Thailand To Issue Passport For Ex-PM Thaksin Soon: FM

[Oberkommando]

I doubt Paul Gadd will be getting a passport any time soon.

He has got one.

He is on the sex offenders register, and is still allowed to travel on his passport. he must notify Police if he intends to travel abroad for more than three days.

[Oberkommando]

First of all, that the military somehow controlled the courts is an outright lie.

The courts were empowered by the new military backed constitution of 2007.

That they were not heavily influenced and backed by the military is the lie, my friend.

[maidu]

If this ploy doesn't work, Chalerm can give him the PM's chair as a Chinese New Year's present.

[Thaddeus]

I doubt Paul Gadd will be getting a passport any time soon.

He has got one.

I looked that up, you are right and I was wrong, doesn't make it right though.

[Buchholz]

The courts were empowered by the new military backed constitution of 2007.

What new additional powers were bestowed upon the courts by the 2007 constitution?

I snipped the other part of your post as it could easily be construed as contravening Forum Rule 15.

.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Buchholz

[tlansford]

The courts were empowered by the new military backed constitution of 2007.

What new additional powers were bestowed upon the courts by the 2007 constitution?

I snipped the other part of your post as it could easily be construed as contravening Forum Rule 15.

.

A few items from wiki - others might find more details. Among other things, the judiciary appoints influential parts of the gov't.

Under the 2007 Constitution, only half of the Senate was elected; the other half was appointed. The executive branch was weakened, and half as many MPs were needed to propose a no-confidence vote compared to the 1997 Constitution. The judiciary was strengthened and high ranking judges became part of the appointment committees for the Senate, the Election Commission, and other independent agencies.

[Buchholz]

The courts were empowered by the new military backed constitution of 2007.

What new additional powers were bestowed upon the courts by the 2007 constitution?

I snipped the other part of your post as it could easily be construed as contravening Forum Rule 15.

A few items from wiki - others might find more details. Among other things, the judiciary appoints influential parts of the gov't.

Under the 2007 Constitution, only half of the Senate was elected; the other half was appointed. The executive branch was weakened, and half as many MPs were needed to propose a no-confidence vote compared to the 1997 Constitution. The judiciary was strengthened and high ranking judges became part of the appointment committees for the Senate, the Election Commission, and other independent agencies.

Don't see any connection between their judgements on the cases being discussed and the non-connected additional aspects.

I'm interested in any specifics of the vague generality voiced by Oberkommando

[Siam Simon]

They can't remove citizenship except for those naturalized in most countries.

Having a PASSPORT on the other hand is a privilege extended to qualified citizens and not a blanket right. One of those QUALIFICATIONS is not being convicted and absconded.

In most all countries fellons can and daily do have their passports confiscated to prevent escaping justice. In some cases they are never returned

What countries do not issue passports to felons after their sentences are fully served and after a term of license or parole is completed? I'd be interested to know as I would consider that discrimination and could easily be challenged in a court of law given the onus would be on the defence to prove a risk if the felon is considered to be rehabilitated.

I doubt Paul Gadd will be getting a passport any time soon.

Wasn't he spotted in Tenerife a while back? I once met a then recently released lifer (through work I hasten to add.....perfectly legitimate work I hasten to add.....gawd, am I digging myself into a hole here? ) who'd just obtained a passport and was planning to travel to Thailand between parole appointments.

[steffi]

You will see the government equate passports with Thai ID cards because they will try to suggest that his nationality was taken away from him ie. he can't prove he's a Thai national and how every Thai National should defend the right to retain their nationality. The government will conflate these issues as much as possible in order to justify the return of his passport.

[hammered]

You will see the government equate passports with Thai ID cards because they will try to suggest that his nationality was taken away from him ie. he can't prove he's a Thai national and how every Thai National should defend the right to retain their nationality. The government will conflate these issues as much as possible in order to justify the return of his passport.

I think you are right and that it will then seem to a lot of people that his opponents are making a fuss over not much. There is also the subtle PTP won the let the country decide election and people expect Thaksin to get spomething from this and dont expect the losers to say no to everything. What will the losers agree to? A passport would be an easy one. If they keep saying "no" to everything it undercuts them with the middle. The same as if Thaksin gets a thing or two to continually ask for more undercuts the government with the middle. It is a balancing act but one helped by Thaksin and his side having a whole range of options while his opponents seem to have only no way to say about everything. The first hand is a lot easier to play and those holding it have shon they ar ea lot lot better at playing the game too, so they have a big advantage. We shouldnt forget that most people are not absolutist on the Thaksin conundrum. In fact that position seems to the position of only th emore extreme of his opponents who rather unfortunately have grabbed the agenda of that side leaving by some of their actions their (earstwhile?) more liberal allies openly aghast at their tactics and even being unusually critical of some of the more authoritarian ones recently

[Crushdepth]

You will see the government equate passports with Thai ID cards because they will try to suggest that his nationality was taken away from him ie. he can't prove he's a Thai national and how every Thai National should defend the right to retain their nationality. The government will conflate these issues as much as possible in order to justify the return of his passport.

I think you are right and that it will then seem to a lot of people that his opponents are making a fuss over not much. There is also the subtle PTP won the let the country decide election and people expect Thaksin to get spomething from this and dont expect the losers to say no to everything. What will the losers agree to? A passport would be an easy one. If they keep saying "no" to everything it undercuts them with the middle. The same as if Thaksin gets a thing or two to continually ask for more undercuts the government with the middle. It is a balancing act but one helped by Thaksin and his side having a whole range of options while his opponents seem to have only no way to say about everything. The first hand is a lot easier to play and those holding it have shon they ar ea lot lot better at playing the game too, so they have a big advantage. We shouldnt forget that most people are not absolutist on the Thaksin conundrum. In fact that position seems to the position of only th emore extreme of his opponents who rather unfortunately have grabbed the agenda of that side leaving by some of their actions their (earstwhile?) more liberal allies openly aghast at their tactics and even being unusually critical of some of the more authoritarian ones recently

The election was not a referendum on waiving one man's jail time. Politicians love to claim they have a 'mandate' for everything when they get into office, but voters don't get to pick and choose which policies they support. Strapping a turd to a pile of populist sugar and then claiming that the turd was what people actually wanted is an ancient political tactic.

Issuing a passport to a criminal fugitive undermines the rule of law and is an unacceptable breach of governance, particularly from a relative. You can put lipstick on the pig if you want, but it is still a pig.

[rixalex]

I think you are right and that it will then seem to a lot of people that his opponents are making a fuss over not much. There is also the subtle PTP won the let the country decide election and people expect Thaksin to get spomething from this and dont expect the losers to say no to everything. What will the losers agree to? A passport would be an easy one. If they keep saying "no" to everything it undercuts them with the middle. The same as if Thaksin gets a thing or two to continually ask for more undercuts the government with the middle. It is a balancing act but one helped by Thaksin and his side having a whole range of options while his opponents seem to have only no way to say about everything. The first hand is a lot easier to play and those holding it have shon they ar ea lot lot better at playing the game too, so they have a big advantage. We shouldnt forget that most people are not absolutist on the Thaksin conundrum. In fact that position seems to the position of only th emore extreme of his opponents who rather unfortunately have grabbed the agenda of that side leaving by some of their actions their (earstwhile?) more liberal allies openly aghast at their tactics and even being unusually critical of some of the more authoritarian ones recently

The election was not a referendum on waiving one man's jail time. Politicians love to claim they have a 'mandate' for everything when they get into office, but voters don't get to pick and choose which policies they support. Strapping a turd to a pile of populist sugar and then claiming that the turd was what people actually wanted is an ancient political tactic.

Issuing a passport to a criminal fugitive undermines the rule of law and is an unacceptable breach of governance, particularly from a relative. You can put lipstick on the pig if you want, but it is still a pig.

Well put.

The whole premise of the argument being made by hammered here, that a general election result could be taken as the public speaking out on the legal matters involving one individual and as to how they (the public) wish matters to be dealt with, is a complete nonsense. For a start, as crushdepth point outs with his comment about an election not being a referendum, nobody knows why people who voted PTP, voted the way they did. There are a whole host of possible reasons that could be given, the most obvious (to me) being the sharp increase in goods prices during the Dems tenure, and the belief of some that a reincarnated version of TRT - with memories of the economic boom the country enjoyed in those TRT days still fresh - would see cheap prices and more money in the pocket return.

But even if we did have a scientific way of determining why voters voted the way they did, and what percentage voted PTP because they wanted to see Thaksin get preferentially treated, as most would argue returning of a passport to a convicted criminal on the run certainly is, it should make not an iota of difference.

PTP could have won a 95% majority and with a scientifically proven 95% of those voters wanting a certain convicted criminal be cleared of charges without retrial, and still, for those who believe in free and fair justice (something that most consider an integral and fundamental part of a working democracy) it would be totally wrong for the law to cower down to popular demand and give those 95% their wish, or even to bend slightly in their favour.

Lest we forget, it was, i believe, the law cowering down to popular demand in 2001 that has brought us to the pickle we find ourselves in today with regards Mr Shinawatra... and a whole lot else.

[TAWP]

in my country , a passport is not a privilege, its a right of every single citizen, and is not property of the government is property of the holder and revoking your passport obviously is a form of hurting or limiting your citizenship

What country are you from?

[Thaddeus]

in my country , a passport is not a privilege, its a right of every single citizen, and is not property of the government is property of the holder and revoking your passport obviously is a form of hurting or limiting your citizenship

What country are you from?

He won't say... we've been there already.

[flarefade]

You will see the government equate passports with Thai ID cards because they will try to suggest that his nationality was taken away from him ie. he can't prove he's a Thai national and how every Thai National should defend the right to retain their nationality. The government will conflate these issues as much as possible in order to justify the return of his passport.

I think you are right and that it will then seem to a lot of people that his opponents are making a fuss over not much. There is also the subtle PTP won the let the country decide election and people expect Thaksin to get spomething from this and dont expect the losers to say no to everything. What will the losers agree to? A passport would be an easy one. If they keep saying "no" to everything it undercuts them with the middle. The same as if Thaksin gets a thing or two to continually ask for more undercuts the government with the middle. It is a balancing act but one helped by Thaksin and his side having a whole range of options while his opponents seem to have only no way to say about everything. The first hand is a lot easier to play and those holding it have shon they ar ea lot lot better at playing the game too, so they have a big advantage. We shouldnt forget that most people are not absolutist on the Thaksin conundrum. In fact that position seems to the position of only th emore extreme of his opponents who rather unfortunately have grabbed the agenda of that side leaving by some of their actions their (earstwhile?) more liberal allies openly aghast at their tactics and even being unusually critical of some of the more authoritarian ones recently

The election was not a referendum on waiving one man's jail time. Politicians love to claim they have a 'mandate' for everything when they get into office, but voters don't get to pick and choose which policies they support. Strapping a turd to a pile of populist sugar and then claiming that the turd was what people actually wanted is an ancient political tactic.

Issuing a passport to a criminal fugitive undermines the rule of law and is an unacceptable breach of governance, particularly from a relative. You can put lipstick on the pig if you want, but it is still a pig.

And Richard Nixon did jail time. Wrong. "Criminal fugitive" is a byword for the politically unconnected.

[golferchin76]

What's all the ruckus about? Just let him back into Thailand and the people greet him with open arms.

Depending on which side you're on, "open ARMS" will mean different things ;-)

i feel the same thing too. Let him come back. Solve and clear all these legal issues.

I just wonder if in his mind does he really has the courage to come back.

Coming in is easy, going out this time....is going to be "climb the sky" in our saying.

[scorecard]

What's all the ruckus about? Just let him back into Thailand and the people greet him with open arms.

Depending on which side you're on, "open ARMS" will mean different things ;-)

i feel the same thing too. Let him come back. Solve and clear all these legal issues.

I just wonder if in his mind does he really has the courage to come back.

Coming in is easy, going out this time....is going to be "climb the sky" in our saying.

Because he suddenly has a Thai passport will not generate him stepping on the next flight to Thailand.

He wants all changes dropped and an assurance they will not / cannot be brought up again before he steps on the plane - that's why the push for amnesty rather than the passport.

[OzMick]

You will see the government equate passports with Thai ID cards because they will try to suggest that his nationality was taken away from him ie. he can't prove he's a Thai national and how every Thai National should defend the right to retain their nationality. The government will conflate these issues as much as possible in order to justify the return of his passport.

I think you are right and that it will then seem to a lot of people that his opponents are making a fuss over not much. There is also the subtle PTP won the let the country decide election and people expect Thaksin to get spomething from this and dont expect the losers to say no to everything. What will the losers agree to? A passport would be an easy one. If they keep saying "no" to everything it undercuts them with the middle. The same as if Thaksin gets a thing or two to continually ask for more undercuts the government with the middle. It is a balancing act but one helped by Thaksin and his side having a whole range of options while his opponents seem to have only no way to say about everything. The first hand is a lot easier to play and those holding it have shon they ar ea lot lot better at playing the game too, so they have a big advantage. We shouldnt forget that most people are not absolutist on the Thaksin conundrum. In fact that position seems to the position of only th emore extreme of his opponents who rather unfortunately have grabbed the agenda of that side leaving by some of their actions their (earstwhile?) more liberal allies openly aghast at their tactics and even being unusually critical of some of the more authoritarian ones recently

Why should Thaksin's opponents agree to anything but the rule of law - to appease his paid sycophants? Should the rules be different for billionaires?

[flarefade]

What's all the ruckus about? Just let him back into Thailand and the people greet him with open arms.

Depending on which side you're on, "open ARMS" will mean different things ;-)

i feel the same thing too. Let him come back. Solve and clear all these legal issues.

I just wonder if in his mind does he really has the courage to come back.

Coming in is easy, going out this time....is going to be "climb the sky" in our saying.

Because he suddenly has a Thai passport will not generate him stepping on the next flight to Thailand.

He wants all changes dropped and an assurance they will not / cannot be brought up again before he steps on the plane - that's why the push for amnesty rather than the passport.

SIlly. There is an unlimited capacity to create political nuclear waste, and only limited capacity to clean it up. Thaksin should know that.