I REFER to the news report 'After Bhumibol' by Gwynne Dyer (GDN, October 25) which contains certain points of misinformation, I would like to clarify.

As a constitutional monarch, His Majesty the King of Thailand is above politics. Throughout his reign, he has very strictly maintained his apolitical status.

Even with growing public calls for him to "royally confer" a prime minister to break the political impasse during the first half of 2006, he abstained, explaining that the constitution did not confer such power.

To do so would mean overstepping his role and would hence be undemocratic.

Given His Majesty's well-known steadfast integrity, those knowledgeable about Thailand should have dismissed outright any "suspicions" about His Majesty's role regarding the 2006 coup.

In fact, only after the military leaders acted and took control, did they request an audience with the King to report on the situation and the actions they had taken. It was only then that the King learned of the coup.

As for the issue of royal succession, there are clearly stipulated rules and procedures, both in the Palace Law on Succession and the Thai Constitution, regarding the issue.

Thus, those knowledgeable about Thailand would also know there is no cause for uncertainty and no warranted basis for speculation.

Finally, Thai lese-Omajeste law is there to protect the monarchy which, as a national institution, is integral to the country's national identity and security.

It is also necessary because Thai law and convention does not provide for the monarchy to take legal action against the people or allow the monarchy to act in its own defence.

The law itself does not prohibit discussion about the monarchy.

Nevertheless, if comments or opinions expressed amount to false accusations, then the person concerned must be ready to be held accountable for his/her actions in the courts of law.

Suphat Chitranukroh

Ambassador of Thailand