Thailand asks New Zealand to clarify status of Thai exiles

[lildragon]

rjcampbe you have been excellent in this thread mate. I wanna subscribe to your news letter!

[GarryP]

You cannot express a negative opinion of the royal institution in Thailand. There is no possible way to do so within the bounds of the law, even if that opinion is well thought out and presented in a non-contentious manner (couldn't think of a better word). Can one comment on what is supposedly going on behind the scenes now without putting yourself at risk of falling foul of 112? To conclude, you cannot express a negative opinion, on the subject matter, within the bounds of the law. And stop trying to compare apples with oranges. Freedom of the press? We are talking about freedom of speech in Thailand. Strawman arguments at best.

Finishing off with the old "accept it or leave" just shows your inability to accept differing opinions. Many foreigners love the country, but it does not mean that they have to accept everything as it stands. There are many things that could be improved.

And "If the locals don't like it" - they do NOT have their own social systems to sort out their differences when it comes to this subject. They are locked up before they are even brought before the court. Guilty until proven innocent (see the vindictive brother case).

Innocent until proven guilty is by no means a right in most countries. Take a look at UK tax law for a good example of bad laws and presumed guilt.

How the LM laws are applied is no worse than how US decided to apply is "war on terrorism" or how the UK applied it's anti-terrorism laws in Northern Ireland.

Thailand has a very structured society from village chiefs right up to the top. The thing they unfortunately don't have is good education so bully-boys tend to get in positions of power -- but that is not so strange. Take a look at the characters in many so-called democracies.

You are a guest in a foreign land -- accept the conditions as they are or leave. You can not cherry-pick the laws you like and you have no rights to vote for change because you (and I) are only guest.

Someone else mentioned freedom of the press -- sorry for that confusion. Freedom of speech in ALL countries is governed by the laws of that country. Everything from prevention of terrorism to libel. Negative commentary is not allowed about religion in Islamic countries. Is that internationally condemned?

Keep it coming. I appreciate the debate and the fact that it is civil.

I am not disputing that laws in other countries may be wrong, unfair, applied with malice, blah, blah. I just do not see how they are applicable to the subject matter. What kind of argument is it to say the tax law in the UK is wrong so one should accept the way 112 is applied in Thailand? I do not see the logic. We are not arguing tax law, anti-terror law, or any other law you wish to conjure up to support your position. We are discussing LM in Thailand.

To accept the conditions as they are is not the same as agreeing with them. I do not agree with double pricing, doing 90 day reports, the total lack of road sense of many Thai drivers, foreign shareholding restrictions, etc. but I accept them, as I have no bloody choice in the matter. Does this mean that I am unable or not allowed to question them, disagree with them or pan them? No it does not.

Does not a "guest" have the freedom to question the status quo, the relative merits of local laws, etc. (even though, as you put it, he/she has no right to vote)? Of course he/she does.

I don't agree with the apostasy and blasphemy laws of the countries in which they are applied. But again, irrelevant to the matter of 112. Even if it were, do you for a minute believe that NZ would return an accused blasphemer to Pakistan? While, wrongly, there is no international condemnation of such horrible laws (as far as I am aware), you can be damn sure most non-muslim countries would not return someone fleeing blasphemy charges. Just as most would not extradite a Thai national fleeing 112 charges.

[rjcampbe]

I am not disputing that laws in other countries may be wrong, unfair, applied with malice, blah, blah. I just do not see how they are applicable to the subject matter. What kind of argument is it to say the tax law in the UK is wrong so one should accept the way 112 is applied in Thailand? I do not see the logic. We are not arguing tax law, anti-terror law, or any other law you wish to conjure up to support your position. We are discussing LM in Thailand.

To accept the conditions as they are is not the same as agreeing with them. I do not agree with double pricing, doing 90 day reports, the total lack of road sense of many Thai drivers, foreign shareholding restrictions, etc. but I accept them, as I have no bloody choice in the matter. Does this mean that I am unable or not allowed to question them, disagree with them or pan them? No it does not.

Does not a "guest" have the freedom to question the status quo, the relative merits of local laws, etc. (even though, as you put it, he/she has no right to vote)? Of course he/she does.

I don't agree with the apostasy and blasphemy laws of the countries in which they are applied. But again, irrelevant to the matter of 112. Even if it were, do you for a minute believe that NZ would return an accused blasphemer to Pakistan? While, wrongly, there is no international condemnation of such horrible laws (as far as I am aware), you can be damn sure most non-muslim countries would not return someone fleeing blasphemy charges. Just as most would not extradite a Thai national fleeing 112 charges.

GarryP,

Spot on again.

The fact that there are bad laws, or bad enforcement of laws, in other places does not justify this bad law. Nor does it mean we should not be able to disagree with this bad law, or any of the others wherever they might be, regardless of where we are from.

This is not about saying "my laws are better than your laws", it's about saying that if THIS law were changed, it would be better for the Thai people because they would be able to express THEIR opinions. Not my opinions, or anyone else's.

With regard to whether or not certain laws should or should not be obeyed, I defer to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As he said in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Full text is here... http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Here are a few relevant excerpts...

I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly...

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed... justice too long delayed is justice denied...

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws... One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all.

[GarryP]

I am not disputing that laws in other countries may be wrong, unfair, applied with malice, blah, blah. I just do not see how they are applicable to the subject matter. What kind of argument is it to say the tax law in the UK is wrong so one should accept the way 112 is applied in Thailand? I do not see the logic. We are not arguing tax law, anti-terror law, or any other law you wish to conjure up to support your position. We are discussing LM in Thailand.

To accept the conditions as they are is not the same as agreeing with them. I do not agree with double pricing, doing 90 day reports, the total lack of road sense of many Thai drivers, foreign shareholding restrictions, etc. but I accept them, as I have no bloody choice in the matter. Does this mean that I am unable or not allowed to question them, disagree with them or pan them? No it does not.

Does not a "guest" have the freedom to question the status quo, the relative merits of local laws, etc. (even though, as you put it, he/she has no right to vote)? Of course he/she does.

I don't agree with the apostasy and blasphemy laws of the countries in which they are applied. But again, irrelevant to the matter of 112. Even if it were, do you for a minute believe that NZ would return an accused blasphemer to Pakistan? While, wrongly, there is no international condemnation of such horrible laws (as far as I am aware), you can be damn sure most non-muslim countries would not return someone fleeing blasphemy charges. Just as most would not extradite a Thai national fleeing 112 charges.

GarryP,

Spot on again.

The fact that there are bad laws, or bad enforcement of laws, in other places does not justify this bad law. Nor does it mean we should not be able to disagree with this bad law, or any of the others wherever they might be, regardless of where we are from.

This is not about saying "my laws are better than your laws", it's about saying that if THIS law were changed, it would be better for the Thai people because they would be able to express THEIR opinions. Not my opinions, or anyone else's.

With regard to whether or not certain laws should or should not be obeyed, I defer to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As he said in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Full text is here... http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Here are a few relevant excerpts...

I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly...[/size]

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed... justice too long delayed is justice denied...

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws... One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all.

I agree with your sentiments. But in this particular case, for "... moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws" I would play the coward and refuse to put thoughts into words (supposing I had any ). The prospect of 15 years in jail is not something I would wish on anyone for simply speaking their mind.

[rjcampbe]

rjcampbe you have been excellent in this thread mate. I wanna subscribe to your news letter!

Thanks lildragon. I appreciate the compliment.

Believe me, I have an opinion on just about everything, but usually my opinions just piss people off! :-)

[rjcampbe]

I am not disputing that laws in other countries may be wrong, unfair, applied with malice, blah, blah. I just do not see how they are applicable to the subject matter. What kind of argument is it to say the tax law in the UK is wrong so one should accept the way 112 is applied in Thailand? I do not see the logic. We are not arguing tax law, anti-terror law, or any other law you wish to conjure up to support your position. We are discussing LM in Thailand.

To accept the conditions as they are is not the same as agreeing with them. I do not agree with double pricing, doing 90 day reports, the total lack of road sense of many Thai drivers, foreign shareholding restrictions, etc. but I accept them, as I have no bloody choice in the matter. Does this mean that I am unable or not allowed to question them, disagree with them or pan them? No it does not.

Does not a "guest" have the freedom to question the status quo, the relative merits of local laws, etc. (even though, as you put it, he/she has no right to vote)? Of course he/she does.

I don't agree with the apostasy and blasphemy laws of the countries in which they are applied. But again, irrelevant to the matter of 112. Even if it were, do you for a minute believe that NZ would return an accused blasphemer to Pakistan? While, wrongly, there is no international condemnation of such horrible laws (as far as I am aware), you can be damn sure most non-muslim countries would not return someone fleeing blasphemy charges. Just as most would not extradite a Thai national fleeing 112 charges.

GarryP,

Spot on again.

The fact that there are bad laws, or bad enforcement of laws, in other places does not justify this bad law. Nor does it mean we should not be able to disagree with this bad law, or any of the others wherever they might be, regardless of where we are from.

This is not about saying "my laws are better than your laws", it's about saying that if THIS law were changed, it would be better for the Thai people because they would be able to express THEIR opinions. Not my opinions, or anyone else's.

With regard to whether or not certain laws should or should not be obeyed, I defer to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As he said in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Full text is here... http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Here are a few relevant excerpts...

I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly...[/size]

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed... justice too long delayed is justice denied...

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws... One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all.

I agree with your sentiments. But in this particular case, for "... moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws" I would play the coward and refuse to put thoughts into words (supposing I had any ). The prospect of 15 years in jail is not something I would wish on anyone for simply speaking their mind.

I agree totally. And therein lies the problem, doesn't it?

[theguyfromanotherforum]

Ridiculous posing like that on fb. Passport after half a year? From khaosan rd maybe.

[Tomtomtom69]

Lese Majeste has been illegal in Thailand since forever and is a well-known law to all Thais and a lot of foreigners. You might not like the law, but you must abide by it. Many laws are not popular and are in place for reasons not always agreeable to everyone, but that's just the way things are. New Zealand are setting a very bad example by not respecting a countrys right to create and apply its own laws.

Rubbish.......Thais should be able to speak about any subject.....whether military rule, the monarchy or otherwise......

NZ is portraying how most civilised, democratic countries react to dictatorial, draconian laws that have simply been used to quieten people and quash opponents.

There are many more vastly important issues that Thailand needs to face, and act upon, other than chasing some kid who spoke his 2 cents worth.........!

NZ cannot survive without cheap Thai exports, and revenue from Thai students.

Actually it can, Thai exports and students can easily be replaced by those from China or other countries, which are already far more numerous than anything Thai in New Zealand anyway.

[tbthailand]

Jpinx,

Thank you for making my point for me.

I also think that the US policy that allows "enemy combatants" to be detained in secret prisons outside US borders so they can be tortured and tried in military courts without the right to attorneys and other protections of due process is disgusting and reprehensible. Those practices have stained the reputation of the country and incited our enemies to even more violence.

The difference is that, because of the Bill of Rights, I can raise my voice against this policy and the people who implement it. I can say that my government is wrong for doing it. I can say that this practice violates every principle that the country was founded on, and that it makes me sick that the country has gone so far from its founding principles that it is nothing but a hollow shell of the country it once was. I can also say that George W and Barack Obama (and all their various minions) should be tried for war crimes for doing it (Or at the minimum they should be held accountable for violating the civil rights of these prisoners under US law.)

And, FYI, I'm no radical... I know that no country is perfect, certainly not the US, and I know that no matter how high minded their principles may be, people rarely live up to their ideals 100% of the time. But, I grew up to believe in the vision of the country and the principles of the Declaration of Independence, "that all men are created equal", and I raised my hand and took an oath to support and defend the the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic... Today, the country does not even resemble the country I swore to defend because they are treating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights like its written on an etch-a-sketch.

But in Thailand, you are not even allowed to disagree. You can not express your opinion, no matter how thoughtfully, or how intellectually, or how respectfully it is presented. And in cases like LM, you are not even allowed know the details of what was said or done so you can even FORM an opinion.

I simply can not fathom how you can suggest that this is "arguably considerably better".

Of course you can disagree and express opinion in Thailand, but you need to do it within the law. In Oz, US, UK, etc that would be covered by the draconian laws which exist under the range of headings from "prevention of terrorism" to "libel". There are many laws which are applied selectively in western countries - including NZ. Freedom of the press is a figment of the publics imagination -- the press is bought and paid for in every country in the world. Ask the Murdochs how that goes The law might not explicitly say it in your country, but for every freedom you claim, you must also accept the responsibility of the consequences of exercising that freedom. Everyone wants freedom, but they are all slaves to the ones who lead the mindless chanting of the crowd. Thailand is not the same as other countries and it has a right to make it's own way in the world. If you don't like that -- leave. If the locals don't like it - they have their own social systems to sort out their differences.

You cannot express a negative opinion of the royal institution in Thailand. There is no possible way to do so within the bounds of the law, even if that opinion is well thought out and presented in a non-contentious manner (couldn't think of a better word). Can one comment on what is supposedly going on behind the scenes now without putting yourself at risk of falling foul of 112? To conclude, you cannot express a negative opinion, on the subject matter, within the bounds of the law. And stop trying to compare apples with oranges. Freedom of the press? We are talking about freedom of speech in Thailand. Strawman arguments at best.

Finishing off with the old "accept it or leave" just shows your inability to accept differing opinions. Many foreigners love the country, but it does not mean that they have to accept everything as it stands. There are many things that could be improved.

And "If the locals don't like it" - they do NOT have their own social systems to sort out their differences when it comes to this subject. They are locked up before they are even brought before the court. Guilty until proven innocent (see the vindictive brother case).

LM has gone into full frenzy mode.

if you are a historian, you cannot write accurately about kings from hundreds of years ago

if you are an artist, you cannot participate in a play about a fictional king

if you are a taxi driver, you should be careful that your fare doesn't record the conversation

if you write bad things about the current 'government' in bathroom stalls, you'll be charged with LM and tried behind closed doors in a military court

if you are a normal person, wearing black in December can bring LM charges against you

Lord forbid you are just related to someone who has fallen out of favor...

That's just the tip of the iceberg at the moment in Thailand.

[jpinx]

It would appear that the topic is moot since it has been demonstrated that the specific persons in question are extremely unlikely to have gained a NZ passport in the time available. If such a person had the urgency of needing refugee status, why did he travel so far when there are much closer and more immediate options available. He was apparently in Cambodia for some time -- did he not like the food? Or was the political climate not to his liking there also?

It's becoming obvious that commentary on this topic is coming from many people who apparently have only lived in their home country, maybe some other western country and Thailand. If someone comes on TV and tells how he has helped "clean up" the iniquities of the legal system in his home country, and has pòsitive suggestions regarding Thailand's laws, that will be commentary worthy of discussion.

Meantime - thanks for the debate. I sum up my personal stance by saying -- clean up your own yard before starting to give advice on how someone else should clean theirs.

[GarryP]

It would appear that the topic is moot since it has been demonstrated that the specific persons in question are extremely unlikely to have gained a NZ passport in the time available. If such a person had the urgency of needing refugee status, why did he travel so far when there are much closer and more immediate options available. He was apparently in Cambodia for some time -- did he not like the food? Or was the political climate not to his liking there also?

It's becoming obvious that commentary on this topic is coming from many people who apparently have only lived in their home country, maybe some other western country and Thailand. If someone comes on TV and tells how he has helped "clean up" the iniquities of the legal system in his home country, and has pòsitive suggestions regarding Thailand's laws, that will be commentary worthy of discussion.

Meantime - thanks for the debate. I sum up my personal stance by saying -- clean up your own yard before starting to give advice on how someone else should clean theirs.

Cambodia, get a grip. There is no guarantee that they would not be shipped back across the border.

Sorry squire. Been here for 32 years. Lived in Thailand far longer than my "home" country. This is my home whether your like it or not.

BTW what changes have you made to your home country's laws. None, I would guess. Or is that another of your inane arguments that because you made no changes at home or at least did not compain, you are not complaining about Thai laws and suggesting everyone should follow suit. Only those who have made changes qualify to suggest changes for Thailand?

[thailiketoo]

If such a person had the urgency of needing refugee status, why did he travel so far when there are much closer and more immediate options available. He was apparently in Cambodia for some time -- did he not like the food? Or was the political climate not to his liking there also?

Mr. Ekkapob claimed to be under surveillance by Thai military operatives while hiding in Sihanoukville last month. Mr. Pavin said a friend of the activist was forced to disclose Mr. Ekkapob’s whereabouts after being arrested in Thailand, and that the friend learned the Thai Army had received a “green light” from Cambodia to apprehend and repatriate him.

I don't know if I should post the link but it is on the net in a number of places.

[jpinx]

It would appear that the topic is moot since it has been demonstrated that the specific persons in question are extremely unlikely to have gained a NZ passport in the time available. If such a person had the urgency of needing refugee status, why did he travel so far when there are much closer and more immediate options available. He was apparently in Cambodia for some time -- did he not like the food? Or was the political climate not to his liking there also?

It's becoming obvious that commentary on this topic is coming from many people who apparently have only lived in their home country, maybe some other western country and Thailand. If someone comes on TV and tells how he has helped "clean up" the iniquities of the legal system in his home country, and has pòsitive suggestions regarding Thailand's laws, that will be commentary worthy of discussion.

Meantime - thanks for the debate. I sum up my personal stance by saying -- clean up your own yard before starting to give advice on how someone else should clean theirs.

Cambodia, get a grip. There is no guarantee that they would not be shipped back across the border.

Sorry squire. Been here for 32 years. Lived in Thailand far longer than my "home" country. This is my home whether your like it or not.

BTW what changes have you made to your home country's laws. None, I would guess. Or is that another of your inane arguments that because you made no changes at home or at least did not compain, you are not complaining about Thai laws and suggesting everyone should follow suit. Only those who have made changes qualify to suggest changes for Thailand?

I mentioned that he had been in cambodia, but there are other options much closer than NZ. Why did he not cut the journey in half and call in to Oz ? The Philippines is even closer. Malaysia, Singapore ? What drove him to go to NZ? A soft target refugee policy because he knew no-one else would touch him with a barge pole.

If you have been here for 32 years then you will be totally familiar with the day-to-day life here - but nowhere else

Whether or not I made changes in my home country is beside the point since I am not the one trying to change anything. Change is best advocated by those who have first-hand experience of the consequences of the change - not by theorists and idealists

As the old saying goes - in theory there should be no such thing as a financial advisor - if their advice was so good they'd all be millionaires

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed.

[tbthailand]

It would appear that the topic is moot since it has been demonstrated that the specific persons in question are extremely unlikely to have gained a NZ passport in the time available. If such a person had the urgency of needing refugee status, why did he travel so far when there are much closer and more immediate options available. He was apparently in Cambodia for some time -- did he not like the food? Or was the political climate not to his liking there also?

It's becoming obvious that commentary on this topic is coming from many people who apparently have only lived in their home country, maybe some other western country and Thailand. If someone comes on TV and tells how he has helped "clean up" the iniquities of the legal system in his home country, and has pòsitive suggestions regarding Thailand's laws, that will be commentary worthy of discussion.

Meantime - thanks for the debate. I sum up my personal stance by saying -- clean up your own yard before starting to give advice on how someone else should clean theirs.

I don't understand why you say it is unlikely that Ekapop could have a NZ passport. There is a picture of him with his passport. Sure it's from him, but why would he post a fake photo?

Patience is appropriate. Khaosod stated that they did not have a statement from the NZ embassy at the time of publication. If this issue stays in the news, then we'll know soon enough.

As for staying in Cambodia, that country has been on the paths of many Thai exiles, but it is not safe for someone wanted by Thai authorities to remain in that country. Safe, in the sense that the Thai military can come and forcibly repatriate you. lt's much harder to do that from the USA, Europe, or, in this case, New Zealand.

As for Thailand and its laws, of course every country can make its own laws. But in many cases, those laws are seen as violations of basic human rights by other countries. The death penalty in the USA is one example. LM is viewed as off-the-charts-crazy by the rest of the world.

"Clean up your own yard" : some other posters do mention that their countries are not perfect. If we waited for people to speak out against an injustice only once their own country was 'cleaned up', the world would be waiting a very, very long time. For that reason, such an argument doesn't carry much persuasion...

[Roadman]

Eakapop should have kept out of sight, his mouth shut and not posted on Facebook the photo of him and his girlfriend holding "claimed" NZ passports. He was well out of sight of most Thais in New Zealand by living in the Deep South where none of the few Thai there knew who he was or even that he was there. Now he has opened himself up to not only online petitions but also personnel petitions from New Zealand Thais to the Minister of Immigration who are aware of his violence inciting politicial activities beyond the charge of Lese Majestic. He is well known to Thais for his past activities as an inciter of politicial violence as an active UDD member during the politicial upheaval of the last four years. I would suspect that as the petitions start flowing into the Minister in the next few weeks that Eakapops current status in NZ will come under pressure. This has been a hot topic with the Auckalnd Thai community that I have been involved with over the Xmas break and I have yet to met one Thai who does not want him removed from NZ.

[jpinx]

It would appear that the topic is moot since it has been demonstrated that the specific persons in question are extremely unlikely to have gained a NZ passport in the time available. If such a person had the urgency of needing refugee status, why did he travel so far when there are much closer and more immediate options available. He was apparently in Cambodia for some time -- did he not like the food? Or was the political climate not to his liking there also?

It's becoming obvious that commentary on this topic is coming from many people who apparently have only lived in their home country, maybe some other western country and Thailand. If someone comes on TV and tells how he has helped "clean up" the iniquities of the legal system in his home country, and has pòsitive suggestions regarding Thailand's laws, that will be commentary worthy of discussion.

Meantime - thanks for the debate. I sum up my personal stance by saying -- clean up your own yard before starting to give advice on how someone else should clean theirs.

I don't understand why you say it is unlikely that Ekapop could have a NZ passport. There is a picture of him with his passport. Sure it's from him, but why would he post a fake photo?

Patience is appropriate. Khaosod stated that they did not have a statement from the NZ embassy at the time of publication. If this issue stays in the news, then we'll know soon enough.

As for staying in Cambodia, that country has been on the paths of many Thai exiles, but it is not safe for someone wanted by Thai authorities to remain in that country. Safe, in the sense that the Thai military can come and forcibly repatriate you. lt's much harder to do that from the USA, Europe, or, in this case, New Zealand.

As for Thailand and its laws, of course every country can make its own laws. But in many cases, those laws are seen as violations of basic human rights by other countries. The death penalty in the USA is one example. LM is viewed as off-the-charts-crazy by the rest of the world.

"Clean up your own yard" : some other posters do mention that their countries are not perfect. If we waited for people to speak out against an injustice only once their own country was 'cleaned up', the world would be waiting a very, very long time. For that reason, such an argument doesn't carry much persuasion...

I am the first to agree that my knowledge of NZ immigration is negligible but others who appear to know much more of the system there have posted along the lines of there not being sufficient time to process a passport. I seem to remember that this guy was in Cambodia a month or so ago? Whatever -- we all wait the outcome from Wellington and meantime chew the fat over the story as it is so far. As for the reasoning for a possibly fake photo -- others have posited a taunt at his home country. Hardly behaviour likely to endear him to his new hosts.

Cambodia is indeed a first step away from Thailand and may well not be quite far enough, but I believe Vietnam is much less accommodating to "extractions". Singapore certainly would be secure enough. All will become clear as the story unfolds, but it gives NZ a good chance to show it's true colours.

It's probably not unreasonable to say that the death penalty far outweighs a maximum 15 year sentence in terms of human rights violations. No-one is expected to have actually done anything, but I hope they are more vociferous about the death penalty in USA than a 15 year sentence in Thailand. Cherry picking a cause to get vocal about is an old trick, but it only produces a huge amount of hot air and discontent.

[Briggsy]

If the Thais were really serious, then they would start extradition proceedings which would fail.

These announcements are for the domestic audience. It sits very well with coup-backing members of the public, Democrat supporters and more importantly it threatens anyone who is politically opposed to the junta to shut up and keep a low profile or you will be stuck outside the country or in jail.

The generals making these comments know these exiles are not coming back under this regime.

[wwest5829]

Lese Majeste has been illegal in Thailand since forever and is a well-known law to all Thais and a lot of foreigners. You might not like the law, but you must abide by it. Many laws are not popular and are in place for reasons not always agreeable to everyone, but that's just the way things are. New Zealand are setting a very bad example by not respecting a countrys right to create and apply its own laws.

h

So, my apologies but as a hippy, dippy yippee from the 1960s I don't agree with just following a law because it is a law. It is the duty of a thoughtful citizen to rebel every once and a while and work to overturn unjust or misused laws. Think of the results of not rebelling. We would still have chattel slavery in the U.S., Apartheid in South Africa, Mandela and Gandhi sitting in jail. OK, dismiss me as an unrepentant American whose country was founded on rebellion ( not enough of it in the U.S. these days!).

[tbthailand]

It would appear that the topic is moot since it has been demonstrated that the specific persons in question are extremely unlikely to have gained a NZ passport in the time available. If such a person had the urgency of needing refugee status, why did he travel so far when there are much closer and more immediate options available. He was apparently in Cambodia for some time -- did he not like the food? Or was the political climate not to his liking there also?

It's becoming obvious that commentary on this topic is coming from many people who apparently have only lived in their home country, maybe some other western country and Thailand. If someone comes on TV and tells how he has helped "clean up" the iniquities of the legal system in his home country, and has pòsitive suggestions regarding Thailand's laws, that will be commentary worthy of discussion.

Meantime - thanks for the debate. I sum up my personal stance by saying -- clean up your own yard before starting to give advice on how someone else should clean theirs.

I don't understand why you say it is unlikely that Ekapop could have a NZ passport. There is a picture of him with his passport. Sure it's from him, but why would he post a fake photo?

Patience is appropriate. Khaosod stated that they did not have a statement from the NZ embassy at the time of publication. If this issue stays in the news, then we'll know soon enough.

As for staying in Cambodia, that country has been on the paths of many Thai exiles, but it is not safe for someone wanted by Thai authorities to remain in that country. Safe, in the sense that the Thai military can come and forcibly repatriate you. lt's much harder to do that from the USA, Europe, or, in this case, New Zealand.

As for Thailand and its laws, of course every country can make its own laws. But in many cases, those laws are seen as violations of basic human rights by other countries. The death penalty in the USA is one example. LM is viewed as off-the-charts-crazy by the rest of the world.

"Clean up your own yard" : some other posters do mention that their countries are not perfect. If we waited for people to speak out against an injustice only once their own country was 'cleaned up', the world would be waiting a very, very long time. For that reason, such an argument doesn't carry much persuasion...

I am the first to agree that my knowledge of NZ immigration is negligible but others who appear to know much more of the system there have posted along the lines of there not being sufficient time to process a passport. I seem to remember that this guy was in Cambodia a month or so ago? Whatever -- we all wait the outcome from Wellington and meantime chew the fat over the story as it is so far. As for the reasoning for a possibly fake photo -- others have posited a taunt at his home country. Hardly behaviour likely to endear him to his new hosts.

Cambodia is indeed a first step away from Thailand and may well not be quite far enough, but I believe Vietnam is much less accommodating to "extractions". Singapore certainly would be secure enough. All will become clear as the story unfolds, but it gives NZ a good chance to show it's true colours.

It's probably not unreasonable to say that the death penalty far outweighs a maximum 15 year sentence in terms of human rights violations. No-one is expected to have actually done anything, but I hope they are more vociferous about the death penalty in USA than a 15 year sentence in Thailand. Cherry picking a cause to get vocal about is an old trick, but it only produces a huge amount of hot air and discontent.

for me, it is essentially irrelevant if he actually has a passport anyway. That is relevant to him. As I understand, his Thai passport has been revoked some time ago.

Roadman's point is interesting. That demonstrates how difficult it can be to find a safe place to live in the world - for some people.

Personally, I oppose the death penalty as well as LM. But when it comes to being vocal, people are vocal within the current context. Texas recently tried to execute a man whose IQ was under 70 (I don't recall if the courts stopped that execution or not), so that is a context ...

[jpinx]

Lese Majeste has been illegal in Thailand since forever and is a well-known law to all Thais and a lot of foreigners. You might not like the law, but you must abide by it. Many laws are not popular and are in place for reasons not always agreeable to everyone, but that's just the way things are. New Zealand are setting a very bad example by not respecting a countrys right to create and apply its own laws.

h

So, my apologies but as a hippy, dippy yippee from the 1960s I don't agree with just following a law because it is a law. It is the duty of a thoughtful citizen to rebel every once and a while and work to overturn unjust or misused laws. Think of the results of not rebelling. We would still have chattel slavery in the U.S., Apartheid in South Africa, Mandela and Gandhi sitting in jail. OK, dismiss me as an unrepentant American whose country was founded on rebellion ( not enough of it in the U.S. these days!).

Rebelling once in a while was not this guys modus operandii. But all is not lost -- Gerry McAdams went from terrorist to MP. That must've been some serious "thought adjustment"

[Roadman]

It would appear that the topic is moot since it has been demonstrated that the specific persons in question are extremely unlikely to have gained a NZ passport in the time available. If such a person had the urgency of needing refugee status, why did he travel so far when there are much closer and more immediate options available. He was apparently in Cambodia for some time -- did he not like the food? Or was the political climate not to his liking there also?

It's becoming obvious that commentary on this topic is coming from many people who apparently have only lived in their home country, maybe some other western country and Thailand. If someone comes on TV and tells how he has helped "clean up" the iniquities of the legal system in his home country, and has pòsitive suggestions regarding Thailand's laws, that will be commentary worthy of discussion.

Meantime - thanks for the debate. I sum up my personal stance by saying -- clean up your own yard before starting to give advice on how someone else should clean theirs.

I don't understand why you say it is unlikely that Ekapop could have a NZ passport. There is a picture of him with his passport. Sure it's from him, but why would he post a fake photo?

Patience is appropriate. Khaosod stated that they did not have a statement from the NZ embassy at the time of publication. If this issue stays in the news, then we'll know soon enough.

As for staying in Cambodia, that country has been on the paths of many Thai exiles, but it is not safe for someone wanted by Thai authorities to remain in that country. Safe, in the sense that the Thai military can come and forcibly repatriate you. lt's much harder to do that from the USA, Europe, or, in this case, New Zealand.

As for Thailand and its laws, of course every country can make its own laws. But in many cases, those laws are seen as violations of basic human rights by other countries. The death penalty in the USA is one example. LM is viewed as off-the-charts-crazy by the rest of the world.

"Clean up your own yard" : some other posters do mention that their countries are not perfect. If we waited for people to speak out against an injustice only once their own country was 'cleaned up', the world would be waiting a very, very long time. For that reason, such an argument doesn't carry much persuasion...

I am the first to agree that my knowledge of NZ immigration is negligible but others who appear to know much more of the system there have posted along the lines of there not being sufficient time to process a passport. I seem to remember that this guy was in Cambodia a month or so ago? Whatever -- we all wait the outcome from Wellington and meantime chew the fat over the story as it is so far. As for the reasoning for a possibly fake photo -- others have posited a taunt at his home country. Hardly behaviour likely to endear him to his new hosts.

Cambodia is indeed a first step away from Thailand and may well not be quite far enough, but I believe Vietnam is much less accommodating to "extractions". Singapore certainly would be secure enough. All will become clear as the story unfolds, but it gives NZ a good chance to show it's true colours.

It's probably not unreasonable to say that the death penalty far outweighs a maximum 15 year sentence in terms of human rights violations. No-one is expected to have actually done anything, but I hope they are more vociferous about the death penalty in USA than a 15 year sentence in Thailand. Cherry picking a cause to get vocal about is an old trick, but it only produces a huge amount of hot air and discontent.

for me, it is essentially irrelevant if he actually has a passport anyway. That is relevant to him. As I understand, his Thai passport has been revoked some time ago.

Roadman's point is interesting. That demonstrates how difficult it can be to find a safe place to live in the world - for some people.

Personally, I oppose the death penalty as well as LM. But when it comes to being vocal, people are vocal within the current context. Texas recently tried to execute a man whose IQ was under 70 (I don't recall if the courts stopped that execution or not), so that is a context ...

While some Thais that are signing the petitions and sending in their own are calling for his removal from New Zealand are doing so on the basis of the LM charges a good many are signing or writing in on the knowledge of him being an active UDD member who was inciting violence on their stages over the last 4 or 5 years. So there is two different views there. Without getting myself into strife with LM rules which I am opposed to, the many that are petitioning on the UDD inciting of violence only shows that there is a healthy respect for the freedom of speech that Kiwi Thais enjoy here. The UDD inciting of violence is a different issue from LM and I am pleased Thais in their droves are petitioning the Minister for his removal. The general jist I am getting is they do not want Thai corruption and political violence spilling into NZ and causing friction between both political factions here who do readily accept each others political diversities and get on with improving their lots with each other. There is also opinion here that Eakapop has been still politically active from here in NZ and that is what is causing more upset that he is dragging Thailand crap into New Zealand.

[AlQaholic]

Lese Majeste has been illegal in Thailand since forever and is a well-known law to all Thais and a lot of foreigners. You might not like the law, but you must abide by it. Many laws are not popular and are in place for reasons not always agreeable to everyone, but that's just the way things are. New Zealand are setting a very bad example by not respecting a countrys right to create and apply its own laws.

Following the same logic, all people that got asylum from countries like North Korea, Angola etc should be returned to their countries of origin and face charges?

[jayboy]

Eakapop should have kept out of sight, his mouth shut and not posted on Facebook the photo of him and his girlfriend holding "claimed" NZ passports. He was well out of sight of most Thais in New Zealand by living in the Deep South where none of the few Thai there knew who he was or even that he was there. Now he has opened himself up to not only online petitions but also personnel petitions from New Zealand Thais to the Minister of Immigration who are aware of his violence inciting politicial activities beyond the charge of Lese Majestic. He is well known to Thais for his past activities as an inciter of politicial violence as an active UDD member during the politicial upheaval of the last four years. I would suspect that as the petitions start flowing into the Minister in the next few weeks that Eakapops current status in NZ will come under pressure. This has been a hot topic with the Auckalnd Thai community that I have been involved with over the Xmas break and I have yet to met one Thai who does not want him removed from NZ.

It matters not a jot what the Auckland Thai community thinks.There is a clear principle involved here which the New Zealand Government will not breach.If the Auckland Thai community cannot adjust to civilised values it should be educated as to what it means to live in a free democracy.And shame on you for your complicity.

[tbthailand]

I don't understand why you say it is unlikely that Ekapop could have a NZ passport. There is a picture of him with his passport. Sure it's from him, but why would he post a fake photo?

Patience is appropriate. Khaosod stated that they did not have a statement from the NZ embassy at the time of publication. If this issue stays in the news, then we'll know soon enough.

As for staying in Cambodia, that country has been on the paths of many Thai exiles, but it is not safe for someone wanted by Thai authorities to remain in that country. Safe, in the sense that the Thai military can come and forcibly repatriate you. lt's much harder to do that from the USA, Europe, or, in this case, New Zealand.

As for Thailand and its laws, of course every country can make its own laws. But in many cases, those laws are seen as violations of basic human rights by other countries. The death penalty in the USA is one example. LM is viewed as off-the-charts-crazy by the rest of the world.

"Clean up your own yard" : some other posters do mention that their countries are not perfect. If we waited for people to speak out against an injustice only once their own country was 'cleaned up', the world would be waiting a very, very long time. For that reason, such an argument doesn't carry much persuasion...

I am the first to agree that my knowledge of NZ immigration is negligible but others who appear to know much more of the system there have posted along the lines of there not being sufficient time to process a passport. I seem to remember that this guy was in Cambodia a month or so ago? Whatever -- we all wait the outcome from Wellington and meantime chew the fat over the story as it is so far. As for the reasoning for a possibly fake photo -- others have posited a taunt at his home country. Hardly behaviour likely to endear him to his new hosts.

Cambodia is indeed a first step away from Thailand and may well not be quite far enough, but I believe Vietnam is much less accommodating to "extractions". Singapore certainly would be secure enough. All will become clear as the story unfolds, but it gives NZ a good chance to show it's true colours.

It's probably not unreasonable to say that the death penalty far outweighs a maximum 15 year sentence in terms of human rights violations. No-one is expected to have actually done anything, but I hope they are more vociferous about the death penalty in USA than a 15 year sentence in Thailand. Cherry picking a cause to get vocal about is an old trick, but it only produces a huge amount of hot air and discontent.

for me, it is essentially irrelevant if he actually has a passport anyway. That is relevant to him. As I understand, his Thai passport has been revoked some time ago.

Roadman's point is interesting. That demonstrates how difficult it can be to find a safe place to live in the world - for some people.

Personally, I oppose the death penalty as well as LM. But when it comes to being vocal, people are vocal within the current context. Texas recently tried to execute a man whose IQ was under 70 (I don't recall if the courts stopped that execution or not), so that is a context ...

While some Thais that are signing the petitions and sending in their own are calling for his removal from New Zealand are doing so on the basis of the LM charges a good many are signing or writing in on the knowledge of him being an active UDD member who was inciting violence on their stages over the last 4 or 5 years. So there is two different views there. Without getting myself into strife with LM rules which I am opposed to, the many that are petitioning on the UDD inciting of violence only shows that there is a healthy respect for the freedom of speech that Kiwi Thais enjoy here. The UDD inciting of violence is a different issue from LM and I am pleased Thais in their droves are petitioning the Minister for his removal. The general jist I am getting is they do not want Thai corruption and political violence spilling into NZ and causing friction between both political factions here who do readily accept each others political diversities and get on with improving their lots with each other. There is also opinion here that Eakapop has been still politically active from here in NZ and that is what is causing more upset that he is dragging Thailand crap into New Zealand.

I have not followed his history, but since he is now 23 years old, 4-5 years ago would make him rather young, don't you think?

The charges on LM are from just over a year ago.

In either case, the LM charge makes him a political refugee, right?

Having the right to free speech, he can continue to speak his mind. If the Junta finds that offensive, that is their problem. If other Thais in NZ find that offensive, that is their problem. That's the way freedom of expression works.

[gomangosteen]

Referencing two earlier posts:

post #46

UNHCR site 21 Sept 2014

He is under the protection of the Cambodian office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

and

post #83

Each year New Zealand accepts 750 refugees for resettlement through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

there is mention in another English language newspaper today that does not mention 'political asylum' - and suggests the Thai query is whether this man has been granted refugee status.

If you've read Khaosod English previously, their efforts at translation can vary from poor to . . . whatever.

And after all, there's a lot of guesswork going on based upon a single photo on a Facebook page.

Wearing a Cory's Electrical (nationwide, and part of the global Sonepar Group) shirt makes him no more an employee than my wearing my BMW shirt makes me a racing car driver.

If that [uN-supported refugee status] were the case, perhaps the venom here should be directed towards the United Nations agency UNHCR, being as they are the 'vetting' authority in such cases?

*********

As a side note, if the FBI cannot get Kim Dotcom out of NZ to face charges in USA despite several years' efforts and millions in legal cases, I wouldn't be backing the Thai Gov't chances IF he is there under refugee status

[Tomtomtom69]

The NZ passport issue is a bit confusing though. How can anyone who has only been in a country for one month obtain citizenship and a passport? How good is this guy's English? How well has he integrated into society? He doesn't seem to have any local friends, evidenced by that other Thai girl (or ladyboy, since the caption on the picture refers to HIM on the left (L)) and he doesn't seem to be wanted by either other Thais living in New Zealand or New Zealanders.

So in that sense how can he deserve a passport? I mean, sure he may be stateless now but apart from giving him a refuge, New Zealand certainly shouldn't be giving him a passport that quickly, it makes a mockery of the immigration system.

I mean, if I were suddenly taken in as a refugee, had my previous citizenships stripped by my home countries and became stateless would Thailand give me a passport within a month? OK maybe if I bribed the right government official and even more likely if I were Chinese or Indian, many of whom hold fake Thai ID cards because they can blend it more, but I highly doubt it.

[gomangosteen]

From the New Zealand Herald today; clarifies some things - as per my post #116 - he is a United Nations UNHCR refugee

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed officials had met with Thai counterparts to "explain New Zealand's refugee resettlement policy".

People who have been granted refugee status by the United Nations refugee agency could resettle in New Zealand under its quota refugee system.

The Bangkok embassy and immigration officials refused to comment on the matter.

Immigration NZ said it could not discuss the case "on privacy and legal grounds".

Why is he in New Zealand?
He was granted refugee status by the UNHCR last year and fled here via Cambodia to escape persecution in his home country.

[WitawatWatawit]

Confirmed, gomangosteen. To be the holder of a NZ passport, he would have to be a NZ citizen, and I don't see where he has claimed that. So, why are he and his g/f posing with NZ passports if they are not the legitimate holders of them? Is this for propaganda purposes? To rub salt into Thai wounds? If so, then he has shown disrespect to his hosts by including them in his propaganda and by carrying out political activities on NZ territory. He has, in such a situation, compromised his legitimacy as a refugee. If Immigration NZ decide to nullify his status and order him to leave the country, he cannot expect much sympathy.

[jpinx]

It would appear that the UNHCR is not really competent