The attendance of 9 Privy Councillors at a National Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Command meeting on 19 May has sparked an online debate after the main opposition People’s Party issued a statement raising concerns about the propriety of their attendance as it could seem like they are interfering in government affairs.

The statement said that while the meeting was routine, it was not normal for the Councillors to be at the meeting. Although it could seem like the Councillors are showing concern for the people, their attendance might not be appropriate.

In a constitutional monarchy, said that statement, the monarch should be above politics. As the King’s advisors, Privy Councillors should also be neutral and must not take any political action that could be seen as interfering with the government.

The party questions whether the government or civil servants at the meeting would be able to question or reject advice from a Privy Councillor, as it could be difficult to refuse to follow the advice of an advisor to the King.

It also raises questions about accountability, and whether Councillors can be held accountable if the government acts on their advice and damage is caused. It notes that an elected government can be held accountable by parliamentary mechanisms, but there is no mechanism that can do the same for the Privy Council.

Allowing such practices to continue, says the statement, will only cause confusion about who is actually governing the country. It warns that Privy Councillors should take care not to allow their advice to become an order, especially when it comes to issues affecting millions of people, which should be handled by the executive branch.

The Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM) said in a Facebook post that the meeting was to discuss preparations for drought as Thailand is likely to experience less rainfall than last year. In another post, the DDPM said that it was a routine meeting on disaster prevention measures. Privy Councillors have been attending these meetings since 2017, said the DDPM, and that some have provided information concerning natural disasters that they received during field visits.

The statement sparked an online debate about the role of Privy Councillors and whether it was appropriate for them to be at the meeting. Many argue that, as the King’s advisors, Privy Councillors should keep a distance from the government. Some raised concerns that, although the Councillors were at the meeting to provide “support and advice,” there is a fine line between advice and orders when coming from a group of people appointed by the King to be his advisors.

Political scientist Chaiyan Chaiyaporn argued that it was normal in the UK for Privy Councillors to join government meetings. 

Pavin Chachavalpongpun, a professor of politician science at Kyoto University, responded that Thai Privy Councillors cannot be compared to their counterparts in the UK, as the UK Privy Council consists of government and opposition politicians, along with high-ranking civil servants, whereas Thai Privy Councillors are appointed at the King’s discretion and are not allowed to be members of political parties. He also noted that UK Privy Councillors don’t join meetings to make orders, follow up on tasks, or design policies, as they are only responsible for approving legislation previously passed by parliament.

Pakorn Nilprapunt, Deputy Prime Minister and former Secretary-General of the Council of State, posted on Facebook that the UK monarch has a weekly audience with the Prime Minister and that the audience is a constitutional convention in the UK. He wrote that the monarch is politically neutral but has the authority to advise and warn ministers, and that people should not rush to express their opinions.

Arnon Mamout, a lecturer at Thammasat University’s Faculty of Law, countered that advice given by the UK monarch to the Prime Minister is secret and the final decision is made by the government who is responsible for running the country. Criticisms of the government are therefore made without knowing whether it acted on the monarch’s advice. Keeping the conversation between the Prime Minister and the monarch secret means that the UK monarchy is not criticized in governance issues and is protected from political arguments.

Meanwhile, Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, academic and former Secretary-General of the now-dissolved Future Forward Party, proposed that the Privy Council should be abolished entirely. It was a relic of the absolute monarchy that was abolished following the 1932 Siamese Revolution and brought back after the coup in November 1947, he wrote. He noted that while drafting the 1949 Constitution, members of parliament argued against having a Privy Council. The Privy Council’s neutrality or lack thereof has also been questioned over the years.

To prevent criticisms of Privy Councillors’ actions or opinions from damaging the monarchy, Piyabutr proposed that the Privy Council be abolished. If the King needs advice, he can consult the Cabinet. Piyabutr said that this would not only save budget but also be more democratic, noting that the Cabinet is approved by the elected House of Representatives and is already responsible for running the country. He also noted that the task of the Privy Council overlaps with that of the Cabinet, and there could be conflict if the two bodies disagree.

In response to the People’s Party’s statement, serial complainant Srisuwan Janya filed a complaint with the Election Commission of Thailand (ECT) seeking the Party’s dissolution. He accused the Party of treason and interfering with a government agency’s operations by issuing the statement and instigating a public debate.

Nopparuj Worachitwutikul, a former leader of the “White Dove 2006” group, also filed a complaint on 25 May with the ECT seeking the dissolution of the People’s Party, claiming that remarks made by Party leader Natthapong Ruangpanyawut criticizing the Privy Councillors could amount to undermining the monarchy. On 27 May, he petitioned the Supreme Court to suspend Natthaphong, claiming he violated the gag order made by the Supreme Court when it accepted an ethics breach case against 44 former Move Forward Party MPs for proposing amendments to the royal defamation law.

Meanwhile, the Senate Ad-Hoc Committee on Protecting and Upholding the Monarchy lashed out at the People’s Party and at Piyabutr’s proposal to abolish the Privy Council. In a press conference on 26 May, Committee Chair Pol Lt Gen Yutthana Thaipakdee said that Piyabutr’s opinion was inconsistent with the constitutionally mandated ‘democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State. 

Deputy Chair Pol Maj Gen Chatwat Saengphet also accused Natthaphong of violating principles of the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State by criticizing the Privy Council. Pol Maj Gen Chatwat also claimed that the Privy Council is part of the Thai tradition and that expressing opinions that could cause a misunderstanding about the Privy Council’s role may affect the public’s idea of the regime.