Missing historical plaque is not an antique, says Fine Arts Department
By The Nation

 

 

BANGKOK: -- The Fine Arts Department says a missing historical plaque marking the 1932 Siamese revolution is not an antique as defined under the Ancient Monuments, Antiques, Objects of Art and National Museums Act.

 

The department posted the explanation on its Facebook wall.

 

The department said the plaque was embedded in the Royal Plaza’s ground by Phraya Phahol Phonphayuhasena four years after the revolution, which saw Siam switch from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy.

 

 

It said the plaque is not a chattel carrying historical values as defined under the Act as it was used to mark a spot where a revolution statement was declared.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/breakingnews/30312705

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-04-19

 

What else could it be that would take the attention off?

 

A frisbee? Who's department is that?

Making a mountain out of a molehill and then trying to make it back into a molehill is harder than it looks. He should've just left the original, because now the significance of the original has been highlighted whereas before few people even thought about the plaque. Amateur

Definition of antique

-  existing since or belonging to earlier times

 

Webster said it is. 

 

5 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Definition of antique

-  existing since or belonging to earlier times

 

Webster said it is. 

 

And while we are at it....

 

 

prime min·is·ter

prīm ˈminəstər/

noun

the head of an elected government; the principal minister of a sovereign or state.

8 hours ago, webfact said:

It said the plaque is not a chattel carrying historical values as defined under the Act as it was used to mark a spot where a revolution statement was declared.

What the hell does that mean?

Because we all know the real antiques are running the country.

if  they want a  really "new plaque"  they might get one soon enough!!

It seems that there is a cover up.  If the junta did not switch plaque, they seem to be protecting whoever did.  Saying that it was not crime when it obviously is makes one wonder how the law is to be applied in Thailand.  By the whim of the government ? 

A post containing profanity has been removed as well as the replies:

 

8) You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages, vulgarities, obscenities or profanities.

 

A post containing Thai language has been removed:

 

English is the only acceptable language anywhere on ThaiVisa including Classifieds, except within the Thai language forum, where of course using Thai is allowed.

It is part of the country collective history, it doesn't matter how old it is. Some people are trying to rewrite history, didn't the Nazi's try to do the same ?

6 hours ago, Reigntax said:

Because we all know the real antiques are running the country.

 

BOOM.

 

Thread winner.

First it was said, that the plaque is a historical valuable artifact, which therefore belongs to the people of the Kingdom of Thailand, and as such a theft is punishable by law.

17 hours ago, webfact said:

It said the plaque is not a chattel

chat·tel

ˈCHadl/

noun

(in general use) a personal possession.

LAW

an item of property other than real estate.

 

So, if it is not a personal property, as stated by the Fine Arts Dept., then it must be the property of the Thai people, I guess?

 

 

 

 

11 hours ago, tomta said:

What the hell does that mean?

It seems obvious , so very obvious that the contractor who installed the new plaque removed the old one, my dear Dr Watson.

Conceivable  that whoever commissioned the new plaque does not want the old one back.

 

So many excuses and the police can not start an investigation as it seems no one owns the old plaque ,so it has not been stolen.

I do however think that it is an antique and of historical value, it maybe should have been placed in the Museum .

 

I think that the ownership of the plaque is that it belongs to the people of Thailand as a historical monument.

I think it's a no brainer to find it if it has not already been destroyed.

13 hours ago, BigBadGeordie said:

And while we are at it....

 

 

prime min·is·ter

prīm ˈminəstər/

noun

the head of an elected government; the principal minister of a sovereign or state.

But Prayuth was elected PM by himself. Does t have at still count?