Boundary
Defendant
Case Status
Case Started
Complainant / Plaintiff
Table of Content
Boundary, a Thai documentary that presents recent political protests and a border spat with Cambodia has been banned by the Censorship sub-committee as "a threat to national security and international relations". The next day Boundary has been given an 18+ rating.
Defendant Background
Fah Tam Pan Din Soong or Boundary is the film which examines the political conflict in Thailand regarding the Preah Vihear temple dispute between Thailand and Cambodia represented by a mass assembly at Ratchaprasong intersection in Bangkok and the loss of the people.
The other part of the film presents the life style and the viewpoints of the residents in the border areas (Bhumisal village-Srisaket) whom directly impacted of the Preah Vihear spats. The film shows ‘how Cambodians see Thailand’ and ‘how border people see urban people’.
The boundary was produced by Nontawat Numbenchapol. He started to produce this film in 2011, inspired by talking with an army private who took part in the military crackdown on protesters of the red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship in 2010 before returning home to Si Sa Ket. Nontawat disguised as a foreign tourist to make the film in Cambodia border areas, surveyed the viewpoints and attitudes of Thais and Cambodians who live in the dispute area.
Before the film was banned in Thailand. The Boundary has received the scholarship from Art Network Asia, Busan International Films Festival and was selected to screen at 63rd Berlin International Film Festival for the first time.
Offense
Allegation
Fah Tam Pan Din Soong, or Boundary, was banned on Tuesday by the sub-committee of the The Censorship Committee on grounds that it might create disunity among people in the nation and a threat to international relations.
Circumstance of Arrest
Trial Observation
Black Case
Court
Additional Info
Reference
17 April 2013
The sub-committee provided ‘observations’ as its justification for the (subsequently overridden) decision to ban Boundary.
The decision provided reasons that the content of this film is the story about the incidents that happened in Thailand at Ratchaprasong intersection which is a place for New Year celebration, protest and a loss. The film also presents life style of the people in the border area. The observations of the film’s content are as follow:
1. The narrative that related to the Royal Institution was not correct, for instance: (min 0.29) ‘The 84th birthday celebration of H.M. the King’ if link this event to the film’s name ‘Fah Tam Pan Din Soong’ (Low Sky, High Land) the audience may be misled because the content of the film does not conform with the name or what does the film maker wants to communicate? “Although claiming to be a documentary disclosure of events, the film presents the opinions of its makers. Some of the incidents referred to are still in the process of deliberation by the courts and by relevant organizations. Moreover, the film presents no supporting evidence for its various claims regarding the occurrence of certain incidents. These are, for instance: (min 1:38) this area “was the site of massacre of red shirt protestors, most of whom had come from other provinces to Bangkok”; (1:58) “nearly 100 people were killed”; (2:04) “Bangkokians as well as many people who were critical of the protests enthusiastically supported the crackdown”; (2:09) “the previous government claimed that the unrest was the work of an invisible third hand that wished to undermine it”; (2:17) “the red shirts and their supporters believed the government and the military caused the violence”; (2:29) “Bangkokians and critics of the red shirts noisily expressed admiration and support for the government and the military”; (2:44) “upcountry people were accused of being stupid and money-minded”; (45:00) “Thailand and Cambodia signed a joint communique to list Preah Vihear as a World Heritage site..” The narration in some part of this film was different from the picture because it was pictures of countryside scene.
2. The film contain content which may create disunity among people in the country, according to section 7(3) of the 2009 Ministerial Regulation on Film Classification, and the Film and Video Act 2008.
3. The film contain content which may effects national security and international relations. There are pictures of the army shooting with the opposition, the type of the shelters and the land boundary stone movement by the Cambodian soldiers, which there is no evidence to be shown that they really did happen.
The sub-committee considered that the content of this film is contrary to public order and may mislead the audience. This film should not be allowed to be screened in the Kingdom.
23 April 2013
Nontawat Numbenchapol the director of the Boundary reported the result of the request for 18+ rating of the film via Facebook. ; “The Film and Video sub-committee do not permit the documentary film “Boundary” (Fah Tum Pandin Soong) to be screened in the Kingdom of Thailand. The film’s content is a threat to national security and international relations. The film presents some information on incidents that are still being deliberated by the Thai court and that have not yet been officially concluded.” In addition the director was in the process of appealing.
25 April 2013
Nontawat Numbenchapol the director of the Boundary reported via Facebook.; The Film and Video sub-committee decided to let the film pass with the 18+ rating. However, the Censorship Board asked the director to remove two seconds of ambience sound in an early scene. That scene is the New Year’s celebration at Ratchaprasong Intersection during which an MC announces on stage: “Let’s countdown and celebrate H.M. the King’s 84th anniversary”. The censor Committee expressed concerns that this might lead to misinterpretation. The filmmaker realized that the sound has no significance to the story of the film and agreed to mute it.
26 April 2013
Mr.Sombat Pukan the committee of The National Film and Video Board informed that the Film and Video Committee decided to let the film pass with the 18+ rating. However, the censors asked the director to remove two seconds of ambience sound in an early scene which related to the Royal Institution. The filmmakers agreed with it and therefore did not appeal.
Mr.Sombat also informed about the previous news that the banning was a misunderstanding. The filmmakers sent the film in the DVD type not to screen in the theater. The mistake came from the data entry officer who records the first result without the second consideration and that caused the filmmaker misunderstand.