Thaksin Sues Pitak Siam Leader Boonlert, M P For Defamation

[chooka]

How is it that a convicted fugitive, who is too cowardly to face the court to prove his 'alleged' innocence, can file defamation charges against ANYONE?

Thailand's legal system is completely and truely broken.

I guess anyone can sue for defamation but does he have to come back and give evidence or can that be done via say skype?

[rubl]

In the second letter, Thaksin alleged that Democrat MP Withoon Nambutr defamed him during the censure debate on November 25.

I thought that during a parliamentary session an MP in function at that session could more-or-less say what he/she wants without fear of a possible prosecution. That seems not to be the case, at least it depends a bit. Was the debate broadcast live?

Read all about it in article 130 of the 2007 Constitution.

2007 Constitution Thailand (2550).pdf

Edited December 13, 2012 by rubl

[rubl]

Just for general information on the Constitution, here two useful links. One to the 1997 version of the constitution, the other to the 2007 version.

The part relevant to the topic here is

- section 157, 158 of the 1997 constitution

- section 130 of the 2007 constitution (looks like two old sections merged into one)

1997 Constitution 2007 Constitution

[Sing_Sling]

How is it that a convicted fugitive, who is too cowardly to face the court to prove his 'alleged' innocence, can file defamation charges against ANYONE?

Thailand's legal system is completely and truely broken.

Because the law says he can.

Next?

Next, you can comment on the validity of the second sentence.

You mean this one?:

"Thailand's legal system is completely and truely [sic] broken."

I agree.

Next?

Of course the legal system is absurd . . . on the other hand people in positions of power should not be allowed to slander or defame anyone and everyone as they please . . . whether they deserve it or not is another question altogether

[whybother]

If the voice wasn't Thaksin's then the Pitak Siam guys deserve to be sued. There is enough real stuff that is bad about Thaksin that there is no need to make stuff up.

Pitak Siam would get a lot more support if they didn't advocate coups and make things up about Thaksin.

Are you saying the tape is being made up?

"If the voice wasn't Thaksin's"

[Sing_Sling]

If the voice wasn't Thaksin's then the Pitak Siam guys deserve to be sued. There is enough real stuff that is bad about Thaksin that there is no need to make stuff up.

Pitak Siam would get a lot more support if they didn't advocate coups and make things up about Thaksin.

Are you saying the tape is being made up?

"If the voice wasn't Thaksin's"

Correct . . . that is the crux of this situation, isn't it. Do you know something we don't?

[Ferangled]

When the Thai defamation law is used to sue people who've made statements about others that are in fact true but are deemed to have negatively effected their image I think it's absurd.

That said making an offensive but trivial comment about someone in public is one thing, broadcasting recordings in public and passing them off as others, thereby falsely incriminating them is another. Surely that aspect of the defamation law is in accordance with similar laws that most societies have for the protection of all?

If this charge holds any water I think it's entirely justifiable that Thaksin be allowed to sue, regardless of whether or not he is legally a fugitive. Playing a voice only recording while displaying images of the man does seem disingenuous to me... how are they meant to have obtained this recording in the first place, a phone tap, hidden recording device? All a bit cloak and daggers...

[whybother]

Did Abhisit sue anyone over the doctored audio that the red shirts played one year?

Sent from my HTC phone.

[rixalex]

If this charge holds any water I think it's entirely justifiable that Thaksin be allowed to sue, regardless of whether or not he is legally a fugitive.

There is no "whether or not" about it. He is a fugitive. He committed a crime, the court sentenced him to jail, he ran away. He refuses to accept what the law and the courts of the land decided regarding his own actions. What right on earth does a man who does this, have to request the law act for him against someone else? No moral right that is for sure. Complete and utter hypocrisy... as usual.

[Ferangled]

If this charge holds any water I think it's entirely justifiable that Thaksin be allowed to sue, regardless of whether or not he is legally a fugitive.

There is no "whether or not" about it. He is a fugitive. He committed a crime, the court sentenced him to jail, he ran away. He refuses to accept what the law and the courts of the land decided regarding his own actions. What right on earth does a man who does this, have to request the law act for him against someone else? No moral right that is for sure. Complete and utter hypocrisy... as usual.

Plain English is obviously not one of your strong points... the point was that his status is irrelevant not to suggest he isn't a fugitive... oh forget it, rant away...

Edited December 13, 2012 by Ferangled

[siampolee]

Plain English is obviously not one of your strong points... rant away...

Methinks, Pot, kettle, black !!!

[Ferangled]

Plain English is obviously not one of your strong points... rant away...

Methinks, Pot, kettle, black !!!

And quite evidently not one of yours...

[khunken]

If this charge holds any water I think it's entirely justifiable that Thaksin be allowed to sue, regardless of whether or not he is legally a fugitive.

There is no "whether or not" about it. He is a fugitive. He committed a crime, the court sentenced him to jail, he ran away. He refuses to accept what the law and the courts of the land decided regarding his own actions. What right on earth does a man who does this, have to request the law act for him against someone else? No moral right that is for sure. Complete and utter hypocrisy... as usual.

Plain English is obviously not one of your strong points... the point was that his status is irrelevant not to suggest he isn't a fugitive... oh forget it, rant away...

Ignoring the silly nit picking about English, anyone has a right to sue under Thai law. That the defamation law needs amending seems to be agreed by many on both sides but it is very unlikely to surface above any law or constitution changes that benefits politicians &, currently, a fugitive from the law.

The problem is that Thaksin doesn't understand (or doesn't care about) hypocrisy. He has criticised the courts many times & yet he uses them for his benefit.

[Tatsujin]

Methinks perhaps that ferangled is actually Mr T himself . . . the inability to let go of things, an incessant need to always be right, quick to criticise others faults when their own are blatantly obvious . . . the list goes on

[maidu]

Every time I hear of T slapping a defamation of character suit, I have to grin. What bit of character does he still have left to defame? His character started getting sullied a decade ago (by his own shenanigans), and he's been sinking deeper in doo doo every since.

When T was still PM, there was a b'day speech by HM which discouraged defamation lawsuits. Right after that, T dropped a spurilous suit against a young woman newspaper reporter who had the gall to publish some truth about T. Seems like, T forgot his admonishment, and is back at his familiar old ways.

[jrincon17]

lol this is a joke right? I mean he has given up his rights already

[Thaddeus]

Plain English is obviously not one of your strong points... rant away...

Methinks, Pot, kettle, black !!!

And quite evidently not one of yours...

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[Thait Spot]

Did Abhisit sue anyone over the doctored audio that the red shirts played one year?

Sent from my HTC phone.

Don't ask complicated questions and for God's sake ask even fewer simple questions of the red side

[Sing_Sling]

Did Abhisit sue anyone over the doctored audio that the red shirts played one year?

Sent from my HTC phone.

Don't ask complicated questions and for God's sake ask even fewer simple questions of the red side

Red side . . . how childish. So, do you know if he did? Simple question.

I have no feelings either way about politics in Thailand, they are all fairly well scum and for expats to voice that one side is worse than the other is rather amusing. Thaksin is a crook, he should be in jail for any number of things he has done . . . there is no doubt about that . . . but some of the comments here about abuse of the legal system by him are downright laughable

[maturebrit]

in the UK one is not allowed to call anyone a liar..... Winston Churchill once beat that with a wonderful quote " the rght honorable gentleman is guilty of a terminological inexactitude....Isnt English a great language

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Thaivisa Connect App

[Ferangled]

Clearly had I meant to caste any aspersions on Thaksin's status as a fugitive I would have said "whether or not Thaksin is a fugitive is debatable" I didn't, why would I? It's blatantly obvious to all that he is a fugitive!

I actually said "whether or not Thaksin is a fugitive is irrelevant"; If Pitak Siam really have falsified a recording and incriminated another (I don't care if it's Thaksin, a monk or a someone in prison facing a death sentence), the law should protect them as it would in most other countries the world over. IMHO being guilty of another crime doesn't and shouldn't leave you open to be the victim of other crimes without recourse. If you feel otherwise so be it, but don't attack me just for having a different opinion and please don't take my post and apply a meaning that's not conveyed by my actual words. That's as disingenuous as making a fake recording and passing it off in public...

I didn't even touch on the fact that most of the international community seem to welcome the man and as a fugitive he seems to be enjoying relatively free international travel with no threat of extradition. There is certainly a political nature to his convictions although similarly it seems certain the man must be guilty of something and if the charges really hold any water why not suspend his sentence and welcome him back for a fair re-trial in an openly scrutinised fashion so that no one can cry foul if the convictions are upheld?

The responses on here are absurd. One takes my post as a staunch show of loyalty for Thaksin and goes off on an irrelevant rant, another misses the point entirely and wrongly accuses me of silly nitpicking about English, missing the obvious point that the first response was written by someone who took my post completely the wrong way through a miss comprehension of the fairly basic English used. The next suggests I am Thaksin and adds some personal critique of me without ever actually having met me, and another simply resorts to childish jibes...

Are you so totally blinkered in your hate of this individual that reason escapes you? It's becoming reminiscent of the Spanish inquisition on here... "she's a witch, burn her!" Get a grip guys...

[whybother]

Clearly had I meant to caste any aspersions on Thaksin's status as a fugitive I would have said "whether or not Thaksin is a fugitive is debatable" I didn't, why would I? It's blatantly obvious to all that he is a fugitive!

<snip>

Not to all. Some people's glasses are a very dark red, which make it very hard to see the blatantly obvious.

[Ferangled]

Clearly had I meant to caste any aspersions on Thaksin's status as a fugitive I would have said "whether or not Thaksin is a fugitive is debatable" I didn't, why would I? It's blatantly obvious to all that he is a fugitive!

<snip>

Not to all. Some people's glasses are a very dark red, which make it very hard to see the blatantly obvious.

Yes and some believe that the world is flat but that would seem a tad irrelevant to the comments that have actually been made on this thread... the replies seem to bear no relation to the actual posts such is the fervour on here!

Can you actually provide a single quote from anyone. anywhere that has actually denied that Thaksin is a fugitive from Thailand? The rights and wrongs of the matter are irrelevant, the truth of the matter is quite plain to see. Thaksin is a fugitive from Thailand, he stays abroad and will not return to face a sentence that he believes is politically motivated. The man himself doesn't deny he's a fugitive &lt;deleted&gt;!

[whybother]

Clearly had I meant to caste any aspersions on Thaksin's status as a fugitive I would have said "whether or not Thaksin is a fugitive is debatable" I didn't, why would I? It's blatantly obvious to all that he is a fugitive!

<snip>

Not to all. Some people's glasses are a very dark red, which make it very hard to see the blatantly obvious.

Yes and some believe that the world is flat but that would seem a tad irrelevant to the comments that have actually been made on this thread... the replies seem to bear no relation to the actual posts such is the fervour on here!

Can you actually provide a single quote from anyone. anywhere that has actually denied that Thaksin is a fugitive from Thailand? The rights and wrongs of the matter are irrelevant, the truth of the matter is quite plain to see. Thaksin is a fugitive from Thailand, he stays abroad and will not return to face a sentence that he believes is politically motivated. The man himself doesn't deny he's a fugitive &lt;deleted&gt;!

I have seen plenty of posts where someone has denied that he is a fugitive.

Other than that, I don't disagree with you.

[rixalex]

Clearly had I meant to caste any aspersions on Thaksin's status as a fugitive I would have said "whether or not Thaksin is a fugitive is debatable" I didn't, why would I? It's blatantly obvious to all that he is a fugitive!

I actually said "whether or not Thaksin is a fugitive is irrelevant"; If Pitak Siam really have falsified a recording and incriminated another (I don't care if it's Thaksin, a monk or a someone in prison facing a death sentence), the law should protect them as it would in most other countries the world over. IMHO being guilty of another crime doesn't and shouldn't leave you open to be the victim of other crimes without recourse. If you feel otherwise so be it, but don't attack me just for having a different opinion and please don't take my post and apply a meaning that's not conveyed by my actual words. That's as disingenuous as making a fake recording and passing it off in public...

I didn't even touch on the fact that most of the international community seem to welcome the man and as a fugitive he seems to be enjoying relatively free international travel with no threat of extradition. There is certainly a political nature to his convictions although similarly it seems certain the man must be guilty of something and if the charges really hold any water why not suspend his sentence and welcome him back for a fair re-trial in an openly scrutinised fashion so that no one can cry foul if the convictions are upheld?

The responses on here are absurd. One takes my post as a staunch show of loyalty for Thaksin and goes off on an irrelevant rant, another misses the point entirely and wrongly accuses me of silly nitpicking about English, missing the obvious point that the first response was written by someone who took my post completely the wrong way through a miss comprehension of the fairly basic English used. The next suggests I am Thaksin and adds some personal critique of me without ever actually having met me, and another simply resorts to childish jibes...

Are you so totally blinkered in your hate of this individual that reason escapes you? It's becoming reminiscent of the Spanish inquisition on here... "she's a witch, burn her!" Get a grip guys...

You begin by saying that you never intended to question Thaksin's fugitive status, but then, a paragraph or two later, do precisely that, by mentioning his freedom to travel overseas as being what you interpret as the international community in some way casting doubt on the validity of his sentence. At least that is what you seem to imply. Of course no mention is made of the fact that the international community reacted quite differently to him when he didn't have the benefit of a sister as PM and a cousin as FM. He was at one point having visas declined left right and centre, and having visas refusing to be renewed, and his movement was restricted right down to places like Montenegro, and i suggest to you he would still be equally unwelcome now in most places in the world, were Thailand to have any other sort of government, but one that didn't happen to be full of his friends and family.

I think therefore it is quite obvious that the international community simply follows the lead of the position of the Thai government. At no stage does the international community all sit down and spend hours deliberating over the Thaksin affair and coming to their own conclusions about his conviction. I really don't think they care in the general scheme of things. They are far more concerned with things like trade agreements, which affect directly upon their own people, and if opening their doors for short stays to the brother of the PM of Thailand, who happens to be an on the run criminal, but as yet only for a fairly minor crime, they are happy to go along with this and by doing so, grease the wheels of industry. Doesn't mean they side with Thaksin, or agree with Thaksin's supporters that his conviction was politically motivated, it simply means they have bigger and more important priorities to think about. And likewise if tomorrow the Thai government wasn't full of Thaksin's cronies, and did start making real efforts to bring him back to Thailand to face justice, and didn't do things like renewing his passport and personally delivering it to him, i have no doubt the international community would change their position on Thaksin accordingly, and that wouldn't be because they particularly agree with his conviction, but rather because again, they simply want to do all that can to smooth relations. So please, no more comments alluding to what the international community thinks.

As for suspending his sentence and welcoming him back for a "fair" retrial, i don't understand why you wish to allow him special treatment. Why should he not be treated like all other Thai citizens and have to follow the same laws as everyone else? He had his chance to appeal his sentence. He declined to. Instead he chose to run away and skip bail in the process. He and his lawyers have never mentioned about having new evidence to prove his innocence. In fact i have never even heard him declare his innocence. He instead moans on about it being "politically motivated". What this means to me is that, yes, he knows he was guilty, but he feels that usually people of his standing, are able to get away with such "indiscretions" - that is after all, the way it normally works - either by finding some sort of ridiculous legal loop-hole, or just by the old fashioned means of leaning on the necessary people, or shall we say, "inducing" them. Precisely, you may recall, the way in which he avoided being convicted for hiding his assets. Now personally i can't say i have too much sympathy for the plight of a rich and powerful man being denied law evading tricks. Especially when they are attempted so blatantly, with million baht lunch boxes.

Another reason for why retrying Thaksin would be a waste of time, is that it is very clear that he will never accept any outcome besides a not guilty one. He may declare otherwise at the beginning of a trial, as he did in 2007, but as soon as he is found guilty, assuming he was, he would simply say that the courts were wrong and that he was right, as he has done already.

By far the easiest solution would be him coming back, handing himself over to the police, and spending a few days or weeks in jail, before being released for good behaviour - which is undoubtedly what would happen. Of course he would still have all the other cases against him to deal with when he comes out, but with his sister in power, what better time to fight them? This is the easiest and most logical solution, and just because Thaksin will never accept this solution, doesn't mean everyone should simply accept his right to not accept it, and dream up ways in which he can come back, have his slate wiped clean, and never have to spend any time in jail. That's called having your somtam and eating it.

[rubl]

K. Thaksin styles himself as in 'self-exile' and 'not being able to go back home'. That doesn't sound like he accepts to be a 'fugitive'. From a July, 2012 interview:

""I can go everywhere in the world, except my homeland. Why? I should be able to go to my homeland, my motherland. But now every country welcomes me, except my motherland," he said."

http://www.channelne...1214265/1/.html

[Ferangled]

At least that is what you seem to imply.

I must admit to glossing over your post as a bunch of speculative nonsense written with a very one sided agenda and, yet again, totally irrelevant to my actual post. Replying to something you have assumed is there but in actual fact is not is a sure sign of a zealot.

Please feel free to bring out your soap box but please don't rant off about Thaksin when he is, as my very first post quite clearly stated in English, IRRELEVANT to my actual comment! Whether or not a fugitive or convict should be free to defend themselves legally against criminal acts is debatable. I have made my position quite clear that I believe all should have the recourse of defending themselves.

[rixalex]

At least that is what you seem to imply.

I must admit to glossing over your post as a bunch of speculative nonsense written with a very one sided agenda and, yet again, totally irrelevant to my actual post. Replying to something you have assumed is there but in actual fact is not is a sure sign of a zealot.

Please feel free to bring out your soap box but please don't rant off about Thaksin when he is, as my very first post quite clearly stated in English, IRRELEVANT to my actual comment! Whether or not a fugitive or convict should be free to defend themselves legally against criminal acts is debatable. I have made my position quite clear that I believe all should have the recourse of defending themselves.

All my comments related directly to what you posted. My comments were i think both reasoned and respectful. If the best you can do is to gloss over my post and to dismiss it all as nonsense, with not a single shred of reasoning as to why, well then i believe you are trolling.

[Ferangled]

At least that is what you seem to imply.

I must admit to glossing over your post as a bunch of speculative nonsense written with a very one sided agenda and, yet again, totally irrelevant to my actual post. Replying to something you have assumed is there but in actual fact is not is a sure sign of a zealot.

Please feel free to bring out your soap box but please don't rant off about Thaksin when he is, as my very first post quite clearly stated in English, IRRELEVANT to my actual comment! Whether or not a fugitive or convict should be free to defend themselves legally against criminal acts is debatable. I have made my position quite clear that I believe all should have the recourse of defending themselves.

All my comments related directly to what you posted. My comments were i think both reasoned and respectful. If the best you can do is to gloss over my post and to dismiss it all as nonsense, with not a single shred of reasoning as to why, well then i believe you are trolling.

Quite clearly I am trolling speculative replies to my own initial post! Shred of reasoning? No it seems not. To reply directly to someone without actually directing your comments to the actual content of their post, indeed only at a speculative viewpoint you have created out of thin air is, IMHO, nonsense.

If I ventured my opinion on world peace and you wrote in response I enjoy bungee jumping and eating croissants, it would be similarly irrelevant to the actual topic.

[maidu]

I was soooo relieved when he got booted out in the bloodless coup. Plus, no one got injured, no one seemed to raise a finger at the time, to defend him. I don't like coup d'etats in general, but there are rare times like that, when they're needed. Similarly, it would have been justified to boot out F. Marcos or Sukarno or Suharto before they established their stanglehold over their respective SE Asian countries. I strongly believe, that if T had stayed in power, he would have fixed it so he would stay on for decades, and all the while would have continued to bleed money from the Thai people and any others. He'd be fabulously richer than he is today (that's a big reason why he's still so angry). He would have made Marcos and Sukarno and Suharto look like amateurs at the skill of taking over a country and bleeding dry for personal gain.