NBTC says filing a lawsuit against “Deunden”

Hoping the Court of Justice to recover the dignity and to reveal the truth to the public

After the four commissioners of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunication Commission (NBTC) comprising Colonel Dr. Setthapong Malisuwan, Dr. Suthiphon Thaveechaiyagarn, Gen. Sukit Kamasunthorn, Assoc. Prof. Prasert Silphiphat and the NBTC Office led by the NBTC Secretary-General, Mr. Thakorn Tanthasit, filed a lawsuit of defamation against Dr. Deunden Nikomborirak, the Research Director of the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI) and Ms. Nattha Komolvadhin, TV journalist of Thai PBS, the first defendant and the second defendant respectively on 29 August 2013, the information was introduced to the public to create misunderstanding that the NBTC has threatened the freedom of the press, which is untrue.
To achieve a correct understanding, the NBTC Office would like to clarify this matter as follows:
This lawsuit s to protect dignity, honor and fame of the four commissioners and the NBTC Office whose legal rights under the Constitution and the law were violated. Filing a legal action is not a threat to academic or media despite of an attempt to distort the facts. It is because the NBTC did not intimidate or influence the media by prohibiting them to criticize the NBTC. Criticism is acceptable provided that information should not be misled or distorted causing damages to others. Indeed, this litigation will help to protect media from being used as a tool to destroy any organization. It also assists to elevate the academic standard of research institutions while urging the media to carefully examine accuracy of the information before presenting it. In presenting information to the public, the media cannot choose to present only some perspectives causing damages to others.

NBTC is willing to receive criticisms but the criticisms must not go beyond limit so that they violate the legal rights

The NBTC Office agrees that criticism is freedom of speech protected by the Constitution and can be made legally. However, the criticisms must be based on true facts and cannot be abused to violate the rights of others. In addition, freedom of speech must not be used in the way to distort the individuals and state organizations. In performing duties, NBTC always accepts public scrutiny as well as making clarification on the criticized issues continuously through many medium such as press conference and PR in various channels. However, the first defendant has still interviewed by intentionally quoting wrong information. Even after the lawsuit filed, the first defendant continuously gave interview via newspaper, TV, website, etc. giving the facts that are contrary to what the five plaintiffs have explained. Therefore, the five plaintiffs have no choices but to prove the truth to the society by seeking justice from the Court of Justice.
Monitoring the NBTC performance conducted by the academics or journalists is the right thing to do but must be done neutrally and use correct information from all perspectives. The monitoring should not just be based on speculation and guess. Therefore, academics who criticize with negative perspectives must be careful and should check the information carefully and thoroughly before making criticisms since revealing inaccurate information to the public can harm reputation of the persons who were blamed. By the same token, the academics should also be monitored for their conducts and must bear responsibility if there are any errors.

Pointing out the criticisms were unusual and intended to lead to the hatred.

This is a clear case fought in principle to raise more caution and awareness to those who distribute information to the public must check it carefully. It should be noted that all five plaintiffs do not intend to either prohibit criticisms or be afraid of being criticized. The NBTC always welcomes constructive criticisms and is never afraid of scrutiny. We also respect examination in accordance with the legal process. But in this case, the criticism was not usual. It was the false statement accusing the NBTC and the NBTC Office to be dishonest. Such accusation was very serious when they accused the NBTC continuously with untrue information that the NBTC’s conduct caused national loss of more than 160 billion bahts. Such criticism against the NBTC was very prejudiced by using untrue information to blame the NBTC, a state organization, which has been working hard for the best interest of people. The five plaintiffs are confident that we have clear evidences to prove to the court that the defendants lied and slandered against the NBTC by using false data and expressed opinion in bad faith. The NBTC needs to seek from the judicial process to bring justice and to reveal the truth to the public.
According to the indictment, the first defendant, who is an academic from TDRI, exercised her right in actual malice and bad faith beyond the scope of the law by distorting information totally different from the resolutions and the report of the Sub-committee on Preparation for Digital PCN 1800 MHz Administration. This causes the public to misunderstand that the Sub-committee proposed the NBTC to accelerate the 1800 MHz spectrum auction before the concession ends but the NBTC did not believe and postponed the auction, which was untrue. The fact is that the Sub-Committee never made such proposal. Moreover, the first defendant cannot justify her comment on accusing the NBTC to cause the national loss of more than 160 billion baths form delaying the 1800 MHz spectrum auction since she used the data of the delay of the 3G spectrum auction to compare with the 1800 MHz case. The truth is that the two matters cannot be used to compare academically because they are different in facts, factors and the use of spectrum. The first defendant is an academic who is an economic expert and was appointed to be a member is several sub-committees of the NBTC whose work is directly related to the issue in this case so that the first defendant is familiar with inside information causing damage to the four members of NBTC and the NBTC Office. But, if the first defendant has any excuse, she has right to bring evidence to prove in court. If she did not do anything wrong, she should not have been afraid of. At this level, the NBTC is very confident that we have strong evidence to fulfill all elements of the libel liability and the defendants cannot find any excuse on the use of right in good faith.

Thai PBS was hooked up because of disseminating false statement by not prudentially checking information as well as presenting only negative perspective causing damages to the NBTC

The reason why the lawsuit was filed against the second defendant who is a TV anchor of the program “Here is Thai PBS” despite other media also presented interview of the first defendant is that the second defendant distributed defamatory information after the NBTC assigned the NBTC Office to hold press conference offending what the first defendant or Dr. Deunden criticized the NBTC by using false statement via various newspapers and TV channels. Despite such clarification, the news scoop aired on Thai PBS still presented only negative information from the earlier interview of Dr. Deunden, criticizing the four commissioners by defaming them causing damages to reputation without comments in good faith. If the information had been presented in neutral manner and good faith, it would have been delivered in both positive and negative aspects. However, such news scoop program selected to present only negative information resulting damages to the NBTC.

Presenting academic opinions to the public causing negative result to others must be conducted with prudence

Presenting academic opinions without deep study and comprehensive examination is likely to adversely and avoidably cause severe impacts and public confusion, especially in the national telecommunication industry which is in a transitional period changing from concession system to free competition and during the preparation for the 1800 MHz spectrum auction that is relevant to the huge interest of the country. Whether such mission will be able to succeed must depend on the achievement of objectives set in the constitution and the relevant laws in order to maximize the benefits for the nation and the citizens. Therefore, it is very essential that responsible agencies must gain trust, confidence in terms of investments, regulations and credibility. Consequently, distorted information will not only damage image and trust of the organization, but also destroy credibility and confidence of the regulatory body that is responsible for holding the spectrum auction as well as undermining confidence in the telecommunication industry and the country’s regulating system as a whole.

Evidences apparent to all elements of the defamation liability

Dr. Deunden’s distorted information made the public misunderstand that the NBTC and the NBTC Office caused large damages to the nation by ignorance, laziness and delay of the spectrum auction process. Additionally, Deunden’s statement also made people believe that the NBTC and the NBTC Office are dishonest, not transparent and colluded with some operators to illegally extend the use of 1800 MHz spectrum for one more year. Such information given by Ms. Deunden is completely untrue and undermines reputation and fame of the NBTC and the NBTC Office.
The four NBTC commissioners have good profiles with great honors and have never implicated to illegal activities. They have been working hard and honestly in good faith to protect interests of consumers affected by the termination of the 1800 MHz concession. Especially, they have contributed every efforts to apply and interpret the problematic legislation to overcome difficulties in protecting interests of the subscribers. Consequently, false criticisms against the NBTC during the period of telecommunication transition will make the NBTC and the NTBC office lose public confidence and have to work with suspicion from operators who are afraid that the NBTC will not be impartial and may collude with some operators. Such criticisms was very serious and undermine the morale of the commission as well as causing damages to the organization unavoidably.
NBTC does not file the lawsuit against the institutes, but we brought an action against a TDRI academic privately. The NBTC and the NBTC Office also filed an action against the Thai PBS anchor individually due to the defamation allegation. In this case, the accused are allowed to bring evidence to prove in court.

NBTC keeps tolerant because the rights were violated since the 3G auction

Relying on the Court of Justice to call for justice is an accepted way to use legal right as the court is the last resort for the people. The five plaintiffs viewed that they have been treated unfairly by the defendants who offended them since the 3G auction harming all five plaintiffs’ reputation. At that time, we thought about suing them, but decided to stop because we were able to overcome the obstacles and thought that we should forgive and concentrate our work for the future. However, it seems that this group never stop blaming and violating our rights. We have no choice but to depend on the Court of Justice as our last hope. All five plaintiffs never put influence on the people who criticized us and always respect the law. We beg that all criticizers to read and analyze the reasons in the plaint which explains clearly why we need to bring an action against the two defendants.

Everyone must be under the rules of law without exception

The NBTC views that everyone must be under the law so does the NBTC. No violation of law is allowed to prevent illegal actions which violate the rights of others. Academic and media also cannot claim their status to avoid being scrutinized or to breach the law. Whoever committing criminal act must be penalized. Therefore, the fact that the NBTC and the NBTC Office affected from the illegal conduct brought an action against wrongdoers under the scope of law is the use of legal right which is not unusual and does not threaten or deprive the right of such academic and media.
In contrast, prohibiting any person to exercise his/her legal right to sue or pressuring the person to withdraw the lawsuit is completely considered a deprivation of the rights of others.