Lawyer Aun Buriram accompanied the owner of the 'Mae Nan Nong Smart' page to the Election Commission (EC) to demand clarification on the standards of power use after being ordered to delete a video clip. He pointed out that if it is a personal matter, one should file a complaint personally and not use the organization's image as a cover to silence the public.
On 28 January 2026, following an order from the Election Commission (EC) to delete, correct, or change images, text, and videos in electronic media across 16 cases based on recommendations from the task force monitoring electronic election campaigning, one of these was a video from the 'Mae Nan Nong Smart' page. The clip contained some inaccurate information about the referendum voting process. This action may violate Section 77 (5) of the law regarding the dissemination of false or misleading information about referendum issues.
Recently, Mr. Phattharaphong Suphakson, also known as Lawyer Aun Buriram, brought youths from the 'Mae Nan Nong Smart' page to the Election Commission office to seek clarity on the EC officials' request for their address to send documents explaining the investigation into the page's video clip. Lawyer Aun emphasized that their visit was not to reject or fear authority but to understand under which legal provision the EC acted against the youths.
Lawyer Aun raised observations and criticized the EC's work on several points, including the charges and distortion of facts. He said that if the EC is to exercise power under election law, it must clearly specify which part is false or misleading. In this case, he sees no part that qualifies as such.
Additionally, Lawyer Aun compared that groups providing misleading information supporting certain issues have not faced action, yet when youths create clips, they become targets. He expressed concern that the EC is using the National Police Agency's mechanisms to silence citizens during this crucial referendum or election period.
"Today, this is not just about Lawyer Aun Buriram, the youths, or the EC. It concerns all Thai people who want to know whether the EC will indeed take action against these two youths. We are not here to reject the authority of a major organization like the EC but to seek the truth: what happened, under what authority, and which legal provision applies? Is the clip they made illegal?" Lawyer Aun said.
Lawyer Aun further said that if the youths are to be prosecuted, it should proceed through the justice system. But if it is a personal matter involving the nickname “Hwaeng Boonmod,” then file a police report and do not tarnish the organization. He also questioned whether the EC truly cares for the organization.
Lawyer Aun affirmed that if the case proceeds to court, he is ready to act as legal counsel for the youths. He also expressed suspicion about the seemingly close relationship between the independent organization and the National Police Agency, which appears to cooperate closely in filing complaints against dissenting citizens during this period.
Meanwhile, Ms. Paweena Petchyothin, the youth owner of the 'Mae Nan Nong Smart' page, explained the EC's order to delete the clip by affirming the intention was to campaign for voter participation in elections and the referendum. She emphasized important information that the public might not yet know, aiming to prevent voters from losing their rights—such as if they left early, they would miss voting on the third ballot. She insisted that the correct information was present and mentioned in every clip, but the EC neglected this part. The story and characters were fictionalized to make the clip entertaining with no intention to defame anyone.
