PM orders probe into missing memorial plaque
Prayut warns groups not to stir up conflict
Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has ordered a probe into the disappearance of the 1932 Siamese Revolution memorial plaque and warned against any attempts to exploit the issue to stir up conflict.
Speaking after a cabinet meeting yesterday, Gen Prayut said he has instructed security officers to investigate the matter, and added that it was not a matter of life or death and no groups should use it to reignite conflict while the country is returning to democracy.
“Democracy was introduced to the country more than 80 years ago and democracy depends on all Thais, not the plaque,” Gen Prayut said.
“Some groups are trying to call for the plaque’s return, but I think this is useless. If you want the country to return to democracy quickly, you’d better work together so the country can move forward. I don’t want any protests to take place again,” the prime minister said, adding that the government will take action against anyone who breaks security laws.
Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwon yesterday said he knew nothing about the disappearance of the plaque.
Gen Prawit said he did not follow up on the disappearance because it was not a matter of grave concern. “It is not a bread-and-butter concern. Just let the authorities do their job,” Gen Prawit said.
Deputy national police chief Srivara Ransibrahmanakul yesterday said the disappearance of the plaque cannot be considered a case of theft unless the owner shows up to file a complaint.
Anyone who claims to be its owner must come up with proof of ownership so police can proceed with the case, Pol Gen Srivara said.
He also said police had asked several agencies such as the Dusit district office and the Fine Arts Department, and they had confirmed the plaque did not belong to them.
In light of this, the plaque is not a public asset nor an ancient object, Pol Gen Srivara said.
“Since it is not clear who owns the plaque, how can police proceed with a theft case?” he said, adding that no wrongdoing had yet been committed so police had no authority to take legal action against anyone.
On Sunday, Prit Rattanakul Serireungriddhi, a 30-year-old grandson of Luang Serireungriddhi, who was a member of the Khana Ratsadon group, filed a complaint at Dusit police station asking them to find the plaque, which mysteriously disappeared from the Royal Plaza and has been replaced by a different one.
Khana Ratsadon was a group of military and civil officers that staged the 1932 revolution, changing the country’s absolute monarchy to a constitutional one.
Bangkok governor Aswin Kwanmuang yesterday said he had been unaware the plaque had gone missing as he had been busy looking after people during Songkran in Bangkok.
Pol Gen Aswin said the plaque was not the responsibility of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. The spot where the plaque lay is not a public place, he said, without elaborating.
“When something is missing, you should alert the police, not the BMA,” the Bangkok governor added.
Political activist Srisuwan Janya, secretary-general of the Association for the Protection of the Constitution, was whisked away in a military van yesterday morning for talks at the 11th Military Circle in Bangkok’s Dusit district, according to media reports.
It happened after Mr Srisuwan showed up at the Government House public service centre to submit a letter to Gen Prayut asking him to look for the plaque.
On his arrival at the centre, Mr Srisuwan was approached by soldiers and police. He was then ordered to board a van waiting nearby. Two men were initially allowed to accompany him.
On the way to the military base , the two men were told to get out of the vehicle. They were each given 100 baht to cover their transport costs, they said.
One of them said Mr Srisuwan refrained from speaking but looked worried.
Before Mr Srisuwan’s arrival at Government House, a group of people claiming to belong to the Group of Sovereign Thai People for the Nation, Religion and Monarchy submitted a letter to Gen Prayut, calling for him to remove the new plaque and place it somewhere else.
The brass plaque, fitted into the road surface near the King Rama V statue, marks the spot where Khana Ratsadon announced the revolution in 1932.
The inscription reads: “Here at dawn on June 24, 1932, Khana Ratsadon brings into being the constitution for the sake of the country’s prosperity.”
The original plaque has now been replaced with a new plaque which bears a distinctly different message: “May Siam be blessed with prosperity forever. May the people be happy and cheerful and become the strength of the country.
The rim around the surface of the new plaque also bears another inscription reading: “The respect for Phra Ratanattaya [The Three Jewels — Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha], the state, one’s family, and the faithfulness towards one’s King will all contribute to the prosperity of one’s state.”
Who owns the 1932 Revolution memorial plaque? The question posed by deputy national police chief Pol Gen Srivara Ransibrahmanakul is indeed intriguing. Is it another way of asking: Who owns national history? Or who gets to dictate what a nation will remember?
Pol Gen Srivara posed the question after the grandson of a member of the Khana Ratsadon that staged the revolution 85 years ago, replacing the absolute monarchy with a constitutional one, filed a complaint asking police to find the plaque which was removed from the Royal Plaza and replaced with a new one last week.
At a practical level, it seems the deputy national police chief was wondering if a relative of one of the revolutionists would qualify as an “owner” of the lost plaque and thus be the “damaged party” who could force the authorities into action lawfully.
If viewed from a more philosophical perspective, however, Pol Gen Srivara could be asking who has ownership of the past and, by extension, control of the present and hopefully the future.
The implication is in his next remark. He asked if the Royal Plaza belongs to anyone who placed the plaque there to mark the spot where the Khana Ratsadon announced an end to the country’s centuries-old absolute monarchy and ushered in “democracy” in 1932.
He also said the area, adorned with the equestrian statue of King Rama V against the background of the majestic Ananta Samakhom Throne Hall where many state ceremonies have been held, is not a place where anyone can embed their “personal” belongings.
From his line of questioning, it seems Pol Gen Srivara believed no-one could own the lost plaque or the historic revolution it was used to commemorate.
He also seems to consider the revolution a one-off incident, having occurred at some point in the past and ending somewhere in history, totally truncated from the time we are living in at present.
More importantly, he regards the memorial plaque as a “personal” item apparently of the revolutionists — all long gone — who embedded it into the Royal Plaza which is state property without authority.
There are quite a few problems with this rationale.
First and foremost, the 1932 Revolution is not a historical accident. It’s indeed a landmark incident that has shaped the modern Thai state and its identity. It’s part of national history, one that has led us to where we are today whether anybody likes it or not.
Pol Gen Srivara is correct to assume that no single individual can own the memorial plaque. The reason is simple: The plaque belongs to the state and it’s the state’s duty to protect it.
As state officers, the police are dutybound to find out what happened to the plaque and try to reclaim it.
As for the assumption that the plaque was after all an unauthorised mark driven into public property by force, Pol Gen Srivara may have forgotten that at dawn on June 24, 1932 as was inscribed on the brass plaque, the Khana Ratsadon successfully toppled the absolute monarchy and introduced the country’s first constitution, arguably an attempt to replace absolutism with the rule of law.
Pol Gen Srivara cannot ignore the fact that the Khana Ratsadon had wrested control of state power. The revolutionists might not own the Royal Plaza but they did possess the right to mark it with a memorial plaque if they saw fit.
In fact, it’s not too different from how the military regime at present has the right to build a 14-billion-baht promenade along the Chao Phraya River or erect the Rajabhakti Park on state land.
But these are examples of simple logic that anyone would understand. What is more fascinating about Pol Gen Srivara’s message, however, is if the top officer is enacting a viewpoint that state authorities may have about the 1932 Revolution or an idea of democracy that the revolutionists brought into being.
In refusing to accept the plaque as state property, are authorities also denying a place in history for the 1932 Revolution? If the plaque, which may be the most tangible evidence of the historic regime change cannot be found, will authorities be able to rewrite this drastic episode from the past and make it so that it’s more suitable to what they want the present to be and the future to become?
It’s quite astonishing that a seemingly simple case of a missing memorial plaque has unleashed such complicated feelings toward our own past. What is clear from the growing political cacophony, however, is the small piece of brass could have the power to tip the political balance in a big way.