The worlds eyes are on Thailand and not for good reasons.

People can't deny what has been happening in Thailand.

All the best Phuketwan

Posted by Tbs on May 25, 2015 20:53

Dear Ed

Phuketwan has not just been an important set of eyes. It has been an important set of ears and a very important voice for the victims of human trafficking and for the international community.

The Royal Thai Navy reminds me of the Titanic racing at full speed towards an iceberg. It needs to take evasive action or the iceberg will be damaged and the Navy will hit the headlines throughout the world, for all the wrong reasons.

Posted by Ian Yarwood on May 25, 2015 21:03

I don't know and have always wondered whether PhuketWan actually credited the story to Reuters when they printed it.
It may make a difference to their defence

Posted by chill on May 26, 2015 05:01

Completely agree with the article and the comments, my only worry being that it seems pretty clear the Royal Thai Navy do not care what the rest of the world thinks - which is where this mess seems to come from

Best of luck to PW, let's hope common sense prevails.

Posted by Discover Thainess on May 26, 2015 06:50

Any educated person following this witch hunt by the Thai Navy knows who the 'good guys' and 'bad guys' are in this. It takes a lot of courage to report the numerous and serious problems Phuket faces without fear or favour.

If Phuket is to drag itself out of the mess it has created for itself, we need more reporters like Khun Chutima and Khun Alan who are willing to tell it like it is!

I salute their dedication and bravery.

Posted by pktbeachgoer on May 26, 2015 07:44

Dear chill

I can help you out. You won't even have to do any research if you don't want to.

Yes, the story was very clearly credited to Reuters.

In particular, the 41-word paragraph was printed within quotation marks.

The name of the Royal Thai Navy was not even used in the quoted paragraph. I think most defamation lawyers would regard this as a very significant defect in the Navy's case.

Reuters had referred to "Thai naval forces" in its relevant story as a very generic and very vague term to describe a variety of forces including maritime police and militia commanders.

Someone working for or on behalf of the Royal Thai Navy decided to translate "Thai naval forces" to "Royal Thai Navy." Given that these are the most important three words in the republished story the standard of the translation is pretty disgraceful.

One can only guess whether the Navy ever took any legal advice and if so whether the Navy accepted it. I do not believe a competent lawyer would advise the Navy to charge Phuketwan in relation to that paragraph. Often clients just don't accept the advice they receive.

You will note that Phuketwan published a denial from the Navy, which was all very appropriate.

In December 2013, Reuters went much further by specifically naming and criticising the Royal Thai Navy. It would be most unwise of me "chill" to provide a link for you but I can assure you that it is easy to find that story on the internet.

To find the first story you may Google "Phuketwan 17 July 2013."

Further to what Ed said there is indeed a wealth of information available on this topic and on millions of others for those who make a tiny effort to perform some research. These days the internet puts so much at our fingertips.

Ian Yarwood
Solicitor - Perth, Western Australia

Posted by Ian Yarwood on May 26, 2015 08:26

rather than attacking chill for a valid question, maybe you could just publish a link to the original article, ed.. there's been so much written on the subject (by yourself in the main part) that a google search makes it almost impossible to find.. is the photo at the top of this article a clue??

Posted by another steve on May 26, 2015 08:37

@ Editor Comment:

Thanks, Ian. As you can imagine, we are weary of defending ourselves in the face of people who make false assumptions and prefer those to the truth..

(moderated)

Posted by james on May 26, 2015 09:09

Dear Ed

Re: Your comment to me.

It takes little imagination to appreciate just how weary you and Khun Chutima must become.

You have also endured the frustration of dealing (indirectly) with staff at the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade who often give the impression that they have a poor understanding of what is happening in relation to the TWO sets of charges against you. Of course, I do not know whether DFAT did in fact have a poor understanding or whether in the mysterious world of international diplomacy DFAT was simply playing at being stupid. I say that in a caring way, in case anyone at DFAT reads this.

I note that there was a report that Foreign Minister Bishop told your sister that the human rights activist, Andy Hall made an apology in order to get his British passport back from a Bangkok court (Prakanong Court). I was not there when the Minister's statement was allegedly made. However, it was very clear to anyone following Andy Hall's case that he never made any such apology and I am pleased to say that Andy confirmed this to me directly.

There is an old saying that ASSUME makes an ASS of U and ME.

Cheers, Ian.

Posted by Ian Yarwood on May 26, 2015 09:23

Reporting should be considered and evaluated as a whole - July 20 published denial - if that would be published along with July 17 paragraph - would it give even slightest technical basis to give any objections? obviously not.

I think it is another string piece of defense - PW followed journal ouch standards, and published the other party's point of view.

Is this interview published in print? Then it's very good as it will circulate for a while.

Posted by Sue on May 26, 2015 09:35

I am proud of my MFA that in spite of small capacity , in similar cases stands very firm, looking for various ways and means how achieve positive outcome, incl. involving other countries into alliances to pursue a cause and int'l institution.
At the same time not being a large player in international politics, there is not much to lose by approaching wrongdoer countries directly on a matter, without reservations how it would fit Big Politics picture.

Posted by Sue on May 26, 2015 09:45

Hi another steve

Yes, chill did ask a reasonable question but I think that it is remarkably easy to find the original story. Many of the other articles on Phuketwan refer back to the date of the first article, 17 July 2013.

I hope that my reply to chill is of assistance. Naturally, if there are new readers on this site then chill's question and my answer might provide further insight to the story.

Cheers, Ian

Posted by Ian Yarwood on May 26, 2015 09:54

@ Editor Comment:

If you don't like what you read here, James, don't bother. If you do bother, add value in your comments - or don't bother. Simple choice. And all for free."

(moderated)

Posted by james on May 26, 2015 09:55

In reply to Ian which mostly came about because of your response to chilli you now try to justify your uncalled for "abrupt approach" by saying you don't have time to answer all and sundry, yet you somehow found the time to make the abrupt comment. You do your cause only more and more harm ed by these actions. A simple link to give the answer to chilli would have taken the same small effort and gained some support for your lost cause.And you honestly can't believe why people treat you with no respect? Bizarre..

Posted by james on May 26, 2015 10:33

Oh Dear- off the Meds again Mr Ed? You certainly don't do your case any good with your rants.

Posted by Mister Ree on May 26, 2015 11:23

Thanks for providing yet another very interesting story on your free news service.

The Navy has made a big mistake. That's my opinion.

Posted by Frank on May 26, 2015 12:58

Only the corrupt or very foolish would want to see the good journalists punished let alone charged or threatened for telling an important story - a story that helped bring an end to the mass human trafficking from Myanmar.

I don't suppose there are many books by Alexander Solzhenitsyn or George Orwell that are routinely studied in Thai High Schools? Is there an important part of the Thai school curriculum that is conspicuous by its absence?

It seems so self-evident to anyone with just a little knowledge of history, politics and the press that assaults upon a responsible media can be so incredibly harmful.

I just cannot imagine that anyone in a relevant position of authority in the military of a Western democracy would dream of charging responsible journalists for quoting Reuters.

Could anyone from the Royal Thai Navy look at present day North Korea and say that it represents the type of society the Navy wishes to serve?

Could anyone from the Navy look at the Soviet Union under Stalin and say that they want to their children and grandchildren to grow up in such a society? I seriously doubt it.

Posted by Frank on May 26, 2015 14:29

(moderated)

Paul Smith Says : the quicker Morrison is locked up, the key thrown away and Phuketwan shut down the better, cant wait for the court case , it will be me at the back of the dock laughing my head off !!

Posted by paulsmith on May 26, 2015 15:39

It is the end of free press in Thailand, not just PW. Plan accordingly.

Posted by The Mare Crisium on May 26, 2015 16:06

Paulsmith,
It's good to see that when you're having a bad week you can still consider laughing.

Posted by Manowar on May 26, 2015 16:50

Greetings to The Mare Crisium

I personally think that cool heads will prevail but I have no magic ball.

I think that the Royal Thai Navy and the government will drop the charges. That would be the sensible thing to do but they might wait until the last minute to make what seems to be a difficult decision for them.

What is my prediction if the charges are not dropped? I think the court will not want to embarrass the Royal Thai Navy by making any findings as to whether any of its many personnel were involved in human trafficking. They will not want anyone in the Navy to ''lose face.''

Thai courts have a habit of deciding contentious matters on ''technicalities.'' A good example is another criminal defamation case being that of the (Thai) Natural Fruit Co Ltd v Andy Hall. Below is a link to an excellent report by the Brisbane (Australia) Barrister, Mark Plunkett.

http://www.ictur.org/Eng/Plunkett.html

The case was dismissed because the correct procedure was not followed. The court made no findings on the substantive aspects of the charge.

The fact that the Royal Thai Navy was not named in the 41-word article is extremely significant in my opinion. It will be very easy for the Thai court to dismiss the charges on that ground without ever having to consider whether any Navy personnel were involved in human trafficking.

Now, had the Royal Thai Navy elected to charge Reuters for their article of 17 July 2013 AND for their (Reuters) widely published article of December 2013 where Reuters named the Royal Thai Navy then Reuters would probably have to back up its claims. I say ''probably'' because Reuters could still argue that the Royal Thai Navy does not need to defend its reputation, unlike an ordinary citizen. This would be a most unusual case.

In the event that Phuketwan were shut down it would be a very backward step for Thailand. Its neighbor, Burma endures a situation where hate preachers such as the monk, Wirathu exercise unrestricted freedom of speech but moderate voices are often silenced.

Posted by Ian Yarwood on May 26, 2015 19:34

@ pktbeachgoer

I am sure that many readers of this forum salute Ms Chutima and Alan. They have an audience well beyond Phuketwan and the borders of Thailand that is also saluting them.

Posted by Frank on May 26, 2015 20:20

Ian,
Your reference to the Andy Hall case is interesting because from all I have read, the intention in commencing the action could be seen as an attempt to achieve much the same result as with the PW's case.
The defendants in both cases remain committed to their evidence and withdrawal by either 'plaintiff' would have been considered an admission of either being factually correct or as an unjustified prosecution for other means.
What was interesting in the Hall case was if they really wanted to continue to prosecute him, a procedure error or technicality may have delayed the case but not necessarily ended it.
The result of course being we did not lose and we did not win, we did not expose ourselves to any evidence being presented, the case is closed.

And this highlights the problem of defamation under criminal law. No liability or exposure for costs and I assume nor any counter claim for damages.
Should a similar situation occur in a defamation case under civil law, the plaintif would be exposed to costs and prior to commencing any action, would want to ensure he held a strong position and a good chance of winning.

As you also know many cases are settled ' on the steps' just prior to commencement of the hearing once the game of bluff can no longer continue.
In the meantime what a waste of time and resources.
I decided to look into future using my ever reliable tea leaves ( they are not really tea leaves) and I could see the phrase 'just a misunderstanding' appear before me.

Posted by Manowar on May 26, 2015 21:24

Hi Alan and Chutima,

I am writing a book called "The Little Website That Could - Phuketwan"

Or maybe it should be called "David vs. Goliath Part Two"

That infers that justice will prevail in the end for you and Chutima.

Best to you both

Posted by farang888 on May 26, 2015 22:30

"David vs Goliath Part 2"

I think that in this version Goliath ambushes David instead of taking on someone his own size!

If I recall correctly, in the first version David went to battle quite willingly and was not ambushed.

Just speaking for myself, I preferred the conduct of the first Goliath.

Posted by Frank on May 27, 2015 08:32

"The Little Website that Could - Phuketwan"

I think that in the first version there was a little train with a hill to climb. No one ambushed it or tried to derail it. In this version Goliath is trying to sabotage it and turn it into scrap metal.

Posted by Frank on May 27, 2015 08:48

Hi Manowar

In my opinion, there are important similarities and important differences between Andy Hall's cases and Phuketwan's cases. Keep in mind as well that Andy had to defend four cases, which are all a bit different, and Phuketwan's journalists face two charges.

People could speculate on the plaintiffs' motivations in both sets of cases and draw inferences from their conduct. In some defamation cases a plaintiff might want to protect their reputation or to "save face" and/or extract an apology and/or punish the defendant and/or extract damages in the form of money (for civil cases) and/or silence the media or other critics.

In Andy's first criminal trial there was a full trial but the court dismissed the charge on a technicality. It would have been great if the court had gone further and made findings of fact on the evidence presented. However, we are very fortunate that the barrister, Mark Plunkett produced a very thorough report that is now available on the internet. See the link in one of my other comments above. Mark Plunkett found that Andy had a complete defence on several grounds.

One of Mark's observations was that Natural Fruit chose the wrong defendant in the first case. Andy had not mentioned Natural Fruit in his interview with Al Jazeera. In Mark's considered opinion the correct defendants would have been Al Jazeera and the person who put the story on Youtube.

The Royal Thai Navy has also picked the wrong defendant(s). Phuketwan never wrote anything critical of the Navy. Phuketwan never published anything critical of the Navy. Phuketwan is not actually standing by its story but standing by a right to republish a paragraph that did not even name the Navy or any if its personnel.

If the Navy really wanted to charge someone it should be Reuters but not for its story if 17 July 2013. It should charge Reuters and its journalists in relation to the article if December 2013 where the Royal Thai Navy was named.

Reuters might then be able adduce evidence to show that RTN personnel were involved in trafficking or perhaps it might not. Perhaps Reuters sources were wrong. Perhaps the sources mistook marine police for the Royal Thai Navy or mistook the Burmese Navy for the RTN. I would not know.

Phuketwan merely republished a vague paragraph from a reliable news service and gave the RTN a right of reply, which it published three days later.

Phuketwan is tiny. Reuters is huge. Andy is tiny. Al Jazeera is huge.

Ian Yarwood
Solicitor - Perth, WA

Posted by Ian Yarwood on May 27, 2015 10:03

Hi falang888

The story of David v Goliath will echo in eternity.

Just how loud will the story of the Royal Thai Navy be? I can imagine the echo will last long after the relevant Navy officers retire.

Cheers - Ian

Posted by Ian Yarwood on May 27, 2015 10:28

The origins of the trafficking of Rohingya lies within Burma.

Extremist monks led by Wirathu are actively broadcasting hate speech and inciting the brainwashed Burmans. Too few people are challenging the extremist monks. It is reasonable to say that the extremist monks helped bring about a situation that led to human trafficking.

For readers who dislike the word "extremist" you should take comfort in the knowledge that this is how Wirathu describes himself.

In contrast, in Phuket efforts are made to crush responsible journalists who have helped stop the trafficking.

Posted by Ian Yarwood on May 27, 2015 12:44

If the Royal Thai Navy was serious, if wanted to charge anyone, it should have charged Reuters for its story of December 2013 (which named the Royal Thai Navy) rather than Phuketwan which did not name the Royal Thai Navy in the republished paragraph of 17 July 2013.

Posted by Matt on May 28, 2015 14:20

Matt

I don't think the Navy should have charged anyone without very, very good reason.

The Navy should have phoned Reuters in July 2013 for clarification of the first vague story. If Reuters had evidence that personnel of the Royal Thai Navy might have been involved in human trafficking then the Navy could have looked into it (or better still had the Police look into it). After all, the Navy officers in Phuket and Bangkok will not know everything that all the Navy personnel are up to at any given point in time.

If the Navy did uncover suspicious behaviour of any of its personnel it could have taken action straight away. If no suspicious behaviour was uncovered then they could advise Reuters accordingly and Reuters could publish an appropriate denial from the Navy to the effect that none its personnel were included in the ''Thai naval forces'' referred to in the first story. Reuters perhaps could have produced evidence that Thai marine police or Thai militia commanders were implicated in human trafficking. That would have been up to Reuters and its vast resources.

The Navy should have picked up the phone rather than pick on Phuketwan!

Posted by Frank on May 28, 2015 16:23

@Frank
The Navy has gone sailing off on a frolic of its own - or am I mistaken?

The Navy should have consulted with other departments in the Thai government before undertaking such a controversial course of action. They say that two heads are better than one. Staff in another department, who might not have been emotionally involved, could perhaps have reasoned with the Navy and averted the current embarrassing situation.

I cannot see any good reason for charging Phuketwan.

Posted by Matt on May 31, 2015 18:33

@Editor Thanks for your note.
Has any officer in the Royal Thai Navy identified himself as the person who made the ultimate decision to charge you? Did any other departments admit to being involved in the decision to charge you?

Psychologists have conducted experiments with individuals who are given the apparent power to inflict punishment upon another individual (an actor in the experiments). Subjects whose identities were concealed tended to be far more likely to actually inflict the "punishment" as they could not be held accountable for their conduct.

Has there been a lack of accountability with the Navy? Someone needs to give the Navy a "please explain".

Posted by Matt on May 31, 2015 20:32

Hi Ed

I see from an AP report on 8 June 2015 that PM Prayuth is sending out mixed messages when it comes to journalists.

He praised one journalist for exposing trafficking in the inland north. In contrast he obliquely referred to a TV journalist from Bangkok as a troublemaker for shooting video on a migrant boat.

The PM has also failed to have the Navy drop its charges against you.

All the journalists exposing human trafficking deserve the gratitude of the government.

The government should not seek to blindfold selected journalists or the country.

Posted by Ian Yarwood on June 8, 2015 00:41

I don't live in Phuket now having recently moved to Hong Kong, but still peruse this site.
I realise,Mr Editor the quandary in which you are involved with the navy is confusing to many, and the way i see it is that the case should be dropped. However as both you and i and a few others realize this will not/can not be done for a variety of reasons, and the good old Asian face saving aspect is probably first and foremost. You are preparing for a court case next month and good luck with that.



However one very apparent point that i can see as not being at all in your best interest is your continual nit-picking at the very people you want an understanding with. Lately, and moreso since Ian Yarwood [who no doubt means well]has become a much more prolific and more vocal "supporter" of your case you seem to have become braver,even, taunting in your comments to your opponents in the RTN.
In my opinion this has great potential to harm your case immensely..your opponents obviously read all that is said on PW and you two particularly seem to be commenting very provocatively in your comments, both to RTN and to the new PM.
The scenario as i see it...You have a tiger prowling up and down in a cage waiting for you [ie TRN in court and waiting for your trial] and it appears that instead of being a bit humble and respectful you are doing just the opposite and seem intent on provoking and taunting, and of this there are many examples in comments lately...You said on another article that you would rather be killed or jailed instead of admitting wrong..fair enough, but the killing or jailing is a very real possibility in dealing with the Asian tigers. Just my view on it from living and dealing with people with power in Asia for a long time now.

Posted by Bruce Orbell on June 9, 2015 13:43

Hi Bruce Orbell

You make some very valid points.

There certainly is a risk in speaking out too loudly or too bluntly or too often. However, most people would also recognize that there is a risk in speaking too softly or too diplomatically or too infrequently.

It is a tricky balancing act for anyone.

Some vocal people like Andy Hall (case dismissed) and Pornpen "Noinoi" Khongkachonkiet (charges dropped) have beaten criminal defamation charges in Thailand recently. They were some of the lucky 5%. There are plenty of passive people languishing in prisons in Thailand after being convicted of criminal defamation.

It should also not be forgotten that generally speaking Phuketwan does have a very good relationship with the Royal Thai Navy and Alan Morison has often been publicly very supportive of the Navy.

Bruce, I think your concerns are very valid and just hope that I for one have not been too vocal or too disrespectful. I would like nothing better than for the Navy and the Thai government to enjoy a mutually respectful relationship with the journalists at Phuketwan.

Posted by Ian Yarwood on June 9, 2015 15:04

Hello Mr Editor,
I replied to your comment to me this afternoon but it appears to have gone missing.I would like to reply to Mr Yarwoods reply but i need the context of my 2nd comment to you first if this is possible to be posted here.
Thank you, Bruce Orbell

Posted by Bruce Orbell on June 9, 2015 18:40

Hi Bruce and Ed

I too have had a couple of my comments disappear between my keyboard and the Phuketwan inbox. I don't think there is anything sinister happening. I think it is just one of the mysteries of the internet.

Of course, there are times when the PW site tells me that it thinks I am a computer so I have to send/submit again to prove that I am human. My messages are not lost but I have to click the submit button a second time.

In case you are wondering, I am pleased to inform you that last time I checked with my own Central Processing Unit it assured me that I was not a machine, not a machine, not a machine. Sorry about that. I just got stuck in a loop. (:

Posted by Ian Yarwood on June 10, 2015 09:05

OK Ian, thanks ..i guess my comment went into cyberspace..who knows huh?
Not a big issue but i had posted a quite detailed comment to you and the Editor.

Firstly ,Alan, i was not implying in any way that you apologise for something you didn't do, i was making a POV that you appear to be ''pushing the envelope" in some of your comments regarding the issue.
Ian, thanks for your response also.No, i don't think that the comments lately made by you have been too disrespectful if commenting in a normal situation, but what is happening in PW v RTV is far from normal, so IMHO you do also 'push the envelope" at times.

I guess what i am trying to say is like the scenario i posted first,where the RTN is the Tiger in the cage/ courthouse..=waiting for PW to enter for trial.
What this trial is all about is blurry to most looking on but the case is as it is in the eyes of the RTN..rightly or wrongly, and in Asian countries i have lived in and dealt with, generally the 'not wanting/going to lose face, no matter what' becomes the major issue.
Knowing and accepting this is crucial so i can see nothing at all good can come of constantly 'pushing the envelope' more and more leading up to trial by making what could be easily conceived by the RTN as provocative and even insulting at times.

If it were me i would focus more on being, maybe a bit subservient and ultra polite [firmly biting my tongue whilst doing so, i may add] but you do catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Walking into the Tigers cage next month may well give a far better result if you are meanwhile feeding the Tiger some honey and not the vinegar!
Just the way i see it gentlemen.
Bruce Orbell.

Posted by Bruce Orbell on June 10, 2015 13:38

Hi Bruce

I read all your comments with considerable interest. I confirm that I think you have made very valid points.

I also confirm that I think that there can be dangers in expressing oneself bluntly but in this case I think there can be greater dangers in not being blunt enough.

I personally think that Alan Morison has been fairly mild compared to what other news outlets have written about the charges and the conduct of the Navy. We should all give Alan credit for the many times that he has spoken up in defence of the Navy and for printing the Navy's reply to the first Reuters article of 17 July 2013.

I think it is very difficult to make any serious criticism of Alan's article of 17 July 2013 in which he quoted some paragraphs from the Reuters article. It is the sort of thing that news services do every single day in virtually every corner of the world. Three days later he printed a substantial response from the Navy.

The point has been made scores of times on this website and elsewhere that the relevant paragraph did not even name the Royal Thai Navy. It is a point that many observers sadly overlook.

In contrast to Alan's conduct, the Navy has made a string of errors. We all make errors but here are some the Navy made:

It went after Phuketwan and not Reuters or any other news agency that printed the paragraph.

It mistranslated the crucial three words of the paragraph from "Thai naval forces" to "Royal Thai Navy."

The Navy did nothing, nothing .. for 5 whole months and then after Reuters had published further articles that did expressly name the Navy (ie 5 December 2013) it decided to charge the Phuketwan reporters.

It has decided not to drop the charges or take on board Phuketwan's explanations of what has happened.

Please keep in mind that the charges are exceptionally serious given that the reporters face penalties of up to 7 years jail each.

The officers in the Navy really needed to have given this matter much more thought before taking such an aggressive course of action. I personally believe that there are officers in the Navy and people in the government who would desperately wish that the charges had never been laid.

The appropriate course of action is to just drop the charges. Some people might think that the Navy's biggest mistake is not to correct its past mistakes.

Notwithstanding what I have just written I still think that your points are very valid. The correct course of action for Phuketwan is something that smart people can agree to disagree about.

By the way Bruce, like you, although I am not the fount of wisdom I do know a few things about Asian culture and Asian history. I was even born in South East Asia.

Cheers

Ian Yarwood

Posted by Ian Yarwood on June 10, 2015 20:36

Hello Ian and Alan,
Maybe my comments were too long and not direct in meaning because you both appear to be missing my main view.I apologise for rambling on.
I have absolutely no disagreement at all with what you both say in response to me. I understand full well the story as it has unfolded.Its wrong, its unfair, its many things.. That is not the point i am stressing.
Excuse me if i appear a bit blunt here.

Apparently the trial is to go ahead..whether its right or wrong in every point you have made above, its still going to happen.Thats a given.Yes?
All i'm saying is that if i was in Alans position, ie waiting to walk into the Tigers cage , I, 100% would not be continuing to make comments [whether wrong or right in your own minds] that may be taken as offensive, to risk further aggravating the situation . IMO its near suicidal to make the Tiger more angry than he already is, esp so close to trial time.
Your call of course, but for the life of me i cannot understand why you would persist... Its only adding more fuel to an already out of control fire.
Good luck.
Bruce Orbell

Posted by Bruce Orbell on June 10, 2015 22:39

Hi Bruce and Ed

Bruce, I don't think there is any need whatsoever for you to apologise for the length or content of any of your comments. I cannot speak for Alan but I think your comments are intelligent, thoughtful and polite.

Your comments have also allowed Alan to write some interesting and enlightening comments in reply.

Will both sets of charges be dropped? I do not have a crystal ball and my guess is that Alan and Khun Chutima don't have one either. The closer we get to 14 July the less likely it seems that they will be dropped.

According to Alan the charges were recently the subject of representations from H E Paul Robilliard (Australia's ambassador) to the Thai PM. As you know the present military government had nothing to do with the decision to charge Phuketwan but to date it has declined to assert authority over the Navy to drop the charges.

The Computer Crimes Act charges can only be dropped from Bangkok and so Phuketwan cannot even negotiate the charges away.

Is your analogy about the Tiger valid? I think not.

In the court the power is vested in the judge or judges. In the court the Navy ceases to be a Tiger. Now, if Phuketwan reporters were in a row boat at sea and the Royal Thai Navy showed up then the Navy would have all the power. It is a Tiger at sea.

In court the Navy "Tiger" has its claws and teeth removed before entering but Phuketwan will be armed with some solid defences.

As you probably know, I was in court with Andy Hall when the criminal defamation charges were dismissed by the Prakanong Court in Bangkok.

The Thai Natural Fruit Company could have been regarded as a Tiger. It is very wealthy. Its majority shareholder, Khun Wirat is the brother of the Secretary General of the Democratic Party. The company's legal case was very weak though and the prosecution procedure incorrectly conducted so the charge was dismissed.

The Company, powerful though it was, turned out to be a toothless tiger in court if I may continue to borrow your analogy.

If you have not read Mark Plunkett's report on that case I recommend that you do. A link is above in another comment of mine.

I think the attention the case receives can only help the judge or judges to focus on the merits (lack of merit) of the case(s).

It will be easy for a court to rule that the 41-word paragraph did not name the Navy and that the charges are thereby dismissed. The Navy (or two officers) might look like a bully for bringing the charges but there would not be any finding that the Navy was implicated in human trafficking.

The Navy would not be tarnished with a finding of criminal conduct but it would look like a bully that attempted to blindfold the world and the very country it has the responsibility of defending.

In court I believe the Navy will be a toothless tiger. Another analogy is that it will be seen to have painted itself into a corner. Others will say it has dug itself into a hole and it should have stop digging.

Regards
Ian Yarwood
Solicitor - Perth, Australia

Posted by Ian Yarwood on June 11, 2015 07:20

The Navy already won in one aspect, by keeping some people up at night, by consuming time, energy into the frivolous charges by a frivolous law. And without any chance for damages, if the charge will be dropped or denied. It is like pulling your gun at someone and playing the trigger for years and your opponent cannot do anything. Movement was restricted, work permit difficult, going to immigration a lot, having to see lawyers (that alone is penalty enough...). So yes the Navy won already.

Good it will be over soon. And hopefully the Navy will get the say one Phuket beaches and sue the jetski people, who alone do so much more harm to this place.

Posted by Lena on June 11, 2015 21:19

I apologize for the length of my response but I have been reading these posts with interest and guess I have some saved up thoughts to add.

Excellent discussion here and I greatly appreciate the informed comments. The only addition I would make would be in regards to Ian Yarwood's last post. I disagree that the closer we get to the court date the less likely it is to be withdrawn. I would say history suggests that it is very likely to be withdrawn and/or postponed again.

As we all know face has a huge impact on how Thai Culture operates, it is quite common for those in power, who are looking to make a face saving move to try and find a "quiet" way to get that done. If the day of the court date is deemed quiet enough in the minds of those pushing this it will be dropped, if not it will be postponed to afford such an opportunity.

There are many intelligent people in the Thai Navy and I am certainly not the smartest guy in the room but I am well aware of the Andy Hall case and sure they are as well. I find it hard to believe that the Thai Navy wants to participate in a case that they lose if they win and lose if they lose. The current environment is one of outrage and embarrassment for all on the world wide stage regarding Human Trafficking and no amount of waiving a big stick will change that (though they do keep waiving that stick in the obscure hope that a miracle happens). Given all the bad press they have in the US/UK/Aus they don't want more, though they would love for Alan to cave in that does not at all preclude a seeming last minute reversal that withdraws the complaint or ends it in some way. If you look at it from their perspective they have little choice but to let this play out all the way and try to find some good time or ticky tack excuse to walk away. The tide is strongly against them and they know it.

It is difficult because as the Editor has pointed out Phuket Wan has no choice either, they can't stand on principle and then back off those principles at the first suggestion of trouble. It's a noble but necessary stance. It is necessary because a quiet subservient victim who they can trot off to jail without fanfare would suit the face saving option as well as quietly dropping the charges. I would politely suggest that one thing I did not find in Thai culture was a sense of justice that was stronger than a need for face. Meaning that if something is to be resolved and there is one option that saves face but is injust and another that doesn't save face but is just the former will usually be chosen. Keeping this topic at the forefront, keeping the light shining on the roaches is as much about survival as it is truth.

Posted by Martin on June 12, 2015 00:10

Lena and Martin..Good morning!

I enjoyed both your posts. I find other people's posts much more interesting than my own.

Phuketwan has indeed had to pay a high price in relation to these dreadful and unnecessary charges but the journalists have the grim satisfaction of knowing that it helped bring added international attention to the plight of the Rohingya and bring added attention to the very harsh defamation laws of Thailand.

Regards

Posted by Ian Yarwood on June 12, 2015 09:03

Alan, with all respect i have never even hinted at what you say in reply to me ie your words @I am not sure what makes you think we should suddenly no longer protest our innocence, Bruce, simply because the trial" quote unquote;and this "Bruce appears to think we should find a compromise "

You are totally missing my point Alan about aggravating an already volatile situation.
Today in another post you said this:

''The Prime Minister SHOULD kill the court action against Phuketwan immediately and order a full investigation into this bizarre misuse of the Navy's good name,'' said Morison."

You are addressing a career Army General/PM of your host nation and you on more than one occassion have said;He SHOULD...how about instead,you had said something like; "In my humble opinion i would respectfully ask the PM" ..etc etc..This sort of honey instead of vinegar would win you a lot more support; No one TELLS a man of his bearing to do anything.Surely you can see that.
Sadly after reading many of your replies i come to the conclusion[right or wrong] that you are understandably totally stressed out and are losing your ability to see how to help yourself, instead opting to pour more fuel on the fire.
I feel after reading all this that IMO you really are not in a fit state to be defending yourself in this one sided fight. However time will tell
Good luck.
Bruce Orbell

Posted by Bruce Orbell on June 13, 2015 13:31

Editor Comment:

You and I are, fortunately for us both, very different people, Bruce. Unless you have something of value to add, you are simply reinforcing the values of Thailand's past, not its future. We have the utmost respect for Thailand's leaders and its institutions, which is why we are placing our faith in the Prime Minister's ability to tell right from wrong and the ability of the Thai justice system to do likewise. I am not especially stressed but you do seem to be acting as if somehow, this is your problem. Please understand that you are now in the 21st century. Grovelling is no longer desirable. All your comments to PW have been in this thread. I suggest you find some other issue to be concerned about.

Wow..Thanks for the kick in the teeth Alan.
Grovelling?? how about being polite and civil is all, if you think that that is grovelling, i'm shocked TBH

Yes we are in the 21st century...does that mean that being civil and polite is not needed now? It is is my life sir!
That indeed says it all. I thought i was just being rather logical.All i did was giving some differing opinions and you turn your vitriolic switch on and attack me for it.
Again, good luck sir, with your attitude evident to me now, i believe you are going to need all the luck you can muster.
Bruce Orbell

Posted by Bruce Orbell on June 13, 2015 16:53

Jail time will change his attitude quick smart. (moderated)

Posted by james on June 14, 2015 09:10

once again you confirm you are (moderated)

Posted by james on June 14, 2015 10:13

(moderated) You and you alone are responsible for your future demise. You really are demented morisen.

Posted by james on June 14, 2015 19:58

Oh so "james" and "Elephants Gerald" and "Mal" are all the same troll!?

At least you get some very thoughtful and polite comments from Bruce even if you and Bruce do not see eye to eye on how best to deal with the nasty charges.

Don't forget that Bruce wants you to succeed whereas the troll wants to blindfold Thailand and the world ... that is until the troll needs someone to speak up for the troll.

Posted by Frank on June 14, 2015 22:18

It was also a shame that the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand was forced to cancel a recent meeting.

Posted by Frank on June 17, 2015 23:46

"We're still working our way through the reasons why the navy did this."

I think many observers would appreciate knowing the real reasons why the navy decided to sue the Phuketwan journalists.

Curious observers would also like to know why the navy decided to sue Phuketwan journalists but not Reuters and not any other news services that quoted Reuters.

Very curious observers would also like to know whether the police and prosecutors ever investigated the motivations of the navy officers who ordered that Phuketwan be sued.

Very, very curious observers might ask : If not then why not? If so then what did the police and prosecutors uncover (if anything)?

These questions seem far more relevant than the question of whether or not the navy was defamed. Clearly, the navy was not defamed by Phuketwan.

Posted by Frank on June 18, 2015 21:50

"Secrecy is completely inadequate for democracy but totally appropriate for tyranny. If the minister will not inform the public, then we are within our rights to assume the worst."

Malcolm Fraser (Former Prime Minister of Australia)

Posted by Ian Yarwood on June 19, 2015 18:58

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."

Edward R Murrow (American Journalist WWII era)

I am glad that Khun Chutima is not a sheep!! There is hope for Thailand.

Posted by Ian Yarwood on June 19, 2015 19:05

Albert says that the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.... I mention that in a caring way (:

Posted by Ian Yarwood on June 23, 2015 16:09