Thaksin Returns As Pm

[Siripon]

Aphisit was actually the mastermind of the 12 years free education policy proposed by The Democrats when Chuan was PM.

Some talk here as if The Democrats were an exclusive middle-class party who don't have a clue about the grass roots. Don't forget The Democrats won every seat in the South in the 2005 election bar Phangna. You don't do that by ignoring the locals, especially when the rubber price had reached unprecedented levels and Thaksin was promising extra budgets for constituencies that voted TRT.

Their money could never match Thaksin's so it wasn't vote buying that kept their seats.

For those who say Aphisit lacks experience, well, how many years of Cabinet or governmental experience did Tony Blair or JFK have before they took office?

[tettyan]

Aphisit was actually the mastermind of the 12 years free education policy proposed by The Democrats when Chuan was PM.

Compulsory and free education are two different things. On paper, at least, education is supposed to be free all the way up to M6, for those who want it, but it's optional past M3. Of course, the reality is a bit different from that.

For those who say Aphisit lacks experience, well, how many years of Cabinet or governmental experience did Tony Blair or JFK have before they took office?

Labour had been out of power for so long before 1997 that few of their executives had Cabinet experience before then. I do believe the analogy is valid - after losing 5 elections in a row, Labour was desperate enough to fast-track their young generation into their leadership. But Blair already had 3 years at the helm of the party to consolidate his control and draw up a compelling vision. As for JFK, he had 15 years in the Congress/Senate before becoming president, not an unusual resume by US presidential standards. Again, I'm still hopeful about Abhisit, but I think all the recent troubles have upset their timetable and doesn't make their job any easier.

Edited June 15, 2006 by tettyan

[ColPyat]

Aphisit was actually the mastermind of the 12 years free education policy proposed by The Democrats when Chuan was PM.

Some talk here as if The Democrats were an exclusive middle-class party who don't have a clue about the grass roots. Don't forget The Democrats won every seat in the South in the 2005 election bar Phangna. You don't do that by ignoring the locals, especially when the rubber price had reached unprecedented levels and Thaksin was promising extra budgets for constituencies that voted TRT.

Their money could never match Thaksin's so it wasn't vote buying that kept their seats.

For those who say Aphisit lacks experience, well, how many years of Cabinet or governmental experience did Tony Blair or JFK have before they took office?

Tony 'poodle' Blair is not exactly a perfect example here, or do you want Abhisit find religion, and god telling him that it is the right decision to go to a war along with Bush because God told him so.

Anyhow, the problem is that the Democrats are outside their powerhouse in the South a rather elitist party. The have never made much of an effort in the North and Northeast, leaving those areas to the selfserving godfather parties with whom they ended up in a coalition.

Grass roots in the South are rather different than in the North and the Northeast. The South (apart from the three Changwats) have a better educational standard, better agricultural possibilities due to more water, not such a high percentage of desperately poor.

The rubber price has very little to do with Thaksin, and the Southerners know that very well - the rubber price is presently high due to the demand from China. Not much of Thaksin's doing. Only the Northerners and Isaarn people believe in Thaksin's ridiculous promise that under him the rubber price will not fall.

There, for example, would be an opening for the Democrats: tell those folks about reality of world market commodities, the dangers for small scale farmers, and promote better sythems for those small scale farmers.

Unfortunately the Democrats seem to follow the old policy of leaving those parts of the country to the godfathers, speculating on a split in the TRT, or its demise, and coming back into power with te same old coalitions that keep the North and Isaarn underdeveloped forever.

Just nothing but disgusting power games on the back of the people. From all sides, if i may add.

[sriracha john]

More underprivildged children than ever before do get scholarships, from primary school level up to scholarships to study in the west.

Under Thaksin's regime...actually, more children that AREN'T underprivileged do get scholarships than ever before.

A nice thread on the truth of the matter:

Educational Scholarship Programs Are A Mess, Corruption is the rule

An additional thread on another of Thaksin's scams.... errr, I mean schemes, regarding education:

Scholarship Scheme 'was Rushed Through'

With apologies for interjecting reality into the discussion...

Edited June 15, 2006 by sriracha john

[ColPyat]

Thinking about it - the Democrats raised the rubber issue a few years ago in parliament, and were of course shot down due to their minority.

But raising the issue in parliament is simply not enough - they have to go out and adress the people in the North and Isaarn about this. Not many people in the villages follow parliamentary debates.

[ColPyat]

Under Thaksin's regime...actually, more children that AREN'T underprivileged do get scholarships than ever before.

A nice thread on the truth of the matter:

Educational Scholarship Programs Are A Mess, Corruption is the rule

With apologies for interjecting reality into the discussion...

You have brought this up already. I can't comment on this paper other that i did before, that i do know several kids that are benefitting from those scholarships, and they are in no way connected to the TRT.

Before they have received <deleted> all.

[sriracha john]

Under Thaksin's regime...actually, more children that AREN'T underprivileged do get scholarships than ever before.

A nice thread on the truth of the matter:

Educational Scholarship Programs Are A Mess, Corruption is the rule

With apologies for interjecting reality into the discussion...

You have brought this up already.

Gosh, how I really, really wished that was a criteria for excluding posts...

I can't comment on this paper other that i did before, that i do know several kids that are benefitting from those scholarships, and they are in no way connected to the TRT.

Before they have received <deleted> all.

It's a disgrace that Thaksin's touted Education Ministry didn't give MORE than a handful of those 400,000 scholarships to those that have "<deleted> all," instead of using them as payments to "political canvassers, kamnans, village heads and local politicians." If that occurred, then you might actually have a point. Perhaps later this year when they double the amount to EIGHT BILLION baht, they might include a few more of those truly in need... although that's ridiculously hopeful on my part, I know.

[ovenman]

You have brought this up already. I can't comment on this paper other that i did before, that i do know several kids that are benefitting from those scholarships, and they are in no way connected to the TRT.

Before they have received <deleted> all.

At the risk of repeating myself... even at a rigged wheel, a smart carny will let the marks win every now and again so they'll tell their friends and they'll all keep coming back for more.

[ColPyat]

It's a disgrace that Thaksin's touted Education Ministry didn't give MORE than a handful of those 400,000 scholarships to those that have "<deleted> all," instead of using them as payments to "political canvassers, kamnans, village heads and local politicians." If that occurred, then you might actually have a point. Perhaps later this year when they double the amount to EIGHT BILLION baht, they might include a few more of those truly in need... although that's ridiculously hopeful on my part, I know.

This sort of corruption is unfortunately inherent to Thailand, it's not just Thaksin/TRT.

For example, how much of the Sor Por Kor 401 land originally reserved for the poor has been swallowed up by politicians and businessmen of ALL political affiliations?

Remember the reason why Chuan 1 government fell - the Sor Por Kor 401 scandal, in which down South Democrat politicians have posessed illegally Sor Por 401 land. And nothing has changed since then, most of Sor Por Kor 401 land is still held by the ones who are not supposed to own it. And regardless who will form the next government - this practise will go on.

I don't dispute that a lot of the educational budget has been wasted on corruption. It always does. At least though those scholarships have been made available, which they weren't before. But show me please which government of Thailand has not been riddled with corruption?

The voterbase of Thaksin knows exactly about the corruption issues, but from their viewpoint at least some trickles down to them. Previously nothing trickled down. They don't care the amounts TRT takes away, as long as they get some of it.

I don't exactly blame them for that attitude.

[jdinasia]

Really ....

Forget that we are discussing the BIGGEST abusers of the system of all time .... and let's just blame everyone else. :baa

[sriracha john]

This sort of corruption is unfortunately inherent to Thailand, it's not just Thaksin/TRT.

His claim to fame and his place in history will be that he's ratcheted it up to previously unimaginable levels with previously unmatched audacity in previously undreamed of ways.

In those regards, he's been quite an educational role model to this country.

Edited June 15, 2006 by sriracha john

[ColPyat]

Really ....

Forget that we are discussing the BIGGEST abusers of the system of all time .... and let's just blame everyone else. :baa

But of course - we can't blame the system itself, of this fabled Land of Smile, can't we? Gosh, no...

[jdinasia]

This sort of corruption is unfortunately inherent to Thailand, it's not just Thaksin/TRT.

His claim to fame and his place in history will be that he's ratcheted it up to previously unimaginable levels with previously unmatched audacity in previously undreamed of ways.

In those regards, he's been quite an educational role model to this country.

and if and when he falls .... it will be a NEW lesson for Thailand. That unlimited wealth is STILL not enough protection when it comes to dubverting democracy here.

I really don't know how I feel about the dissolution of TRT ... I think it would be best for the country IF the courts find the party culpable in the major case against them to dissolve it and then bar only the people that can be proven to have had knowledge either in advance or afterwards (as both would be inherent acts of conspiracy) and to let the rest stand for office in any other political party that would have them.

The times for making excuses for corruption are over ... start with what is happening now and root it out ... and keep doing it at every level .. and as much from the top down as possible. Make the penalties for corruption so severe that it just isn't worth it any more!

[lukamar]

This sort of corruption is unfortunately inherent to Thailand, it's not just Thaksin/TRT.

The times for making excuses for corruption are over ... start with what is happening now and root it out ... and keep doing it at every level .. and as much from the top down as possible. Make the penalties for corruption so severe that it just isn't worth it any more!

I would really like to know from the members, if evidence came out that the Democrats were found guilty of the TRT allegations (below) - Would you also call for their dissolution.

Since this allegation came out in the media a few months back they seemed to just go silent, now with it resurfacing I can't help but wonder if the Democrats are trying to rid us of the TRT in the courts and with such gusto with the hope that these accusations will also dissolve if the TRT is dissolved.

Suthep testifies to EC panel over TRT claims

MONGKOL BANGPRAPA -BP-

Democrat party secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban yesterday testified to the Election Commission's investigative panel to counter Thai Rak Thai's allegations that the Democrats had hired small parties to incriminate it. He also presented evidence alleging Thai Rak Thai bankrolled small parties to contest the April 2 election.

The evidence included CDs and paper records featuring money transfers and witnesses' accounts.

Mr Suthep said the panel's questions primarily focused on the issue of the Democrats' alleged attempts to interrupt the candidacy registration process in Songkhla province.

In his testimony, Mr Suthep dismissed Thai Rak Thai's allegations that the Democrats had paid three candidates of a small party known as the Progressive Democratic party to expose election fraud involving Thai Rak Thai.

Earlier, the Democrats had offered to provide legal and financial assistance to the three candidates who faced legal action by the EC after they confessed to being hired to run in the April 2 polls in Trang.

The Progressive Democratic party was later dissolved for forging poll registration documents.

Mr Suthep was also asked by the panel to explain what the Democrats meant when they talked about the ''Thaksin regime''.

He said the Democrats did nothing wrong by not fielding any candidates in the last poll and by persuading voters to mark abstention votes since ballot papers already contained an abstention box.

Mr Suthep added that the investigative panel had asked for more evidence, including the tape recording of his March 12 interview involving the three candidates who had sought legal advice from the Democrats.

Meanwhile, Democrat deputy secretary-general Thavorn Senniem demanded that the details of the selection of the EC's investigative panel be revealed.

Mr Thavorn claimed that the EC was discriminating against the Democrats as the Thai Rak Thai leader had yet to testify to the panel over bankrolling allegations.

[sriracha john]

IF the Democrats are guilty of those "hiring" charges, I would support a five year ban on every Democrat, jail for those in leadership roles or directly involved, and dissolution of the party.

likewise...

IF the TRT are guilty of their "hiring" charges, I would support a five year ban on every TRT member, jail for those in leadership roles or directly involved, and dissolution of the party.

Shall we presume that you support the impartiality as described above as well?

The reason you've probably been hearing so much more about the TRT charges versus the Democrat charges is the amount of evidence implicating the TRT as well as the criminality of the charges. Deciding not to run in the election was not a crime. Encouraging people to vote abstention was not a crime.

A further consideration should be that the Democrat leader has testified regarding the charges against his party. Has the TRT leader testified regarding the charges against his party? It would interesting to record his sworn testimony.

Edited June 16, 2006 by sriracha john

[lukamar]

Shall we presume that you support the impartiality as described above as well?

To be honest with you, I don't know how I feel about the dissolution of any party as it could destabilize and polarize the country further. I will agree that if it is shown that Party leaders or specific members have been involved in this activity, whatever the party, they should be treated appropriate but possibly leaving the party intact. I don't think censuring the small fish MP's in a party would prove to be worthwhile as they probably don't have any direct knowledge of the acts and it could alienate a huge majority of the voters. Further it would lead to the exact thing the King did not want happening, one large party (possibly made up of a coalition of 3 smaller ones) in absolute power and a bunch of never been elected, never will be, parties with a few regional candidates running against them. Possibly the three have already discussed running against each other to negate the 20% rule and form the next government if TRT is dissolved, that's probably not illegal but it would be highly unethical.

[chownah]

I'm against banning any political party for any reason. In my opinion people have the inalienable right to associate for the purposes of engaging in politics. Give anyone the right to ban a party and you give them the right to silence their opposition. Banning political assembly is in and of itself anti-democratic. The people's right to assemble and to discuss and to petition and to be part of the gov't etc. etc. etc. is what democracy is all about. If people break the laws they should be prosecuted but people should not be denied the right to associate for political reasons.

Chownah

[sriracha john]

Shall we presume that you support the impartiality as described above as well?

To be honest with you, I don't know how I feel about the dissolution of any party as it could destabilize and polarize the country further. I will agree that if it is shown that Party leaders or specific members have been involved in this activity, whatever the party, they should be treated appropriate but possibly leaving the party intact. I don't think censuring the small fish MP's in a party would prove to be worthwhile as they probably don't have any direct knowledge of the acts and it could alienate a huge majority of the voters. Further it would lead to the exact thing the King did not want happening, one large party (possibly made up of a coalition of 3 smaller ones) in absolute power and a bunch of never been elected, never will be, parties with a few regional candidates running against them. Possibly the three have already discussed running against each other to negate the 20% rule and form the next government if TRT is dissolved, that's probably not illegal but it would be highly unethical.

soooooo.. we can record you down as a "No" then, correct?

as a side note... please refrain from distorting what His Majesty The King stated. The difference between a "one-party" system versus a "coalition" have previously been addressed in this thread.

[sriracha john]

I'm against banning any political party for any reason. In my opinion people have the inalienable right to associate for the purposes of engaging in politics. Give anyone the right to ban a party and you give them the right to silence their opposition. Banning political assembly is in and of itself anti-democratic. The people's right to assemble and to discuss and to petition and to be part of the gov't etc. etc. etc. is what democracy is all about. If people break the laws they should be prosecuted but people should not be denied the right to associate for political reasons.

Chownah

I think you're mixing different issues with dissolution of a party for wrong-doing.

[lukamar]

The difference between a "one-party" system versus a "coalition" have previously been addressed in this thread.

Wasn't the TRT built by amalgamating pre-existing parties and factions into a single party forming a coalition that has lasted to this day? Aren't all the major parties in Thailand based on this same principle of pulling in smaller parties and factions?

A coalition can easily amalgamate into a single party or it can remain a coalition bound together as a single unit, as in forming a government, but acting as a single party.

1:- An alliance of people, factions, parties, or nations.

2:- A combination into one body; a union.

One body = alliance of factions & parties = single party = coalition - all the same.

[Old Man River]

This morning George posted info on the new airport city plan in the Bangkok Forum. This new plan from the PM will create a 500 + sq. km. province which will incorporate the new airport and surrounding areas. It will be supervised directly by either the PM or his deputy.

Think about it. A new province in Thailand with complete control by the PM over the new airport and surrounding Bangkok areas. Checks and balances? From where?

This is draft bill that I alluded to a week or so ago.

[sriracha john]

The difference between a "one-party" system versus a "coalition" have previously been addressed in this thread.

Wasn't the TRT built by amalgamating pre-existing parties and factions into a single party forming a coalition that has lasted to this day? Aren't all the major parties in Thailand based on this same principle of pulling in smaller parties and factions?

A coalition can easily amalgamate into a single party or it can remain a coalition bound together as a single unit, as in forming a government, but acting as a single party.

1:- An alliance of people, factions, parties, or nations.

2:- A combination into one body; a union.

One body = alliance of factions & parties = single party = coalition - all the same.

Thai Rak Thai Party (1 Party)

Democrat Party (1 Party)

Chart Thai Party (1 Party)

Thai Citizen Party (1 Party)

Chart Pattana Party (1 Party)

(list continus on for 28 more current political parties)

One-party system: Any 1 party from the above list with an iniquitous level of representatives in Parliament, eg. the last nullfied election had a Parliament that thus far was comprised of ALL TRT members, except for ONE MP from a different party.

Coalition system: Any 2 or more parties working together, as well as, depending on the issue, independently, as representatives of separate and distinct parties in Parliament, eg. in 1988, Chatichai Choonhavan (leader of the Chart Thai Party) formed a 5-party coalition within Parliament and became PM.

His Majesty The King's Remarks

One party system: described as "undemocratic"

Coalition system: described as "(not applicable, as it wasn't described)"

Not the same.

Thank you for your future cooperation.

[lukamar]

One party system: described as "undemocratic"

So what you are saying is if, for instance, the Democrats or anyone, in the future, won every seat but one, in a fair election the election would have to be annulled as it would be undemocratic and another election called. So what is the magic number to not to be a one party house? Every seat but one? Every seat but 10... 70%, 80%, 90% or 100% of the house to one party is not undemocratic if the voters vote that 100% in, that's the way democracy works.

Please hold while you are transfered..

[sriracha john]

This morning George posted info on the new airport city plan in the Bangkok Forum. This new plan from the PM will create a 500 + sq. km. province which will incorporate the new airport and surrounding areas. It will be supervised directly by either the PM or his deputy.

Think about it. A new province in Thailand with complete control by the PM over the new airport and surrounding Bangkok areas. Checks and balances? From where?

Airport city plan to be rushed to Cabinet

It is planned to eventually cover Bangkok's Lat Krabang and Prawet districts as well as Bang Phli district and Bang Sao Thong subdistrict in Samut Prakan.

The area would be equivalent to a province but supervised directly by the prime minister, or a

selected deputy.

A 10-member governing body is planned to administer it.

Old man river, no need to worry.

There will be checks and balance as the article clearly states that a ten-member governing body will administer the area.

In fact, in keeping with the articles title to "rush" it through, the governing body has already been appointed:

Airport City Governing Body

10 members

Potjaman Shinawatra - Chairperson

Bhanapot Damapong

Yingluck Shinawatra

Priawpan Damapong

Panthongtae Shinawatra

Pinthongtha Shinawatra

Chaisit Shinawatra

Paetongtarn Shinawatra

Yaowaret Shinawatra

Pawruthai Shinwatra

[sriracha john]

One party system: described as "undemocratic"

So what you are saying is if, for instance, the Democrats or anyone, in the future, won every seat but one, in a fair election the election would have to be annulled as it would be undemocratic and another election called.

So what is the magic number to not to be a one party house?

Every seat but one?

Every seat but 10...?

As I wasn't the one who described what you quoted, you're asking those questions of the wrong person.

I would humbly defer to Him to make those specific determinations, as He recently did so specifically.

Thank you for doing the same.

[Old Man River]

This morning George posted info on the new airport city plan in the Bangkok Forum. This new plan from the PM will create a 500 + sq. km. province which will incorporate the new airport and surrounding areas. It will be supervised directly by either the PM or his deputy.

Think about it. A new province in Thailand with complete control by the PM over the new airport and surrounding Bangkok areas. Checks and balances? From where?

Airport city plan to be rushed to Cabinet

It is planned to eventually cover Bangkok's Lat Krabang and Prawet districts as well as Bang Phli district and Bang Sao Thong subdistrict in Samut Prakan.

The area would be equivalent to a province but supervised directly by the prime minister, or a

selected deputy.

A 10-member governing body is planned to administer it.

Old man river, no need to worry.

There will be checks and balance as the article clearly states that a ten-member governing body will administer the area.

In fact, in keeping with the articles title to "rush" it through, the governing body has already been appointed:

Airport City Governing Body

10 members

Potjaman Shinawatra - Chairperson

Bhanapot Damapong

Yingluck Shinawatra

Priawpan Damapong

Panthongtae Shinawatra

Pinthongtha Shinawatra

Chaisit Shinawatra

Paetongtarn Shinawatra

Yaowaret Shinawatra

Pawruthai Shinwatra

Now you understand what has had people in Bangkok concerned for the past several months. Note that the airport opening was put at September 28th (two weeks prior to the election), with this bill being taken to the cabinet next Tuesday.

There are airport municipalities in many countries, but normally not directly governed by the Prime Minister of President of those countries.

[John K]

I seem to recall Thaksin wanting a one party system in the last general elections. The reason was something about the not wanting the annoyance. It stands to reason he does not want a democracy.

On the airport as a separate province, interesting point about the government in that it will be Thaksin’s own private government. I wonder what others will think when they discover not only is Thaksin destroying all the laws for his own personal gain, he is carving up the country too.

[Old Man River]

I seem to recall Thaksin wanting a one party system in the last general elections. The reason was something about the not wanting the annoyance. It stands to reason he does not want a democracy.

On the airport as a separate province, interesting point about the government in that it will be Thaksin’s own private government. I wonder what others will think when they discover not only is Thaksin destroying all the laws for his own personal gain, he is carving up the country too.

The Nation referred to it as a separate province. It will be an economic zone that will be governed and controlled completely separate from the rest of the country. Hence, it is really not similar to a province.

[chownah]

I'm against banning any political party for any reason. In my opinion people have the inalienable right to associate for the purposes of engaging in politics. Give anyone the right to ban a party and you give them the right to silence their opposition. Banning political assembly is in and of itself anti-democratic. The people's right to assemble and to discuss and to petition and to be part of the gov't etc. etc. etc. is what democracy is all about. If people break the laws they should be prosecuted but people should not be denied the right to associate for political reasons.

Chownah

I think you're mixing different issues with dissolution of a party for wrong-doing.

If "dissolution" means banning a party or in any way restricting people's rights to assemble, discuss, or be part of election decisions then I don't think I'm mixing anything up...I'm against it across the board for all parties.....I believe that all people have certain inalienable rights and that among these are the rights to assemble with whoever they want and to discuss the gov't and to organize to be promote ideas and people to be part of that government.

Chownah

[Jai Dee]

Thaksin reverts to form with lawsuits

With Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra wasting no time in filing another round of defamation lawsuits immediately after the royal celebrations ended, free press advocates say the premier is back to his old form after striking a more conciliatory tone during the highly charged political climate of the past six months.

“It looks like Thaksin is back on the legal offensive,” said Shawn Crispin of the Committee to Protect Journalists. “We lauded his decision last December to drop the many defamation lawsuits against newspapers and journalists after His Majesty the King’s birthday speech, and thought that would be the end of the road with the legal pressure against the press. But apparently these lawsuits are part of his plan to stage a comeback.”

On Wednesday, Thaksin’s lawyers filed criminal and civil lawsuits against the Democrat party and three daily newspapers for likening the premier to a mythical creature that feasts on human innards and feces. The lawsuits, which seek a total of 800 million baht from the main opposition party, Matichon, Khao Sod and Daily News, follow criminal defamation lawsuits filed two weeks ago against 11 defendants who claimed the premier and ruling party members concocted a plan in Finland to push the country away from a constitutional monarchy.

Thana Benjathikul, one of Thaksin’s lawyers, said in an interview yesterday that a civil defamation case was likely to be brought soon against those who exposed the alleged “Finland Declaration,” including Manager Media founder Sondhi Limthongkul, former Bangkok Senator Chirmsak Pinthong and academic Chai-anan Samudavanija. Thana admitted that the lawsuits filed on Wednesday were delayed due to the celebrations for His Majesty the King’s Diamond Jubilee, but denied that they represented a renewed effort to crack down on criticism in the press.

“We have to decide everything case by case,” Thana said. “It is the job of legal advisers to look into statements made and formulate recommendations to the prime minister. Whether or not a lawsuit is filed depends on Thaksin. It is okay to criticize legally in a democratic way, but some people over-criticize.”

“Thaksin requested the lawyers to bring the case against the Democrats and the three newspapers after the comments were made [on May 17], but we decided to delay the filing because it would not be suitable on the occasion of the King’s celebrations,” Thana added. “So right after the celebrations ended, we filed the case.”

Free-press advocates have long lamented Thaksin’s eagerness to file criminal defamation lawsuits against his critics, a practice which they say fosters an environment of self-censorship and creates a government-friendly press corps – as seen in countries like Singapore and Malaysia. But prior to Thaksin’s latest lawsuits this month, the fight for free expression had seen a number of victories.

After His Majesty’s birthday speech in December, Thaksin dropped six criminal and civil defamation suits against Sondhi that sought two billion baht in damages. Then in March, the Bangkok Criminal Court acquitted media activist Supinya Klangnarong and four Thai Post journalists in a criminal defamation case brought by Shin Corp. In that case, the court said that public companies, like public figures, should be open to criticism made in the public interest. It remains to be seen whether the judges will consider the latest criticism to be in the public interest, but legal experts warned that any criminal defamation suit wanders into a gray area.

“It’s very difficult to draw the line between the public and private life of the man who is prime minister,” said Vorajet Pakirat, a law professor at Thammasat University.

Politically, the lawsuits represent an attempt to strike back at Thaksin’s opponents after they managed, however briefly, to remove the premier from official duties. Many in the Thai Rak Thai party saw the anti-Thaksin campaign as an orchestrated plot by newspapers to oust the government.

Activists said the latest lawsuits were also notable because they list Daily News as a co-defendant. The daily was viewed as a government mouthpiece only six months ago.

Although newspapers enjoyed the brief respite from criminal defamation suits, free-press advocates are not surprised to see them pop up again. Now they wonder how many more will follow as all parties gear up for an election a few months down the road.

“Everyone was eager to see how long Thaksin would be on his best behavior,” Roby Alampay, the executive director of the Southeast Asian Press Alliance, said in an interview yesterday. “Old habits are hard to break. We are interested to see if the latest lawsuits represent a new trend.”

Source: ThaiDay - 16 June 2006