TRIAL BEGINS IN LIBEL CASE FOR RESPECTED THAI

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BANGKOK 004723

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/20/2015
TAGS: PGOV PHUM KPAO PINS PROP TH HUMAN RIGHTS
SUBJECT: TRIAL BEGINS IN LIBEL CASE FOR RESPECTED THAI
MEDIA ADVOCATE

REF: A. BANGKOK 03522

B. 04 BANGKOK 08272

C. 04 BANGKOK 06316

Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission, Alex A. Arvizu, Reason 1.4 (d)


1. (C) SUMMARY. On July 19, witnesses for the prosecution
began their arguments in the case of Shincorp versus Thai
media activist Supinya Klangnarong. Supinya is being sued
for libel over comments that she made in a 2003 interview
with the Thai Post. Supinya told Poloffs she was
disappointed that her case had barely registered with the
Thai media and general public. Supinya expressed concern
that her case, and that of community radio broadcaster
Anchalee Paireerak, represented renewed pressure from the RTG
against freedom of the press, including web-based media. END
SUMMARY


2. (SBU) On July 19, witnesses for the prosecution began
their arguments in the case of Shincorp versus Thai media
activist Supinya Klangnarong. Supinya is being sued for
libel over comments she made in a 2003 interview with the
Thai-language daily newspaper "Thai Post." Poloffs met with
Supinya on July 15 to discuss her case. In the article in
question, which was printed under a column called "Freedom of
Thought," Supinya stated that Shincorp, which is owned by
the family of PM Thaksin Shinawatra, had experienced
skyrocketing profits since the Thai Rak Thai Party (TRT) took
office. She also said that the Prime Minister had instituted
policies which benefited the company, and that Shincorp,s
added income will financially strengthen the Thai Rak Thai
party. Shincorp, she said, had received concessions from
state agencies, which allowed the company to maintain its
wealth "forever." While her remarks might be construed as
controversial, they were not generally regarded here as
either libelous or particularly inflammatory.


3. (C) Supinya told Poloffs that approximately fifty
prominent freedom of the press advocates from around the
world would appear at her trial as defense witnesses. She
was hopeful that this could tilt the outcome of the case in
her favor. The names of the foreign witnesses were not being
made public in order to ensure that they would not have any
problems entering or leaving the country.

DISAPPOINTMENT WITH THE THAI MEDIA


4. (U) In marked contrast to the publicity her case has
attracted abroad, Supinya expressed disappointment that the
Thai press has expressed little interest in covering her
story. As Secretary-General of the local NGO Campaign for
Popular Media Reform, Supinya has dedicated much of her time
and energy to fight for a free press in Thailand, and she was
surprised that the Thai media had not rallied behind her in a
big way.


5. (SBU) Witnesses are scheduled to testify through
October, and Supinya is hopeful that the judges will make a
decision before the end of the year. However, the trial
could easily continue into early 2006. Supinya seemed
resolved to continuing fighting the case, but the case has
clearly taken a toll on her physically and emotionally. She
noted that it was now much harder for her to speak out freely
on issues of press freedom, and that if she was found guilty,
having a criminal record could reduce her room for maneuver
in future human rights activities, as well as complicate her
personal and professional life.

A NEW DRIVE TO RESTRICT FREEDOM OF THE PRESS?


6. (C) Supinya also expressed concern for the case of
Anchalee Paireerak. Ms. Anchalee, a prominent government
critic, had her website and radio show shut down by Thai
authorities in mid-June, based on some legal technicalities.
She has since reported that she has received physically
threatening phone calls, and has been followed by uniformed
police. By contrast, Supinya stated that she has received no
physical threats of any kind, but that she worries that their
two cases are part of drive on the part of the RTG to
restrict criticism of the government by keeping a tighter
leash on the press.


7. (C) COMMENT: How the court will ultimately rule is an
open question. One precedent was set in December 2004 when
the Criminal Court dropped libel charges filed by eight
Constitutional Court judges (Ref B) against another
government critic, in a case that received far more publicity
and government scrutiny than Supinya,s. Shincorp seems
determined to pursue these David-vs.-Goliath libel cases
despite the attendant negative publicity, and despite some
judicial setbacks like December 2004. Even then, although
the Criminal Court threw out the Constitutional Court's case,
they still found the defendant in contempt of court. This
was widely seen as an effort to "satisfy" both sides. END
COMMENT

BOYCE