Sitting down during “Royal Anthem”
Defendant
Case Status
Case Started
Complainant / Plaintiff
Table of Content
Shortly before a movie was shown in a theatre at Central World shopping mall in downtown Bangkok in September 21, 2007, Mr. Chotisak On-soong, then Thammasat University undergrad student, and his friend which was a Ramkhamhaeng University undergrad student, chose not to stand during the Royal Anthem, which had to be played before all movies can be shown in Thailand. The act sparked outrage among other audiences, one of which was Mr. Navamin Witthayakul, who threw objects, while others scrolled and yelled at both sitting. Chotisak and his friend finally left the theater. Mr Navamin later filed a les majeste lawsuit against Chotisak and his friend.
Defendant Background
Chotisak Onsoong, an activist and a student from Thammasat University.
Offense
Allegation
Shortly before a movie was shown in a theatre at Central World shopping mall in downtown Bangkok in September 21, 2007, Mr. Chotisak On-soong, the Thammasat University undergrad student, and his friend which was a Ramkhamhaeng University undergrad student, chose not to stand during the Royal Anthem, which had to be played before all movies can be shown in Thailand. The act sparked outrage among other audiences, one of which was Mr. Navamin Witthayakul, who threw objects, while others scrolled and yelled at both sitting. Chotisak and his friend finally left the theater. Mr Navamin later filed a les majeste lawsuit against Chotisak and his friend.
Circumstance of Arrest
Trial Observation
Black Case
Court
Additional Info
24 April 2008: Manager Online websites published comments from Thongbai Thongpaud, Magsaysay Award winner lawyer and former senator from Maha-sarakham Province, about the case. Thongbai commented that Chotisak’s action is a crime that could result in a maximum seven years imprisonment under lèse majesté law. He added that everybody must stand still to pay respect during the royal and national anthems: no hands waiving or even smiling. In the past, a student from Chulalongkorn University was imprisoned for two years because he did not stand up to pay respect to the royal anthem during a hyde park at Sanam Luang (Royal Field). Since, the cinema’s screen stated clearly ‘Please stand up to pay respect to His Majesty the King.’
‘No matter where you are, when you hear the royal and national anthems, everybody must stand still to pay respect,” said the Magsaysay Award winner, he also stated that anybody could file a charge against those who did not stand up or do so impolitely during the royal anthem. The officers will then accept the case. There were similar cases brought up to the Supreme Court already.
Besides, Manager Online also mentioned a wide criticism on Chotisak’s case on the internet and some radio channels, especially at pantip.com. From there, Manager Online had copied part of the explanation from Chotisak’s topic posted on pantip.com and published on its own website.
25 April 2008: Chotisak Onsoong sent a complaint letter to the president of the National Press Council of Thailand (NPCT) in the case of Motherland’s Security Guard program and media in Manager Group identified him as a coordinator and joined in several activities of Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD), which stands against coup d’etat and supports Thaksin Shinawatra. Chotisak affirmed that the information is untrue and explained that he is in a group called ‘19 September Network against Coup D’etat’ which labeled as a ‘non-aligned group.’ This aforementioned false information , as a result, damaged his reputation. Since, NPCT members said they will send this case to the subcommittee for consideration in May. Further, Chotisak told Prachatai that, besides NPCT, he sent the accusation against Manager Group to many other media organizations, but none of them contact him back, and when he asked Thai Journalists Association about any progress, the answer is they did not see the letter yet.
9 May 2008: Manager Online published a special scoop which said that Luck Raykanited, a famous fortune teller, severely criticizing Chotisak’s behavior alongside a group of Thai celebrities. In excerpt, the fortune teller said ‘These people won’t get out of jail, no matter which kind of charges had put them in. After get in jail, a no-common-sense treachery like you can’t get out of there, fellow prisoners will stab you to death for sure. You’re a reincarnated Devadatta. Then, beware to be doomed to Hell, or died under people’s feet.’
In addition, an aforementioned scoop provided interviews of some celebrities who blamed Chotisak’s behavior, such as Narakorn Tiyayon (female reporter), Krit Sribhumiset (actor and MC), Cholada Mekratree (actress and model), and Rasri Watcharapolmek (model).
14 May 2008: Around 10.30 am at Khon-kaen’s city pillar shrine, a group called ‘We Khon-kaeners Love Motherland,’ which identified themselves as representatives from faculty of communication arts, Northeastern University and groups of business owners in the province, formed a crowd to condemn Chotisak Onsoong and friend.
Somchai Jungpatarakul, business owner in Khon-kaen and one of the group representatives, said that their condemnation on Chotisak today is a sincere act to present that they want to protect the key institution of the nation from insulting. Chotisak’s behavior is an intentionally disrespect to the King in public, and different thinking on the monarchy is unacceptable. The group wants to ask Khon-kaeners and fellow Thais all around the country who respects the monarchy to come out and protesting against these disgraceful people. He personally believe that Chotisak and friend’s behavior was supported by some back-ups because Chotisak wouldn’t dare to go against the faith of Thais alone by himself, so it must be some motivation that moved him until he dared to be judged as a black sheep of the society.
‘We accept different thinking, especially in politics. It’s totally legitimate under democratic form of government with the King as Head of State, but different thinking on the monarchy by insulting the king is unacceptable. This kind of behaviors must be condemned from all Thais’ Somchai said.
Then, Wasan Wanich, one of the group’s representatives, read a statement which stated a stand point against and condemning Chotisak Onsoong’s behavior as well as whoever intends to insult and abolish the institution. Wasan also demands the government’s authority to manage and get rid of whatever involved in insulting the monarchy to prevent them from threatening the country, and demands Chotisak Onsoong and friend to think for the sake of integrity and the hearts of Thais by stopping this kind of behavior in order to preserve Thai race with spiritual anchor, with uniqueness, and pride in the King who is the pillar of the nation and worshipped by the Thais.
After finishing a statement, the representatives burned a picture of Chotisak before the press.
4 June 2008: The National Press Council of Thailand has an order made in writing to ‘reject’ Chotisak Onsoong’s petition, signed by the secretary-general of NPCT, Chaowarong Limpatamapanee. The order said ‘After consideration, reckon that it cannot be accepted, according to 1998 NPCT’s regulation about petition examination, because it went against 1997 NPCT’s code, 2005 third modification, about petition examination in article 22. According to this, the order is to reject the petition.’
Besides, 1997 NPCT’s code, 2005 third modification, category 4, about petition examination, in article 22 said:
“Article 22 – Forbid the committee from accepting petitions in these cases;
(1) Petitions which are prosecuted in the same issues, still on the court process, or already had a conviction or final judgment. Or,
(2) Petitions which have same issues or complaints with what the committee already had a judgment, and have no new evidences linked with main points of the petition. Or,
(3) Petitions which are delayed more than 120 days since the injured person has been informed, or delayed than a year after the time of occurrence. Unless the committee considered it is important by linking with public purposes, or effects with the honor of the press profession.”
10 June 2008: Chotisak Onsoong made a statement to object the order of NPCT, which rejected his petition about being discredited by Manager Newspaper and other media in the group. Chotisak stated that his petition does not against article 22 of 1997 NPCT’s code, 2005 third modification, regarding the petition examination because his case has never been prosecuted, convicted, or in the process of trial. Moreover, this is the first petition of him to NPCT then it’s impossible for the committee to had a judgment about it already, according to article 22 (2), and this petition happened only 2-3 days after the time of occurrence which is less than 120-day scope, according to article 22 (3). Since, he affirms his rights to object an aforementioned order, according to article 24 in category 4 of NPCT’s code.
17 March 2009: Chotisak Onsoong publicized his open letter to counter with PM Abhisit Vejjajiva’s speech at the UK in 14 March 2009, which implicated his case by saying it’s over already. In the letter, Chotisak said that his case haven’t been cancelled or ended as the PM claimed, but still at prosecution level, which the prosecutor did set a meeting for the order on 30 March 2009, since now it’s in further interrogation process.
19 July 2012: After made a non-prosecution order in Chotisak and friend’s case, Wasit Sukyukol, special prosecutor of criminal court of southern Bangkok 4, gave an interview. He said that this case the defendants didn’t pay respect by standing during the royal anthem; however, he considered Chotisak and friend’s behavior has no solid evidence that shown any threatening act. Since there’s no threatening act against the King has seen, the case is not within the scope of article 112 of the Criminal Code. He added that Pathumwan Police Station’s inquisitor closed the inquiry with non-prosecution, and then the inquiry referred to Royal Thai Police with agreement from the Commissioner-General, so there’s a non-prosecution order.
“Chotisak’s behavior is only an improper manner. It’s only against a traditional law since 1942, which penalties of one month in prison or 1,000-baht fine, with one-year period of prescription. If the defendant pleads guilty, inquisitors could get fine penalty money, on the other hand, inquiry is now necessary in the process of law. Due to the fact that the inquisitor didn’t charge him since, it lapsed the prescription already. However, the facts in this case cannot be used as a standard on other cases because there are many different facts, evidences and conducts.” Wisit said.
Reference
[2009 information took from the facebook page called Article 112 : Awareness Campaign]
21 September 2007: Chotisak Onsoong and friend went to see a movie at SF World Cinema, Central World Plaza. They refused to pay respect to the King by sitting while the royal anthem was playing before the film, which displeased Navamin Witthayakul and some other audiences. Nawamin cursed, threw things at them and forced both students to get out, with cheerings and clappings from the others, until Chotisak and his friend had decided to leave.
After the incident, Chotisak notified his medical examination result to the officer at Pathumwan Police Station, accused five charges against Navamin including common assault, slander and verbal injury, wrongful interference with goods, common importunity and quarreling in public. Chotisak revealed that he called the police via 191-hotline. After that, himself, his friend together with Navamin met the police officer in front of the theatre and went to Pathumwan Police Station. There, the police informed if Chotisak complained against Navamin on assaulting, Navamin will also sue him on lèse majesté. Chotisak confirmed his intention, the police officer then asked Chotisak and friend to have a medical examination. The next morning, both men got the result and come back to the police station to sue Navamin.
25 September 2007: Navamin Witthayakul, 40, reported to Pathumwan police officer against Chotisak Onsoong and friend on lèse majesté, according to article 112 of the Criminal Codes, after both of them refused to pay respect to the royal anthem by standing in the cinema.
5 April 2008: Around 8.30 am, Pathumwan Police Station’s inquisitor informed accusation to Chotisak and friend by phone. On the same day, Songkran Pongboonchan, Chotisak’s lawyer, went to see the inquisitor to postpone the allegations to 22 April because it’s too sudden for Chotisak to report.
21 April 2008: Several websites publicized the open letter that supports Chotisak and friend to stand the trial, disagree on picturing the defendants of lèse majesté cases as criminals, and disagree on violent act against person who has different political ideologies or opinions. According to these letters, difference is not a crime but the beauty of democracy that has to be protected.
22 April 2008: Around 1.15 pm, Chotisak Onsoong reported at Pathumwan Police Station. He read a statement to confirm that he didn’t intend to defame, insult or threaten the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent by sitting down during the royal anthem in a cinema. He added a comment that this kind of charge had become a tool that every group of political interests brought up to attack each other, and sometimes ordinary citizen like himself was affected, while the interpretation of the law was broadening. He also hoped that his self-invented campaign ‘Not standing is no crime, different standpoint is no crime’ would approve that ‘not standing’ during the royal anthem cannot be charged by article 112 in the Criminal Codes. After the interrogation, the inquisitor considered temporarily release since Chotisak reported himself in person.
28 April 2008: Manager Online and INN websites reported that Sunimit Jirasook, 36, business owner, filed the case at Khon-kaen Police Station against Chotisak Onsoong under article 116 (2) for defaming the king by not standing during the royal anthem in a cinema. The report also mentioned that Sunimit also filed the case against Samesky (Fah Diao Gun) and Prachatai webboards which had topics about Chotisak’s case.
Sunimit claimed that both sites have more than 90 comments about the case, most of them agreed and expressed anti-monarchy opinions, which he cannot accept as the Thai who respects the king, he also demanded the ministry of information and communication technology (ICT) to take action and responsibility.
29 April 2008: Around 10 am, Chotisak Onsoong went to see Pol.Lt.Col. Udom Piemsak, deputy superintendent of Pathumwan Police Station, wearing ‘Not standing is no crime, different standpoint is no crime’ t-shirt while many local and international press were awaiting there.
After a meeting with the inquisitor, Chotisak told the press that he took this meeting only to report to the police, but the officers took it as another interrogation, which made himself and his lawyer more than 90 minutes to clarify the misunderstandings. Chotisak also said, he did not answer any questions today but will have a proxy lawyer sending the pleading in document to the police within 8 May 2008. For the process after this is according to the inquisitor if there will be another necessary meeting or the case will be filed to the prosecutor.
When the press asked if he was threatened after the news broadcasted on 22 April, Chotisak said there were some threatening phone calls and somebody posted his address online. As a result, he had to move around and live in his friends’ places at the time.
30 April 2008: Metro Life radio program on Motherland’s Security Guard Channel (FM 97.75 MHz), moderated by Torpong Swetamara, Varit Nimnualkul and Amnart Kerdthep, announced and persuaded listeners to besiege Chotisak Onsoong at the seminar called ‘Human Rights and Different Opinions’ on 2 May, room 101, faculty of economics, Thammasat University, where Chotisak will be one of the panelists. During the program, the moderator picked up a question from the audiences and read, ‘Do we have to pay 500 baht for hitting somebody’s head?’ The answer was broadcasted saying that the wrongful action will be fined for assaulting or quarreling, but the same thing could also be interpreted as an attempt to kill. To avoid the latter accusation, fists maybe used instead of weapons and the assault must cause no blood. If there was blood still, just paying 500 baht fine for the damages.
During the phone-in session, a listener called and commented, “just put some torch-batteries in hands and hit at the opponent’s mouth, this would cost nothing because the person would not dare enough to sew his own mouth, so just pay small medical bills and the 500-baht fine”. There were other phone calls throughout the program repeating that, crying or outraging with anger at home is not the way to protect the monarchy. Indeed, some actions were needed and loyal citizens must protect whomever they love: lying hope on soldiers to commit a coup d’etat is now impossible. These phone calls also stated clearly to start the action on 2 and 4 May. The moderator then proposed 4 May when the PM was scheduled to moderate a program called “PM meets citizens” to protest against the PM and the substitute director-general of Public Relations Department (PRD) given a reason that the PM did not do anything after NBT (National Broadcasting Service of Thailand) channel allowed a person who wore ‘Not standing is no crime, different standpoint is no crime’ t-shirt on its show. However, the moderators repeated in the end that the protest must go in peace, consciousness and civilization, to prevent oneself from being a political tool or destroying strategic plan in general.
2 May 2008: Chana-songkram Police Station sent a letter asking Thammasat University’s rector cooperation not to allow room 101, faculty of economics, for organizing the ‘Human Rights and Different Opinions’ seminar. The police said two of the panelists were Sulak Sivaraksa and Chotisak Onsoong; both of whom were accused for lèse majesté, and the university could be viewed as conspiring with the seminar. The rector then passed the letter to the dean who had direct responsibility on the venue. Later on, the dean met with the organizers and decided to let the seminar goes on.
At the university gate on Tha-prachan around 1 pm, there were approximately 30 yellow-shirts flocked together against the seminar, they came with signs wrote ‘Don’t be calm, Thais must fight against those scums of the land’, ‘Don’t believe those attacking-monarchy lies’, ‘We won’t let them hurt the King anymore’ and some signs wrote the academics’ names with swearing words. Shouting like ‘Those liars’, ‘those scums inside, let them be burned’ were heard all the time of the protest. Since, the university closed that door with 5-10 police officers and security guards stood for peace.
Head of the crowd, with a concealed name, told the press that they are just ordinary citizens who want to protect the monarchy and they had no strings attached to any political groups. He/she also said, it is a sudden protest today after they heard about the seminar so they passed the news around. The person continue that he/she knew there were several meetings here (Thammasat University) with a monarchy theme, and those people are the real ones who want to get rid of the monarchy. They did not stand up during the royal anthem and when they were thrown by things, these people claimed for human rights. As a result, we came today to fight back, let other people see, and demanded this kind of behaviors to be stopped.
However, the seminar ended without any chaotic events.
19 September 2008: There was no prosecution order in five cases that Chotisak Onsoong and friend sued Navamin Witthayakul including common assault, slander and verbal injury, wrongful interference with goods, common importunity and quarreling in public, for the incidence on 20 September 2007.
20 October 2008: The case of Chotisak and friend was sent from Pol.Lt. Sopetch Chanpol-ngam, inquisitor of Pathumwan Police Station, to the Criminal Court Prosecutor Office, Southern Bangkok 4. Both defendants signed on the cause that they were notified about the meeting on 20 November 2008, 10 am, to hear the prosecutor’s order.
20 November 2008: Chotisak revealed that the schedule to hear the prosecutor’s order was postponed to 25 December 2008, according to his lawyer.
25 December 2008: Chotisak’s arrangement to hear the prosecutor’s order was postponed again to 10 February 2009.
10 February 2009: For the third time, Chotisak was informed that the arrangement to hear the prosecutor’s order was postponed to 30 March 2009.
30 March 2009: The special prosecutor of the criminal court, southern Bangkok postponed the order on Chotisak and friend’s case to 26 May 2009.
Chotisak added that the prosecutor is now assigning local police officers to consult with Sheikul Islam Office and imams in the Islamic provinces from Southern Thailand in case that his friend will defend herself with the fact that she is a Muslim.
Moreover, Chotisak commented on how Thai PM, Abhisit Vejjajiva, implicated him while giving a speech in the UK two weeks ago. He said that besides making listeners misunderstood about his case, Abhisit was also trying to distort the truth about lèse majesté.
4 June 2009: Chotisak, one of the defendants of lèse majesté according to his action of not standing during the royal anthem in cinema, revealed that the prosecutor postponed the meeting again from 26 May 2009 to 28 July 2009, with a reason told that the prosecutor ordered additional interrogation, but no report was given back.
11 April 2012: Wisit Sukyukol, special prosecutor of criminal court of southern Bangkok 4, signed a non-prosecution order on Chotisak Onsoong and friend’s case because of weak evidences.
In a non-prosecution order stated the fact that, both defendants did not stand up while the royal anthem was playing on the cinema screen; according to this, Navamin Witthayakul turned himself to the defendants and said ‘Stand up’ in English, but Chotisak replied in Thai ‘Why standing when there is no law forcing me to do?’. After that, the three of them were quarreling and Navamin sued both of them under lèse majesté.
In this regards, the prosecutor considered that “both defendants did not stand up during the royal anthem and said ‘Why standing when there is no law forcing me to do?’, aforementioned action did not express any remarks or manners which are in the scope of defamation or insulting. The argument happened after the song ended. Even though the manners are inappropriate and out of Thai social norms, but it cannot be specified that both defendants’ manners are threatening the King. In addition, both defendants also denied the guilt at all time. All of this was considered as weak evidences to file lèse majesté charge.”