Old Facebook articles that were deemed to be disrespectful of the king, according to Supreme Court, were unethical.
20 September 2023 at 18:07 PUBLISHED
In connection with a photo she posted online 13 years earlier that was deemed rude to the king, the Supreme Court has permanently barred past Move Forward Party MP Pannika Wanich from politicians.
According to media reports, Ms. Pannika’s attorney Krissadang Nutcharat was found guilty of breaking moral standards that someone in a social position should have, according to the ruling on Wednesday.
The judge did not restrict Ms. Pannika’s ability to vote because it was not established that she had opposed the constitutional monarchy, even though it forbade her from running for office and holding any social office for the rest of her life.
When the Constitutional Court dissolved the party in February 2020 due to a violation of financing requirements, the 35-year-old former MP was now subject to the 10-year social restrictions imposed on 16 Future Forward Party professionals.
Along with Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit and Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, Ms. Pannika, Future Forward’s spokesperson, was regarded as one of its three important individuals. The Progressive Movement, a policy consider cylinder connected to the new Move Forward Party, was founded by the group following the ban.
Prior to the May 14 basic election, in which Move Forward won the most seats, the three likewise held prominent positions as” plan helpers.”
Srisuwan Janya, a famous applicant, filed the complaint in June 2019 that resulted in the court’s decision on Wednesday. He found some posts in Ms. Pannika’s social media history that he shared with the National Anti Corruption Commission( NACC ).
Because she failed to remove the materials or restrict public access to it, the anti-graft board charged Ms. Pannika with breaking moral standards while serving as an MP. It then asked the Supreme Court for a decision.
Images that were posted on the MP’s” Pannika Chor Wanich” Facebook account( Chor is Ms. Pannika) in 2010 were the focus of the court case.
According to the Supreme Court, Ms. Pannika’s actions were an expression of disdain for the king, which must be upheld in accordance with Section 6 of the Constitution and a related area on social norms.
It stated that the law forbids MPs from posting any images, texts, or other expressions on social press that are unsuitable for the royal institution.
The court claimed that Ms. Pannika’s content indicated that she intended to make inappropriate references to HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn and King Rama IX.
She kept the inappropriate content on the Facebook profile and kept people access to it even after she was elected as an MP. It claimed that this demonstrated her disdain for the imperial organization.
Ms. Pannika apologized to those who were offended by the Facebook article following Mr. Srisuwan’s first publication. It depicts her, who was 22 at the time, and her college classmates making an improper sign in front of King Rama IX portraits.
She said at the moment,” I feel uneasy also to learn that this particular image has sparked unconstructive conversations on social media and the use of hatred-induced language.”
Bencha Saengchantra, a Move Forward MP, expressed dissatisfaction with the harshness of the Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday.
The Constitution of 2560 ( 2017 ) establishes the moral standard for evaluating ethical wrongdoing. Legal sanctions ought to be handled appropriately. But she wrote on X, previously Twitter,” The most significant destruction of fundamental rights is the deprivation of social rights.”
Due to some additional Facebook posts Ms. Pannika made in 2013 and 2014, the Criminal Court cleared her of a Computer Crime Act infraction in May of this year.
She posted writings about the Ayudhya Kingdom, which the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society claimed may make some people fear for the royal organization.