If the choice is made solely by the King, it seems to me that there will be a very real danger that a group of Royal Princes or Ministers may not believe in the wisdom of the King’s choice, or may not concur in it. If this should be the case it would result in a lack of loyalty on the part of such Princes or ministers to the person chosen by the King; and the result upon the death of the King might be disastrous. To give a concrete illustration of that I mean, the King might designate as his successor his newly born infant son. The most patriotic and ablest of the High Princes and Ministers might feel that Siam was at the time in such a critical position that a long period of regency would spell disaster for the country, and might therefore conclude that the only patriotic thing for them to do would be to put aside the infant child and instead place upon the throne a strong and able ruler. Should a considerable faction support the infant child, civil war might result.
In other words, my feeling is that the unquestioning loyalty of the Princes and Ministers to the heir apparent upon the death of the King is absolutely vital for Siam’s welfare and that the only way to insure such loyalty is to give to the Privy Council a voice in choosing the heir apparent. I therefore feel that the action of His late Majesty in claiming the right to choose his successor alone and unaided, was exceedingly unwise and should not be followed.
It would seem that this choice should be made by means of a secret ballot. If there is to be an actual freedom of choice on the part to the Privy Councillors they must be freed from the embarrassment of having to give an open and nonsecret vote possibly not in accordance with the wishes and desires of the King. The only
