In reference to Sulak Sivaraksa’s letter to the Prime Minister dated 6 November 2006 and the Director General of the Office of the Prime Minister’s reply letter dated 15 November 2006
Dear Prime Minister,
On 15 November, the Office of the Prime Minister replied to my 6 November 2006 letter to the Prime Minister concerning the dropping of the charge of lese majeste against me at the level of inquiry officials. In the letter, the Office of the Prime Minister states that it has sent my letter to the Royal Thai Police to be used at the inquiry level.
The Prime Minister has clearly expressed his resolve to make the Royal Thai Police truly neutral and independent, especially from being exploited as a political tool, to high-ranking police officers on 29 November 2006. The police must care for rather than jeopardize the security of all Thai citizens.
It is well known that the charge the Royal Thai Police lodged against me was politically motivated. It seemed to have been unofficially dictated by the former Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, because I had alleged that he lacked the legitimacy to govern the country. I had faced the same charge before in 1984 when General Arthit Kamlang-ake was jockeying for power vis-à-vis Prime Minister Prem Tinsulanonda; and in 1991 when General Suchinda Kraprayoon toppled the Chatichai Choonhavan government. Concerning the latter case, my trial lasted four years. The court ultimately acquitted me of the charge of lese majeste. The following is the crucial section of the final court decision.
The word “democracy” appeared in the First Declaration of the People’s Party which was announced and distributed to the public on 24 June 1932. It states: “It is necessary that the country has a government like in a democracy; that is, the country’s head of state must be a commoner elected by Parliament to assume the position for a specified period. Citizens, expect to be cared for in the best ways.”
Now, the word “democracy” often refers to a presidency or a republic. To avoid any misunderstanding or fear, democracy is further clarified to specifically mean “a democracy with the monarch as the head of state”; that is, a constitutional monarchy.
In reality, the word “democracy” is often mistakenly used and abused. Many states that call themselves “democracies” take pride in allowing their citizens to vote for their own representatives in parliament every four year or so. (Here I won’t refer to the presidential system.) Before citizens go cast their votes, all kinds of means are used during the election campaigns—lies, vote-buying, disinformation, etc. in various degrees. When the whole electoral process is over, the right to government is jealously guarded by politicians and representatives, and citizens are swept aside to play the role of having no role. In some countries, the freedom of expression is only nominally upheld. Here I am not referring to dictatorships in the guise of democracies such as Singapore and Malaysia, but full-fledged democracies like England whose mass media systems are dominated by vested interests and the pursuit of profit. As such, their citizens have limited access to vital information (e.g., many important issues are not freely discussed, and hence are unknown), and therefore they may interpret the world according to the dictates of the ruling interests—e.g., capitalism, consumerism, neoliberalism, imperialism, etc. People everywhere are increasingly finding this version of democracy revolting. No doubt, this is not the kind of democracy that Thais should aim for; it is not good enough for us.
6 November 2006
Dear Prime Minister,
Concerning the case of Sulak Sivaraksa, who is charged with lese majeste pertaining to his interview published in the magazine Fah Diew Kan, Bangsue Police Station’s inquiry officials, headed by deputy police chief Pol. Gen. Priewphan Damaphong, are in the process of further inquiring the alleged offender’s witnesses.
As the accused, I want to point out that the witnesses’ statements expressed during the inquiry process may impact every side and that the charge of lese majeste has been abused to reap political ends. Concerning the latter point, I faced the charge of lese majeste in August 2006 because I had criticized the administration of the Thaksin Shinawatra government. My interview in Fah Diew Kan was published since October 2005, and this issue of the magazine had been in circulation for a considerable time. The interview was also translated into the foreign languages, and likewise was circulated in intellectual circles worldwide. I affirm that the views I expressed there concerning the monarchy are academic and sincere. I wanted to protect the monarchy from being exploited as a political tool by numerous groups, and wanted to point out the threats (symbolic as well as concrete) undermining the monarchy. For this I was accused of lese majeste. The complainant did not carefully examine the whole interview, for it is clear that if the interview was fully read my intention to academically analyze the facts in order to protect the monarchy could not have been missed. Most importantly, in the royal speech delivered on 4 December 2005 H.M. the King expresses his desire to terminate the charge of lese majeste. In one part of the royal speech, the king states,
If the king is violated, the king himself is in trouble….in trouble in many ways. One, foreigners say in Thailand one can’t criticize the king, that if they can’t criticize and go to jail. There are some who go to jail, which troubles the king, who must say, after the jailing, to forgive them for insulting me severely. Farangs say in Thailand, when the king gets insulted, [the offender] must go to jail.
Indeed, they should go to jail. But because the farangs say so, [we] won’t let them go to jail. Nobody dares put the guy who insults the king in jail, because the king is troubled. They say the king is a bad person , or at least easily excitable. When someone criticizes [him] a little, [he] says to put them in jail. In fact, the king’s never said to put them in jail. In previous reigns, rebels were not even jailed…not punished. King Rama VI did not punish, did not punish the rebels. In the Ninth Reign, rebels…are treated in the same way…not put to jail. [They are] released or are first imprisoned but then released.
Seen in its entirety, the royal speech shows that the king does not want to institute actions against those charged with lese majeste. In my case, since Pol. Gen. Priewphan Damaphong, the head of the inquiry panel, is a relative of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra the dice is already loaded. Moreover, in the eyes of the international community, the reputation of the kingdom in terms of human rights will be severely impacted because the case was instituted under the former government, which greatly limited academic freedom or the freedom of expression in general. International human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch will surely protest against the case and publicize it worldwide. Therefore, should this case drag on indeterminably, the masses may be incited and mobilized (both supporting and protesting against the case), leading to hostility, social antagonism, and even violence, thereby jeopardizing the peace, orderliness, and security of the country.
Therefore, I write to ask you to find a way to end the case at the level of inquiry officials by terminating the inquiry process or ordering the discontinuation of the prosecution of case ป . วิ อาญา ม. ๑๔๒ . Relevant officials should inform the inquiry officials to drop this politically charged and spiteful case, a case that will adversely impact the monarchy. The charge of lese majeste must no longer be used as a tool to silence or destroy political opponents.
Furthermore, the country now requires a favorable climate for reconciliation. Carrying on with the case will surely be detrimental to society at large.
Yours sincerely,
Sulak Sivaraksa
(The alleged offender)
Filed under: Engaged Spirituality, Human Rights, Siamese History, Thai Politics
AMID all that is ailing Thai society now, Sulak Sivaraksa stands out as its voice of conscience.
He seems like a ray of light, albeit too glaring sometimes, that keeps the moral compass intact.
At 73, he is still viewed by most people as one of Thailand’s more outspoken and respected social activists and scholars.
Here’s a man who has been twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize; a man whom Thaksin Shinawatra, who usually does not hold his tongue against his critics, has not retaliated at all against despite Sulak’s constant attacks of him.
“He has not criticised me publicly. Not even privately, according to those from within his circle,” Sulak said in an interview.
Mind you, he has stinging remarks of Thaksin, even calling him a dog at one point.
“People know that I have no political aspiration. Even if I had wanted to be a prime minister, I would not have become one,” he said, laughing.
Sulak, according to a friend of his who has known him for decades, has deep moral integrity but no personal agenda, no desire for material benefits.
“He is inspired by Gandhi and the Dalai Lama is one of the many international figures who know him well,” said this friend.
During the interview, Sulak did not hold back his views about the way Buddhism was being practised in Thailand.
Thailand’s revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej has yet to utter a public word about the overnight coup that ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. But speaking out is not the style of the 78-year-old monarch, who despite age and frailty has shown that he remains the most powerful man in the country.
On the books, the bloodless coup was a military affair led by army chief Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratglin, who said the overthrow was needed to resolve a protracted political crisis and restore “harmony among the people.” The new regime put Thailand under martial law and declared a provisional authority loyal to the monarch. (Watch how coup goes off without bloodshed — 1:16)
It remains unclear exactly what role the king played in removing Thaksin. The palace claims it was not involved in the events, but the king late Wednesday endorsed Sonthi as the head of a temporary governing council, according to a nationally televised announcement — essentially giving his blessing to the coup.
Many Thai people, along with political and monarchy experts, see it as another example of the constitutional monarch’s behind-the-scenes power, which he has exercised sparingly but effectively in his six-decade reign.
“If the king didn’t give a nod, this never would have been possible,” said Sulak Siwalak, a prominent social critic and author of books on the role of the monarchy in Thailand.
“Thaksin failed to realize that the king has been on the throne for 60 years and he’s no fool. The man is old, and Thaksin thought he could play around with him — and it was a dangerous game,” said Sulak. “He felt he could belittle the king, and that’s something the king cannot stand.”
There was no one event that led to Thaksin’s ouster, but a series of missteps that prompted many to accuse the prime minister of challenging the king’s authority — an unpardonable act in Thailand.
Thaksin defied months of street protests and demands for him to resign amid allegations of corruption, election violations and a worsening Muslim insurgency in the south.
Chief among Thaksin’s flaws, in the eyes of the palace and many Thais, was his personality. The tycoon-turned-politician proved to be ambitious, conservative and strong-willed, refusing to correct himself when his policies backfired — particularly in the case of a strong-armed military approach to violence in the south, where more than 1,700 people have died in the past two years. Critics call him self-centered and arrogant.
He was also accused of stifling what was once one of Asia’s freest media and of allowing his business and political cronies to reap enormous gains from corrupt policies.
Some say the palace was infuriated by Thaksin’s apparent attempt to steal the spotlight during the king’s lavish June celebrations for his 60 years on the throne by breaching protocol by greeting visiting royals ahead of the Thai monarchy.
The king could be described as Thaksin’s opposite.
“(The king) clearly cares for his subjects. He is a simple person. He is genuine, and genuinely selfless. He doesn’t indulge himself in a lot of his wealth,” said Paul Handley, author of a controversial new biography, “The King Never Smiles,” which portrays the king as a major player in Thai political developments during the past few decades.
Handley said the king is also “stubborn and hardheaded and doesn’t really accept critiques of his own view of how the country should develop.”
Although a constitutional monarch with limited powers, the king is held in reverence by almost all Thais because of his lifelong dedication to helping the country’s have-nots. Regarded as semi-divine by some, the king spent decades mingling with common folk in backwater villages where he seeded hundreds of development projects. He believes that Thais and their leaders should adhere to Buddhist principles — that people should live simply, not strive for excesses and not flaunt their wealth.
The king rarely enters the political sphere, but when he does, everyone listens and obeys — something Thaksin found increasingly difficult to do.
“Thaksin showed a certain lack of regard for the king and the palace’s desires. And he showed a lot of independence which the palace saw disfavorably,” Handley said.
In April, the king made a rare television appearance, prodding Thailand’s top courts to intervene to resolve a political deadlock: the kingdom has had a caretaker government and no working legislature since April 2 elections, which were boycotted by the opposition.
The nation’s top judges annulled the vote, paving the way for new polls later this year. But Thaksin angered many by refusing to bow out.
“The anti-Thaksin forces in the top levels of government — and perhaps in the palace — realized that Thaksin could still be prime minister after the new election and there was no way out, and they were fed up,” Handley said.
