"Panthep" slams "Anuwat Jad Hai" for posting a distorted news item falsely claiming DSI referred the "Taengmo" case to the NACC merely as a report with no grounds found, after which the case was ordered closed — calling the excuse that a local reporter sent incomplete details unacceptable. He demands accountability beyond simply deleting the post and apologising, insisting that Anuwat must explain who provided the information, whether he accepted the job, and what punishment should follow.
Following the case in which Mr Anuwat Fueangthongdaeng, owner of the page "Anuwat Jad Hai," posted a message claiming that Mr Kriangsak Suwansi, a senior special investigator at the Department of Special Investigation (DSI), had given an interview about the referral of the death case of "Taengmo" Nida Patcharaweerapong to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), stating that no grounds were found and that the case had been ordered closed as of 5 August — before the post was subsequently deleted and an apology was posted.
Most recently, Mr Panthep Phuapongphan, chairman of the Yam Fao Phaendin Foundation, posted a message on his Facebook page "Panthep Phuapongphan" raising questions about the matter, stating that what "Anuwat Jad Hai" should do may not be merely deleting the post and offering an apology, but should instead demonstrate accountability by clarifying the facts surrounding the origin of the information.
Mr Panthep stated that the previously posted message claimed that Mr Kriangsak had given an interview saying that the referral of the Taengmo case to the NACC found no grounds, that the case had therefore been ordered closed as of 5 August, that it was merely a report to inform the NACC, that at the investigation stage there was still no conclusion that it was a murder case, that no perpetrator could be identified, and that there was therefore no finding implicating any official on charges of assisting a perpetrator.
However, Mr Panthep said he had telephoned Mr Kriangsak to ask about the post and received confirmation that Mr Kriangsak had never given an interview of that nature, stating that the content that had been published was entirely false.
Mr Panthep also stated that earlier that morning, Mr Kriangsak had given an interview to the media saying that he had already submitted the matter to the NACC in accordance with the law and that his duty in that regard was complete, and that he was therefore unable to give any interview about the details of the case, though he could continue to submit additional information progressively.
In light of this matter, Mr Panthep stated that he had posted a message confirming that the information presented by "Anuwat Jad Hai" was false, and that he believed legal proceedings should continue.
Mr Panthep further stated that after the post was deleted from the "Anuwat Jad Hai" page and an apology was posted — citing the reason that a local reporter had sent him incomplete details, causing the error — this excuse was unacceptable, because receiving incomplete details should mean that some information was missing, not that an entirely new fabricated story was invented, or that whole new paragraphs appeared out of nowhere, as though there was a deliberate intention to distort the news in order to assist the government officials who were the subjects of the complaint, and to discredit the public who were the complainants.
Mr Panthep therefore called on "Anuwat Jad Hai" to demonstrate greater accountability than merely claiming that a local reporter sent him incomplete details — by showing sincerity, seeking out the facts to find the cause, and telling the public who brought this story, from whom the message was received, whether this was a paid job or not, and what punishment should be imposed.
Details of the post on the Facebook page of Panthep Phuapongphan:
Questions for "Anuwat Jad Hai" — You must do more than delete the post and apologise for fabricating the news. #TaengmoCase
"Anuwat Jad Hai" has already deleted the post and apologised for having entered false information into a computer system by fabricating a story claiming:
"Mr Kriangsak Suwansi, senior special investigator at the Department of Special Investigation, gave an interview saying that the referral of the Taengmo case to the NACC in fact found no grounds, so the case was ordered closed as of 5 August, and it was merely a report to inform the NACC. At the investigation stage there was still no conclusion that it was a murder case; no perpetrator could be identified, and there was therefore no finding implicating any official on charges of assisting a perpetrator."
That post remained up for more than 7 hours, causing distorted information to spread through society in a way that misled the public — by assisting the government officials who were the subjects of the complaint, and discrediting the public who were the complainants.
I therefore telephoned Mr Kriangsak Suwansi and found that he had never given an interview of this nature at all. The entire post was false. Moreover, that morning Mr Kriangsak Suwansi had given an interview to the media saying that he had already submitted the matter to the NACC in accordance with the law, that his duty in that regard was complete, and that he was therefore unable to give any interview about the details of the case — though he could continue to submit additional information progressively.
I therefore posted a message stating that the post by "Anuwat Jad Hai" was "entirely false" and that legal proceedings would have to follow.
Because "Anuwat Jad Hai" was caught having posted a false message in the form of a fabricated story. Although he subsequently deleted the fabricated interview post and later apologised, in the apology he cited the reason as: "because a local reporter sent me incomplete details, causing an error to occur."
Sending incomplete details should mean that parts of the message or story were missing — not that an entirely new fabricated story was invented, with "whole new paragraphs appearing out of nowhere" in elaborate detail, with a clearly discernible purpose behind those paragraphs: to distort the news in order to assist the government officials who were the subjects of the complaint, and to discredit the public who were the complainants.
The excuse cited — that "a local reporter sent incomplete details" — is therefore unacceptable.
"Anuwat Jad Hai" must therefore demonstrate greater accountability than merely claiming that "a local reporter sent incomplete details" — by showing sincerity, seeking out the facts to find the cause, and telling the public:
Who brought this story? From whom was this message received? Was this a paid job or not? And what punishment should be imposed?
