Keep an Eye on Court’s Judgment in Tiwagorn Case — Wearing a Shirt “I have lost faith in the monarchy"

On 29 September 2022, the Khon Kaen Provincial Court will deliver its judgment in the case involving Mr. Tiwagorn Withiton, a 46-year-old farmer from Khon Kaen, who was indicted by the prosecutor on the basis of Sections 112 (lèse-majesté) and 116(3) (sedition) and Section 14(3) of the Computer Crime Act for posting a photo of himself wearing a shirt with the statement “I have lost faith in the monarchy” on Facebook and making posts calling on the monarchy to stop using Section 112 and to release the four protest leaders in February 2021. In May 2022, he traveled to the court four times to participate in the witness examination proceedings.

Mr. Tiwagorn admitted that he is the author of the posts, though he argues that his conduct does not constitute the three offenses as alleged by the prosecutor.

4 Days in the Courtroom

The prosecution presented a total of 13 witnesses, two of whom were from the investigative team from Tha Phra Police Station who prepared the investigative file and arrested Mr. Tiwagorn. One of them was the person who filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Tiwagorn. Another police-witness was a member of the investigative team. The other ten witnesses who came to give opinions about Mr. Tiwagorn’s Facebook posts were: the Internal Security Operations Command; the Provincial Cultural Office; the deputy district chief; the subdistrict headman; the village headman; the assistant village headman; the Chief Executive of the Subdistrict Administrative Organization; the chairman of the provincial lawyers’ council; a former lecturer at the Faculty of Humanities at Khon Kaen University; and Arnond Sakworawich, a lecturer at the Faculty of Applied Statistics at the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA).

Most of the prosecution witnesses believe that Mr. Tiwagorn’s posts were directed at the institution of the monarchy. Only some witnesses believe that the posts were directed at King Rama X. In any case, all witnesses stated that suspending the use of Section 112 or releasing the four protest leaders on bail falls within the power of the judicial process, not that of the king or the institution of the monarchy. Contrary to Mr. Tiwagorn’s post, the witnesses testified, the king does not interfere with the judicial process.

With respect to the photo of Mr. Tiwagorn wearing a shirt with the statement “I have lost faith in the monarchy” and calling on others to do the same, only two prosecution witnesses—Arnond and an investigator—testified about this issue. Both testified that Mr. Tiwagorn’s posts were calling on others to develop hatred towards the monarchy and may cause some people to insult the king. Both witnesses also testified that the word “monarchy” in Mr. Tiwagorn’s post referred to the current king.

The defense cross-examined the prosecution witnesses and pointed out that the word “monarchy” in Mr. Tiwagorn’s posts did not specifically mention any individual. It is also unclear to whom the word “monarchy” is referring. Even the prosecution witnesses interpreted this word differently without being able to specify the number of people to whom the word refers. There are past judicial decisions and lawyers’ opinions stating that Section 112 only protects the 4 individuals who currently hold positions listed in the provision. Section 112 does not protect the institution of the monarchy.

Moreover, King Rama IX and King Rama X have previously recommended against using Section 112. This is why the case against Mr. Sondhi Limthongkul was withdrawn and why there were no prosecutions on the basis of Section 112 before November 2020. Many prosecution witnesses were aware of this fact, especially in light of Prime Minister Prayut’s interview where he said that King Rama X has mercy and advised against the use of Section 112. To say what the Prime Minister himself said should therefore not be a criminal offense. The prosecution witnesses also admitted that Mr. Tiwagorn’s posts are not vulgar or constitute a threat. After Mr. Tiwagorn wore the shirt (“I have lost faith in the monarchy”) and called on others to do the same, only two individuals did so.

The defense pointed out that the content of the prosecution witnesses’ statements about Mr. Tiwagorn’s posts at the investigative stage was similar to each other. It may be the case that the investigator copied each other’s statements even if the witnesses may not understand the issue in the same manner as written in the statements. One witness testified that they did not understand the meaning of the posts which were the subject of indictment.

As the one and only defense witness, Mr. Tiwagorn testified that he made his posts because he wanted to speak about the institution of the monarchy, not about any specific individuals. Had he wanted to post about the king or any specific person, he would have directly mentioned the name of the person.

Furthermore, Mr. Tiwagorn testified that his intention with respect to the wearing of the “I have lost faith in the monarchy” shirt was to exercise is fundamental freedom of expression so that the monarchy could improve and be genuinely loved by the people. He did not have any intention to mock or insult. He wore the shirt at issue to different places and no disturbance ensued.

With respect to the other two Facebook posts, Mr. Tiwagorn insisted that he made the posts in good faith and with good intention towards the monarchy. As the use of Section 112 violates human rights, its use therefore has negative effects on the monarchy. Because the monarchy is the victim in Section 112 cases, the monarchy has the right to state whether Section 112 should be used. Mr. Tiwagorn also stated that he learned of news about the comments allegedly made by King Rama IX, King Rama X, and Julajerm Yukol about the enforcement of Section 112 and the effects they had on the bail applications of the defendants. He therefore believed that the monarchy, which includes the senior members of the royal aide-de-camp, can make suggestions and provide opinions on the use of Section 112.

Read TLHR’s statement in July 2020 calling for the release of Mr. Tiwagorn here: https://tlhr2014.com/en/archives/19719.