Illegally acquired land in hands of influential people face seizure

[wabothai]

They seem to have to ask daddy first. JCst.

[Eric Loh]

Let me guess that the 44 provinces do not include Samui, Surat Thani and Nakorn Sri Thammarat. Only good people stay there.

[gandalf12]

Actions speak louder than words. Cameras, action

[1phish2phish]

Constitution...vote...oh, nevermind

[gemguy]

Hmmmmm...I am thinking the document forgers and or bribes paid by "Influential People" to "Influential Officials" at the land title offices will be very busy now.

Cheers

Edited May 12, 2016 by gemguy

[connda]

I'm assuming that 'illegally acquired land in the hands of' anybody should face seizure? Am I missing something?

[kimamey]

I wonder whether the zeal for redistributing illegally acquired land intended for the poor will extend to 11 wealthy families in Phuket connected to a certain prominent ex monk who has renounced politics...

It certainly should do as otherwise it brings the law into disrepute. Unfortunately I think your fears may be well founded as this sort of bias seems to be fairly normal here on all sides.

I don't understand the reason for using article 44. This is something which is clearly not following normal laws. It's similar to emergency powers in some but not all ways and would generally be used when there's no other option which I don't see applying in this case. If it's held illegally then they don't own it so there's no reason to use anything other than standard court backed procedures instead of article 44 the only advantage of which is probably speed. I assume this alleged illegal acquisition took place some time ago and the current regime will probably be in power until late next year so why the hurry? It all seems unnecessarily complicated way to do things. If the normal approach doesn't work then maybe use article 44.

If article 44 or any other legislation that doesn't predate the coup is used there's always the possibility of a legal challenge later. I'm no lawyer but from the little I know I can see credible reasons to challenge this. Unfortunately I can't be more specific.

It would be a shame to seize it only for it to be given back because of the way it was dealt with.

Article 44 because it is not subject to judicial review?

They can be as selective as they like in targeting the "influential people" they want to give a bloody nose!

I'm fairly sure that the law has been used selectively before the coup and article 44 so I can't see any reason that existing laws can't be used now.

After elections are finally held I think there's a pretty good chance that anything done by the current administration, including article 44 will be able to be overturned due to the methods used to imponent them assuming anyone wants to. (Trying to be very careful with my words to avoid trouble.)

If the existing laws have been used then the fact the land was illegally held would mean there's no reason to overturn a decision to seize it as it conforms to the laws put in place by a democratic government. You could claim that land held illegally by others should also also be seized but it's not a reason for yours not to be.

Even if an article 44 decision was overruled the same accusation of bias could be levelled but the seizure itself could also be deemed illegal. That would bring you back to using existing laws again.

I know which method I'd find easier to argue against.

[kimamey]

Article 44 because it is not subject to judicial review?

They can be as selective as they like in targeting the "influential people" they want to give a bloody nose!

Why should it be subject to judicial review? Many countries, including the US and Oz have laws where assets suspected of being illegally obtained or the proceeds of crime can be seized without judicial review. All you have to is prove how your assets were legally obtained, not difficult for the honest citizen.

I should imagine, since you mention the USA and Australia, that those laws were debated by the appropriate parliament (elected), passed by a majority vote and are subject to some form of check and/or appeal process. They may even have been part of a manifesto presented to the electorate in a general election. Here it's at the whim of a self appointed junta leader. There is quite a significant difference.

But in that case it would be the same as article 44 and just as legally weak so that's not the same as using pre coup laws as they were intended which if the claims of illegality are to be believed would be perfectly adequate.

The only reason I can see not to use pre existing laws is if the land isn't illegally held or there's a need to get this done more quickly than using the courts. The way the election keeps being put back I can't see speed being an important issue.

[tuanku]

If they use Article 44 it is saying in capital letters WE, THE UNLOVED JUNTA DID THIS - YOU SEE WE ARE GOOD PEOPLE AND WE DO CARE. If they let the courts and police doit, A it won't happen, and B they won't get the direct credit in the eyes of the people.

[halloween]

Article 44 because it is not subject to judicial review?

They can be as selective as they like in targeting the "influential people" they want to give a bloody nose!

Why should it be subject to judicial review? Many countries, including the US and Oz have laws where assets suspected of being illegally obtained or the proceeds of crime can be seized without judicial review. All you have to is prove how your assets were legally obtained, not difficult for the honest citizen.

I should imagine, since you mention the USA and Australia, that those laws were debated by the appropriate parliament (elected), passed by a majority vote and are subject to some form of check and/or appeal process. They may even have been part of a manifesto presented to the electorate in a general election. Here it's at the whim of a self appointed junta leader. There is quite a significant difference.

So your problem isn't with the seizure of illegally acquired assets, it's with the government of the day. You remind me of my ex-wife, even when I was doing the right thing, I was doing it wrong, even when I was doing it exactly the same as everyone else.

[JAG]

Article 44 because it is not subject to judicial review?

They can be as selective as they like in targeting the "influential people" they want to give a bloody nose!

Why should it be subject to judicial review? Many countries, including the US and Oz have laws where assets suspected of being illegally obtained or the proceeds of crime can be seized without judicial review. All you have to is prove how your assets were legally obtained, not difficult for the honest citizen.

I should imagine, since you mention the USA and Australia, that those laws were debated by the appropriate parliament (elected), passed by a majority vote and are subject to some form of check and/or appeal process. They may even have been part of a manifesto presented to the electorate in a general election. Here it's at the whim of a self appointed junta leader. There is quite a significant difference.

So your problem isn't with the seizure of illegally acquired assets, it's with the government of the day. You remind me of my ex-wife, even when I was doing the right thing, I was doing it wrong, even when I was doing it exactly the same as everyone else.

No, if you read my post you would realise that my problem is with the seizures being conducted using Section 44, essentially a decree selectively applied by the leader of a junta government. I would have no problem with the seizures being carried out in accordance with the laws (which I believe already exist) passed into effect by a properly constituted government, subject as I said to appeal and/or judicial oversight.

As for your ex wife, far be it from me to pass comment on your relationship when you were married.

[Artisi]

The land of the unknown, we don't know if the land you claim to be yours is legal or not because our records are so compromised, useless, inaccurate or non-existent how could we know.

However, the appropriate brown envelope sufficiently padded easily proves ownership in the case of doubt.

[tuanku]

Given that quite a few major land encroachers have the title General or Admiral in front of their names (they can afford the process of getting illegal land) I wonder how many of them are on the "hit list". One cannot say in the present political system they are not influential.

Prayuth's predecessor in 2006;

Surayud was chairman of the Khao Yai National Park Protection Foundation.^[18]

However, after becoming Premier in 2006, he was accused of breaching the Forestry Act and the National Forest Reserves Act by illegally owning forest land in Yaithiang Mountain of Nakhon Ratchasima province. He vowed to resign and return the land (which he did not deny owning) if found guilty.^[19]

In February 2010 after demonstrations by the "Red Shirts" at Khao Yaithiang Mountain, Surayud, who by then had already left politics, returned the land to the Royal Forestry Department when it was found that the land is indeed located within forest reserve land under the Ministry's decades old code. The plot of land is now under Royal Forestry Department's care. However, up until now no legal action has been taken by Thai authorities against him or other landowners of similar case around the country. Some opposition pressed him to resign from his post as Privy Councillor only as to understand later that Surayud "had no ill intention" and that it was highly inappropriate to ask for resignation of the post on such unreasonable ground. Source wikipedia.

Edited May 15, 2016 by tuanku

[willyumiii]

" seize these land back from influential people and distribute to the poor to lead their lives."

Why not take it a step further?

​Find out how they were illegally acquired and from who.they were acquired.

If appropriate, return the land to those who were cheated out of it.

Or do they really just want to give it to their own " poor" friends?

Is this a case of justice...or just us?

[Lampang2]

Was it ever seized?

[SABloke]

Was it ever seized?

Shhh...you're not supposed to lift the rug damnit >_>

[Rancid]

It's like Hi-so really, everyone that drives an old Mercedes or sports a coiffured hairdo regards themselves as such. These type of issues separates the wannabe influential and the actual influential.

 

Greed is an interesting phenomenon though, regardless of how much is acquired, whether it can even be spent in 20 lifetimes, there is never enough. Regardless how many have to walked over, stolen from or even killed to get it, there is never enough. This of course isn't only a Thai trait, the pathologically greedy the world over are all the same. Eventually it is just acquisition for the sake of acquisition.