Page:รายงานการประชุม สผ (๒๔๗๕-๑๑-๒๕) a.pdf/19

 Chaophraya Thammasakmontri said: "In this matter, having listened to that which has been discussed, I find it is already clear enough. These powers are state powers, not those emanating from His Majesty. As one [of our] honourable Members intends to have the phrase '' kept, saying that even though they are state powers, they have been presented to His Majesty and should thus be considered as if having emanated from him, this is, in truth, a polite, gentle idea, and is comely, if based upon sentiment. But sentiment can be contrary to fact in some ways. Here, [the question] is [the powers] belong to His Majesty or to the State. An example is the financial affairs of the Bedside Treasury and the Public Treasury, in which the money in the Bedside Treasury is called divine royal property, which is different from that in the Public Treasury. So, a power directly belonging to His Majesty is a divine royal power. But these powers which are to be exercised are public powers, that is, the powers of the State. This is a fact. Now, if the sentiment is not contrary to the fact, the phrase should be used. But if the sentiment comes into conflict with the fact, it is better to maintain the fact. And the term '' is [treated] the same. And if the text is sufficiently fixed though without 'only', I find there is no need to add [the term 'only'], despite it being contrary to the sentiment."

Nai Direk Chaiyanam made a proposal, saying: "In regard to section 7, if my understanding is correct, the statement that the Monarch exercises the executive power through the People's