Chuan did not defame Thaksin by blaming him for reviving violence in South: court

TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2024

Chuan Leekpai calling ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra a “harbinger of doom” for the deep South was not defamatory, the South Bangkok Criminal Court ruled on Tuesday.

The court said Chuan, also a former premier, had only voiced his opinion as a veteran politician and had done it without any malicious intent.

The lawsuit, filed on October 25, 2022, three days before the statute of limitations expired, accused Chuan of defaming Thaksin in a speech delivered on October 28, 2012.

In the speech, Chuan allegedly blamed Thaksin for re-sparking violence in the deep South with policies demanding the “elimination” of leaders of insurgency groups.

The lawsuit also accused the former Parliament president of violating Articles 326 and 328 of the Criminal Code in his speech.

Chuan did not defame Thaksin by blaming him for reviving violence in South: court

In the speech delivered at the opening ceremony of the Democrat Party’s political school, Chuan had also allegedly said that during his time as premier, the violence in the South had died down, only to resurface during Thaksin’s time. He quoted Thaksin as calling the southern insurgents “cheap thieves”.

Chuan also allegedly accused Thaksin of dissolving the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Centre, which ensured peace in southern border provinces, and devising a policy of “ending the issue by killing them all”.

The lawsuit claimed Chuan’s statement had made the Thai society “hate” Thaksin.

Chuan did not defame Thaksin by blaming him for reviving violence in South: court

Thaksin’s lawyer Winyatti Chartmontree was present at the court on Tuesday to hear the verdict on behalf of the former premier.

Speaking to reporters after the verdict, Chuan said the court had heard witness testimonies for seven consecutive days before coming up with the verdict.

He said he had sought the court’s permission to read his statement before it delivered the verdict, adding that the court agreed, saying that as a former premier, he had the right to make statements based on his experience.

In his speech in court, Chuan said he believed the court gave weight to testimony from a former commander of the 4th Army Area, who bravely spoke up against Thaksin’s policy to terminate leaders of insurgency groups.

Chuan said the former southern Army chief recounted Thaksin’s order issued an urgent meeting on April 8, 2001. Thaksin had called this meeting one day after a bombing attack at the Hat Yai railway station in Songkhla, he said.

At the meeting, Thaksin had allegedly said that there were some 17 or 18 leaders of insurgency groups and at least 10 of them should be eliminated per month, so the problem can be ended once and for all.

Quoting the former southern Army chief’s testimony in court, Chuan said this military man was the only person who dared to express views against the policy.

Chuan said Thaksin’s repressive policy had led to the robbery of some 400 guns from an Army barrack on January 4, 2004, after which insurgency flared up in the deep South. He said more than 5,000 innocent civilians have been killed since the robbery.

“The court ruled that I, as a politician with experience in the issue, have the right to comment on the issue. The court also noted that I had first-hand information from Pattani,” Chuan told reporters on Tuesday.

He insisted that he was correct in believing that Thaksin’s policy on April 8, 2001, was what made violence resurface in the deep South, and said he would wait and see how Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin deals with the issue.

“The attacks last week at 40 spots showed that the situation is not normal yet,” Chuan said.

Meanwhile, Winyatti told reporters that the court had acknowledged that both Chuan and Thaksin are public figures, and hence have the right to make public comments on each other’s policies. He also said that the court considered Chuan’s speech an expression of sincere opinion.

The lawyer added that he has yet to ask his client whether he wants to appeal against the ruling.