Reports in 'The Economist' show unfounded theories

In trying to justify pre-supposed contentions, its pieces ("The King and Them" and "A Right Royal Mess" on December 4) chose to give credence to one American journalist writing about His Majesty the King and interpreting events to suit his unfounded conspiracy-prone speculations, while discarding facts that prove otherwise. More fundamentally, the articles ignore the very fact that each country evolves from a background specific to itself, and that the bond between Thais and their kings are deeply rooted in the Kingdom's centuries-long history.

Throughout his reign, His Majesty has clearly demonstrated that he is not involved in politics, strictly adhering to the roles prescribed by law. His steadfast neutrality adds to the weight of his words - his moral authority, not political power. His interventions have been few and, when made, were meant to prevent further bloodshed and not to side with any groups.

Nevertheless, political groups and analysts alike seem to have tried to get him involved. Prior to military intervention on September 19, 2006, when Thailand's political system seemed to have ground to a halt, a call was made for a royally conferred government. The King, in his address to the judges in April, refused and said the problems must be resolved through constitutional means. If he had no faith in democracy, he could have done otherwise and Thais would have obliged.

There is no need, as there never has been, for any behind-the-scenes intrigue, as alleged. The affection and reverence that Thais feel towards the King is genuine and voluntary, stemming as much from their appreciation for his lifelong devotion to the well-being of his people as for his commitment to democracy. Yet, some groups have sought to make claims of royal support or interpret his action or silence for their own political ends. Indeed, the King said in 2005 that he was not beyond criticism. But his position as being above politics does not allow him to respond to any political claims or allegations against him (unfortunately, including those made by The Economist) - thus the raison d'etre for Thais to call for a lese majeste law to protect their King.

Here is another omitted fact: in Thailand, as in other democracies, laws are enacted by parliamentarians in response to the will of the people they represent. By neglecting facts and simple logic like this, the articles blatantly make wrongful accusations regarding the King and offend Thais. They deserve our protest in strongest terms.

THARIT CHARUNGVAT

DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND SPOKESMAN OF THE FOREIGN MINISTRY

Articles should not have been based on biased book

Article in "The Economist" magazine dated November 29, titled "Thailand - Desperate Days".

The report starts with: "A last desperate attempt by Thailand's royalist People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) to cause chaos and force the Army to seize power looked dangerously close to succeeding ..." This statement can be construed as misleading to readers unfamiliar with Thai politics. Whereas it cannot be denied that the PAD was vociferous in calling itself the champion and defender of a constitutional monarchy, any insinuations linking the Palace to condoning or supporting the takeover of Suvarnabhumi and Don Mueang airports by PAD supporters last week must be strongly denied. His Majesty is above politics and has adhered to this principle throughout his 62-year reign. Any attempt to use him for political gain by either side is wrong.

Furthermore, the article contradicts itself, saying that the PAD's tactics "have lost it much of the support it had from middle-class Bangkokians", but in another sentence states that "it has increasingly looked like a fight to the death by the country's traditional, royalist elite against a threat to its dominance from an authoritarian but highly popular leader from outside the Bangkok-based clique".

Such contradictory statements in a magazine of such high calibre are disappointing. In fact, PAD supporters come from all cross-sections of society: a few from the so-called "traditional royalist elite", a great number from the middle and professional classes of Bangkok, as well as from all over Thailand. Basically, support for the PAD movement originated from middle-class taxpayers who hated seeing their taxes being squandered on the populist policies of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to keep himself and his party in power. The final straw came when Thaksin sold his telecom empire to a Singapore company for Bt76 billion without having to pay any taxes.

It is quite understandable why so many people lately have misunderstood the role of the Thai monarchy.

This is due largely to the fact that Paul M Handley's book, "The King Never Smiles", has been widely acclaimed as the authority on the subject. Sadly, it is a shallow, badly researched, historically inaccurate and prejudiced book, in which the author has presented half-truths and distorted reality to prove his point.

The author clearly collaborated with many Thai academics, as many of his primary sources are in Thai, and one wonders why they gave him false information. Unfortunately, this book has remained undisputed for two years and has succeeded in brainwashing a great number of its readers.

MR PRIYANANDANA RANGSIT

SENATOR