Published on October 12, 2005

Media activist says climate of fear has settled over country, says she only cited public information

Media-reform campaigner Supinya Klangnarong yesterday told judges in a landmark libel case against her and the Thai Post newspaper that there is now a climate of fear in Thai society as people are afraid they will end up like her if they criticise the government. Supinya said she had been singled out for legal action to silence both her and other critics of the government.

“Deep down, I can’t help but feel that the lawsuit was filed in order to stop criticism of the Thaksin Shinawatra administration,” she said in her first testimony.

In addition to the libel case, Shin Corp, the giant media and telecommunications conglomerate founded by the prime minister and now owned by his family, has threatened her with a civil suit demanding Bt400 million in compensation.

“This affects my confidence at work and I now think that a climate of fear and self censorship prevails in Thai society. In many forums, people say they have to be careful otherwise they’ll end up like Supinya,” she said.

The 32-year-old, who clasped a purple semi-precious stone as a lucky charm while on trial, said there had been many media reports of alleged conflicts of interest involving the government and big corporations, but only she and Thai Post were sued.

According to Supinya, society has found it increasingly difficult to distinguish between people who run privately owned businesses and those who run the government.

“Majority shareholders of Shin Corp are members of the PM’s family, his son and daughters, and Thaksin often says he needs to ask for money from his wife. It’s very obvious,” she said.

She also cited The Nation newspaper’s article on June 6 this year about Thaksin’s visit to Bhutan, where the PM was quoted by a German media firm as telling the Bhutanese leaders that he would ask his daughter, who is a major shareholder, if Shin Corp could do some business over there.

Supinya also asserted that the information used in stating that Shin Corp had made unusually large profits, up three-fold between 2001 and 2002, after the Thai Rak Thai Party headed by Thaksin came to power, was in fact based on the firm’s own press releases.

Therefore, what she did was constitutional and in public interest, she told the two presiding judges in her first and final testimony before the court hands down a verdict in December.

At one point, the media reformer tried to be cordial to Thaksin, telling the court that: “I admire the PM in many ways too and I have nothing personal against the plaintiff’s firm.”

Supinya was later cross examined by Shin Corp lawyer Somporn Pongsuwan, who told Supinya that Shin Corp had always made profits.

The lawyer said that private donations by Shin Corp’s shareholders, who happened to be members of the prime minister’s family to the Thai Rak Thai Party, are legal.

Somporn also noted that Supinya was criticised in an article in the local media for having a habit of pre-maturely jumping to conclusions, which may possibly explain why she ended up in a libel suit, a charge that Supinya denied.

In the end, Somporn asked Supinya whether or not filing a libel suit was the best way to settle the matter. To this, Supinya replied that the company had the right to do so.

Shawn Crispin, Asia programme consultant for the New York-based Campaign to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and one of the defence witnesses, said the trial was “pretty black and white” in terms of the alleged conflict-of-interest issue presented to the court, and it was now up to the judges to decide whether they would hand down a ruling by using the penal code.

However, Crispin added that with the latest libel suit by the government against the Bangkok Post newspaper over an airport-runway report, and now against Phujadkarn newspaper, which quoted a famous monk criticising Thaksin, he believed Thailand is entering the “latest phase of a well orchestrated campaign” against press freedom.

“It’s the same thing we saw in Malaysia and Singapore and it works,” he said.

A second secretary for political affairs at the US embassy was also present in the morning court session. The official said the embassy had been closely watching the landmark case.

Senator Chirmsak Pinthong, who testified days earlier, will be summoned again on October 25 for Shin Corp’s lawyers to cross examine him. Later, the Thai Post newspaper will produce one or two defence witnesses before judges hand down a verdict.

Supinya appeared relatively confident and said she would appeal if she lost the case.

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

Post your comment to this story here