Pm Wants 1/2 Billion Baht For Himself

[sriracha john]

Update

As if a 1/2 billion baht wasn't enough, the PM has sued the same adversary for ANOTHER 1/2 billion baht for broadcasting comments made by someone else.

Interestingly, he decided NOT to sue a very widely popular and highly revered monk who actually made the comments:

DEFAMATION LAWSUITS: Luangta Bua escapes PM’s legal wrathPublished on October 11, 2005

Thaksin careful not to target revered monk as he goes after ‘Manager’ again

In a bizarre legal move, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra will sue Manager newspaper today for Bt500 million for publishing strongly-worded comments by Luangta Maha Bua, but he will exclude the popular monk from the lawsuit to avoid a public backlash.

Thana Benjathikul, Thaksin’s lawyer, said yesterday that Luangta Maha Bua would be excluded from the suit to avoid criticism from the monk’s followers throughout the country.

“I don’t think we should sue Luangta Bua. If he were not a monk, we would have taken legal action against him,” he said.

But he did note that monks are not immune to legal action.

Sombat Wongkamhaeng, secretary-general of the Law Society of Thailand, said yesterday that an aggrieved party has the right to sue anyone deemed to have caused damage, and exclude anyone from the suit.

“This can’t be regarded as unfair treatment,” he said.

Thana said the lawsuit, the second in a week involving media tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul, was aimed at protecting the PM’s reputation, not to gag the outspoken journalist and his Manager media group.

He said Thaksin assigned him to file libel, criminal and civil suits today against the Manager newspaper, its publisher, and the manager of the media group’s business restructuring plan.

The civil lawsuit would demand Bt500 million in compensation.

The suits were in response to an article in the newspaper’s September 27 edition, which cited strongly-worded comments by Luangta Maha Bua against the prime minister.

The lawyer denied Thaksin’s legal action was an attempt at persecuting the outspoken newspaper.

“This is an exercise of an individual’s right to protect his reputation and privacy. The newspaper did not criticise the prime minister fairly as a public official, but rather it took him to task personally, using harsh words, which was damaging to him,” Thana said.

On October 3, Thaksin filed two libel suits against Sondhi, who was once a staunch supporter of the premier, demanding Bt500 million in damages.

In his criminal lawsuit, Thaksin named Sondhi and Sarocha Porn-udomsak, co-host of the weekly political talk show “Muang Thai Rai Sapda” (Thailand Weekly), as co-defendants.

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

[txp158]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think all thai would agree with both of you, including his and her majesty. Oh, should my account be removed from this forum now because I just used my king and queen against you? Given the amount of respect that the king and queen get from his people, if mr. Sondhi's doing is slightly wrong or plain wrong, I believe the general public would have condemned him already. Instead, the support for his right of speech remains strong. Thai people have enough brain cells to think for themselve. Please do not speak for other Thais anymore.

[txp158]

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}>

Please excuse my english as it is not that of my mother tongue. Anyway, from my understanding, the law regarding libel or slander in Thailand are considered a subset of tort law. It's understandable why one would get an impression such that if MR. A causes MR. B to lose face then MR. A will have to pay for it. However, the matter does not simply end there. In thailand, the plaintiff will need to provide a burden of proof to the court that the defendant has actually state the offending statement with conviction and malice intention. For example, Mr. A (defendant) had heard from Mr. B (plaintiff)'s relative that Mr. B committed adultery. Later Mr. A told this story to his friends and relatives; this is considered as libel in Thailand. On the other hand, if Mr. A had simply asked Mr. B if he really committed adultery, for example, John asks David, "I heard that you cheated on your wife. Is that true? And if you really do it, I beg you please stop it"; this would not be considered as libel because such statement can only be seen as a conjecture. In addition, Mr. A' s statement does not confirm any fact that would render harm to Mr. B's reputation, nor interest, so Mr. A will not be considered guilty in the charge of libel.

[sriracha john]

Thank you for your past 2 comments, txp.

Can you expand on those comments as they relate to this case? Is the media (Sondhi) wholly responsible for reporting on what someone else(the famous monk, Luangta Maha Bua) says in cases of libel?

IF that is the case, the PM has set an extremely dangerous precedent in an already battered media climate.

If the ability to quote people is taken away from the media.... what is left?

The flip side is... IF the media reports on a quote, which later turns out to be an unfounded lie, can the public sue the person it quoted?

The PM's own bird flu lies, for example, could then be used against him.

Edited October 11, 2005 by sriracha john

[txp158]

Thank you for your past 2 comments, txp. 

Can you expand on those comments as they relate to this case? Is the media (Sondhi) wholly responsible for reporting on what someone else(the famous monk, Luangta Maha Bua) says in cases of libel?

IF that is the case, the PM has set an extremely dangerous precedent in an already battered media climate.

If the ability to quote people is taken away from the media.... what is left?

The flip side is... IF the media reports on a quote, which later turns out to be an unfounded lie, can the public sue the person it quoted?

The PM's own bird flu lies, for example, could then be used against him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From my view, the solution in this libel case rests upon the Luangta Maha Bua's comment on prime minister Thaksin's administration. If the court sees it as some form of conjector or criticism in good will, Mr. Sondhi who merely quotes Luangta Maha Bua's statement of good will or his conjector will surely be acquitted from all charges. I'm sure even prime minister thaksin knows that Luangta Maha Bua meant well for him.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

txp 158. Thank you for your erudite legal contributions. Welcome aboard

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Uncle Pauls worthless comment was trashed. NEVER AGAIN.

[udon]

Please excuse my english as it is not that of my mother tongue.

Nothing wrong with your English mate.

In fact it looks like you could teach some of us a few things!

Welcome aboard!

[uncle paul]

Uncle Pauls worthless comment was trashed. NEVER AGAIN.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

nothing i said was untrue but there again there are dictators in all walks of life are there not?

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Uncle Pauls worthless comment was trashed. NEVER AGAIN.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

nothing i said was untrue but there again there are dictators in all walks of life are there not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another time Paul. You are such a slow learner.

[sriracha john]

After reviewing my email notifications for Uncle Pauls comments...

He has so much to learn of Thailand and I wholeheartedly support Dr. PP's complete elimination of them.

[sriracha john]

Uncle Pauls worthless comment was trashed. NEVER AGAIN.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

nothing i said was untrue but there again there are dictators in all walks of life are there not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another time Paul. You are such a slow learner.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

criminy Uncle Paul... again? You are one to push the envelope, are you not?? ... I suspect you won't stay long in TV... or Thailand itself, for that matter.

*edit*...

oops, I see you've been removed from TV now.... is Thailand itself next?

Edited October 11, 2005 by sriracha john

[dr_Pat_Pong]

After reviewing my email notifications for Uncle Pauls comments...

He has so much to learn of Thailand and I wholeheartedly support Dr. PP's complete elimination of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks John. He's actually a Dodger in Dodgerland..

[womble]

I'm not sure who can answer this best. I suppose a Thai or someone who has been here a long time.

As I understand Luangta Maha Bua is a very highly respected monk, with a large following in N.E. especially around the Udon area.

This is a TRT stronghold, surely by going after Sondhi and not also Luangta Maha Bua Thaksin could still be risking his reputation in this region.

My guess would be it depends on how vocal Luangta Maha Bua is about this. He has often been one to speak his mind, so possibly this could be an unwise move by Thaksin as just because he hasn't gone after the Monk directly, he is still attacking his words as being harmful.

I just wonder how Luangta Maha Bua followers would feel about this, I spoke to a couple of thai friends about this and they thought it a very unwise move. They also said that many Thai are aware of the problems facing media now through internet. But that kinda worried me. Internet is really the only free source of information left in Thailand, and how many have access to that?

IT just seems to me that by bringing about these defamation cases relating to Monarchy and Religion, it keeps the flames alive, it seems strange as the usual TRT tactic would be to sweep it under the carpet.

I think these defamation cases could be very unwise, they attract lots of attension not just inside Thailand, but increacingly from international media.

[alexth]

Wasn't he about to resign?