On the day of his coronation, 9th June 1946, the same day that his elder brother was "mysteriously" murdered while he slept in his bed, the young king of Thailand swore that he would reign with "righteousness" over his people.
If we use this statement as a yardstick to measure how "successful" king Bhumibol's 60 year reign has been, and not the usual "economic" yardstick applied by the markets, then we can definately say that the King of Thailand has failed as a king.
Not so long ago, king Bhumibol announced at the start of the DSI's terror campaign against those convicted of lese majeste, that he welcomed criticism. How "righteous" of the king, I hear you say, is this not what he promised at the start of his reign?
Today, Thai prisons are bursting with those convicted of lese majeste. Apologists for the Thai king say that king Bhumibol is "not responsible" for this, and that it's the fault of zealous royalists, but I beg to differ. Look at the fatcs.
The king himself invited criticism. He said it would help him to "learn from his mistakes".Yet, when any individual follows his advice (and is charged, humiliated and sent to prison) the Thai king stays perfectly silent, until his detractors have been punished.
Is this what the Thai king meant by "righteousness"? In legal terminology, those who encourage others to break the law, in the same way that king bhumibol has encouraged his people to break lese majeste law, are called agent provocateurs. And that is precisely what king Bhumibol has became for not giving his support to those who are arrested.
The king of Thailand may have done wonders for the Thai stock market over the last 60 years, but he has failed miserably as a king, because he did not keep his coronation vows. Granting a royal pardons after punishment is not "righteous" but rather "self-righteous".
King Bhumibol Adulyadej is bad king.
Video from BadKarma4Lek
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario