Following several comments on social media over the acceptability and legality of such campaign tactics, Bangkok Governor Chadchart Sittipunt has ordered an election candidate from the United Thai Nation (UTN) party to stop using a laser beam to image the Rama VIII Bridge.
Additionally, he expressed regret for the misunderstanding that the municipal government had authorized the use of the bridge for political campaigning.
Somchai Srisutthiyakorn, a former election commissioner, has urged the Election Commission (EC) to forbid the United Thai Nation (UTN) party or any other party from projecting campaign materials on the Rama VIII Bridge on the grounds that doing so is unlawful under Thai election legislation.
He argues that it is illegal to use lasers to project political advertising because the Rama VIII Bridge is public property and the poster is larger than the allowed dimensions of 2.45 meters by 1.30 meters.
According to Somchai, the organization that permitted the party to use the bridge for political campaigning may have been prejudiced. The bridge cannot be utilized for political campaigning.
If previous authorization was given, the people or group who used the bridge for political advocacy might be charged with “intrusion” (trespass).
Today (Tuesday), Governor Chadchart stated that Tipanan Sirichana, a candidate for the UTN party, developed the concept for laser imaging. She included a photo of the laser beam poster with the words “22 United Thai Nation” in her letter to the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) asking for permission to use the Rama VIII park for political events from May 8 to May 12.
He said that he did not thoroughly read Tipanan’s letter, which resulted in the false impression that the BMA had approved the use of the bridge’s tower for the purpose of projecting the campaign image.
The governor said that the Department of City Planning, which oversees the suspension bridge, was not involved in the decision to provide permission for the bridge’s use.
While adamant that his remarks made today are not meant to support any one party, he claimed that he is opposed to the usage of laser lights for campaigning since they could distract vehicles on the bridge.
He added that the EC would determine whether the campaign graphic violated the law.
While this was going on, the UNG party distanced itself from the situation, alleging that Tipanan had come up with the concept on her own and had taken action without consulting or getting approval from the party.
The party had warned Tipanan in writing not to do it again after learning about the situation.
The offending party claims it is sorry for the incident and any trouble it may have caused.
