(SEAPA/IFEX) – Facing libel charges filed by a telecom conglomerate associated with the family of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, media campaigner Supinya Klangnarong has vowed to fight the charges “to the very end,” saying her remarks about the telecom giant were made in good faith. On 6 September, a Thai criminal court set the first […]
(SEAPA/IFEX) – Facing libel charges filed by a telecom conglomerate associated with the family of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, media campaigner Supinya Klangnarong has vowed to fight the charges “to the very end,” saying her remarks about the telecom giant were made in good faith.
On 6 September, a Thai criminal court set the first hearing of the landmark libel lawsuit filed by Shin Corp. against Supinya and the “Thai Post” newspaper for 19 July 2005.
The court accepted bail posted by Senator Nirun Pitakvatchara, chairman of the Senate Committee on Social and Human Security, for Supinya and her co-defendants. The lawsuit stems from comments published in the “Thai Post” last year, alleging that Shin Corp. was a major beneficiary of policies under Thaksin’s government.
The prosecution plans to call 10 witnesses during the trial, while the defence plans to summon some 50 witnesses, possibly including Thaksin and members of his family.
The delay in the trial came as a surprise to advocacy groups and the media, who had expected it to start sooner and end ahead of next year’s general election, in which Thaksin’s ruling Thai Rak Thai party hopes to receive a new mandate.
On 7 September, the English-language daily “The Nation” reported that the delay would benefit Thaksin as the much-anticipated hearing could be strewn with potentially damaging information as well as explosive side issues, such as the defendants’ call for him to take the stand.
Shin Corp.’s lawyers declined to comment on the implications of the delay.
Meanwhile, a trial in the civil libel suit, also filed by Shin Corp., seeking 400 million baht (approx. US$10 million) in damages from Supinya and her co-defendants, is set to get underway in mid-October amid speculation that the civil court might also set the start of the hearing for next year.
Supinya and her supporters vowed to keep the conflict of interest issue alive as local academics and the media suggested that Shin Corp. should drop both lawsuits.
Somkiat Tangkijwanich, research director of the Thailand Development Research Institute, said that instead of using legal means to clear its name, Shin Corp. should use this opportunity to explain to the public its much professed good corporate governance.
According to a recent commentary in the “Bangkok Post”, another local English-language daily, “If withdrawal from the battle is an option, the timing would be all important. Commitment to the rule of law has to be seen even if – or especially if – the objective is political expedience. But if a war has to be waged at any cost, then it will be protracted and divisive and only the purveyors of the truth will win.”
In written testimony submitted to the criminal court, Supinya urged the court to drop the libel suit against her and the co-defendants. She defended her remarks on Shin Corp. as having been made in good faith and within her constitutional rights. She said they were not meant to tarnish the company’s reputation, as the plaintiff had claimed. According to Supinya’s testimony, her remarks were intended to alert the public to a conflict of interest situation between private business and the state.
The 6 September bail hearing received wide coverage in both local and foreign media. Supporters of Supinya and international advocacy groups, including SEAPA, the Committee to Protect Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists, were present in the court.
