The defamation boom

 31 oct 2005

It’s tough being a politician and it just got tougher. These days, you are not up with the times, not pulling your weight, not making your mark, not “the” (in fashion), if you don’t have at least one defamation suit demanding stupendous sums of money from a newspaper, a journalist, an activist, or at least somebody.

 In the past, this was not one of the items on the job description of a member of the Thai cabinet. But Thai politics is as fashion conscious as Siam Square. You have to strut your stuff.

 But this defamation stuff is not as simple as it looks. You might think you can pick a suitable target, call up your lawyer, and get things moving. But look at the suit recently launched by transport minister Pongsak Ruktapongpisal.

 He says a Democrat MP wrongfully accused him of being involved in the government deal to rent a New York building for Bt130 million a month. The rent did seem a bit steep to sell OTOP products for…. for…  well, for not very large sums of money. Pongsak insists he had nothing to do with the deal (which later collapsed). But his suit seems to rest on the premise that this deal was dirty. If it wasn’t dirty, how could Pongsak be defamed by association with it? If he wasn’t responsible for the deal, then someone else in the Thaksin I administration was. When the case comes to court, we can look forward to the evidence proving the deal was dirty.

 Perhaps the prime minister ought to rush out another suit against Pongsak for defaming the whole government. Or at least do something before he gets to court and has to prove it was a dirty deal.

 See? Defamation litigation is trickier than it looks.

 Then there’s the question of the amounts involved. Lots of the suits which have been launched in the last few weeks are asking for half a billion baht in compensation. Certainly, half a billion baht is a nice round number. And in this fashion-conscious political world, people like to follow the trend and not step out of line. But where does this half-billion figure come from? What does it mean?

 Could it just be a huge amount, designed to intimidate everybody who might be tempted to accuse any minister of doing anything wrong? Surely not. That would suggest that ministers have things that they are over-anxious to conceal. That would be a mean-minded thought.

 Could it be that they want to bankrupt their opponents? Observers of the politics of Singapore and Malaysia have long believed that ministers of these countries have used the court system systematically to bankrupt critics and opponents. Could our ministers be mere copy-cats? Again, this seems a mean-minded thought.

 Could the plaintiffs launching these suits simply want to get very rich very quick? Have they read the press reports about the magnificent sums awarded by American judges to Hollywood stars for allegations about their sexual habits or their toupees, and think, “Why not me too?” Again, that seems a mean-minded accusation against people dedicated to the service of the nation.

 Could this be the amount that the plaintiffs really think they are worth? One of the half-billion-baht suits claims damages for the “negative impact on the family members, the dignity, and the personal life of the plaintiff.” But again it seems very rude to assume that these people have such a spectacular estimate of their own value. What kind of big head thinks he’s worth half a billion? Preposterous!

 Could it be the value of these political leaders in the public eye — a value which has been wiped out by the defamer’s words? But that would imply that the public is so fickle that its opinion could be totally changed by one historical illusion by one monk in one sermon printed in one not particularly popular newspaper. Besides, in survey after survey of public opinion, politicians have been rated very low — sometimes jostling with the police at the bottom of the national rankings. If people were asked to assess their value in money terms, the results might even come out negative. So this can’t be the explanation either.

 Could the half billion be the value of the mental anguish which the alleged defamation has caused? Have these sensitive souls been bludgeoned into sobbing half a billion baht’s worth of tears? Have we been wrong all along in thinking our politicians have faces as thick as telephone directories, and skins like elephant hide? Are they truly crafted from eggshell porcelain? This suggestions might even be defamatory, so we have to put that aside as well.

 Could this half a billion be the profit they fear they will lose from their political careers? Because of the alleged defamer’s words, they believe their political careers are about to come tumbling down around their ears. Even if they promise the nation the moon and a whole set of planets, even if they do a very good job as ministers, even if they (god forbid) thrust red notes into the voters’ hands, they don’t have a chance of returning to power — all as a result of this foul defamation. Is this half a billion the money they expected to make from their remaining political careers, which has now been cruelly and unjustly ripped from their grasp? If so, the evidence they will present in court promises to be fascinating. They will have to show how they expected to earn this half a billion.

 But of course this could not be so because all our politicians are so rich already they don’t need another satang.