Previously, the death of a TV actress named Nida "Tangmo" Patcharaveerapong or Pataratida Patcharawirapong was a contentious social issue, whether the cause of her death was suspicious or her property was intended for heirs and inheritance management. Her mother, Panida Siriyudthayothin, also wants to implicate her daughter's inheritance, which is linked to a 1 million baht insurance payment and a 30 million baht compensation. People still disapprove and criticize Panida because of her interview TV show "Hone-Krasae" and about neglecting the parental act, despite the fact that the Civil and Commercial Code has described inheritance of statutory heirs, of which Panida is ascendant and also the second of inheritance heir.
About related property, 1 million insurance payment was caused by her death. As far as this money is concerned, it is not inheritance because Thailand's Civil and Commercial Code states that inheritance must have existed prior to the testator's death. Besides, 30 million of compensation from Hi-so Por or Tanupat Lerttaweewit was also caused by the actress’s death. Furthermore, this money has been calculated based on how much she can earn from her job if she survives.
As well as the right of inheritance, Tangmo was decided to give the insurance payment to the adopted child who is her manager’s daughter. Normally, the insurance company is concerned with giving advantage to ascendant or descendant but assured can also give insurance advantage to the third party which is from assured’s absolute right. However, due to Tangmo's mother's claim of an imperfection in the adoption child's registration, it must continue to consider the condition of this insurance. While Hi-so Por wants to pay Tangmo's mother 30 million in compensation, many people believe she shouldn't because of her negligent parental act and her interview in which she said she would forgive Hi-so Por if he paid the compensation.
Referring to the Goo Hara Act approved by the South Korea’s Cabinet, the content of the law focused on preventing a parent’s claim on their children's assets if they neglected their parental duties. It is widely known that the Act was named after the K-pop idol singer, Goo Hara, who passed away in 2019 by committing suicide. Shortly after the incident, Goo Hara’s mother showed up and attempted to claim her assets. However, her mother had abandoned Goo Hara and her brother since they were young and left both of them with their relatives instead. Goo Hara’s brother found the situation unfair, both due to their mother and the unconventional law of succession in South Korea.
The law of South Korea formerly stated, regarding this issue, that parents are entitled to the assets of their late children even if they did not raise or provide for them. But in reality, it is unjustifiable that parents who neglected their parental duties during their children’s lifetime should be entitled to the assets of their children. Hence, Goo Hara’s brother decided to file a lawsuit against his mother and petitioned for the unfairness of the Korean law of inheritance. As a result, his attempt becomes possible. The Goo Hara Act was passed. The court ruled that 60 percent of the asset will be entitled to her father, which was later given to her brother, and 40 percent to her mother, instead of the 50-50 as stated in the former law.
Comparing the Goo Hara Act to the incident of Tangmo’s mother claiming on her daughter’s asset earlier, in fact, the Goo Hara Act states that a father or mother who neglects to act as a parent in raising a child will not have the right to inherit the deceased child’s asset. The asset, stated in the Goo Hara Act, refers to the property that the child had before his death. However, in Tangmo’s case, it is not yet, or cannot be, disclosed regarding the assets she had. The issues of the insurance payment of 1 million baht and compensation of 30 million baht that are being discussed are not related to the Goo Hara Act, since both are considered as the assets which occurred from the death of the person, not as an inheritance. As no further information has been revealed regarding Tangmo’s asset for inheritance or her mother’s claim on such asset, it is too early to say that the Goo Hara Act shall be implemented in this case. And therefore, the mother still has the rights, according to the law, to claim on the insurance payment and the compensation.
Also, according to the opinion of Dr. Manit Jumpa’s opinion on implementation of Goo Hara Act to Thai inheritance law, it is not necessary to follow such an approach. Thailand’s law of inheritance has already mentioned that as the dead may indicate the person he preferred to include in his will to inherit the assets. And even though the heir happens to die before the inheritance, the testator may modify the will as he wants.
Thai cultural integrity has been the staple of Thai society for an uncountable period of time. One culture that has been well established is parental grace. It essentially means that, no matter what they do and however they act, mother and father will always have grace which their children will owe for the rest of their lives. Sometimes or occasionally, other people will infer any children to be ungrateful if they do not treat their parents well, regardless of what their parents did or, in this case, did not do. Mothers and fathers, especially in conservative families, will demand their children to pay for the cost of living. They will use justifications such as the fact that the mother had to hold their unborn child for nine months in their belly and that the mother gave birth to them. What happened after the child was born usually did not end up in the discussion, even if they left their children to the grannies. The culture of parental grace has been so deeply ingrained into Thai people’s way of life that the children are given fabricated obligations.
As mentioned, such fabricated obligations include the duty of the children to pay for their parents’ cost of living on a monthly basis as long as the children have a salary. No matter how much or how little such a salary is, children regularly give money to their parents with no hesitation due to societal and cultural pressure. It is by the fact that, not only the society and culture tell them, the children integrate parental grace into their minds that they feel like they owe their parents, which is the reason why they will hand over their money with no hesitation. By connecting the dots between the children’s obligations to the parents and inheritance, it comes to no wonder that Thai succession law will not be amended like South Korean “Goo Hara Act”. Unlike in South Korean public opinions, Thai public sentiment still values this culture that it is the greatest benevolence that the mother and father give birth to a child. For instance, such benevolence can overrule any debate about the fact that the parents abandon their child right after they are born and, when the child dies, the parents get at least a quarter of the child’s inheritance. It seems unfair, but it is just how it is in Thailand. Parents are placed above anything.
Although newer generations of mothers, fathers, and children are starting to shift their perspective into a more individualistic approach and less parent-oriented, the trend of Thai succession law will remain untouched for a certain period of time. Parental grace is not going to die off very soon.
Recently, police, related people, and mass media continue to find out more evidence of her death. Despite the fact that the appropriateness of a mother's right to inheritance and the fact that she is the only one who is ascendant continues to be questioned. Giving Tangmo justice, on the other hand, should be prioritized for the time being.
Ban M, “The Goo Hara Act: Restricting Inheritance Rights from Those Who Have Failed Their Familial Duties” (Lex Korea February 22, 2021) <http://lexkorea.org/?p=1067> accessed March 9, 2022.
Chan I, “'Goo Hara Act' Passed by South Korea's Cabinet, Will Prevent Parents Who Neglected Their Kids from Claiming Inheritance” (TODAYonline April 30, 2021) <https://www.todayonline.com/8days/sceneandheard/entertainment/goo-hara-act-passed-south-koreas-cabinet-will-prevent-parents-who> accessed March 9, 2022.
Wassayos NgamKham, “Tangmo’s death an accident” (Bangkok post March 7 2022) <https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2274755/tangmos-death-an-accident> accessed March 9 2022.
“นักกฎหมายไทยชี้ ‘กฎหมายคูฮารา’ เทียบไม่ได้กับคดีแตงโม” (สำนักข่าวไทย อสมท 5 มีนาคม 2565) <https://tna.mcot.net/social-896034> สืบค้นเมื่อ 9 มีนาคม 2565.
“แม่เผยตอนนี้เป็นผู้จัดการมรดก แตงโม นิดา คาดว่าได้เงินเยียวยาจากไฮโซปอ 30 ล้าน” (อมรินทร์ทีวี 4 มีนาคม 2565) <https://www.amarintv.com/news/detail/124363> สืบค้นเมื่อ 9 มีนาคม 2565.
“ลูกบุญธรรมแตงโม ไม่ได้จดทะเบียนตาม ก.ม. ผลประโยชน์ประกัน โมฆียะหรือไม่” (ไทยรัฐออนไลน์ 2 มีนาคม 2565) <https://www.thairath.co.th/scoop/theissue/2330461> สืบค้นเมื่อ 9 มีนาคม 2565.
“สรุปคำพูด แม่แตงโม ให้อภัยใครบ้าง-เงิน 30 ล้าน-เรื่องขอเป็นผจก.มรดก” (ไทยรัฐออนไลน์ 4 มีนาคม 2565) <https://www.thairath.co.th/entertain/news/2332517> สืบค้นเมื่อ 9 มีนาคม 2565.
photo by Thairath online
IG : @dreamscape.bkk