Sundary, November 9, 2008

One of my friends wrote to me about procedures to get Bahamas citizenship. Bahamas does not recognise dual citizenship.

"Remember last month when T said he would surrender his red passport voluntarily "to take the pressure off the PM"?
 
Did that make any sense given how important this has been to him?
 
Theory: maybe he needed to surrender his Thai passport or declare he would to get the Bahamas citizenship?
 
Bahamas law does not recognize dual citizenship and says that if you are born somewhere else you have to renounce it within 12 months of becoming a Bahamas naturalized citizen.
 
So if he gives up the Thai passport forget about ever extraditing him - or anyway it will be very hard.
 
He can always reclaim the Thai passport later as a born Thai."

*************************************

BAHAMAS

CITIZENSHIP: Citizenship is based upon the Constitution of The Bahamas, dated July 10, 1973. All persons who were citizens of The Bahamas before July 10, 1973, retain their citizenship.
BY BIRTH: Birth within the territory of The Bahamas does not automatically confer citizenship.
BY DESCENT: Child born legitimately in the territory of The Bahamas, at least one of whose parents is a citizen of The Bahamas. Child born abroad legitimately, whose father is a citizen of The Bahamas.
REGISTRATION: The following persons are eligible to obtain Bahamian citizenship through registration: Foreign woman who marries a citizen of the Bahamas. Person (18 years or older), born in the Bahamas, but whose parents were not citizens of the Bahamas. Person (18 years or older), born in wedlock outside the Bahamas to a Bahamian mother. Child adopted by Bahamian citizens.
BY NATURALIZATION: Bahamian citizenship may be acquired upon fulfillment of the following conditions: Person has resided six to nine years in the country (12 months consecutively before applying), intends to reside permanently in the country, is of good character, and knows the language and customs.

DUAL CITIZENSHIP: NOT RECOGNIZED. Exception: Dual citizenship obtained due to birth abroad may be retained up to 21 years of age. Person then has 12 months to renounce foreign citizenship; otherwise their Bahamian citizenship will be revoked.

LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP:
VOLUNTARY: Voluntary renunciation of Bahamian citizenship is permitted by Parliament. Contact the Embassy for details and required paperwork.
INVOLUNTARY: Parliament has the right to revoke the citizenship of any naturalized citizen. The following is grounds for involuntary loss of native-born citizenship: Person voluntarily acquires a foreign citizenship.

ANY QUESTIONS concerning citizenship, or requests for renunciation of citizenship, should be directed to the address below:
Embassy of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas bahemb@aol.com Consular Section www.bahamas.net.bs/government 2220 Massachusetts Ave., NW www.bahamas.net Washington, DC 20008
Embassy/Consular Telephone: 202-319-2660 Fax: 202-319-2668

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Why did the UK government decide to deny the visas of  Thaksin Shinawatra and his wife, Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra?

Why? 

We can only made circumstantial speculation at this point because the British authorities have categorically denied to comment on this matter. Even the British press had not heard anything about Thaksin's visa. The visa story was broken in Bangkok on Friday's evening.

There was one slight hint that we have overheard so far: The condition that Thaksin got his UK visa then and the condition that Thaksin would not get his re-entry visa now are different.

After suffering from a military coup that removed him from power, Thaksin flew directly from New York to London for an asylum on September 19, 2006.  Later on the British government simply said Thaksin could get in and out of the UK through normal visa -- nothing special.

The UK has been granting asylums to all kinds of leaders, dictators, dissidents, none of whom have ever been kicked out.

But the UK, to be frank, was not happy with the Thai coup at all. At least Thaksin was considered pro-British. During his prime ministership, Tesco Lotus of the UK was expanding its wholesale business in Thailand rapidly and aggressively, with Thaksin's blessing.

There had been attempts to introduce a retail law to curb the expansion of the foreign retailers and wholesalers. But during Thaksin's time, the retail law would never see the light.

In this light, Thaksin should be considered as having promoting and supporting British interests. Thaksin would be welcome to the UK any time. And the UK had played down Thaksin's stay in London as just another rich foreigner.

Australia also had a similar frame of thought. Since Thaksin delivered the free trade agreement with Australia, he would also be welcome to stay in Australia in the event that he could not find a sanctuary after the coup.

Now it is not sure whether Australia's position remains the same or has changed. 

The British Home Office about a month ago confirmed that Thaksin was seeking a political asylum status.

That was then.

So now what conditions that have changed and have led the British authorities to revoke Thaksin's visa?

1. The Supreme Court's verdict against Thaksin changed the course of events. Thaksin was found guilty over the Rachadapisek land deal and was sentenced to two years in prison. Before receiving the verdict, he jumped bail and left Thailand with his wife. Earlier, Pojaman received a three-year sentence for tax evasion in another stock dealing case.

2. Thaksin's status is not of a political asylum seeker any more because he received the verdict from the Supreme Court, Thailand's highest court of the land. Rather his status is now of a convict on a run. The British authorities are understood to have sent a team to study the verdict of the Rachadapisek land deal closely.

3. Thaksin could not claim that he was a victim of political persecution. He charged that the military leaders, who staged the 2006 coup, were behind the verdict against him.

4. Thaksin was back in Thailand between February and August, during which time his People Power Party was in power. Nobody was issuing him any threat.

5. The British government might feel uncomfortable were it to allow Thaksin to use London as his headquarters to plot against Thailand.

6. Since Thaksin is an ordinary criminal convict, his request for political asylum is weak. The British authorities waited until he and his wife left the country before denying them re-entry visa.

7. By doing so, Thaksin and Pojaman could not stage an appeal.

8. The British government has sent out an implicit message that it recognises the judiciary system of Thailand.

9. London would feel unfortable similarly if Bangkok were to allow a Briton to use Thailand as headquarters to plot against England.

10. London has now removed the burden of Thaksin from its chest without hurting anybody's else feelings except Thaksin and Pojaman.

11. One theory is that London might have uncovered some hanky-panky deals of Thaksin. In the past, again, London has never kicked any leaders out. 

12. One Thai official said whenever Thai authorities go to London, one of the most frequent questions asked is Thaksin's record in the extermination of the drug dealers, around 6,000-7,000 of whom were killed in the drug suppression campaign.

12. It was a secret deal between Thailand and the UK.

13. Thaksin can no longer claim that he represents Democracy in the international arena because of the UK's visa stance against him.

14. Thai rule of law is being pursued and upheld not only in Thailand but also being recognised elsewhere.

15. Letigimacy of rule of law is equally important as legitimacy of Democracy.

########################################

What can Thaksin do now?

Chuan Leekpai, the former leader of the Democrat Party, said several time while Thaksin was in power that "He might need to be more careful because one day he might not have a land to live." Chuan's prophecy is fulfilled.

1. His Thai Rak Thai people say Thaksin might go to Bahamas. But how would he can ensure that he get adequate security protection?

2.  Another Thai Rak Thai person said Thaksin is building a Bt300-million home in Beijing. Will Beijing grand Thaksin's asylum? China now has very close and good relationship with Thailand. China might not want to handle this hot potato.

3. What would be the position of the Common Wealth countries, the EU or the United States  if Thaksin were to apply for visas to travel to their countries? Would they heed London's action. Once a country allows Thaksin in, it would be very difficult to have him out because the appeal process can drag on for years.

 4. Should Thaksin head for Taiwan or Cambodia instead where there are no extradition treaties? Watana Asvahem, the former chairman of Puea Pandin Party who is on a run from a court verdict, is now believed to be living in Koh Kong, Cambodia. 

5. Or should Thaksin return home and go straight to jail for two years and plot his political game from there?

#################################################### 

Saturday, November 8, 2008

All of Thaksin Shinawatra's plans and strategies to make a political comeback through a revolution of some sort have begun to backfire. Thaksin has indeed painted himself into the corner.

This followed the British Embassy's decision to revoke the entry visa of Thaksin and his wife, Khunying Pojaman. A British notification was sent to all airlines yesterday indicating that the UK Border Agency has revoked the visas held by Thaksin and Pojaman.

"The UK visa contained in the passports of the individuals listed above are no longer valid for travel. Airlines are advised not to carry these passengers to the UK."

Where am I to go -- Bahamas, Bermuda, Chad or Transylvania, where true democracy welcomes me?

What a big twist in the ongoing political turmoil.

Thaksin was believed to be in China while the UK notification was issued. Thai politicians flew off to see him in China to draw up a new political plan and pick up their checks as Thaksin was declaring war to make a political comeback. He was also scheduled next to the Philippines.

We do not know yet while the UK government has decided to revoke Thaksin's and Pojaman's visas. But by doing so, the UK government has acknowleged the credibility of the Thai judiciary system and the legitimacy of the rule of law of the Kingdom of Thailand.

 Thaksin had been spinning his predicament to his political advantage. He pit himself against the elite by portraying himself as a force of Democracy and painting the the elite as anti-Democracy.

He denounced the Thai judiciary system and told the world that he was a victim of political persecution. But the fact was that he jumped bail and received a two-year jail sentence for his conflict interest in the Rachadapisek land deal. Pojaman also earlier received a jail term from the Criminal Court over tax evasion for her stock dealing.

His Saturday Night Live's phone-in show on November 1, 2008 to his 50,000 supporters in Bangkok's Rajaangala Stadium marked the point of no return. He openly challenged the Monarchy to distract the public opinion on the legal sentences pending over him.

The Law Society of Thailand has issued a statement to say that Thaksin acted in contempt of the Monarchy and the Judiciary in his phone-in speech.

 The Law Society of Thailand's President, Dej-udom Krairit said Thaksin's remark, "Nothing can bring me home except the mercy of His Majesty the King or the power of the people," was clearly intended to interfere with the royal power to grant pardons.

"The speech was aimed at forestalling criminal punishment. It was a hasty attempt to seek a royal pardon when the case [against Thaksin] was not yet completed," Dej-udom said.

He said Thaksin's speech was also intended to reduce the credibility of the judiciary and could be regarded as contempt of court.

"In my experience, I have rarely heard any convicted person publicly say he was 'forced to get jail', not even those sentenced to death," he said.

Thaksin and Pojaman sneaked out of the country in August before the Supreme Court's reading out the verdict of the Rachadapisek land deal.   

Special Branch police earlier this week concluded that Thaksin's speech contained no message that could be regarded as lese majeste, a criminal offence that carries a penalty of three to 15 years in prison. Yet the police were quick to nab Sulak Sivalaksa, the outspoken social critic on lese majeste charges on Friday.

Dark politics is underway to distort realities and win over world's and local public opinions by slandering the Monarchy in order to cover up Thaksin's entrapment in the rule of law. 

Earlier one of a senior editors of The Nation said in a newsroom that given the sound relations between Thailand and the UK, it would be impossible for Thaksin and Pojaman to get a political asylum status.

If the UK were to grant Thaksin and Pojama the political asylum status, it would mean that it does not recognise the legitimacy of the Thai judiciary system. The stake of bilateral relations is high.

The implications are far-reaching as the US, the European Union and other countries will have to adopt a similar stance of the UK when it comes to considering a political asylum request from the Thai couple.

With the UK's denial of Thaksin's and Pojaman's visas, the couple can continue to run but they will not be very certain where to go.

######################################################

Lesson of Thai leaders' code of conduct

The problem now with Thailand is that Thaksin Shinawatra does not concede. This is not Thai-like as judged by the political history.

In the past, all Thai leaders who lost power or the game of power play agreed to live in exile or stayed in Thailand in seclusion for the sake of the whole country rather than fighting till their supporters and their opponents died. Modern Thai political history is spared the bloodshed compared with other nations.

King Rama VII faced a military coup in 1932 that brought down Absolute Monarchy, which had been around in Thailand for more than 700 years. The King conceded his power because he did not want the Thais to kill each other.

When the King realised that he could not be part of managing the country in transition for the interest of the majority Thais, he abdicated from the throne in 1935. Then the coup-makers were more interested in power struggle for their own benefits. The King left for England and died there.

This was the King's sacrifice.

Field Marshal Pibul Songkram lost power in the political fight against Gen Sarit Thanarat. He fled to Japan and died in exile there. He conceded the defeat and never plotted to destroy Thailand, although he had a capacity to do so. Given his power, he could easily have marshalled a military faction in support of him for a political comeback.

This was Field Marshal Pibul's sacrifice.

Pridi Panomyong, the statesman, also lived in exile in China and later France after losing the political power. He conceded the defeat without blaming any one, at least openly. The stake of the country was higher than his own benefits.

This was Pridi's sacrifice.

Field Marshal Thanom Kittikajorn, after the 1973 bloody incident, stepped down from power. He was the dictator with the most powerful. But he agreed to resign after the bloody incident for the sake of the country.

He was even more power than Thaksin or any leaders because Thailand in the early 1970s was still very underdeveloped without any institutions. He could easily have eliminated all of his political opponents easily with his guns and tanks.

But Field Marshal Thanom lived in seclusion without trying to reclaim the political power or plan any plot against his country.

This was Field Marshal Thanom's sacrifice.

Gen Suchinda staged a coup and afterward he ran into the political crisis with the May 1992 tragedy. The military then under his regime was most powerful, unchallenged. But he agreed to step down for the sake of the country. He never plotted any ill plan against Thailand.

This was Gen Suchinda's sacrifice.

Thaksin Shinawatra is the first to have violated the Thai leadership's code of conduct. He would not concede a defeat even when it is over. He has been plotting ill plan against Thailand all along with his international and local PR machines.

He does not know how to make a sacrifice.

###################################################