Kraviroj Hits Back at iLaw Over Public Defamation Claims

At 11:25 a.m. on July 24, 2025, at parliament, Kraviroj Parisnanakul, Bhumjaithai MP for Ang Thong, addressed the case involving Yingcheep Atchajanont, manager of the Internet Law for Citizen Democracy project (iLaw), who exposed evidence in a parliament influence case naming Kraviroj among nine implicated individuals. On July 23, Deputy Prime Minister Pharadorn Parisnanakul, one of those named by iLaw, made a public statement. Bhumjaithai has discussed the matter and intends to file defamation charges on behalf of all nine affected members, though the party is still deciding how to proceed.

Kraviroj expressed surprise that iLaw initially disclosed all nine names linked to the influence case, but Yingcheep later claimed he had no evidence—only hearsay from others. Kraviroj stated this caused significant harm. He acknowledged that politicians must undergo public scrutiny from opposition, civil society, and independent organizations, and welcomes such oversight. However, he insisted scrutiny must be conducted fairly and factually, without unfounded allegations or political manipulation designed to damage reputations or mislead society.

Kraviroj noted that when he first heard of the allegations, he thought there might be new information, but was told they were old matters already investigated by opposition leader Prayut Chan-o-cha and parliamentary committees. He questioned why the issue resurfaced now without new evidence, suggesting possible political timing rather than genuine accountability concerns.

He appealed to civil society and the public that while oversight is commendable and necessary for politicians, it must be grounded in accurate information and good faith—not hidden political agendas that harm others. When asked about Yingcheep's invocation of SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) defense rules, Kraviroj argued that if government figures used state power to silence truthful disclosure, that would constitute censorship. However, he countered that Yingcheep himself admitted his claims lacked evidence and were not factual, yet caused harm by naming all nine individuals with unsubstantiated accusations of misconduct. Kraviroj asserted that the affected parties must defend their rights and dignity. He drew a parallel, asking what would happen if someone made baseless accusations against Yingcheep—such as links to forex schemes or inciting youth unrest—without evidence. Just as Kraviroj's group suffered damage from false allegations, they must exercise their right to legal defense.