• The Southeast Asian review
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.53-94
• /
• 2017

Thai political regime is said to have returned to bureaucratic polity or semi-democracy. However this kind of perspective do not find the political interference of Privy Council which is a body of Monarch of Thailand. Therefore this paper tries to discover the unique traits of Thai way of constitutional monarchy which can be defined as the modern form of absolute monarchy. In short Thai way of constitutional monarchy based on network politics is contradictary to the normal constitutional monarchy whose norm is "the king reigns, but does not rule." This means Thai king is in politics not above politics in reality. Thai monarchy has interfered in diversive way in terms of mediating political conflicts and protecting the monarchy as a institution. In this process the king has been worshiped as demigod who practises the Buddhist doctrine and the centre of national integration. Even after the 6 Ocober 1976 massacre which the palace involved King Bhumibol Adulyadej's sacred position was not challenged. Rather $l{\grave{e}}se-majest{\acute{e}}$ law became more draconian for status quo. Since then $l{\grave{e}}se-majest{\acute{e}}$ was cited as one of the major rationale for the military coup. The 2006 coup which was triggered by the clash between network Monarchy and bourgeois polity based on Thakin network marked a surge of the $l{\grave{e}}se-majest{\acute{e}}$ cases. The 2014 coup had consecutively increased the number of $l{\grave{e}}se-majest{\acute{e}}$ prisoners. It can be said that the modern form of absolute monarchy in Thailand including bureaucratic polity, semi-democracy and democracy is bounded by $l{\grave{e}}se-majest{\acute{e}}$ law which network monarchy players such as military, intellectuals, Democrat Party and even some civil society groups support.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.336-346
• /
• 2017

Background: Due to the asymmetry of information and knowledge and the power of bureaucrats and medical professionals, it is not easy for citizens to participate in health care policy making. This study analyzes the case of the insured organization participating in the Health Insurance Policy Committee (HIPC) and provides a basis for discussing methods and conditions for better public participation. Methods: Qualitative analysis was conducted using the in-depth interviews with the participants and document data such as materials for HIPC meetings. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively sampled six participants from organizations representing the insured in HIPC. The meanings related to the factors affecting participation were found and categorized into major categories. Results: The main factors affecting participating in the decision making process were trust and cooperation among the participants, structure and procedure of governance, representation and expertise of participants, and contents of issues. Due to limited cooperation, participants lacked influence in important decisions. There was an imbalance in power due to unreasonable procedures and criteria for governance. As the materials for meetings were provided inappropriate manner, it was difficult for participants to understand the contents and comments on the meeting. Due to weak accountability structure, opinions from external stakeholders have not been well received. The participation was made depending on the expertise of individual members. The degree of influence was different depending on the contents of the issues. Conclusion: In order to meet the values of democracy and realize the participation that the insured can demonstrate influence, it is necessary to have a fair and reasonable procedure and a sufficient learning environment. More deliberative structure which reflects citizen's public perspective is required, rather than current negotiating structure of HIPC.