Thai Navy to file suit against Reuters over Rohingya report

[klauskunkel]

Saying allegations of possible military complicity in the trafficking of the vulnerable minority group was a matter of national security

How so? The Navy maybe has a Thai James Bond undercover with the refugees to report on S.P.E.C.T.R.E.?

[ggt]

Doesn't the Thai Navy have anything else to do...has anyone seen the results of an independent investigation into the allegations?

[Thaddeus]

Have Thais not worked out how to use a scapegoat yet?

Find a dozen or so Navy personnel willing to take the rap for this (claim they were acting on their own) charge them, find them guilty, tell the world they have been removed from service, change their IDs and then fund them enough to never have to work again ...... and move well away from any Naval base.

Instead it's, get caught, lie about it, get discovered lying, tell some bigger lies, get caught in those, and then sue someone.

[thhMan]

Does Vice Adm. Tharathorn Kajitsuwan realize he is opening up the avenue for more criticism on the World Wide network that will not be favorable to the Navy or himself? Someone should politely sit him down and clearly explain that to him. But I know that won't happen.

Of course someone will do that... just after the real funny thai comedy sketch and then a few hours of the soapies

[wandasloan]

Reuters? Good luck with that. Bet Reuters legal guns are bigger than the Thai Navy's guns.

The Thai Navy's lawyers are government prosecutors. This is a CRIMINAL case in front of a Thai court. I can't think of one way that Reuters could have a bigger one than the Navy and the Thai government combined.

This is clearly nothing but a face saving operation by the Thai government - Reuters may well choose to simply apologize rather than drag it through court. I hope they don't. I just want to know - IS EVERYTHING IN THE ARTICLE TRUE AND CAN REUTERS PROVE IT ?

Truth has nothing to do with it. In Thailand, as in 99% of countries, truth is not a defence in a defamation case. You may be thinking that this will take place in the United States? It won't.

This is the best thing that could have happened for the Phuket Reporters - this surely will draw the entire spotlight onto the the Thai Navy and the archaic laws they are abusing.

Oh yes, it will be great comfort to them during their seven years inside. Just FYI, the law is not even slightly archaic. It's 2007, carefully tailored not to be archaic. And it absolutely is not archaic, but very modern and punitive in all ways that only a state can be.

It's amazing how many people have no idea what is going on or what is at stake here. It's in the papers and everything!

.

Edited April 23, 2014 by wandasloan

[rickirs]

This is great news. The lawsuit will draw the attention of the UN Human Rights Commission, ASEAN, and US concerns over Thailand's ever increasing inability to deal with human trafficking by continuing to deny it it exists. And maybe we the public will finally see the full Reuters report that until now remains elusive. Thank you Navy!

[chrisrazz]

Does the Navy believe that winning a defamation case in a Thai court is going to assuage international opinion and save face? I would suggest that it will further fuel the already tarnished international reputation of the Navy and the court. All good if you ask me. The more the double standards, nepotism, corruption and immoral characteristics of the system that pervades here are given international exposure, the better chance of change.

[unanimosity]

How to win friends and influence people Thai-style . . . are they actually denying the allegations?

No, just trying to save face.

[unanimosity]

This is clearly nothing but a face saving operation by the Thai government - Reuters may well choose to simply apologize rather than drag it through court. I hope they don't. I just want to know - IS EVERYTHING IN THE ARTICLE TRUE AND CAN REUTERS PROVE IT ? If so then Thailand has no case and should focus it's energy on trying to do something about the problem rather than trying to shoot the messenger. I believe it to be true, I don't think Reuters would publish the article if there was any doubt...? Thailand has to get over it's obssession with 'face' saving and own up to and face its problems.

It's not that easy when the cultural mindset ingrained for centuries cannot associate one's actions with being accountable for loss of face, and can only blame others for daring to point out the actions.

[sunshine51]

Does Vice Adm. Tharathorn Kajitsuwan realize he is opening up the avenue for more criticism on the World Wide network that will not be favorable to the Navy or himself? Someone should politely sit him down and clearly explain that to him. But I know that won't happen.

One would have better luck talking to an empty beer can.

[marcusd]

Ohhh didums. Don't like nasty things said about your people trafficking involvement. Diddums

Marcusd. Via tapatalk

[MGP]

An action of this magnitude cannot be made without the blessings and complicity of the Ministry of Defense. Is YL, as caretaker, still holding that position?

[surangw]

and the thai navy will get the bill to clean reuters lawyers pants since they pissed themselves from laffing so hard over this

[surangw]

Reuters? Good luck with that. Bet Reuters legal guns are bigger than the Thai Navy's guns.

careful, the navy may take this as a penis size jab.

[Emster23]

"Truth has nothing to do with it. In Thailand, as in 99% of countries, truth is not a defence in a defamation case." Don't know about the 99% charge, but important thing is that in Thailand truth or not is not the important element. If navy looks worse, than it is defamation, true or not. How the powerful muzzle the press. Can be rotten with impunity.

[JesseFrank]

I have such a rough feeling that this suit against Reuters gonna end the same way as where 1-2 years ago a Boeing plane belonging to the Thai government was chained in Germany, after which the Thai government sent another Boeing, which was also chained.

A lot of face involved, but even more egg.

Edited April 23, 2014 by JesseFrank

[roguewo]

This is clearly nothing but a face saving operation by the Thai government - Reuters may well choose to simply apologize rather than drag it through court. I hope they don't. I just want to know - IS EVERYTHING IN THE ARTICLE TRUE AND CAN REUTERS PROVE IT ? If so then Thailand has no case and should focus it's energy on trying to do something about the problem rather than trying to shoot the messenger. I believe it to be true, I don't think Reuters would publish the article if there was any doubt...? Thailand has to get over it's obssession with 'face' saving and own up to and face its problems.

In the newspaper/media industry, reporters have to 'vet' the sources and the subject matter. Credibility, is the currency.

My money's on Rueters.

[RubbaJohnny]

New motto:

We're the Royal Thai Navy, and we didn't do anything

BiB:

We're the Royal Thai Police force, you pay now

irony is one seems to deal in traffic and the other in cruising,whatever floats your boat,no one will take resonsibility r do time the worst that can happen is an even more inactive post ,i.e get paid for nowt

[somjitr]

Reuters? Good luck with that. Bet Reuters legal guns are bigger than the Thai Navy's guns.

The Thai Navy's lawyers are government prosecutors. This is a CRIMINAL case in front of a Thai court. I can't think of one way that Reuters could have a bigger one than the Navy and the Thai government combined.

This is clearly nothing but a face saving operation by the Thai government - Reuters may well choose to simply apologize rather than drag it through court. I hope they don't. I just want to know - IS EVERYTHING IN THE ARTICLE TRUE AND CAN REUTERS PROVE IT ?

Truth has nothing to do with it. In Thailand, as in 99% of countries, truth is not a defence in a defamation case. You may be thinking that this will take place in the United States? It won't.

This is the best thing that could have happened for the Phuket Reporters - this surely will draw the entire spotlight onto the the Thai Navy and the archaic laws they are abusing.

Oh yes, it will be great comfort to them during their seven years inside. Just FYI, the law is not even slightly archaic. It's 2007, carefully tailored not to be archaic. And it absolutely is not archaic, but very modern and punitive in all ways that only a state can be.

It's amazing how many people have no idea what is going on or what is at stake here. It's in the papers and everything!

.

In the US, truth is an ultimate defense in all defamation cases. Even though this is not so in Thailand, truth is still a defense in a lot of defamation cases excluding lese majeste. As far as I know, the only exceptions are personal matters or if the truth does not benefit the public. This case is clearly of public concern, so I think the truth defense should apply here.

[aussieinthailand]

And the truth shall set you free,,, BUT hey TIT,!!!

[wandasloan]

In the US, truth is an ultimate defense in all defamation cases.

I just have three questions about your statement here. Yes? And? Your point is? In the US there is no such thing as criminal defamation. Also, as of at least 1262 (and almost certainly for 5 billion years before that), it is confirmed that this is not the United States of America.

You sure wasted a lot of valuable Ascii characters.

Even though this is not so in Thailand, truth is still a defense in a lot of defamation cases excluding lese majeste. As far as I know, the only exceptions are personal matters or if the truth does not benefit the public. This case is clearly of public concern, so I think the truth defense should apply here.

What you think and 150 baht will buy you a Starbucks coffee. The truth defence does NOT apply in criminal defamation cases. It may mitigate (or may not) but it is not a defence.

The question in a case of criminal defamation is whether there was, you know, defamation. In this case, the question is, was the reputation of the Navy harmed by publication of a story that said the Navy was involved in illegal activities?

I will give you a Bangkok example, a case I was tangentially involved in. A restaurant owner that I knew posted a notice on a wall of the restaurant stating that a customer (who I knew) had bounced a cheque and had not made good on the debt. The person named in the notice sued for criminal defamation. The court accepted the case rather quickly; most defamation cases are accepted. The government prosecutors got busy to prosecute the case.

I don't remember the amount, but it was trivial. The bounced check was not in dispute (it was attached to the wall notice). It took the court a few months and about half a dozen hearings with various witnesses to decide that the cheque writer-bouncer had been defamed. The truth of the bounced cheque was gladly, even gleefully admitted. There was no dispute about the truth from the two sides and their lawyers, and the court accepted the fact of the bouncing cheque AND the failure to make restitution. The verdict made no mention of the truth of the original statement, but said that the cheque-bouncer's name and reputation were clearly harmed by the public posting. Guilty as charged of defamation. Since it was a first offence, a light sentence of a few months was given, and it was suspended. There were other punishments.

That was long before the government/army came up with the idea in 2007 of duplicating all of this in the Computer Crime Act, quadrupling the penalties and so on - and then the even better idea (in the Phuketwan case) of pressing charges under the old Criminal Code AND the CCA.

In court, with government prosecutors, the Navy has a serious case. The Phuketwan folks and (if the case is pursued) Reuters - the company and the writers - are looking at a serious chance of conviction, each of them on TWO counts of defamation. Either one or both can result in serious prison time and quite large fines.

The Navy cares about the Navy. Period. It literally couldn't care less about any fallout over this case except the face it will lose if it loses the case. So it is being very careful in its charges.

"I think the truth defense should apply" is not a serious remark, and is on the same level of credibility as "in the USA courts, blah-blah yadda".

Anyone who doesn't think the Navy has a strong case against Phuketwan and maybe Reuters is not a serious source about these cases. The fact is it's quite close to an open-and-shut case. One hopes that inventive lawyers and an open-minded court can get feet in the door before law trumps justice yet again.

.

[LomSak27]

Its just a PR release for the local press.

Unless they file suit in a thai court where reuters does not show and the navy can have a show trial (doubt they will do that though sa Reuters can publicize the case worldwide exactly what the navy wnats to avoid). Anywhere else in the world and clunk, they would have to go through a REAL trial, something the Navy would never do.

Just a release a statement and the bangkok media has to carry it, has to print it with no questions asked .... lthen get back to the matters at hand ... zzzzzzz.

Edited April 23, 2014 by LomSak27

[somjitr]

In the US, truth is an ultimate defense in all defamation cases.

I just have three questions about your statement here. Yes? And? Your point is? In the US there is no such thing as criminal defamation. Also, as of at least 1262 (and almost certainly for 5 billion years before that), it is confirmed that this is not the United States of America.

You sure wasted a lot of valuable Ascii characters.

Even though this is not so in Thailand, truth is still a defense in a lot of defamation cases excluding lese majeste. As far as I know, the only exceptions are personal matters or if the truth does not benefit the public. This case is clearly of public concern, so I think the truth defense should apply here.

What you think and 150 baht will buy you a Starbucks coffee. The truth defence does NOT apply in criminal defamation cases. It may mitigate (or may not) but it is not a defence.

The question in a case of criminal defamation is whether there was, you know, defamation. In this case, the question is, was the reputation of the Navy harmed by publication of a story that said the Navy was involved in illegal activities?

I will give you a Bangkok example, a case I was tangentially involved in. A restaurant owner that I knew posted a notice on a wall of the restaurant stating that a customer (who I knew) had bounced a cheque and had not made good on the debt. The person named in the notice sued for criminal defamation. The court accepted the case rather quickly; most defamation cases are accepted. The government prosecutors got busy to prosecute the case.

I don't remember the amount, but it was trivial. The bounced check was not in dispute (it was attached to the wall notice). It took the court a few months and about half a dozen hearings with various witnesses to decide that the cheque writer-bouncer had been defamed. The truth of the bounced cheque was gladly, even gleefully admitted. There was no dispute about the truth from the two sides and their lawyers, and the court accepted the fact of the bouncing cheque AND the failure to make restitution. The verdict made no mention of the truth of the original statement, but said that the cheque-bouncer's name and reputation were clearly harmed by the public posting. Guilty as charged of defamation. Since it was a first offence, a light sentence of a few months was given, and it was suspended. There were other punishments.

That was long before the government/army came up with the idea in 2007 of duplicating all of this in the Computer Crime Act, quadrupling the penalties and so on - and then the even better idea (in the Phuketwan case) of pressing charges under the old Criminal Code AND the CCA.

In court, with government prosecutors, the Navy has a serious case. The Phuketwan folks and (if the case is pursued) Reuters - the company and the writers - are looking at a serious chance of conviction, each of them on TWO counts of defamation. Either one or both can result in serious prison time and quite large fines.

The Navy cares about the Navy. Period. It literally couldn't care less about any fallout over this case except the face it will lose if it loses the case. So it is being very careful in its charges.

"I think the truth defense should apply" is not a serious remark, and is on the same level of credibility as "in the USA courts, blah-blah yadda".

Anyone who doesn't think the Navy has a strong case against Phuketwan and maybe Reuters is not a serious source about these cases. The fact is it's quite close to an open-and-shut case. One hopes that inventive lawyers and an open-minded court can get feet in the door before law trumps justice yet again.

.

Thailand penal code Section 330:

Section 330 In case of defamation, if the person prosecuted for defamation can prove that the imputation

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 such proof will not be benefit to the public.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think that means truth is a defense for defamation in general with some exceptions. In the restaurant case you mentioned, the court may have decided that the bounced check was a personal matter and thus should not be proved. In the Thai Navy case, though, I think the court will at least allow Reuters to try to prove its claim. The personal matters clause in Section 330 just doesn't apply in this case no matter how I read the law.

Edited April 23, 2014 by somjitr

[englishoak]

Reuters prefer not to jeopardise their reporting ability in a country if at all possible, I suspect the Thai Navy is possibly playing chicken with Reuters. At some point though recently Reuters have been vocal about the reporters in Phuket being singled out and asked for leniency. This seems to be the reply by the Thai Navy.

Pulitzer prize winning makes this reporting incident not so easy to step down from or not reply to.... With any luck Reuters will shrug this flimsy threat off as posturing.. If we are in real luck Reuters will make a public statement and let it go right into the spotlight.

We shall see and fingers crossed the Thai Navy has decided to play chicken with the wrong organisation.

[justcruisin]

Two other impertinant issues may be highlighted here which was the alleged towing a boat out to sea after the engine was disabled of a Rohhinga refugees boat several years ago with

no charges being laid against the Royal Thai Navy even though it was reported on world press.

Secondly the fact that the libel laws in Thai are amongst the strongest in the world supported by a Govt department that offers cost free litigation cases to be pursued by any Thai person/ identity.

The legal largess of the aforesaid case will be rubbing their hands together in glee that its already a case acclompli. Caveot emptor!

[wandasloan]

no charges being laid against the Royal Thai Navy even though it was reported on world press.

Secondly the fact that the libel laws in Thai are amongst the strongest in the world supported by a Govt department that offers cost free litigation cases to be pursued by any Thai person/ identity.

You are conflating. This is NOT a libel case, which is a civil matter and not supported by a government department. This is *criminal* defamation. And it is not "supported" by the government, it is flat-out prosecuted like any other (alleged) crime like robbery or murder. You are correct that few civilised countries have this sort of law. Most such countries have only libel and slander laws to handle this type of action.

What happened here is pretty much text-book. The navy felt defamed by the Phuketwan report. It filed a charge at the police station, just as you or I would in any criminal matter. The police took it to the (government) prosecutors who considered it on its merits. The prosecutors said, "yes", a real crime had been committed; perpetrators were known. The prosecutors filed the criminal charges at the Phuket Criminal Court last week. The two named defendants were given bail, and a first hearing date was set.

This is just how any criminal prosecution goes ahead in Thailand, and indeed in most countries. The unique part of this is the actual case - defamation, which is not prosecuted by the government in many countries.

Thailand, like almost all countries *ALSO* has libel and slander laws, which are between two people/groups, and do not involve criminal charges or prison punishment. But the use, misuse and abuse of criminal defamation is possible because of throwback laws that have been eliminated in most places.

.

[Langsuan Man]

What I really don't understand is how an Admiral in Phuket can sue anyone for defamation of the entire Thai Navy

Isn't that the job of the Thai Defense Department ?

Can you imagine the chaos in the West if any tin horn commander was able to speak and act for their commander, or the government for that matter

I guess the concept of Chain-of-Command doesn't apply here !

[edgarfriendly]

Have Thais not worked out how to use a scapegoat yet?

Find a dozen or so Navy personnel willing to take the rap for this (claim they were acting on their own) charge them, find them guilty, tell the world they have been removed from service, change their IDs and then fund them enough to never have to work again ...... and move well away from any Naval base.

Instead it's, get caught, lie about it, get discovered lying, tell some bigger lies, get caught in those, and then sue someone.

let me fix that for you -

Get caught, lie, get discovered lying, tell bigger lies, get caught, murder someone.

You're Welcome, Na

[Thaddeus]

What I really don't understand is how an Admiral in Phuket can sue anyone for defamation of the entire Thai Navy

Isn't that the job of the Thai Defense Department ?

Can you imagine the chaos in the West if any tin horn commander was able to speak and act for their commander, or the government for that matter

I guess the concept of Chain-of-Command doesn't apply here !

There's a reason for that.

From the moment they can walk, they are instructed that they are superior beings, masters of the universe and cannot make an error.

That is why situations like this arise.

Not only does the left hand not know (or care) what the right hand is doing, the left hand has no concept at all of the possible consequences of its own actions.

This lot are about to find out that the universe is much larger than they had been told, and their importance in it is effectively zero.

[Traveling Sailor]

Reuters? Good luck with that. Bet Reuters legal guns are bigger than the Thai Navy's guns.

Not only the above, but obviously, Reuters is correct in its assessment/article and the Navy does not have a leg to stand on unless they can prove Reuters is wrong. Fat chance of that!

The navy, like most segments of Thai life, need to grow up and learn how to deal with, and live in, the real world. Time to "Man Up".