Dos comentários que vários leitores fizeram ao artigo do Economist sobre a monarquia na Tailândia («A right royal mess»), destaco este, que me parece resumir o que de mais importante há a apontar à pouca seriedade da peça:
«I appreciate the fact that the Economist is showing another side of the coin. Thanks for this. However like some other readers intimately familiar with Thailand, I too find this article superficial.
There is a lot more which is not being reported here. I have to wonder if this is intentional in order to justify the conclusion which I believe addition facts would repute.
As another reader has alluded, it appears that the writer has bought hook, line and sinker at least a major part of the conclusion backed by selective bits of information that the well funded Thaksin propaganda machine is churning out.
"The King Never Smiles" (by Paul H.) is a must read for those interested in understanding the behind the scenes goings on in Thai society and politics, but also so is "The Revolutionary King" which draws the opposite conclusion. The real truth lies somewhere in between.
One thing I am sure of myself, if the choice is between the King's style of political manipulation and Thaksin's style of political manipulation .... I'll side with the King everytime.»
