Continuing from previous posts

In the case of Major General Surat Chulanont, leaving his Privy Council position to become Prime Minister after the September 19, 2006 coup, on the resignation of the Prime Minister in 2007, returned to his Privy Council position until the current Privy Council President.

In the case of the former Constitutional Court Judiciary dissolved the Thai Rak Thai Party, the People's Power Party, the Thai Preservation Party, and the New Future Party, and was convinced to revoke the election rights of the Executive Director of the Thai Preservation Party and the New Future Party for life. Upon the expiration of his post as President of the Constitutional Court, he became Privy Councillor.

3. Stop. Light Uthai, a professor and speaker of constitutional law, and also a member of the Constituent Assembly, Secretary of the Constituent Assembly, who played a key role in the drafting of the 1949 Constitution, the Constitution that brought back the Privy Council, described it as

"The Constitution that was in use before the Provisional Constitution (1947) contained no provisions on the Privy Council, but the drafters of the Provisional Constitution (1947) wished to have another layer of authoritarian control over the Cabinet, thus making a provision on the Privy Council..."

And

"In drafting the 1949 Constitution, the Constituent Assembly saw that if there was an advisory body for the King, it was decreed by changing the name of the Privy Council to the Privy Council and increasing the number from 5 to no more than 9, and requiring the selection and appointment of the Privy Council and the removal of the Privy Council to be hospitable..."

Anyway, stop the light.

"If it were to be considered strictly democratic, having a Privy Council to counsel the King would not be in harmony with democracy, because according to democracy, the King should have no counsel other than a cabinet that runs the country with the consent of the people...But the Privy Council does not come from the people without being elected by the people. How can the Privy Council consult the King on the will of the people?.."

4. To prevent the duties, opinions, and behavior of the Privy Council that could cause society to doubt, criticize, or question the political and economic neutrality of trade to adversely affect the monarchy, it is proposed that the Privy Council be abolished. The Constitution does not require the existence of the Privy Council as well as the first three constitutions. In addition, the abolition of the Privy Council saves the budget required for salaries, compensation, cars, facilities, or administrative expenses.

5. If the king wants to consult on public administration or mythology, the cabinet shall assume that function. Because the cabinet has the authority of public administration and the command of public servants and government officials in various government ministries, departments and departments, it is well aware of all public administration information. When the prime minister comes from the approval of the elected House of Representatives, it is well aware of the needs of the people and meets the needs of the people.

The assignment of the Privy Council to counsel the king makes it redundant with the mission of the cabinet. In particular, if the Privy Council does not agree with the cabinet, it can cause conflict between the king and the cabinet. For all these reasons, the cabinet is suitable for the king's counsel in public administration and mythology. It is consistent with one of the three rights that the king has in the tradition outlined in The English Constitution (1867), that is, the right to be consulted by the government. "