POST BAG
POST BAG 'Economist' is again wide of the mark
- Published: 8/05/2009 at 12:00 AM
- Newspaper section: News
The Economist's latest article about Thailand (''The trouble with the king,'' April 16, 2009) is wide of the mark with regard to the country's situation, particularly the role of the monarchy.
Over the past few years, opposing sides have attempted to draw the monarchy into their political conflict for whatever purposes that suit their interest. Even the King's apolitical silence and non-involvement has been variedly interpreted.
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.
Meanwhile, despite the palace's age-old pomp and rituals, or the reverence bestowed, the Thai King is closer to his people than many other monarchs have ever been, having for the most part of his reign travelled to even the remotest areas of the land to talk to the people and find ways to improve their lives.
It is through his principled neutrality, integrity and hard work, rather than the constitutionally stated ''inviolable position'', that the King of Thailand has earned moral authority as well as the Thai people's love and respect. These he has never liberally used, save in a few interventions, including the one in 1992. The King, through these interventions, did not involve himself in the political problems _ which should be and were resolved through political mechanisms. Rather, he stopped bloodshed among Thais as the state machinery had obviously failed to do.
Therefore, contrary to what The Economist contends, the Thai monarchy has never stood between Thailand and the country's political harmony.
As for the current crisis, as the events unfolded, the government was able to restore law and order. Some injuries regrettably resulted as officers tried to stop the riots, but as witnessed by many media, there was no death due to the government's operations.
Finally, rather than being "unelected" as The Economist contends, the current government came to office in the exact same way as its two predecessors, which later on lost their powers because they broke the law.
Himself an elected member of parliament since the early 1990s, Mr Abhisit was voted prime minister by the same House of Representatives and under the exact same constitutional process. The Thai parliamentary system is indeed similar to the British. So this should not be that hard to understand.
THARIT CHARUNGVAT
Director-General, Dept of Information,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
-----
Credibility lost
Re: ''Jakrapob, man on a (misguided) mission?'' (BP, May 6). Jakrapob Penkair was right when he said Thailand is lagging behind many countries in terms of democracy and equal rights for its people. Our country indeed needs to develop and change dramatically to be able to call itself an acceptable democracy. Mr Jakrapob could also be counted as very brave when he attacked the president of the Privy Council.
But Mr Jakrapob's support and praise for a man whom half the country regards as thieving and insouciant, has severely damaged his credibility. The question of forfeiting longstanding traditional and cultural values for the sake of Western-style democracy is also debatable.
Recently Mr Jakrapob suggested that the red shirt movement, of which he is a leader, could go underground and use terrorism against his home country. One wonders what is left of the man's conscience as a Thai.
CHAVALIT VAN
