This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

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