หน้า:พระปกเกล้าฯ กับ รธน ไทย (vol 2).pdf/27

หน้านี้ได้พิสูจน์อักษรแล้ว
๔๕

incompetent or corrupt King should come to the throne he could not do vital injury to the country. In Siam, on the other hand, the Monarch wields all power. In Siam if a King lacking in ability, in strength of character, or in integrity of purpose should ascend the throne, he might easily make shipwreck of the country. At the least, he would be almost such to do it tragic injury. It is therefore infinitely more important for Siam to have a competent and strong King than for any country like England.

It would seem to follow that although a country like England can afford to fix the line of succession to the throne by an absolute principle such as primogeniture, Siam, even were such a principle practicable, cannot afford to do so. Since it is absolutely vital that Siam should have a competent and able Monarch, since the welfare of Siam so directly depends upon the degree of competency and ability of her Monarch, it seems clear that Siam’s welfare vitally and directly depends upon her being able to freely select as the Monarch the ablest, the most competent and the strongest of the Royal Princes. Any law which prevents such a freedom of choice and which therefore might necessitate the crowning of an incompetent or weak Monarch because he happens to be the next in line of succession, must make against the ultimate national welfare. In England, where the Premier wields the actual power of government, no one would tolerate the idea of following a fixed line of succession for Premiers, or of adopting any system which would rob the country of its complete freedom of choice. If the King is to continue in absolute power, Siam’s future welfare would seem to depend upon her being free to choose for her Monarch the best man available among the Royal Princes, regardless of rank or age; unless Siam has