Criminal Court acquits Malika of defaming Yingluck over hotel meeting

[webfact]

Criminal Court acquits Malika of defaming Yingluck over hotel meeting



BANGKOK: -- The Criminal Court today acquitted deputy spokesperson of the Democrat party Mrs Malika Boonmeetrakul of libel charge for criticising former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra in attending a private meeting with businessmen at Four Seasons hotel three years ago.

The state prosecutor and co-plaintiff Ms Yingluck sued Mrs Malika for defamation when she criticised the former prime minister for not attending a parliament meeting on February 8, 2012, but met the businessmen instead at the hotel.

Mrs Malika said her meeting with the businessmen instead of a parliament meeting was an inappropriate behaviour.

At today’s hearing of the ruling, the court said that since Ms Yingluck never introduced the businessmen she met at the hotel to testify in the court, and never informed the media of the meeting, thus casting doubt if the meeting did actually happen or not.

Therefore Mrs Malika who is the deputy spokesperson of the Democrat party had the legitimate right to criticise her with justice.

Her criticism is therefore not considered a defamation, the court ruled.

Ms Yingluck had been criticised for skipping the House of Representatives meeting to attend the secret meeting at the hotel with former deputy prime minister Kittiratt Na-Ranong and a group of businessmen who included a leading property developer.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/criminal-court-acquits-malika-of-defaming-yingluck-over-hotel-meeting


-- Thai PBS 2015-04-27

[halloween]

Good to see the court dismiss this BS case. Anybody with enough sense would have dropped it and let sleeping dogs lie rather than having us reminded of where her priorities lay.

[trogers]

A classic case of self-defamation.

[Manbing]

Why is there no protective law regarding commenting on The Shinawatra clan?

It seems unfair that anyone can go around telling the truth and not being prosecuted for it. These poor people are always being targeted by someone intent on letting everyone know the truth of whats actually happening.

Please leave them alone to get on with their nefarious activities in peace.

[Costas2008]

OK a good decision but what I can't understand is this

"the court said that since Ms Yingluck never introduced the businessmen she met at the hotel to testify in the court, and never informed the media of the meeting, thus casting doubt if the meeting did actually happen or not."

Now.....if she did she would have admitted to her guilt....... I know she is naive but not as stupid as such.

And that was not evidence to dismiss the case.....but must be Thai logic.

[Bluespunk]

"Ms Yingluck had been criticised for skipping the House of Representatives meeting to attend the secret meeting at the hotel with former deputy prime minister Kittiratt Na-Ranong and a group of businessmen who included a leading property developer."

​Finance minister {Mr "white lies are fine" himself}, PM and property developers....now I wonder what they were discussing?

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

something so frivolous should never had the opportunity to make it to court in the first place. This is yet another law that needs to be eliminated not just reformed. Just a tool for politicians to bully their opponents and critics.

[halloween]

"Ms Yingluck had been criticised for skipping the House of Representatives meeting to attend the secret meeting at the hotel with former deputy prime minister Kittiratt Na-Ranong and a group of businessmen who included a leading property developer."

​Finance minister {Mr "white lies are fine" himself}, PM and property developers....now I wonder what they were discussing?

Opportunities in rice storage?

[ExPratt]

Most of these cases are just to silence criticism of those in power on both side's of the political divide

[Robby nz]

The state prosecutor and co-plaintiff Ms Yingluck sued Mrs Malika for defamation when she criticised the former prime minister for not attending a parliament meeting on February 8, 2012, but met the businessmen instead at the hotel.

Interesting that the case was taken by the State prosecutor (at the time) and Yingluck was only a co-plaintiff.

Under whose orders would the state prosecutor have been working ?

Would the present state prosecutor have been compelled to carry on with the case or was it the previous one who actually turned up in court ?

Interesting also that Kitteratt wasn't included as a co-plaintiff or mentioned as being called as a witness.

Still with his record of self confessed lies no one would have believed him anyway.

[halloween]

The state prosecutor and co-plaintiff Ms Yingluck sued Mrs Malika for defamation when she criticised the former prime minister for not attending a parliament meeting on February 8, 2012, but met the businessmen instead at the hotel.

Interesting that the case was taken by the State prosecutor (at the time) and Yingluck was only a co-plaintiff.

Under whose orders would the state prosecutor have been working ?

Would the present state prosecutor have been compelled to carry on with the case or was it the previous one who actually turned up in court ?

Interesting also that Kitteratt wasn't included as a co-plaintiff or mentioned as being called as a witness.

Still with his record of self confessed lies no one would have believed him anyway.

Kittirat was a cabinet minister and not an MP. The criticism of Yingluk was remiss in that she failed to attend parliament (apparently habitual) and was not applicable to Kittirat.

[Alwyn]

"and never informed the media of the meeting".. Is there a law that politicians, PMs or anybody has to inform the media about what meetings they have?

[winstonc]

"and never informed the media of the meeting".. Is there a law that politicians, PMs or anybody has to inform the media about what meetings they have?

law or not she should have been at WORK dont you think..lazy to the core...self...self...self...you might understand one day..

[Robby nz]

The state prosecutor and co-plaintiff Ms Yingluck sued Mrs Malika for defamation when she criticised the former prime minister for not attending a parliament meeting on February 8, 2012, but met the businessmen instead at the hotel.

Interesting that the case was taken by the State prosecutor (at the time) and Yingluck was only a co-plaintiff.

Under whose orders would the state prosecutor have been working ?

Would the present state prosecutor have been compelled to carry on with the case or was it the previous one who actually turned up in court ?

Interesting also that Kitteratt wasn't included as a co-plaintiff or mentioned as being called as a witness.

Still with his record of self confessed lies no one would have believed him anyway.

Kittirat was a cabinet minister and not an MP. The criticism of Yingluk was remiss in that she failed to attend parliament (apparently habitual) and was not applicable to Kittirat.

Some time back when I suggested that cabinet ministers were appointed by the convicted criminal on the run I was told by the PT defenders that all cabinet ministers had to be MP's.

So which is it, are you right or are they ?

[orange31]

Don't fully understand this. So if it was proven that Yingluck skipped parliament to have a meeting, then Malika would have been sued for telling the truth, but because it wasn't proven then she isn't sued for potentially telling a lie ...

[Robby nz]

Don't fully understand this. So if it was proven that Yingluck skipped parliament to have a meeting, then Malika would have been sued for telling the truth, but because it wasn't proven then she isn't sued for potentially telling a lie ...

She was sued for telling the truth.

This incident was widely publicized at the time, it did happen.

[djjamie]

A sensible decision by the courts.

yinglick really makes "freedom of speech", criticism and transparency redundant under her banner of democracy.

She slapped Chavanond Intarakomalyasut with a defamation suit for even daring to question her for skipping her duty in parliament to attend a confidential meeting with 5 business men who were property developers while she is in the thick of looking at floodway development in Bangkok. Like Malika who had the best interests of the nation at heart, Chavanond was found not guilty in this instance of suspicion as well. When shins have secret meetings that potentially involve abusing power to amass great personal wealth they are too right to be suspicious. Because one can be assured it won't be the best interests of the nation at the forefront of the meeting because you can bet your bottom dollar if it was yinglucks propaganda team would have advertised this meeting to all four corners of Thailand (not just the four seasons). They never ever let a photo op opportunity or news article go unsent if it even hints of yingluck helping the people. They love to blow that propaganda trumpet loud and long. BUT in this case. She was confidentially helping the people! Even the businessman who did not want to be named do not want the nation to know they had the best interests of the nation at heart as well. If some think she had the best interests at heart during this meeting as yingluck stated herself they must have that weather syndrome that affects the way they think (which is a yingluck excuse when facts differ from her story)

At least these two are still alive. Akeyuth had a quite a bit of information on this case and just as he was about to testify his driver decided to rob and kill him. Of course Chalerm was there to crack the case before the case was even opened! Besides the fact Akeyuth still had all his jewelry on him including a 10 million baht necklace.

The PTP really should have got there story straight first or at least not allowed Chalerm to run things.

Congrats Malika. You followed in Supa's footsteps. At least you were not sacked and denounced for your criticism of the regime.

Edited April 27, 2015 by djjamie

[rubl]

"and never informed the media of the meeting".. Is there a law that politicians, PMs or anybody has to inform the media about what meetings they have?

Well, first there was the near automatic denial and in the end is was a meeting which included the then Minister of Finance and several businessmen from the property sector with then PM Yingluck being advised and hearing their opinion. Further details still lacking.

[mutha289]

If Thailand was really a country of free speech then such nonsensical charges might never even make it to court!

[laubau]

Malika Boonmeetrakul was laughing all the way to court! 55555 It has become well established that Yingluck and anybody associated with her will never win a court case in Thailand under this government!! This case may have been trivial but the other side would have won had things been reversed!

[kimamey]

"and never informed the media of the meeting".. Is there a law that politicians, PMs or anybody has to inform the media about what meetings they have?

I don't think that's what was meant. The fact she didn't call the businessmen as witnesses to confirm she was there and the media weren't informed there was doubt that she was there and may just not have gone to parliament.

[halloween]

The state prosecutor and co-plaintiff Ms Yingluck sued Mrs Malika for defamation when she criticised the former prime minister for not attending a parliament meeting on February 8, 2012, but met the businessmen instead at the hotel.

Interesting that the case was taken by the State prosecutor (at the time) and Yingluck was only a co-plaintiff.

Under whose orders would the state prosecutor have been working ?

Would the present state prosecutor have been compelled to carry on with the case or was it the previous one who actually turned up in court ?

Interesting also that Kitteratt wasn't included as a co-plaintiff or mentioned as being called as a witness.

Still with his record of self confessed lies no one would have believed him anyway.

Kittirat was a cabinet minister and not an MP. The criticism of Yingluk was remiss in that she failed to attend parliament (apparently habitual) and was not applicable to Kittirat.

Some time back when I suggested that cabinet ministers were appointed by the convicted criminal on the run I was told by the PT defenders that all cabinet ministers had to be MP's.

So which is it, are you right or are they ?

You should know better than to believe red apologists. Kittirat was an external appointee. While some cabinet members MAY be MPs, he was not.

To be eligible to be a minister an individual must meet the following qualifications:

• Be a Thai national by birth.
• Be older than 35 years of age.
• Have graduated with no less than a bachelor's degree or its equivalent.
• Not be a member of the Senate (former senators must wait 2 years after their term of office to be eligible)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Thailand

I recall that Thaksin ordered all those (party list?) MPs in his cabinet to resign their seats to make more room at the trough ensure more votes in parliament when cabinet ministers couldn't attend. This was met with some reluctance to trade a position of known tenure for a more lucrative one of usually short duration, understandable given the quality of Thaksin's party list.

Edited April 27, 2015 by halloween

[Wombat6]

Malika Boonmeetrakul was laughing all the way to court! 55555 It has become well established that Yingluck and anybody associated with her will never win a court case in Thailand under this government!! This case may have been trivial but the other side would have won had things been reversed!

And of course you would make this statement as some sort of defense of yingluck ?? perhaps the reason why Yingluck and her cronies won't win any court cases is because they are guilty of any charges against them...nothing to do with the Government

[Wombat6]

"and never informed the media of the meeting".. Is there a law that politicians, PMs or anybody has to inform the media about what meetings they have?

No law but when has yingluck missed an opportunity to get her name in the paper....even if she is only visiting a rubbish tip , she or her PR people would contact the media. On the occasion when she went to a business meeting for self interest, she didn't want anyone to know about it especially when she was obviously not doing her job as a member of Parliament.