Yingluck Mulls Defamation Suit against Kaewsun And Tul

[webfact]

Yingluck mulls defamation suit

By THE NATION

Yingluck Shinawatra, the Pheu Thai Party's prime ministerial candidate, yesterday questioned the legal campaign against her by two critics of her brother Thaksin in the run-up to the July 3 general elections.

"I don't know why they |have to do it at this time |although the matter took place long ago," she said, referring to legal expert Kaewsun Atibodhi and physician Dr Tul Sitthisomwong.

Kaewsun and Tul, who are part of a group called Network of Citizens against Amnesty for Thaksin Corruption, plan to seek a Department of Special Investigation probe into their allegation that Yingluck - as a defence witness for ex-premier Thaksin - lied before a court in last year's corruption case against him.

The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders ordered seizure of Bt46 billion in Thaksin's assets found to be earned dishonestly while he was serving as prime minister.

Yingluck said yesterday she had instructed her lawyers to see whether a defamation case could be filed against Kaewsun and Tul. She added, however, that any legal action would be taken after the election.

Nevertheless, the Pheu Thai's No 1 party-list candidate said she had no worries about the move against her and did not feel disheartened. "I hope all sides will be fair to me. … I have decided to serve the people, so I will just tolerate any pressure and work to the best of my ability," she said.

Pheu Thai spokesman Prompong Nopparit yesterday lodged a complaint with the Election Commission, seeking investigation into the move by Kaewsun and Tul against the party's top candidate. He said they had slandered Yingluck with false facts.

"The two appear to have a hidden agenda. This is a political game aimed at discrediting Pheu Thai for political advantage," Prompong said, without naming any political party.

He said the move by the two Thaksin critics should be regarded as a violation of electoral law.

The party's spokesman also questioned the timing of the move by Kaewsun and Tul. "If they were sincere about the scrutiny, they should have done it before or after the election," he said, referring to the signature campaign to be launched later this month and an ongoing online drive.

"I would like the Election Commission to investigate this matter to see if there's something fishy behind them," the spokesman said.

He added that although their act had nothing to do with any political party, the two men could face imprisonment for defamation.

Tul yesterday said he had no concern about Pheu Thai's threat of legal action. He asked Pheu Thai politicians to read carefully the electoral law's clause referred to by the party's spokesman.

-- The Nation 2011-06-09

[Ricardo]

'I don't know why they have to do it at this time'

Perhaps because Ms Yingluck has stepped forward, and now aspires to become PM, in the elections due in just a few weeks time ? Welcome to the wonderful world of politics !

The traditional 'democratic' clone-brother response might well have been a Billion-Baht libel-suit, against the two beastly-types, but that would only risk giving more-publicity and possible-credence to what they're saying !

[whybother]

"I don't know why they |have to do it at this time |although the matter took place long ago," she said

No denial, just pointing out that she perjured herself a long time ago and asking why bring it up now.

The two appear to have a hidden agenda.

Not very well hidden. Just in case you didn't notice, their agenda is to get Yingluck disqualified.

The party's spokesman also questioned the timing of the move by Kaewsun and Tul. "If they were sincere about the scrutiny, they should have done it before or after the election," he said

Before the election was called, Yingluck wasn't even a PTP candidate, so there was no urgent issue to deal with the perjury. After the election, if she becomes PM, it would be a bit late to deal with it, especially when she pushes through the amnesty to get herself off the hook.

[Buchholz]

Yingluck said yesterday she had instructed her lawyers to see whether a defamation case could be filed against Kaewsun and Tul. She added, however, that any legal action would be taken after the election.

Disingenuous at its ugliest.

It's not stopping her cohorts within the same Thaksin gang from acting NOW and attacking from a variety of angles:

The seemingly obligatory lawsuit from the Thaksin camp...

Red-shirt leader Nattawut to file suit against former AEC member Kaewsan and multicolored shirt leader Tul for defaming Yingluck.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=473260&view=findpost&p=4474431

And now Pheu Thai Party Spokesman Promphong has filed a petition with the Election Commission against the two citing the Election Act for causing damage to Yingluck's popularity.

Furthermore, he will file another suit tomorrow with the police for defamation and violating the Computer Crime Act (the two have a Facebook page detailing their allegations).

[lanna2011]

she has a point - it's politically motivated

[whybother]

she has a point - it's politically motivated

She didn't actually make that point. She questioned "the legal campaign".

She didn't even deny the allegations.

[lanna2011]

she has a point - it's politically motivated

She didn't actually make that point. She questioned "the legal campaign".

She didn't even deny the allegations.

no but others did and I agree that legal action should be after the election - if only to avoid what I said the 'it's politically motivated' argument - people are not stupid and they will assume this is an attack on PT and I just don't think it helps - she will be seem as a victim - right or wrong, guilty or not guilt

[whybother]

no but others did and I agree that legal action should be after the election - if only to avoid what I said the 'it's politically motivated' argument - people are not stupid and they will assume this is an attack on PT and I just don't think it helps - she will be seem as a victim - right or wrong, guilty or not guilt

Wouldn't it be better to clear the air before she becomes an MP? How would avoid "politically motivated" after the election? After the election, it will just be seen as judicial interference in politics.

She should be attempting to clear her name so that she can run for PM with a clean slate. But, all she wants to do is leave it until after the election, so she gets her chance to give herself amnesty. If she doesn't "win" the election, she's going to resign anyway.

[maidu]

she has a point - it's politically motivated

She didn't actually make that point. She questioned "the legal campaign". She didn't even deny the allegations.

no but others did and I agree that legal action should be after the election - if only to avoid what I said the 'it's politically motivated' argument - people are not stupid and they will assume this is an attack on PT and I just don't think it helps - she will be seem as a victim - right or wrong, guilty or not guilt

"legal action should be after the election" Are you kidding? That's similar to what happened with her clone brother. There was legal action just after his first election/appointment by TRT - re; his hiding assets. Thai judges saw he was guilty by, but by their own admission, chose to find him innocent because they were afraid of political instability if they ruled correctly, based on the evidence. For their efforts (at pardoning a guilty man), they saddled Thailand with a man who later stole from the Thai treasury (major tax evasion) and other crimes.

She is giving proof to the clone claim, as her fellow clone made a career out of slapping (or threatening to slap) defamation suits right and left. He did it against the young lady reporter who had the gall to publish a letter questioning his ethics while he was PM.

[lanna2011]

no but others did and I agree that legal action should be after the election - if only to avoid what I said the 'it's politically motivated' argument - people are not stupid and they will assume this is an attack on PT and I just don't think it helps - she will be seem as a victim - right or wrong, guilty or not guilt

Wouldn't it be better to clear the air before she becomes an MP? How would avoid "politically motivated" after the election? After the election, it will just be seen as judicial interference in politics.

She should be attempting to clear her name so that she can run for PM with a clean slate. But, all she wants to do is leave it until after the election, so she gets her chance to give herself amnesty. If she doesn't "win" the election, she's going to resign anyway.

the fair point she's making is 'why now' - just days before the election - a fair point - I was not commenting on her guilt or otherwise because I have no idea

[random]

she has a point - it's politically motivated

She didn't actually make that point. She questioned "the legal campaign". She didn't even deny the allegations.

no but others did and I agree that legal action should be after the election - if only to avoid what I said the 'it's politically motivated' argument - people are not stupid and they will assume this is an attack on PT and I just don't think it helps - she will be seem as a victim - right or wrong, guilty or not guilt

"legal action should be after the election" Are you kidding? That's similar to what happened with her clone brother. There was legal action just after his first election/appointment by TRT - re; his hiding assets. Thai judges saw he was guilty by, but by their own admission, chose to find him innocent because they were afraid of political instability if they ruled correctly, based on the evidence. For their efforts (at pardoning a guilty man), they saddled Thailand with a man who later stole from the Thai treasury (major tax evasion) and other crimes.

She is giving proof to the clone claim, as her fellow clone made a career out of slapping (or threatening to slap) defamation suits right and left. He did it against the young lady reporter who had the gall to publish a letter questioning his ethics while he was PM.

So because of who her brother is she should not be allowed to exercise her legal rights when she has been defamed?? is that what you are trying to say?

[whybother]

the fair point she's making is 'why now' - just days before the election - a fair point - I was not commenting on her guilt or otherwise because I have no idea

"Why now?" is because she has just been put at the top of PTP's party list.

There was no need to stop her from becoming an MP (and possibly PM) if she wasn't even a candidate.

[whybother]

So because of who her brother is she should not be allowed to exercise her legal rights when she has been defamed?? is that what you are trying to say?

To prove that she is being defamed, she should be defending the allegations against her.

One of the problems in Thailand is that you can file a suit against someone for defamation of character even when they are telling the truth.

[koosdeboer]

So because of who her brother is she should not be allowed to exercise her legal rights when she has been defamed?? is that what you are trying to say?

To prove that she is being defamed, she should be defending the allegations against her.

One of the problems in Thailand is that you can file a suit against someone for defamation of character even when they are telling the truth.

This phua thai people are against les majeste but like to file lawsuits for defamation of character. Isn't this double standard?

[lanna2011]

So because of who her brother is she should not be allowed to exercise her legal rights when she has been defamed?? is that what you are trying to say?

To prove that she is being defamed, she should be defending the allegations against her.

One of the problems in Thailand is that you can file a suit against someone for defamation of character even when they are telling the truth.

This phua thai people are against les majeste but like to file lawsuits for defamation of character. Isn't this double standard?

nope - most country's don't have LM but have the right to stop people lying about them (if that's what they have done - we don't know) - this is not the point - the point is 'why now' when it happened a long time ago and the answer is obvious

[Buchholz]

the point is 'why now' when it happened a long time ago and the answer is obvious

It didn't happen "a long time ago".

The Supreme Court ruling that essentially established the perjury allegation by her occurred just last year.

As with any alleged criminal activity, the point of "why now" is a distant priority to "is she guilty or not."

.

[whybother]

This phua thai people are against les majeste but like to file lawsuits for defamation of character. Isn't this double standard?

nope - most country's don't have LM but have the right to stop people lying about them (if that's what they have done - we don't know) - this is not the point - the point is 'why now' when it happened a long time ago and the answer is obvious

Most countries have the right to stop people lying about them, but that's NOT how it is used here.

Defamation laws here are used to stop people saying something bad about someone ... whether it's the truth or not.

That's what the LM laws are about too, and that's what the red shirts and PTP complain about, but they are quite happy to lodge a defamation suit against someone, even if they are telling the truth.

As to your other question, the answer is obvious.

"Why now?" is because she has just been put at the top of PTP's party list.

There was no need to stop her from becoming an MP (and possibly PM) if she wasn't even a candidate.

[lanna2011]

This phua thai people are against les majeste but like to file lawsuits for defamation of character. Isn't this double standard?

nope - most country's don't have LM but have the right to stop people lying about them (if that's what they have done - we don't know) - this is not the point - the point is 'why now' when it happened a long time ago and the answer is obvious

Most countries have the right to stop people lying about them, but that's NOT how it is used here.

Defamation laws here are used to stop people saying something bad about someone ... whether it's the truth or not.

That's what the LM laws are about too, and that's what the red shirts and PTP complain about, but they are quite happy to lodge a defamation suit against someone, even if they are telling the truth.

As to your other question, the answer is obvious.

"Why now?" is because she has just been put at the top of PTP's party list.

There was no need to stop her from becoming an MP (and possibly PM) if she wasn't even a candidate.

so something we can all agree on - no one likes the LM law or the way defamation laws are used - I can buy that and it's something we all agree on

[animatic]

she has a point - it's politically motivated

She didn't actually make that point. She questioned "the legal campaign".

She didn't even deny the allegations.

no but others did and I agree that legal action should be after the election - if only to avoid what I said the 'it's politically motivated' argument - people are not stupid and they will assume this is an attack on PT and I just don't think it helps - she will be seem as a victim - right or wrong, guilty or not guilt

People are not stupid,

they will assume that there is legal baggage attached to her, best brought to voters attent DURING the election cycle and BEFORE she gets elected.

Oh sorry, it was a year ago and they didn't pursue prosecution yet, but that doesn't mean it is not legal to do so now. Even incumbent on those who know the facts to do so for the public good.

And it doesn't mean filing to start prosecution is an illegal act, try as they might to portray that. Any counter suits is equally a political action, in this case. So 50/50 BUT the filing of requests to action is proper legal moves to restart a dormant legal case.

Her words are on public record of the courts and so it is a cut and dried legal decisions to be made, not a subjective one. Besides better to start the case before she gets elected and wins immunity....

To bring up to the voters attention that this case is hanging over her head like the Sword of Damocles is quite proper if voters are expected to make an informed decision.

Edited June 9, 2011 by animatic

[slapout]

Her question of why now, instead of after the election? If she becomes an MP or PM after the election would she not enjoy the same immunity that seems to be the norm in Thailand? Her brother postponed the same type of charge (perjury) until the statue of limitations had expired. The mass media info available to the general population may be coming back to haunt the entire family. This is another example of attempting to keep everything within the family sphere of influence. The entire Thai political system would not seem conducive to a feeling of trust, even discounting those who are involved.

[cdnvic]

For the foreseeable future posts containing personal attacks will be deleted without further comment, this includes the entirety of posts quoting them.

Don't waste your time posting something that will only be deleted.

[animatic]

So because of who her brother is she should not be allowed to exercise her legal rights when she has been defamed?? is that what you are trying to say?

To prove that she is being defamed, she should be defending the allegations against her.

One of the problems in Thailand is that you can file a suit against someone for defamation of character even when they are telling the truth.

This phua thai people are against les majeste but like to file lawsuits for defamation of character. Isn't this double standard?

Without a doubt.

They like laws that benefit them and dislike laws that don't....

[MrChangers]

Mud slinging time days before the election. Looks like certain people are looking nervous about Yingluck's chances of winning, I wonder if anyone can throw a LM charge in there as well just to round it off ......

[lannarebirth]

she has a point - it's politically motivated

She didn't actually make that point. She questioned "the legal campaign". She didn't even deny the allegations.

no but others did and I agree that legal action should be after the election - if only to avoid what I said the 'it's politically motivated' argument - people are not stupid and they will assume this is an attack on PT and I just don't think it helps - she will be seem as a victim - right or wrong, guilty or not guilt

"legal action should be after the election" Are you kidding? That's similar to what happened with her clone brother. There was legal action just after his first election/appointment by TRT - re; his hiding assets. Thai judges saw he was guilty by, but by their own admission, chose to find him innocent because they were afraid of political instability if they ruled correctly, based on the evidence. For their efforts (at pardoning a guilty man), they saddled Thailand with a man who later stole from the Thai treasury (major tax evasion) and other crimes.

She is giving proof to the clone claim, as her fellow clone made a career out of slapping (or threatening to slap) defamation suits right and left. He did it against the young lady reporter who had the gall to publish a letter questioning his ethics while he was PM.

People like to make the argument that the coup is the source of all of Thailand's political instability when in fact it is the assets concealment case. That case highlighting the ineffectualness of Thailand's justice system (a pillar of democracy) was perceived by Thaksin as giving him "carte blanche" to pursue whatever corrupt schemes he may like, and boy did he. The coup merely unwound this previous travesty of justice. Not good, not legal, extra-constitutional, but it stopped Thailand from becoming the Phillipines as under Marcos.

[Buchholz]

Yingluck said yesterday she had instructed her lawyers to see whether a defamation case could be filed against Kaewsun and Tul. She added, however, that any legal action would be taken after the election.

Disingenuous at its ugliest.

It's not stopping her cohorts within the same Thaksin gang from acting NOW and attacking from a variety of angles:

The seemingly obligatory lawsuit from the Thaksin camp...

Red-shirt leader Nattawut to file suit against former AEC member Kaewsan and multicolored shirt leader Tul for defaming Yingluck.

And now Pheu Thai Party Spokesman Promphong has filed a petition with the Election Commission against the two citing the Election Act for causing damage to Yingluck's popularity.

Furthermore, he will file another suit tomorrow with the police for defamation and violating the Computer Crime Act (the two have a Facebook page detailing their allegations).

The ugliest just got uglier.

As posted above, and in direct contradiction to the original Yingluck claim at the top, the Pheu Thai Party filed charges today against the two at the Crime Suppression Division of the police.

The complaint was for defamation AND violating the Computer Crime Act.

The complainant was Pheu Thai Party Spokesman Promphong (who is also now a first timer Pheu Thai Party-list MP candidate).

[Thai at Heart]

This phua thai people are against les majeste but like to file lawsuits for defamation of character. Isn't this double standard?

nope - most country's don't have LM but have the right to stop people lying about them (if that's what they have done - we don't know) - this is not the point - the point is 'why now' when it happened a long time ago and the answer is obvious

Most countries have the right to stop people lying about them, but that's NOT how it is used here.

Defamation laws here are used to stop people saying something bad about someone ... whether it's the truth or not.

That's what the LM laws are about too, and that's what the red shirts and PTP complain about, but they are quite happy to lodge a defamation suit against someone, even if they are telling the truth.

As to your other question, the answer is obvious.

"Why now?" is because she has just been put at the top of PTP's party list.

There was no need to stop her from becoming an MP (and possibly PM) if she wasn't even a candidate.

Absolutely.

The mere act of pointing out someones wrongdoing, results in a defamation suit, even if it is the truth. If ever there was a law that actually contributes to everyone keeping their trap shut about corruption, this is it, and yet, everyone walks around about wanting to get tough on corruption, but merely pointing it out publicly can result in being sued for millions and all the associated costs of defending yourself for telling the truth.

And yet, I have not heard one peep out of any politician from any side of the spectrum speaking up about changing these anachronistic laws. If we can see that the law is an ass in this situation, why can't any Thai politician?

TIT after all.

[animatic]

'koosdeboer' timestamp='1307586726' post='4477912

This phua thai people are against les majeste but like to file lawsuits for defamation of character. Isn't this double standard?

nope - most country's don't have LM but have the right to stop people lying about them (if that's what they have done - we don't know) - this is not the point - the point is 'why now' when it happened a long time ago and the answer is obvious

Most countries have the right to stop people lying about them, but that's NOT how it is used here.

Defamation laws here are used to stop people saying something bad about someone ... whether it's the truth or not.

That's what the LM laws are about too, and that's what the red shirts and PTP complain about, but they are quite happy to lodge a defamation suit against someone, even if they are telling the truth.

As to your other question, the answer is obvious.

"Why now?" is because she has just been put at the top of PTP's party list.

There was no need to stop her from becoming an MP (and possibly PM) if she wasn't even a candidate.

Absolutely.

The mere act of pointing out someones wrongdoing, results in a defamation suit, even if it is the truth. If ever there was a law that actually contributes to everyone keeping their trap shut about corruption, this is it, and yet, everyone walks around about wanting to get tough on corruption, but merely pointing it out publicly can result in being sued for millions and all the associated costs of defending yourself for telling the truth.

And yet, I have not heard one peep out of any politician from any side of the spectrum speaking up about changing these anachronistic laws. If we can see that the law is an ass in this situation, why can't any Thai politician?

TIT after all.

Yep, it's all about not causing loss of face, so you can get away with blue murder. And yes tightening back these archaic laws would be a great first step.

So poor lil Yinggie Lucky is mulling a good whine.... About people taking legal action against her, and answering questions about it from the press. Thailand the best defense against being outed by the TRUTH is a great early attack.

Edited June 9, 2011 by animatic

[Thai at Heart]

Yep, it's all about not causing loss of face, so you can get away with blue murder. And yes tightening back these archaic laws would be a great first step.

So poor lil Yinggie Lucky is mulling a good whine.... About people taking legal action against her, and answering questions about it from the press. Thailand the best defense against being outed by the TRUTH is a great early attack.

Indeed. I really was hoping that someone like Abhisit with his education (and hopefully worldly view of society)would see a way to change these laws, since they are so open to abuse to hide the truth and make people be they public figures or members of the general public accountable for their actions. This is one of the few places in the world that smashes the whistleblower harder than the wrongdoer, and yet no one attempts to change the situation.

As for face as a concept, it is one of those things that I am sick to death of. Of course people shouldn't be able to defame people left right and centre with untruths, but it is definitely the case that, the truth doesn't set you free in Thailand, it is more likely to land you in the clink or bankrupt.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Thai at Heart

[Buchholz]

Noppadon lashes out at Kaewsan, Tul

BANGKOK, 9 June 2011 (NNT) – Ex-Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama has criticised former Assets Scrutiny Committee member Kaewsan Atibhodhi and Alliance of Patriots Coordinator Medical Doctor Tul Sittisomwong for discrediting Pheu Thai prime minister candidate Yingluck Shinawatra.

Mr Noppadon, also legal advisor to ex-Prime Minister Dr Thaksin Shinawatra, shrugged off concerns over movements of the two figures, saying that their movements were not beyond expectation and were aimed at political benefits in the upcoming election.

Mr Kaewsan and Medical Doctor Tul recently alleged Ms Yingluck of supplying false testimony to the now disbanded Assets Scrutiny Committee and the Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions of the Supreme Court on the long-closed asset seizure case of her brother.

Mr Noppadon gave no credits to Mr Kaewsan and Medical Doctor Tul, believing that they were hired to do so. He elaborated that Kaewsan was a servant of coup plotters in 2006 while Tul used to join the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and now has his own group after the PAD’s popularity turns weak.

The legal advisor said Ms Yingluck is now a public figure after she has stepped into politics. She is ready for investigation and hopes to receive justice in the procedure. He noted that she will press ahead with her election campaigns and will not be distracted by such a political ploy.

Mr Noppadon stressed that both Mr Kaewsan and Medical Doctor Tul must be ready to take their legal responsibilities for making such an allegation against others. He said he would see what actions should be taken against the two after the election.

-- NNT 2011-06-09

[Buchholz]

The legal advisor said Ms Yingluck is now a public figure after she has stepped into politics. She is ready for investigation and hopes to receive justice in the procedure.

Good to hear Thaksin's Chief Attorney encourage the investigation into the perjury allegations.

So let's proceed with the hearing before the election when it's less disruptive and before a lot of time and energy is wasted to redo the election if she's found guilty.

Mr Noppadon stressed that both Mr Kaewsan and Medical Doctor Tul must be ready to take their legal responsibilities for making such an allegation against others. He said he would see what actions should be taken against the two after the election.

Ahhh, like Yingluck, Noppadon is also unaware of what his own party is doing. When will they get clued in?

There is no "mulling of a defamation suit" (the thread title).

It's already been filed today.

In addition to the defamation suit is a complaint the Computer Crime Act was also violated because of Facebook's involvement.

.