Case

14 April 2017

The Facebook page named “ the People’s Party Plaque” reported that the People’s Party Plaque was created due to the Siamese Revolution of 1932 and engraved the following message that “ Here, on 24 June 1932, at dawn the People’s Party generated the constitution for the progress of the nation.” On the other hand, it was removed and replaced by a new plaque. The following message is on the new plaque :  “May Siam prosper forever with happy fresh-faced citizens to be the force of the nation. Respect and loyalty to the Buddhist Triple Gems, to one’s family clan, and being honest towards one’s king are tools for making the state prosper.” Furthermore, authorities claimed to know nothing and did not take any responsibility about removing the People’s Party Plaque ; thus, it caused extensive criticism and question about who removed the plaque.

16 April 2017
   

Khaosod Online reported that Parit Ratanakul Serirungrit, the grand daughter of luang Serirungrit who was a member of the People’s Party plaque that changed the ruling system of Siam in 1932, wrote a daily memorandum at Dusit Metropolitan Police Station in case of People’s Party plaque which mysteriously disappeared. Afterward, university students from three colleges such as Chulalongkorn University, Kasetsart University, and Ramkhamhaeng University wrote a daily memorandum in case of disappearance of the People's Party plaque.  
 

17 April 2017

Bangkok Biz News reported that Pol. Gen. Sriwara Rangsipromnakul, the Deputy Commissioner-General, said about the daily memorandum of Parit Ratana Serirungrit as well as the group of university students that personally, according to the law, a complainant must be a victim himself or a property owner so that the police could perform this case. However, for the People’s Party Plaque, it did not appear who was an owner, so he had no idea how to deal with this case.
 

On the same day, Watana Muangsook posted on his Facebook that “ I felt pity for the Deputy Commissioner-General’s behavior that came out to ask the university students who informed the police at Dusit Metropolitan Police Station for helping to find the People’s Party plaque whether they are victim. I will answer instead of Thai people in order to be the imparting of knowledge for the general benefit. The People’s Party Plaque is an artificial ancient movable property.
 

The feature of invention or the evidence about history of movable property was beneficial in terms of history which meant that it was the symbol of Siamese Revolution 1932. Therefore, it is an antique according to the Act of Ancient Monument, Antiques, Objects of Art and National Museums 1961. The plaque was nation property. For the disappearance of the People’s Party plaque, if any person claimed to be its owner and converts the same to himself or herself or to other person, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to a fine not exceeding seven hundred thousand Baht or to both.

Thus, it was the public offence that every Thai people were a victim and were able to prosecute. The Royal Thai Police should thank to the university students who paid attention to the national property and attempted to bring it back. However, the government that earned money from people’s tax should be condemned as the national property was embedded in the royal site as well as surrounded by office places which totally related to the national security, but it could not be saved. Also, when it lost, there was no any responsibility, so how they can protect the country, such a dead loss.   

20 April 2017

The manger online said that the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCDS) prosecuted toward Watana in case of entering false data into the computer system in a manner which was likely to cause damage to the general public. In case of posting Facebook that the People’s Party Plaque, embedded at the Grounds of Dusit Palace, was antique, and Thai people must took it back. This message was false, led people to misunderstand and take action, or probably caused sedition as well.   

In the afternoon on the same day, Watana came to meet officers of the TCSD for being informed the charge. He knew from the newspaper that the TCSD would prosecute him ; thus he came to the TCSD by himself without any arrest warrant from inquiry officials. Watana said that many academics expressed their opinions in a similar way ; they said the People’s Party plaque was antique. If academic expression was false, the officers had to prosecute not only him but also everyone.   

After having met inquiry officers, Watana gave interview that he showed his intention toward the officers about that post already. Also, he would convert his testimony to a writing form within 30 days by making sure that the post was to express his opinion in terms of the matter of fact, and he said that he will not make any movement about the People’s Party Plaque anymore.

3 May 2017

Prachachat Online reported that Watana Muangsook met Pol.Lt.Col. Uthai Laosin
at the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD)  for giving testimony in the writing form at least five pages to the inquiry officials.

6 October 2017

Thairath Online reported that the public prosecutor submitted the complaint to the Criminal Court.

9 October 2017
Deposition examination

Thairath Online reported that the Criminal Court scheduled Watana. The court read averment for Watanta and asked whether he understood. Watana said that he understood and rejected all charges after that the court scheduled the litigant for examining evidence on

18 December 2017
Witness and evidence examination

Matichon Online reported that the public prosecutor would like to bring all 11 witnesses for the prosecution during the trial, including someone who read Watana’s post on Facebook as well. Furthermore, the defendant would like to bring an antique expert,an academic, and a former Secretary-General of the National Security Council to be his witnesses. The court scheduled the first witness examination for the prosecution, on 9 October 2018.

9 October 2018
Witness examination for the prosecution

An authority of the Fine Art Department was the first witness for prosecution.

The authority of the Fine Art Department testified that  “ the People’s Party Plaque was not categorized as an antique, but it was government document. However, there was no any state agent claim it as an owner.” Moreover, antiques could be listed or not be listed according to the acceptance of the Fine Art Department. Watana, the defendant, asked the authority of the Fine Art Department by himself that after having posted message, there was any disorder happen in the country or not? the authority of the Fine Art Department said that there was no disorder happen in the country.     

2  law experts were the second and third witnesses for the prosecution.
       

The 2 law experts testified in the same way that the post of the defendant was in a manner which was likely to negatively criticise the state agency.   
 

The police of the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCDS) (the plaintiff)
           

The police of the TCDS, the plaintiff, testified that he acquired report from Col. Burin Thongprapai, the leader of the NCPO legal team after that he summoned the defendant to inform the charge and to assure document contained the testimony so as to submit all evidences to the court.

10 October 2018
Witness examination for the prosecution

The police of the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCDS) (the plaintiff)

The police of TCSD as an inquiry official insisted on evidences that the public prosecutor submit to the court.
 

Col. Burin Thongprapai was a staff judge advocate

Col. Burin answered Watana’s question that the defendant posted message which was divided into three parts. For the first part, it was the matter of fact about the People’s Party Plaque, and the second part was to identify the People’s Party Plaque as the antique. Also, for the last part, it was about criticising and blaming performance of the government.

In case of the People’s Party Plaque embedded in the royal site, criticism toward the performance of the government consisted of three parts which were compliment, advice, and reproach. When the embedded People’s Party Plaque disappeared, people should praise officers who took responsibility in that area or not. Col.Burin said “I had no idea.” He was questioned that Col. Burin, as a public servant, did you realize that whoever got paid from people’s tax could be criticised. Colonel Burin said that “Cannot”
 

Witness examination for the defendant
Watana Muangsook(The defendant)

Watana testified to the court that he had been threatened by the NCPO always because of criticising the NCPO until he was summoned for the first time on 30 June 2015 at the first army area. Afterward, he was summoned to get attitude adjustment for several times, and he was attacked at a soccer field. Watana thus reported to the police, and later, it was found that a vehicle was belong to some soldiers who were the Sergeant.

Again, the defendant used to express his opinion toward General Prawit Wongsuwan, the Deputy Prime Minister, in case of implicating to Yingluck Shinawatra, the former Prime Minister. Thus, he criticised that General Prawit Wongsuwan used improper and immature words, and his house was surrounded in the following day before Watana was arrested to the 11th Military Circle. Besides, during arrest, he was covered his head as well as blindfolded.   

Watana also testified that many academics gave opinion that the People’s Party Plaque was the antique and played an essential role in terms of history, such as professor Charnvit Kasetsiri, a historian and former chancellor of Thammasat University, and Suthachai Yimprasert, an assistant professor of History, Faculty of Arts at Chulalongkorn University. 

30 October 2018
Witness examination for the defendant
 

Associate Professor Pokin Palakul was a former Deputy Prime minister

Associate Professor Pokin Palakul testified that the People’s Party Plaque was the antique according to legal definition. He also said that expressing opinion was universal principle that the constitution assured, and it was the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that assured opinion expression as well. Diverse opinions were not false fact. In contrast, if the Fine Art Department said no but all people in this country said yes, it would be false or not. Watana’s opinion was just to criticise in the context of academic freedom. The property was belong to the nation so that the government’s duty was to take it back.  
 

Professor Charnvit Kasetsiri was a historian and the former chancellor of Thammasat University

Charnvit viewed that the People’s Party Plaque was the “antique” because there was an importance in terms of Thai Contemporary history. Also, it was evidence that witnessed the change of ruling system on 24 June 1932 which originated the first constitution. Furthermore, it was assumed that the People's Party Plaque was embedded since 1936, spending large budget from the Ministry of Interior for creating the plaque. Moreover, placing the plaque was essential municipal ceremonial for the government at that time. Observing from a guest of honor who participated in the ceremony, he was a reeve, and the prime minister gave precedence to him at that time.

Professor Charnvit once gave opinion in this way through mass media which was similar to other academics, such as associate professor Suthachai Yimprasert, the faculty of Arts at Chulalongkorn University. For expressing opinion in historical context, it was based on 2 levels of interpretation which were fact and opinion, but opinion was not counted as fact because it was opinion expression.
 

Lt.Gen. Paradorn Pattanatabut was the former secretary-general of the Office of the National Security Council (NSC)

Lt.Gen. Paradorn Pattanaut testified that as the former Secretary-General of the office of the National Security Council, he gave opinion that the concept which defined what threatened to the security was to investigate whether it posed threat to the country. If it were not threat, it would not pose threat to the national security.    

Lt.Gen. Paradorn asked for looking the Facebook post of the defendant and had opinion that the defendant’s message was not in the scope of threat ; there was no encouragement and sedition. It was just freedom of expression which was defendant’s opinion, and the constitution assured the right and freedom as well. The post did not cause any change to the government or affect the national security ; there was no any “ power ” or “motivation” to cause disorder.

14 December 2018
Verdict announcment