Yojana Sharma and Suluck Lamubol26 August 2012 Issue No:236
Thailand’s National Innovation Agency Director Supachai Lorlowhakarn was
found guilty of criminal forgery on 8 August, just weeks after the
council of Chulalongkorn University revoked his PhD in science because
of plagiarism.
The South Bangkok District Court, whose written verdict was only made available last week, ruled that Supachai fabricated and made use of a falsified employment contract of his litigant Wyn Ellis, a Thailand-based British agriculture researcher and a former consultant to NIA.
The court accepted “beyond any doubt that the defendant [Supachai] was the principal party in committing document forgery”, and added that Supachai “cannot avoid responsibility by claiming this was an action of his subordinate and he did not know about it”.
The court levied a 6,000 baht (US$190) fine and imposed a six-month suspended prison sentence on Supachai.
The verdict has significance in an ongoing plagiarism case involving Supachai and Ellis that has shocked academics and the public.
Ellis claims he is the main author and was project manager of the research, “Strengthening the Export Capacity of Thailand’s Organic Agriculture”, commissioned by the Geneva-based UN International Trade Centre in 2007.
Supachai insists that he possesses the rights to the same research, which he used in his PhD thesis. On 21 June this year, Chulalongkorn University declared that Supachai was guilty of plagiarising 80% of his thesis, and revoked the PhD.
Employment contract tampered with
According to the court’s full verdict on the forgery case, the attempt to falsely reduce Ellis’ employment contract term was aimed at using it as supporting evidence for Supachai’s own claim that Ellis did not have a main role in producing the disputed research, but was merely a translator and copyrighter of the work.
Ellis filed complaints against Supachai for alleged document forgery in 2008, stating that Supachai illegally amended his employment contract as consultant for the NIA from six months (originally from January to June 2007) to three months (January to March 2007).
According to the court, “the reason for altering the employment contract to show only three months was because the plaintiff’s [Ellis’] position according to the contract was an important one; the defendant needed to minimise the plaintiff’s role; reducing the duration to only three months made the appointment seem temporary, showing that the plaintiff had no role in writing the disputed article.”
The court accepted that Supachai was the principal party in committing document forgery and found him guilty according to Articles 264 (criminal forgery) and 268(1) (making use of or citing from a forged document), “because the defendant was the person who forged the documents, and used the forged documents”.
Forged document used to undermine claim
The possibility of the document forgery came to light when in August 2008 Ellis filed petitions to Chulalongkorn University’s rector and the Ministry of Science and Technology against Supachai’s alleged plagiarism.
This prompted Supachai to lodge counter claims against Ellis and subsequently against Bangkok Post journalist Erika Fry, who had investigated the case for the newspaper, for defamation. Although the case was later dismissed, Ellis noticed that his employment contract, used as supporting evidence, was forged, leading to a further lawsuit.
Ellis told University World News: “The court has ruled that my contract was altered to undermine my claim to lead authorship of a technical article, found to have been plagiarised in the defendant’s PhD thesis. Also, most of the article’s entire introduction is reproduced in a paper published in the Thai Journal of Agricultural Science.
“I hope that this verdict will now persuade the TJAS to retract the paper without further delay,” he said.
“It’s also significant that the court also held the defendant responsible for an official NIA memo submitted in evidence by the defendant, which the court ruled was dated retrospectively and was not true to the facts. The court’s verdict, though subject to appeal, shows the extent to which some will go to hide their tracks.”
Ellis has several times called on the TJAS to retract Supachai’s article.
Retraction debate continues
TJAS Editor-in-chief Irb Kheoruenromne said he was ready and willing to retract the article but had to wait for a court ruling on Supachai’s complaint against Chulalongkorn University.
In response to the decision to revoke his PhD, Supachai declared he would file a complaint against the university for "misuse of power".
During a 25 June press conference, Supachai said the investigation led by the university’s committee was “unusually rapid” and “against good governance and rule of law”.
“This has been a complicated matter…we are willing to retract the paper if the court decides that Supachai is really guilty [of plagiarism], but we can’t retract just like that because there was agreement in our publishing [his article] in which he said that he owned the rights of the work,” Irb told University World News.
As Supachai is also likely to appeal the forgery ruling, Irb said: “I am not so sure what is going to happen now, I have to say. But the chances are high that this paper will be withdrawn from the journal.”
Lieke Boersma of Wageningen Academic Publishers in The Netherlands, which holds the copyright to the Wyn Ellis material, said the disputed paper “is still there in the Thai journal this week. We also heard about the 8 August verdict and thought they will withdraw it now.” She said Wageningen was disappointed that the paper had not been withdrawn earlier.
Wageningen asked the TJAS to retract the paper over a year ago, but the journal would only do so with a court ruling “which would have been complicated from The Netherlands, so we did not go further with this”, Boersma said. “We will contact them now.”
Supachai’s NIA role
Science and Technology Minister Plodprasob Surasawadi, who oversees the NIA, has said the withdrawal of Supachai’s PhD would not affect his position or work at the NIA, since Supachai used his masters degree to apply for the job, the online agency Thaipublica reported on 8 July.
The chair of the NIA board, Pornchai Rujiprapa, who is also permanent secretary at the Ministry of Science and Technology, was reported by the Bangkok Post on 26 June as saying that the withdrawal of the PhD was a personal matter for Supachai.
Ellis told University World News: “It is incumbent upon the ministry and NIA board to exercise their powers immediately to limit the continuing damage to the global reputation and good standing of both agencies.”
The South Bangkok District Court, whose written verdict was only made available last week, ruled that Supachai fabricated and made use of a falsified employment contract of his litigant Wyn Ellis, a Thailand-based British agriculture researcher and a former consultant to NIA.
The court accepted “beyond any doubt that the defendant [Supachai] was the principal party in committing document forgery”, and added that Supachai “cannot avoid responsibility by claiming this was an action of his subordinate and he did not know about it”.
The court levied a 6,000 baht (US$190) fine and imposed a six-month suspended prison sentence on Supachai.
The verdict has significance in an ongoing plagiarism case involving Supachai and Ellis that has shocked academics and the public.
Ellis claims he is the main author and was project manager of the research, “Strengthening the Export Capacity of Thailand’s Organic Agriculture”, commissioned by the Geneva-based UN International Trade Centre in 2007.
Supachai insists that he possesses the rights to the same research, which he used in his PhD thesis. On 21 June this year, Chulalongkorn University declared that Supachai was guilty of plagiarising 80% of his thesis, and revoked the PhD.
Employment contract tampered with
According to the court’s full verdict on the forgery case, the attempt to falsely reduce Ellis’ employment contract term was aimed at using it as supporting evidence for Supachai’s own claim that Ellis did not have a main role in producing the disputed research, but was merely a translator and copyrighter of the work.
Ellis filed complaints against Supachai for alleged document forgery in 2008, stating that Supachai illegally amended his employment contract as consultant for the NIA from six months (originally from January to June 2007) to three months (January to March 2007).
According to the court, “the reason for altering the employment contract to show only three months was because the plaintiff’s [Ellis’] position according to the contract was an important one; the defendant needed to minimise the plaintiff’s role; reducing the duration to only three months made the appointment seem temporary, showing that the plaintiff had no role in writing the disputed article.”
The court accepted that Supachai was the principal party in committing document forgery and found him guilty according to Articles 264 (criminal forgery) and 268(1) (making use of or citing from a forged document), “because the defendant was the person who forged the documents, and used the forged documents”.
Forged document used to undermine claim
The possibility of the document forgery came to light when in August 2008 Ellis filed petitions to Chulalongkorn University’s rector and the Ministry of Science and Technology against Supachai’s alleged plagiarism.
This prompted Supachai to lodge counter claims against Ellis and subsequently against Bangkok Post journalist Erika Fry, who had investigated the case for the newspaper, for defamation. Although the case was later dismissed, Ellis noticed that his employment contract, used as supporting evidence, was forged, leading to a further lawsuit.
Ellis told University World News: “The court has ruled that my contract was altered to undermine my claim to lead authorship of a technical article, found to have been plagiarised in the defendant’s PhD thesis. Also, most of the article’s entire introduction is reproduced in a paper published in the Thai Journal of Agricultural Science.
“I hope that this verdict will now persuade the TJAS to retract the paper without further delay,” he said.
“It’s also significant that the court also held the defendant responsible for an official NIA memo submitted in evidence by the defendant, which the court ruled was dated retrospectively and was not true to the facts. The court’s verdict, though subject to appeal, shows the extent to which some will go to hide their tracks.”
Ellis has several times called on the TJAS to retract Supachai’s article.
Retraction debate continues
TJAS Editor-in-chief Irb Kheoruenromne said he was ready and willing to retract the article but had to wait for a court ruling on Supachai’s complaint against Chulalongkorn University.
In response to the decision to revoke his PhD, Supachai declared he would file a complaint against the university for "misuse of power".
During a 25 June press conference, Supachai said the investigation led by the university’s committee was “unusually rapid” and “against good governance and rule of law”.
“This has been a complicated matter…we are willing to retract the paper if the court decides that Supachai is really guilty [of plagiarism], but we can’t retract just like that because there was agreement in our publishing [his article] in which he said that he owned the rights of the work,” Irb told University World News.
As Supachai is also likely to appeal the forgery ruling, Irb said: “I am not so sure what is going to happen now, I have to say. But the chances are high that this paper will be withdrawn from the journal.”
Lieke Boersma of Wageningen Academic Publishers in The Netherlands, which holds the copyright to the Wyn Ellis material, said the disputed paper “is still there in the Thai journal this week. We also heard about the 8 August verdict and thought they will withdraw it now.” She said Wageningen was disappointed that the paper had not been withdrawn earlier.
Wageningen asked the TJAS to retract the paper over a year ago, but the journal would only do so with a court ruling “which would have been complicated from The Netherlands, so we did not go further with this”, Boersma said. “We will contact them now.”
Supachai’s NIA role
Science and Technology Minister Plodprasob Surasawadi, who oversees the NIA, has said the withdrawal of Supachai’s PhD would not affect his position or work at the NIA, since Supachai used his masters degree to apply for the job, the online agency Thaipublica reported on 8 July.
The chair of the NIA board, Pornchai Rujiprapa, who is also permanent secretary at the Ministry of Science and Technology, was reported by the Bangkok Post on 26 June as saying that the withdrawal of the PhD was a personal matter for Supachai.
Ellis told University World News: “It is incumbent upon the ministry and NIA board to exercise their powers immediately to limit the continuing damage to the global reputation and good standing of both agencies.”
No comments:
Post a Comment