TPBS postpones Tob Jote Pratetthai (Literally translated as “Answer Thailand’s Question”).
Defendant
Case Status
Case Started
Complainant / Plaintiff
Table of Content
Espisode 5 of Tob Jote Pratetthai: The Royal Institution Under the Constitution that hosted Somsak Jeamteerasakul, Ph.D. and S. Sivaraksa (Sulak Sivaraksa) as guests was held back before broadcasting after the demonstration took place in front of TPBS headquarters.
Later on, the ThaiPBS policy committee allowed to broadcast the program among protests and opppsition movements including people went to report to the polce. NBC also fined ThaiPBS for 50,000 baht.
Defendant Background
Tob Jote Pratetthai was a TV program which hosted interview on social-political issues. Mr. Pinyo Trisuriyatamma was program moderator. The program was broadcast at 9.45 p.m. everyday via ThaiPBS channel.
It became controversial when the program broadcasted its special series with 5 episodes "The Royal Institution Under the Constitution" between 11-15 March 2013. Later on ThaiPBS decided to hold the tape of episode 5 from broadcasting as a group of protesters gather in front of its building to protest against Thaipbs. However, the tape was broadcast on 18 March 2013.
The 1st Episode: Surakiart Sathirathai, aired on 11 March 2013
Surakiart Sathirathai expressed his opinion regarding the problems related to Article 112 of the Criminal Code, saying that problems arise as a result of the increasing of defamatory remarks against the royal institution, which they all false information. Those who did not understand why can't we talk about the royals in public were getting upset. As a matter of fact, in Asian society there are many issues that were inappropriate to discussed in public place not only the issue regarding the royal institution. Moreover, it was not true to say that we cannot talk about the royal institution. People generally discussed about this matter but not in public. However, the foreigners already misunderstand that the discussion regarding the royal institution is prohibited.
What need to be done is to stop the defamation. Otherwise, the opposition will take step to against the abusers whether with honest intention or with a certain political agenda.
Hence, without an abuse there shall be no antagonism between the people.
Regarding the Article 112, it is possible to discuss this matter intellectually and it should not be used to harm others. The society needs to designed the law that can protect and uphold status of the royal institution as it cannot protect itself. The law must then authorize the others to take legal actions on its behalf.
However, it is possible to discuss whether to have a minimum jail term or not or discussed the possibility to amend fine penalty instead of imprisonment.
It is also necessary to examine the defendant’s intention, so the Office of Attorney General can exercise its discretion whether to file the case or not.
Regarding the adjustment of the royal institution. In fact it is incorrect to focus only at the royal institution because every institution need to make an adjustment. However, it is impossible to make a radical change.
Moreover, it need not to compare the Thais Royal Institution with other Royal Families. In fact what need to be done is to paid the loyalty by stop connecting the King and the politics.
It is also inappropriate to seek for the his political opinion. The king is father to every Thai citizens, he equally concern on his children. of everyone between We must express our loyalty toward the king by not bringing His Majesty into politics or ask for His Majesty’s political opinions since His Majesty is our father who takes care of us all. Another cause of the misunderstanding is the gossips about the monarch in our society.
2nd record : Somsak Jeamteerasakul, aired on 12 March 2013
Somsak Jeamteerasakul expressed his opinion toward the Criminal Code article 112 and the role of the monarch, saying it is the government’s false not to amend the law, and it is not what people want since they have collected names of those who want the amendment. The government doesn’t dare to do it because it has been attacked from doing this. He believes it’s time the elite show their courage, standing up and tell the truth – not saying one thing to the foreigners while say the other to Thai people. Speaking openly of the truth will solve the problems. It won’t bring about any confrontation. If we avoid saying the truth and turn to gossip instead, then we will quarrel with one another when the worst day comes. And the most important thing is to cancel the article 112 and use libel law instead, since if regular law is good for the people, it should be good enough for every person under the state. The heads of state need no special law to protect them since this contradicts democratic and modern world ideology. No other countries have such law. Or if they do, the law is not really applied or is being demanded for abolishment. Moreover, the libel law for the heads of state should be flexible than the commoner’s, since the heads of state have more privileges and power.
Somsak expressed his standpoint. He wants the country to continue having the monarchy, but the monarchy need to be reform into democratic monarchy. What will come after the reformation is another matter. Modern politics must stand upon freedom, not forcing its people into faithfulness or projecting one-side information via the education system, media, or prohibiting some kind of personal expression. The latter is against humans’ nature. It is not what it’s believed to have been. It just began in the era when Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat raised to power.
3rd record: Vasit Dejkunjorn, aired 13 March 2013
Vasit Dejkunjorn expressed the opinion about the criminal code article 112 saying the amnesty should not be granted for the article 112 criminals since it’s not a personal crime but a crime against the state. The king’s status is written in the constitution which reflects people’s will. It’s written that His Majesty is approved by Thai people since the time of political revolution. The king is under the constitution and is above politics, therefore the king is separated entirely from politics. If the king is offended, the offender shall be punished by the law. Vasit believes the ongoing political conflict is connected with a group of people who have a malicious intention of pulling the king into politics and of demeaning His Majesty. He said that is the cause of the phenomenon in which the king is defamed in the cyber war. Some people on the internet, they demand for the republic. They call for the end of the monarchy. All these are irritating. The corruption and the king defamation is committed by the same group of people who benefit from the situation. Their demand is impossible because Thai people still respect their king.
4th record : Sulak Sivaraksa and Somsak Jeamteerasakul, aired on 14 March 2013
Somsak Jeamteerasakul expressed his opinion on Sulak’s support for M.R. Sukhumbhand Paribatra while M.R. Sukhumbhand was a Bangkok governor candidate. Somsak said that the Democrat party has always pulled the monarch into politics, how can Sulak – who wants the monarchy reformation, support this party? To reform this undemocratic monarchy – we must not accuse others of destroying it, otherwise it will stress how undemocratic the monarchy is. Somsak also expresses his disagreement with Sulak, who accuses Taksin of wanting to overthrow the monarchy, since according to the democratic system, whether to abolish the monarchy or not is up to people’s decision. In Thailand, we have the law that prohibits a negative talk about the monarchy. People can only talk positively about it, and that means nothing. We can never know what they say is true or not since there is no other way to say it except to say positively, otherwise they will be charged with the criminal law article 112. Sulak answers Somsak question saying that he had to support Sukhumbhand despite his tiresomeness because Sukhumbhand is not the worst guy. Since he himself is a royalist, he must choose Sukhumbhand, because Sukhumbhand is less terrible than Taksin and is a grandson of M.J. Paribatra, the benefactor of the country. Even though the Democrat party has always made uses of the monarchy. Even though it has rotted the democracy since 1947 and up until now.
Sulak says that among people wanting to overthrow the monarch, he would deal with the only one who has power and money, which is Taksin. Since Taksin is the only one above the law, a fatal enemy of people. However, demolishing the monarchy is possible only to the institutions closed to it, especially the Bureau of the Crown Property which is too closed to the monarch and has too much power. The Bureau should be under the government. So are soldiers and the privy councilor which are above the law. These people in the institution have no moral courage. When something is wrong, they don’t mention it to His Majesty or give any compromising criticism for a better change toward the democratic path, even right now when the monarch is not the ideal one and is not under the constitution, as those in Europe or Japan. The king can command without a person who countersigns the Royal Command, which is not the way things should be. Because if the king commands anything, His Majesty must be responsible for it, and must be subjected to criticism. These people must have moral courage to warn His Majesty of it, even if the king’s speech is a fine one. At the moment, there are excessive praises of the monarch that it has become sickening. We should amend the article 112 since the punishment is too severe. The law gives the police too much power. It’s destroying the monarchy, damaging the king. If we are really faithful to His Majesty, we should do what Somsak suggests.
5th record: Sulak Sivaraksa and Somsak Jeamteerasakul (continued), aired on 18 March 2013
Sulak says that to express our loyalty to the king is to tell the truth, to point out why it is better to have the monarchy. The monarchy is for people’s peace and happiness, not for the royal or those closed to it. The monarch must stand above all conflicts. If the king is a man of intelligence, he uses it in other ways, not in politics, e.g. preserving culture and nature. We need people who have moral courage to help support the monarch. We have no such people, not a journalist or a scholar or the privy councilor – who knows full well that the monarch is not democratic, since it is adjusted in the 1947 coup. Even the privy councilor came undemocratically since it was appointed by the monarch, not the government.
Somsak suggestions are: Abolish the article 112, which is under the constitution section 8. Abolish the privy councilor since it is directly under the monarch and that its officers are state employees, but the parliament have no control over them. Furthermore, the government is already the king’s consultant; the monarch’s possession should be transferred into the hands of the government, so the citizen can have control over the possession, since it belongs to the. Abolish the consecration to Majesty's royal charities which began in Field Marshal Sarit’s era. Cancel the king’s speech. Cancel propagandizing the virtue of the king. From Somsak’s opinion, we can’t abolish the law only, but all of the suggestions should be done at once. Somsak also juxtaposes the monarch’s power with modernity, saying that the society has changed, people must think for themselves. But right now the monarch is still the center of everything, which doesn’t go with the modern world – the democratic world. People must have rights to express their opinions on the recent political system, but here they don’t. If we don’t fix this, we can’t face the changes.
Sulak agrees with all of Somsak’s suggestions, but says that they cannot be done at the moment since people lack the courage. We need to make people dare to face the truth first. We need to let those who don’t agree with us speak. After that, all the institution, not only the monarch, but the court, the monastery institution, will be changed too. But if we do what Somsak suggests at once, it will affect people. The suggestions will be confronted with aggressive resistance.
Offense
Allegation
Circumstance of Arrest
Trial Observation
Black Case
Court
Additional Info
Reference
TPBS’s director clarifies; no pressure from any institution for putting off “Tobjote”. Prachatai Website , 17 March 2013 (cited on 18 March 2013)
Pinyo announces the withdrawal of Tob Jote “to maintain the principle”, Prachatai website, 16 March 2013 (cited on 18 March 2013)
TPBS director reveals the postponement of Tob Jote, Matichon website, 18 March 2013 (cited on 18 March 2013)
NBTC appoints a committee investigating Tob Jote postponement, found the case similar to Nua Mek’s. Result to be reached by the end of this month, Matichon website, 18 March 2013 (cited on 20 March 2013)
Opinions varied. Media reacted : the ban was unexpected, Matichon website, 17 March 2013 (cited on 20 March 2013)
TPBS policy committee gives a statement upon Tob Jote postponement on 15 March 2013, TPBS website, 18 March 2013 (cited on 20 March 2013)
TPBS director explains the postponement of Tob Jote episode 5, TPBS website, 18 March 2013 (cited on 20 March 2013)
40 senators scold Tob Jote : destroying the monarch, Thairath website, 18 March 2013 (cited on 20 March 2013)
“Prachachon Thon Mai Wai” prepares TPBS protest. Rosana challenges TPBS, put her on talk on PTT issue, 19 March 2013 (cited on 20 March 2013)
Police found some guests in Tob Jote guilty, preparing to appoint a group of investigators, Matichon website, 21 March 2013 (cited on 21 March 2013)
Complaints filed at Don Muang and Thung Song Hong police station ; Tob Jote violates criminal code article 112, OKnation Blogs website, 28 March 2013 (accessed on 1 April 2013)
DNN afternoon news reports, TPBS director is complained of committing Lese Majesty, Youtube website, 27 March 2013 (4 March 2013)
Not Done Yet: NBTC appoints a working group to investigate Tob Jote, Prachatai website, 4 April 2013 (cited on 4 April 2013)
Other information: After Isaranews Agency reported of 2 editors talked with TPBS director prior to Tob Jote postponement, three rounds of meeting were arranged after protesters’ pressure,11-14 attendees attained the final round. Nobody walked in. Nattha not involved, Isara News Agency website, 17 March 2013 (cited on 4 April 2013)
“We Love the King” groups held big protest condemning Tob Jote & TPBS and opposed the article 112 reformation, Prachatai website, 7 April 2013 (cited 9 April 2013)
11 March 2556
Tob Jote Pratetthai started broadcasting the program under the series titled “Monarchy Under the Constitution”. The special series contains 5 episodes. The first episode is a talk with Surakiart Sathirathai, a former Deputy Prime Minister of Thailand overseeing Foreign Affairs.
12 March 2013
TPBS broadcasted the second episode, having Ph.D.Somsak Jeamteerasakul, a professor of History Department, Faculty of Arts, Thammasat University, as a guest.
12 March 2013
TPBS broadcasted the third episode, having Police General Vasit Dejkunjorn, a former royal police who had been working under His Majesty, as a guest.
14 March 2013
TPBS broadcasted the fourth episode, having Ph.D.Somsak Jeamteerasakul and Ajarn Sulak Sivaraksa exchanged opinions.
15 March 2013
At 2.00 pm approximately, a group of protesters who disfavors the series were protesting in front of the station headquarters.
Afterward, Mr.Somchai Suwanban, director of TPBS took the protesters’ letter of complaint into the policy committee meeting. After the consideration, the committee agreed that the record can be broadcasted.
In the evening news, the channel informed its audiences it would broadcast Tob Jote episode 5 as usual, that the station would open more spaces for the debates of different opinions. The station then informed the protesters who were still occupied TPBS headquarters of the committee’s decision. The protesters were not satisfied with the decision and declared that if the channel broadcast the episode, they would spread the news via the social media, asking people who disagree with the decision to stay over at the headquarters.
After negotiating with the protester, the news staffs and the executive had a meeting with Mr.Somchai to inform him of the protesters’ responses and to find out the solution. The executive was worried that the media action would bring confrontation and violence. Mr.Somchai then decided to postpone the broadcast 15 minutes before the actual broadcasting program, in order to wait for the subcommittee to consider the protesters’ complaint once again.
15 March 1013
Isaranews Agency, citing a source in TPBS, reported that there were two news editors, Miss Natthaya Waewveerakupta, editor of social and public policies news and Mr.Butrath Butraphrom, a news editor, having a discuss with Mr.Somchai Suwanban, director of TPBS prior to Tob Jote episode 5 : Monarchy under the Constitution postponement was ordered. Miss Nattha Komolwathin wasn’t there though she raised her opinion in the meeting disagreeing with the broadcast of Tob Jote episode 5.
16 March 2013
Mr. Pinyo Trisuriyatamma announced his resignation from the program, giving reason that the act was to express his standpoint to journalists’ ethics and to show his agreement with the postponement of Tob Jote episode 5.
17 March 2013
Miss Natthaya Waewveerakupta, editor of social and public policies news, TPBS posted a message on her facebook which can be summarizing as : Presenting the debates on the monarchy can’t be done carelessly. The media need to do it responsibly, especially when it comes to people’s faiths. It is risky trying to get opinions from a few people, and we’ll never find the best solution from doing this.
17 March 2013
Isaranews Agency reported : According to the agency’s last report saying there were news editors requested to see Mr.Somchai Suwanban in order to discuss the issue, the report was false. The agency cited a source in TPBS that it was actually a meeting, not a request see the director that happened before Mr.Somchai decided to postponed Tob Jote episode 5. There were about 11-14 attendees in the meeting. Besides Mr.Somchai, there were Mr. Mongkol Leelatham who is the deputy director of TPBS, a group of company’s lawyers, editors, and Tob Jote coordinators that were in the meeting. The source said the meeting resulted in the postponement of the episode until the discreet consideration was reached, – NOT the cancelation of the episode. No attendees proposed the. The report which said Miss Nattha was one of the editors in the meeting with Mr.Somchai, is false, since she was hosting another program – “Tee Nee TPBS”, a live program at the time.
18 March 2013
Mr.Somchai Suwanban gave an interview to Matichon daily newspaper. Parts of the interview said that Top Jote broadcast wasn’t banned as being misunderstood. The channel only postponed the broadcast until the subcommittee accepts the complaint and made the discreet final decision.
Meanwhile, Colonel Natee Sukolrat, vice chairman of The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission or NBTC said that the subcommittee was set up to look into the matter. He said the case is similar to the case of ThaiTV3 banning “Nua Mek 2” TV drama. The meeting agendas were: 1. There’s no need to decide whether the content is appropriate since it wasn’t broadcasted. 2. Since the station’s director gave the order, there’s a need to consider whether the order was appropriate and whether he had the right to do that. The decision is expected by the end of March 2013.
Later on the same day, Thai Public Broadcasting Service policy committee gave the announcement summarizing as : The subcommittee has considered the people’s complaint and decided that, postponing Tob Jote violates Thai Public Broadcasting Service Regulation on Professional Ethics article 6.1. The subcommittee decided that the postponed broadcast should be broadcasted as soon as possible to compensate the affected audiences.
At 9.45 PM, TPBS broadcasted Tob Jote episode 5 following the subcommittee’s decision. Mr.Somchai Suwanban, director of TPBS said that broadcasting “Monachy Under the Constitution” series and leading the public debate on the issue was a journalists’ duty. He also said it is better to debate the issue concerning the article 112 in the public.
19 March 2013
Mr.Wanchai Sornsiri, selected senator, Mrs. Trungjai Buranasomphob and other selected senators expressed their negative views on Tob Jote contents explaining that the content hurts Thai people’s feelings and that it could be deemed Lèse–majesté.
While Miss Rosana Tositrakul, one of the 40 selected senators said that as TPBS broadcasted the program criticizing the monarch and had invited the same guest for all 3 episodes, even though there’re more guests joined the last two episodes, all the guests in the 3 episodes hold similar opinions, the program then seemed like a chorus talk.
At the same time, a group of citizens who call themselves “Prachachon Thon Mai Wai” (Untolerated People Group) were protesting in front of TPBS headquarters on 20 March 2013, claiming that TPBS didn’t follow what it promised to the protesters.
20 March 2013
The Faculty of Communication Arts, Chulalongkorn University, held a public seminar under the topic “Answer the Tob Jote Question : Public Broadcasting Service in Thai Society”, having Mr.Somchai Suwanban as one of the participants. Mr.Somchai insisted the postponement was necessary for preventing the confrontation and protecting public property and to guarantee the employees’ safety. He also said it is a journalists’ duty to open a public space for people who hold different opinions to exchange their views.
At the same time, about 50-100 people from “Prachachon Thon Mai Wai” group were protesting in front of TPBS headquarters expressing their disagreement with the broadcast of Tob Jote : “Monarch Under the Constitution” episode 5.
At about 12.15 PM, a representative from TPBS came to get the letter of complaint from “Prachachon Thon Mai Wai” group. While the group read the statement condemning the broadcast, saying that the act was close to violating the law since the guest has dangerous opinions against the beloved monarch. They also call for the urgent resignation of the board of directors and the apology to Thai people. If the demand had not met, they would pursue the legal process.
21 March 2013
POL.MAJ.GEN. Piya Autayo, Royal Thai Police spokesman said, the police had initially investigated the guest’s words of opinions and found some part of them were in the scope of Lèse–majesté. POL.MAJ.GEN. Piya said the Royal Thai Police had decided it is an important matter concerning the state security and it is also in public’s interest. The Royal Thai Police then appoints a team of investigators to look into the matter following the Criminal Procedure Code and to reach the result as soon as possible. If found guilty, the investigators had the right to arrest and bring the offender or any person involved into the legal procedure and report to the Royal Thai Police every 30 days, If there was to be other complaint in other areas, the appointed investigators were the person in charge of the case.
25 March 2013
A photo was share on the facebook page showing the police charge sheet at Don Muang police station requesting the charge of Mr. Pinyo Trisuriyatamma, Mr.Sulak Sivaraksa, and Mr.Somsak Jeamteerasakul of the “crime against security of the state article 37”, and for Mr.Somchai Suwanban, of “ignoring the duty secion 157”.
27 March 2013
Mr.Kitti Nilpai filed a complaint at Thung Song Hong police station, requesting for the charge of 5 directors of TPBS which were: Mr.Somchai Suwanban, CEO and director, Mr.Wanchay Tantiwithyaphithaks, Mr. Vudhi Leelakusolvon, Mr.Mongkol Leelatham, and Mr.Puttisak Namdej for allowing the broadcast of the content; Tob Jote Pratetthai : Monarchy Under the Constitution episode 4, which violates the criminal code article 112 on 14 March 2013. The content is the debate on the issue between Mr.Sulak Sivaraksa and Mr. Somsak Jeamteerasakul
1 April 2013
The National Broadcasting Commission (NBC), with the proposal from the contents and program , decided to appoint a working group to consider the program’s content, having Lieutenant General Peerapong Manakij as the chief. The working group consisted of Mr.jaturong Panyadilok, former deputy of Office of the Permanent Secretary, Mr. Nattachak Pattamasingh Na Ayuthaya, a law specialist, Mr.Anusorn Srikaew, Mr. Vera Urairat, representative from National Security Council, and Mr.Jade Donavanik. The working group would consider the appropriateness of the content in every context of Thai society and would consider whether the contents violate any laws.
5 April 2013
There’re gatherings of “We Love the King” groups in many provinces including khonkaen, Pitsanulok and Sara Buri. The gatherings purpose was to show faithfulness to the monarch and to condemn Tob Jote program and TPBS for the broadcast of the episode, which held the debate between Mr.Sulak Sivaraksa and Mr. Somsak Jeamteerasakul. The groups claimed that the content causes dissatisfaction among “We Love the King” people all over the country. The content causes division of opinions among Thai people. They also disagreed with the reformation of the criminal code article 112. Moreover, at Chum Pon, “We Love the King” people filed a letter of complaint condemning TPBS to the provincial governor and the army leader.
6 April 2013
Songkla’s “ We Love the King” group organized “Protect the Monarchy” event having other “We Love the King” groups with their representatives from 16 districts joined. There were a large number of people joining the event wearing pink shirts. Their statement said that TPBS action had a hidden agenda which upset the people who love and worship the king; it wanted to destroy Thai people’s faith in the monarch. The statement also said that “ We Love the King” groups condemn TPBS action and was going to pursue the legal process with those involved.
4 August 2014
National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) had a resolution to fine ThaiPBS station for 50,000 baht for broadcasting Tob Jote Pratetthai: The Royal Institution Under the Constitution because some content was considered to be prohibitted to broadcast according to Section 37 of the Broadcasting Act of 2008.