MEDIA ACTIVIST WINS LANDMARK LIBEL CASE AGAINST

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BANGKOK 001629 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PHUM PGOV TH SUBJECT: MEDIA ACTIVIST WINS LANDMARK LIBEL CASE AGAINST THE SHIN CORPORATION REF: 05 BANGKOK 4723 ¶1. (U) On March 15, the Thai Criminal Court ruled in favor of media activist Supinya Klangnarong, affirming that she had not libeled the Shin Corporation. Shin Corp, which was until January owned by the family of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, had filed the case against Supinya and five executives of the Thai Post in October 2003 alleging that comments by Supinya (stating that Shin Corp's profits had increased dramatically since Thaksin had become Prime Minister) had hurt the company's reputation. Supinya faced up to two years in prison for criminal libel and a $US 5,000 fine. DAVID VS. GOLIATH ¶2. (U) In front of a packed courtroom filled with over a hundred Supinya supporters, Judge Nawachart Yamasmith ruled that the published remarks were protected by Thailand's freedom of the press, and were made for the benefit of the public. Supinya had made her comments in good faith without the intention of defaming Shin Corp. Furthermore, the judge stated that Supinya's comments had not caused any damage to Shin Corp or its reputation. Shin Corp is a publicly listed company, and as such is subject to public scrutiny. ¶3. (U) In February, amidst fallout over the sale of Shin Corp to the Singaporean company Temasek which angered many Thais, Shincorp offered to drop the suit as a way of avoiding further negative publicity. The offer took Supinya's camp by surprise and after a few days of deliberation, she and her co-defendants rejected it saying that they preferred to hear the verdict of the court. She said she would only accept the offer if Shin Corp agreed to make a public statement acknowledging the public's right to scrutinize public business dealings. Shin Corp was unable to drop the case without Supinya's consent since, under Thai law, she has the right to seek to clear her name. After the refusal, Shin Corp said the offer had been made only on the condition that Supinya apologize. Minutes before the final verdict was read, Shincorp lawyers again unsuccessfully tried to persuade the defendants to have the case dismissed. DAMNED IF THEY DO, DAMNED IF THEY DON'T ¶4. (U) Many analysts point out that the beleaguered Shin Corp had boxed itself in between a rock and a hard place. By losing the case, they suffer a humiliating legal defeat to a scrappy NGO. Winning the case would have meant more bad publicity and charges that the massive conglomerate was seeking to crush Thailand's cherished freedom of the press. Despite domestic and international criticism throughout the trial, Shin Corp had insisted that it would weather the bad publicity and pursue the case to its conclusion. However, their position changed once the sale by the Prime Minister's family sparked much widespread controversy. ¶5. (U) Poloff observed the courtroom packed with a who's who of the opposition and NGO community- a leader of the People's Alliance for Democracy, a Thai senator, academics, international journalists as well as ordinary friends and supporters were in attendance. While Supinya had complained to Poloff only last year that the domestic Thai news media was neglecting her case, the increasingly emboldened Thai national media were there in large numbers. Although the positive outcome was not guaranteed, most observers said they were not surprised by the verdict. Dr. Niran Phithakwatchara, a Senator from Ubon Ratchathani Province, told Poloff that the decision was not unexpected as the Thai courts were the last truly independent institutions in Thailand. He added that as for the Constitutional Court, that was another matter. ¶6. (U) Shincorp has thirty days to appeal the decision, but none is expected. The company's $400 million baht ($US 10 million) civil suit against Supinya is technically still pending, but observers say it has virtually no chance of success after yesterday's failure. Both sides may yet come to an agreement to drop the case. SUPINYA SPEAKS TO THE CROWD ¶7. (U) Regardless of which way the verdict went, Supinya would have had plenty to say to the anti-Thaksin rally which continued to camp outside Government House. Late last night, Supinya spoke to the thousands of assembled anti-Thaksin protesters, saying that she would counter-sue the Prime Minister unless he agreed to quit. She also announced that her next major crusade would be to campaign to "free" iTV and Thaicom satellites, sold as part of the Shincorp-Temasek deal, and return them to their rightful place as Thai BANGKOK 00001629 002 OF 002 national assets. ¶8. (SBU) COMMENT. David truly has beaten Goliath. As the Senator noted, the verdict in this case is one more example of how the lower Thai courts seem to increasingly be willing to judge a case on its merits, and not on the stature of the political actors involved. The case is also interesting for the amount of last-minute coverage it received from the local media. Although the case had attracted a great deal of international attention, the Thai press largely ignored what was very much a landmark case for them, and one that should have hit home. The verdict, widely reported in the Thai- and English-language press today, is yet another sign of the ebb of media self-censorship that has been ongoing since the anti-Thaksin rallies got started. END COMMENT BOYCE