More oddly still, some foreign commentators, including The Economist, have helped exacerbate further speculation, conveniently casting roles to the King who is constrained, among others, by his constitutional and moral position, to refute those claims. By law, the Thai monarchy is not involved in politics and is non-partisan; in practice the King himself has taken great care that it is so, exercising his duties and prerogatives within the bounds of the Constitution.
- Extracted from Tharit Charungvat, Director-General, Department of Information, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a letter to the editor, “‘Economist’ is again wide of the mark”, Bangkok Post, 8 May 2009.
8 responses so far ↓
1 fall // May 8, 2009 at 5:26 pm
By law…
Anyone ever wonder what the penalty for breaking this law would be?
2 Somsak Jeamteearasakul // May 8, 2009 at 5:32 pm
He might as well cite ‘respected academic-journalist’ Chang Noi: “Red and yellow and shades of grey”
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/04/opinion/opinion_30101903.php
‘See! The recent conflicts are all about ambition and money of politicians, power and meddling by some military officers, as well as movements by supporters of each side. That’s all… The monarchy is not involved.’
3 Frank G Anderson // May 8, 2009 at 9:51 pm
What political harmony?
There has only been a standoff in succeeding administrations and not a lot of sincere harmony that left room for improvement.
Having read the Economist article, I can find little wrong with it.
The Economist’s observations are reasonably sound. The concept that Thailand’s head of state is totally removed from politics is logically unsupportable at best. I know of no country where the head of state is completely cut off from influence from or influence over government and events. although the Economist article on 16 April echoes Handley’s book in respects, it is a good wrap-up of the situation here despite discomfort in admitting it. The sensitive issue of members of the Privy council being involved in deposing Thaksin and ’someone’ being totally devoid of knowledge or possible involvement is nice in theory but does not wash well.
4 Dang // May 11, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I found nothing wrong in the Economist because it ’s obviously known among most of Thai people.Besides,there is no harmony and intergrity.
There are anger,fear(0f les..) ,dissappointment,frustration and the air of injustic is too strong.This Govt is taking us back to the horrible past.
I do believe strongly that this is the begining of the end.
5 Frank G Anderson // May 11, 2009 at 11:10 pm
It might be on the downslide, but can’t blame it on the current government. The old guard is very much in the saddle…
6 bangkokpundit // May 12, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Ajarn Somsak: Is that an actual quote from the Chang Noi piece? I think you need to differentiate between denialists and those who don’t mention the monarchy (with LM laws in Thailand, surely you understand the reasons for the later).
7 kim jung eel // May 12, 2009 at 11:50 pm
“More oddly still, some foreign commentators, including The Economist, have helped exacerbate further speculation, conveniently casting roles to the King who is constrained, among others, by his constitutional and moral position, to refute those claims. By law, the Thai monarchy is not involved in politics and is non-partisan; in practice the King himself has taken great care that it is so, exercising his duties and prerogatives within the bounds of the Constitution”
It’s well written,
It’s correct. I love it, love it, love it.
8 henry Huang // May 15, 2009 at 3:03 pm
If anyone look deeply into the Thai politic, they will understand that the palace has everything to do with all the coup d’etat that happend for the last 60 years. The coup is one way for them to keep the country and democracy under their feet. Don’t forget that every new governments has to be sworn in and sign by the king. All the new generals, ministers and high ranking civil servants have to be signed by the king before they are allowed to perform their duties. If the king refuses to sign his name that person will not be allowed to be promoted. All high ranking army, policemen, navy and airforce general must drink sacred water and swear that they will be faithful to the king.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.