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

[GOLDBUGGY]

They should have done this long ago, no country should deprive their citizens from their nationality , ID or passport cuz governments easily could use this as a political weapon , that's why i don't understand how so many countries call themselves democracies and still they have this kind of laws. :jap:

I agree 1,000% in that nobody or country should have the right to deprive you of your natural born or gained citizenship no matter what you may have done. Except if you lied to get it. I won't argue the point of whether he was good, or bad, or deserves to have his citizenship or not. Maybe you or I, according to some governemnt panel, feels we don't deserve our citizenship either? But speaking for myself, when my grandfather came over to a country very few wanted to go to, because of the ice and snow, in a language he did not understand, and shown a huge pacel of land, full of rocks and trees, and turned that into a productive farm, with his bare hands, earned for me the right to be a citizen of that country. Something no man should have the right to take away from me now.

It should not be an issue if he is allowed, or not, to come back to Thailand to face jail, a new trial, or a pardon. He won't just be able to waltz into Thailand with nothing said. Pehaps a Pardon may be the easiest and most quiet method, as in a new trial the truth might all finally come out about corruption at all levels.

Regardless, he is Thai! You can strip him of his clothes and money! You can take away his citizenship and prevent him from getting a passport. You can take away his freedom and throw him in jail. But what you can't take away from him is the fact that he is Thai, and as such has a right to live and die in his Mother Country, no matter what!

If he choices to live elsewhere, like us, then that is up to him.

[GOLDBUGGY]

Isn't it illegal to hold Thai and foreign passports? He will have to decide which country he really calls home.

Simple answer is No it is not illegal to hold a Thai passport and foreign passport at the same time! There are plenty of threads on TV that support this answer.

That is what I thought to. Thanks for bringing this up.

[GOLDBUGGY]

Just to clarify one point: To take away someone's passport does not mean his nationality is taken away. Under Thai law, the passport is just a traveling document.

Consequently, to give Thaksin his passport back, has no meaning at all. That is, if we talk about the normal Thai passport.

Now the diplomatic passport, that's something else ...

True! Thaksin was deposed in 2006 and I gather his passport was revoked shortly after that. Perhaps at this time they wanted to keep him in Thailand to face charges, and if he hadn't left already a good way to do this was take away his passport. Or at the very least keep him in the country he was in, without further travel, in hopes of negotiating his return. At least they knew where to find him.

But as you said also, there really is no reason now why not give him a Thai Passport. He has a travel document already in his citizenship from Montenegro, he got last year, which I feel they never expected at that time. So not giving back his passport now, and as you said, has no meaning at all.

[ozzieman05]

My Thai wifes best Thai friends Passport needed to be renewed, but she now lives in Australia

She was told she had to return to Thailand to pick up her new passport, as the old one had run out

So she needed to return to Thailand and pick it up

Did I not hear the red shirts crying Double Standards against the Yellow Shirts

To my knowledge under Thai Law Thaskin must report to the Passport office to pick up his new passport

[KKK]

i'll go back to my reading , an excellent book: "Lolita" by Vladimir Nabokov

Something in the Harry Potter range may be more to your taste in fiction.

or perhaps "Winnie the Pooh"

[KKK]

Isn't it illegal to hold Thai and foreign passports? He will have to decide which country he really calls home.

Getting a new Thai passport is a move in that direction ... i.e., for him to come back to Thailand as a free man.

Gettibg a passport won't make him a free man. Only serving his sentence then being released from prison would make him a free man. Or, serve part of his sentence, show remorse, then apply for and be granted a pardon. If, on release, he is charged and convicted on another offence he would lose his freedom again.

And I don't think he needs a Thai passport to come back to Thailand anyway....he could use one of his other ones, Montenegro for instance, but he might need a visa before they let him on a plane, depending on the airline. Would any Thai consulate refuse him, as a fugitive felon, a visa? I would hope not. And would Thai Inter even check to see if he had a visa? I doubt it.

[metisdead]

Just a reminder that posts using derogatory nicknames or intentional misspelling of people’s names will be deleted. If you don’t want your post to be deleted, spell people’s names correctly.

[SomTumTiger]

He doesn't need the passport - this is just a chance to distract from the celebration of "He who must not be named" special day. Thaksin is, if nothing else" a vindictive SOB. Classless through and through.

[binjalin]

The Thais had the chance to endorse the Dems at election time - endorse the bkk crackdown and endorse the policies. They did not and PT won the election (against the wise judgement and predictions on TV experts). That does give them a certain mandate as Thais knew that would include Khun T's rehabilitation.

[corkman]

Isn't it illegal to hold Thai and foreign passports? He will have to decide which country he really calls home.

Nope. It is frowned upon. But not illegal. Except for certain countries, such as Malaysia.

My wife holds two passports, and has admitted it openly to officials - that didn't bat an eyelid.

[KKK]

Isn't it illegal to hold Thai and foreign passports?

Nope. It is frowned upon. But not illegal.

Frowned upon! Yes, because if you can have a Thai passport why would you want one from another country as well?

being a convict on the run is the only reason I can think of !!!

Isn't being Thai the best that you can possibly be......

sarcasm

Edited December 3, 2011 by KKK

[whybother]

Just to clarify one point: To take away someone's passport does not mean his nationality is taken away. Under Thai law, the passport is just a traveling document.

Consequently, to give Thaksin his passport back, has no meaning at all. That is, if we talk about the normal Thai passport.

Now the diplomatic passport, that's something else ...

True! Thaksin was deposed in 2006 and I gather his passport was revoked shortly after that. Perhaps at this time they wanted to keep him in Thailand to face charges, and if he hadn't left already a good way to do this was take away his passport. Or at the very least keep him in the country he was in, without further travel, in hopes of negotiating his return. At least they knew where to find him.

But as you said also, there really is no reason now why not give him a Thai Passport. He has a travel document already in his citizenship from Montenegro, he got last year, which I feel they never expected at that time. So not giving back his passport now, and as you said, has no meaning at all.

You gather wrong.

Thaksin's diplomatic passport and regular passport were cancelled after he had been found guilty and fled the country.

[KKK]

Just to clarify one point: To take away someone's passport does not mean his nationality is taken away. Under Thai law, the passport is just a traveling document.

Consequently, to give Thaksin his passport back, has no meaning at all. That is, if we talk about the normal Thai passport.

Now the diplomatic passport, that's something else ...

True! Thaksin was deposed in 2006 and I gather his passport was revoked shortly after that. Perhaps at this time they wanted to keep him in Thailand to face charges, and if he hadn't left already a good way to do this was take away his passport. Or at the very least keep him in the country he was in, without further travel, in hopes of negotiating his return. At least they knew where to find him.

But as you said also, there really is no reason now why not give him a Thai Passport. He has a travel document already in his citizenship from Montenegro, he got last year, which I feel they never expected at that time. So not giving back his passport now, and as you said, has no meaning at all.

You gather wrong.

Thaksin's diplomatic passport and regular passport were cancelled after he had been found guilty and fled the country.

Still not quite right......At the time of Thaksin being found guilty, by a court, of anything he was already out of the country....And I don't think you'll find he 'fled' anyway...he was just on a visit to somewhere when he got deposed...

[whybother]

Still not quite right......At the time of Thaksin being found guilty, by a court, of anything he was already out of the country....And I don't think you'll find he 'fled' anyway...he was just on a visit to somewhere when he got deposed...

This all happened well after he was "deposed". He was out of the country in 2006 when the coup occurred.

He returned again in 2008, was going through the court proceedings, went to the Olympics in August and didn't return.

He was found guilty of corruption in October, his diplomatic passport was cancelled in December, and his regular passport was cancelled in January.

[rixalex]

The Thais had the chance to endorse the Dems at election time - endorse the bkk crackdown and endorse the policies. They did not and PT won the election (against the wise judgement and predictions on TV experts). That does give them a certain mandate as Thais knew that would include Khun T's rehabilitation.

PT could have won a 95% majority, it still wouldn't give them the right to interfere with legal matters, which surely, the confiscating of the passport of a convict who has fled the country, comes under.

How anybody can argue here that it is right and proper for convicted criminals to be issued with passports, or for passports in such cases not to be revoked, beggars belief. If they are going to make such an illogical and stupid argument, at least be consistent and demand that all fugitives also be returned their passports. That's an argument i don't hear being made. The argument rather seems to be being made just for Thaksin.

Please, all you red shirt, Thaksin lovers out there, don't ever let me hear again you claim to be fighting against double standards.

[KKK]

Still not quite right......At the time of Thaksin being found guilty, by a court, of anything he was already out of the country....And I don't think you'll find he 'fled' anyway...he was just on a visit to somewhere when he got deposed...

This all happened well after he was "deposed". He was out of the country in 2006 when the coup occurred.

He returned again in 2008, was going through the court proceedings, went to the Olympics in August and didn't return.

He was found guilty of corruption in October, his diplomatic passport was cancelled in December, and his regular passport was cancelled in January.

So it's as I said then...he didn't flee. He wasn't on bail or escaped custody or anything like that was he? He was just out of the country when deposed and just out of the country again when found guilty.

[KKK]

The Thais had the chance to endorse the Dems at election time - endorse the bkk crackdown and endorse the policies. They did not and PT won the election (against the wise judgement and predictions on TV experts). That does give them a certain mandate as Thais knew that would include Khun T's rehabilitation.

PT could have won a 95% majority, it still wouldn't give them the right to interfere with legal matters, which surely, the confiscating of the passport of a convict who has fled the country, comes under.

How anybody can argue here that it is right and proper for convicted criminals to be issued with passports, or for passports in such cases not to be revoked, beggars belief. If they are going to make such an illogical and stupid argument, at least be consistent and demand that all fugitives also be returned their passports. That's an argument i don't hear being made. The argument rather seems to be being made just for Thaksin.

Please, all you red shirt, Thaksin lovers out there, don't ever let me hear again you claim to be fighting against double standards.

Actually the argument being made by the FM is that because at least one Thai fugitive hasn't had his passport canceled Thaksin's shouldn't have been either. But for that argument to work it would have to be ALL Thai criminals who have not completed their Thailand prison sentences haven't had their passports canceled. And I somehow doubt he can say that. So yes there is a double standard...

Edited December 3, 2011 by KKK

[Ricardo]

Thaksin to get 'new passport'

The Nation

Surapong plans New Year's gift for ex-premier; same mandate to be used to revoke Kasit's cancellation order

The government is close to reissuing a passport to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Foreign Minister Surapong Towichukchaikul said yesterday, denying there was a link between the issuing of the passport and the fugitive former PM's homecoming.

"I want the passport to be a New Year gift for him," he said.

Surapong said his ministry was putting the finishing touches to a regular passport and dismissed speculation that Thaksin would be granted diplomatic travel papers.

<snip for brevity>

-- The Nation 2011-12-03

Perhaps FM-Surapong might pass disgraced former-PM Thaksin his new Thai passport, at their next family get-together ?

And perhaps PM-Yingluck might ensure the same high priority is given, to the hundreds of thousands of other people born here, who are currently unable to obtain ID-cards or other paperwork, to demonstrate that you don't have to be a relative to get service from her government ? Or perhaps not.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Ricardo

[whybother]

Still not quite right......At the time of Thaksin being found guilty, by a court, of anything he was already out of the country....And I don't think you'll find he 'fled' anyway...he was just on a visit to somewhere when he got deposed...

This all happened well after he was "deposed". He was out of the country in 2006 when the coup occurred.

He returned again in 2008, was going through the court proceedings, went to the Olympics in August and didn't return.

He was found guilty of corruption in October, his diplomatic passport was cancelled in December, and his regular passport was cancelled in January.

So it's as I said then...he didn't flee. He wasn't on bail or escaped custody or anything like that was he? He was just out of the country when deposed and just out of the country again when found guilty.

I believe he was on bail when he went to the Olympics. He had to get special from the courts permission to leave. An arrest warrant was issued when he failed to return for a court appearance after the Olympics.

He was supposed to be in the country when he was found guilty but he chose not to return for the verdict. That is what I call "fleeing".

[rixalex]

So it's as I said then...he didn't flee. He wasn't on bail or escaped custody or anything like that was he? He was just out of the country when deposed and just out of the country again when found guilty.

He requested and was given special permission to go to China, on the condition that he return for his court case verdict. Had he been found innocent, he would have returned of course. He wasn't. He didn't return. He broke the conditions. Most people would describe that as fleeing.

Edited to add - to repeat what whybother has just said.

Edited December 3, 2011 by rixalex

[harrry]

I feel a passport is only an ID to help the country you wish to go to identify you. As such it should be the right of all and not be able to be cancelled. Fugitives (who shold never have been allowed to be one ) should be handled by extradition.

[KKK]

Still not quite right......At the time of Thaksin being found guilty, by a court, of anything he was already out of the country....And I don't think you'll find he 'fled' anyway...he was just on a visit to somewhere when he got deposed...

This all happened well after he was "deposed". He was out of the country in 2006 when the coup occurred.

He returned again in 2008, was going through the court proceedings, went to the Olympics in August and didn't return.

He was found guilty of corruption in October, his diplomatic passport was cancelled in December, and his regular passport was cancelled in January.

So it's as I said then...he didn't flee. He wasn't on bail or escaped custody or anything like that was he? He was just out of the country when deposed and just out of the country again when found guilty.

I believe he was on bail when he went to the Olympics. He had to get special from the courts permission to leave. An arrest warrant was issued when he failed to return for a court appearance after the Olympics.

He was supposed to be in the country when he was found guilty but he chose not to return for the verdict. That is what I call "fleeing".

If he was on bail or under some kind of special court permission to leave then yes I'd have to agree he fled. But without evidence from you I'll take your statement with a large pinch of salt. Personally I think they must have been stupid to let him leave. Did they honestly think he would come back. I think that really what they wanted him to do was to go away and shut up. But he never did the later hence all the problems.

[whybother]

I feel a passport is only an ID to help the country you wish to go to identify you. As such it should be the right of all and not be able to be cancelled. Fugitives (who shold never have been allowed to be one ) should be handled by extradition.

A passport a means to travel to other countries. If you are a fugitive (whether you believe you should be or not), you should not have the right to travel to other countries.

[rixalex]

I feel a passport is only an ID to help the country you wish to go to identify you. As such it should be the right of all and not be able to be cancelled. Fugitives (who shold never have been allowed to be one ) should be handled by extradition.

Thais have ID cards for identification purposes and they have passports for travel purposes. Why does a convicted criminal sentenced to prison require a passport? Do prisons organise overseas outings for inmates or something?

What ridiculous arguments Thaksin inspires in his faithful followers.

[whybother]

If he was on bail or under some kind of special court permission to leave then yes I'd have to agree he fled. But without evidence from you I'll take your statement with a large pinch of salt. Personally I think they must have been stupid to let him leave. Did they honestly think he would come back. I think that really what they wanted him to do was to go away and shut up. But he never did the later hence all the problems.

&lt;deleted&gt;. It is common knowledge that he had to get permission to leave.

http://www.topnews.i...mpic-host-china

http://www.channelne.../366804/1/.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra#Request_for_asylum_in_the_United_Kingdom

Edited December 3, 2011 by whybother

[hammered]

Thaksin's regular passport it seems was taken away by ministerial decision and not by court order. That leaves it open to ministerial revue and not court revue or empowering legislation to overturn a court decision. The one mimister took it away so another can give it back arguement is yet another recent example of the now classic case of taking opponents tactics and using them themselves. It all links to if you can do something and it is accepted then we can too and if you wont let us it is double standards. It is a tactic that resonates and has served PTP very well over time.

[whybother]

Thaksin's regular passport it seems was taken away by ministerial decision and not by court order. That leaves it open to ministerial revue and not court revue or empowering legislation to overturn a court decision. The one mimister took it away so another can give it back arguement is yet another recent example of the now classic case of taking opponents tactics and using them themselves. It all links to if you can do something and it is accepted then we can too and if you wont let us it is double standards. It is a tactic that resonates and has served PTP very well over time.

It was taken away because he was a fugitive and a number of arrest warrants were issued by the court. That hasn't changed, has it?

[animatic]

Just to clarify one point: To take away someone's passport does not mean his nationality is taken away. Under Thai law, the passport is just a traveling document.

Consequently, to give Thaksin his passport back, has no meaning at all. That is, if we talk about the normal Thai passport.

Now the diplomatic passport, that's something else ...

True! Thaksin was deposed in 2006 and I gather his passport was revoked shortly after that. Perhaps at this time they wanted to keep him in Thailand to face charges, and if he hadn't left already a good way to do this was take away his passport. Or at the very least keep him in the country he was in, without further travel, in hopes of negotiating his return. At least they knew where to find him.

But as you said also, there really is no reason now why not give him a Thai Passport. He has a travel document already in his citizenship from Montenegro, he got last year, which I feel they never expected at that time. So not giving back his passport now, and as you said, has no meaning at all.

You gather wrong.

Thaksin's diplomatic passport and regular passport were cancelled after he had been found guilty and fled the country.

Still not quite right......At the time of Thaksin being found guilty, by a court, of anything he was already out of the country....And I don't think you'll find he 'fled' anyway...he was just on a visit to somewhere when he got deposed...

Again, wrong.

He was deposed as LAPSED and not reinstated, CARETAKER PM and came back after his first proxy party PPP won the election with Samak.

He left to speak at the UN in NY 'posing as full PM', in spite of his lapsed caretaker status,

Purely and ego sop, he was not 'fully qualified' to act as PM, but only see the election was run properly and deal with 'emergency issues of government'. This seeming abrogation of Thai laws for his own self-gratification, and the apparent attempts to co-opt other levers of power to gain total control prior to his departing to speak, likely precipitated the coup.

Even with his own proxy 1 government, PPP, he couldn't avoid both himself and wife Potjamin, his brother in law, and her secretary, ALL getting convicted of money crimes, and he for the land deal. The other three were convicted as Thaksin sat in court with them AFTER the coup.

Later, he then was convicted for land deal abuse of power, but had left a week or so before that, with agreement that he'd return, with the wife 'ostensibly', to go to China for Olympics, and then they never returned together. After she divorced him, she returned on her own.

He has never returned, but has ALWAYS had the ability to do so at any time. He also failed to appeal his Rachada conviction, which BY LAW TACITLY MEANS HE did NOT contest his conviction.

The logical reason for his not returning is he can not stall or rebuff the OTHER handful of cases pending against him. If he were in jail for Ratcha even a short tine he would be forced, by deliver from jail to courts, to 'acknowledge' those other cases, which could them proceed, and that would be far worse than his present situation.

Now he has Proxy 2 government and is trying again.

Edited December 3, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

Thaksin's regular passport it seems was taken away by ministerial decision and not by court order. That leaves it open to ministerial revue and not court revue or empowering legislation to overturn a court decision. The one mimister took it away so another can give it back arguement is yet another recent example of the now classic case of taking opponents tactics and using them themselves. It all links to if you can do something and it is accepted then we can too and if you wont let us it is double standards. It is a tactic that resonates and has served PTP very well over time.

A ministerial decision based on a legal request to do so.

The basis of the legal request was valid and has not changed.

So what is the putative 'New Legal Basis' for returning something legally confiscated?

Oh! His cousin wants him to have a new years present.

What a sound legal basis this appears to be.

Edited December 3, 2011 by animatic

[KKK]

If he was on bail or under some kind of special court permission to leave then yes I'd have to agree he fled. But without evidence from you I'll take your statement with a large pinch of salt. Personally I think they must have been stupid to let him leave. Did they honestly think he would come back. I think that really what they wanted him to do was to go away and shut up. But he never did the later hence all the problems.

&lt;deleted&gt;. It is common knowledge that he had to get permission to leave.

http://www.topnews.i...mpic-host-china

http://www.channelne.../366804/1/.html

http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom

Thanks for providing those links. I'll go and have a read. Not everybody knows everything about this or anything else that is why it is an established principle here that if you're going to state something as fact then you should always provide links to support it....