Defiant Pannika dares PM to sue over her allegation of Government involvement in Malaysia’s 1MDB scandal

 

 

Former spokeswoman for the now defunct Future Forward party, Pannika Wanich, has challenged Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha to file a personal defamation claim against her for implicating him in the previous administration’s alleged assistance in the cover-up of Malaysia’s multi-billion dollar 1MDB scandal.

 

The Royal Thai Police (RTP) is to explore the possibility of taking legal action against Ms. Pannika for the allegations she made during a non-parliamentary debate against the Government on Sunday.

 

RTP spokesman Pol Lt-Gen Piya Uthayo said that the previous government and several public agencies were implicated by Ms. Pannika.

 

Full story: https://www.thaipbsworld.com/defiant-pannika-dares-pm-to-sue-over-her-allegation-of-government-involvement-in-malaysias-1mdb-scandal/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2020-02-25

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

12 minutes ago, webfact said:

Defiant Pannika dares PM

 

Love this lady already go nail the charlitans girl????

was she a fox terrier or a chihuahua in her previous life ... 

2 minutes ago, steven100 said:

was she a fox terrier or a chihuahua in her previous life ... 

How can I set up 'block' on the posts of clowns and folks who are less than truthful in their posts? 

4 minutes ago, scorecard said:

How can I set up 'block' on the posts of clowns and folks who are less than truthful in their posts? 

up to you ..

12 minutes ago, steven100 said:

was she a fox terrier or a chihuahua in her previous life ... 

Possibly a mongoose who was used to fighting snakes!

She may get her wish and bitterly regret it.

Hope she has enough family money to see her thru a decade in exile.

Just might end up with a concrete overcoat 

Let's really hope she has some strong evidence about this. Not a good day as usual for little P with the other story released yesterday about him and the suspicious 600M land sale he was involved in. 

 

Although it will make very little difference for the foreseeable future, just imagine the scenes if he is forced out due to corruption. 

 

 

She is brave or foolish .I am not sure which .

4 minutes ago, BobbyL said:

Let's really hope she has some strong evidence about this. Not a good day as usual for little P with the other story released yesterday about him and the suspicious 600M land sale he was involved in. 

 

Although it will make very little difference for the foreseeable future, just imagine the scenes if he is forced out due to corruption. 

 

 

Given what we know about Thailand and how it works she must have some inside knowledge and the evidence to back it up, hope so for her sake

2 hours ago, steven100 said:

was she a fox terrier or a chihuahua in her previous life ... 

I’d say she must have been a Rat Terrier. As you can tell by the name, they’re great at taking down dirty rats. 

2 hours ago, steven100 said:

up to you ..

That answer sounds more like it came from Yinn than Steven100.

1 hour ago, Vigilante said:

She may get her wish and bitterly regret it.

Hope she has enough family money to see her thru a decade in exile.

She must have some pretty convincing evidence in order to be acting this cavalier.

Hope she does !

53 minutes ago, neeray said:

She must have some pretty convincing evidence in order to be acting this cavalier.

Hope she does !

Defamation in Thailand is not about if the accusation is true or false.

Even if what she says is completely true and she can 100% prove it, she can still be prosecuted for defamation because she made him look bad.

3 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Defamation in Thailand is not about if the accusation is true or false.

Even if what she says is completely true and she can 100% prove it, she can still be prosecuted for defamation because she made him look bad.

Yes I know.

But the junta can't keep prosecuting everybody and stripping them of their "democratic" rights.

Sooner or later, this will backfire.

(Somebody is hopefully losing a little sleep over the exposed laundry)

8 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Defamation in Thailand is not about if the accusation is true or false.

Even if what she says is completely true and she can 100% prove it, she can still be prosecuted for defamation because she made him look bad.

But if she presents evidence he was involved in 1MDB and they try to lock her up, they will be in big trouble themselves. The 1MDB is a serious case that's still been investigated by the US government. 

Allegations against former drug dealers, watch collectors or genious generals? In Thailand?

This must be a new kind of suicide attempt.

2 hours ago, anto said:

She is brave or foolish .I am not sure which .

If she has the evidence to bluff him then go girl!

If she really has irrefutable evidence, her life will be in danger.  People have gotten beaten up for far less.  But in making a formal challenge, cha cha's hands are tied.  He only has two options:  sue her and look like a bully, or hope to just goes away.  Brave women like her will save Thailand one day. 

There has been an allegations of corruption made against members of the current parliament, therefore I would have thought that the first step by RTP would be to investigate that allegation.  If it is then found to be spurius and false, then fine, go for the person making the false allegation.  Or am I being a little bit too logical and European?

   More power to her.  

1 hour ago, rkidlad said:

But if she presents evidence he was involved in 1MDB and they try to lock her up, they will be in big trouble themselves. The 1MDB is a serious case that's still been investigated by the US government. 

In case she has such leverage, then this is what safes her from being convicted for defamation and being put in jail.

So she has two options:

- She keeps the evidence for herself, so that she can use it as leverage and they don't dare to go after her for defamation. But this means that her allagations will be just that, allegations without any evidence, so nothing will happen.

- She makes the evidence public, but then there is nothing that stops the government from throwing her in jail for defamation.

Imho she put herself in a lose - lose situation, unless she was willing to go to jail for it from the beginning.

 

19 minutes ago, robertson468 said:

There has been an allegations of corruption made against members of the current parliament, therefore I would have thought that the first step by RTP would be to investigate that allegation.  If it is then found to be spurius and false, then fine, go for the person making the false allegation.  Or am I being a little bit too logical and European?

Defamation in Thailand is different from what we are used to.

Let's say your neighbour is burning his trash. You see this, record it on video and post it on Facebook with a comment like "he doesn't care about his environment". Your neighbour could now report you to police for defamation and you might get fined or even put in jail for it.

Edited February 25, 20206 yr by jackdd

5 hours ago, steven100 said:

was she a fox terrier or a chihuahua in her previous life ... 

That is probably totally irrelevant, and only a wet dream made up by you.

However, I will tell you what you should think about. If Prayut chose to not sue Pannika and use the tools available in the Thai law to prove his innocence , then he also shows that he has something to hide. If he chose to sue, then he also have to agree to an open investigation and a court procedure over the allegations. However he chose to do this time, the Thai people got him in the corner.

Sounds as if she is mighty mouse trudging into elephant territory. She better have a direct association or correlation of him knowing or having involvement. In the end it is how the you know who interprets their version of the you know what.

15 minutes ago, jackdd said:

In case she has such leverage, then this is what safes her from being convicted for defamation and being put in jail.

So she has two options:

- She keeps the evidence for herself, so that she can use it as leverage and they don't dare to go after her for defamation. But this means that her allagations will be just that, allegations without any evidence, so nothing will happen.

- She makes the evidence public, but then there is nothing that stops the government from throwing her in jail for defamation.

Imho she put herself in a lose - lose situation, unless she was willing to go to jail for it from the beginning.

 

Defamation in Thailand is different from what we are used to.

Let's say your neighbour is burning his trash. You see this, record it on video and post it on Facebook with a comment like "he doesn't care about his environment". Your neighbour could now report you to police for defamation and you might get fined or even put in jail for it.

Yes, but it's hard to imprison someone for providing evidence of your international crimes. What happens in Thailand is one thing, but this is an international matter. 

3 hours ago, rkidlad said:

I’d say she must have been a Rat Terrier. As you can tell by the name, they’re great at taking down dirty rats. 

 she should partition for a name change, Jack Russell would suit nicely. 

Edited February 25, 20206 yr by Artisi

She has published copies of the Interpol Red Notice on LOW Taek Jho and Immigration records showing he was in Thailand 5 times in 2018 on her Twitter

not sure that would be enough evidence though.

Edited February 25, 20206 yr by monkfish

1 hour ago, robertson468 said:

There has been an allegations of corruption made against members of the current parliament, therefore I would have thought that the first step by RTP would be to investigate that allegation.  If it is then found to be spurius and false, then fine, go for the person making the false allegation.  Or am I being a little bit too logical and European?

Too logical, too European and no understanding of Thailand, Thai politicians, Thai law, Thai police, in fact - nothing related to Thailand, as Thailand IS different.