A month has passed, but society is still debating the lawsuit against Pirongrong Ramasoota, a commissioner of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC).
Such attention is understandable after she was handed a two-year prison sentence with no suspension.
Her crime? Issuing a letter warning TV licence holders about unregulated broadcasting.
The plaintiff? True Digital Group, a subsidiary of True Corporation and provider of the TrueID app.
The court granted bail to Prof Emeritus Pirongrong who has vowed to take the case to the Appeal Court.
The verdict has sent shockwaves through regulatory and legal circles, raising concerns about the future of regulatory enforcement in Thailand. Legal experts also have questioned the verdict.
Why was Ms Pirongrong taken to court in the first place? What are the plaintiffs' complaints? Are they reasonable? Is the harsh verdict justifiable?
These were some of the questions raised at a public seminar on Feb 21 hosted by the Law Centre at Thammasat University's Faculty of Law.
Prof Prinya Thaewanarumitkul, director of the Thammasat legal department, said harsh rulings on public officials demand clear, convincing reasoning to show a fair trial has been had.
"Justice must not only be done -- it must be seen to be done," he added, citing the well-known legal principle.
That is because the repercussions are so alarming. "Who will dare protect the public interest if they risk lawsuits and prison? If this verdict becomes the norm, what happens next?"
In a TV grab taken on Feb 6, Pirongrong Ramasoota leaves the court after hearing its judgement. The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission member is appealing her conviction and jail sentence and can continue to serve on the board of the regulator. TV screen capture
How it started
The case began with a consumer complaint about advertisements appearing during licensed TV programmes on the TrueID app. The complaint prompted regulators to act.
Subsequently, the NBTC subcommittee on television licensing, chaired by Commissioner Pirongrong, issued a notification to 127 TV licence holders, cautioning them about broadcasting content outside NBTC regulations. As an over-the-top (OTT) streaming service, TrueID is not yet under NBTC regulations.
At first, the letter did not name TrueID, although the app was discussed in the meeting. Meeting minutes also failed to mention the company. When the general warning created confusion for licensed TV stations, another letter was sent, explicitly naming TrueID.
The TV subcommittee also corrected the meeting minutes to ensure the previous discussion on TrueID was properly recorded.
True Digital Group, which owns TrueID, claimed the warning letter was unlawful and damaged its reputation and business.
Initially, it sued the person who signed the letter, Ramida Leelapata, then acting deputy secretary-general of NBTC. She testified she had signed it under pressure from Ms Pirongrong. After providing restricted meeting transcripts to defend herself, the case was dismissed.
The plaintiff then sued Ms Pirongrong in the Central Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct Cases, accusing her of malfeasance under Article 157 of the Criminal Code. They alleged she abused her power to harm TrueID, which is outside the NBTC's jurisdiction.
The company also accused her of falsifying meeting minutes and pressuring NBTC officials to send the warning letter targeting TrueID. They cited two remarks she allegedly made -- "Lom Yak" (toppling a giant) and "Talob Lang" (a sneak attack) -- as proof of intent to undermine TrueID. Ms Pirongrong said she said both statements in jest, after the meeting.
The plaintiff also petitioned the court to prohibit commissioner Pirongrong from handling any matters related to TrueID and all companies under True Corporation. The petition was dropped.
Notably, Ms Pirongrong was among the minority NBTC commissioners who earlier opposed the True-Dtac telecom merger to prevent monopolies.
Unanswered questions
At the forum, legal experts raised several key concerns, particularly whether the court gave sufficient consideration to Ms Pirongrong's defence and if the verdict aligned with Article 157.
Prof Twekiat Menakanist, a former Justice of the Constitutional Court, put the case into perspective with an analogy.
"If I tell my son, 'Don't go to a massage parlour -- it's dangerous', can the owner sue me for hurting their business?"
Prof Twekiat says the NBTC's letter wasn't even addressed to the plaintiff as it was a general caution about unregulated broadcasting. Indeed, no action was taken against TrueID at the time. Therefore, asked Prof Twekiat, how could the letter be construed as unlawful or damaging to its business?
He also questioned why the case shifted from Ms Ramida to Ms Pirongrong, who is known for advocacy in consumer protection, suggesting it would make critics and officials who working in protecting consumers think twice.
Asst Prof Prinya, meanwhile, questioned conflicting testimonies. Ms Ramida claimed she signed the notification because two NBCT officials told her they received an order from Pirongrong. But both officials denied it. "That makes it two testimonies against one" he noted.
He also questioned the structure of the verdict. "It should include three key elements: the plaintiff's allegations, the defendant's counterarguments, and the court's ruling and its reasoning."
But in the 25-page ruling, 12 pages detailed the plaintiff's accusations, 12 pages were the court's judgment, largely repeating the plaintiff's claims. Only one page addressed Ms Pirongrong's defence, dismissing it outright as "unsubstantiated" and "contradictory to the facts".
And then came the two-year prison sentence without suspension. Far more serious offences have received suspended sentences.
But in Ms Pirongrong's case, "Why two years? Why no suspension? No explanation. Nothing. It's baffling", said Asst Prof Prinya.
The court ruled Ms Pirongrong had "led, pressured, and commanded" others. But a chairperson's job is to steer discussions. That alone is not abuse of power, he argued.
"I'm not saying whether the defendant is guilty or not," he said. "But if the court is going to use words like 'led, pressured, and commanded' as a key part of its ruling, shouldn't there be clear proof? Who was pressured? How? Where's the evidence?"
Telecom legal conundrum
Two major legal questions arise: For consumers, what are OTT platforms? In the legal spectrum, can the malfeasance charge under Article 157 apply to them?
First of all, we need to think real and hard about new media like OTT.
The 2008 Broadcasting and Television Act requires anyone running a TV business to obtain a licence.
If someone streams TV online, inserts ads, and broadcasts it to the public, how is that not considered television? That's the question Asst Prof Prinya raised. In reality, NBTC has been slow to issue law to regulate OTT.
While NBTC has yet to have direct law to address OTT per se, the law defines TV broadcasting as transmitting news or programmes to viewers via any system. The constitution also mandates that the NBTC's operations must serve the public interest and prevent consumer exploitation, he said. "When consumers file complaints, the NBTC must act."
On the abuse of power accusation, the plaintiff argued the NBTC should have sought board approval before issuing notifications. However, Asst Prof Prinya pointed out that the NBTC grants the Office of the Secretary-General the authority to do that.
The TV subcommittee only makes recommendations. The claim that Ms Pirongrong overstepped her authority then might have no basis, he said.
Furthermore, for Article 157 to apply, the accused must hold decision-making power. Law experts have questioned whether, in this case, Ms Pirongrong was actually the decision maker for NBTC or not. The authority lies with the Office of the Secretary-General.
Associate Prof Ronnakorn raised questions over the plaintiff's claim of business damage under Article 157.
"Article 157 is intent-based," he explained. "If an official knowingly abuses their power to cause harm, then it's a crime. But if the act isn't unlawful to begin with, any resulting damage is irrelevant."
Even if damage occurs, that's not the point. "If it benefits the public, it doesn't count as wrongdoing," added Asst Prof Prinya.
For some legal experts and critics, the verdict raised more questions than it answered.
Why is a public official fulfilling her constitutional duty to protect consumers facing criminal charges when no corruption or personal gain is involved? Did she intend to harm the plaintiff or only ensure regulatory compliance for consumer interest?
"If officials pushing for oversight make a technical misstep, their actions can be revoked or corrected," said law professor Ronnakorn."But a two-year prison term without suspension? Who will dare enforce regulations to protect the public now?"
Sanitsuda Ekachai is a former editorial pages editor. She writes on human rights, gender, and Thai Buddhism.