Listen to what the King says

If they cared enough to follow His Majesty the King's pronouncements on various occasions, they would have found that the trendy contrarianism these days on the subject of the monarchy is not supported by facts. If they went beyond the rumours and gossip, they would have found ample primary evidence that he is indeed liberal-minded, supportive of democracy and openness and loath to intervene in politics, much less take an active behind-the-scenes role.

He has spoken out against the lese-majeste law in as clear a fashion as possible for someone in his position, stressing that enforcement of the law caused him nothing but trouble and disagreeing with the notion that "the King can do no wrong".

Criticism of him should be allowed, he argued, so that he would know what he had done wrong. The fact that his unequivocal rejection of this much-abused law did not result in legislative changes suggests not abundant political power, as The Economist seems to believe, but a decided lack of it.

When Thailand's political system reached an impasse in 2006 and public opinion tilted towards the idea of a royally conferred government, the King refused, insisting that any political problems must be resolved democratically and through constitutional means. Addressing incoming judges that year, he said: "I beg of you, do not abandon democratic rule." He had always been careful not to overstep his duties, he told them, as doing so would have been undemocratic. He was greatly troubled, he repeatedly said, by the willy-nilly calls for a royally conferred government, which he regarded as undemocratic and unreasonable.

These utterances stand in stark contrast to the puppet-master caricature the magazine paints. It is absurd to infer, simply because certain groups seek to wrap themselves in the royal flag to capitalise on the King's popularity, interpret or ignore his words as they see fit, or even to draw him directly into the fray, that he must be the one pulling the strings.

It should be obvious, had the writers done their homework, that the King is acutely conscious of his role as a constitutional monarch and the constraints that come with the position.

Indeed, it is his strict observance of kingly responsibilities that has been the source of his moral authority. This means, however, that he is unable to respond to or repudiate those who attack him or claim to act in his name.

The Economist is blaming the victim when it should be setting its sights on those who exploit the King and his popularity to serve their own ends.

JAKKRIT SRIVALI

Bangkok

Article's writer ignorant or bought

As a non-yellow-shirt or red-shirt Thai, I totally agree with Khun Thanong Khanthong's column on foreign-media coverage of our crisis. The comments in the December 4 edition of The Economist were certainly distorted and insulting to the Thai people. The person who wrote this criticism was either intentionally ignorant of the UK government's reason for revoking Thaksin's visa or he has been pocketing a large handout from Thaksin' cunning sale of the Manchester City Football Club!

SUDHAMA K

BANGKOK

A telling historical juxtaposition

The views of your correspondents on the recent Economist lead article prompted me to ponder on the contrast of our country with Burma . How can Burma end up in the hands of a military junta for so long with the army leaders believing themselves to be royalty?

According to the "Cambridge History of Southeast Asia" by Nicholas Tarling, in 1887 the Burmese monarchy collapsed as it sought to resist increasing British pressure while our kings accommodated themselves to British demands for open trade. After the collapse, the British totally restructured Burma 's administration on the model of British India. Siam by contrast remained technically independent. Its monarch moved beyond compromise with the West and began a process of administrative reform, centralisation and modernisation.

As one correspondent rightly stated, each country evolves from a background and possibly a fate specific to itself, and the historical outcome has been one country having a group of army officers self-perpetuating their power to govern while the other progressed nicely, if at times rather unorthodoxly, under the watchful eyes and concern of our monarch, to achieve fair government. I am glad to be living my life under the world's longest reigning monarch when in my youth I never believed that I could be so free and so proud of my country.

SONGDEJ PRADITSMANONT

BANGKOK

Why must the West keep on meddling?

I have thought long and hard on the issue of the PAD, PPP and the article in The Economist and finally have come to some personal conclusions. Everyone seems to feel that they have the answer regarding who is right and who is wrong. Some feel that whether it was morally correct or not, the PAD was wrong to try to unseat Thaksin and thus threaten the very substance of democracy. Some feel that Thaksin was so blatantly corrupt that, votes or no, the PAD had a right and duty to try and unseat him.

The truth, as I see it, is that no one has ever seen a situation such as what existed in this country at the time that the PM sold his shares to a Singaporean company and thus started the entire sequence of events. Thus no one could possibly know for certain, except for Thaksin himself or the leader of the PAD, what their motivations were and are. Least of all someone from a country other than Thailand. And even if it were possible to know, the fact of the matter is that what is going on internally in Thailand is no one's business except the Thais'.

What is it about Western freedom that makes Westerners feel that they are free to meddle in other people's business?

 Were the London , Washington, New York and Los Angeles newspapers filled with letters from Pakistanis, Zimbabweans and Thais when President Bush, with Tony Blair's support, led the West into the Iraqi quagmire by blatantly lying to the people of America and England? Do Japanese, Chinese and Thai expats living in America bombard the newspapers with letters condemning the President, Wall Street, the FED, corporate CEOs and everyone else involved in the financial meltdown of the West?

Why do Westerners, who don't really have a clue what is going on beyond their soccer or football stadiums, become such experts regarding foreign politics when they migrate?

But the most enigmatic question of all is why people in responsible positions in the Western world, such as magazine editors and writers, think they have a right to publicly speculate as to what the King of Thailand is thinking or possibly doing in regard to his own country and expound on their opinion as to why the people of Thailand love their King as much as they do.

 Such speculations coming from people who have no love of anything other than the dollar and pound and only display appreciation for someone who is rich, showy, disrespectful and "cool", seems a little presumptuous to me.

Yet they persist in their assurance that their way is the only way.

If there is truly one simple explanation for the vast majority of problems in the world, that explanation must be the constant meddling of Westerners in the lifestyles and beliefs of the remainder of the world.

JOHN ARNONE

YASOTHON