him to apply the Peruvian example against Abhisit. Chaturon failed to think that although concealed telecom shares - clearly unconstitutional and illegal at the time - were creating no big problem, they could in the future. And they have.

Now, Thaksin is no longer prime minister, but Abhisit is. What should we do? Last week, Abhisit "came out", admitting that he holds the right to claim UK citizenship, but he did not quite come clean. Even newspaper headlines suggested different things, indicating confusion remained. Thai Post, for example, splashed its front page with "PM admits to holding dual citizenship".

There's a huge difference between actually holding UK citizenship and being eligible to claim it. Where is Abhisit exactly? As a prime minister, the latter scenario is inappropriate, but the former sets him up for potential conflict of interest - like when Thaksin was both head of the government and patriarch of the country's biggest telecom company at the same time.

What Abhisit said in Parliament on Thursday is on the record. Shall we presume that he was well aware what it would be like if he were to be caught giving distorted information or telling a lie? The citizenship issue has opened him up to new scrutiny. Like it or not, he must face it, Chaturon or no Chaturon.

This is how Chaturon ended his article: "I'm not telling Abhisit to let go of UK citizenship. I'm telling the man, who knew all along that he was holding UK citizenship (or the right to claim it), and that he could have waived it if he so chose, that he no longer deserves to be prime minister."

This is what Chaturon said in March, 2006, as he voiced strong opposition to any solution to the anti-Thaksin political crisis if the solution breached the Charter: "How could I ever explain to the younger generation if I were to accept a political way out that required tearing apart the Constitution?"

Both statements sound righteous. The much-beloved 1997 "People's Constitution", which exists no more, would have said to that: "The story of my life!

-- The Nation 2011-03-02

[Thailand]

Bit of a no brainer really, Abhisit should have renounced his UK connection long before becoming pm.

It's a great campaign leader for PT and the reds, they certainly will not let go.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Bit of a no brainer really, Abhisit should have renounced his UK connection long before becoming pm.

It's a great campaign leader for PT and the reds, they certainly will not let go.

absolutely - the leader of a country being a citizen of another? what is/was he thinking?

[bkk_mike]

It depends really.

He was born in the UK before 1983, which gives him the right to claim UK citizenship, even though both his parents were Thai.

If he's never claimed UK citizenship - i.e. never applied for a passport etc. there's not really much he can give up. He can't go back in time and change where and when he was born.

[nigelnigel]

Doesn't each party just write the constitution/charter for their specific needs? Looking back since 1932 it seems that every constitution (19 of them?) is befitting to the party resulting in that party being 'legally' entrenched. But don't know if this has anything to do with it. Good luck Thai people when there is another 'election' and hope you really get to choose.

[Credo]

I fail to see the relevance of the issue. It's a tempest in a teapot. He received his British citizenship by birth. He did not chose it. He has done nothing to actively become a citizen of another country.

If it is a constitutional issue, then it should be referred to the Constitutional Court. No one should be asked to give up something as personal as their citizenship, under these circumstances. As with other prominent people in Thailand, he may just need to exercise it one day.

He has made a couple of mistakes on the citizenship issue. First , he didn't come clean early on which would have likely put the whole issue on the back burner. Second, he has harassed Thaksin on the citizenship issue. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[cacruden]

Bit of a no brainer really, Abhisit should have renounced his UK connection long before becoming pm.

It's a great campaign leader for PT and the reds, they certainly will not let go.

absolutely - the leader of a country being a citizen of another? what is/was he thinking?

Hmmm, I guess that means the head (Queen Elizabeth) of my country (Canada) should renounce her UK citizenship

Edited March 2, 2011 by cacruden

[ukfool]

It depends really.

He was born in the UK before 1983, which gives him the right to claim UK citizenship, even though both his parents were Thai.

If he's never claimed UK citizenship - i.e. never applied for a passport etc. there's not really much he can give up. He can't go back in time and change where and when he was born.

He doesn't have to 'claim UK citizenship' he was a UK citizen the moment he was born. Therein is the answer, he is a UK citizen

[ukfool]

Bit of a no brainer really, Abhisit should have renounced his UK connection long before becoming pm.

It's a great campaign leader for PT and the reds, they certainly will not let go.

absolutely - the leader of a country being a citizen of another? what is/was he thinking?

Hmmm, I guess that means the head (Queen Elizabeth) of my country (Canada) should renounce her UK citizenship

She is not and has never or ever will claim to be a Canadian citizen ?

[Thai at Heart]

Would be extremely interesting if they did pass a law banning dual citizenship for MP's how many others this would implicate. I do find it a little ironic about the Peruvian story. It isn't as though, apparently not having a valid second citizenship at the time of his escape has hindered another high profile person in the country to acquire one.

Thai citizenship is inalienably passed through mother or father. Within which country you happen to be delivered onto makes absolutely no difference.

He can renounce his UK citizenship any time he wants. I have posted elsewhere, that there are provisions to have it reinstated if he can prove that he had to give it up to maintain or gain citizenship in Thailand. Case closed.

[silp1979]

Bit of a no brainer really, Abhisit should have renounced his UK connection long before becoming pm.

It's a great campaign leader for PT and the reds, they certainly will not let go.

absolutely - the leader of a country being a citizen of another? what is/was he thinking?

he was thinking "nice i can run and hide in the UK after they don't want me any more in Thailand"

[bangkockney]

There's a huge difference between actually holding UK citizenship and being eligible to claim it.

Why do reporters have such trouble understanding this point?

He has UK citizenship by birth. His birth certificate is de facto proof. He does not need to "claim" UK citizenship to be a UK citizen.

One does not have to be issued with a UK Passport to be a UK Citizen, as an earlier post suggested.

[doggie888888]

Bit of a no brainer really, Abhisit should have renounced his UK connection long before becoming pm.

It's a great campaign leader for PT and the reds, they certainly will not let go.

absolutely - the leader of a country being a citizen of another? what is/was he thinking?

Hmmm, I guess that means the head (Queen Elizabeth) of my country (Canada) should renounce her UK citizenship

The Queen is your ceremonial head of state, whereas a PM is elected head of government. There is a difference. Like in Australia too where Lizzie is our head of state.

Aussie PM was born in Wales but I think she must have renounced UK citizenship because Aust Constitution does not allow MPs to hold allegiance to a foreign country. If she hasn't renounced, she will be in deep shit by now...

[elshaheen]

So, many nations around the world have leaders who have Duel Citizenship and no one has an issue with this. If you want to go on this issue of "Who do you really represent?" Then look at all the past leaders of Thailand. Who has duel citizenship in this country? I think we all know from reading past history. If I recalled, What's his name was born in a hospital in the U.S. and later moved to Thailand. Who else?

If the party wants to go further on this issue, they are bound to get into a lot of trouble and may be charged with Lese Majeste violations.

[givenall]

What is wrong with this picture? Everyone knows if you a lot of money you have the right to be citizen of any country, even if you are not born in that country. Case and point, Mr. T

[mrgreg]

What's the problem with dual citizenship anyway!!

Why can't that be commonly accepted by people in Thailand?

We're in 2011, people move abroad more than before and children are born everyday with 2 parents from 2 different nationality.

These children will be raise with 2 different cultures and will learn to love them both.

Why then ask to choose between your father and your mother??

Open up your mind people!

[BigJohnnyBKK]

He is not *actually* a UK citizen. He has since birth been *eligible to claim* UK citizenship.

From a legal POV he's done nothing wrong. From a practical/political POV he should have officially renounced his claim before entering politics.

Demands that he should step down for this mistake are simply based on perceived stupidity. Fair enough, but not compelling, plenty of successful idiots in that game.

If he does it (renounces) now, under pressure he appears a wimp - he's dug himself a no-win hole.

Politics here is certainly entertaining! 8-)

[exbelg]

would be nice, the PM being farang, to give us fellow farang, some basic rights in this country

[hyperdimension]

Do Thai people want to see a dark-skinned 100% Thai person as their leader? The purer the better? Yet on television we see so many light-skinned mixed-race actors.

Edited March 2, 2011 by hyperdimension

[Jirapa]

It depends really.

He was born in the UK before 1983, which gives him the right to claim UK citizenship, even though both his parents were Thai.

If he's never claimed UK citizenship - i.e. never applied for a passport etc. there's not really much he can give up. He can't go back in time and change where and when he was born.

Wrong. He was born in the UK and is undoubtedly registered as British which would be stated on his UK birth certificate. At a guess I'd say he also had a British passport at some point as traveling abroad and obtaining visas is much easier than with a Thai passport. He'd need a reentry stamp to leave the UK and return if he was traveling on a Thai passport . Stands to reason that a well to do, well educated man, such as himself would have had the good sense to hold 2 passports.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Lets just suppose their were no colored shirts but just a population of plain Thai citizens who all had equal rights. And also lets suppose an imaginary Prime Minister was doing a superlative job of running the country and had a majority of the Thai populations support. Do you really think the majority would care if he were born somewhere else. Just perhaps being born somewhere else lends some advantages for ones education and potential governance skills.

In my opinion, the current political issue of nationality was raised as an attempt to get the current PM indited in the world court for crimes against humanity as a result of the military's activities over the recent past. And since he was also disliked by the other major party this new issue of dual citizenship has arisen. This is all politics plain and simple and not an issue of conscience on what is right and what is wrong. There is nothing wrong with a Thai being born in another country. There are many here in Thailand who would consider such a proposition or train of thought to be a very serious crime.

I am not political nor am I politically drawn to either of the extreme positions of the major opposition groups. But I really do tire of the lack of focus on the real problems of Thailand.

[Preman]

So, many nations around the world have leaders who have Duel Citizenship and no one has an issue with this. If you want to go on this issue of "Who do you really represent?" Then look at all the past leaders of Thailand. Who has duel citizenship in this country? I think we all know from reading past history. If I recalled, What's his name was born in a hospital in the U.S. and later moved to Thailand. Who else?

If the party wants to go further on this issue, they are bound to get into a lot of trouble and may be charged with Lese Majeste violations.

Yes, you are right. This issue can certainly backfire. The people who are launching this campaign, ... should re-evaluate ALL of the facts and realize who else is involved.

No court in Thailand is going to touch this one. May get media, - but it is too much of a hot potato to go anywhere. How many passports Thaksim?

Quite a few. Others in position of high power?

No, - this cannot and will not go anywhere, because if courts rule that it should...... too many other people are in deep trouble

[Jirapa]

Do Thai people want to see a dark-skinned 100% Thai person as their leader? The purer the better? Yet on television we see so many light-skinned mixed-race actors.

The younger generations of Thais who haven't been working the fields and markets all their lives aren't particularly dark anymore so why a dark-skinned person would be more representative is beyond me? People in the north are generally a few shades lighter than the people in the south but it's the north that doesn't like Abhisit. It's about politics not skin tone. Mixed-race actors and TV presenters is a good thing as it's a sign of acceptance and it's come around much quicker than it did in Europe or the USA and over a much shorter period of time.

[Jirapa]

Lets just suppose their were no colored shirts but just a population of plain Thai citizens who all had equal rights. And also lets suppose an imaginary Prime Minister was doing a superlative job of running the country and had a majority of the Thai populations support. Do you really think the majority would care if he were born somewhere else. Just perhaps being born somewhere else lends some advantages for ones education and potential governance skills.

In my opinion, the current political issue of nationality was raised as an attempt to get the current PM indited in the world court for crimes against humanity as a result of the military's activities over the recent past. And since he was also disliked by the other major party this new issue of dual citizenship has arisen. This is all politics plain and simple and not an issue of conscience on what is right and what is wrong. There is nothing wrong with a Thai being born in another country. There are many here in Thailand who would consider such a proposition or train of thought to be a very serious crime.

I am not political nor am I politically drawn to either of the extreme positions of the major opposition groups. But I really do tire of the lack of focus on the real problems of Thailand.

If he's British he should be indited as under current UK law ordering troops to shoot into crowds of unarmed civilians, killing 90 and wounding hundreds, is illegal. Can't have one law for the elite and another for the rest of us despite the fact it happens all the time.

[samran]

He is not *actually* a UK citizen. He has since birth been *eligible to claim* UK citizenship.

From a legal POV he's done nothing wrong. From a practical/political POV he should have officially renounced his claim before entering politics.

Demands that he should step down for this mistake are simply based on perceived stupidity. Fair enough, but not compelling, plenty of successful idiots in that game.

If he does it (renounces) now, under pressure he appears a wimp - he's dug himself a no-win hole.

Politics here is certainly entertaining! 8-)

I like Abhisit, but he IS a UK national.

If you are born in the UK before 1983 you ARE a UK national. You don't go through some sort of process to 'claim' it, as you imply.

I mean, who here was born in the UK before 1983? And which of you had to 'claim' it? The answer is none of you, cause you WERE ALREADY British nationals the second you were born. No need to apply to claim it.

And he exercised the right to UK nationality the second he was born there to stay in the UK as long as he pleased

[BuckarooBanzai]

Jirapa - again only my opinion - but if he really did have the power to control the military I doubt that the embarrassing fiasco which occurred down in Pattaya during his premier ASEAN summit would have occurred. The authority to do something and the power to do something are two different things. I certainly do not know how that would play out in the world court.

[rubl]

If he's British he should be indited as under current UK law ordering troops to shoot into crowds of unarmed civilians, killing 90 and wounding hundreds, is illegal. Can't have one law for the elite and another for the rest of us despite the fact it happens all the time.

In most countries ordering to shoot into crowds of unarmed civilians is illegal (apart from a few in the Middle East). Here in Thailand no-one ordered to shoot into crowds of unarmed civilians and no-one group killed 90.

Army was ordered to clean-up by legal government, got surprised on April 10th and started shooting back. Amongst the 90 death, 15 army/police mostly 'grenaded' to death. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for civilians to have and use grenades also tends to be illegal in the UK?

[Jirapa]

He is not *actually* a UK citizen. He has since birth been *eligible to claim* UK citizenship.

From a legal POV he's done nothing wrong. From a practical/political POV he should have officially renounced his claim before entering politics.

Demands that he should step down for this mistake are simply based on perceived stupidity. Fair enough, but not compelling, plenty of successful idiots in that game.

If he does it (renounces) now, under pressure he appears a wimp - he's dug himself a no-win hole.

Politics here is certainly entertaining! 8-)

I like Abhisit, but he IS a UK national.

If you are born in the UK before 1983 you ARE a UK national. You don't go through some sort of process to 'claim' it, as you imply.

I mean, who here was born in the UK before 1983? And which of you had to 'claim' it? The answer is none of you, cause you WERE ALREADY British nationals the second you were born. No need to apply to claim it.

And he exercised the right to UK nationality the second he was born there to stay in the UK as long as he pleased

Exactly! He could maybe renounce it if he chose to (not sure you can under UK law if you didn't do it at 18?) but all his "I haven't updated my British citizenship" is rubbish as he can go to the UK embassy tomorrow and have a new UK passport a day or 3 later. His birth certificate with 'British' written on it is his citizenship and a passport is just for travelling.

[Jirapa]

If he's British he should be indited as under current UK law ordering troops to shoot into crowds of unarmed civilians, killing 90 and wounding hundreds, is illegal. Can't have one law for the elite and another for the rest of us despite the fact it happens all the time.

In most countries ordering to shoot into crowds of unarmed civilians is illegal (apart from a few in the Middle East). Here in Thailand no-one ordered to shoot into crowds of unarmed civilians and no-one group killed 90.

Army was ordered to clean-up by legal government, got surprised on April 10th and started shooting back. Amongst the 90 death, 15 army/police mostly 'grenaded' to death. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for civilians to have and use grenades also tends to be illegal in the UK?

In the UK the police are never armed in riot situations and they certainly don't deploy the army to clean up a crowd of what was peaceful demonstrators having a sit in. 9 journalists were shot and 2 killed for which the responsibility was put on the Thai military but that was later over turned due to military pressure. You say 15 army/police were killed but all baring firearms but the vast majority of civilians killed at that time were found to be unarmed as were the 1800 injured. What the Thai government ordered on that day was no better than recent happenings in the middle east as you don't pit the might of your military force with AK-47s and M-16s to shoot indiscriminately at civilians hurling rocks and fireworks. The military claimed to have found an arms cash within the Redshirt compound but who's to say it wasn't planted? Even if it was the Redshirt arsenal the quantity of firearms and ammunition claimed to be found was not enough to be a major threat to the Thai armed forces, their firepower, their body armor nor their armored vehicles so the response was completely disproportionate. If that had happened in London government and military heads would role and a few of them would be serving lengthy prison sentences.

[ding]

If he has to make visa runs I'd like to sit next to him on the AC Mini!

Edited March 2, 2011 by ding