Yingluck must call a halt to Phuketwan case: Thai editorial

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
Yingluck must call a halt to Phuketwan case
The Nation

The Navy's lawsuit over allegations of trafficking Rohingya is an international embarrassment for Thailand

BANGKOK: -- It's time our caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, also the Defence Minister, stepped in and ordered the Royal Thai Navy to drop its defamation charges against two Phuket journalists. If she acts now she can prevent this case from dragging Thailand down with it.

The saga began when Phuketwan, an online newspaper, quoted a Pulitzer Prize-winning report by Reuters news agency that alleged the Thai Navy and immigration officials were involved in the trafficking of Rohingya refugees. For repeating the statement, the Navy is suing Phuketwan for defamation, as well as committing a computer crime. If convicted, Phuketwan reporters Alan Morison and Chutima Sidasathian face two years in prison.

In a misguided quest to defend its honour, the Navy has damaged the international image of the country, which has come in for ridicule over this case. For that reason alone, Yingluck needs to step in and call the whole thing off.

This is not to say the Navy has no right to defend its reputation. Historically, the Navy has always been the most "gentlemanly" of our armed forces, especially in times of political crisis and coups.

But it now risks throwing away that hard-won reputation with legal charges that have provoked widespread condemnation from human-rights advocates and other watchdog organisations around the world.

As a government agency and a branch of the country's armed forces, the Navy is subject to scrutiny by the media and the public. If it or its personnel are accused of wrongdoing - such as "trafficking refugees" by selling them into slave labour - then it should be prepared for a transparent and independent inquiry.

Since UN agencies and the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand have already raised the issue, perhaps they should carry out the inquiry.

But instead of taking that route, the Navy decided to "shoot the messengers", intimidating the reporters with charges of defamation and computer crime.

Thai authorities have past experience with this issue. The Navy suffered international condemnation in 2007 for pushing a boatload of Rohingya refugees back out to sea, many of whom reportedly then died.

When the Reuters story was first published, Yingluck said Thailand would work with the United Nation and the United States on any investigation into possible involvement of Thai officials in the trafficking. The US, UN and international community welcomed that statement. But perhaps Yingluck was just buying time.

If the premier does not want to be accused of hypocrisy, she needs to step in and put an end to this reckless attempt to curtail media freedom.

The Rohingya are stateless Muslims who live along the Western border of Myanmar. Until 1982 they were considered citizens of that country. However, communal violence and clashes between Rohingya and ethnic Arakanese Buddhists erupted last year, Nearly 150,000 mostly Rohingya residents were forced to flee their homes.

Since then, political instability fuelled by an anti-Muslim campaign led by prominent Buddhist figures has forced tens of thousands of Rohingya to flee Myanmar by boat. Many have ended up on the southwest coast of Thailand, usually seen as a holiday paradise.

If Thailand and the rest of the international community are serious about addressing the root cause of this problem, they must focus on Myanmar's handling of the Rohingya and bring pressure on Nay Pyi Taw for better treatment of this stateless minority.

-- The Nation 2014-04-25

[GeorgeO]

A very well written piece, with all emotions set aside, which will probably be ignored by the person on whom it calls for action.

One can only hope that the author doesn't get dragged into the case, along with the Phuket journalists, as an accessory after the fact..!!

[WoopyDoo]

What I have been saying all along about this case...

Now that Reuters have come out and declared they will defend their case to the hilt, basically sent out a clear message that they have ALL the check able facts and this will just end up exposing the navy as being guilty as charged.

The Thai people seem to misunderstand that outside of their tin pot country, there are actual mechanisms in place to prevent deliberate mus-reporting and Reuters are among the most respected news agencies in the world if not the most respected, and they take it seriously.

They would not release a big and very compromising story unless they had concrete evidence.

Thailand called their bluff, and have opened the door for Reuters to counter-sue for accusing them of false reporting. This will blow the whole disingenuous story even more out into the world.

You won't get a response out of YL either, she probably doesn't even understand what is going on, and she certainly won't back down and lose face, which is the main reason that one day soon she will find that she herself will be a refugee in another country.

Thailand shoots itself in the foot once again.

Edited April 25, 2014 by WoopyDoo

[NongKhaiKid]

Let's not forget this will be heard in a Thai court under what is laughing called Thai ' law '.

If the court decides to back the RTN no matter what and comes up with a fairy tale justification for doing so the LoS will be in for even more international ridicule BUT will anyone care ?

[kurnell]

Nothing but death will stop a Thai that has lost face. Pathetic culture

[ChrisY1]

It is quite a well written article....will YL take any notice...it's doubtful as she's been embarking on a "make friends" course with Thailands defence forces.....she certainly doesn't want the relationships to sour any further.

Reuters mad a statement in yesterdays press (can't find it..sorry) that they will defend their case as the RTN files lawsuits against them, however, it also stated that in Phuketwan' case, that paper had posted the article in a different context to their original piece.....are they attempting to distance themselves from Phuketwan?

And these concerning points also in yesterdays press:

“disappointed” at total silence from the Thai Journalist Association." & " The silence of both Reuters and the national press body reflected the state of mind of the media operations in Thailand, said Mr Morison.

It will be interesting if Reuters do actually come out and testify for Phuketwan

[geriatrickid]

A very well written piece, with all emotions set aside, which will probably be ignored by the person on whom it calls for action.

One can only hope that the author doesn't get dragged into the case, along with the Phuket journalists, as an accessory after the fact..!!

A well written piece would have been more truthful and not avoided the critical issue.

The military has repeatedly stated in very blunt terms that it is not accountable to the civilian government. The military does not recognize the authority of Thailand's ministers or its Prime Minister. This is not addressed in the article and is the obstacle that any civilian official in a government of Thailand faces. This goes beyond the political parties. Even the Democrats when they were in office had to tread carefully as the military did not accept that it would or could be accountable to a civilian government.

A truthful and honest editorialist would have asked the question that must be asked: Isn't it time the military was accountable to a civilian government?

The writer knows very well, that the PM cannot do much to stop this. What exactly, does the editorialist expect the PM to do if the military states quite forcefully that neither a PM nor the defence minister can oversee its conduct? The issue is exacerbated by the fact that the PM is legally in a caretaker role. The PM has restricted authority and now in the current political climate does the editorialist not see that the PM cannot say or do anything? The moment she tried anything, the monarchists, the PDRC and the military would condemn her and take to the streets.

On the contrary, this case should proceed. Let the Royal Thai Navy embarrass the country, and let the free world see the negative impact that the military has on a country where the military so willingly meddles in political affairs. Maybe this is the tipping point that the country needs to finally understand that the military functions as a state within a state.

[harkish]

Who wants to bet this case never doesn't die, it just fades away. There will be delays, balls kicked down the field, and eventually some future government will just drop it. Thailand doesn't want to take on Reuters, but in a place where face is so important, the navy had to do something - so it makes it statement through this filing. There, we said it wasn't true. Not that we can prove it, and perhaps you Reuters can prove that your article was true - I would imagine they have some good evidence - so we make our statement and then turn off the cameras. Don't expect any courtroom hearing where witnesses are trotted out showing high level folk were involved - ain't gonna happen no how.

[WoopyDoo]

Let's not forget this will be heard in a Thai court under what is laughing called Thai ' law '.

If the court decides to back the RTN no matter what and comes up with a fairy tale justification for doing so the LoS will be in for even more international ridicule BUT will anyone care ?

Well... the court case involving the reporters will be heard in a Thai court, but if Reuters counter-sue, that will be heard in a neutral country away from Thailand's corruption.

In which case will come to same conclusion that Thailand will once again look a laughing stock.

If in fact they do imprison these two, then the international court will definitely step in and demand their release.

Reuters have the evidence... they would never have published the story without it.

Thailand is swimming with the sharks on this one.

[chooka]

Who wants to bet this case never doesn't die, it just fades away. There will be delays, balls kicked down the field, and eventually some future government will just drop it. Thailand doesn't want to take on Reuters, but in a place where face is so important, the navy had to do something - so it makes it statement through this filing. There, we said it wasn't true. Not that we can prove it, and perhaps you Reuters can prove that your article was true - I would imagine they have some good evidence - so we make our statement and then turn off the cameras. Don't expect any courtroom hearing where witnesses are trotted out showing high level folk were involved - ain't gonna happen no how.

You might very well be right but what happens to the Aussie editor involved? Will he be held in Thailand indefinitely for years without being able to work whilst this drags on. I doubt that they will deport him in the meantime because that would look like they have quietly dropped the case.

[Somtamnication]

For once, only this time, I agree with this newspaper. Tomorrow, mai loo!

[JoeThePoster]

As if Yingluck has any control over what the navy does.

[smutcakes]

Do people still not realize that no sitting Govt dares step on the toes of any of the branches of the armed forces because they wield so much power.

Another area that needs reform, but as we all know, no one will dare go there.

[NongKhaiKid]

Do people still not realize that no sitting Govt dares step on the toes of any of the branches of the armed forces because they wield so much power.

Another area that needs reform, but as we all know, no one will dare go there.

One of the oldest games in town, keep the military on side so they might not remove you from power.

[NongKhaiKid]

Let's not forget this will be heard in a Thai court under what is laughing called Thai ' law '.

If the court decides to back the RTN no matter what and comes up with a fairy tale justification for doing so the LoS will be in for even more international ridicule BUT will anyone care ?

Well... the court case involving the reporters will be heard in a Thai court, but if Reuters counter-sue, that will be heard in a neutral country away from Thailand's corruption.

In which case will come to same conclusion that Thailand will once again look a laughing stock.

If in fact they do imprison these two, then the international court will definitely step in and demand their release.

Reuters have the evidence... they would never have published the story without it.

Thailand is swimming with the sharks on this one.

Yes Thailand is swimming with the sharks but are you sure a counter-suit would be heard in a neutral country ?

If the reporters are jailed there will be an international outcry from many sources but a demand isn't always met and at the very least their release is likely to take time as the Thais will not want to lose face. They will take their time until it can be spun nicely with no suggestion of error.

[noitom]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

A very well written piece, with all emotions set aside, which will probably be ignored by the person on whom it calls for action.

One can only hope that the author doesn't get dragged into the case, along with the Phuket journalists, as an accessory after the fact..!!

A well written piece would have been more truthful and not avoided the critical issue.

The military has repeatedly stated in very blunt terms that it is not accountable to the civilian government. The military does not recognize the authority of Thailand's ministers or its Prime Minister. This is not addressed in the article and is the obstacle that any civilian official in a government of Thailand faces. This goes beyond the political parties. Even the Democrats when they were in office had to tread carefully as the military did not accept that it would or could be accountable to a civilian government.

A truthful and honest editorialist would have asked the question that must be asked: Isn't it time the military was accountable to a civilian government?

The writer knows very well, that the PM cannot do much to stop this. What exactly, does the editorialist expect the PM to do if the military states quite forcefully that neither a PM nor the defence minister can oversee its conduct? The issue is exacerbated by the fact that the PM is legally in a caretaker role. The PM has restricted authority and now in the current political climate does the editorialist not see that the PM cannot say or do anything? The moment she tried anything, the monarchists, the PDRC and the military would condemn her and take to the streets.

On the contrary, this case should proceed. Let the Royal Thai Navy embarrass the country, and let the free world see the negative impact that the military has on a country where the military so willingly meddles in political affairs. Maybe this is the tipping point that the country needs to finally understand that the military functions as a state within a state.

Very thoughtful response.

[madmitch]

No way that the Government (caretaker in this case) could allow the military to lose face, sadly, which is exactly what would be seen to happen if the article's suggestion were complied with.

[hidavey]

I truly believe that she is not looking out for the best interest of Thailand. Her older brother (Taksin) did a ceremony using blood and black magic monks to vow that if he wasn't the leader of Thailand, that no one else could be. He would destroy the country by all means necessary, we can understand why he wants to take revenge in Thailand due to the fact that they took all most half of his money and he can not come back into this country. For a man who has everything but no where to come home too, money becomes nothing. Only thing in his eyes is chaos and distruction. We are seeing this now.....

[Lupatria]

There is nothing wrong with this article. However, I find it a little hypocritical of THE NATION as they did nothing, with all their local staff, connections and abilities, to shed some light to the story themselves. Once again, our investigation and research stops at someone else’s toe tips.

[useronthenet]

I don't understand, two journalists in Phuket decided to quote word-for-word certain extracts of an article which was already published by Reuters to highlight the plight of the Rohingya refugees. I'm just wondering given their location, had they thought of the consequences of putting the Thai Royal Navy squarely in the spotlight given they themselves could face potential charges ? Furthermore, why was there a need to republish, when such an article had already been previously circulated by no-less than a very reputable organization in the international arena ? This issue was already raised, and most readers are aware what is going on these days with Thailand despite their efforts to try and hide their appalling violation of human rights. Perhaps I am missing something here ?

[bigbamboo]

OK, Thailand is embarrassing itself on the international stage.... again.

So what? This has become such a regular occurrence recently that I doubt anyone expects any different.

[wandasloan]

Well... the court case involving the reporters will be heard in a Thai court, but if Reuters counter-sue, that will be heard in a neutral country away from Thailand's corruption.

In which universe would that be? If not in some parallel universe or hidden, EVERY case filed at a Thai court will be heard in Thailand, including a (still hypothetical) case of Thailand vs Reuters. Why would some other country's court accept a suit by Reuters against the Royal Thai Government?

And yes, it's the government. The Navy is the complainant only, it is not a party to the prosecution, just a witness. It's like if you were robbed, you would report the robbery, the police would catch the robber, the prosecutor would prosecute him and the court would put him away. You might or might not be called as a witness, but you certainly would not prosecute the case.

The Navy has no LEGAL standing in this actual case of criminal defamation, would also have none in the hypothetical case against Reuters. Of course, the Navy, as the allegedly aggrieved victim, could ask the court to dismiss the charges, just as you might want to forgive the robber. But it's in the hands of the court, not the Navy/you.

I have no idea of what you are talking about with "counter-suit... in a neutral country". You didn't get it from Reuters for sure. Can you explain?

So far as Reuters being determined to fight the possible case tooth and nail, well, yes indeed Mr Obvious, it's not like there is an Option 2.

I don't understand, two journalists in Phuket decided to quote word-for-word certain extracts of an article which was already published by Reuters to highlight the plight of the Rohingya refugees. I'm just wondering given their location, had they thought of the consequences of putting the Thai Royal Navy squarely in the spotlight given they themselves could face potential charges ? Furthermore, why was there a need to republish, when such an article had already been previously circulated by no-less than a very reputable organization in the international arena ? This issue was already raised, and most readers are aware what is going on these days with Thailand despite their efforts to try and hide their appalling violation of human rights. Perhaps I am missing something here ?

Not a lot of thought went into that publication decision, I'd guess. It's the internet age, when online publications quote each other back and forth incessantly and almost incestuously. They were making a point of their own, the Phuketwan people, and they quoted some of the Reuters to back themselves up.

That brings up an allied point though. Only Phuketwan republished any key points from the Reuters report to my knowledge. That indicates the Thai media in general were more ... er.... thoughtful about it than the unique decision-makers at Phuketwan. And yet, any reader or listener or viewer in Thailand knows exactly what has been happening with trafficking of Rohingya, even without the single Reuters report. So, yes, not thoughtful.

Reuters as an international service has slightly different priorities from the Thai media. But please, don't let one single person think that Reuters does not self-censor its Thailand news report all the time. It's as guilty of censorship in Thailand as the most fearful Thai TV broadcaster. Enough said about that.

There is nothing wrong with this article. However, I find it a little hypocritical of THE NATION as they did nothing, with all their local staff, connections and abilities, to shed some light to the story themselves. Once again, our investigation and research stops at someone else’s toe tips.

Cut them some slack, please. the Nation and every other Thai newspaper has reported extensively on the Rohingya situation. It has not done so exactly like Reuters, but the Nation has let its reader know exactly what has happened in the South with the Rohingya and the Navy. It has spent at LEAST 10 times the effort, the time and the words as Reuters. The only people in Thailand who don't know don't want to know.

.

Edited April 25, 2014 by wandasloan

[Ulic]

Surely the author of the article means Suthep needs to step in. It seems the Navy is more likely to do what he asks.

Yingluck has no control over the Navy. However it is Thai law that is actually the problem. The Navy is just taking advantage

of the law in this dispute.

[Baerboxer]

Surely the author of the article means Suthep needs to step in. It seems the Navy is more likely to do what he asks.

Yingluck has no control over the Navy. However it is Thai law that is actually the problem. The Navy is just taking advantage

of the law in this dispute.

You are correct - the issue is with the defamation laws that allow actions to be brought even though someone may be stating the truth and its already in the public domain - archaic.

Secondly, Yingluck has been shown to have no control over anything. She's never really been a PM or DM. Maybe the article should ask Thaksin to call a halt as he's running the caretaker government. Maybe he could use the same tactics on the RTN he's trying with the CC and NACC

[HerIndoors]

To GERIATRICKID post #7..well written. I couldn't agree more. How pathetic that the RTN be ASKED to drop this case. Bring it on... and may they accept the consequences. My gut feeling is they will just tough it out and wait until some different political crisis grabs the news headlines. Any society which has no true checks and balances and is prepared to stand idly by whilst basic freedoms are trodden on deserves all the 'instant karma' it can get.

Not holding my breath tho'.

[wandasloan]

You are correct - the issue is with the defamation laws that allow actions to be brought even though someone may be stating the truth and its already in the public domain - archaic.

Careful. Pretty well every country in the world allows action to be brought as you describe. What is unique about Thailand among civilised countries - and it is not archaic, but quite modern, 21st century law that is involved - is that in addition to normal defamation, Thailand has *criminal* defamation, prosecuted by the state and with prison time as a punishment. In other places, it is a civil action, person vs person with no incarceration involved.

But libel, slander and/or defamation cases worldwide are brought and settled in cases where someone "may be" stating the truth. Its not at all rare. You may call it archaic, but people or groups or companies that think they have been defamed wouldn't agree with you. They want the right to go to court and contest this so-called truth - BECAUSE it is known to the public.

.

[thepool]

The Aussie "journalist" is facing the consequence of indulging in a "cut and past" type of "lazy professionalism"

Even the most junior of hacks is aware of the need to check the legality of publishing potentially controversial issues with the Lawyers.

Had this story been run past a Thai lawyer appropriate advise would have been given.

[Thai at Heart]

In some way, I hope they don't stop, and Thailand has to go through the very public embarrassment of locking these people up.

[Thai at Heart]

You are correct - the issue is with the defamation laws that allow actions to be brought even though someone may be stating the truth and its already in the public domain - archaic.

Careful. Pretty well every country in the world allows action to be brought as you describe. What is unique about Thailand among civilised countries - and it is not archaic, but quite modern, 21st century law that is involved - is that in addition to normal defamation, Thailand has *criminal* defamation, prosecuted by the state and with prison time as a punishment. In other places, it is a civil action, person vs person with no incarceration involved.

But libel, slander and/or defamation cases worldwide are brought and settled in cases where someone "may be" stating the truth. Its not at all rare. You may call it archaic, but people or groups or companies that think they have been defamed wouldn't agree with you. They want the right to go to court and contest this so-called truth - BECAUSE it is known to the public.

.

Why should it necessarily be a good think to make it "criminal" defamation?

[LomSak27]

Sad to say if The Nation newspaper is recomending Ying to do this .... it must be a way to alienate the Navy and help force a coup attempt.