PM Abhisit Recounts His Ordeal Under Rioting Reds

[SergeiY]

I am still waiting for red apologist to reiterate the lies that Abhisit never was in the car...(as if attempted murder is ok as long as one picks the wrong target...)

Abhisit filed a defamation lawsuit about that. Its from last year. I don't know if there was a final ruling yet and what the court said about that.

If Jatuporn was/is found guilty of defamation in can imagine that the court also ordered that Jatuporn has to publish an apology in a few newspapers for a couple consecutive days.

Court accepts PM�s defamation suit against UDD core figure

BANGKOK, 17 August 2009 (NNT) - The Criminal Court has resolved to accept the Prime Minister's defamation lawsuit against the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) core leader Jatuporn Prompan.

Earlier, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva filed a libel charge against Mr. Jatuporn for his false statement on stage at the UDD demonstration at Wat Phai Khiew on May 10. The UDD core leader accused the Prime Minister of not being present inside the car that was severely damaged by the UDD at the Interior Ministry and also exercising excessive force against the anti-government protesters during the Songkran mayhem.

The Supreme Court has set the hearing date of the case on 14 December.

http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=255208170057

Anyway, i know little about Abhisits lawsuits unlike some other members here. I would like to get more information, also about his 'success' rate in general and of course also in this 'was he in that car or not' case.

Who has the burden of proof in such an issue? Probably the plaintiff has do bring evidence that the defamation is indeed a false statement or is it enough that the court thinks such statement is indeed slander and prohibit to repeat that statement an ordered an apology without coming to a finding if Abhisit actually was in that car or not?

The really valid part I and most likely many here can agree with:

"Anyway, i know little"

Thank you, SergeiY for this profound statement. I'm proud of you, I only manage something like this after studying for a while

Nothing to be proud of, a basic insight old as Socrates and his advice to modesty "be aware of how little you know".

But here seems to be some experts around who know more an better so i asked some questions and are now waiting for replies.

[whybother]

Be sure not to make a false statement, Abhisit could sue you if he feels slandered when you totally underrate his litigious skills.

Why this comparison with Thaksin anyway? Either you see nothing wrong with these defamation lawsuits or you argue its totally unnecessary and a politician or the PM should handle these issues in a different way.

So, you think it is acceptable for people to tell lies about you that can affect your reputation?

[SweeneyAgonistes]

The point is that either it's wrong to file these lawsuits or it's not; how many are/were filed by a political opponent is irrelevant to that. If it is unacceptable ' for people to tell lies about you that can affect your reputation', then it's unacceptable whoever the 'lies' are being told about - Thaksin, Abhisit, you, my dog, whoever.

I don't know a great deal about the case and the law which governs it but it does seem extraordinary that you would sue a political opponent for defamation over the push and shove of political discourse. My initial response is to think (a) grow some balls and stop running to mum and dad every time someone says something you don't like (b ) it could at the very least be interpreted as an attempt to shut down political discourse which at the moment is, if - and it's obviously a condition which is highly unlikely to be met - the government is serious about 'reconciliation', extremely unwise and (c ) this applies to any similar cases which might be/have been brought to court by others.

Edited December 2, 2010 by SweeneyAgonistes

[geriatrickid]

Poor dear. I hope his expensive suit didn't sustain any damage.

As the beloved dear leader escaped unscathed, alls well that ends well.

I believe the TVF fan club wishes that he live long and prosper.

Not that I wish any harm to befall the fellow, especially since there is no one around to do any better.

PM Abhisit is the captain of a ship with a jammed rudder making a slow circle. Considering the crew under his command, he's doing the best he can.

[whybother]

The point is that either it's wrong to file these lawsuits or it's not; how many are/were filed by a political opponent is irrelevant to that. If it is unacceptable ' for people to tell lies about you that can affect your reputation', then it's unacceptable whoever the 'lies' are being told about - Thaksin, Abhisit, you, my dog, whoever.

I don't know a great deal about the case and the law which governs it but it does seem extraordinary that you would sue a political opponent for defamation over the push and shove of political discourse. My initial response is to think (a) grow some balls and stop running to mum and dad every time someone says something you don't like (b ) it could at the very least be interpreted as an attempt to shut down political discourse which at the moment is, if - and it's obviously a condition which is highly unlikely to be met - the government is serious about 'reconciliation', extremely unwise and (c ) this applies to any similar cases which might be/have been brought to court by others.

Actually, in Australia, a state premier is taking the opposition party to court for lies that they told about him during the recent election campaign.

For politicians, their reputation is their number one asset. If other politicians are telling lies that makes the voters not vote for you, then it can have a great affect on your ability to win an election.

That applies for business people too. If competition is telling lies that make people stop buying your product, it means you could go out of business.

It isn't about some saying something that you don't like. It is about someone saying something that is NOT TRUE that affects your livelyhood.

Many of the defamation lawsuits by people in Thailand are not about people telling lies, but about someone saying anything against someone that affects their reputation even if what was said was true.

At least all of Abhisit's lawsuits are about lies being told about him. I don't believe that is the case with Thaksin and some of the current opposition politicians.

[MunterHunter]

Poor dear. I hope his expensive suit didn't sustain any damage.

As the beloved dear leader escaped unscathed, alls well that ends well.

I believe the TVF fan club wishes that he live long and prosper.

Not that I wish any harm to befall the fellow, especially since there is no one around to do any better.

PM Abhisit is the captain of a ship with a jammed rudder making a slow circle. Considering the crew under his command, he's doing the best he can.

I guess its perfectly acceptable to attempt murder, providing you don't succeed, right?

[pitrevie]

Be sure not to make a false statement, Abhisit could sue you if he feels slandered when you totally underrate his litigious skills.

Why this comparison with Thaksin anyway? Either you see nothing wrong with these defamation lawsuits or you argue its totally unnecessary and a politician or the PM should handle these issues in a different way.

So, you think it is acceptable for people to tell lies about you that can affect your reputation?

I agree, accusing the Prime Minister off issuing issued an order to kill Red Shirts is going a bit beyond the day to day political discourse. I am surprised that we are even allowed to comment on a current case I thought it would be regarded as sub judice but perhaps that doesn’t apply in Thailand.

[AleG]

Be sure not to make a false statement, Abhisit could sue you if he feels slandered when you totally underrate his litigious skills.

Why this comparison with Thaksin anyway? Either you see nothing wrong with these defamation lawsuits or you argue its totally unnecessary and a politician or the PM should handle these issues in a different way.

So, you think it is acceptable for people to tell lies about you that can affect your reputation?

I think the real issue is not whether the lies damage Abhisit's reputation (and let's not ignore it, we are talking about a premeditated murder accusation here), is that they are used to incite unrest, disunity and violence. If Jatuporn froths at the mouth on stage that Abhisit has ordered to kill the Red Shirts and they believe him, that gives them moral justification to fight back. It creates an alternative, false narrative of the events that can be used to further manipulate people.

We saw it happen, many protesters at Ratchaprasong were too scared of being killed on the spot if they tried to leave the protest site.

[SergeiY]

Be sure not to make a false statement, Abhisit could sue you if he feels slandered when you totally underrate his litigious skills.

Why this comparison with Thaksin anyway? Either you see nothing wrong with these defamation lawsuits or you argue its totally unnecessary and a politician or the PM should handle these issues in a different way.

So, you think it is acceptable for people to tell lies about you that can affect your reputation?

The point is why the comparison with Thaksin, if nothing wrong with these defamation lawsuits and to file them and charge the opponent then is there no reason to come up with some fictional figure that Abhisit has much much lesser "I'll sue you!" attitude than Thaksin.

And in general there is no reason to always come up with Thaksin and say 'Thaksin did same same' or Thaksin did it much more worth or whatever the argument is.

If there is something to criticize on Abhisit than the 'wrongdoings' of Thaksin cannot be an excuse for Abhisit to do the same.

At least when you want to keep your arguments coherent and logical. If you wanna just rant and smear about one and praise the other and put him above criticism and thereby ignoring fact and details- than you don't have to bother about logic.

[SergeiY]

It isn't about some saying something that you don't like. It is about someone saying something that is NOT TRUE that affects your livelyhood.

Okay, take the case 'Mr Jatuporn on a at the UDD demonstration at Wat Phai Khiew on May 10 alleged the Prime Minister for not being in his motorcade while the UDD besieged the Interior Ministry' or Mr Arisman said on October 11 and 17 last year that Mr Abhisit became became premier by "robbing the people's power" or that Mr Thaksin said Abhisit must be 'mentally ill, given the way he dealt with anti-government protests in April last year by red-shirt supporters.'

How he could react to it, he could just think pffff and yawn why bother, dismiss these false allegetion with a sttement to the press and continue with the important work he has to do as PM or run on monday morning to the court and file some important libel suits after a weekend where he tuned into some red channel to listen their rants about him.

And the question of 'reputation' - well, that is a thingy that a politician gains in the eyes of the public with, most important, good work, with good PR, with charisma and a back bone but not so much with winning lawsuits that gives opponents a 2 year in jail sentence for making the false allegation the PM is unusual rich.

Edited December 2, 2010 by SergeiY

[hammered]

Considering the number of controversial comments made by Jatuporn usually with no evidence to back them up, discounting tapes which ambient background noise discrepencies can show are dubious, it is not surprising that he ends up in a high profile defamation case.

Personally I would prefer not to see defamation cases. Then again I would also prefer to see people not make attacks on people that are based on dubious to say the least evidence.

To his credit Abhisit doesnt file many of these kind of cases and it is against someone that even red supporters I talk to admit "exaggerates".

And saying without proof someone gave a kill order is not exactly everyday politics, and moves things onto a different plain. Maybe if Mr Jatuporn had a background showing more even-handedness it may make his statements easier to believe, but there lies a very big double standard in the accusations he makes and against whom being very ready to ignore even easier proven accusations that could be made against those that he works with/for while raising tenuous issues such as this one.

As ever if reconcilliation is going to come, it is going to come form those on the respective sides admitting to their failings, crimes, and mistakes rather than just trying to fault the other side. Sadly we are a long way from this.

[whybother]

It isn't about some saying something that you don't like. It is about someone saying something that is NOT TRUE that affects your livelyhood.

Okay, take the case 'Mr Jatuporn on a at the UDD demonstration at Wat Phai Khiew on May 10 alleged the Prime Minister for not being in his motorcade while the UDD besieged the Interior Ministry' or Mr Arisman said on October 11 and 17 last year that Mr Abhisit became became premier by "robbing the people's power" or that Mr Thaksin said Abhisit must be 'mentally ill, given the way he dealt with anti-government protests in April last year by red-shirt supporters.'

How he could react to it, he could just think pffff and yawn why bother, dismiss these false allegetion with a sttement to the press and continue with the important work he has to do as PM or run on monday morning to the court and file some important libel suits after a weekend where he tuned into some red channel to listen their rants about him.

And the question of 'reputation' - well, that is a thingy that a politician gains in the eyes of the public with, most important, good work, with good PR, with charisma and a back bone but not so much with winning lawsuits that gives opponents a 2 year in jail sentence for making the false allegation the PM is unusual rich.

Reputation is just a political thingy, nut it shouldn't be ruined by other politicians telling lies.

[Buchholz]

Be sure not to make a false statement, Abhisit could sue you if he feels slandered when you totally underrate his litigious skills.

Why this comparison with Thaksin anyway? Either you see nothing wrong with these defamation lawsuits or you argue its totally unnecessary and a politician or the PM should handle these issues in a different way.

So, you think it is acceptable for people to tell lies about you that can affect your reputation?

The point is why the comparison with Thaksin, if nothing wrong with these defamation lawsuits and to file them and charge the opponent then is there no reason to come up with some fictional figure that Abhisit has much much lesser "I'll sue you!" attitude than Thaksin.

And in general there is no reason to always come up with Thaksin and say 'Thaksin did same same' or Thaksin did it much more worth or whatever the argument is.

If there is something to criticize on Abhisit than the 'wrongdoings' of Thaksin cannot be an excuse for Abhisit to do the same.

At least when you want to keep your arguments coherent and logical. If you wanna just rant and smear about one and praise the other and put him above criticism and thereby ignoring fact and details- than you don't have to bother about logic.

The explanation as to the comparison is found in Post # 35.

The lawsuits filed by Abhisit were because the defamation was based on lies, whereas the lawsuits filed by Thaksin were because "defamation" were things that he just didn't like to hear.

The other part of the comparison is based on the number of lawsuits filed and the amounts sought. Thaksin and his family routinely sued for 500,000,000 baht.

The vast majority of his lawsuits were extremely frivolous. That's why they were thrown out time after time after time after time.

.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Buchholz

[SweeneyAgonistes]

In which case, saying 'Thaksin did it more' isn't justified because you seem to be saying he did something different. But SergeiY's general point is very sound. All the time, one sees variations on 'It's fine for Abhisit to do x and anyway, Thaksin did x loads more', which is just illogical. Either x is acceptable or it's not. If it was wrong for Thaksin to do it n times, it was wrong of Abhisit to do it m times.

Edited December 2, 2010 by SweeneyAgonistes

[SergeiY]

Considering the number of controversial comments made by Jatuporn usually with no evidence to back them up, discounting tapes which ambient background noise discrepencies can show are dubious, it is not surprising that he ends up in a high profile defamation case.

Personally I would prefer not to see defamation cases. Then again I would also prefer to see people not make attacks on people that are based on dubious to say the least evidence.

To his credit Abhisit doesnt file many of these kind of cases and it is against someone that even red supporters I talk to admit "exaggerates".

And saying without proof someone gave a kill order is not exactly everyday politics, and moves things onto a different plain. Maybe if Mr Jatuporn had a background showing more even-handedness it may make his statements easier to believe, but there lies a very big double standard in the accusations he makes and against whom being very ready to ignore even easier proven accusations that could be made against those that he works with/for while raising tenuous issues such as this one.

As ever if reconcilliation is going to come, it is going to come form those on the respective sides admitting to their failings, crimes, and mistakes rather than just trying to fault the other side. Sadly we are a long way from this.

If these allegations are are true or false or at least could not be backed up by evidence - the decision about that Abhisit puts in the hand of the judges. Who has the burden of proof in such an issue like the case about the question if Abhisit was in the car or not?

How many and what for lawsuits Abhisit has won in the past, what is his success rate doing that?

Meanwhile there are big mouths on all side of the conflict and not only Jatuporn.

In terms of false statements and telling lies i remember a offer of Thaksins lawyerto pay one million baht or dollar to anyone who can come forward with evidence about some allegations Thaksins lawyer dismissed as false. Allegation related to passports from and visa status for this and that country. False rumours, the lawyer said, including that one with the silly name change to "Takki Shinegra" A claim that was made by Thai Vice foreign minister Panich Vikitsreth

[SergeiY]

The point is why the comparison with Thaksin, if nothing wrong with these defamation lawsuits and to file them and charge the opponent then is there no reason to come up with some fictional figure that Abhisit has much much lesser "I'll sue you!" attitude than Thaksin.

And in general there is no reason to always come up with Thaksin and say 'Thaksin did same same' or Thaksin did it much more worth or whatever the argument is.

If there is something to criticize on Abhisit than the 'wrongdoings' of Thaksin cannot be an excuse for Abhisit to do the same.

At least when you want to keep your arguments coherent and logical. If you wanna just rant and smear about one and praise the other and put him above criticism and thereby ignoring fact and details- than you don't have to bother about logic.

The explanation as to the comparison is found in Post # 35.

The lawsuits filed by Abhisit were because the defamation was based on lies, whereas the lawsuits filed by Thaksin were because "defamation" were things that he just didn't like to hear.

The other part of the comparison is based on the number of lawsuits filed and the amounts sought. Thaksin and his family routinely sued for 500,000,000 baht.

The vast majority of his lawsuits were extremely frivolous. That's why they were thrown out time after time after time after time.

.

As it is written in post # 35 He BELIEVES it.

You also come only forward with some broad statement that is in the end just your opinion , bias and a rant. Nothing more. Black and white painting and incoherent.

[AleG]

Reputation is just a political thingy, nut it shouldn't be ruined by other politicians telling lies.

Reputation damage just doesn't really get into it. The problem is using lies to justify an uprising.

Why the government needs to be kicked out? Because the Prime Minister is an usurper, mentally ill, orders to murder people and insults the monarchy (at least according to the Red instigators rhetoric). Once you have people believing those lies they are "morally" justified to overthrow the government by any means necessary.

I have the feeling Abhisit is grown up enough not to get the vapors by the lies of Jatuporn and other similar individuals, but the lies caused and are still causing much more widespread damage than his reputation.

[Buchholz]

You also come only forward with some broad statement that is in the end just your opinion , bias and a rant. Nothing more. Black and white painting and incoherent.

I can appreciate that you are new here, but most of what is expressed is opinion here and to label my brief comments as "a rant" and "incoherent" is unnecessarily derogatory and overly personal.

You said yourself that there is much that you are not aware of and that you ask questions, yet when those questions are answered, you retort with inflammatory denials of their validity... as if spoken from a point of view by someone who is knowledgeable.

Which is it? Are you genuinely interested in a discourse imparting information or are you here just here to troll?

Based on an a review of what a great number of other posters have responded to in your postings earlier, it's become quite clear it's the latter.

.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Buchholz

[SergeiY]

You also come only forward with some broad statement that is in the end just your opinion , bias and a rant. Nothing more. Black and white painting and incoherent.

I can appreciate that you are new here, but most of what is expressed is opinion here and to label my brief comments as "a rant" and "incoherent" is unnecessarily derogatory and overly personal.

You said yourself that there is much that you are not aware of and that you ask questions, yet when those questions are answered, you retort with inflammatory denials of their validity... as if spoken from a point of view by someone who is knowledgeable.

Which is it? Are you genuinely interested in a discourse imparting information or are you here just here to troll?

Based on an a review of what a great number of other posters have responded to in your postings earlier, it's become quite clear it's the latter.

.

I am interested in a debate with substance and not in wishy washy arguments and over simplification.

So how often Thaksin in person sued somebody for 500,000,000 baht. Can you name a few cases?

[Buchholz]

edited....almost forgot....

Edited December 2, 2010 by Buchholz

[whybother]

In which case, saying 'Thaksin did it more' isn't justified because you seem to be saying he did something different. But SergeiY's general point is very sound. All the time, one sees variations on 'It's fine for Abhisit to do x and anyway, Thaksin did x loads more', which is just illogical. Either x is acceptable or it's not. If it was wrong for Thaksin to do it n times, it was wrong of Abhisit to do it m times.

No, it isn't the same. Thaksin often sued because he didn't like what was said about him, not because they were lies.

[SergeiY]

In which case, saying 'Thaksin did it more' isn't justified because you seem to be saying he did something different. But SergeiY's general point is very sound. All the time, one sees variations on 'It's fine for Abhisit to do x and anyway, Thaksin did x loads more', which is just illogical. Either x is acceptable or it's not. If it was wrong for Thaksin to do it n times, it was wrong of Abhisit to do it m times.

No, it isn't the same. Thaksin often sued because he didn't like what was said about him, not because they were lies.

hard facts?

Please name a few case Thaksin filed personally.

Please name a few cases were the court ruled in favour of Abhisit and declared that the allegations against him were indeed false and lies.

Edited December 2, 2010 by SergeiY

[whybother]

In which case, saying 'Thaksin did it more' isn't justified because you seem to be saying he did something different. But SergeiY's general point is very sound. All the time, one sees variations on 'It's fine for Abhisit to do x and anyway, Thaksin did x loads more', which is just illogical. Either x is acceptable or it's not. If it was wrong for Thaksin to do it n times, it was wrong of Abhisit to do it m times.

No, it isn't the same. Thaksin often sued because he didn't like what was said about him, not because they were lies.

hard facts?

Please name a few case Thaksin filed personally.

Please name a few cases were the court ruled in favour of Abhisit and declared that the allegations against him were indeed false and lies.

You did a pretty good job of finding Abhisit's cases. Are any complete yet?

[otherstuff1957]

Here you go (these are some of Thaksin's cases):

2009/11/thaksins-lawyers-threaten-opponents.html

11/5/2005atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/GK02Ae01.html

On 11 October 2005, Thaksin sued Manager newspaper for THB 500 million. As monks have traditionally been above criticism, Thaksin did not sue Luang Ta Maha Bua

Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra yesterday filed criminal and civil lawsuits seeking 800 million baht in damages against the Democrat party, its executive and the editors of three daily newspapers for allegedly calling him a flesh-eating zombie

The TRT government also filed a litany of defamation lawsuits against critical ...

Edited December 2, 2010 by otherstuff1957

[SergeiY]

Here you go (these are some of Thaksin's cases):

2009/11/thaksins-lawyers-threaten-opponents.html

11/5/2005atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/GK02Ae01.html

On 11 October 2005, Thaksin sued Manager newspaper for THB 500 million. As monks have traditionally been above criticism, Thaksin did not sue Luang Ta Maha Bua

Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra yesterday filed criminal and civil lawsuits seeking 800 million baht in damages against the Democrat party, its executive and the editors of three daily newspapers for allegedly calling him a flesh-eating zombie

The TRT government also filed a litany of defamation lawsuits against critical ...

Same same as Abhisit. I guess he would sue too if someone call him a flesh eating zombie, accusing him lacking loyalty to the king, being a traitor and so on.

I don't see there much difference to Abhisits lawsuits.

[jdinasia]

PM testifies libel suit against UDD top leader Jatuporn

BANGKOK, 17 August 2009 (NNT) – Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has travelled to the Ratchada Criminal Court to testify for a defamation case earlier filed against United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) top leader Jatuporn Prompan.

Earlier, Mr Jatuporn alleged the Prime Minister for not being in his motorcade while the UDD besieged the Interior Ministry on 12 April 2009. The accusations were made in forms of interviews and political speeches.

However, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva insisted his presence in his car and therefore filed a lawsuit against Mr Jatuporn for false accusation. This case is the second case that the Prime Minister filed a lawsuit against the UDD core leader.

http://thainews.prd....id=255208170017

Court Accepts PM's Defamation Suit against Red-Shirt Leader

UPDATE : 27 July 2009

After the Prime Minister has given his testimony for the defamation suit he filed against a red-shirt leader, the Criminal Court decides to accept the suit and schedules to meet both parties on August 31.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva gave his testimony at the Criminal Court for the defamation suit he filed against Pheu Thai party-list MP and red-shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan. The legal action was taken after Jatuporn accused him of having an inappropriate conduct by sitting at the same level as His Majesty the King while reporting the country's situation on January 22 this year.

The PM said Jatuporn intended to defame him in public by suggesting that he did not show proper respect to the King. Abhisit added that the chair was prepared in the position for him by the Royal Household Bureau. He said other prime ministers, such as Samak Sundaravej and Chuan Leekpai, also sit in a similar position during their audiences with the King.

http://www.tannetwor...?DataID=1016551

Court accepts PM´s defamation suit against UDD core figure

BANGKOK, 18 January 2010 (NNT) - Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva made an appearance on Monday at the Criminal Court for the first hearing of the case against Puea Thai Party MP and anti-government United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) core figure Jatuporn Prompan.

The PM said he decided to lodge the defamation lawsuit against Mr Jatuporn because the remarks made by the UDD core leader were deemed as completely untrue. He dismissed an allegation by Mr Jatuporn by saying that he had ordered the security officers to avoid the use of force and to take peaceful means to handle the protesters in April last year. The PM also defended that the two deaths of anti-government supporters were not caused by the government's action according to the investigation conducted by the House-appointed committee. ...

Mr Jatuporn earlier accused the Prime Minister of ordering the killing of protesters during the Songkran mayhem and also alleged him of stalling the UDD's petition for royal pardon for the former prime minister.

http://thainews.prd....id=255301180035

Court accepts PM's defamation suit against Arisman

BANGKOK, Jan 25 (TNA) - Thailand's Criminal Court on Monday accepted Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's defamation suit against Red Shirt anti-government leader Arisman Pongruangrong, who accused him of causing the illness of his Majesty the King and with ordering the killing of Red Shirt protesters during last year's mid-April chaos.

The premier earlier appeared at court after filing a complaint against Mr Arisman, a key leader of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) for speaking to the Red Shirt protesters rallying in Bangkok on October 11 and 17 last year that Mr Abhisit caused the king's illness and became premier by "robbing the people's power."

http://enews.mcot.ne...hp?id=13893&t=2

Supreme Court issues arrest warrants against 2 former Thai Rak Thai MPs

The Supreme Court Friday issued arrest warrants against 2 former Thai Rak Thai MPs after they failed to turn up to hear the verdict of the court in a defamation case filed by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

The court ordered that Suporn Atthawong and Thirachai Saenkaew be arrested and brought to the court to hear the verdict at 9 am on April 21.

The two were accused of defaming Abhisit by saying the prime minister was unusually rich.

The lower courts gave 12-month suspended jail term against Suporn and a six-month suspended jail term against Thirachai. ...

http://www.nationmul...r-30125074.html

Thaksin slandered me in red-shirt addresses, Abhisit tells court

By The Nation Published on August 3, 2010

The Criminal Court will decide next Monday whether to proceed with a libel lawsuit that Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva filed yesterday against fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Abhisit accuses his predecessor of making libellous remarks about him in March when Thaksin alleged that the prime minister was brutal and mentally ill, given the way he dealt with anti-government protests in April last year by red-shirt supporters. ...

http://www.nationmul...i-30135079.html

Court's acceptance of PM's libel suit against Jatuporn to be decided on 24 Sep

BANGKOK, 20 September 2010 (NNT) - Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has testified in court in his defamation suit against Pheu Thai MP Jatuporn Prompan while the court will decide on 24 September whether to accept the case.

Prime Minister Abhisit today arrived at the Criminal Court to testify in the case he had earlier lodged against Mr Jatuporn, core leader of the anti-government United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), who allegedly slandered him on stage and through the media during 29 January-15 February 2010.

Mr Jatuporn accused the Prime Minister of ordering the killing of people taking part in anti-government protests. He also alleged the Prime Minister of evading military conscription.

http://thainews.prd....id=255309200030

Has the PM nothing better to do than arguing in a court about what these 'criminals' had said? There are at least 3 or 4 different cases against Jatuporn about such important issues. The examples above are surely not a complete list and i guess there are much more similar cases filled by Abhisit and all of them filled by him personally and not by some law enforcement authorities like it would be the case in real crime issues.

And again --- this is NOT about silencing the opposition but about using LEGAL means to hit back directly at lies that were both illegal AND intended to create a more violent atmosphere amongst the reds.

I note where you highlite in red "evading military conscription" but don't hilight the part just before it "of ordering the killing of people" .... why would that be? Do note that in the majority of these cases it appears that Abhisit is not doing what Thaksin did. Threatening the pocketbooks of the people involved and instead just going for the truth.

I find it strange that you are against the TRUTH being told in court. Exactly how would the truth get out if it were not for the legal process? Do you want him to wage a defense of his actions and personality on a daily basis in the press? That would work well for the opposition but not for the PM.

The other thing that is missing that Thaksin did are all the lawsuits against the press. The PM doesn't seem to be suing the press for reporting what someone has said. BIG difference than in the past.

Again ---- how would you like him to deal with outright lies that are intended at creating hatred? Most people would seem to think that letting the courts decide the truth is the only rational way to deal with it.

[SergeiY]

In which case, saying 'Thaksin did it more' isn't justified because you seem to be saying he did something different. But SergeiY's general point is very sound. All the time, one sees variations on 'It's fine for Abhisit to do x and anyway, Thaksin did x loads more', which is just illogical. Either x is acceptable or it's not. If it was wrong for Thaksin to do it n times, it was wrong of Abhisit to do it m times.

No, it isn't the same. Thaksin often sued because he didn't like what was said about him, not because they were lies.

hard facts?

Please name a few case Thaksin filed personally.

Please name a few cases were the court ruled in favour of Abhisit and declared that the allegations against him were indeed false and lies.

You did a pretty good job of finding Abhisit's cases. Are any complete yet?

I am asking you.

please prove: Thaksin often sued because he didn't like what was said about him, not because they were lies.

[whybother]

I am asking you.

please prove: Thaksin often sued because he didn't like what was said about him, not because they were lies.

From the Asia Times article posted by OtherStuff.

The reason: severe criticism of the government in a public sermon by respected, senior Buddhist monk Luangta Maha Bua published in the newspaper on September 27.

Thaksin didn't sue because of lies. He sued because of criticism.

[jdinasia]

And Serge ---- you posted info where the people that were sued by Abhisit were found guilty

[SergeiY]

PM testifies libel suit against UDD top leader Jatuporn

BANGKOK, 17 August 2009 (NNT) – Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has travelled to the Ratchada Criminal Court to testify for a defamation case earlier filed against United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) top leader Jatuporn Prompan.

Earlier, Mr Jatuporn alleged the Prime Minister for not being in his motorcade while the UDD besieged the Interior Ministry on 12 April 2009. The accusations were made in forms of interviews and political speeches.

However, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva insisted his presence in his car and therefore filed a lawsuit against Mr Jatuporn for false accusation. This case is the second case that the Prime Minister filed a lawsuit against the UDD core leader.

http://thainews.prd....id=255208170017

Court Accepts PM's Defamation Suit against Red-Shirt Leader

UPDATE : 27 July 2009

After the Prime Minister has given his testimony for the defamation suit he filed against a red-shirt leader, the Criminal Court decides to accept the suit and schedules to meet both parties on August 31.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva gave his testimony at the Criminal Court for the defamation suit he filed against Pheu Thai party-list MP and red-shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan. The legal action was taken after Jatuporn accused him of having an inappropriate conduct by sitting at the same level as His Majesty the King while reporting the country's situation on January 22 this year.

The PM said Jatuporn intended to defame him in public by suggesting that he did not show proper respect to the King. Abhisit added that the chair was prepared in the position for him by the Royal Household Bureau. He said other prime ministers, such as Samak Sundaravej and Chuan Leekpai, also sit in a similar position during their audiences with the King.

http://www.tannetwor...?DataID=1016551

Court accepts PM´s defamation suit against UDD core figure

BANGKOK, 18 January 2010 (NNT) - Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva made an appearance on Monday at the Criminal Court for the first hearing of the case against Puea Thai Party MP and anti-government United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) core figure Jatuporn Prompan.

The PM said he decided to lodge the defamation lawsuit against Mr Jatuporn because the remarks made by the UDD core leader were deemed as completely untrue. He dismissed an allegation by Mr Jatuporn by saying that he had ordered the security officers to avoid the use of force and to take peaceful means to handle the protesters in April last year. The PM also defended that the two deaths of anti-government supporters were not caused by the government's action according to the investigation conducted by the House-appointed committee. ...

Mr Jatuporn earlier accused the Prime Minister of ordering the killing of protesters during the Songkran mayhem and also alleged him of stalling the UDD's petition for royal pardon for the former prime minister.

http://thainews.prd....id=255301180035

Court accepts PM's defamation suit against Arisman

BANGKOK, Jan 25 (TNA) - Thailand's Criminal Court on Monday accepted Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's defamation suit against Red Shirt anti-government leader Arisman Pongruangrong, who accused him of causing the illness of his Majesty the King and with ordering the killing of Red Shirt protesters during last year's mid-April chaos.

The premier earlier appeared at court after filing a complaint against Mr Arisman, a key leader of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) for speaking to the Red Shirt protesters rallying in Bangkok on October 11 and 17 last year that Mr Abhisit caused the king's illness and became premier by "robbing the people's power."

http://enews.mcot.ne...hp?id=13893&t=2

Supreme Court issues arrest warrants against 2 former Thai Rak Thai MPs

The Supreme Court Friday issued arrest warrants against 2 former Thai Rak Thai MPs after they failed to turn up to hear the verdict of the court in a defamation case filed by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

The court ordered that Suporn Atthawong and Thirachai Saenkaew be arrested and brought to the court to hear the verdict at 9 am on April 21.

The two were accused of defaming Abhisit by saying the prime minister was unusually rich.

The lower courts gave 12-month suspended jail term against Suporn and a six-month suspended jail term against Thirachai. ...

http://www.nationmul...r-30125074.html

Thaksin slandered me in red-shirt addresses, Abhisit tells court

By The Nation Published on August 3, 2010

The Criminal Court will decide next Monday whether to proceed with a libel lawsuit that Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva filed yesterday against fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Abhisit accuses his predecessor of making libellous remarks about him in March when Thaksin alleged that the prime minister was brutal and mentally ill, given the way he dealt with anti-government protests in April last year by red-shirt supporters. ...

http://www.nationmul...i-30135079.html

Court's acceptance of PM's libel suit against Jatuporn to be decided on 24 Sep

BANGKOK, 20 September 2010 (NNT) - Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has testified in court in his defamation suit against Pheu Thai MP Jatuporn Prompan while the court will decide on 24 September whether to accept the case.

Prime Minister Abhisit today arrived at the Criminal Court to testify in the case he had earlier lodged against Mr Jatuporn, core leader of the anti-government United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), who allegedly slandered him on stage and through the media during 29 January-15 February 2010.

Mr Jatuporn accused the Prime Minister of ordering the killing of people taking part in anti-government protests. He also alleged the Prime Minister of evading military conscription.

http://thainews.prd....id=255309200030

Has the PM nothing better to do than arguing in a court about what these 'criminals' had said? There are at least 3 or 4 different cases against Jatuporn about such important issues. The examples above are surely not a complete list and i guess there are much more similar cases filled by Abhisit and all of them filled by him personally and not by some law enforcement authorities like it would be the case in real crime issues.

And again --- this is NOT about silencing the opposition but about using LEGAL means to hit back directly at lies that were both illegal AND intended to create a more violent atmosphere amongst the reds.

I note where you highlite in red "evading military conscription" but don't hilight the part just before it "of ordering the killing of people" .... why would that be? Do note that in the majority of these cases it appears that Abhisit is not doing what Thaksin did. Threatening the pocketbooks of the people involved and instead just going for the truth.

I find it strange that you are against the TRUTH being told in court. Exactly how would the truth get out if it were not for the legal process? Do you want him to wage a defense of his actions and personality on a daily basis in the press? That would work well for the opposition but not for the PM.

The other thing that is missing that Thaksin did are all the lawsuits against the press. The PM doesn't seem to be suing the press for reporting what someone has said. BIG difference than in the past.

Again ---- how would you like him to deal with outright lies that are intended at creating hatred? Most people would seem to think that letting the courts decide the truth is the only rational way to deal with it.

I am not against that the TRUTH being told in court. But i think it wouldn't be necessary that to file out that lawsuits. for what?

A PM has much other means to gain reputation and shouldn't waste his important time in silly lawsuits.

Anyway, please list a couple of Abhisits lawsuits were the truth was found and the allegation against Abhisit declared false and exposed as lies or even illegal.

Above are a few links to Thaksin cases, aren't that similar issues of creating hatred? Can you spot the difference?

please come up with details for these differences.

and according to freedom of the press - check the press freedom index.