• 
• 

Published on October 11, 2007

Question: Marwan Macaar of Inter Press Service: One of the restraints that foreign correspondents have covering the institution is the law of lese majeste. You mentioned that the King in his birthday speech in 2005 said he is not infallible. However, the Thai media did not take note of that. They still practice journalism as before 2005. Do you think there will come a time that the Thai political elite will lead the way by saying that we respect the monarch and feel that there is no reason for a law like this that restrains us from reporting about the institution as it exists and also plan to report about what happens in the future?

Anand: This is a very difficult question. It is much like having the cake and eating it. On the one hand you have to go by the will of the people. What I was trying to say is that I do not know how this law originated, but in my two times as Prime Minister, during which I had regular audiences with the King, he never once mentioned the criticisms, many unfair, targeted at him. He never bothered about these small things. He never thought that it was an important matter that he should discuss with his Prime Minister.

But on the other hand, you have to understand that in a certain context, particularly in the Western context, the monarchy has begun to lose the mystique. Well, that is fine. But I think you have to respect the thinking and customs of the people in this country. The King never said anything to me, but my own personal view is that I do not like the law. Yet, I think you have to understand that in this country the King is held in a certain position which is inviolable. I am sure the king does not mind whether the law exists or not, but the Thai people will never, never tolerate criticism of the King. That is their feeling. Sometimes I wonder about the Thai people, that they are more Catholic than the Pope. I always believe that the Thais are more royalist than the King.

 Question: Jonathan Head of the BBC: I noticed when you were talking about the King's achievements; one of them was that his interventions have been vital to maintaining social harmony and tranquility. Then in an aside you mentioned that you weren't so sure of social harmony anymore. Now I know that a lot of people tend to blame a certain gentleman who is now enjoying owning a club in the British Premier League for a lot of the social disharmony, but I wonder whether perhaps Thai society has changed so much that it is perhaps beyond the powers of royal intervention to maintain social harmony, that society has moved on so much and issues have become so complex that perhaps it is now beyond monarchic intervention to maintain social harmony.

Anand: Jonathan, in spite of the fact that we went to the same school in England, I beg to differ. I never used the term "royal intervention". To me, the King adheres strictly to the letter and spirit of the constitution. What is regarded by foreigners as "intervention", I classify into two categories. One is intervention initiated by the person. In the case of our King, it was "intervention" requested by the people. So there is a little nuance there. In all my audiences with the King in my first Prime Ministership and second Prime Ministership, he never once interfered with the politics of the country - never. In our conversation when I had an audience, if he did feel that occasionally he might have ventured beyond the boundaries, he himself had such self-discipline he would remind himself. He would say to me, "Well, this is something you asked about my opinion."

So when I wrote this particular speech I made quite clear that it was not "to consult with the Prime Minister", but "to be consulted". So unless the issues are raised by the Prime Minister, the King would never venture to advise you. If he were to advise you, he would always keep strictly to the issue you raised with him.

Additional Remarks by Anand Panyarachun:

One thing that sort of bothered me a bit is that somehow our King is perceived to be a man who does not smile. I think that because of limitations arising out of tradition and respect, not too many people or articles or interviews are written which could show the lighter side of our King. I would like to relate to you some of the anecdotes. Normally I do not reveal whatever transpired in the conversations between my sovereign and me as Prime Minister, but I think that it is important that we get to know him better as a human being.

The first anecdote is when I was the chairman of the drafting committee of the 1997 constitution. There were a few issues that I thought that he might be interested in. After completion of the draft and after it was adopted, I had an audience with the King, and I raised three or four issues that I thought the King might be interested in, but he sort of brushed them aside. Of course he was interested in the issue of whether Buddhism was to be declared a state religion, but otherwise he did not pay much attention to what I was reporting to him. At the end of our conversation, he said to me "Khun Anand, it's a little odd, that in all this constitution, they lay down that the King has to be a Buddhist. He has to be the protector of all religions. He has to be that. He has to be this. Nowhere does it say in this constitution that he has to be Thai".  Now I challenge you, that with 62 million Thai people, who would have the brilliance to think of that minute technical detail?

Excerpts from a Q&A session following an address by former prime minister Anand Panyarachun on the launch of the book, "The King of Thailand in World Focus", on August 23, 2007.