20 May 69

The "People's Party" points out that the "Government" randomly risks acting inappropriately, violating the principle of "democracy with the King as Head," bringing the "Privy Council" to a meeting, encouraging and advising against drought.

People's Party Post

[The government is acting improperly, risking violating the monarch's democratic principles.]

.

At the National Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Command (B.C.) meeting in preparation for the 2026 drought last May 19, it was considered the normal mechanism of government as the administration charged with formulating seasonal crisis response policies and measures.

But what was unusual and almost unprecedented was the presence of several Privy Councillors: Plague Suvarnabhagat, Air Chief Marshal Chlit Pukpaksuk, Major General Prayuth Chan-ocha, Major General Dawepong Ratansuwan, Major General Pybulay Worth, Admiral Pongthep Rat, Admiral Chulimchai Callahan, Aerial Marshal Jom Daylight, and Zervathanabhumathi, the Net Vatanabhumathi, attended the meeting to "encourage and advise" the response to the drought.

On the other hand, this may seem like a concern for the public in times of crisis, but on the other hand, the Privy Council's close involvement with the work of the administration raises important questions about its appropriateness.

According to the basic principles of a monarchical democracy, the King stands above politics in order to maintain the impartiality and stability of the institution without being directly involved in executive power.

While the Privy Council, whose constitutional function is clearly to consult the Crown, must remain impartial to maintain that balance and must not play a prominent political role in the public that could be interpreted as interference with the administration.

In fact, the line between "giving advice" and "influencing public administration" is extremely thin, especially in the Thai social context. "Advice" from the monarch's mentor pantomime wearers is difficult to reject and often weighted above the orders or policies of the actual practitioners on the job front.

The important question is, can the government and the civil servants at the B.C. really reject or question those "recommendations"? In practice, it is even more difficult, and this is why the Privy Council should not attend important meetings of the administration, because government agencies automatically need to receive virtually all of those recommendations.

And most importantly, Accountability in a democracy. Government is the party of the people's choice. It is responsible for its success or failure through parliamentary monitoring mechanisms, unlike the Privy Council, which is appointed by royal appointment and has no mechanism to be politically or legally accountable to the public.

If those "recommendations" are put into practice and then a failure occurs, can society invoke responsibility from the advisors? Or finally, must the government be the bearer instead?

The People's Party sees that the government is acting improperly, risking a violation of the monarch's democratic principles, allowing this to happen but confusing who runs the real country between those who choose to enter or those who do not have a direct political presence but are constantly active in the administration process.

No one denies goodwill to the people, but in a democracy, "good hope" must be based on principle correctness.

The Privy Council must therefore be most careful not to let "advice" become a "command," especially on issues involving millions of people, which deserves the duty and decision of the administration to be accountable to the sovereign people.