Satish Sehgal faces deportation now

[fab4]

It appears that dear Satish is being economical with the truth when he states that he never criticized the government.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just that it might help your case appealing to the King if you don't tell lies in your defence.

Quote

Last month, Sehgal led a group of protesters in Bangkok’s business district and called for the elected government to quit. He also publicly criticised the government and showed his strong affiliation to the opposition Democrat Party.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/thai-opposition-moves-court-to-annul-election/article5652926.ece

[anon7867763]

No matter what side of the political divide he is on and I don't care what type of person he is , if he has lived here for 50 years its unjust to deport someone in that situation , for christ's sake he grew up here , a fine would be more appropiate , to me it seems like a biased gut reaction from the Government.I am from the UK and I have all ways regarded inmigrants who have grown up in England as English.He has spent 80% + of his life here and for sure thinks in Thai , this is his home.I would support someone in this situation on the other political side.I think it's extremely harsh deporting anyone in this situation.

[anon7867763]

I forgot to say that in reality he is being deported for his political views.That's a very dangerous / undemocratic path

[slipperx]

Going after one Indian Thai taxpayer demonstrates how vindictive and subjective Thai law and its people are.

You will find in many countries, when a foreigner involved in activities that violated the rights of other people and its citizen and political activities against a government, he would be either arrested or deported immediately.

What you forget us that in many civilised countries people are entitled to become citizens after 5 years - less in some countries.

Well, now we have evidence that Thailand counts to the civilised countries because you can acquire citizenship if

Section 10.

An alien who possesses the following qualifications may apply for naturalisation as a Thai:

(1) becoming sui jurisin accordance with Thai law and the law under whichhe has nationality;

(2) having good behaviour;

(3) having regular occupation;

(4) having a domicile in the Thai Kingdom for a consecutive period of not less than five years till the day of filing the application for naturalisation;

(5) having knowledge of Thai language as prescribed in the Regulations

Section 11.

The provisions of Section 10 (4) and (5) shall apply if the applicant for naturalisation as a Thai;

(1) has rendered distinguished service to Thailand or has done acts to the benefit of official service, which is deemed suitable by the Minister;

(2) is a child, wife, or husband of a person who has been naturalised as a Thai orhas recovered Thai nationality;

(3) is one who used to have Thai Nationality;

(4) is husband of a person with Thai nationality

Although I did not say Thailand was not a civilised country, I do recognize that some countries are way behind in development,of their societies and wished to make plain I was referring to a set of countries that excluded them.

That said I find your post most interesting because it seems to be very discriminatory against gender.

Given that the person seeking naturalization must be of good behavior, that makes sense. Section 3 says you have to have an occupation, so if you are retire you cannot become naturalized? Section 4 would be fair enough and section 5 is not one I would argue with except that these two clauses apparently depend on the following clause which requires me to have given distinguished service etc., which I am not sure foreigners can ever do (they are throwing out the Indian guy for a start who has done a lot more in his 50 years here than most people can achieve in 5), OR I have to be a child wife or husband of someone who has been naturalized or recovered that ( I originally assumed that this was a bad translation and meant was Thai nationality but you will see in a second why it is unlikely to be a bad translation. OR I have to have been Thai once upon a time OR I have to have a Thai Husband.

So since those qualifiers apply and I am currently male, not working, have never been Thai, am heterosexual so even if I had a wife sub-section 5 would not apply which is sexist and would be anti-constitutional except the constitution only applies to Thais and not people wanting to become Thai. Note also sub-section 3 refers to people with family relationships with people who have become naturalized and not who are just Thai citizens as sub- section 5 refers to. So I wonder if given these points and the fact that you seem to have taken the stance that countries that offer naturalization without discrimination are by that virtue civilised, and assuming you accept that the text is discriminatory against a retired male with a Thai wife, then I wonder whether your point f view may have altered?

Edited March 6, 2014 by slipperx

[DrTuner]

Can someone show us that law? Is it written than non citizens shall refrain from expressing their political views in public? Failure to do so might result in deportation out of the Kingdom?

Anyone can post the reference of that law?

Because the fact that some politician says it does not mean it is law...

He probably broke various bits of the SOE restrictions. However, this has generated quite a lot of negative press and made the government look vindictive. In the broad scheme of things this guy was completely irrelevant and the government should simply have ignored him.

Face happens.

[DrTuner]

He should have no right to file a petition with the King since he is not a Thai citizen. He should be using the courts and not bothering His Majesty

The King is the Head of State, hence the last resort "go-to-guy".

[h90]

He could do no harm to his cause and position in distancing himself from Suthep and co, and apologize and express his regret at getting carried away with the event and emotion, even if it's complete bullsh*t .

I'm pretty sure we've all aplogized for something we believed in was right in our minds, but to keep the peace, saying sorry lets you move on

He told on the stage that he loves Thailand the Thai people and the King.

He didn't offer any political view there (of course it is already a statement if you speak there).

Well that must've taken all of what 30 seconds to say I think you'll find he said a lot more than that my friend..

In the picture, that also looks like its at a protest site, so he's talking <deleted> then if he said he's stopped attending, IF it's a site that is

It is said that he only said that when he was called on the stage. As the story goes he was just standing there around every evening until someone recognized him and took him on the stage where he said just that. And he wasn't famous before the talk about his deportation began.

But I think now it will be impossible to verify that, because he was afterward a couple of times on the stage and it will be difficult to impossible to filter out what happened when.

That made the people so upset, that he only said that he loves/is loyal to the king and get deported....Of course possible that it isn't the complete story....

[ShannonT]

Most countries have laws like these. If you don't hold citizenship you don't have the right to protest and you will get deported.

In Australia, you get deported if you protest as well. Even just for spitting or swearing.

[Suradit69]

This move confirms that the ruling establishment in exile have no personal business interests in India. Shame Mr.Sehgal doesn't hold a Ugandan passport, I'd like to see the amart rouge try and deport him then.

You must be thinking of all the Asian British Passport holders in places like Uganda or Hong Kong who discovered their passports meant nothing.

When the British were exploiting their colonies in Asia and Africa and there were considerable numbers of Brits resident in those countries (though in segregated living accommodations and with more privileges than the native population )in order to generate profits for the crown, they handed out passports like candy, but when the music stopped it turned out to be an inconvenience in most cases. Then they created different classes of British citizenship and rights because they didn't want all the <deleted> living in Old Blighty.

In 1972, Idi Amin expelled the Asian community from Uganda and as Uganda was a former British colony, many of these Asians had United Kingdom passports. However the passports were mainly issued prior to 1968, when the law was changed to nullify these overseas-issued passports and made residential entry to Britain for Commonwealth migrants reliant upon an ancestral link to the country.

Citizenship matters were complicated by the fact that British nationality law treated those born in Hong Kong as British subjects

Democracy at its finest:

• British Citizen (for residents of the UK and the Crown dependencies)
• British Dependent Territories Citizen (BDTC) (for the Crown colonies), and
• British Overseas Citizen (BOC) (a class of non-inheritable nationality for those who are unable to become a British Citizen, a BDTC or a national of another country)

Edited March 6, 2014 by Suradit69

[icommunity]

Going after one Indian Thai taxpayer demonstrates how vindictive and subjective Thai law and its people are.

You will find in many countries, when a foreigner involved in activities that violated the rights of other people and its citizen and political activities against a government, he would be either arrested or deported immediately.

What you forget us that in many civilised countries people are entitled to become citizens after 5 years - less in some countries.

Thais love to go abroad and buy houses, become citizens and take advantage of all the benefits those countries offer when they become sick or get old - regardless of how much they have 'paid in'.

Some even become politicians in those countries and have businesses they control 100% because those countries realise discrimination of the kind practiced in Thailand neither benefits the progress of society nor is it morally conscionable.

The fact the establishment is trying to deport a guy who has lived here 50 years itself says something about the rights and wrongs of the way things are here as well as the pettiness of the mindset.

Did he ever apply for Thai Citizenship?

[slipperx]

Going after one Indian Thai taxpayer demonstrates how vindictive and subjective Thai law and its people are.

You will find in many countries, when a foreigner involved in activities that violated the rights of other people and its citizen and political activities against a government, he would be either arrested or deported immediately.

What you forget us that in many civilised countries people are entitled to become citizens after 5 years - less in some countries.

Thais love to go abroad and buy houses, become citizens and take advantage of all the benefits those countries offer when they become sick or get old - regardless of how much they have 'paid in'.

Some even become politicians in those countries and have businesses they control 100% because those countries realise discrimination of the kind practiced in Thailand neither benefits the progress of society nor is it morally conscionable.

The fact the establishment is trying to deport a guy who has lived here 50 years itself says something about the rights and wrongs of the way things are here as well as the pettiness of the mindset.

Did he ever apply for Thai Citizenship?

[Fat Haggis]

Suradit,

Prime example is the treatment the Ghurkhas who served with loyalty with the British Army.

[transam]

If one doesn't have the right to vote in LOS, why stick ones neck out........... ...............

[webfact]

UPDATE:

Immigration Bureau chief says Satish has 7 days to appeal against deportation order

BANGKOK: -- Immigration Bureau Commissioner Pol Lt Gen Phanu Kerdlarpphol said Indian businessman Satish Sehgal has seven days to appeal against the deportation order.

Phanu said he has not yet received the order from the Interior Ministry yet.

He said after he receives the order, he will send a letter to Satish to notify him and Satish must file an appeal against the order within seven days.


-- The Nation 2014-03-06

[Richard Hall]

That said I find your post most interesting because it seems to be very discriminatory against gender.

Not necessarily.

My post just reflects an extract referring to the five years pattern. If you follow the link provided as source you will find the entire Thai Nationality Act. There are also much for options as section 10 and section 11 already indicates. For example also the situation of a foreign female married to a Thai national.

Or the option just by time if you are not related to any person holding Thai nationality. In this case you must hold a least a Residence Permit for a minium of ten years. The Indian dude in question surely qualifies under these circumstances easily.

No need to come up with any discrimination paranoia which seems to become more and more bizarre in nowadays Premiumworld. One can commit any crime but not discriminate. A situation that sometimes goes so far that the legal system seems to get ridiculed. But anyway, just my own impression and opinion.

[binjalin]

I forgot to say that in reality he is being deported for his political views.That's a very dangerous / undemocratic path

absolute nonsense - non-Thais should never, ever interfere with their host nations politics - whatever their opinions - not their business (some farangs were deported for taking part in the red demos - same applies)

keep their views for the pub and TVF

[Richard Hall]

In Australia, you get deported if you protest as well. Even just for spitting or swearing.

Damn it! I better stay away from Down Under under these circumstances.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Richard Hall

[slipperx]

That said I find your post most interesting because it seems to be very discriminatory against gender.

Not necessarily.

My post just reflects an extract referring to the five years pattern. If you follow the link provided as source you will find the entire Thai Nationality Act. There are also much for options as section 10 and section 11 already indicates. For example also the situation of a foreign female married to a Thai national.

Or the option just by time if you are not related to any person holding Thai nationality. In this case you must hold a least a Residence Permit for a minium of ten years. The Indian dude in question surely qualifies under these circumstances easily.

No need to come up with any discrimination paranoia which seems to become more and more bizarre in nowadays Premiumworld. One can commit any crime but not discriminate. A situation that sometimes goes so far that the legal system seems to get ridiculed. But anyway, just my own impression and opinion.

Appreciate that it's your opinion Richard and of course my posts are mine - at that particular moment in time if course. I just find it odd that a law would differentiate between the rules relating to a Thai woman married to a Thai national rather than just a spouse of a Thai national. That smells to me of discrimination between sexes. A bit odd don't you think?

Don't know why the Indian man didn't apply for citizenship - he has permanent residence - I don't think the 200k fees for the pleasure would be beyond him either - or maybe that's for PR. I get lost with all these laws that seem to be so poorly drafted

[Thai at Heart]

That said I find your post most interesting because it seems to be very discriminatory against gender.

Not necessarily.

My post just reflects an extract referring to the five years pattern. If you follow the link provided as source you will find the entire Thai Nationality Act. There are also much for options as section 10 and section 11 already indicates. For example also the situation of a foreign female married to a Thai national.

Or the option just by time if you are not related to any person holding Thai nationality. In this case you must hold a least a Residence Permit for a minium of ten years. The Indian dude in question surely qualifies under these circumstances easily.

No need to come up with any discrimination paranoia which seems to become more and more bizarre in nowadays Premiumworld. One can commit any crime but not discriminate. A situation that sometimes goes so far that the legal system seems to get ridiculed. But anyway, just my own impression and opinion.

Point is, he didn't get or apprently try to get it for whatever reason.

My previous company partner was a Hong Kong chinese with a PR, and he would readily remind people he wasnt Thai. This bloke perceived he was part of the furniture by being part of RBSC and his business. Well, welcome to reality of the law in Thailand, and I really don't see why he should be afforded any favours because people run around and say he was a nice bloke and loves the King. There are thousands of more deserving people than him on that measure. The first and main issue with citizenship, is that you have to want it so much that you go out and get it. It isn't just handed on a platter.

He messed up, he broke the rules, that is life. It does come across as spiteful, but he has forgotten who he was dealing with on this issue and should never have got involved.

[slipperx]

That said I find your post most interesting because it seems to be very discriminatory against gender.

Not necessarily.

My post just reflects an extract referring to the five years pattern. If you follow the link provided as source you will find the entire Thai Nationality Act. There are also much for options as section 10 and section 11 already indicates. For example also the situation of a foreign female married to a Thai national.

Or the option just by time if you are not related to any person holding Thai nationality. In this case you must hold a least a Residence Permit for a minium of ten years. The Indian dude in question surely qualifies under these circumstances easily.

No need to come up with any discrimination paranoia which seems to become more and more bizarre in nowadays Premiumworld. One can commit any crime but not discriminate. A situation that sometimes goes so far that the legal system seems to get ridiculed. But anyway, just my own impression and opinion.

Point is, he didn't get or apprently try to get it for whatever reason.

My previous company partner was a Hong Kong chinese with a PR, and he would readily remind people he wasnt Thai. This bloke perceived he was part of the furniture by being part of RBSC and his business. Well, welcome to reality of the law in Thailand, and I really don't see why he should be afforded any favours because people run around and say he was a nice bloke and loves the King. There are thousands of more deserving people than him on that measure. The first and main issue with citizenship, is that you have to want it so much that you go out and get it. It isn't just handed on a platter.

He messed up, he broke the rules, that is life. It does come across as spiteful, but he has forgotten who he was dealing with on this issue and should never have got involved.

Yes I take your point there. I assume there were no grounds preventing him.

[phantomfiddler]

Going after one Indian Thai taxpayer demonstrates how vindictive and subjective Thai law and its people are.

It,s not how vindictive and subjective Thai law is, it,s how vindictive and small minded the present government is ! Criticism will not be tolerated

[siampolee]

Might be an interesting matter to see what may happen to this persons assets here in Thailand and just who or what entity may come into possession of any assets that might be or are confiscated.

Perish the thought that there might be a whiff of corrupt practices emanating from this particular issue.

[fab4]

siampolee, on 06 Mar 2014 - 16:55, said:

Might be an interesting matter to see what may happen to this persons assets here in Thailand and just who or what entity may come into possession of any assets that might be or are confiscated.

Perish the thought that there might be a whiff of corrupt practices emanating from this particular issue.

Yes the dastardly PTP will be sneaking around his house seeing if he's got some decent furniture worth "possessing"

Your corruption obsession is getting ridiculous.

In reality any assets he may have here are more than likely protected in some safe bank offshore, anything else, no doubt his 4 brothers and his dear old mum will fight over.

[Fat Haggis]

His son will control his assets, whiles his asset is sitting back on a stool in India wondering if that was the smartest thing he ever did when he was in Thailand

[Richard Hall]

Appreciate that it's your opinion Richard and of course my posts are mine - at that particular moment in time if course. I just find it odd that a law would differentiate between the rules relating to a Thai woman married to a Thai national rather than just a spouse of a Thai national. That smells to me of discrimination between sexes. A bit odd don't you think?

Well, some of the original laws have actually been drafted in the far past and then just additions were made to them.

Not long ago a Thai woman was forced to adopt the husband's family name when getting married until this was found to be unconstituional. Also the title was turned from Miss (Nang Sao) to Mrs. (Nang) for once and forever which was also judged to be unconstitutional. Now, there is free choice.

Anyway, society has always be male dominated. Even in Germany. I remember that only the father's nationality was crucial for the nationality of the child. This has been amended. In Germany and Thailand as well.

The present Thai National Act seems still to be based on the old times and hence between Thai husband and Thai wife is still being differentiated in individual sections.

No doubt about it, foreign men getting married to Thai women surely overwhelm relatonships the other way around. Imagine, just getting married to a Thai woman and after five years acquiring Thai nationality would just be a piece of cake just as it is in Germany nowadays. Frankly said, I have my doubts that this would do the Kingdom any good.

Personally, Thai nationality will be the "cherry on the cake" for myself after living in this country for 14 years and not having been on Thai soil for a mere five days in all those years. Once an Immigration Officer even asked me why I would not go for naturalization. I told her that it is quite an obstacle and I just haven't dared to make the move. Firstly you have to reach a certain number of points to just qualify to file an application. Afterwards, the decision process requires years and even the endorsement by His Majesty the King. Means one has to be in real love with this county to actually endure this. The officer indicated that I would surely quality to 80% already which I responded to that this I consider not good enough and that I am just going to give it a go when I have a 101% confidentiality level that I will pass. That's me, after "just" 14 years. After 50 years plus I guess I will even have problems with my mother tongue. That's why I am indeed wondering whether Mr. Sehgal really considers the Kingdom his true home when obviously just being satisfied with Permanent Residence rather than Thai citizenship.

If you really appreciate the Kingdom as your actual home wouldn't it be a honour to hold the nationality and being officially part of it? With all the advantages and possibly also disadvantages this may bring? How deep is your love, actually? Deep enough to do the move and eventually succeed or still not fully convinced?

Frankly said, I am quite a bit puzzled about Mr. Sehgal's case. Obvioulsy, a stern political activist to form a better Thailand but not as a Thai but an Indian citizen. Even after living more than 50 years in the Kingdom? If I could turn my German passport in for a Thai passport I would rather do it today than tomorrow. Despite all the seemingly imperfection when compared to the "more developed countries". For me is the Kingdom how it presently is and not what it could be. Otherwise, I would not live here but rather look for greener pastures. Actually, that was what I did when I came here.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Richard Hall

[bkkbarbara]

...behind a wonky screen name on an Internet forum.

Like bkkbarbara?

Precisely. Requires almost no brains or effort.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post and a reply have been removed.

[oldsailor35]

Good to see all foreigners being treated equally and no special treatment just because you are His so. The fool now joins the fools from Australia and England who got involved in demos and got deported.

This person has been in thailand all his life but not a citizen. Obviously bears no loyalty to the country keeps indian citizenship probably to get benefits while leeching off thailand.

You are aware of how difficult it is to get Thai citizenship?

But its possible if you really want it.

[oldsailor35]

If non Thais get deported for just overstaying, why should'nt this guy get deported for being a non Thai who is financially supporting such an anti government uprising such as Suthep's.

[moonao]

7 days ? great. marked on my calendar. its going to be great to watch him squirm, he has put on a good show ill give him that. zero sympathy for anti-democratic dumbasses like this

champagne is chilling in the fridge...