| Inside Scoop | Breaking News | Video | Blog Index | Participate | Humor | |
| Politics | Economics | New Media | Technology | Green Living |
The Bangkok Post:
BP: In fairness to Surayud, Thaksin relied on the same defence in 2001, but then that decision was criticized, will this decision not to prosecute also not be criticized?
Comments
In most jurisdictions, ignorance of the law is no defence. Thailand seems different. Could we call this the Poo Yai defence?
Look, he was a likable guy anoungst members of the Saturday morning "How to Screw the Nation For Profit Club". It was all innocent fun, who could have known it was government land? All a terrible misunderstanding the peasants will have forgotten about in a day or two, let's move on to the next scam. There is this National Park down south with great beaches, and I think that if we...
The original owner did not have the right to sell that land yet he did it, and the sale was properly registered with the government. If legally challenged at the time the land should have been returned to the state but nobody cared. Then the land changed hands again until it finally ended up with Surayud, and it was all legal and proper all the way. I don't see the case for accusing Surayud of encroaching on forest reserves, it's not like it was fenced off with "National Park, do not buy this land" posts. There could be the case for collusion with local officials who knew of the land status all along but chose to turn the blind eye and approve all the paperwork, but it's not how it's presented in the media.
C'mon, It's not National Park, right.. but it's Reserved Forest...different? No..not different, it's to protect the natural resources from being invaded or harmed. If it was legal to settle up there, how could the villagers down the hill charged with encroaching?
It really doesn't mater if it is Gen Surayud or not. The AG is not going to charge anyone of that stature with something like this. The sad fact in Thailand is if you are powerful or connected you have privileges that the common folk don't.
And how to they know he did not know he was breaking the law... well, they asked him, of course. "Officerrrr, honestly, I didn't know driving drrrrunk is an offence in yourrr countrrry."
It depends on whether intent is an element of the offense. If it is, then the OAG has some discretion to determine they can't prove that element, and so not charge him. But if intent is not an element of the offense, then Surayud's intent or lack of intent is completely irrelevant and the OAG is effectively saying 'we won't indict because he's a nice guy'. Would be nice if the media gave some background on what the elements of the offense are, instead of just reporting the OAG's press release.
Surayud is full of it. His Sgt. Shultz "I know nothing" defense doesn't fly with me. Hasn't anybody bought land before? Anybody hear of chain of title? Thailand has had a chain of title/land register for hundreds of years just like most countries. Actually, Thailand is actually fairly clear and transparent when it comes to documenting rights of ownership when it comes to occupying land--both public and private. It has an entire classification system set up. As always, the problem is not the law, but the crazy way it is enforced and corruption. The history of land ownership is in the public records. All state property should be surveyed and be part of the public record also. I'm sorry you don't build a massive compound on land if you don't know the rights you have to occupy it and develop it, unless, of course, you are a Thai general, then you can do as you please. Lastly, it is irrelevant that Surayud was ignorant at the time of transfer. He should have been evicted the minute everyone knew he was occupying state land. Put simply, just be he was ignorant at the time of transfer doesn't mean his occupation is any less illegal and he can continue to stay.
@ StanG 1. "The original owner did not have the right to sell that land....." 2. "it was all legal and proper all the way" Even you should be able to spot the contradiction here..... As for the rest: "it's not like it was fenced off with "National Park, do not buy this land" posts. I know of a big steel tower, good location in downtown Paris; guaranteed - no signs saying "Do not buy this tower". Want to buy it?
This is not to defend Surayud and I am not saying that my comments necessarily apply to his piece of rather good looking dirt up on the hill. I am, however, pretty sure that he must have known very well what was happening in this area. And these areas do have signs up - they are usually brown with lots of whit text and a garuda at the top - that state that land in the area cannot be traded. However, it is true that the problems in these areas go back decades. Around Khao Yai and other national parks and forest reserves, there was state encouragement for settlement as an anti-communist strategy. Roads were built through them for similar reasons. From the late 1970s, populations grew in them as other land became less easily available and affordable. Now some of these areas have whole towns, replete with government buildings, schools and hospitals in place all on the kind of land that Surayud holds, apparently in his wife's name. Some families have now been in these areas for generations - it is home. There are also lots of other wealthy people who have purchased the land and registered that purchase at the local tambon and with village heads. Also, in some of these areas there are large businesses including resorts. In other words, the state needs to sort this problem out nationwide. It is a big deal.
There was no encroachment - people who lived there before the area was declared a forest reserve had full rights to continue living there and pass the land down their family lines, they just couldn't sell it to outsiders. On the other hand, and there's certainly a contradiction there, that dude managed to sell the land and the new owner got all the legal paperwork done. And then they sold it again and all the paperwork was in order, again. Surayud was the third owner. If there are "Forest reserve" signs around his property they would have been all over the news already, given the paparazzi hunt the media staged looking for his stolen train carriages.
This time I agree with StanG (first time for everything:) Surayud was the THIRD buyer, and everyone is making him out to be the big criminal in this case! Unless it can be shown that he was part of a conspiracy regarding the earlier sales then Surayud is a victim, and prosecution would be an excessive pemalty on top of losing the land and the cost of his improvements. Of course we all know that the only reason something is being done about it now is because the reds complained about their 'enemy' Surayud - In normal circumstances a blind eye would be turned to such transgressions by Puu Yai (including under Thaksin) and they only ever surface as a bargaining tool in times of disputes.
One case is about "I thought I complied with the law". The other one is about "an honest mistake". In that case a gangaroo court gave the guy a premiership or 5 years.
In today's Nation there are details with names, this time they say this reserve land was given to the landless farmers in 1975, I had an impression the first owner lived there before it was declared a reserve (sometimes in the 60s). Little difference, but an interesting turn - the first owner surely knew he got "reserve" land, and those officials who gave him the land surely knew it couldn't be sold to outsiders, as it was covered by the same 1975 Cabinet resolution. It's not exactly the case of buying beer any time you want for years, not being aware of Revolutionary Council resolution of 1973. Now the first owner got the land for free from the state, in a forest reserve, and then sold it and no one noticed anything. Nice business model.
There is an easy way to tell if the General had any idea. If the title was Sor. Kor. Nung (S.K.1), Tor. Bor. Tor. Hoc. (T.B.T.6) or Tor. Bor. Tor. Ha.(T.B.T.5) he knew that the title was little more than a squatter or settler's claim and it is not possible to register a sale or lease over these land rights. And even more telling if it was one of the above you cannot apply for or obtain approval to build on such land. If he built on land that was S.K.1, T.B.T.6 or T.B.T.5 he knew he was breaking the law and the AG should have known this as well.
My comments were generalized. There are signs in these areas. They do get taken down or bulldozed as well. My point is that these areas - as the reports today in the press indicate - have had de facto selling and trading for years. The tax certificates are used to trade and the sales are locally registered. Last year, though, there was a directive to stop collecting the tax. It is not clear what that means for the current landholders.
Despite all the controversy and articles and opinions, at the end of the day will Surayad actually give the land back? Regarding "lack of intent" an actual defense when involved in a corrupt land deal, from today's article in the Bangkok Post about the original sale of the land, it would appear that the corrupt nature of the transaction and subsequent titles was no secret to anybody............. http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/30757/khao-yai-land-was-sold-to-cash-buyer
Just wanted to point to an article (Thai language) written in response to the prosecutors' decision. The link is here: http://www.chezplayers.com/article.php?id=130 My own summary (apologies for my lack of knowledge of proper legal terminology. Any lawyer out there, please feel free to correct my language.): 1.) The prosecutors did not prosecute Gen Surayud because he "had no intention of committing an offence." 2.) But if we looks at what the law says (specifically the 1964 Forest Reserve Act), we can see that it forbids anyone from encroaching upon the land in a designated reserve area. 3.) The point is, according to the law, the act of encroachment alone is enough to constitute an offence. The concept of "intent" is not involved anywhere in the legislation. A lack of intent is not an excuse. 4.) For example, in Thailand you can be charged for not carrying your ID card even if you have no intention of not carrying it. Similarly you can be charged for breaking a traffic law even if you didn't know you were doing it in the first place. It's the same idea as in the case of encroaching upon the forest reserve area. There are some other points raised in that article too but i'm too lazy to translate the whole thing :)
Or as Fonzi summarises it, "just [because] he was ignorant at the time of transfer doesn't mean his occupation is any less illegal and he can continue to stay."
Two interesting quotes, if proven true. From today's Nation: "Despite a Cabinet resolution banning land transfers to outsiders, there were no penalties for such an offence." And from yesterday: "About 10,000 people, along with Surayud, might lose their land." What about the money paid by all these people, including Surayud, in good faith? Was it massive fraud, or were they all aware that the land was "stolen goods"? What about taxes they paid on this land? |
  95 snakes found in burst bag at Malaysia airport  Meet Cambodia's anonymous blog author 'Details are Sketchy'  China introduces ID check for mobile phone owners  Delhi's games preparations still face problems  Japan approves economic sanctions against Iran  Dolphins caught, not killed, in Japan cove  French 'Spiderman' in Sydney court over climb  The art of demystifying wine |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
