Court rejects Abhisit's suit against Jatuporn

Kesinee Taengkhio,

Piyanut Tumnukasetchai

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Criminal Court yesterday dismissed a libel case lodged by former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva against red-shirt leader and former MP Jatuporn Promphan, ruling that the verbal attack between the two was just politics and had no legal grounds for defamation.

Jatuporn was sued for a speech he made during a rally on May 10, 2009, accusing the then-premier of ordering soldiers to use lethal force in a crackdown against protesters that April, around the time Abhisit's car was attacked by red shirts.

In a democratic system, "such a verbal attack cannot be regarded as defamation in accordance with the Penal Code", the court said.

Abhisit's lawyer Paiboon Phonoi said his client was willing to appeal the case in the higher court. He has filed four defamation lawsuits against Jatuporn. In two earlier cases, the court sentenced Jatuporn to six months in jail and fined him Bt50,000 for each case. The terms were suspended. The court is considering one other defamation suit.

In a separate matter, Department of Special Investigation director-general Tarit Pengdith said that the DSI is not yet expected to file additional charges against Abhisit and another top Democrat, former deputy premier Suthep Thaugsuban.

Tarit was speaking after a meeting with police and prosecutors.

"So far, investigators have taken only 16 statements from victims of the 2010 political mayhem," Tarit said. The DSI would have wait until after the New Year holidays for more victims to give their statements before deciding the next move.

Along with its investigation of Abhisit and Suthep's involvement in the civilian deaths in the government's crackdown on the 2010 protests, the DSI is also probing attempted murder charges for victims who were injured by gunshots from anti-riot forces.

Commenting on the killing of Army officer Romklao Thuwatham during the 2010 mayhem, Tarit said the DSI was in process of applying for warrants to arrest three suspects, known as "unidentifed forces", which means they were not soldiers in charge of crowd control nor those linked to the red shirts.

-- The Nation 2012-12-28

"Commenting on the killing of Army officer Romklao Thuwatham during the 2010 mayhem, Tarit said the DSI was in process of applying for warrants to arrest three suspects, known as "unidentifed forces", which means they were not soldiers in charge of crowd control nor those linked to the red shirts."

And if we had an honest government there would be a lot more red shirts charged. The idea that they were not red shirt related is ludicrous. I doubt even a red shirt would believe it.

Seems like there is no end to what this government will do to make the red shirts look like peace loving citizens. I would be tempted to call them scum but that would be a step up for them.

"Commenting on the killing of Army officer Romklao Thuwatham during the 2010 mayhem, Tarit said the DSI was in process of applying for warrants to arrest three suspects, known as "unidentifed forces", which means they were not soldiers in charge of crowd control nor those linked to the red shirts."

And if we had an honest government there would be a lot more red shirts charged. The idea that they were not red shirt related is ludicrous. I doubt even a red shirt would believe it.

Seems like there is no end to what this government will do to make the red shirts look like peace loving citizens. I would be tempted to call them scum but that would be a step up for them.

Lets wait to see who gets charged and where their loyalties lie. They may yet have links to the army. It would appear the DSI knows who it wants to arrest. It may be wise to hold back with the 'scum' until we see the accused.

If all this is politically motivated what would you call the DSI's non action, under the Abhisit regime, when no progress into crimes was made in 12 months. Thats right, politically motivated

"Commenting on the killing of Army officer Romklao Thuwatham during the 2010 mayhem, Tarit said the DSI was in process of applying for warrants to arrest three suspects, known as "unidentifed forces", which means they were not soldiers in charge of crowd control nor those linked to the red shirts."

And if we had an honest government there would be a lot more red shirts charged. The idea that they were not red shirt related is ludicrous. I doubt even a red shirt would believe it.

Seems like there is no end to what this government will do to make the red shirts look like peace loving citizens. I would be tempted to call them scum but that would be a step up for them.

Charlem did say he knew it was the RTP

2 post deleted per forum rules.

"Commenting on the killing of Army officer Romklao Thuwatham during the 2010 mayhem, Tarit said the DSI was in process of applying for warrants to arrest three suspects, known as "unidentifed forces", which means they were not soldiers in charge of crowd control nor those linked to the red shirts."

And if we had an honest government there would be a lot more red shirts charged. The idea that they were not red shirt related is ludicrous. I doubt even a red shirt would believe it.

Seems like there is no end to what this government will do to make the red shirts look like peace loving citizens. I would be tempted to call them scum but that would be a step up for them.

Throw enough unsubstantiated allegations and hope that people think there is truth in statements?

The fact of the matter is that many protestors have been charged. On one hand you froth about the PTP and Thaksin abandoning those that are charged, and now you claim the government does not bring more charges. Be consistent please.

Interesting legal precedent, that "the verbal attack between the two was just politics" , and is therefore not seen as legal grounds for defamation.

Wonder how many other cases this might also be true of ?

Interesting legal precedent, that "the verbal attack between the two was just politics" , and is therefore not seen as legal grounds for defamation.

Wonder how many other cases this might also be true of ?

Another thing i wonder is in what way Abhisit verbally attacked Jatuporn. Because "verbal attack between the two..." suggests it was a two-way thing.

Commenting on the killing of Army officer Romklao Thuwatham during the 2010 mayhem, Tarit said the DSI was in process of applying for warrants to arrest three suspects, known as "unidentifed forces", which means they were not soldiers in charge of crowd control nor those linked to the red shirts.

If they are "unidentified", how is it possible to rule out who they were and who they weren't linked to?

The third hand card is such a cop out, and played so often. The 2010 protests consisted of two sides. The government side and the red shirt side. The side trying to restore order, and the side trying to create disorder. Yes there were and are different factions to the red side, but they were and are still part of the same general group. Attempts to now distinguish them as separate entities is just a tactic aimed at fencing off and restricting possible culpability for wrong-doing.

Commenting on the killing of Army officer Romklao Thuwatham during the 2010 mayhem, Tarit said the DSI was in process of applying for warrants to arrest three suspects, known as "unidentifed forces", which means they were not soldiers in charge of crowd control nor those linked to the red shirts.

If they are "unidentified", how is it possible to rule out who they were and who they weren't linked to?

The third hand card is such a cop out, and played so often. The 2010 protests consisted of two sides. The government side and the red shirt side. The side trying to restore order, and the side trying to create disorder. Yes there were and are different factions to the red side, but they were and are still part of the same general group. Attempts to now distinguish them as separate entities is just a tactic aimed at fencing off and restricting possible culpability for wrong-doing.

Even the Human Rights organisation who have considerable knowledge and experience of this sort of thing couldn't decide whether the "third hand" were acting for and on behalf of the red shirts, offering differing viewpoints in their report, so it plainly presumptious that you think you know what the truth of the matter is.

But that's bias for you.

Edited December 28, 201213 yr by muttley

Commenting on the killing of Army officer Romklao Thuwatham during the 2010 mayhem, Tarit said the DSI was in process of applying for warrants to arrest three suspects, known as "unidentifed forces", which means they were not soldiers in charge of crowd control nor those linked to the red shirts.

If they are "unidentified", how is it possible to rule out who they were and who they weren't linked to?

The third hand card is such a cop out, and played so often. The 2010 protests consisted of two sides. The government side and the red shirt side. The side trying to restore order, and the side trying to create disorder. Yes there were and are different factions to the red side, but they were and are still part of the same general group. Attempts to now distinguish them as separate entities is just a tactic aimed at fencing off and restricting possible culpability for wrong-doing.

Even the Human Rights organisation who have considerable knowledge and experience of this sort of thing couldn't decide whether the "third hand" were acting for and on behalf of the red shirts, offering differing viewpoints in their report, so it plainly presumptious that you think you know what the truth of the matter is.

But that's bias for you.

Some things might be blatantly obvious in life - in this case it was blatantly obvious what side the erroneously termed "third hand" was on and what their goals were - but that doesn't mean it is easy to prove. And that is what reports tend to be about. Putting together evidence and proving stuff. Doing this is Thailand is difficult enough at the best of times, but in times of all out anarchy and chaos, even more so. I'm not surprised if Human Rights found it hard to prove anything. Doesn't change the logical conclusions most would arrive at.

As for "bias", please do leave off. Get the ridiculous bias out of your posts before you go pointing fingers at others.

Commenting on the killing of Army officer Romklao Thuwatham during the 2010 mayhem, Tarit said the DSI was in process of applying for warrants to arrest three suspects, known as "unidentifed forces", which means they were not soldiers in charge of crowd control nor those linked to the red shirts.

If they are "unidentified", how is it possible to rule out who they were and who they weren't linked to?

The third hand card is such a cop out, and played so often. The 2010 protests consisted of two sides. The government side and the red shirt side. The side trying to restore order, and the side trying to create disorder. Yes there were and are different factions to the red side, but they were and are still part of the same general group. Attempts to now distinguish them as separate entities is just a tactic aimed at fencing off and restricting possible culpability for wrong-doing.

Even the Human Rights organisation who have considerable knowledge and experience of this sort of thing couldn't decide whether the "third hand" were acting for and on behalf of the red shirts, offering differing viewpoints in their report, so it plainly presumptious that you think you know what the truth of the matter is.

But that's bias for you.

I like your avatar's red goggles.

Commenting on the killing of Army officer Romklao Thuwatham during the 2010 mayhem, Tarit said the DSI was in process of applying for warrants to arrest three suspects, known as "unidentifed forces", which means they were not soldiers in charge of crowd control nor those linked to the red shirts.

If they are "unidentified", how is it possible to rule out who they were and who they weren't linked to?

The third hand card is such a cop out, and played so often. The 2010 protests consisted of two sides. The government side and the red shirt side. The side trying to restore order, and the side trying to create disorder. Yes there were and are different factions to the red side, but they were and are still part of the same general group. Attempts to now distinguish them as separate entities is just a tactic aimed at fencing off and restricting possible culpability for wrong-doing.

Even the Human Rights organisation who have considerable knowledge and experience of this sort of thing couldn't decide whether the "third hand" were acting for and on behalf of the red shirts, offering differing viewpoints in their report, so it plainly presumptious that you think you know what the truth of the matter is.

But that's bias for you.

Some things might be blatantly obvious in life - in this case it was blatantly obvious what side the erroneously termed "third hand" was on and what their goals were - but that doesn't mean it is easy to prove. And that is what reports tend to be about. Putting together evidence and proving stuff. Doing this is Thailand is difficult enough at the best of times, but in times of all out anarchy and chaos, even more so. I'm not surprised if Human Rights found it hard to prove anything. Doesn't change the logical conclusions most would arrive at.

As for "bias", please do leave off. Get the ridiculous bias out of your posts before you go pointing fingers at others.

Please! Bias is a "blatantly obvious" term for your posts. Your pot calling the kettle black doesn't change the logical conclusions most would arrive at.

"So far, investigators have taken only 16 statements from victims of the 2010 political mayhem," Tarit said.

Yet the DSI know enough to charge Abhisit and Suthep with murder, when their investigation appears to have barely started, and is apparently proceeding at an absolute snail's pace, with PTP in-power for a year-and-a-half now ?

Or are the DSI merely very-reluctant to talk to participants in the "political mayhem" ?

This all sounds dodgy, unprofessional and extremely politically-motivated, to me.

"So far, investigators have taken only 16 statements from victims of the 2010 political mayhem," Tarit said.

Yet the DSI know enough to charge Abhisit and Suthep with murder, when their investigation appears to have barely started, and is apparently proceeding at an absolute snail's pace, with PTP in-power for a year-and-a-half now ?

Or are the DSI merely very-reluctant to talk to participants in the "political mayhem" ?

This all sounds dodgy, unprofessional and extremely politically-motivated, to me.

Isn't it quite strange that with PTP in government, not one red-shirt has come forward to say "I saw the MIB." Yet video evidence shows them walking through the red ranks without hindrance or question.

Please! Bias is a "blatantly obvious" term for your posts. Your pot calling the kettle black doesn't change the logical conclusions most would arrive at.

We can sit here all day calling each other biased or we can discuss the topic. Can't see anything in your post with regards that, that i can respond to.

My main point was questioning how a group that is described as "unidentified", can also be proclaimed as having no links to certain other groups. Doesn't make much sense to me. Perhaps it does to you, and if so, perhaps you could explain why.

As I am ignorant of just how the Thai courts work, I would appreciate it if someone would educate me (with facts, not opinions no matter how strongly felt):

Does the composition of the courts change with a change in the PM? During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show. Are these the same judges that are now being accused of political bias in the other direction? Is there a separation between the legislative, execuitve, and judicial branches?

Please! Bias is a "blatantly obvious" term for your posts. Your pot calling the kettle black doesn't change the logical conclusions most would arrive at.

We can sit here all day calling each other biased or we can discuss the topic. Can't see anything in your post with regards that, that i can respond to.

My main point was questioning how a group that is described as "unidentified", can also be proclaimed as having no links to certain other groups. Doesn't make much sense to me. Perhaps it does to you, and if so, perhaps you could explain why.

I agree with you. Unidentified means unidentified. Doesn't mean they were and doesn't mean they weren't. Yet you find your beliefs to be "blatantly obvious" which doesn't make much sense to me.

During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show.

The fact that it was a "cooking show" is played up every time by red shirt sympathisers to try and trivialise it. The cooking show part is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the PM had a second job, never mind what the job was, and he was being paid for that job. This is not allowed. This is reasonable wouldn't you say?. What is also relevant is that the PM lied in court. This is a serious thing for a PM to do, agreed?

He was made to stand down from his job only, and could have been voted back into the job the very next day. Thaksin decided otherwise.

During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show.

The fact that it was a "cooking show" is played up every time by red shirt sympathisers to try and trivialise it. The cooking show part is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the PM had a second job, never mind what the job was, and he was being paid for that job. This is not allowed. This is reasonable wouldn't you say?. What is also relevant is that the PM lied in court. This is a serious thing for a PM to do, agreed?

He was made to stand down from his job only, and could have been voted back into the job the very next day. Thaksin decided otherwise.

Gee, I was hoping that you actually could shed some light on why a court that made decisions you liked 2 years ago, now is politically motivated and biased.

During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show.

The fact that it was a "cooking show" is played up every time by red shirt sympathisers to try and trivialise it. The cooking show part is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the PM had a second job, never mind what the job was, and he was being paid for that job. This is not allowed. This is reasonable wouldn't you say?. What is also relevant is that the PM lied in court. This is a serious thing for a PM to do, agreed?

He was made to stand down from his job only, and could have been voted back into the job the very next day. Thaksin decided otherwise.

Read the quote again. He's trying to tell us that during Abhisits reign as PM the sitting PM was removed from office. Frankly he should go back to sleep, he's not making a lot of sense.

During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show.

The fact that it was a "cooking show" is played up every time by red shirt sympathisers to try and trivialise it. The cooking show part is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the PM had a second job, never mind what the job was, and he was being paid for that job. This is not allowed. This is reasonable wouldn't you say?. What is also relevant is that the PM lied in court. This is a serious thing for a PM to do, agreed?

He was made to stand down from his job only, and could have been voted back into the job the very next day. Thaksin decided otherwise.

Read the quote again. He's trying to tell us that during Abhisits reign as PM the sitting PM was removed from office. Frankly he should go back to sleep, he's not making a lot of sense.

Right you are! I mispoke about the timing of that one. Actually the fact that it happened when Samak was the PM should serve to refute the claims that political pressure drives the courts decisions. Anything worthwhile to contribute beyond belittling me, or should you go back to sleep?

Edited December 28, 201213 yr by gatorsoft

In a democratic system, "such a verbal attack cannot be regarded as defamation in accordance with the Penal Code", the court said.

It's a pity jurisprudence doesn't seem to have much meaning in Thai law.

During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show.

The fact that it was a "cooking show" is played up every time by red shirt sympathisers to try and trivialise it. The cooking show part is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the PM had a second job, never mind what the job was, and he was being paid for that job. This is not allowed. This is reasonable wouldn't you say?. What is also relevant is that the PM lied in court. This is a serious thing for a PM to do, agreed?

He was made to stand down from his job only, and could have been voted back into the job the very next day. Thaksin decided otherwise.

Gee, I was hoping that you actually could shed some light on why a court that made decisions you liked 2 years ago, now is politically motivated and biased.

The decision was handed down on 9 SEP 2008 at which time Samak was PM - Lets do the time warp again.

During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show.

The fact that it was a "cooking show" is played up every time by red shirt sympathisers to try and trivialise it. The cooking show part is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the PM had a second job, never mind what the job was, and he was being paid for that job. This is not allowed. This is reasonable wouldn't you say?. What is also relevant is that the PM lied in court. This is a serious thing for a PM to do, agreed?

He was made to stand down from his job only, and could have been voted back into the job the very next day. Thaksin decided otherwise.

Read the quote again. He's trying to tell us that during Abhisits reign as PM the sitting PM was removed from office. Frankly he should go back to sleep, he's not making a lot of sense.

Right you are! I mispoke about the timing of that one. Actually the fact that it happened when Samak was the PM should serve to refute the claims that political pressure drives the courts decisions. Anything worthwhile to contribute beyond belittling me, or should you go back to sleep?

As you based your entire argument that there were "a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition" on that one, incorrect, incident, I'll belittle you no further. You're doing a more than adequate job of that yourself.

I agree with you. Unidentified means unidentified. Doesn't mean they were and doesn't mean they weren't. Yet you find your beliefs to be "blatantly obvious" which doesn't make much sense to me.

I am saying that it is blatantly obvious to me who they were connected to, but i'm not saying it is a proven fact. Tarit has stated as fact that this "third hand" group is not linked to the reds. Surprised that the emphasis of your post is to disagree with what i am saying, and not what Tarit has said... or perhaps i'm not..

Interesting legal precedent, that "the verbal attack between the two was just politics" , and is therefore not seen as legal grounds for defamation.

Wonder how many other cases this might also be true of ?

My thought also... IF it becomes a new defacto standard for ALL SIDES.

I wonder if Thaksin is listening? Though I doubt he cares,

he uses charges as harrasment anyway, not just with any expectation of winning.

As I am ignorant of just how the Thai courts work, I would appreciate it if someone would educate me (with facts, not opinions no matter how strongly felt):

Does the composition of the courts change with a change in the PM? During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show. Are these the same judges that are now being accused of political bias in the other direction? Is there a separation between the legislative, execuitve, and judicial branches?

After the coup there was a military government.

After the elections came Thaksins lackey Samak who was removed from being PM after 233 days not for the cooking show but being paid for it.Thai law does not permit the PM to hold another job.

The PPP could have re-elected Samak but instead chose (perhaps on orders from above) but instead chose Thaksins brother in law Somchai who was PM for 75 days before bein dismissed and the party dissolved for electoral fraud. He was followed by a caretaker PM Chaovarat for 13 days and the PPP was unable to get a coalition together.

Abhisist and the Democrats could and did and they were in power for 2 years 231 days before losing the general election.

Abhisit was followed by Yingluck on 23rd August 2011 to date.

I found this information through Google and a list of Prime Ministers or Thailand.

In theory there is a separation between the legislative, execuitve, and judicial branches but each party that comes to power wants it own family, friends and cronies in important places to make their own life easier and safer.

I hope that clears a few things for you.

During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show.

The fact that it was a "cooking show" is played up every time by red shirt sympathisers to try and trivialise it. The cooking show part is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the PM had a second job, never mind what the job was, and he was being paid for that job. This is not allowed. This is reasonable wouldn't you say?. What is also relevant is that the PM lied in court. This is a serious thing for a PM to do, agreed?

He was made to stand down from his job only, and could have been voted back into the job the very next day. Thaksin decided otherwise.

Gee, I was hoping that you actually could shed some light on why a court that made decisions you liked 2 years ago, now is politically motivated and biased.

Hope all you like. You stated about a down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM, i responded to that part of your post. If you don't want something you type to be responded to, here's a tip, don't type it.

During Abhisit's reign as PM, there were a number of decisions that seemed politically motivated against the opposition, including the down-right hilarious removal of a sitting PM for appearing on a TV cooking show.

The fact that it was a "cooking show" is played up every time by red shirt sympathisers to try and trivialise it. The cooking show part is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the PM had a second job, never mind what the job was, and he was being paid for that job. This is not allowed. This is reasonable wouldn't you say?. What is also relevant is that the PM lied in court. This is a serious thing for a PM to do, agreed?

He was made to stand down from his job only, and could have been voted back into the job the very next day. Thaksin decided otherwise.

Gee, I was hoping that you actually could shed some light on why a court that made decisions you liked 2 years ago, now is politically motivated and biased.

The decision was handed down on 9 SEP 2008 at which time Samak was PM - Lets do the time warp again.

Add to that, that Samak was as PM was over the head of the body that regulated TV,

and so was someone that TV producers and stations would want to curry favor with.

So there was conflict of interest, not having to do with the money.

And while it's true that Samak may have been cooking,

he ALSO continuously talked his brand of politics,under guise of just chatting when cooking.

So in effect the Producers and Station were

'subsidizing Samak's political speech making on national television.'

Not a 'The PM Talks to the Nation' Sunday afternoon thing,

but a partisan political rant for an hour, that THEY paid HIM for.

Yet another unfair and illegal practice.

Edited December 28, 201213 yr by animatic