Pm Wants 1/2 Billion Baht For Himself

[sriracha john]

Never one to be too pre-occupied with such mundane national affairs as terrorism alerts or economic woes or potential bird flu pandemics, Mr. T has decided to file yet ANOTHER libel suit against a journalist, this one for for a cool 1/2 BILLION baht.

Gotta keep those lawyers hopping!

LIBEL ACTION: Thaksin takes aim at SondhiPublished on Oct 03 , 2005

'Thailand Weekly' co-hosts sued for 'taking advantage' of their media role

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra yesterday filed defamation suits against outspoken media tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul, who was once a staunch supporter of the premier, demanding Bt500 million in damages, a lawyer close to the PM's family said.

Thaksin named Manager media group founder Sondhi and Sarocha Porn-udomsak, co-host of the weekly political talk show "Muang Thai Rai Sapda" (Thailand Weekly), as co-defendants in the suit filed with the Criminal Court.

Thana Benjathikul, who represents Thaksin's sister Yaowares Shinawatra in a separate defamation case, said the plaintiff accused the defendants of libel and defaming a government official. Geez.... busy family there Mr. T

Thaksin also filed a civil case against Sondhi, Sarocha and Thai Day Dot Com Co, which produces "Thailand Weekly", for infringement relating to the alleged libel. The plaintiff demanded Bt500 million in compensation, plus annual interest of 7.5 per cent.

Asked to comment on the lawsuits yesterday, Thaksin said media professionals should have respect for other individuals and they should not violate their rights.

But he said his decision to sue was influenced by his lawyer. "He suggested to me to do so, and I just signed," Thaksin said.

SAY WHAAAA?????? Is that how things normally work, Mr. T???

The libel lawsuits, filed by Thaksin's lawyer Noppadon Meewan, are the first brought by the premier since he took office in 2001.

Not to be taken literally as he's filed other lawsuits under the guise of Shin Corporation.

The lawsuits claimed that the talk show hosts repeatedly accused Thaksin of being disloyal to the monarchy during the political programme aired on September 9 on state-run Channel 9.

"The two defendants took advantage of their role as media professionals to slander and falsely accuse the plaintiff beyond the boundary of media freedom. This brought a negative impact on the family members, the dignity and the personal life of the plaintiff," said the criminal lawsuit, a copy of which was posted on the Manager website.

How can he sue for loss of dignity if he didn't have it previously??

Thana said the lawsuits referred to comments made by the hosts about the appointment of a group of senior monks to perform caretaker duties on behalf of the Supreme Patriarch, and irregularities regarding a government project in the North.

"Thailand Weekly" was axed by Channel 9 late last month because of what the station's management called repetition of "unfair" criticism of various parties and unnecessary comments about His Majesty the King.

Sondhi took "Thailand Weekly" on the road and staged it twice at Thammasat University, drawing thousands of fans with hard-hitting attacks on Thaksin and his government.

Democrat Party deputy spokesman Apichart Sakdiset said it was rare for a prime minister to demand so much compensation in a libel case. He noted that recent libel cases filed by government figures and agencies against media companies involved compensation of over Bt16 billion.

Coincidentilly, AIS reported a drop in new subscribers so guess they gotta make up the shortfall somehow.

[sriracha john]

Probably not... Just that he's the most prolific..

[Galong]

It's a true sign of his character that we're seeing. He can't handle ANY criticism whatsoever.

I imagine that his mommy and daddy told him that he's a special boy and he doesn't have to listen to anyone who says anything bad about him. In other words, he's likely never been confronted and doesn't know how to maturely handle it.

[Brew]

it's just a lack of self-confidence

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Former PM Lee of Singapore was notably good at it too

[Spit the Dog]

If Thaksin gets awarded the damages, it would be a nice gesture from him, to donate the money to charity instead of lining his already overfull pocket.

Like other comments in this thread, I also find Thaksin to be a 'Cry Baby.' He would earn some more respect if he actually done something beneficial for the poor and needy instead of whinging about being victimised by the press.

[ovenman]

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra yesterday filed defamation suits against outspoken media tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul, who was once a staunch supporter of the premier, demanding Bt500 million in damages, a lawyer close to the PM's family said.

Mr. Big notwithstanding, it seems to me that there are an awful lot of defamation suits filed in Thailand.

[Jai Dee]

THAI PM SUES MEDIA TYCOON IN $ 1/2 MILLION SLANDER CASE

Prime Minister THAKSIN SHINAWATRA (ทักษิณ ชินวัตร)has filed two slander suits against friend-turned-foe media tycoon SONDHI LIMTHONGKUL (สนธิ ลิ้มทองกุล), demanding 500 million baht in compensation.

The Civil Court has disclosed that the civil and criminal cases, filed separately on Friday, accuse Mr. SONDHI (สนธิ), his TV show co-host and its production firm of slandering state officials and defaming them in a television show that has since been taken off the air.

The suits stated that Mr.SONDHI (สนธิ) and co-host SAROCHA PORNUDOMSAK (สโรชา พรอุดมศักดิ์) had accused Prime Minister THAKSIN several times of being disloyal to the monarchy during the Thailand Weekly show aired on Sept. 9th on state-run Channel 9, Mr. SONDHI's newspaper, and its website.

State-run MCOT Removed the current affairs program following that broadcast, citing repetition of "unfair" criticisms against various parties and unnecessary mentions of the revered monarchy.

Mr.SONDHI(สนธิ), once a staunch THAKSIN supporter, then look his show on the road, staging it twice at Bangkok university, drawing thousands of people with hard-hitting attacks on the THAKSIN administration.

The Bangkok Criminal Court set the first hearing for December 26th.

Source: thaisnews.com ประจำวันอังคารที่ 4 ตุลาคม 2548

[ProThaiExpat]

Can someone who knows Thai libel and slander law explain how Thai slander and libel law differs from those in the west. Most western countries require the defendant, if they are a public figure, as Thaksin would be, to prove that actual malice was present in the making of the libel or slander. A very difficult proposition, in other words "fair comment" contains opinions of a public figures actions which can be wrong and still not be actionable. Mere negligence in not seeking out the truth of a rumor or allegation is not actionable, short of the showing of "malice" which is in effect an intent to harm

In Thailand, it would seem, anyone can sue anyone both civilly and criminally for libel and slander. When the suit is brought, is the burden of proof on the plaintiff or defendant. I suspect the defendant must prove the allegations are true to escape laibility, the plaintiff only proving the libel or slander was made. However, aren't actual damages required to be proved. In the west, in libel and slander cases involving ones profession, one need not show actual damages.

Those of us who make what would be political comment in the west in Thaivisa might be running the risk of breaking Thai libel and slander laws.

Can anyone provide information on Thai laws in this regard?

[jimbob]

Can anyone provide information on Thai laws in this regard?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A lawyer from one of Thailand's oldest law firms told me that "Truth is no defence".

If you make someone lose face then chances are you will end up paying for it.

[opothai]

how could any body slander this illustrious, caring leader that only has his countries best interests at heart.

seriously though a leader in a democratic society Must be open for criticism and also be able to answer that criticism, publicly and definately not through the courts.

this to me is yet another abuse of his already untouchable power.

[mpdkorat]

Can someone who knows Thai libel and slander law explain how Thai slander and libel law differs from those in the west.  Most western countries require the defendant, if they are a public figure, as Thaksin would be, to prove that actual malice was present in the making of the libel or slander.  A very difficult proposition, in other words "fair comment" contains opinions of a public figures actions which can be wrong and still not be actionable.  Mere negligence in not seeking out the truth of a rumor or allegation is not actionable, short of the showing of "malice" which is in effect an intent to harm

In Thailand, it would seem, anyone can sue anyone both civilly and criminally for libel and slander. When the suit is brought, is the burden of proof on the plaintiff or defendant.  I suspect the defendant must prove the allegations are true to escape laibility, the plaintiff only proving the libel or slander was made.  However, aren't actual damages required to be proved.  In the west, in libel and slander cases involving ones profession, one need not show actual damages.

Those of us who make what would be political comment in the west in Thaivisa might be running the risk of breaking Thai libel and slander laws. 

Can anyone provide information on Thai laws in this regard?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If it is posted then it has been published. I think the author and the owners of Thai Visa would jointly be liable.

[qwertyuiop]

Can anyone provide information on Thai laws in this regard?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A lawyer from one of Thailand's oldest law firms told me that "Truth is no defence".

If you make someone lose face then chances are you will end up paying for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is exactly my understanding of the law as well. Not that I am a lawyer.

It has nothing to do with whether what is said is true or fale. It has everything to do with whatever is said having a negative impact on the indvidual.

so be careful out there

[raro]

What a big step towards civilization...in the old days they just got their heads chopped off...

[x-pat]

Spit, the dog: Like other comments in this thread, I also find Thaksin to be a 'Cry Baby.'

He's not a cry baby. It's a strategy. He wants to ruin those who speak against him and he wants to strike fear into the minds of those who might. He thinks he is entitled to that. Muzzling your enemy is not exactly a novel strategy. We have seen this kind of thing in history since ancient times. But it is not just cold rationale. What is peculiar about Thaksin is the amount of emotional agitation that criticism causes him. When members of the press ask him difficult questions you can literally see the tension. He stands still, he becomes stiff, but you can see he is inwardly squirming. His eyelids flicker and his fascial muscles twitch. He replies in short snatchy sentences. He cuts off his questioners and gives dismissive answers. But he's not a cry baby. He knows what he's doing and he is cunning. At least, that's my impression. I saw him once in person when he was not yet prime minister.

X-Pat

[thedude]

i think everyone's missing the point.

i think MCOT did a good thing by taking it off the air quickly.

the monarchy does not deserve being used in ANY political assault, be it for or against the prime minister.

no one has a right to conduct a political witch-hunt by invoking the monarcy. the MCOT is right in citing unnecessary mentions. i hope some of you farangs have a mind to appreciate this. this is not the UK where even the queen is fair game.

it is a very grave accusation to make, to accuse a Thai of being disloyal to the monarchy in this country. the PM has a right to defend such a serious accusation.

edited for clarity.

Edited October 4, 2005 by thedude

[The_Moog]

The lawsuits claimed that the talk show hosts repeatedly accused Thaksin of being disloyal to the monarchy during the political programme aired on September 9 on state-run Channel 9.

I think we let the Courts decide this one.

[x-pat]

thedude: no one has a right to conduct a political witch-hunt by invoking the monarcy.

I think that it may be you who misses the point.

The Supreme Patriarch is formally appointed by the King. If any member of the government sponsors another person to assume the responsibilities of the Supreme Patriarch, then this could certainly be construed in the manner as Mr. Sondhi did. This is not a "political with hunt". This is just reporting what happens.

What is more, it was not the only occasion where the preferences of the prime minister appeared not to accord with that of his majesty, the King. There was the case of the head of the national counter corruption commission, whom the government wished to replace and where the king never approved the respective motion.

While I think it is best to let the king speak for himself and not to construe anything not explicitly stated, it should not be considered an offense to report apparent frictions.

X-Pat

[DaveYo]

Well, since I have been here a short of time, but long enough to obtain some knowledge of Thai customs, mentioning anything to or of about or of reference concerning the Royals is considered """"""according to Thais"""""""" taboo or a big no no.

If you read the article carefully on the questions asked to the PM, it is saying or asking in other words why did the PM go against the HRH request????? The comment following the question, gave indications lack of loyalty so that in a sense was repeated for confirmation coming from the PM. The host was trying to clarify and kept asking about the PM's statement more or less. With the PM refusing to clarify and explain about his comment, what can the host conclude????????

Every place around this world one can make some kind of comment about their leaders or question them in various topics except in China and in North Korea and now of course Thailand.

To Moog, in my answer to your comment and question, for me it does not mean a thing!!!! I could care less what the other says whether or not I am loyal, my actions will speak of it by itself. Also it is of no importance to me if the others think otherwise because they don't know of about my personal affairs or beliefs etc., and so if they wish to nudge and pry out such from my brain it isn't going to happen.

As to of the comment about the Western methods pertaining to Slander and Defamation, the rules are quite well understood, and for one to bring such into the court, one has to prove that such was made with harmful malice and intent aimed in destroying a persons overall reputation. This same person has to present strong evidence of the like showing all is tied into that Slander and Defamation. In short it is a very difficult case to bring up to the courts unless it is clear and convincing.

However here in Thailand for one to sue one has to deposit 100,000 Baht to the courts for the case to be heard and to bring such a suit. Also Thais are well known to sue people (provided that they have the front money to deposit of course) regarding anything that they think attacks their reps or demeanor even on a crimminal case if such is brought upon a person without justifiable cause. At least one thing I do know is that the Crimminal Inspectors will examine and go thru such complaint quite thouroughly before bringing up such charges to the court. In a sense they also try to protect both sides from doing something stupid. Also Thai laws are very weird of the way they look at things and how one files such complaint.

By the way, we all should send Thaskin Pom Poms and maybe include a skirt too if it fits so he can show to everyone just how good he is and give us a nice demo!!!!!!!!!!! on T.V.

Daveyo

[DaveYo]

One other thing I would like to add concerning about lawsuits brought upon by the Thai people, even if one is charged with a crime and on that crime there is sufficient evidence to convict based on its charges, the defendants or the accused or the convicted do sue the plaintiffs for bringing up such charges against them in the first place because they claim they lose face and their reputation is ruined not only of themselves but of their family as well.

The thinking of the Thai people is really cuckoo!!!!!!!!!! First you have the person committing such crime and then the victim files such complaint, and the person committing such crime gets arrested, then sues during the interim of the crimminal complaint against the victim, and the person who committed the crime gets convicted if found guilty, and say they win the lawsuit against the victim.

Do you see what I am talking about here????????

The Thai system somehow backs up the crimminal and not the victim. With this in mind, that is why very few press charges unless the victim knows for certain regardless that they will not lose either way. Most disputes are settled out of court unless it is the police who catch them in the act which then the police become untouchable. This is the way of the Thai.

Daveyo

[Heng]

Anyone here use a satellite service that picks up Dr. Sondhi's show? It's still on air, but obviously on a non-Thaicom satellite.

[The_Moog]

if one is charged with a crime and on that crime there is sufficient evidence to convict based on its charges, the defendants or the accused or the convicted do sue the plaintiffs for bringing up such charges against them in the first place because they claim they lose face and their reputation is ruined not only of themselves but of their family as well.

In criminal actions (eg murder, fraud), - in my country, the Plaintiff is always HM the Queen. i.e the State.

Do you mean Civil actions?

Edited October 4, 2005 by The_Moog

[x-pat]

DaveYo: mentioning anything to or of about or of reference concerning the Royals is considered """"""according to Thais"""""""" taboo or a big no no.

That's not entirely correct. There is a royal news section on TV every day that mentions and references the royal family, describes their actions and quotes the speeches of their members. That is no problem at all. Most Thais seem to appreciate it. What is taboo in Thailand is criticising the monarch or royal family. Moreover, "lese-majeste" is a criminal offense in Thailand.

DaveYo: The host was trying to clarify and kept asking about the PM's statement more or less.

Did you see the show? This was not an interview. It was -as always in this show- a dialogue between Khun Sondhi and his partner Khun Sarocha, whereas Sondhi did -as usual- most of the speaking.

DaveYo: With the PM refusing to clarify and explain about his comment, what can the host conclude?

With some knowledge about the persons and the situation this should be easy to understand. The encumbent Supreme Patriarch, Somdet Phra Nyanasamvara Suvaddhana Mahathera, is 91 years old now and he suffers from bad health. The duties of his office have been performed for some time by a "deputy", Somdet Phra Buddhajarn. It has been suggested that the latter is a friend of the TRT party, or repectively some of its members, so the TRT party could have an interest in keeping the arrangement of Phra Buddhajarn acting on the Supreme Patriarch's behalf and eventually becoming his successor. This would fit with quite well into the strategy of the TRT of placing party friends into the highest offices everywhere in the country. To which extent this is speculation I cannot say. However, there is reason to believe that a man like Khun Sondhi does not simply make up something like that.

Cheers, X-Pat

[sriracha john]

Sue-till-they-drop strategy smacks of desperation

Published on October 05, 2005

Before Thaksin Shinawatra and Co can bankrupt the entire media industry with staggering defamation lawsuits, maybe the CEO would like to spare a minute and ponder the bad side of the sue-till-they-drop strategy.

Understandably, he must have been infuriated.But if his government thinks it’s chosen a proper response to the likes of the Suvarnabhumi Airport runway cracks story or criticism over the caretaker Supreme Patriarch’s appointment, it’s mocking itself with demands that exist only in legal comedies. This is not to mention that business firms associated with powerful politicians have also sought slander compensation in a combined amount that could feed a small country for months.

The figures are simply unreal. Executives of Picnic Corporation Plc, the cooking gas company being investigated for stock-related offences, had sued Matichon Plc for Bt10 billion. Prachachat Turakij, a business weekly owned by Matichon Plc, was also sued for Bt5 billion for reporting on the same issue. Thai Post is fighting a Bt200-million suit filed by Shin Corp for claiming it benefited from government policies.

Thaksin’s former cheerleader, media tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul, is the latest to join the possible casualty list after the prime minister’s personal lawyer filed a Bt500-million suit for his harsh attacks on the government. And the list goes on and on.

If the politicians and their related businesses want to teach the media a lesson, they could have done better with a more reasonable legal action. Now they have made it a nice trend for media firms to be sued for obscene sums.

This is bad politically, and following are the reasons why:

1) It’s double jeopardy on his part. The Shin Corp lawsuit against Supinya Klangnarong, for example, keeps alive a potentially explosive issue - the wealth of the prime minister’s business empire and state policies. The move against media tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul has drawn more attention to whether or not the government has acted properly in its appointment of the caretaker Supreme Patriarch. Last but not least, Thaksin’s post-election promise early this year that he will support press freedom sounds a bigger joke now than it did then, and his administration’s human rights image will dip a few more notches.

2) When a government leader’s popularity rating plunges, it’s a silly idea for him to unify the media and turn them against himself. Thaksin is doing just that in earnest. All he needs to do to get the big picture is check out tomorrow’s gathering organised by the Press Council of Thailand. In short, suing for bad publicity breeds more bad publicity.

3) He can easily fall into a trap. Granted, most editors and publishers hate going to court, but some shrewd ones may laugh all the way to it.

A defamation lawsuit by government, while terrifying, can also “glorify”. Thaksin inadvertently has turned several of his critics into political stars overnight. When he threatened controversial tycoon Ekkayuth Anchanbutr with sweeping legal action last year, people almost forgot the latter’s past dubious deeds. In other words, Thaksin surely doesn’t want to make a hero out of his own enemy.

4) The absurdity of the damages demanded can backfire. It may not affect the popular faith in Thaksin’s pledge to rid Thailand of poverty - although hundreds of reporters will lose jobs if all the ruling politicians and their business firms win their cases, whose combined worth is approaching Bt20 billion. But what can be portrayed as legitimate response to media accusations is being belittled by out-of-this-world compensation figures. It reinforces the impression that this government has been using legal and financial means to intimidate the media.

5) The threats won’t work. On the contrary, they serve to galvanise reporters. Thai Post editorial staffers haven’t seemed to be worried by their uncertain future.

Good journalists will find a way to exercise the freedom of speech no matter what. Bad journalists, on the other hand, are normally friends of bad politicians anyway.

6) He’d better return to his divide-and-rule principle for his own good. It was bad, but it worked quite well. When he first came to office, the Thai media had never been so split. The carrots he gave to friendly media organisations and the stick he wielded against critical ones were threatening to create a dark age for this country’s media.

Now his switch in policy has bred all kinds of press freedom warriors.

[penzman]

If you make someone lose face then chances are you will end up paying for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let's see...

[Kringle]

All taksin's shit is just more of the let me, my family and my friends get rich and to He11 with the poor" He can sue for this kind of money but when a child is killed in a store or even a hospital, the parents have to settle for virtually nothing. Let's all give a cheer for taksins' 1st world country.

[opothai]

he should have married imelda marcos

what a pair

[pandaparty]

i think everyone's missing the point.

i think MCOT did a good thing by taking it off the air quickly.

the monarchy does not deserve being used in ANY political assault, be it for or against the prime minister. 

no one has a right to conduct a political witch-hunt by invoking the monarcy.  the MCOT is right in citing unnecessary mentions.  i hope some of you farangs have a mind to appreciate this.  this is not the UK where even the queen is fair game.

it is a very grave accusation to make, to accuse a Thai of being disloyal to the monarchy in this country. the PM has a right to defend such a serious accusation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you. I don't like Thaksin that much and at first I enjoyed watching Sondhi's programme. But he went too far by using the royal family against the PM. Most of negative posts (including mine) about Sondhi in his website Manager.co.th have been deleted and all that are still there are those who agree with him.

I think Thaksin had been looking for a way to stop him and his programme and he simply helped Thaksin. It's no one's fault but himself. He might have had more supports from us Thais if he had chosen not to wear the shirt which means in English 'We will fight for the King' the day his programme got cancelled.

[Ahha_ohooo]

he should have married imelda marcos

what a pair

_________________________________________________

I AGREE WITH YOU............

Edited October 5, 2005 by Ahha_ohooo

[penzman]

he should have married imelda marcos

what a pair 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They sagged and weren't that big...