The Times (11 November 2009: “Thai politics, Thaksin and role of monarchy”) prints a letter from the Thai ambassador in London:
Sir, Richard Lloyd Parry’s article (“Exiled leader breaks taboo to woo the royal heir”, Nov 9) contains points concerning the role of the Thai monarchy and status of Dr Thaksin Shinawatra, which I wish to clarify. First, according to the Thai Constitution, the King is above politics and does not take sides. Over the years, His Majesty has kept to his constitutional role, even while some groups have claimed royal support for their political ends.
The King learnt of the coup of September 19, 2006, only after the armed forces had already taken control. An audience was granted at the request of the armed forces to report on the situation and on action taken. The granting of the royal audience was consistent with his apolitical role and did not amount to giving his “acceptance” to such action.
Second, in accordance with Thai law, clear procedures should be followed before the King is to consider a petition for a royal pardon. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that until now there has not been a formal petition for a royal pardon filed by Dr Shinawatra himself as the person convicted, or by such concerned persons as his relatives or designated lawyer, a legal prerequisite of the royal pardon process to begin.
Last, Dr Shinawatra is neither Thailand’s current opposition leader nor a leader in exile, but a person who is choosing to stay abroad to avoid a two-year jail term resulting from a finalised corruption case.
Kitti Wasinondh, Ambassador of Thailand, Royal Thai Embassy, London SW7
This letter is notably brief and doesn’t comment on any of the points that PPT might have thought controversial for the ambassador. Indeed, the comments regarding the 2006 coup and the king’s role seem somewhat odd given that Thaksin said: “Now I consider myself as ex-prime minister of Thailand and in exile. I was asked to lead a government in exile. I didn’t do that because I don’t want to hurt the monarchy. So after the King signed the decree accepting the coup, I said then ‘I am finished’.” He doesn’t argue – although PPT thinks he should – that the kingknew of the coup in advance. Rather he targets the “network.” Nor does he claim to be an opposition leader or a leader in exile; rather he denies this, but does say he’s in exile. Did PPT miss something?
Thaksin’s letter is as follows:
Sir, Suggestions that I am not faithfully loyal to the King of Thailand are simply not true. I was extremely disappointed by the damaging way in which my interview with The Times was reported, and in particular by the Times Online headline, “Ousted Thai leader Thaksin Shinawatra calls for ‘shining’ new age after King’s death”.
As I made clear, it is the King who holds the key to Thailand’s happiness. In the interview I asked the King, who is above politics, to lead a reconciliation process to heal Thailand’s divisions. This would ensure a smooth transition to a new age of prosperity.
Since being ousted in a coup three years ago I have remained committed to peaceful reconciliation rather than confrontation. My democratic legitimacy means I do not need to resort to low level political meddling.
Accusations that I am against the monarchy have been used by my political enemies in Thailand many times in attempts to discredit me. They will not succeed for I am and always will be a faithful and loyal servant to the King and the royal family.
Thaksin Shinawatra, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Such claims have been made at regular intervals. It says a lot about the nature of Thai politics and the capacity to consider political arrangements that are in any way different.
Update: The Nation (12 November 2009: “Ambassador clears points for the Times”) seems convinced that the ambassador’s letter (reproduced above) has rectified the situation by explaining that the “interview with fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra contained misinformation and misunderstandings about the role of the monarchy as well as Thaksin’s status.”
The Nation also seems to think that “Kitti said Thaksin had not formally submitted a petition for a royal pardon according to procedure. Therefore, the legal process of seeking a royal pardon for him could not begin.” We’re not sure that the Nation’s journalist has got it right, but if this interpretation is correct, it was not the government’s position just a few weeks ago, where they said the petition was being considered for its legality. Perhaps a decision has been made?
