Royal land, royal power

25 09 2021

PPT was intrigued by two recent stories about the king and about royal land. In case readers missed them, we link to them and summarize some points.

At The Nation, it is reported that the “Treasury Department announced on Wednesday that it has taken back more than 100,000 rai of land owned by the Royal Property Bureau and will redistribute it among prisons and low-income people.” This is somewhat vague, and even the short story is contradictory. Director-general Yutthana Yimkarun is reported as saying that “most of the 100,000-rai taken back from state agencies was either left unused or was being misused. The land will now be used for temporary prisons, inmate training sites and housing for low-income people.”

Usually, the Treasury Department looks after the business interests of the property it holds for others, including the Army, and ensures a reasonable return to the owner. So we assume the property remains owned by the monarch.

Self-crowned

The really interesting point is that the “Treasury Department currently oversees some 500,000 rai of royally owned land.” We would guess that, with other royal land, this confirms that the monarch is one of the country’s largest landowners, exceeding the earlier guestimates.

The second story comes from Prachatai. It states, perhaps playing on numbers, that:

Since 2017, King Rama X has issued at least 112 royal edicts appointing and demoting royal officials and the royal consort, bestowing royal decorations, appointing monks to the Sangha Supreme Council and expressing political views….

This comes about due to:

The Royal Service Administration Act enacted in March 2017 transferred 5 agencies that were formerly part of the government structure into royal agencies to be organized “at the royal pleasure”.

After the Act came into force royal edicts were issued appointing and demoting officials in the royal agencies with no countersignature from anyone in the government.

Prachatai goes on to list the categories of edicts issued.

We understand that it also relates to the changes the king demanded in the junta’s 2017 constitution. As Prachatai points out, “no one in a democratic system should be able to exercise political power without accountability.”

Thus it would seem that, as the king does exercise political power without oversight or accountability, ipso facto, Thailand cannot be a democracy.


Actions

Information

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.




%d bloggers like this: