• 
• 
• 

I had hoped that, having flagged the issue, The Economist would be open to contesting views and give a fair opportunity for facts and counter-arguments to be presented to its readership.

In its May 2 issue, The Economist published a letter bearing my name. However, it did so after having shortened it by more than half and without even a slightest gesture of courtesy of informing me of such a change - contrary to what it had done in the past. While some facts and arguments have been maintained, other essential parts have not. I therefore wish to take this opportunity to repeat my letter to The Economist's editor in full as follows:

"The Economist should have done better writing about Thailand. Your latest article ("The Trouble with the King", April 16) is wide off the mark with regard to the country's situation, particularly the role of its 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 speculations 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, is non-partisan, and in practice the King, himself has taken great care to make it 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 King is closer to his people than many other monarchs have ever been, having for the most part of his reign travelled to the remotest areas of the land to talk to the people and find ways to improve their lives, particularly of those in rural areas.

"It is through his principled neutrality, integrity and hard work, rather than the constitutionally stated 'inviolable position', that the King had earned moral authority as well as 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 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 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, Abhisit Vejjajiva 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, DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION, MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS