Draft Constitution of King Prajadhipok (1926)/Part 1

by Prajadhipok

กรมราชเลขาธิการ
วันที่ ๒๙ กรกฎา ๒๔๖๙^[1]

July 23rd. 1926.

Dear Dr. Sayre.

I am sending you with this letter a Memorandum on some of the Problems of Siam with a Questionnaire for your consideration. I am afraid I have written it in rather a hurry, so that I could send it to you before our conversation tomorrow. We will have a preliminary talk tomorrow when we can discuss those questions more fully. I should like to have your answer in writing when you have considered them fully.

This Memorandum by no means exhausts all the problem of the country. I have only treated of those that I think important. If you have any other opinions beside the question touched upon, they will be very welcome.

I hope that they are making you comfortable at the Phya Thai Hotel.

Yours sincerely.
(M.R.) Prajadhipok. R.

Problems of Siam.

		1. The Constitution.
a) The position of the King.		The Kings of Siam are supposed to be elected by the people. In former days a Ceremony of election was Performed. At the death of the King, a Council consisting of Royal Princes, Ministers of State and High Dignitaries of the Church was held. The Senior Prince or Minister then proposes that such and such a Prince should be elevated to the Throne and asks if anybody has any objection. There is generally no answer to this question, but sometimes an answer in the affirmative is given by saluting with the hands or an inclinations of the head. The King is then formally proclaimed and the words “elected by the people” are added to his titles.
		This custom was continued to the Fifth Reign. King Chulalongkorn then made an innovation by creating a Crown Prince, who succeeded to the Throne without question, the formality at the death of the King being a sort of proclamation only.
		King Rama 6th, not having any son, it was resided (desided) in a Cabinet Council that he should be succeeded by his full brothers. Later he made a Law of succession.
		This Law of Succession contains 2 distinct principles i.e. the Principle of election and the Principle of Hereditary succession. In this law it starts by saying that the King reserves the absolute right of appointing any member of the Royal Family as his Successor. But should the King die without having appointed a Successor, the Succession will go to his sons. This sounds straight-forward enough, but a complication arises here owing to the habit of polygamy. The Law specifies that the sons of Somdetch Phra Rajini should have the precedence over the others. Then the preference goes to the sons of the mother next in rank to the queen (there are 4 different ranks and descending the scale of finally to the sons of concubines). Again this sounds all right in principle, if it were not for the fact that a concubine may be raised in rank at any time, AND the Queen herself may have her rank lowered according to the whims of the King. This, to my mind, creates very great possibilities of complications. I would suggest that priority of the sons be regulated by the birth ranks of the mothers. I mean priority be given to the sons born of a Princess, such as daughters of a King, then nieces of a King and so on. If there are more than one son of mothers of the same rank, the succession would then go by the seniority in age of those Princes. When there are no sons the succession would go to the King’s brothers. According to the Law as it is the priority is still regulated by the created rank of the mothers. I would suggest the same modification as above. The next question is that the Law does not make it quite clear, when there being no brothers left or when the one who should have succeeded has died. Whether all the sons of that Prince would be eligible to the Throne or whether it is only the sons of the Principal wife only who could succeed. The case has really occurred which shows that in the late King’s mind ALL the sons could succeed. In my case the son of the Prince of Petchabun was passed over by the expressed wishes of the late King. Now, many people find that the idea that all the sons could succeed was objectionable owing to the fact that some Princes have the most disreputable minor wives who are really not fitted to be the mothers of Kings. They also say that the Siamese follows the India custom and wants their Kings to be born of a Princess of the Royal family. Such Princes are known as “being born in a pure womb”. They are the Chow Fa’s.
		The questions of principles involved, of which I would like to ask your opinions are:
1st Question		Should the King have the right to choose any Prince as his Heir? If the King has this right, ought not this right to be extended to a Council of High Princes and Ministers of State, in the case when the King dies without having chosen an Heir. At present the King alone has the right to nominate an Heir. It would be perhaps more logical to allow a Council of some sort to exercise that right when the King has not done so. This would be more consistent with the idea of an Elected King.
2nd. Question		Should the principle of choice be admitted at all or ought the succession to be by birth alone, and ought there to be some amendments to the present law or not?
b) The Powers of the King.		As you well known, the King has absolute power in everything. This principle is very good and very suitable for the country, as long as we have a good King. If the King is really an Elected King it is probable that he would be a fairly good King. But this idea of election is really a very theoretical one, and in reality the King⟨s⟩ of Siam are really hereditary, with a very limited possibility of choice. Such being the case, it is not at all certain that we shall always have a good King. Then the absolute power may become a positive danger to the country. Besides this, things have very much changed. In olden days the actions of the King were hardly ever questioned. It would not have been safe to do so. The King was really respected and his words were really laws. But things began to change with the new order of things. In the days of King Chulalongkorn, the King was still very much feared and respected. Even then towards to the end of the Reign, there was a young party who began to criticize the King in many ways, but not openly. In the Reign which has just ended, things got much worse, for many reasons which I have no need to tell you, as you known them well enough. The King has become a person liable to be influenced by anybody who could gain the ears of a favourite. Every official is more or less suspected ⟨of⟩ embezzlement or nepotism. Fortunately the Princes were still respected as being on the whole honest folks. What was very regrettable was that the Court was heartily detested and in later years was on the verge of being rediculed. The birth of FREE PRESS aggravated matters still more. The position of the King has become one of great difficulty. The movements of opinion in this country give a sure sign that the days of Autocratic Rulership are numbered. The position of the King must be made more secure it if this Dynasty is going to last. Some sort of GUARANTEE must be found against an unwise King.
		What form then should the Government of Siam take?
⟨3rd Question⟩		Must this country have a Parliamentary system one day, and is really the Anglo-Saxon type of Parliamentary Government suitable to an Eastern people?
4st Question		Is this country ready to have some sort of representative Government?
		I personally have my doubt as to the 3rd question. As to the 4th question, my personal opinion is an emphatic No.
		What then should be done in the meanwhile? My first attempts to find some sort of guarantee for the person of the King is the creation of the Supreme Council.
c) The Supreme Council.		The Genesis of the Supreme Council is worth telling with some detail.
		I have discussed the idea of such a Council among my friends for some time, before I had any idea that I should have the opportunity of creating it myself. The idea found a firm supporter in Prince Damrong. Just one day before the late King’s death, I consulted the Princes Bhanurangsi and Paribatra about this idea. The former was not very keen on it, as he thought that it would lessen the prestige of the King, but the latter was enthusiastic. When the King died, it was decided that the Supreme Council should be created at once. We had 2 days only to prepare a proclamation, and 3 days after the death of the late King, the Supreme Council was proclaimed by the means of a speech to the Privy Councillors.
		I will now explain the reasons for creating this Council in such a hurry. As you know, the late King was beginning to loose the confidence of the people towards the end of the Reign and the question of Succession caused great anxieties. The only High Prince with any reputation was Prince Paribatra and many people would have liked the succession to go to him, while it was well known that the King was expecting to have a child, and should he not have a boy the succession would go to his brothers whom, I am sorry to say, the majority of people did not think much of. For myself, I was a dark horse and in any case inexperienced in affairs of state. Very fortunately for me, on the death of my brother Asdang, I had several occasions to act for the King during his absence from the Capital and during his illness. I was fortunate enough to have been able to gain the confidence of the Ministers and High Princes, so that my candidature to the Throne had the approval of those persons. I also had the best support from Prince Paribatra. On my succession to Throne it was thought absolutely necessary to do something at once to gain the confidence of the people, hence the creation of the Supreme Council. This had its immediate effect and I really gained the confidence of the people in one day. The reason why this action had such an immediate result was that it promised many desirable things.
		Firstly, that the Royal Family is getting together and will work in harmony.
		Secondly, that the King was willing to seek the advice of highly respected Princes who have had experience of State affairs and who have the confidence of the people, none of the HATED official class⟨es⟩ being included in this Council.
		Thirdly, that the King’s power to take arbitrary actions would be lessened by this Council (remember that in the present state of opinions in the country, the King is thought to be more liable to do more harm than good).
		Therefore the immediate result of the creation of the Supreme Council had been very good and I think that it has served its purpose very well and that my action was well justified. Since then, people have had time to reflect a little and the Supreme Council has come to be critizied a great deal. I will enumerate some of the criticisms and questioning about it.
		1.⁠People ask whether the Supreme Council is an advisory body or an executive body. Some think that the Council has too much power. I would answer that the Council is entirely advisory since it cannot carry out any executive actions at all. Its opinions have executive effect through the King alone. The way that the Council work⟨s⟩ at present is that it meets in the presence of the King and NEVER meets without the presence of the King except by special order. Questions submitted to the Council are: all questions of policy, questions of national finance, appointments of High officials such as Ministers of State, questions of high and special rewards such as ranks of Chow Phya and Grand Crosses (there has been abuse and backstairs influence in the past) and questions concerning tradition and important ceremonials. The King may also seek advice in personal or Royal Family affairs.
		In any question that concerns any Ministry, the Minister responsible may be invited to attend the meeting.
		The Supreme Councillors sit in the Cabinet Council and give their opinions. Final decision on important matters such as the promulgation of a New Law or the signing of a treaty is always given in the Cabinet Council. Both in the Cabinet Council and in the Supreme Council the decision of the King alone prevails, although in the ordinary course of events, the King always adopts the opinion of the majority, but being still absolute he need⟨s⟩ not necessarily do so.
		2.⁠It is criticised that the Supreme Council being an advisory body should not sit in the Cabinet Council which is an executive body. I admit that this is quite true. This system is only adopted for the sake of convenience. It would make business much slower if the Supreme Council were not to sit in the Cabinet as any question decided on in the Cabinet will have to be deliberated on again in the Supreme Council. And since the King alone decides all questions, it does not seem necessary to introduce any complications at the present stage. If there is a Prime Minister to preside the Cabinet Council and who will submit the decisions of the Cabinet to the Kings, then it would be well to have the Supreme Council as a separate body which the King could consult and then give his final decision. We will talk more of this later.
		3.⁠That there should be some law to indicate and regulate the duties of the Supreme Councillors. This is certainly needed, and a draft law has been drawn up, but owing to the conflicting opinions as to WHAT SHOULD BE THE DUTIES of the Supreme Councillors, I have shelved that draft for the present until a clearer idea of what is the best form to give to such a Council is forthcoming.
		4.⁠That the Supreme Council is approved of at this moment owing to the personalities of the Councillors, and that in the cases when these Councillors are replaced by others, the Council would not have the confidence of the people. I think such ideas are rather pessimistic. If there are no more good men in the future, we can have no hope for Siam.
		5.⁠That the existence of the Supreme Council lessens the prestige of the King. I admit that this is true, but I consider that the prestige of Kingship in this country can hardly be lower than at this moment. I have already explained the causes I doubt very much whether the old prestige could over be regained. I think that the evolution of the public opinion in Bangkok and educated class has already gone too far, and that it would be a wild goose chase to try and get back any of the old glory. The King should be content to do all the good he can, even though the credit were given to somebody else. I believe that at the present time and with the sentiment of the people as it is at this moment, all credit will always go to somebody else⟨,⟩ to some Minister or some Prince, if there is no Supreme Council. If any things goes wrong, it would be attributed to influence of some wicked person and the foolishness of the King is being influenced by that person. People seem to have the idea that the King is a sort ⟨of⟩ nonentity who is easily influenced by anybody, and that he has no opinion of his own whatever. This statement may sound exagerated, but it is really very near to the truth.
		6.⁠That the Power of the King is lessened. This is, of course, what is intended. As I have already said, the days of absolute power are numbered. The S.C. certainly lessens the King’s power to do harm by the arbitrary actions, but surely, it does not lessen his power to do good as he ought to be supported by very wholeheartedly by the S.C. in that case.
		I believe that some of the reasons why the S.C. is so much criticized and feared now is some sort of sentiment of envy. Anybody who has the ears of the King is always hated. It also makes backstairs influence rather difficult, because the people will now have to go to 5 or more backstairs instead of one or two.
		Having stated some ⟨of⟩ the criticisms against the present form of the Supreme Council, I would put the. . .
5th Question		What is the best form to give to the Supreme Council? Is it worthwhile to make it a permanent institution of the country, or should it be allowed to die a natural death?
d) The Cabinet		You have said in your article in the Atlantic Monthly that the Governmental system of Siam is in water-tight compartments. This is perfectly true, but I think that it is inherent to the system of having Ministers each responsible to the King alone. Each works for the benefit of his Ministry alone and not to the benefit of the whole. An attempt has been made to improve matters by having weekly meeting. At least the Ministers meet once a week to discuss matters together, and I think that there has been a real improvement. But it would be better still if we were to have a Prime Minister to preside over the Cabinet. He should be allowed a fairly free choice of his colleagues, so that the Cabinet will work well as an homogenous body. The Ministers will be nominated by the King after having conferred with the Premier. I believe that this would be a real gain to the country. The Supreme Council will then act as a controlling body. I have already indicated the line in which work would be done under this system. The thing to decide is, whether this system should be used now or later.
6th Question.		Should we have a Prime Minister? Should this system be inaugurated now?
e) The Legislative Council.		The question of having some sort of Legislative Council has been discussed many times. A sort of Legislative Council was created early in the Reign of King Chulalongkorn. This Council consisted of Ministers of State and 12 nominated members. The Council remained in existence for about 5 years and since then has become a dead letter although some of the Councillors of those days are still living. I think that it was given up because it was felt that there was no real need for such a Council and that it only delayed the work of the Ministers.
		When the late King came to Throne, the Prince of Pitsanuloke recommended the formation of a Council of State similar to what existed in Russia at that time (not the Douma). I believe the matter was discussed in a Cabinet meeting, but the scheme was not adopted, owing to the opinion of Mr. Jens Westengaard who thought that any makeshift form of Parliamentary system would serve no good purpose.
		Prince Damrong has now submitted a new idea of a Legislative Council, composed of officials nominated from every Ministry. This Council will really work as a sort of Law drafting Commission. We have already got a Department for drafting laws, and I am not sure that the proposed Council would be able to do the work better. Rather the contrary I am afraid, and it will delay work too. Besides that, it may attempt to criticize the policy of the Ministers, and as the Councillors are officials in the Ministries appointed for a time only, the system may not be very good for discipline. The difficulty about such a nominated Council has always been the question of recruiting the members. At the present moment we cannot afford to pay the members, and we cannot get unpaid members.
7th Question.		Should we have a Legislative Council? What should be the constitution of such a Council? (I have received many petitions to form some sort of Council).
		⟨2.⟩ Financial Affairs.
		I will not say much about financial affairs as I do feel that I am not competent in the matter. I think that we have a very capable advisor in Sir Edward Cooke.
		The one important question is the proper division of the resources available among the Ministries. I know that, in your opinion. We spend too much on the Defence forces. I am inclined to agree with you in this respect, yet the cutting down of expenditures on Defence is a very serious responsibility. Very few people dare advocate such a thing, as we have too many experiences of the swashbuckling policy of our neighbours.
		I am getting the whole of our financial policy overhauled, but I am somewhat at a disadvantage in not really competent in the matter.
8th Question.		Have you any opinion as to our financial policy?
		⟨3.⟩ Internal Affairs.
		The one change of importance that I am contemplating at this moment, is the organizations of Municipal Councils. I think that, at first, these Councils should be nominated. Later on we might try Municipal elections. This would give some idea as to the possibility of inaugurating some form of representative government. It will satisfy the advanced opinions of the country, and will be a good demonstration as to whether the people are really ready to have an effective voice in the affairs of the country.
		Another question which I consider important is the Chinese question. The Chinese are very useful in Siam. In former days they marry Siamese women and became very good Siamese citizens. But since the Chinese revolution, there has been quite a change. Now the Chinese bring their wives from China, and are determined to remain Chinese. They organize schools in which they teach practically only the Chinese language. There is a rather disturbing state of affairs, as we loose a source of good and laborious citizens, and with the new ideas in China filtering through, it becomes a latent danger.
9th Question.		Can something be done to make the Chinese become Siamese as in the old days? (In the Straits Settlements they are willing to become British subjects).
		These are all the problems which we have not yet found satisfactory solutions or which are doubtful as to the proper way to attack. Others are being solved or on the point of being solved.

---

1. The Thai text translates "Royal Secretariat General, 29 Jul 2469". "2469" refers to the year 2469 Buddhist Era, or 1926 Common Era. (Wikisource contributor note)