Why Thaksin Believes The UK Will Grant Him Asylum

[Gaybutton]

The following appears in THE NATION:

_____

 

EX-PM ON THE RUN

 

'Sinatra' Becomes a Diplomatic Hot Potato

 

Published on August 12, 2008

 

Speculation about Bid for Asylum; Former PM Claims Courts Unfair

 

The move by deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his wife Pojaman to flee to the UK has raised speculation about whether he can seek political asylum to escape a host of corruption charges.

 

Thaksin issued a statement yesterday claiming that political motives were behind his decision to live in exile in the UK, where "democracy is more important" than his homeland.

 

"What happened to me and my family and my close relations resulted from efforts to get rid of me from politics; by assassination attempts; by military coup; by hand-picking my opponents to handle legal charges," he said in his hand written statement.

 

"These individuals see me as their political enemy. They have no consideration of the judicial system, truth and legal principle. My family and I have been treated unjustly."

 

Thaksin's claim that he and his family face a political threat may be aimed at helping them "fit" the definition on the status of refugees from the 1951 United Nations convention.

 

The UK is a signatory to the convention (unlike Thailand) and has a long history of recognising asylum seekers who lodge credible claims that they were forced to leave and are unable to return to their homeland because a well-founded fear of persecution because of political opinion, race, religion or nationality.

 

People who flee to avoid conviction for corruption or other crimes do not qualify for asylum unless there are serious doubts about the independence of courts in the applicant's homeland, or reasonable fears about their well-being if extradited.

 

In 2006, 17 out of every 100 people who applied for asylum were recognised as refugees and given asylum, according to the UK Home Office.

 

If Thaksin really wants political asylum he must make an application in person as soon as possible after arriving in the UK.

 

"If you delay your application for asylum, it may affect your ability to prove your reasons for it," said the UK Home Office guideline.

 

Applications for asylum can be made at the port of entry or in the case of Thaksin, who has a home near London, he can apply at units that screen asylum seekers in either Croydon (south of London) or in Liverpool.

 

The asylum process takes about 30 days from the lodging of an application to a final decision.

 

If Thaksin applied and was granted asylum, his family would obtain legal protection and the right to live and work in the UK for an initial period of five years. His "case owner" would help him and his family build new lives in the country by giving documents and any information they need.

 

If he applied for but was denied asylum, Thaksin and his family would have the right to appeal and remain in the UK temporarily on humanitarian grounds. In that case, they may be required to comply with certain demands and could be detained if they refused to undertake them.

 

However, Foreign Ministry spokesman Tharit Charungvat said Thaksin did not need to seek political asylum because he and his family could stay in the UK for some period as an investor or under some other status.

 

He said the ministry had no information on whether Thaksin would seek asylum.

 

Meanwhile, legal experts said Thaksin could be extradited back if the Thai government sought his return under the 1911 Siam-Great Britain extradition treaty.

 

But they said using the treaty may not be an easy way to extradite him as Thai authorities may have to prove he could be prosecuted on similar charges in the UK.

 

The 1911 treaty allows only 31 legal charges as a basis for extradition. And many matters, such abuse of power related to the purchase of state land by his wife, which is currently being heard by the Supreme Court, are not listed in the treaty or UK laws.

 

Thai authorities would also have to prove the charges were not political and the UK courts would have full power to refuse extradition for any reason they saw fit.

[Guest fountainhall]

Foreign Ministry spokesman Tharit Charungvat said Thaksin did not need to seek political asylum because he and his family could stay in the UK for some period as an investor or under some other status.

 

Read somewhere today an article about the UK's seeming double standards - not in respect of Thaksin, but of his wife. Seems that another rich and powerful lady, Martha Stewart, was recently denied a visa to visit the UK because she was a convicted felon. So how come Thaksin's wife is even allowed entry? Because the appeals process has not been undertaken/completed, I wonder?

[Guest GaySacGuy]

Read somewhere today an article about the UK's seeming double standards - not in respect of Thaksin, but of his wife. Seems that another rich and powerful lady, Martha Stewart, was recently denied a visa to visit the UK because she was a convicted felon. So how come Thaksin's wife is even allowed entry? Because the appeals process has not been undertaken/completed, I wonder?

 

That doesn't seem quite right, as she wouldn't need a visa to "visit" the UK. She would get thirty days with an American passport, just like she would in Thailand. Now, if she was doing business, or establishing a residence, then that would be a different thing.

[Guest fountainhall]

That doesn't seem quite right

 

This from the Daily Telegraph of 30 June –

 

"The American domestic science guru was refused entry by the UK Borders Agency last week following her convictions in the US for lying to investigators about her share dealings. . . Stewart had been planning to come to Britain to speak at the Royal Academy in London and hold meetings with fashion designers and figures in the leisure industry. The UK Border Agency told her she would not be issued a visa."