Australian Businesswoman Arrested In Thailand For Criminal Defamation

[Buchholz]

Bypass Thailand alltogether and look at other S/E Asian countries like Burma. There just may be a bright future for business over the border.

It seems Australia is generally giving Thailand a pass and looking elsewhere. Also in the business news today is that primary reason Yingluck and her entourage are talking up Thai businesses so much is because of the huge disparity in bilateral investments, with Thailand investments in Australian businesses being multitudes of what the investments are the other way.

Incidents like what has befallen this Australian businesswoman can't help.

.

.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Buchholz

[BuddhistVirus]

"If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all."

"Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil."

"If you are going to tell people the truth you had better make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you."

"Think Positive: When thinking accurately won't do."

"White lies: they don't matter, which is why they're told."

"Polite Society: because telling the truth is rude."

"To never offend; say nothing, do nothing, be nothing."

"Silence is golden."

"Diplomacy: Lying for peace."

"Small Talk: Lying to be cordial."

We live in the creepiest world imaginable, so you can't say she wasn't adequately warned.

How true!

[phiphidon]

Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, who is currently visiting Australia, is reportedly due to hold a press conference in Sydney today, where she will address the matter.

Read more:

http://www.brisbanet...l#ixzz1wDgnVsyZ

I hope the reporters give her a grilling trying to explain away this ridiculous law.

So you take Yingluck to task to explain this, to you, "ridiculous" law to the Australians when it has been on the law books since 1957? Any other old laws you'd like her to take responsibility for?

the problem is that the Oz press is well aware that her brother used this law to muzzle the press in Thailand, and were not amused.

Well I'm sure the Brisbane Bugle or whatever will unleash the dogs of war.....................

[OzMick]

Well I'm sure the Brisbane Bugle or whatever will unleash the dogs of war.....................

The dogs will be answering their questions, or not, as is her wont.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

The law has far more far reaching implications that business discussions.

And that's exactly why TPTB would want to keep it on the books, just like LM it's a weapon that can be used by the elite to maintain their share of the pie.

Free speech, just like a proper public education system run directly counter to their interests.

They aren't willing to give up their right to fleece outsiders, only stupid investors wanted, just like the scammer bargirls don't bother with guys that speak Thai.

[moe666]

PPD to the rescue of Yingluck. Having said that anytime me and the girlfriend discuss touchy politicial topics she always does a very quick head swivel to see who maybe in hearing range. Even in our apartment she is carefull about who may be next door and could hear. Its not communism but Thais are still careful with who they have certain conversations with.

[Scott]

A number of off-topic posts and replies have been deleted. Continued discussion of the Thai and Australian PM's in a context other than the topic of the OP is going to result in suspensions.

[JimmyTheMook]

Strange timing as just watched the news of the PM in OZ promoting doing business in Thailand.

[clockman]

Another example of unique Thainess!

[sprq]

What's shocking is that the Thais acted on this charge to "arrest" her rather than defer it to a civil process. Amazing at risk Thailand.

Thailand is not the same as many/most other countries, defamation/libel can be a criminal case.

Criminal Defamation

Defamation as a criminal act in Thailand is defined by the Thai Criminal Code as a statement made by a person who imputes anything to another in a manner which is likely to impair the reputation of the latter or to expose him to hatred or contempt. Under the same Code, such person is liable for an imprisonment up to two years or he can be ordered by the court to pay a fine of 200,000 Baht or may be both.

thailandlaw

However:

Civil defamation in Thailand is defined under the Thai Civil and Commercial Code as a statement made contrary to the truth which is asserted or circulated as a fact which is injurious to the reputation or credit of another or his earnings or prosperity in any other manner.

You will notice that Criminal Defamation does not include the phrase "contrary to the truth" yet is the more serious offence. Hence my post #2

That's exactly what struck me. Completely absurd.

[thaihome]

My money is on that these charges will be dropped especially as Miss Yingluk is currently in Australia trying to encourage investment and Australian business in Thailand. Had it of been another time then the charges may stay. The timing is not good at the moment. A political hot potatoe that will be dropped faster than a rat up an aquaduct.

Indeed incredibly bad timing. Or intentional timing.

The timing of this coming out, not the charges or the arrest, is what is interesting. The meeting took place last November and I assume charges were filed within a short time after that. Ms Florence was arrested and bailed out on May 5th, almost 4 weeks ago. Ms Florence is not the one who let this out, The article clearly states she was handilng this quitetly with her Thai lawyers.

It does make you wonder who called the reporters.

TH

[sprq]

A good reminder to all that the laws on defamation of character and slander in Thailand are NOT the same as in Austrailia.

This is Thailand and you can not pubicaly say certain things as perhaps you could in Austrailia.

I don't know the details of this particular case....but just remember....the laws in Thailand are different.

So don't open your month and stick you're foot in it.

It was apparently said in private and not publically.

Doesn't really matter, if it can be proven that it causes damage to someone reputation. If I tell you that you are fat, and it offends you, technically I have caused hurt and damage to you under the Thai way of looking at defamation. Of course, that then comes down to a he said, she said situation, but since when did anyone with enough money worry about that in Thailand. They aren't the ones being inconvenienced and arrested. By the way I think you are thin.

The funny thing, is that this law could be used and abused by millions of people every day here in Thailand, but it isn't because most people don't even know it exists. All they know is don't criticise the pooyai or you'll be in for it. A restaurant reviewer is dicing with his freedom every time he writes one word, fortunately they are always very complementary in Thailand for precisely this reason. To write anything negative would be so easy to prosecute under the defamation law in Thailand, never take and review written in Thailand's word for it.

If I privately express an opinion about someone's financial position to another person, and that opinion causes for example someone to pull out of an investment, that causes damage. Now it is down to he said she said. If the woman has any sense, her lawyers will be telling her to say absolutely nothing, the obligation is on the accuser to prove everything.

Hardly conducive for free speech and actually performing things like due diligence,

Whilst what you say is generally true, in the case of restaurant reviews things changed here in the last decade. Just look at BK magazine (a widely distributed and well-written free magazine in English) any week and you will see two restaurant reviews. Quite often they are very critical. Things are not as bad as you make out.

[Scott]

Troll post and replies deleted. Please stay on-topic.

[softgeorge]

There is not indication as to what was actually said that was so extremely bad to warrant an arrest. I get the impression and assume what she has allegedly said was something true and factual and something that people do not want made public. If it wasn't true I am sure that it would have been released with evidence to negate it.

[EyesWideOpen]

Oh....my....god..... Apparently I will be headed straight to jail with all the fun I have made of Thai officials. Most likely other TV members will be there too..... :-)

Repercussions:

1. Thailand again cements itself as a lunatic government to allow this to be prosecuted.

2. Australian businessmen who were contemplating investing in Thailand, are laughing over beers and smiling at their good fortune at dodging a bullet by not investing here.

3. TV visa members will have a field day with this thread....

Honestly sometimes I think the goal of the Thai government is to keep this country downtrodden..Clearly it is not to move Thailand onto the global playing field.

Edited May 29, 2012 by EyesWideOpen

[Thai at Heart]

A good reminder to all that the laws on defamation of character and slander in Thailand are NOT the same as in Austrailia.

This is Thailand and you can not pubicaly say certain things as perhaps you could in Austrailia.

I don't know the details of this particular case....but just remember....the laws in Thailand are different.

So don't open your month and stick you're foot in it.

It was apparently said in private and not publically.

Doesn't really matter, if it can be proven that it causes damage to someone reputation. If I tell you that you are fat, and it offends you, technically I have caused hurt and damage to you under the Thai way of looking at defamation. Of course, that then comes down to a he said, she said situation, but since when did anyone with enough money worry about that in Thailand. They aren't the ones being inconvenienced and arrested. By the way I think you are thin.

The funny thing, is that this law could be used and abused by millions of people every day here in Thailand, but it isn't because most people don't even know it exists. All they know is don't criticise the pooyai or you'll be in for it. A restaurant reviewer is dicing with his freedom every time he writes one word, fortunately they are always very complementary in Thailand for precisely this reason. To write anything negative would be so easy to prosecute under the defamation law in Thailand, never take and review written in Thailand's word for it.

If I privately express an opinion about someone's financial position to another person, and that opinion causes for example someone to pull out of an investment, that causes damage. Now it is down to he said she said. If the woman has any sense, her lawyers will be telling her to say absolutely nothing, the obligation is on the accuser to prove everything.

Hardly conducive for free speech and actually performing things like due diligence,

Whilst what you say is generally true, in the case of restaurant reviews things changed here in the last decade. Just look at BK magazine (a widely distributed and well-written free magazine in English) any week and you will see two restaurant reviews. Quite often they are very critical. Things are not as bad as you make out.

Depends if the owners of the restaurants want to get antsy or not.

[ttelise]

I hope the reporters give her a grilling trying to explain away this ridiculous law.

So you take Yingluck to task to explain this, to you, "ridiculous" law to the Australians when it has been on the law books since 1957? Any other old laws you'd like her to take responsibility for?

As the current PM of the country, with a majority, her government is largely free to write any law it likes.

It would be interesting if she even dares to mention whether she agrees with the law or not. Criminal defamation in Thailand has been held up to international scrutiny for many years. I wonder what her views of it are. After all, she is only the PM. The law has far more far reaching implications that business discussions.

it certainly does,

JUST before this arrest news broke,

Australian business told to look to Asia

May 27, 2012

The Australian-Thai Chamber of Commerce has called on Australian business to better prepare for economic integration in Asia. The call from its spokesman Mark Carroll comes as Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra arrives for a three-day official visit to boost bilateral trade and investment.

Mr Carroll says if Australian business wants to grow, or even just survive, it needs to look offshore.

He says Thailand offers Australian businesses some incredible advantages.

http://wap.news.bigp...sia_754406.html

*missing:

.... and a pallet-load of some incredible disadvantages*

Look to Hong Kong, China, Japan, and perhaps not really Thailand so much. Australia us really starting to become a banking hub, not at the level of Dubai or Hong Kong though.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

Depends if the owners of the restaurants want to get antsy or not.

You're only safe if you target restaurants that aren't owned by rich and powerful idiots.

[Nisa]

There is not indication as to what was actually said that was so extremely bad to warrant an arrest. I get the impression and assume what she has allegedly said was something true and factual and something that people do not want made public. If it wasn't true I am sure that it would have been released with evidence to negate it.

Or the more logical assumption is the newspaper and reporter didn't want to promote what might be libelous claim.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Nisa

[bapak]

In the press there are statements almost everyday (mostly made by politicians) that one can consider libel under Thai law.. However. you will note that they never state an actual name.. just an initial. Of course, informed readers are well aware of who the initials represents.

[whybother]

Completely irrelevant. You can make a private phone call and still slander somebody just as you can in a private meeting. It depends who you are speaking with and who heard the comments.

The only real difference with the defamation laws in Thailand compared to many other places is that it can be a criminal act as opposed to being restricted only to civil procedures. It has nothing to do with being able to say some thing here that you can't in many other places but rather the consequences for false statements that may harm somebody's image.

One of the main differences with defamation laws in Thailand compared to other countries is that in Thailand it doesn't matter whether it is true or not.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Honestly sometimes I think the goal of the Thai government is to keep this country downtrodden..Clearly it is not to move Thailand onto the global playing field.

Wouldn't they need the English language for that?

I'm pretty sure you can look at any sovereign nation-state on the planet that isn't frantically working to replace their dialect with the global language and you'll have a pretty good idea about how each of the various governments of states feel about their state's best interests.

Pretty sure it's always been a game of domestic exploitation since Westphalia. They whip up the terror to give themselves a perceived role to play. They start the wars in partnership / tandem with the 'enemy'; both sides whipping up the masses into fear > hate > and then they point at each other and get high on power as millions of human marbles smash into each other and shatter.

[Asiantravel]

Completely irrelevant. You can make a private phone call and still slander somebody just as you can in a private meeting. It depends who you are speaking with and who heard the comments.

The only real difference with the defamation laws in Thailand compared to many other places is that it can be a criminal act as opposed to being restricted only to civil procedures. It has nothing to do with being able to say some thing here that you can't in many other places but rather the consequences for false statements that may harm somebody's image.

One of the main differences with defamation laws in Thailand compared to other countries is that in Thailand it doesn't matter whether it is true or not.

yes I learnt this the hard way last year

I sent an e-mail to an Australian manufacturer because I felt their agent here in Thailand

( which was coincidentally also run by Australians but under a Thai company ) was not

representing them well because I consistently had difficulty purchasing the product

in some locations.admittedly I was frustrated when I did it but

what I wrote was factual but they called me and said they were referring

the matter to their lawyers and I would be sued for defamation?

So it looked like I as customer anxious to buy the product was going to

get into serious trouble just for expressing my frustration at not being able to buy

what i wanted because the agent didn't appear organised.

When I looked into these laws I was astonished to find out what you can be

potentially sued for even when all you doing is complaining?

Maybe that's why the Thai culture is not to complain?

Edited May 29, 2012 by Asiantravel

[Nisa]

Completely irrelevant. You can make a private phone call and still slander somebody just as you can in a private meeting. It depends who you are speaking with and who heard the comments.

The only real difference with the defamation laws in Thailand compared to many other places is that it can be a criminal act as opposed to being restricted only to civil procedures. It has nothing to do with being able to say some thing here that you can't in many other places but rather the consequences for false statements that may harm somebody's image.

One of the main differences with defamation laws in Thailand compared to other countries is that in Thailand it doesn't matter whether it is true or not.

If you want to believe myth is reality then go right ahead..

[whybother]

Completely irrelevant. You can make a private phone call and still slander somebody just as you can in a private meeting. It depends who you are speaking with and who heard the comments.

The only real difference with the defamation laws in Thailand compared to many other places is that it can be a criminal act as opposed to being restricted only to civil procedures. It has nothing to do with being able to say some thing here that you can't in many other places but rather the consequences for false statements that may harm somebody's image.

One of the main differences with defamation laws in Thailand compared to other countries is that in Thailand it doesn't matter whether it is true or not.

If you want to believe myth is reality then go right ahead..

Look at the post above yours to see that the "myth" is reality.

[Nisa]

Completely irrelevant. You can make a private phone call and still slander somebody just as you can in a private meeting. It depends who you are speaking with and who heard the comments.

The only real difference with the defamation laws in Thailand compared to many other places is that it can be a criminal act as opposed to being restricted only to civil procedures. It has nothing to do with being able to say some thing here that you can't in many other places but rather the consequences for false statements that may harm somebody's image.

One of the main differences with defamation laws in Thailand compared to other countries is that in Thailand it doesn't matter whether it is true or not.

If you want to believe myth is reality then go right ahead..

Look at the post above yours to see that the "myth" is reality.

Sounds to me you might be confusing Les Majesty laws with defamation ... two completely different things with one being on topic and the other not. The fact is Defamation by definition needs to be untrue be it here or elsewhere and most all countries have laws dealing with defamation when it come to the punishment and compensation of defamation.

[chooka]

Completely irrelevant. You can make a private phone call and still slander somebody just as you can in a private meeting. It depends who you are speaking with and who heard the comments.

The only real difference with the defamation laws in Thailand compared to many other places is that it can be a criminal act as opposed to being restricted only to civil procedures. It has nothing to do with being able to say some thing here that you can't in many other places but rather the consequences for false statements that may harm somebody's image.

One of the main differences with defamation laws in Thailand compared to other countries is that in Thailand it doesn't matter whether it is true or not.

If you want to believe myth is reality then go right ahead..

In Australia If someone sues you because you made a defamatory statement, (which is pretty remote because Aussies just don't worry about such things) you can defend your speech or writing on various grounds. There are four (4) main types of defence:

a. what you said was true;

b. you had a duty to provide information; (public interest)

c. you were expressing an opinion and;

d. parliamentary privilege, in which case your speech is protected by "absolute privilege."

You are also protected from what ever you say in a court.

I do not know what defences there are in Thailand if any at or. From some of the comments I have read on here you do not have any defence. From what I read this lady was a business consultant where her job is to advise clients on potential investsments in Thailand and an obligation to inform them of any risky or suspect ventures. Thus under the Australian defence of B, she had a duty to provide information. She could also provide her personal opinion on a venture C (Australians are still entitled to an opinion)

Edited May 29, 2012 by chooka

[Arkady]

The last time I looked the plaintiff's listed vehicle in Thailand, Tongkah Harbour (THL), was suspended. The company goes back over 100 years as an offshoot of colonial tin mining in Malaysia but has an inglorious history as a listed stock. In fact I am surprised they have managed to retain its listing status after several prior suspensions. On the other hand, this case is not surprising at all.

[Nisa]

Thai Penal Code:

Section 329 Whoever, in good faith, expresses any opinion or statement:

• By way of self justification or defense, or for the protection of a legitimateinterest;
  
• In the status of being an official in the exercise of his functions;
  
• By way of fair comment on any person or thing subjected to public criticism; or
  
• By way of fair report of the open proceeding of any Court or meeting, shall not beguilty of defamation.
  

Section 330 In case of defamation, if the person prosecuted for defamation can prove that theimputation made by him is true, he shall not be punished. But he shall not be allowed to prove if such imputation concerns personal matters, and suchproof will not be benefit to the public.

In other words it IS NOT defamation if it is true unless you are disclosing something personal about a person that causes harm and in no way benefits the public . In other words hurting the good name of somebody publicly for no other reason than to hurt the good name of a private individual. Again, these similar laws are on the books elsewhere, though usually handled in civil procedures, to protect non-public individuals.

Once again, the only significant difference in the defamation laws in Thailand are they can be a criminal matter where in most other places (especially in the west) they are typically handled as a civil matter.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Nisa

[Arkady]

Completely irrelevant. You can make a private phone call and still slander somebody just as you can in a private meeting. It depends who you are speaking with and who heard the comments.

The only real difference with the defamation laws in Thailand compared to many other places is that it can be a criminal act as opposed to being restricted only to civil procedures. It has nothing to do with being able to say some thing here that you can't in many other places but rather the consequences for false statements that may harm somebody's image.

One of the main differences with defamation laws in Thailand compared to other countries is that in Thailand it doesn't matter whether it is true or not.

If you want to believe myth is reality then go right ahead..

In Australia If someone sues you because you made a defamatory statement, (which is pretty remote because Aussies just don't worry about such things) you can defend your speech or writing on various grounds. There are four (4) main types of defence:

a. what you said was true;

b. you had a duty to provide information; (public interest)

c. you were expressing an opinion and;

d. parliamentary privilege, in which case your speech is protected by "absolute privilege."

You are also protected from what ever you say in a court.

I do not know what defences there are in Thailand if any at or. From some of the comments I have read on here you do not have any defence. From what I read this lady was a business consultant where her job is to advise clients on potential investsments in Thailand and an obligation to inform them of any risky or suspect ventures. Thus under the Australian defence of B, she had a duty to provide information. She could also provide her personal opinion on a venture C (Australians are still entitled to an opinion)

In the case of Supinya Klanarong who was sued by Thaksin for defamation the court acquitted her on the grounds that the article she published information about potential conflicts of interest that she clearly believed with justification to be true and publication was held to be in the public interest. The truth is considered a defence in defamation cases in Thailand, as are the motives for making the allegations. Where the defendant is found guilty the court has to take into account the damages sustained by the defendant.

Without knowing what the dispute was about I would guess that a court would probably throw this one out, since the alleged defamation seems to have taken place in a private business meeting and the plaintiff is the one publicising it himself. So there could be no widespread damage to his reputation, which is less than sparkling anyway, unless he makes a song and a dance about this. The thing has an air of intimidation about it.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Arkady