(SEAPA/IFEX) – A Thai court has found media advocate Supinya Klangnarong and the newspaper “Thai Post” not guilty of criminal defamation, handing down what is being hailed as a landmark ruling that should strengthen freedom of expression and of the press in Thailand. The judge leading the panel that tried the case ruled that Supinya […]
(SEAPA/IFEX) – A Thai court has found media advocate Supinya Klangnarong and the newspaper “Thai Post” not guilty of criminal defamation, handing down what is being hailed as a landmark ruling that should strengthen freedom of expression and of the press in Thailand.
The judge leading the panel that tried the case ruled that Supinya had spoken out legitimately on a matter of public interest when, two years ago, she raised questions about the revenues of Shin Corp. – a satellite and telecommunications giant then controlled by the family of Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra – and the possibility that it was benefiting from Thaksin’s rise to power. Shin Corp. had objected to the suggestion that it was profiting from Thaksin’s position, and thus sued both Supinya and “Thai Post”, which published her comments.
The company then also filed a civil defamation suit seeking 400 million baht (approx. US$10 million) in damages from the defendants.
After a year-long trial, which saw national, regional, and international free speech organizations taking the stand for Supinya, the Thai criminal court said both Shin Corp. and the prime minister were public entities that could not be exempted from public questioning, especially on matters touching on transparency, governance, and public interest.
The decision was cheered by press and free speech advocates in the Kingdom. SEAPA said the decision “raises the bar on defamation in Thailand, gives the people that much more room and power to scrutinize their leaders and powerful interests, and strengthens the Thai courts as independent institutions where citizens can find protection for their constitutionally-guaranteed rights.”
Among its major statements, the Thai court ruled that:
– Supinya’s remarks were made in good faith, and in the interest of the public, and were therefore considered fair, and within the right of a citizen to express. The court also noted that Supinya had reasonably and diligently researched the issue that she confronted, and had fairly established her professional reasons for raising her questions.
– Shin Corp., as a publicly listed company and as a business that deals with communications, broadcasting, and access to information, is itself a public entity. As such, it must stand scrutiny where the interests of the public are affected. The court further stressed that broadcasting frequencies and telecommunications networks comprise a “national resource” about which the public have a legitimate interest to be informed.
– The “Thai Post” newspaper was merely doing its job in reporting Supinya’s comments.
