• 
• 

Published on August 18, 2007

Last weekend I wrote a lengthy letter of appeal to the Conservative Party to raise the issue of Thaksin's extradition in parliament. What good it did I have no idea. The Guardian has ruled this possibility out: "...an extradition request to British authorities would have virtually no hope of success. British law has no charge equivalent to that which Mr Thaksin, 57, is facing under Thai legislation. Foreign governments are also usually reluctant to extradite former heads of state where there are suspicions of political persecution."

In addition, the British authorities do not recognise the military government and The Independent has noted: "...should extradition proceedings commence, both the High Court and the British Government would have to recognise the regime and accept its decision." The chances are they won't.

As more charges are piling up against him, where does that leave the process? Although about 10 prosecutors educated in British law have been assembled to plan the extradition request, and while Thai authorities are making noises about revoking his passport, it seems unlikely that Westminster will act on either of them. Without a passport, couldn't he simply claim political asylum and sit it out?

I am certainly not as sanguine as Constitution Drafting Committee Chairman Prasong Soonsiri when he said he believes the UK government will extradite Thaksin. It's just not in step with British law or what the press thinks. But we can at least live in hope that he gets a severe trouncing come the vote on the referendum.

James Groveway

Bangkok

UK courts won't throw ex-PM to the wolves

Re: "Thaksin does not deserve diplomatic credentials", Letters, August 17.

Dr John Symons is predictably uncharitable in baying for the blood of "fugitive" Thaksin. He conveniently ignores several matters, including the presumption of innocence and the legitimacy of the regime that seeks his extradition.

Ultimately Thailand's application for extradition will be heard by an English court. It is certainly not the business of Interpol. English courts have a reputation for fairness. My prediction is simply that an English court will not be prepared to throw Thaksin to the wolves. That is, not until the government of Thailand has been legitimised by the holding of a fair election. How can an election be fair if one of the main contenders, the Thai Rak Thai party, is banned?

George Cuppaidge

Kanchanaburi

Thai people have a chance to break old regime's hold

A true democracy bespeaks citizens who vote with their intelligence rather than their pocketbooks. The interim government, with its outstanding selection of honest, trustworthy, and highly ethical citizens and patriots, has done and is doing a magnificent job of correcting the massive fraud of (old) government organisations, agencies and courts, perpetrated by Thaksin and his cronies.

Rally around the flag, oh Thai citizens, and have done with lining thy own pockets with ill-gotten gains - money belonging to the Thai people - offered by the ragged and sorry remnants of the Thai Rak Thai Party. Be true to thy heritage which far outshines the legacy of the Thai Rak Thai and Thaksin.

John D Williams

Bangkok

Self-serving parties push foreign-business limits

It is all very well debating the benefits of foreign business versus domestic. As various other writers have mentioned, there is no such thing as Thai versus foreign economics. To say that all foreign business is bad and that by definition all domestic business is good is far too simplistic.

I do believe that Thailand needs to protect some very specific industries. However when the very people conducting the vote concerning such an important issue as this are also chairmen of large corporations that are hiding behind the very protectionism that pay their salaries, how on earth can we expect to get a measured and balanced debate? We all know that turkeys aren't likely to vote for a place on the holiday table so why on earth would someone who benefits from protection vote to reduce it?

I don't think anyone can still stand up and say that freer markets do not in the long run bring benefits to countries, so where could the problem be to allow more foreign investment into the country? I am sure it is not for the benefit of the Thai people or consumers, so is it to protect some specific inefficient and vested industries?

Bob Smith

Bangkok

Thais have had a key role in drafting Asean charter

Re: "Asean charter: should we settle for second best?", Opinion, August 13.

While I appreciate Kavi Chongkittavorn's insights on Asean issues, there appear to be some fundamental inaccuracies in his assessment of the Asean Charter drafting process that should be brought to the attention of your readers. Firstly, Asean foreign ministers in Manila did not just agree "to consider" setting up a human-rights body. They went beyond that and actually agreed to establish an Asean human-rights body under the Asean charter. The drafters are now working out the modalities in a separate document.

Secondly, Thailand's voice has not been missing from the drafting process on any of the issues raised in your article be they on human rights, sanctions, decision-making or any other important issues.

On the contrary, the Thai members of the High Level Task Force on the Asean Charter have been working on the basis that the Asean charter would make Asean and the Asean community-building process more rule-based, people-centred and effective in coping with the demands and challenges of the 21st century.

On the Asean human-rights body, it was Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont who first raised the issue at the Cebu Summit in January this year in the belief that the charter needs to have something tangible for the people. Foreign Minister Nitya Pibulsonggram played an active role in pursuing this issue both at the Asean foreign ministers' retreat in Siem Reap in March and more recently in Manila, working closely with the Thai drafting team.

On the issue of sanctions, Nitya, in fact played an important role in drafting the language on how Asean would deal with cases of serious breaches of the charter and non-compliance with agreements. On decision-making, the Thai side has made very effort to ensure that while consensus remains a cardinal principal, this would not rule out other modes of decision-making including voting.

Thirdly, despite the political developments in Thailand, Thailand's voice has not been silenced nor do we have any reason to be "cowed" from expressing our views and to contribute actively to the Asean Charter drafting process. On countless occasions, the Asean drafters worked on the basis of language tabled by the Thai side.

The Thai drafting team has been working very hard over the past few months to ensure that we can present the best Asean charter to Asean leaders when they meet in Singapore in November.

Manasvi Srisodapol

Deputy director-general

Department of Asean Affairs

Foreign Ministry

Bangkok

Hmong refugees suffer, forgotten in Nong Khai

The 149 Hmong refugees at the Nong Khai Immigration Detention Centre have begun a hunger strike to protest the inhumane living conditions there. During the past two months, Thai authorities at the immigration jail have not allowed these refugees out of their tiny overcrowded cells. They have taken away their mosquito netting, blankets and clothing. The refugees are forbidden to wash their clothes and have to drink the water from the bath trough.

The majority of these refugees, including the elderly, women and infants, have all become critically ill because of this. This inhumane treatment is all being done to punish the refugees because they refuse to return to Laos, where they face political persecution.

These refugees have been detained for nine months now with no hope of ever being released. They clearly see that both the Thai and Lao governments can openly defy international law by denying the fact that these Hmong are United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)-recognised refugees.

After a failed forced deportation attempt in January, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont had promised that these refugees would be allowed to resettle in third countries. Since then, he has done an about-face and put a hold on any third-country resettlement, allowing these refugees to rot in jail as if they were some criminals. Meanwhile, the UNHCR, Unicef, the US government, the diplomatic community, human rights groups and the media seem to all be letting the Thai and Lao governments work this out on their own. Maybe when the Hmong start dying someone will finally start to speak up.

Joe Davy

Chicago