Summary
Ms.
Supinya Klangnarong, secretary general of Campaign for
Popular Media Reform (CPMR) consisting of 45 nationwide
NGOs, faces criminal court action under Article 328 of
Criminal law, for allegedlly defaming Shin Corporation.
She had earlier made remarks published in Thai Post on 16
July 2003, that the company may be the major beneficiary
of the government's policy. The criminal court hearing
started on 19 July 2005.
In her article, Ms. Supinya pointed out that Shin
Corporation's majority-ownership was held by the family
of prime minister, Mr.Thaksin Shinawatra, and the
company's profits have skyrocketed by almost 40 billion
Thai baht (US$980 million) since the Prime Minister took
office in 2001.
If she is convicted of the criminal charge, Ms. Supinya
may be subject to a fine of 200,000 Thai baht (US$5,000)
and two years' imprisonment. In addition, the company has
filed a civil claim for 400 million Thai baht (US$10
million).
Groups such as The World Association for Christian
Communication (WACC) and the Committee to Protect
Journalists (CPJ) are defending Ms. Supinya and the
freedom of expression that she represents, by working
closely with her regarding the case, mobilizing financial
resources for the litigation, and requesting signatures
and support through an online petition to drop the cases
filed against Ms. Supinya, in the name of press freedom.
|
Background
The Shin
Corporation controls iTV television station, owns
Thailand's biggest mobile phone company and Internet
provider, and holds a monopoly on the satellite
communications business in Thailand. According to the
company's financial statement, its income rose sharply
from US$2.02 billion in 2001 to US$3 billion in 2002.
In the concerned article of 2003, Ms. Supinya commented
that the current political system in Thailand can be
described as authoritarian cronyism and privileged
capitalism, in which only a few groups of people not only
have the power of capital, but also the access to state
concessions that enable them to monopolize industries and
block competition. This has resulted in the further
marginalization of the Thai public in decision-making and
resource allocation.
Ms. Supinya has wondered why her article caused so much
hassle. "I just said that we need to be aware of
these connections and the support they got through
policies," she said. She also added that her quotes
on the article were all based on public documents and
research materials, some of which were even posted on the
company's website. Her supporters believe the legal move
against Ms. Supinya was meant to make NGOs and other
cause-oriented groups think twice before criticizing the
government.
In its 2005 report, The National Human Rights Commission
of Thailand shares Ms. Supinya's view that major business
groups are throwing their weight behind key government
policies as the media is being restrained by such
business interests.
Freedom of Press in Thailand
From 2001- 2004, the Thai Journalists Association and the
Thai Broadcasters Association have documented more than
20 cases in which news editors, as well as print and
broadcast journalists, have been dismissed or
transferred, or have their work tampered with, to appease
the government. Journalists and editors have told Human
Rights Watch that they were routinely pressured by the
government to alter news coverage and rein in overly
critical reports. At the same time, corporate and
government advertising has reportedly been used to reward
media outlets that follow the government line, while
punishing those that do not.
Despite the terms of Thailand's 1997 constitution, which
calls for the liberalization of radio and television
frequencies, it was reported that a lack of political
will by Thaksin's government and conflicts of interest
with his powerful media holdings, have allowed the
government to influence radio and television news,
muzzling criticism and objective reporting by news
outlets.
According to the source, even international news agencies
now face pressure from the Thai government. Since taking
office, the Thaksin government has arbitrarily used
official approval for work permits and visa renewals as a
tool for pressuring foreign journalists working in
Thailand.
This pressure has intensified as the government moved
closer to parliamentary election scheduled for February
2005. Media outlets were increasingly directed to report
favorable stories about the prime minister and his
government and to present news to make government policy
look good.
Libel Suits and Freedom of Expression
According to Mr. Robert D Balin, a lawyer specializing in
media rights, who was assigned by the Committee to
Protect Journalists (CPJ) to assist Ms. Supinyas' defense
team, the notion that reporters should be subjected to
jail terms or fines for reporting on matters of public
interest has been increasingly rejected in many countries
around the world, including East Asia. Even those other
democracies in the region that still have criminal libel
statutes, have strengthened protection for journalists
reporting on public figures.
The UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression has
been calling on member countries, including Thailand, to
repeal criminal libel laws because it served no useful
purpose. The main reasons stated are: 1) defamation cases
stifle free speech by intimidating others from speaking
openly and directly about matters of public interest; 2)
the cases improperly shift the burden of proof onto the
criminal defendant; and 3) criminal defamation is
unnecessary when civil defamation exists as an
alternative. Many countries therefore, limit libel suits
to civil courts.
As for civil defamation cases, there are also many
international standards that should be considered by the
courts. For example, the purpose of a defamation suit
should be limited to protecting a person or legal entity
from public ridicule or hatred; not, by contrast, to
suppress legitimate criticism of public bodies,
corporations or persons, particularly where this is done
in the public interest. Secondly, a civil defamation suit
should be granted only in cases where the offending
statement is demonstrably false, with the burden of proof
resting with the complainant. Thirdly, any remedy granted
in a civil defamation suit should be with the purpose of
redressing the harm caused to the complainant, not
punishing the person or persons responsible for the
defamation. Where the remedy granted involves payment of
compensation, the amount must be proportionate to the
harm done, and should take into account other factors,
such as the overall negative effect on free speech that
may be felt as a consequence.
Sources:
Human Rights Watch: Click here
World Association for Christian Communications: Click here
The World Bank Group - Free and Independent Media Empower
the Poor and Spur Development: Click here
|