The lawsuits against the editor in chief and the editor of The Isaan Record have sparked debate over the push for Anti‑SLAPP strategic lawsuits against public participation. Recently, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) issued a statement urging the expedited enactment of such a law to prevent strategic lawsuits that silence critics, adding that political officeholders and public figures should be prepared to be scrutinized and criticized on matters of public interest.
Meanwhile, a former wild‑berry picker who has been campaigning about being deceived into picking wild berries in Finland affirmed their rights to express their views, saying they are not afraid of being sued because they have prepared and researched the issue.
NHRC issues statement urging passage of anti‑SLAPP law
On April 1, 2026, the NHRC issued a statement calling for the expedited promotion and enactment of a law to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation (Anti‑SLAPP Law) to protect human rights defenders, the public, and journalists who perform oversight in the public interest.
The statement said there is a growing trend of strategic litigation to silence public participation (SLAPPs). It cited a recent case in which a former minister of labor sued the executive editor and editors of The Isaan Record for alleged defamation, seeking over 51 million baht in damages, over reporting about alleged bribes‑taking in the dispatch of Thai workers to pick wild berries in Finland. Although some charges were later withdrawn, proceedings continued against another editor.
The statement also noted a case in which a former police officer filed a complaint against the education affairs committee member of the Thailand Foreign Workers’ Union and victims who were deceived into harvesting wild berries in Sweden, choosing to bring the case in a location far from the plaintiffs’ homes, creating financial burdens and travel difficulties.
The NHRC also expressed concern that lawsuits of this kind, even those with insubstantial merit, impose burdens—both financial and psychological—causing those who investigate corruption or human rights abuses fear speaking out and, in some cases, to stop altogether. This undermines freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
“Political officeholders and public figures should be prepared to be scrutinized and criticized on matters of public interest, and should help create an atmosphere that allows constructive expression to promote transparency in their work,” the statement said.
Former berry picker is not afraid of being sued
Meanwhile, Maliwan Athanu, vice‑chair of the Thailand Foreign Workers’ Union and a former wild‑berry picker in Finland, said she has followed the story closely and spoken with several union committee members, who share the same view.
“Everyone says in one voice that we are not afraid and will fight to the end. If a lawsuit happens, our union has discussed and prepared—we’ve studied the information so we know how to handle it if we are sued,” Maliwan said.
On April 8, 2026, more than 80 union members will attend the annual meeting to discuss responses to the wild‑berry worker issue in Chaiyaphum province, where we will also discuss the cases.
Suchat sues Dr. Khongkwan for 50 million baht
Meanwhile, on March 29, Ms. Khongkwan Fujitnirand, owner of the popular Doctorkatekate influencer page with over 700,000 followers, was sued by Mr. Suchat Chomklin, Minister of Natural Resources and Environment for alleged defamation over a Facebook post on February 11. One issue raised in the post questioned the DSI’s allegation of bribe-taking in the dispatch of Thai workers to pick wild berries.
Court documents state that Suchat, through his lawyer, is seeking 50 million baht in damages: 20 million baht for damage to reputation and honor; 15 million baht for harm to career and prospects for political advancement; and 15 million baht for humiliation and severe psychological suffering.
ICT scholar: gagging the media silences the public
Associate Professor Arin Jiajanpong, lecturer in the Department of Communication Arts, Faculty of Information and Communication Technology, Silpakorn University (ICT), shared a statement from the Regional Independent Media Network with the hashtag #StopSLAPPAgainstJournalists and wrote on his personal page, Arin Jiajanpong, that when people entrust the government to run the country, they have the right to know whether those they put in power manage effectively, exercise authority lawfully, and protect and promote citizens’ rights and freedoms.
“It is the right to know and the right to information to make decisions about our lives and participate in governance. For people to receive quality information for decision‑making, society must guarantee freedom of speech and expression. If people cannot speak or are so fearful they self‑censor, the chance of uncovering the truth diminishes,” Associate Professor Arin said.
Meanwhile, Suchat, said in an interview with Thai PBS that after he withdrew the suit against the editor-in-chief of the Isaan Record she used what he withdrew to discredit him, which was not fair to him.
“The person I sued next is her editor, but it’s in a different court — the Chonburi Provincial Court. If it were the same court, I would have withdrawn both suits on the same day. So I said I’d put this case on hold. Unless they apologize to me, I won’t withdraw it.” Suchat stated.
SLAPP lawsuits create an atmosphere of fear
The scholar added that the media play a crucial role in providing information to the public. If the media cannot report on government oversight, cannot express opinions or criticize, or are forced into an atmosphere of fear that leads to self‑censorship, the public may receive inaccurate or insufficiently diverse information for making decisions.
“In this situation, the public therefore must guarantee the freedom of the press so that journalists can provide quality information to the people,” Associate Professor Arin emphasized.
He added that, globally, this principle appears in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), stated in Thailand it is in the 2017 Constitution, Section 35. Therefore, any attempt to gag the media is also an attempt to shut the public’s eyes and ears.
