Ten Principles of a Righteous King

and the King of Thailand

Professor Emeritus Borwornsak Uwanno

Faculty of Law, Chulalongkorn University

On 5 May 1950, the Coronation Day, His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej affrmed in His
Accession Speech in front of the Grand Audience of venerable monks and Brahmins, members of
the royal family, cabinet ministers, members of parliament, judges, military offcers and civil
servants that:
I shall reign by Dhamma, for the beneft and happiness of all the Thai people.
This Accession Oath was uttered without any obligation under any constitution of law, as
would have been the case in some western countries, the constitutions of which stipulate an
accession oath to be taken by a king of queen prior to acceding to the throne. (For examples of
such constitutions, please see Article 91 of the Belgian Constitution, Section 8 of the Danish
Constitution, and Article 61 of the Spanish Constitution.)

In common understanding, the word dhammaŽ in His remark refers to

DasarajadhammaŽ or the ten principles of a righteous king, which are Theravada Buddhism Ý
based principles. This understanding is actually correct. However, the aim of this article is to
demonstrate the ever since His Majesty the King uttered His Accession Oath, He has lived this
Oath throughout the 60 yearsž period of His reign and, by so doing, has transformed the ten
principles of dasarajadhamma from religious and moral principles into constitutional principles and
practice, or Convention of the ConstitutionŽ, of a modern-day democracy, compatible with the
principle of constitutional monarchy. His practices have also turned the dasarajadhamma
principles into principles for public and civil management for administrators at all levels in the
public, private and civil society sectors and eventually social principles for all members of a
society. In all, His Majesty the King has made the religious and moral principles of more than
2,500 years ago contemporaneous for the age of globalization and not less universal than good
governance, the principle which the World Bank only highlighted and used in its present meaning
for the frst time in its report on Sub-Sahara Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth in 1989.
I. Dasarajadhamma: Principle to restrain the Kingžs absolute power since ancient times
In the sermon given to His Majesty the King on 5 May 1950, The Venerable Somdech
Phra Vachiryanavongse, the Supreme Patriarch of Bowonniwetwihan Temple clarifed that
dasarajadhamma was a proverb of a sage born prior to the Buddhist era and was later
incorporated into the treatise of Buddhism. As it comprised ten elements, it was called
Dasarajadhamma, where Dasa means ten and Rajadhamma means principle for kings or rulers.Ž
He further noted that it was originated in the Jataka, or books of stories of former incarnations of
BuddhaŽ.
In effect, the dasarajadhamma was initially principles of conduct for absolute monarchs in
the pre-Buddhist era, which was later integrated as part of Buddhist teachings. It was both
religious and moral principles for kings to restrain the exercise of their absolute power. In addition
to dasarajadhamma at the core, there are many other complementary dhamma principles, such
as the four principles of sangaha-vatthu (principles of benefaction) and the twelve principles of
cakkavatt-vatta (duties of a universal ruler).
Religious or moral principles to keep the kingsž absolute power in check in the old days
are necessary. According to the Thai administrative tradition, the King was regarded as the Lord
of Life, who could take life away from any of His subjects, and the Lord of the Land, who owned
all the land in the kingdom but distributed it to His subjects to make their living.

(Pleas see chapter 52, miscellaneous provision, The Law of The Three Great Seal). As such, the
exercise of His power would unavoidably affect the lives and properties of His people.
Dasarajadhamma therefore served as religious and moral principles that prevented the King from
exercising His power at will, thereby adversely affecting His subjects.
When a King exercised his power in accordance with raja-dhamma, He was called
dhamma raja, which means by defnition a king whose righteousness brings happiness to his
people. (Raja means the one who makes people happy.) The practice of Dhamma Raja dated
back to the Sukhothai period and continues to be followed up until now.
The ten principles of Dasarajadhamma comprise the following:
1. Dana which means giving in a benefcial way, that is, providing things such as the basic
necessities, or amisa-dana; giving knowledge and useful advice, or dhamma-dana; and forgiving
those who deserve forgiveness, or apaya-dhamma. Generally, human beings have a tendency to
acquire rather than to give. Growing propensity to take will develop into greed. And greed makes
people keep struggling for what they want which fnally could lead to malpractice, such as theft,
robbery, or corruption. However, greed can be lessened or even eliminated by the practice of
giving, particularly unconditioned giving. If politicians and bureaucrats in every country stand by
this dhamma, corruption will be reduced or eventually eliminated.
2. Sila which means maintaining good conduct so as not to breach religious morals, laws
and all ethical norms. This dasarajadhamma encompasses respect for religious principles, morals,
rule of law and ethics as restraint for the King not to break any norms. His Majestyžs practices
based of this principle are evident in His remark: I have never ordered any thing that contravenes
the provisions of the Constitution or law ‚I have never acted upon the ground of liking or disliking.
If I ever did that, the country would have collapsed a long time ago‚Ž, and

that I beseech you to do and think of ways that will not contravene the Constitution‚Ž (Royal
remarks to the Judges of the Supreme Administrative Court and the Supreme Court on 25 April
2006)
3. Pariccaga which means making selfess sacrifce for the greater good. In other words, it
means sacrifcing everything-money, physical strength, mind, personal comfort, time or even life Ý
for a greater good, as Vessandon Bodhisattva did in the Buddhažs last reincarnation before his
enlightenment. Pariccage is therefore more profound than dana because it is aimed at the
greater good of the majority, if not everybody. Sacrifce is one of the most important qualities of a
leader.
4. Ajjava which means loyalty, truthfulness and honesty as the Venerable Somdech Phra
Vachirayanavongse explained: to have qualities of being truthful, free from deceit, honest to royal
allies and kin as well as to all subjects without thinking of deceiving or hurting them unjustifably.Ž
5. Maddava which means being gentle and open-minded to reasonable advice and not
being arrogant. This dhamma is important because since the Kingžs authority is reverently
feared by all, His gentleness will eliminate the fear. If the King behaves gently, he will win his
peopležs respect and his governance will be built on loving consent, not hateful fear.
6. Tapa which means diligence in consistently performing the royal duties, leading a
simple life, and restraining His mind from indulgence of sensual pleasure.
7. Akkodha which means not showing anger, not dwelling in hatred or vindictiveness
against others, or in other words, being compassionate. Anger is a cause of misjudgment. If a
King is not in anger, He can make judgments in a fair and unbiased manner
8. Avihimsa which means not afficting harm on others including animals and all living
things, adhering to peace and tranquility for all, and not indulging Himself in His power.
9. Khanti which means being patient and persevering against all emotions, be they greed,
anger, ignorance or may kind of suffering, and against abrasive words against Him, and
maintaining calmness in His mind, composure, body and words.
10. Avirodhana which means being steadfast in righteousness, not allowing any misdeeds,
being just, rectifying those who do wrong and rewarding those who do right with justice. This
principle is very important because it is more profound than honesty. Avirodhana also
encompasses spreading honesty to all others concerned.
IF carefully analyzed, dasarajadhamma is a governance principle from within, i.e. an
instrument restraining the spiritŽ or the mind of the King, guiding His physical and vocal conduct
in a righteous way. Here, a question may arise: what keeps the Dasarajadhamma from being
violated?
 The answer to this question can be found in the sermon by Somdech Phra
Vachirayanavongse, which stated that for these ten principles of dhamma, it was said that when
an emperor is wholesome, he is a good ruler who does not harm others with his power. Because
he rules with these dhamma principles. All other countries will pay him homage and submit to his
rule. This is called to rule with righteousness and not with power. All will be happy and prosper.
When the King lives by dasarajadhamma and in wholeness, the royal kin, royal servants
and subjects will pay homage to him with reverence, do their duties to serve him whole-
heartedly, honestly and loyally, and bring the country to prosper as he aspires‚Ž
This explanation implies that concern over the well being of people is a sanction of
Dasarajadhamma.
II. Dasarajadhamma: Governance of the administration and management in the age of
globalization
Without careful consideration, we may incorrectly take dasarajadhamma as ancient
principles of over 2,500 years ago, incompatible with the present day, which is an age of
globalization where the universal values emphasize democracy in politics, good governance in
administration, and human rights in governmental actions to others.
In fact, people who maintain the above understanding may not be totally wrong because if
we look at the religious teachings on dasarajadhamma, often-cited examples are usually old and
even written in archaic vocabularies. However, if considering carefully present-day examples,
these people had better rethink.
The question is, therefore, where to fnd examples of abstract religious and moral
principles being transformed into concrete actions to prove that dasarajadhamma can still apply
today and will continue to apply through this millennium. If this thesis can be proved, then
dasarajadhamma should be regarded as lasting universal principles which were not originated in
the West but in the East
There is on better place to fnd an answer to the above question than in the conduct and
multifarious duties of a King, especially those of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej during the
past 60 years of His reign.
1. Dasarajadhamma: Convention of the constitution in the age of globalized democracy
Leading constitutional law theorists such as A.V. Dicey, Sir Ivor Jennings of Francežs
Pierre Avril, as well as the Supreme Court of Canada gave opinions regarding the amendments
made to the Canadian Constitution on 28 September 1981. All of them admitted that in the
modern constitutional democratic system, there are not only written constitutions but also customs
of democracy, which is called convention of the constitutionŽ in academic terms.
 Convention of the constitution means practices which have handed down over the years
until becoming consensus and creating a feeling of obligation (opinion juris), or having binding
effect, but which cannot be used as basis for indictment in the court of law.
Convention of the constitution is usually not stipulated in writing, unless there is a clear
consensus that it will be abided by, such as in the case of the Statue of Westminster of 1931,
where England accepted the independence of the Englishlanguage speaking Dominions in writing.
Another key feature of convention of the constitution is the sanction against violation of the
convention, which is political sanction, not judicial sanction that can be basis for indictment in the
court of law. An example for this latter case is the English monarchžs royal prerogative of refusal
to give royal assent to the bills which the Parliament has approved. Since 1708, when Queen
Anne refused to sign the Scottish Militia Bill, which was the last time that such prerogative was
used in British history, British kings and queens have never done sot to the bills already approved
by the Parliament. It has thus become accepted customs in Britain that a monarch will not refuse
to give royal assent to the bills which the Parliament has approved. A question then arises as to
whether it would be permissible by law should a British King or queen breach the convention by
refusing to give royal assent. The answer is that the monarch can do so legally but the action will
be unconventional and therefore unconstitutional. But a case cannot be made against the action
in the court of law. The only political criticisms against the monarch him-or herself.
Afore-mentioned are examples of Britainžs convention of the constitution. The same case
would not apply to Thailand because a Thai monarch has the royal prerogative in accordance
with the Constitution (Section 94) to block a bill. His Majesty the King legitimately exercised this
Royal prerogative when errors were found in the Teachers and Educational Personnel
Regulations Bill and the Commemorative Coins Bill, and the National Assembly subsequently
resolved not to reaffrm both bills. The said bills were thus not enacted. This case will be
described later on in this article. For this reason, it cannot be assumed that Thailand shares with
Britain the same convention of the constitution that the monarch will never refuse royal assent,
because practices and consensus on this issue differ in the two countries. It can be argued,
however, that if a This king refuses royal assent to a fawed bill, then the National Assembly will
not reaffrm that bill.
Regarding convention of the constitution, Sir Ivor Jennings made a comparison that if the
constitution. Which is written law. Is a skeleton, then convention of the constitution is fesh and
blood that envelop the skeleton and make alive. The Canadian Supreme Court explained that the
main purpose of the various conventions of the constitution is to enable the law of the constitution
(which may become outdated Ý the author) to continue to apply in accordance with the
constitutional principles and value systems of each age.Ž To put it simply, convention of the
constitution allows the constitution to live on without becoming outdated or having to undergo
formal amendments.
 As for dasarajadhamma, it is clear that the original objective has been to restrain the
enormous royal prerogative of the King under the absolute monarchy system. However, His
Majesty the King has impeccably turned this set of principles into fesh and blood that envelop
the skeletonŽ of a democratic constitution.
In fact, if we examine the provisions of Thailandžs constitutions since 1932 up to the
present, we will fnd that their skeletonsŽ are similar. All of the constitutions reaffrm that the
sovereign power emanates from the Thai people, and the King exercises the sovereign power on
behalf of people through the constitutional organs, namely, the National Assembly, the Council of
Ministers and the Courts, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. (See section 3 of
the current Constitution. Hence, we call this system of government constitutional monarchyŽ For
instance, the King signs bills which have been approved by the National Assembly, establishes
diplomatic relations, issued royal decrees, of appoints senior government offcials of the director-
general level of higher, upon recommendations by the Council of Ministers. All His signatures
shall be countersigned by ministers or other competent persons designated by the Constitution,
such as in the case of appointments of independent organs where the President of the Senate
shall countersign such appointments. As a consequence, the King is not involved in any political
consideration. It is the persons presenting recommendations and countersigning royal commands
that maintain political purposes and are politically accountable. There is thus a saying that The
King can do no wrongŽ because those presenting recommendations and countersigning royal
commands will hold political or legal responsibilities. On this point, Walter Bagehot, a famous
British political scientist, wrote in his book The English Constitution that the monarchy is but a
dignifed part of the ConstitutionŽ while the Parliament and Council of Ministers are effcient parts
of the ConstitutionŽ. Bagehot nonetheless observed that a constitutional monarch as in the case
of Britain retains the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warnŽ
(Bagehot, pŽ 67X and a monarch who has reigned over a long period and endowed with
experiences would use these rights for the benefts of the country in a way that other political
institutions fnd it extremely hard to do.
When analyzing the principle of a democracy with constitutional monarchy on the basis of
its archetypal country, we will fnd that all constitutional organs which are the effcient partsŽ be
they the Parliament or Council of Ministers, have authority to make decisions on whether to do or
not to do something as well as on when. The King will not make decisions on the administration
of the country but He maintains the right to advise or caution, or the advisory power.
His Majesty the King has strictly upheld the afore-mentioned principle throughout His 60
yearsžreign without ever overstepping it, as illustrated in the samples below.
The frst example is: when the King speaks to the Prime Minister during any Royal
audiences requested by the latter, what spoken will be kept confdential. If the Prime Minister acts
upon it, then it is the Prime Minister who will be held to account. He shall not refer to the Kingžs
statements. However, there have been two exceptional instances to this convention. One was
when the King remarked about the Auditor General case to the Prime Minister (Dr. Thaksin
Shinawatra) in February 2006 and the Prime Minister requested Royal permission to recite the
Kingžs remarks in his letter to the Chairman of the State Audit Commission. Subsequently, the
Board of Audit Commissioners invited Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka to resume her position as
Auditor General in accordance with the Kingžs remarks. When analyzed carefully, the Prime
Minsister could refer to the Kingžs remarks in his letter only because he had obtained the Royal
permission to do so; otherwise, he would have transgressed the convention of the constitution.
Nevertheless, even with the Royal permission, the political and legal responsibilities still lie with
the effcient parts of the constitutionŽ, namely the Prime Minister and the Board of Audit
Commissioners, because the Royal remarks were simply expressed, but by reciting them to the
Board of Audit Commissioners, the Prime Minsiter had in effect countersigned the Royal remarks
in his letter in accordance with Section 231 of the Constitution, which stipulates that all laws,
Royal Rescripts and Royal Commands relating to the State affairs must be countersigned by a
Minister unless otherwise provided in this Constitution.Ž Similarly, when the Commission invited
Khunying Jaruvan to resume her post, it was the exercise of the Commissionžs authority, for
which the Commission had to be accountable.
The second example is: when the King addressed the Supreme Administrative and
Supreme Courtsž judges during their separate audiences on 25 April 2006, the Royal remarks on
the oath-taking and the countryžs crisis were made publicly, which is something that the King
has rarely done, except in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the principle of confdentiality
and non-reference were exempted. But the The King can do no wrongŽ principle still applied.
Any action undertaken in accordance with the Royal remarks would have to be consistent with the
organs and persons who are the effcient partsŽ of the Constitution.
Regarding the above Royal remarks, a foreign academician has made an interesting
analysis that while Thais expect their King to intervene and arbitrate in the countryžs political
problems, or as stated in His remarks,Žask the King to make a decision‚Ž, His Majesty the King
pointed out to he judges that the heart of the problem was the lack of judicial oversight, and that
the judges had constitutional authority to adjudicate the disputes. The writer made a sound
conclusion that Critics may allege that the palace has conspired to hold the ultimate reins of
power in Thailand, but with His admonition of the judiciary to do their job, (His Majesty the King)
has laid down a legacy of support for modern democracy in ThailandŽ and that the King supports
pluralism.(From an article When kings do goodŽ by Michael Vatikiotis, International Herald
Tribune, 18 May 2006, p.7) This analysis shows that His Majesty the King upholds His role as a
constitutional monarch by advising the constitutional organs to perform their duties instead of
asking the King to breach His constitutional duties.
In fact, His Majesty the King has advised, encouraged and cautionedŽ not only
constitutional organs but also groups of people and the general public by means of His discourses
and addresses on various occasions throughout the year, as can be seen in the compilation of
Royal discourses and speeches by the Offce of His Majestyžs Principal Private Secretary. When
carefully analyzed, the Royal discourses and speeches provide guidance on what each person
should do, or refrain from doing, in performing his or her duties as well as on personal behavior of
a good citizen. The King stresses in particular honesty, integrity, truthfulness, morality and ethics.
Therefore, many often look for guidance from His discourses and speeches, which not only refect
His strict adherence to the principle of avirodhana and promotion of this principle, but also His
quality as a teacherŽ who guides others, both the constitutional organs and the people, to a
correct way. There is no law which requires those listening to His discourses and speeches to act
accordingly. Those who act upon them will get benefts for themselves, as those who do not will
not get any. The Kingžs conduct in this regard, besides being consistent with the principles of
democracy with constitutional monarchy of the modern day. By implication, a Thai king under the
morality of the societyŽ (which Bagethot calls virtuous sovereingnŽ and refers to this in the
British case as the head of our moralityŽ, Begahot, p. 47)
Because all of the Kingžs Royal discourses and speeches are consistent with the
principle of righteousness (avirodhana) in the dasarajadhamma, when the country meets with
crises and the constitutional organs as effcient partsŽ cannot resolve the problems, the people
will look for guidance from the Kingžs Royal remarks. Once the King speaks, all sides will
wholeheartedly act accordingly, thereby miraculously calming down heated political problems, as
evident in the cases of the incident on 14 October 1973, the Black
May incident in 1992 and the Royal remarks of 25 April 2006.
Consequentially, the Thai monarchy has attained a social status of Supreme Arbitrator
and Conciliator of the NationŽ, a status which Heads of State in the presidential system can
hardly achieve because leaders in such a system are politicians and have political partisanship.
Thai people and political organs wholeheartedly follow Royal advice of His Majesty the King
because He in nonpartisan, stands by the interests of the country and the people, and provides
advice strictly and correctly in compliance with the Constitution and the law.
Actually, if we look at His Majestyžs constitutional conduct over the period of His reign,
we will see that He has always strictly adhered to the Constitution and followed the convention of
the constitution in accordance with democratic valued, as stated in His Royal remarks that He
(has) never issued any orders without basing them on directives of the provisions of the
constitution of the lawsŽ When a political confict emerged between those opposing the
Government led by Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra and the Government, it was proposed that the Prime
Minister resign and a new one be Royally appointed, arguing that it was within the Royal
appointed, arguing that it was within the Rayal prerogative to appoint a prime minister and that
when there was no sitting House of Representatives, it would be within the Royal prerogative to
decide on anyone as prime minister. The proponents of this proposal cited Section 7 of the
Constitution, which stipulates that:
Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be
decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government
with the King as Head of the State.Ž
In fact, the proponents realized that had the King exercised His Royal prerogative, a
number of other sections of the Constitution would have to be exempted. These included, among
others, paragraph 2 of Section 201, which states the the Prime Mintster must be appointed from
members of the House of Repersentatives or persons who have been members of the House of
Representatives whose membership has terminated under section 118 (7) during the term of the
same House,Ž and Sections 202 and 203 regarding the approval of the appointment of Prime
Minister by the House of Representatives. In addition, Section 201 might have to be exempted
as well so as to allow the President of the Senate to countersign the Royal Command appointing
the Prime Minister instead of the President of the House of Representatives Whose terms had
been terminated due to the dissolution of the House of Representatives. Finally, paragraph 2 of
Section 215 and Section 211 would also have to be exempted in order to allow the outgoing
Council of Ministers to leave offce without having to carrying out their constitutional duties and to
allow the Council of Ministers to assume the administration of the State affairs without having to
state its policies before the National Assembly beforehand (because there was no National
Assembly in place), respectively.
All of the above served as a basis for the Royal statement that I am very concerned that
whenever a problem arises, people just call for a Royally-appointed prime minister, which would
not be democratic. If you cite Section 7 of the Constitution, it is an incorrect citation. Section 7
cannot be cited. Section 7 has only 2 lines which says that whenever no provision under this
Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional
practice‚Ž, and that (I) affrm that Section 7 does not empower the King to do anything He
wishes‚Ž The King also spoke about the appointment of Prime Minister Sanya Dharmasakti after
the incident of 14 October 1973: They refer to the government under Prime Minister Sanya
Dharmasakti. Then, I did not overstep the prerogative of the King. At that time, we had a National
Legislative Assembly as well as President and Vice-Presidents of the National Legislative
Assembly. The counter-singner of the Royal Command was Vice-President of the National
legislative Assembly, Mr. Tawee Rangkam ‚ It was based on the rules‚The Sapha Sanam Ma (the
National Electoral College-added by the author) did not breach the laws because the Prime
Minsiter, Mr. Sanya Dharmasakti, countersigned the Royal Command on it. Hence, I was content
that everything was in accordance with the Constitutionžs guidelines‚Ž
Those interested in Thai political history may recall that during the time of the incident of
14 October 1973, Thailand was using the Constitution of 1972 and when the crisis erupted,
Marshall Thanom Kitttikajon resigned as Prime Minister and Sanya Dharmasakti was appointed by
Royal Command as Prime Minister in accordance with Section 14 of that Constitution, which
stipulated that:
The King appoints a Prime Minister and an appropriate number of Ministers as
recommended by the Prime Minister constituting the Council of Minister having duties to carry out
the administration of the State affairs.Ž
Tawee Rangkam, Vice-President of the National Legislative Assembly, acting on behalf of
the Assemblyžs President, countersigned the Royal Command in accordance with Section 18 of
the Constitution, which stipulated that:
For the appointment of the Prime Minsiter, the President of the National Assembly shall
countersign the Royal Command.Ž
The appointment of Sanya Dharmasakti was therefore in full compliance with Section 14
and paragraph 2 of Section 18 of the 1972 Constitution, and no provisions were exempted.
The dissolution of the National Legislative Assembly and the appointment of the members
of a new Assembly during that same crisis were also consistent with the Constitution. In late
November and early December 1973, most of the 299 members of the National Legislative
Assembly, Royally appointed upon the recommendation of Marshall Thanom Kittikajon, resigned
and only 11 members remained in offce. Hence, on 10 December 1973, the King issued a Royal
Command appointing 2}347 persons as members of a National Electoral College. Giver the large
number of its member, the Royal Turf Club (Nang Lerng Horse Race Track) was used to
inaugurate the National Electoral Collegežs convention in order to select members of the
National Legislative Assembly; hence, the National Electoral college commonly name of Sapha
Sanam MaŽ (Horse Race Track Assembly).
In the Royal Command appointing the National Electoral College, it was stated that (His
Majesty the King) Commands to announce that whereas recognizing that the present situation
remains unpredictable and the political foundation of the Kingdom [prior to the enactment of the
Constitution has not yet been securely established, and desirous that foundation from the
beginning, there is an utmost need to appoint members of a new National Legislative Assembly in
line with the current situation. As it is the Royal aspiration that the National Legislative Assembly
should comprise persons representing the broadest spectrum of interest groups, professions,
knowledge and political views and thinking, His Majesty the King hereby graciously appoints a
National Electoral college comprising the persons whose names are attached to this Royal
Command and directs the National Electoral College to convene with a view to selecting qualifed
candidates from amongst its members and recommending them for Royal appointment as
members of the National Legislative Assembly.
The above Royal Command was countersigned by Prime Minister Sanya Dharmasakti in
accordance with paragraph 1 of Section 18 of the 1972 constitution, which stipulated that all laws,
Royal Rescripts and Royal Commands relating to the State affairs must be countersigned by the
Prime Minister or a Minister.Ž
Then, on 16 December 1973, Prime Minister Sanya Dharmasakti presented a Royal
Decree to dissolve the existing National Legislative Assembly and countersigned the Royal
Command to that effect. In the Royal Decree, it was stated that Whereas many members of the
National Legislative Assembly have shown intention to reign, and whereas the remaining member
cannot constitute a quorum, it is deemed that the National Legislative Assembly be dissolved so
that new members shall be appointed in line with the current situation.Ž
After the National Electoral College which convened on 19 December 1973 selected
among themselves 299 qualifed candidates for the National Legislative Assembly, the Prime
Minister presented the name list to the King and the King subsequently appointed all of the 299
candidates as members of the National Legislative Assembly, with the Prime Minister
countersigning the Royal Command in accordance with paragraph 1 of section 18 of the 1972
Constitution and the principles of democracy with a constitutional monarchy.
Even during the Black May incident of 1992, in which serious confrontation between those
opposing the Government and the Government supporters turned violent and led to loss of lives,
His Majesty the King remained steadfast in His role as a constitutional monarch. He did not
intervene nor make any political decision. Instead, He summoned Major-General Chamlong
Srimuang and General Suchinda Kraprayoon, the two main protagonists of the confict, along with
President of the Privy Council, Sanya Dharmasakti, and Privy Councillor, General Prem
Tinsulanonda, at about 20.00 hrs. on 20 May 1992, and gave His caution, exercising the right to
warn, to both sides as follows:
It should not surprise you why I summoned both of you here. All of us know very well how
messy the situation is and that such situation can destroy the nation. What might surprise you is
probably why I have summoned General Suchinda Kraprayoon and Major-General Chamlong
Srimung because there are also other actors. But I have summoned the two of you because you
two have been the ones confronting each other from the beginning, and now the struggle or
confrontation has spread. Thatžs why I have summoned the two of you.
When the confrontation started, the objectives of both sides were quite clear. But some
ten days afterwards, we can see that that confrontation has drastically transformed so that
whatever the outcome will be, we will all lose. It has caused loss of lives of quite a number of
people. There have been material losses to both government and private properties, accounting
for high values. There have also been immeasurable spiritual losses and economic losses. So, to
let the situation continues, for whatever reasons or whatever causes Ý because the reasons have
already changed Ý but to let this confrontation goes on would ruin the nation. It would turn
Thailand, which all of us have nurtured for a long time, into a country without meaning or with a
very negative reputation. Such an outcome is looming. So the situation must be resolved by
looking at the disputes and trying to resolve each one of them. There are problems every day,
and in the past few days the problems have changed. The problems are no longer about politics
or positions. They are about the degradation of the nation. So we must help one another resolve
them.
Many people lave sent letters suggesting ways to resolve the situation. There are
hundreds of letters both from within the country and from overseas. There are many suggestions
on what we should do. Initially, it was suggested that the situation be resolved by dissolving the
Parliament. But when the Parliament, which comprises 11 political parties, was consulted, the
majority said we should not dissolve the Parliament, and only one party said we should. So this
suggestion had to be dropped. There are also petitions suggesting various ways, and these have
been proposed through the normal channel: when a petition is received, it will be sent to the
Secretariat of the Cabinet or the Offce of the Prime Minister. But the situation still could not be
resoled. So, now there are, on the one hand, the dissolution of the Parliament and, on the other,
the amendment of the Constitution to meet the desired objectives, meaning the objectives prior to
the confrontation.
In fact, I spoke of this latter solution, if you can recall, on 4 December 1991 before an
audience of thousands of well-wishers. It seemed to be well Ý received because its underlying
reasons might resolve some of the problem. Now I wish to stress why I said that‚.if we can either
amend before promulgatingŽ or promulgate and then amendŽ Ý and every one knows what I
am talking about Ý the Constitution. At that time, an amendment with a broader scope than the
previous amendment could be made to the Constitution anytime. Before speaking at Dusitalai
Pavilion, I met with General Suchiada. So let me recount to you that, when I met General
Suchinda, he agreed that we should enact this Constitution and then amend it later. This could be
done. And now, General Suchinda still confrms that it can be amended. So, it can be amended
gradually into what we call democraticŽ. So, I spoke many months ago about how to solve the
problems. The important point is why the Constitution should be enacted even though it was not
yet complete. It is because the Constitution is better in quality and application than the transitional
constitutional law which had been in use for almost a year. The latter had some dangerous
provisions and was not complete to apply in the administration of the State affairs. Therefore, if
things can be done as I said on 4 December 1991, then it will mean going back to review the old
problem but not the problem of today.
Todayžs problem is not about enacting or amending the constitution. It is about
safety and morale of the people. These days, the general public everywhere lived in fear of
danger and fear that the country would fall apart without simple recourse. From what I heard from
abroad, as my son and my daughter are abroad, both of them know the situation very wee and
have tried to tell people in those countries that Thailand will be able to resolve the situation. But
that idea will be somewhat an overestimation if we cannot end the situation as has happened
during the past three days. Therefore, I ask you, especially General Suchinda and Major-General
Chamlong to help each other think Get together and do not confront each other because this
country does not belong to one or two persons. It belongs to every one. So get together, do not
confront, and resolve the problems. Danger exists when people turn aggressive and use violence
against one another. Then they forget themselves, and in the end, they do not know what they
were fghting about and what problems they intended to solve. They only think of winning. But
who will win. Therežre no winners. It is all dangerous. Therežre only losers. Every one loses.
Those who confront each other also lose. The one that loses the most id the country. The people
are every one in the country and not just those in Bangkok. If Bangkok is ruined, then the whole
country will be all affected. Then, what use is there for those who think they win when there are
only ruins everywhere?
So, I have summoned both of you here. Do not confront each other but get together. Both
of you represent many sides Ý not just two sides. All sides confronting one another should
together help solve todayžs problem, which is the violent situation. When the problem can be
cured, then talk and consult one another on how to restore this country. This is why I have
summoned you. I believe both of you understand that to be the ones to rebuild the country from
shambles will be the merits that you have done.
How to resolve the situation is up to you to consult. Here is and observation.
The President of the Privy Council and Privy Councillor Prem are senior citizens who are
ready to give advice and consult with impartiality and loyalty to the country in order to enhance
the progress of the country. So, help one another rebuild the country.Ž
The Kingžs Royal statement cautioned everyone to reconcile and use peaceful means
and urged all concerned to consultŽ among themselves as to what to do. Subsequently, the
National Assembly convened on 25 June 1992 to make amendments to the Constitution, and
General Suchinda Kraprayoon resigned as Prime Minister on 24 June 1992. For both of these
actions, the persons making the decisions were the National Assembly and General Suchinda.
The Prime Minister Contemplated on the Royal adviceŽ and did his duty in accordance with the
Constitution and was himself politically and legally accountable. Particularly, with regard to
amending the Constitution, it was the Royal adviceŽ given to the organs with authority to decide,
and the National Assembly could have chosen not to proceed accordingly. However, the National
Assembly and the Government at the time could risk severe criticisms from the society. In this
regard, the Royal adviceŽ held such high social status that none could ignore. The King granted
the Royal adviceŽ in his capacity as Supreme Arbitrator and Conciliator of the Nation,Ž who was
nonpartisan and whose advice has never overstepped the Constitution.
When General Suchinda resigned, the various political parties voiced their support for Air
Marshal Somboon Rahong to become the next Prime Minister. However, Athit Urairat, President
of the House of Representative, presented a recommendation to the King to appoint Anand
Panyarachun as Prime Minister, and countersigned the Royal Command to that effect. This action
was in accordance with Section 159 of the Constitution of 1991, which stipulated that:
The King appoints the Prime Minister and not more than forty-eight other Ministers to
constitute the Council of Ministers having the duties to carry out the administration of the State
affairs.
The President of the House of Representatives shall countersign the Royal Command
appointing the Prime Minister.Ž
Hence, the Kingžs conduct during the Black May incident of 1992 was in strict
compliance with the Constitution as well as all of the convention of the constitution. There was no
breach of the Constitution or of the convention of the constitution of Thailand as a democracy.
Such conduct demonstrates that His Majesty the King upholds sila and avirodhana of the
dasarajadhamma by resperting strictly the rule of law in accordance with the constitution and
laws. It also show that both sial and avirodhana remain valid principles and are not some archaic
principles as some people might believe. Sila, avirodhana and the rule of law are three
compatible principles which complement one another no matter haw the world has changed.
However, a question remains as to whether a problem may arise if the King abides by the
law but the law also provides for exemptions for the King.
On this point, it is rather extraordinary that His Majesty the King does not favor any
provision that would make exemptions for the King, except in cases where there are international
practices. The author himself also had a frst-hand experience when he examined the draft
amendments to the Minerals Law. The Department of Mineral Resources made a proposal
regarding the approval for underground mining that underneath private properties and publicly
owned properties, except in certain areas such as military-designated security areas. The
Department also intended to exclude palace properties from underground mining as well. To this,
Khun Luang Atthasith Sitthisunthorn, Privy Councillor and the President of the Council of State, in
which the author was then a member, raised an objection that His Majesty the King often
expressed the view that the King had to abide by the law like other people and did not with any
law to make exceptions for Him without absolutely necessary grounds. Consequently, the
Department of Mineral Resources withdrew the provision exempting the palace grounds from the
draft amendment to the Mineral Law.
 The last example to illustrate that His Majesty the King acted in accordance with sila and
avirodhana and in consistence with the convention of the constitution was about His refusal of
Royal assent.
As earlier described, in Britain Ýthe archetypal democracy with constitutional monarchy Ý
the royal prerogative to give assent to bills which have already been approved by the Parliament
is a royal prerogative under Common Law.
This also means that the monarch has the prerogative to refuse royal assent, which is
called royal veto. However, it has been the convention of the constitution in Britain since 1708 Ý
or almost 300 years ago Ý that British Kings and queens will not refuse royal assent.
In Thailand,King Prachadipok (Rama VII) used to exercise the Royal prerogative to refuse
assent to the Inheritance Tax and Inheritance Bill and the Regent also refused assent to 3 other
bills, which were later reaffrmed by the House of Representatives by votes with simple majority
on 4 August 1934 and 29 September 1934, allowing the Bills to be enacted without Royal
signatures. Since then, there had been no instances of the exercise of this royal prerogative
during the reigns of King Rama VIII and of King Rama IX until 2003. In 2003, the National
Assembly deliberated two bills, namely, the Teachers and Educational Personnel Bill and the Bill
on Commemorative Coins on the Auspicious Occasion of Her Majesty the Queenžs Sixth Cycle
Birthday Anniversary on 12 August 2004. The frst bill contained 18 mistakes including references
to wrong sections of law, while the latter contained incorrect descriptions of the Royal Decoration
worn by Her Majesty the Queen. When the two bills were presented for Royal signature, the King
returned them to the Parliament in accordance with Section 94, which stipulates that:
If the King refuses His assent to a bill of an organic law bill and either returns it to the
National Assembly or does not return it within ninety days, the National Assembly must re-
deliberate such bill. If the National Assembly resolves to reaffrm the bill with the votes of not less
than two-thirds of the total number of existing members of both Houses, the Prime Minister shall
present such bill to the King for signature once again. If the King does not sign and return the bill
within thirty days, the Prime Minister shall cause the bill to be promulgated as an Act in the
Government Gazette as if the King had signed it.Ž
As a result, the National Assembly convened on 26 November 2003 and resolved
unanimously not to reaffrm the two bills. The bills were therefore dropped. Thereafter, the
National Assembly re-deliberated and corrected the mistakes in the two bills. When the revised
bills were presented to the King, He assented to sign them and the bills were promulgated as
laws.
When analyzing the facts of this latest example, we will see that, frst of all, His Majesty
the King exercised His prerogative in full compliance with Section 94. Secondly, His refusal of
Royal assent was due to the technical errors in the substance of the bills approved by the
National Assembly, which, in any case, the National Assembly would have to rectify. Such
rectifcation could be done either after the Kingžs exercise of His prerogative to refuse Royal
assent or by submission of revisions while the King had not yet returned the bills. However, there
has never been any instance of the latter case. Therefore, the Kingžs refusal to give Royal
assent put an end to the problem and expedited the process. Thirdly, after the bills were rectifed
and re-submitted for Royal assent, the King still retained His prerogative to consider the merits of
both bills.
In addition to the above instance, the Royal prerogative to refuse Royal assent was
exercised on the Bill Amending the Criminal Code. The Bill, which was deliberated and presented
by the National Legislative Assembly appointed by the National Peace Keeping Council in early
1992, stipulated that the Court may fne those guilty of defamation through advertisement in the
amount four times that of the highest fne in criminal offence cases. This bill was heavily criticized
by the public and the media as encroaching on freedom of the press and freedom of opinion. Due
to the Kingžs exercise of His prerogative, the bill did not fall through. In this particular case, the
Kingžs exercise of His prerogative was very much in line with the Constitution and the
democratic principles because the National Assembly at that time came from appointment and
had no opposition to perform the function of check and balance. In addition, there was strong
opposition against promulgation of the bill from the public and the media. The Kingžs exercise of
His prerogative to refuse Royal assent was therefore a check and balance vis-a vis the
unchecked power and helped protect the rights and freedoms of the people as demanded by the
people themselves.
In this regard, it can be contended that the convention of the constitution in Thailand
regarding the refusal to give assent to the bills approved by the parliament is that the King will not
exercise this Royal prerogative unless the bills clearly contain errors or come from an appointed
Parliament. Hence, the Thai convention is different from tat of Britain.
All of the examples cited in this section of the article show that the principles of sila and
avirodhana of dasarajadhamma are consistent and reinforce the democratic principles and human
rights of today, and that through the practices of His Majesty the King over the past 60 years of
His reign, these two principles have created a convention of the constitution in Thailand, which,
while having unique characteristics, is consistent with the democratic principles.
2. Dasarajadhamma: New governance principles for civil and public management
The term good governanceŽ in its new meaning, i.e.Ž the exercise of decision-making
power to allocate limited national resources to various groups of people in a balanced and
equitable manner, has been used for just over 10 years. The administration based on good
governanceŽ comprises three principal pillars, namely:
1. Participation of various groups of people in decision-making;
2. Transparency of the administration; and
3. Accountability of the administrators.
 It must be noted that the governance principle has its ends in achieving balanced and
equitable allocation of resources in the society to various groups of people. Participation,
transparency and accountability are means to achieve these ends so as to prevent corruption or
misconduct in the administration.
Furthermore, this principle is aimed at overseeing the administrative decision-making of
the decision-making bodies in allocating resources within to society, or of the constitutional organs
which are the effcient part of the Constitution , namely, the Parliament and the Council of
Ministers. As for the monarchy under the democratic system, which does not retain any direct
decision-making authority on resource allocation and is but the dignifed part of the constitution,
the application of this governance principle need to be adjusted to suit the nature of the different
institutional character.
If we look at His Majesty the Kingžs multifarious duties during the past 60 years, we will
fnd that while the King retains no political decision-making power on resource allocation within the
society, which is within the purview of the Government, the King has recognized that most Thais
live in rural areas and are poor, and that governmental and bureaucratic efforts to improve their
livelihood may not reach every one. He regards the vulnerable rural people as being at the heart
of development, as evident in His remarks: Development is facilitation and advancement of people
who lack the opportunity to support themselvesŽ (14 March 1972). He has thus made it His
mission to reach out and visit the people in all areas and provinces, instead of staying within the
palace. He would listen to their problems directly directly, instead of only asking for reports.
Hundreds of Royal remarks refect His frst-hand knowledge to the problems. One of His remarks
notes that by visiting any part of the country, I can see the utmost need to look after the well-
being of the people. For if the livelihood of the people in any part of the country is deprived, then
that could adversely affect the country as a whole.Ž (1 October 2003)
In His address on 4 December 1992, His Majesty the King told the audience that we went
to the North-East for about two or three weeks. And we went to a place, that is, the district of
Khao Vong in the province of Kalasind. We went to see how they were doing and we had the
feeling that they had made much progress since we went there ten years ago. Ten years ago, the
place was quite desolate. Now it is no longer so. The people are diligent >>> They are smiling
and pleasant. ‚ and seeing that encouraged me to fnd another location which could be developed.
That day we few by helicopter to look at another location.Ž
We can see that in addition to Himself visiting and supporting development of
impoverished areas, His Majesty the King also made assessment of the implementation of His
work to ensure that the peopležs lives there actually improved before proceeding to develop
another location.
 The Kingžs visits to various locations to see and listen to the problems of the people with
His own eyes and ears, instead of having the people come to the capital, are indeed the
administration
With participation in accordance with the principle of good governance. Doing so enabled
the King to see the real situation, as stated in one of the Royal addresses: Development must
take into account the local environment in terms of physical environment, the sociological
environment and the cultural environment. By the local sociological environment, we mean certain
characteristics and ways of thinking which we cannot force people to change. We can only
suggest. We cannot go in to help people by trying to make them then the same as us. However,
if we go in and fnd out what the people really want and then fully explain how they can best
achieve their aims, the principles of development can be fully applied.
This is the basis for the principle of access, understand and developŽ which His Majesty
the King advised to the Government in order to resolve problems, especially those in the three
southern provinces. It refects His qualities of pariccaga and tapa in making sacrifces and
devoting His strength, mind, personal even though some locations He visited were impoverished
and, in many cases, had no road access.
Importantly, the King listensŽ to the problems of the people, including even minor ones.
This approach is truly based on the principle of participation, as the people are informedŽ of and
can express viewsŽ on the Royal initiatives. It also differs from the usual bureaucratic approach,
under which development projects are pre-determined from the center and the people are simple
the recipients of the development policy. The result of such bureaucratic approach is that in some
cases, the help from the Government does not meet the needs of the people or even does harm
to the people in the course of trying to help them. However, in His approach to help the people ,
the King does not regard the people as the recipient. Rather, He seeks cooperation from them,
while also taking into account potential implications which the Royal projects might cause.
As evident in the Royal address of 4 December 1995, in which the King told the audience
about His helicopter trip from Sakol Nakorn to Khao Vong to visit the villagers, the King said: It is
costly to go by helicopter. But if the use of the helicopter yields maximum beneft, then it is worth
it. Therefore, we must keep our eyes open and survey the terrain. We happened to pass a place
that seemed to be a suitable site for building a reservoir because it would not create any problem
for the people. It would not inundate any agricultural land of the people. Thus, it is a very
appropriate site.Ž
When landed, the King continued, I asked the villagers in the neighbourhood about the
past year. They said that they had got in the harvest and pointed to a heap of rice. We went in for
a closer look. The rice had grown well but did not produce so many grains ‚ That was a revealing
lesson and they spoke to us very straightforwardly. This is a proof that rice is a very rugged plant
surviving with just a little humidity from the dew. ‚If we only gave a little help, there could be an
improvement and the people could survive. So, the project to be done ‚could be a modest project.
We must save the rain water that comes down. An idea came to me that we must do an
experiment using ten rain of land typical of that place. Three rain will be used for making a pond
that would keep the rain water. If it is necessary to use plastic sheets to prevent seepage, we will
use plastic sheets; we must try. And further six rai will be used to plant rice. As for the remaining
one rai, it will be used as a service area, that is , for paths or huts ‚ To sum up: Water thirty
percent, paddy land sixty percent. I believe that, with the water thus saved, the production of one
or two buckets of rice per rai could increase to ten or twenty buckets or more ‚ The next day,
news come that at that place ‚ there were two villagers who said that they were willing to
contribute fve rai of land each for a development project and to be used as we deem ft. ‚They
understood that we want to help even though this development project is an experimental one.
‚ This shows that the villagers understand development. If this project is successful, it means that,
in the district of khao Vong which is rather dry or in other dry areas, it will be possible to solve the
problem of drought.Ž
It is clear that the Royal initiative which is the basis of the New TheoryŽ is
comprehensiveŽ and based on the understanding of the peopležs plight. There is no forcing,
only consulting, cooperation seeking and avoiding any small implications.

Even in solving the fooding in the city, the King inspected the canals and found that
banana trees grown in the area obstructed the waterways. To let the water drain better, the
banana trees had to be removed. The King did not forcibly command the people to do so but He
amicably asked the man whom the banana trees belonged to. The man said they were his. So
the Kin asked if he was attached to them The man said not reallyŽ, which means a little bit
attachedŽ. The King thus said He would not want to trouble the man but if the man did not feel
too attached to his banana trees, He would like permission to remove them. So it was just
talking.Ž (A story told by Her Royal Highness Princess Sirindhorn)
The participatory administration in accordance with good governance is most important
because participation enables decision-making to be based on complete information and
transparency and makes the decisions acceptable, balanced and equitable. The Kingžs approach
complies with avihinsaŽ, i.e., not afficting harm on others even in matters considered
insignifcant, and maddavaŽ, I,e,m being compassionate and gentle even with Royal subjects, In
addition, when speaking of anything, He acts on His words, thereby complying strictly with
ajjavaŽ.
Having witnessed the plight of the people, His Majesty the King has graciously initiated
projects to help them, on matter where they live, in the plain, on the mountains, in rural areas or
in cities. The Royally-initiated projects, which as of today amount to more than four thousands,
span all provinces of Thailand. These projects do not simply giveŽ while the people receiveŽ.
They emphasize empowerment of people so they can help themselves, or in other words, to help
them develop so that they do not have to depend on the King forever but so that they can help
themselves. As stated in on of His Majesty the Kingžs remarks,
The important goal in maintaining national security lies with empowering the people so
that they can protect their own homes in safety and freedom, help and develop themselves in
their livelihood ‚When the people can develop themselves and their homes, then our nation will be
truly secured and safe.Ž(24 March 1972)
In pursuing such development for freedom, His Majesty the King put emphasis on
protecting the rural society from collapsing and addressing the peopležs basic needs, such as by
irrigating water sources, developing cash crops which can sell at good prices, and fnding markets
for local products, along the line of His philosophy on Suffciency EconomyŽ.
His Majesty the King in not only concerned with well-being of people living in rural areas
but also of those living in cities. Once when Bangkok was heavily fooded, He traveled around to
look at the problem and granted initiatives to solve it. As Her Royal Highness Princess Sirindhorn
said, the King saw people suffer. While looking at the maps, the King always thought about ways
to alleviate or solve some of the damages. ‚First, he searched for all versions of maps of
Bangkok, from the oldest version to the most updated one, to study how water come in and out of
the city in the past. Then, he studied the geography Ý how houses were built. He also looked at
aerial photographs, from the oldest available ones, and visited many locales Himself.Ž
And to produce iodine salt to treat thyroid goiter among people in the North and
Northeast, the implementation of which Her Royal Highness Princess Sirindhorn has continued.
It is important to note that His Majesty the King initiated these Royal projects by using His
personal funds and supported them, until the Government recognized the need to alleviate the
fnancial burden by allocating budgets to support these projects. This demonstrates that the King
has practiced dasarajadhamma of dana, i.e., giving, and pariccaga, i.e. sacrifcing for the benefts
to the majority of people, and adhered to the principle of accountability. When initiating the
projects, the King used His personal funds to implement them after having conducted experiments
within the compound of chitralada Palace or some
For soldiers and policemen who work to defend the country, the King took it upon Himself
to establish the Sai Jai Thai Foundation under Royal patronage to help them. For people who
suffer from disasters, He established the Ratchapracha Samasai Foundation to help them. For all
students, He initiated the publication of junior encyclopaedia. And so on. It would be impossible to
cite here all of His initiatives.
In the various Royal projects, the Kingžs initiatives are all encompassing Ý from the four
basic needs which are about survival and livelihood, to medicine, public health, agriculture,
fsheries, livestock, land reform, artifcial rain, development of water sources, road construction,
etc. He also thought of minute issues which we usually overlook, such as the projects to provide
lunch for poor students
Other places. When the Government, seeing the benefts of these projects. Requested
Royal permission to transfer them into its responsibility, the King granted His permission. His
action in this regard shows that the King differentiates between Royal responsibilities and the
responsibilities of the Government. As the various projects, which the King had experimented and
initiated under His patronage, met with success and amounted to as many as 4,368 projects, as
listed in the table below, the Government, which has direct responsibility, sought Royal permission
to transfer them to its responsibility. In other words, if the projects were still in their experimental
stage or uncertain, the King would take responsibility for them, especially those projects initiated
around 1947, the experimentation of which He undertook within the Chitralada Palace compound.

Summary of the Numbers Royally-initiated Projects

(1952-2005)
Project types Number
1. Agriculture 559
2. Environment 931
3. Public health 50
4. Occupational promotion 325
5. Water resources development 1,770
6. Communications 164
7. Social welfare 179
8. Others 390
Total 4,368
Sources: Project Relations Division, Offce of His Majesty the Kingžs Principal Private Secretary
and offce of the Royal Development Projects Board

His Majesty the King made Royal addresses on many occasions that theoretical
Knowledge is necessary, but theories that cannot be put to practice because of their
incompatibility with social conditions are of no use. Therefore, when initiating any project, the King
would always experimentŽ frst before promoting it more broadly. Even with the New TheoryŽ of
dividing a piece of land into 3 parts, He also experimented on it until proven to be workable
before implementing it. For those initiatives which failed in the experimental stage, the King would
terminate them, such as the Toh Dang Swamp initiative in Narathiwat Province.
In sum, the theory initiated by His Majesty the King has always been based on reality and
workability, and not on casual, unsubstantiated or unproven projects. It is also consistent with the
concept of new public management.
 When His development theory is proved effective, His Majesty the King would inform the
people about it, without forcing the people or the Government to comply. He has transferred
technologyŽ to those who are interested to study or use them by establishing Royal Development
Study Centres as living natural museumsŽ. There are currently 6 such centres located in different
regions of the country, namely:
1. The Khao Hin Sorn Royal Development Study Centre, located at Phamon Sarakham
District, Chachoengsao Province, focusing on development and rehabilitation of land and water
resources;
2. The Pikun thong Royal Development Study Centre, located at Muang District,
Narathiwat province, focusing on study and development of deteriorating swamp land for
agricultural use;
3. The Puparn Royal Development Study centre, located at Ban Na Nok Khao, Huai Yang
Sub-district, Muang District, Sakon Nakhon Province, focusing on experimentation of various
aspects of agricultural development for the sandy-soiled areas facing soil deterioration and water
shortage;
4. The Huai Hong Krai Royal Development Study Centre, located at Khun Mae Kuang,
Doi Saket District, Chiang Mai Province, focusing on study of development patters of watershed
areas due to deforestation, which causes drought, and forest fres;
5. The Husi Sai Royal Development Study Centre, located at Sam Phraya Subditrict, Cha-
am District, Petchaburi Province, focusing on restoration of ecological balance and rehabilitation
of deteriorated forests to prevent desertifcation;
6. The Kung Krabaen Bay Royal Development Study Centre, located in Kong Kud Sub-
district, Tha Mai District, Chantaburi Province, focusing on study, research and experimentation
on improvement of the environment relating to fsheries and agriculture in the eastern coastal
areas in Chantaburi Province.
These Centres have become venues which integrate theory with practice and from which
the general public, educational institutions and international organizations have drawn the various
models for development.
Such is the concept of knowledge management put into practice well before the concept
itself became well-known.
In addition, His Majesty the King has applied an innovative administrative system in
managing the Centres by turning them into one-stop service centresŽ, where services are
provided on every feld, be they agricultural promotion, natural resources and environmental
conservation, public health or marketing. The Centres also have transparent management
processes under the supervision of committees or working groups, with clear plans and budgets.
The King Himself also makes assessment and monitors the progress of these Centres constantly.
All of these constitute a new management principle called plan, do, check, actŽ or PDCAŽ
 His Majesty the King has also utilized multi-sectoral organizational methods, combining
bureaucratic way with those of non-government organizations (NGO). Hence, besides the Offce of
the Royal Development Projects Board, which is a department-level governmental body set up by
the Government to verse the various Royally-initiated projects, the King set up a number of
foundationsŽ to take responsibility in development work, such as

The Chaipattana Foundation, the Sai Jai That Foundation under Royal Patronge, and the Royal
Project Foundation. This was because the bureaucratic system often encounters re-tape and must
comply with regulations and procedures, which do not enable it to respond to the problem in a
timely manner. In fact, the monarchy is the source of bureaucracyŽ, be they legislative,
administrative or judicial, and the root of the word bureaucracy or rachakarnŽ in Thai means
service of the KingŽ. However, when it comes to helping the people, the monarchy, which should
have been even more bureaucratic than any other government agencies, has become
bureaucracyŽ that not only uses the bureaucratic approach but also adopts the non-
governmental one. His Majesty the King manages His projects to help the people as an NGO
would have, because it bureaucratic regulations were applied, the people would not get help in
time. At the same time, in helping the people, the King does not think about economic returnsŽ
of the projects, nor the cost-beneft analysis which Thai economists ofted use. The King once
emphasized that to lose is to gainŽ, and further explained in the Royal address of 4 December
1991 that in Thailand, if we lose in order to gain, it is alright. Take a familiar example which is the
Royal projects ‚some says that the Royal projects are not academically sound and not correct. But
I think that wherever we can implement a project, we must do so urgently even though the
bidding has not yet been made in accordance with the regulations or the costs of the project may
be a bit too high ‚ for example, one project costs 10 million bath. If a thorough study is conducted
and the bidding is done in accordance with the regulations, the costs may drop to 8 million. But
all these processes will take months or years. If we just spend 10 million now, and at the end of
this year or early next year the project works, then the people will gain. The people will earn
income if we accept to loseŽ, that is, to spend 10 million from the beginning. There will be gainŽ
as the people will get benefts as from the frst year.Ž
All of this shows that the dasarajadhamma practiced by His majesty the King as seen
through Hi multifarious duties over the past 60 years is not outdated but is compatible with the
principle of good governance. More importantly, the King had also made use of examples of
public-civil administration, deriving from both bureaucratic and non-governmental approaches of
management, in allocating resources to the majority of the people, who are poor and live in rural
areas, so that the ultimate goal of good governance, namely, the balanced and equitable
development for the majority of the people, is achieved.
 It is therefore not surprising why the United nations Secretary-General Kof Annan
presented the Human Development Lifetime Achievement Award to His Majesty the King on 29
May 2006 and spoke on the occasion that:
For the United Nation, this ceremony has special signifcance for another reason as well: it
marks the very frs time that we recognize outstanding contributions to development through this
Award.
Human development, reduced to its essence, is a very simple concept: it is about
empowering people. Not the few, not even the many, but all people. It is about empowering them
through education, through opportunity, through health care and nutrition. It is about empowering
individuals with choices so that they may live healthy, knowledgeable and creative lives.
Human development puts the individual at the centre of development. It emphasizes
economic growth and sustainability, human rights and security, equity and political participation‚.Ž
And that:
.. After all, if human development is about putting people frst, there can be no better
advocate for it than His Majesty.Ž
The United Nations Secretary-General also refected the feeling of people all over the
world towards His Majesty the King that:
As the worldžs Development KingŽ, His Majesty reached out to the poorest and the
most vulnerable people of Thailand,

Listened to their problems, and empowered them to take their lives into their own hands.
‚Ž
Thus, the Kingžs models for development used for Thai people and Thailand are being
promoted all over the world as the Secretary-General further said: ‚His Majestyžs visionary
thinking has helped shape the global development dialogue.
His Majestyžs Suffciency EconomyŽ philosophy emphasizing moderation, responsible
consumption, and resilience to communities everywhere during these times of rapid globalization.
The philosophyžs middle pathŽ approach strongly reinforces the United Nationsž own advocacy
of a people-centred and sustainable path toward human development
His Majestyžs development agenda and visionary thinking are an inspiration to His
subjects, and to people everywhere.
With todayžs Award, we hope to further promote the ideas and experiences of His
Majestyžs work, and to help draw attention to their underlying thinking well beyond the borders
of the Kingdom of Thailand
3. Dasarajadhamma: Dhamam principles at the heart of the society
 His Majesty the King once wrote in His correspondence with a classmate from His years
of study in Europe that ‚I have learned from working here that the source of my existence in this
world is to be among my people, that is, all the Thai people‚Ž This statement is well appreciated
by the Thai people. Hence, there should not be any doubt as to why Thai people adore and
revereŽ their King more than any other monarchs. They respect him as FatherŽ of the people,
as the King is the FatherŽ who loves His people as His own children, who wisher His children to
be free from suffering (metta) and happy (karuna) and who is happy when His children are
successful (mudita) without envy. He is the FatherŽ who helps others without being asked, who
does what He preaches and who preacher what He does. For these reasons, Thai people feel
assured to askŽ the King for what they cannot ask from others, especially justiceŽ. They can tell
Him what they cannot tell the authorities in the country. And Thai people have done so through
petitions or appeals for justice they made when the King visited different parts of the country,
which amount to thousands each year and could amount to hundreds of thousands if counted
from the beginning of His reign up to today. The subjects of these petitions range from seeking
justice on land issues, requests for housing,

Education and work, to requests for funds ad loans as well as for Royal clemency and freedom in
the cases of those sentenced to death penalties of imprisonment. The statistics on the numbers of
petitions made to the King in 1993 alone was 1,290, which can be categorized as follows:
1. Justice on land issues 355
2. Housing 65
3. Resumption of offcial positions 10
4. Request for assistance 30
5. Justice due to actions of other persons 41
6. Royal support 60
7. Education 43
8. Justice 63
9. Water sources 75
10. Justice due to actions by offcials 43
11. Justice in court cases 180
12. Justice on deforestation issues 12
13. Request for work 35
14. Justice on compensation 15
15. Request for electricity and roads 45
16. Expression of opinions 37
17. Distress in livelihood 45
18. Request for funds 56
19. Justice in fraud cases 40
20. Request for consideration on conduct of monks 10
21. Request for loans 30
Total 1,290

The fact that Thai people look for help from their Royal FatherŽ proves that Thailand has
had the OmbudsmenŽ before any other nations. Since the Sukhothai period, as appears on the
stone inscription by King Ramkhamhaeng, there is a bell hanging at the gate. If any commoner in
the land is involved in quarrel and wants to make his case known to his ruler and lord, he goes
and strikes the bell which the King hung there, When King Ramkhamhaeng, the ruler of the
kingdom, hears the bell, He calls the man in and asks him. So the people of this land praise
him.Ž The difference between then and now is that in the old days, the people had to travel to
the palaces gate to sound the bell, but today, the King reaches out to visit them to receive their
petitions. If the petitions received require governmental actions to resolve, the King sends to
petitions to the Government through the Secretariat of the Cabinet. What the King can help
resolve by Himself, He does, such as accepting patients under Royal patronage or granting
scholarships from His personal funds.
As a result, it is not surprising that Thai people, no matter how poor, makes contributions
for Royal charity causesŽ whenever they can. They do so willingly as children who willingly give
money to their parents in return for the parentsž great kindness, because they are confdent that
every baht they contribute will be used for their own happiness and prosperity

The characteristics of such paternalistic governanceŽ may be diffcult for westerners to

appreciate, as in their societies children have rather loose bonds with parents because they
usually move out to live on their own at a relative young age. In fact, the lack of understanding
about the bonds between childrenŽ and fatherŽ in Thai culture has led some western writer to
conclude that Thai people regard their Kings as Deva RajaŽ or semi-gods, and even that such
governance system is what is called adaptive feudalismŽ
His Majesty the Kingžs conduct has made the monarchy, which theoretically is regarded
as a political institution with political neutrality, a social institution in the same way as the family
institution is. The monarchy is thus a social institution which Thai people love, feel bound to and
revere as FatherŽ of a large family, not as semi-godsŽ in heaven.
For that reason, it should be no surprise that whenever problems occur in the counter, be
they foods, drought, hunger or political crises, Thai people would look up to their King, like
childrenŽ who are ill will look for their parentsŽ to be near and care for them. Likewise, when the
King became ill, Thai people felt deep anxiety and would do anything to help Him well again, like
children taking care of their ill father. Some made long trips just to sign the Kingžs visitoržs
book in Bangkok. Some prayed to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha to protect their beloved
King.

Such action is unknown in those materially developed but spiritually deteriorating

countries. It cannot be appreciated by those who have never lived in a country where warm ties
exist between the ruler and the people as fatherŽ and childrenŽ. The leaders of these countries
are politiciansŽ who have equal status as all other citizens. The ties between them and those
who elect them are political in nature, so that once expired, such ties no longer matter, and the
latter can make whatever criticisms of their political leaders, citing the freedom of expressionŽ.
However, Thai people, who love and revere their FatherŽ, will never let any one unfairly criticize
their King.
Such is the socio-cultural dimension of the Thai monarchy, which those who never feelŽ
it will fnd it hard to understand, like those who are orphaned from birth can, unfortunately, never
feel, and thus cannot understand, the loveŽ and bondŽ between children and parents!

Conclusion
His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej has been discharging His multifarious duties
throughout the past 60 years in accordance with dasarajadhamma, a set of early dhamma
principles born before almost all of todayžs western powers. He has astoundingly adapted these
early dhamma principles to the context of modern democracy, which was born in the West. Most
importantly, He has proved that things which look old in their outer appearance can be modern in
their inner essence, in much the same way that the customs and ceremonies of administration in
Britain continue to be practiced as they were centuries ago. We still see Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth dress in royally-ornamented attire, sit on the sheep-skinned throne and deliver Her
speech from the throneŽ on the government policy in the House of Lords, surrounded by British
nobilities in their traditional costumes and wigs while members of the House of Commons are
barred to stand listening from the outside. In spite of all these, only ignorant persons would say
that the present British government system remains the same as that of centuries ago, because in
its essence, Britain is now a full-fedged democracy that is completely different from centuries ago.
The dhamma principles of administration born over 2,500 years ago therefore remain
contemporary in their essence and are nicely compatible with democracy, mew concept of
administration and globalize society. Such demonstrates that these dhamma principles are
universal, long-lasting and never outmoded. His Majesty the King has proved this fact through His
action, and actions do speak much louder than words and freedom of speech.
 The 60th Anniversary Celebration of His Majestyžs Accession to the Throne this year is
an auspicious occasion for Thai people to show their gratitude and repay the immeasurable
kindness of the King, the great Royal FatherŽ, even though nothing could compare to what the
King has done for His people over the past 60 years. It is also an opportune moment to make it
known worldwide the profundity of dasarajadhamma over the western concept of good
governance.

Annex 1
HM the Kingžs speeches
Which advised to
Discontinue the crisis
(Unoffcial Translation)
His Majesty addressed the Administrative and Supreme Courtsž judges during separate Royal
audience at Klai Kangwol Palace in Prachuap Khiri Khan on Tuesday 25 April 2006.

HM the Kingžs speech to the Administrative Courtžs judges

Your oaths of allegiance is very important because it is broad. The duty of a judge
relevant to administration is very broad. I am afraid you could think that this duty is not broad.
Actually, it is very board. I should not talk this time, but I listened to someone talking about the
election, especially the candidates who received less than 20 per cent of the vote. Beside, some
of them were the sole candidates in their constituencies, which is critical. The sole candidatures
cannot lead to full membership in the House, because a sole candidate must have support from
at least 20 per cent. Is this issue relevant to you? In fact, it should be. The issue of the sole
candidacy elections is important because they will never fulfll the quorum. If the House is not flled
by elected candidates, the democracy cannot function. If this is the case, the oaths you have just
sworn in would be invalid. You have sworn to work for democracy. If you cannot do it, then you
may have to resign.

You must fnd ways to solve the problem. When referring the case to the Constitution Court, the
court said it was not their jurisdiction. The Constitution Court said they were in charge of drafting
the Constitution and their job was fnished after completing the draft. I ask you not to neglect
democracy, because it is a system that enables the country to function.
Another point is whether it was right to dissolve the House and call for snap polls within
30 days. There was no debate about this. If it is not right, it must be corrected. Should the
election be nullifed? You have the right to say what is appropriate or not. If it is not appropriate, it
is not to say the government is not good. But as far as I am concerned, a oneparty election is not
normal. The one candidate situation is undemocratic. When an election is not democratic, you
should look carefully into the administrative issues. I ask you to do the best you can. If you
cannot do it, then it should be you who resign, not the government, for failing to do your duty.
Carefully review the vows you have made.
I heard on the radio this morning about the case in Noppitam subdistrict in Tha Sala
district in Nakhon Si Thammarat province. It is not the only case. There are other places (where
there were election problems) that can cause the collapse of the country. The nation cannot
survive if the situation runs contrary to the law. Therefore, I ask you to carefully study whether
you can make a point on this issue. If not, you had better resign. You have been tasked with this
duty. You are knowledgeable. You must make the country function correctly. Otherwise, you must
have a discussion with the Supreme Court judges who will come in later. Conduct your
discussions with people based on knowledge, honesty and faith in your duty to resolve this
situation. The country should function according to the law. I will be grateful if you look into the
issue. Otherwise, it will cause a problem, because without the House of Representatives, there
will not be democracy. We have many types of courts and councils, and every one of them must
work together to fnd solutions. What I am saying may seem a bit strange, but I have to urge you.
Otherwise people will cite Article 7 of the Constitution. I affrm that Article 7 does not empower the
King to make a unilateral decision. It talks about the constitutional monarchy but does not give the
King power to do anything he wishers. If the King did so, he would overstep his duty. I have
never overstepped this duty. Doing so would be undemocratic. They refer to the government
under Prime Minister Sanya Dharmasakti. Then, I did not overstep this duty. At that time, we had
a parliament but the House Speaker was away. The Deputy House Speaker countersigned
according to the Constitution. At that time, the prime minister was not Royally appointed. It was
not against the Constitution. Installing a Royally appointed prime minister means appointing a
prime minister without any rule. At that time, Professor Sanya was appointed as prime minister,
but a Deputy House Speaker legally countersigned for his appointment. Go review the history.
You are knowledgeable people. You know the guidelines and the principle. At that time, other
councils, even the Sapha Sanam Ma (the National Conversion for 1973) that people laughed at,
did not breach the law because Mr Sanya was countersigned for. I was content because it was
according to the Constitutionžs guidelines. But this time, they will violate the Constitution. I do
not know who told them to do so I myself feel that it is not right.
I am asking you to think and act in a way that will not violate the Constitutionžs guideline,
to help the nation get through these obstacles and prosper. Thank you.

HM the Kingžs speech to supreme courtžs judges

Now, there was an election in order to ensure democracy. But it Parliament lacks a quorum. It is
not democratic. Please consult with the people who govern the country. Please consult with the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Criminal Court and with other courts as well. It will help
the country be governed by democratic rule. Do not wait for a Royally appointed prime minister
because that would not be democracy.
I have suffered a lot. Whatever happens, people call for a Royally appointed prime
minister, which would not be democracy. If you cite Article 7 of the Constitution, it is an incorrect
citation. You cannot cite it. Article 7 has two lines: whatever is not stated by the Constitution
should follow traditional practices. But asking for a Royally appointed prime minister is
undemocratic. It is, pardon me, a mess. It is irrational. You are Supreme Court judges with clear
heads that can think of a method to work this out. The administration must have a House with a
full quorum. If not, it would not be functional. I feet that maybe fnding a way to establish a House
which lacked a quorum would be messing up. I want to apologies again for using the word
messŽ. I have no idea who messed up. You cannot administrate the country by messing up. You
cannot think in haste and pass the buck to the King, which is worse than messing things up in
other areas, because the King has no authority. Please help the court to think.

Now the public pins their hope on the courts, especially the Supreme Court, but other
courts as well. The people say that the court is still honest and knowledgeable because the
judges have learned about the law and scrutinize them carefully so the country survives. If you do
not follow legal principles, correct administration principles, the country will not survive as it is
today, because there are not enough MPs to fll the quorum of 500. It cannot function. You have
to consider how to work this out. You cannot ask the King to make a decision saying the King has
signed his signature. Article 7 does not say that the King has that authority. It does not say that
the King has that authority. It does not. Look at Article 7. The article does not say that a
constitutional monarch means the King has the authority to make an order. I insist that I have
never issued any orders without basing them on directives of the articles of the Constitution, laws
and Acts. I strictly and correctly have complied with the Constitution. People have asked for a
Royally appointed prime minister, but there is not a rule for this; a prime minister is correctly
Royally endorsed every time. There may be people who say that King Rama IX likes to do what
he wants, but I have never done that. Since I became King, there have been several rewritings of
the Constitution over several decades. I have never acted on a whim. If I had done that, the
country would have sunk a long time ago. Now they ask me to act on a whim. If I do what I am
asked to do, they will lambaste and gossip about the King, saying the he acts on a whim. I am
not afraid. If had to, I would do it, but I do not have to. Supreme Court judges have the right to
tell the other courts Ý the Constitution Court and the Administrative Court. There is no restriction
on the Supreme Court. Judges have the right to speak out and make a ruling, therefore I would
like to ask you to consider, consult with other judges of other courts such as the Administrative
Court, about how to work it out and do it quickly. Otherwise the country will collapse. I was
watching TV awhile ago; a ship weighing several thousand tons was hit by a storm and sank
4,000 meters under the sea. They still have yet to fnd the cause why the ship sank. Thailand will
sink more than 4,000 meters under the sea. Irretrievable. We would not be able to rescue it. So
you would also sink, and innocent people would also sink below the ocean. Now this is the worst
crisis to have hit the world. You have the duty to perform and consult with the people who are
informed. People call to rescue the nation.Ž Whatever they do, they call rescue the countryŽ.
What do you rescue? The country has not sank yet. We have to prevent it from sinking; we do
not have to rescue it. You have to think carefully how to solve this problem. If you can, please
consult with each other. Actually, people across the country and around the world will rejoice and
see that the Supreme Court judges are still competent and knowledgeable and have the
willingness to retrieve the country when it is time to do so.

Thank you everyoune who has the willingness to perform their duty correctly, so that the
country survives and does not need to be rescued. Thank you for trying to carry out your duties
well; people will be grateful. Thank you on behalf of the people, everyoune in the country, for
being strong Superme Court judges. Thank you for performing your duties well. Be strong in your
fght for righteousness and justice in the country. Thank you.

Annex 3
Speech of
Un Secretary-General Kof Annan
Addressed to the High-Level Panel
On His Majesty the King and Human
Development

‚His Majestyžs visionary thinking has helped shape the global development dialogue‚Ž
‚Later today, I will have the honour to present the United Nations Development
Programmežs inaugural Human Development Lifetime Achievement Award to His Majesty King
Bhumibol Adulyadej. I feel especially privileged to do so on the sixtieth anniversary of His
Majestyžs accession to the throne.
For the United Nations, this ceremony has special signifcance for another reason, as well:
it marks the very frst time that we recognize outstanding contributions to development through
this Award.
 Human development, reduced to its essence, is a very simple concept: it is about
empowering people. Not the few, not even the many, but all people, It is about empowering them
through education, through opportunity, through health care and nutrition. It is about empowering
individuals with choices so that they may live healthy, knowledgeable and creative lives.
Human development puts the individual at the centre of development. It emphasizes
economic growth and sustainability, human rights and security, equity and political participation.
The United Nations prioritizes such development at the very centre of its agenda, and we
put tremendous effort into promoting it. We do it through UNDPžs global and national Human
Development Reports. We do it through the development work of UN Country Teams in 166
countries across the world. And we do it through this Award.
After all, if human development is about putting people frst, there can no better advocate
for it than His Majesty.
At his coronation in 1946, His Majesty uttered the famous Oath of Accession: We shall
reign with righteousness, for the beneft and happiness of the Siamese people.Ž Ever since, His
Majesty has lived this Oath, selfessly devoting his time and efforts to the well-being and welfare
of the people of Thailand, regardless of their ethnicity, religion or legal status.
As the worldžs Development KingŽ, His Majesty reached out to the poorest and the
most vulnerable people of Thailand, listened to their problems, and empowered them to take their
lives into their own hands.
His Majestyžs rural development projects have benefted millions of people across
Thailand. They have prompted small-scale agriculture; appropriate farming technologies;
sustainable use of water resources; conservation; and food and drought mitigation.
In northern Thailand, His Majestyžs rural development initiatives have helped reduce
opium harvests through crop substitution. At the same time, these projects have improved access

To health care and education for the local population, and brought signifcant benefts to
the ethnic groups living in the mountainous region along the Myanmar and Lao borders.
His Majestyžs active support for a wide range of social causes has proved crucial to their
success. From promoting child health to combating iodine defciency, from campaigning against
disease to increasing access to education, programmers supported by His Majesty impact the
every day lives of millions of his subjects.
At the same time, His Majestyžs visionary thinking has helped shape the global
development dialogue.
His Majestyžs Suffciency EconomyŽ PhilosophyÞemphasizing moderation, responsible
consumption, and resilience to external shocksÞis of great relevance to communities everywhere
during these times of rapid globalization. The philosophyžs middle pathŽ approach strongly
reinforces the United Nationž own advocacy of a people-centred and sustainable path towards
human development.
His Majestyžs development agenda and visionary thinking are an inspiration to his
subjects, and to people everywhere.
With todayžs Award, we hope to further promote the ideas and experiences of His
Majestyžs work, and to help draw attention to their underlying thinking well beyond the borders of
the Kingdom of Thailand.
For His Majestyžs extraordinary achievements and deep and unwavering commitment to
human development, this afternoon it will be my great honour to present to His Majesty the
UNDPžs frst-ever Lifetime Achievement Award‚Ž