PM Clarifies British Nationality

[Admin]

PM Clarifies British Nationality
Tan Network 2011-02-28

The prime minister has cited unclear legal implications as the reason for not having renounced his British citizenship after the red-shirt group has brought on the controversial issue.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva admitted to having not renounced his British nationality because he is uncertain about the legal procedures and implications in this matter.

Abhisit said he decided to break his silence as he does not want the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship activists to accuse him of running away from allegations.

The premier said he has spoken to several lawyers and has gotten various suggestions.

He reiterated that he has been adhering to Thai law, which he claims is suffice to demonstrate his intention to hold his Thai nationality.

Regarding the red-shirt group's attempts to raise the issue to make a case against him to the World Court, the prime minister said he would leave it to the judges there to decide.

[isanbirder]

There's nothing wrong with having dual nationality, but as a politician Abhisit would have been wise to clarify the issue long before this.

[boloa]

Will he be doing 90 day report's now with the rest of us ex-pats    ..:-)

[Admin]

Will he be doing 90 day report's now with the rest of us ex-pats    ..:-)

I don't think so!@!

[nookiebear]

Now you can see why Thailand is going downhill as per UK

[Dave the Dude]

Why is the rest of the Asian population moving in here, Nookie?

[nookiebear]

Why is the rest of the Asian population moving in here, Nookie?

I doubt its due to the fact that you're here

[isanbirder]

Why is the rest of the Asian population moving in here, Nookie?

I doubt its due to the fact that you're here

I don't know about that, Nookie.  He's said to make a cracking vindaloo!

[Admin]

Citizenship issue emerges to haunt Abhisit
By Tulsathit Taptim
The Nation 2011-03-02

It's about the highest law of the land.

And yet if something is not spelt out unequivocally, the people in power should know that constitutional wills sometimes dosn't need to be described word for word. It's as much about conscience as it is about legal interpretation. We have heard it all before. Or have we?

At least, we didn't hear it from Chaturon Chaisaeng when his boss, Thaksin Shinawatra, was embroiled in the share concealment scandal, the repercussions of which the whole country is still feeling today.

Chaturon, in a blog post slamming Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva over the UK "citizenship" controversy, sounds right in most, if not all, of his arguments. Abhisit can't say "others can do it" because he's not just an ordinary Thai citizen. That Abhisit has not invoked or abused his UK rights doesn't justify keeping those rights. The Charter isn't clear on the prime minister's post and dual citizenship, but those with good conscience should be able to tell what the constitutional wills are and abide by them. There has been no problem with those "rights" of Abhisit so far, but what about in the future? And so on.

Chaturon's line is that if the Constitution Court rules in Abhisit's favour on this one, "it will be great fun". That is exactly what this newspaper said when the Constitution Court let Thaksin off the hook in 2001 while on the same day finding a Thai Rak Thai MP guilty of a similar offence (which was a lot lesser in magnitude). We don't have to ask where Chaturon was at that time, because we know. He was in the Thaksin government.

(Before we proceed, let's assume that Chaturon's every reference to the "Constitution" was generically speaking. Thaksin, Pheu Thai and the red shirts do not cherish this present Charter, so it doesn't make sense to believe that Chaturon was sticking his neck out for an "undemocratic, military-installed" Constitution.)

Can Abhisit hold the right to claim UK citizenship? That's debatable. Should he keep it? Like Chaturon said, of course not. Chaturon rightly cited the case of a Peruvian president who fled corruption charges to Japan, the country where he also "belonged", in a bid to stay safe from Peru's legal reach. (Let's also forgo the mini irony of the red shirts' legal representatives attempting to use Abhisit's UK "citizenship" as a channel to take him to the International Criminal Court for last year's "Bangkok massacre". The Peruvian case is Chaturon's solid argument, as it demonstrated that a leader holding dual citizenship can lead his country into all kinds of trouble.)

Chaturon's biggest problem is that, where Thaksin was concerned, he failed to use the same logic that has led him to apply the Peruvian example against Abhisit. Chaturon failed to think that although concealed telecom shares - clearly unconstitutional and illegal at the time - were creating no big problem, they could in the future. And they have.

Now, Thaksin is no longer prime minister, but Abhisit is. What should we do? Last week, Abhisit "came out", admitting that he holds the right to claim UK citizenship, but he did not quite come clean. Even newspaper headlines suggested different things, indicating confusion remained. Thai Post, for example, splashed its front page with "PM admits to holding dual citizenship".

There's a huge difference between actually holding UK citizenship and being eligible to claim it. Where is Abhisit exactly?
As a prime minister, the latter scenario is inappropriate, but the former sets him up for potential conflict of interest - like when Thaksin was both head of the government and patriarch of the country's biggest telecom company at the same time.

What Abhisit said in Parliament on Thursday is on the record. Shall we presume that he was well aware what it would be like if he were to be caught giving distorted information or telling a lie? The citizenship issue has opened him up to new scrutiny. Like it or not, he must face it, Chaturon or no Chaturon.

This is how Chaturon ended his article: "I'm not telling Abhisit to let go of UK citizenship. I'm telling the man, who knew all along that he was holding UK citizenship (or the right to claim it), and that he could have waived it if he so chose, that he no longer deserves to be prime minister."

This is what Chaturon said in March, 2006, as he voiced strong opposition to any solution to the anti-Thaksin political crisis if the solution breached the Charter: "How could I ever explain to the younger generation if I were to accept a political way out that required tearing apart the Constitution?"

Both statements sound righteous. The much-beloved 1997 "People's Constitution", which exists no more, would have said to that: "The story of my life!

[Mymatesaid]

As far as I am aware anybody who was born in the UK before 1983 automatically recieved UK citizenship.

It's not as if he applied for it.

How is he suppopsed to revoke it? Go back in time and get born somewhere else.

It's all just mud slinging from the Reds.

[isanbirder]

If you are born with dual nationality, many countries make you choose one or the other, I think when you are 21.  If this is not the case, revocation shouldn't be difficult.  Of course, yes, it is just mudslinging.

[Admin]

Pheu Thai asks British govt to probe Abhisit's nationality
NNT 2011-03-07

BANGKOK, 7 March 2011 (NNT) – The opposition Pheu Thai Party has asked the British government to investigate if Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has ever used any rights as a British citizen or not.

The request was contained in a letter submitted to British Prime Minister David Cameron on Monday by Pheu Thai Party Spokesperson Prompong Nopparit via the British embassy in Bangkok. Speaking upon his submission of the letter, Mr Prompong said his move was to find out whether Prime Minister Abhisit was trying to conceal his dual citizenship in order to protect his Thai premiership.

According to the letter, the British government is requested to answer if Prime Minister Abhisit has ever entered the UK without a visa, if the PM has ever claimed British nationality for studies at Eton College and at Oxford University, and if he had ever used any rights as a British citizen.

Mr Prompong stated that he decided to ask for clarifications since the prime minister mentioned in Parliament that he had never used any rights as a British citizen; however, the claim contradicted to the information he has that the prime minister used to take advantage as a British citizen for his studies.

The spokesperson voiced his concerns that the prime minister might lie to the public, and he might have some hidden benefits for holding the British citizenship. He said the prime minister might set a bad example for others.

Mr Prompong noted that usually an embassy official would come out to accept public petitions, but in his submission of the letter today, it was a security guard to take the issue. He was afraid that embassy officials might be lobbied, and that Pheu Thai’s petition might be submitted in vain.