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.

Subscribe

Kanchanaburi public prosecutor (Thong Paphoom) V. Sulak Sivaraksa

For violation of the Thai Petroleum Act BE 2522 (1979)

The court has been informed that on 7 May 1996, the Petroleum Authority of Thailand (PTT) was authorized to undertake the construction of natural gas pipelines from the Yadana source in Burma through the Thailand-Burma border into Thailand at Ban I-tong, Tambon Pilok, Thong Paphoom district, Kanchanaburi province toward the Ratchaburi combined cycle power plant in Muang district, Ratchaburi province. But between 2-6 March 1998, during day and night successively, the accused and about 30 others camped out in the forest to obstruct the construction of the pipelines. They stood in rows and sat in groups to make the operation of the machines impossible. Thus, they were accused for violating the laws which provided for the rights of PTT to continue their construction.

The accused refused to accept the charge. He informed the judges that as a law graduate he believes in the Constitution and cherishes the constitutional monarchy. Among many in Siam, he has been revered as a conservationist who has made immense contribution to history, social development, economics, politics, culture, archeology and the environment. Apart from his extensive writings, lectures or public speeches, the accused has been endeavoring to work to preserve ancient buildings and the environment all along. Being informed about the Thailand-Burma gas pipeline project, he deemed the project had been pushed ahead by PTT with support from the Thai government without heeding to public opinions. The government, by refusing to hear voices from the people, was pressing ahead a project that would cause massive damages to the national interests, economically and politically, within and outside the country. The damages would also reach the environment, forests, fauna, etc. With this concern and the care for nature and the environment, the accused has been opposed to deforestation, destruction of the environment, particularly, in pristine forests of Kanchanaburi province. Therefore, the opposition waged by the accused toward the construction of the natural gas pipeline rests on the fervent hope to protect national interests at present and in future. It can be regarded as a sincere, honest, peaceful and nonviolent action and this right and freedom has been exercised duly under the provisions in the Constitution.

The accused further argued that the Petroleum Act BE 2522 (1979), which had been cited by the plaintiff to bring charges against him is unlawful in light of the current Constitution. The law grants draconian powers to PTT to bring charges against anyone who decide to obstruct their operation. However, with the attempts by the government to corporatize PTT, new legislations have been issued in recent years and that has led to the revocation of the PTT Act. In addition, the new laws mulled for the governing of the corporatized PTT bear no punitive clauses. Therefore, the PTT Act can no longer be cited as a ground to punish anyone who obstructs the operation by PTT.

The judges are therefore of the opinion that the accused is found not guilty for the charge.

Judges of the Criminal Court, 18 August 2006

Subscribe

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.

Subscribe

Let us retrace the democracy that emerged in Siam in the wake of the 24 June 1932 Revolution. Within three days a constitution was promogated. It stated that power belongs to the people; that is, the equality of everyone is guaranteed by the law. No one has special privileges. The monarch is simply the head of state, an equal among equals. If the reactionaries did not successfully obstruct Pridi Banomyong’s economic plan, Thais might even have the opportunity to enjoy greater economic equality. Equality here does not mean the absence of differences. But it means that everyone has equal rights and dignity and that everyone is counted equally.

We must also admit that although the People’s Party was the main engine driving the 1932 Revolution, its members were mostly highly educated individuals and government officials. They weren’t “ordinary” individuals so to speak. One of the main objectives of Pridi Banomyong, the brain of the People’s Party, was thus to enhance the accessibility of “ordinary” people to education. This was included in the six proposals of the First Declaration. With education Pridi hoped that “ordinary” people would be able to meaningfully participate in Siamese democracy, thereby making democracy in Siam meaningful.

The establishment of the University of Morals and Political Science in 1934 was an important step in this direction. The idea was to awaken the people to the responsibilities of good citizens, to cultivate the moral courage of the people using the dhamma as an important guidance. It can be said that this university was too successful in its democratic intention. Reactionary forces in the country subsequently got rid of the university’s rector, and the military dictatorship ultimately castrated the university’s name: it became known simply as the University of Morals (Thammasat University).

We must be clear about the first fifteen years of democracy in Siam. The military leaders of the People’s Party simply wanted to get rid of absolute monarchy, so that they could be the new masters of the country; that is, replacing absolutism with a military dictatorship. At the time, dictatorship was the preferred form of government—witness Germany, Italy, and Japan. Also, we must not forget that absolute monarchy in Siam since the Fifth Reign emulated absolutism in Europe. There was a power struggle in the People’s Party between the military and the civilian wings. Had the civilian wing gained the upper-hand, Siam might have had a more meaningful democracy according to the objectives of the First Declaration. Deep down, the military leaders of the People’s Party did not want a constitutional monarchy—unless they were kings themselves. At the same time, the royalists in Siam wanted to preserve the monarchy or the inviolability of the monarch (symbolically at least) at all costs. The royalists were at the nadir of their power, however. This was an unprecedented situation in Siam. Nevertheless, they managed to make the constitution of 27 June 1932 a temporary one; the permanent constitution was promulgated on 10 December of the same year. The royalists made it appear as if it was the king himself who graciously granted the permanent constitution—with minimal contributions from the People’s Party. Although the permanent constitution was eventually abolished, and Siam has had many more subsequently, the 10^th of December is still considered as the Constitution Day. In other words, the emergence of democracy in Siam is given a conservative or even a reactionary twist to be compatible with the ideological triad of Country, Religion, and Monarchy.

Pridi Banomyong did his utmost to preserve and protect the dignity of the monarchy under the constitution. He wanted to make the monarchy compatible with the changing times. However, he used militant words against the royalists and the monarchy in the First Declaration. And his economic plan aimed at making everyone unacceptably equal in the eyes of the reactionary forces. The royalists thus saw him as a persona non grata. Pridi paid a heavy price for his conviction. In a smear campaign, he was linked to the mysterious death of King Rama VIII. Several innocent individuals were also killed as a result of the campaign through legal and extra-legal measures. This is an important example of eradicating democratic substance from Thai society. It happened alongside the manufacturing of the monarch’s divinity and supernatural-ness—which is not Buddhist. This move however seemed to mesh well with the morally half-baked nature of the military dictatorship, which served American imperialism, international capitalism, consumerism, etc.

As someone who brought democracy to Siam, Pridi knew better than others that: 1) as the highest law of the country, the constitution must be enforced by the dhamma, not by armed violence (might is not right); 2) moral courage must be cultivated in the citizens so they would devote themselves to the wellbeing of the country and of humanity; and 3) a meaningful democracy in Siam must be rooted in Buddhism—it need not blindly follow western paradigms. This does not mean that Buddhist principles are superior to those of other religions or faiths. But it proposes that the sangha itself is a viable model of democracy in terms of the cultivation of equality, fraternity, and liberty from greed, hatred, and delusion. When Pridi was Regent to King Rama VIII, he invited Bhikkhu Buddhadasa to engage in a Buddhist conversation with him at his Ta Chang residence. The conversation was held over five consecutive days, approximately three hours each day. With the Buddhadasa’s guidance, Pridi wanted to establish a dhammic socialism that was emancipatory and relevant to Siamese society at the time.

Pridi wanted to pave the way for Siamese citizens toward a meaningful democracy. Numerous factors obstructed his dream such as the military dictatorship and World War Two. To preserve the promise of democracy Pridi established the Seri Thai Movement with his fellow citizens in Siam as well as overseas. The movement enabled the kingdom to preserve its sovereignty and national integrity in the wake of the war. Pridi supported national liberation movements in the region. The League of Southeast Asian Nations was established to foster democracy or democratic socialism as well as to counterbalance American and Soviet imperialism in the region. The regional grouping also hoped to improve its members’ bargaining power vis-à-vis the emerging states of India and China.

In sum, democracy in Siam by the end of the first fifteen-year cycle pointed toward the greater decentralization of power. The three southernmost provinces had a fair degree of autonomy especially in terms of language and religion. They co-existed in Siam with equality. To a large extent, the northeastern provinces were also able to maintain their distinct characteristics, politically, culturally, and economically. They were not deemed inferior to the central provinces.

Pridi’s dream disintegrated six decades ago. Though we had overthrown a series of dictators (e.g., 14 October 1973, May 1992, and 19 September 2006), meaningful democracy is still not in sight. In each of these events, we merely changed the head of the political elites. Deep down the ruling elites are still fond of top-down structures, fixed hierarchical relations, and special privileges (on this latter point, perhaps even more so than during absolute monarchy). How then can meaningful democracy erupt in Thai society? There’s no accountability and transparency. The right to open criticism is limited. Some things are still deemed divine or mystical, hence beyond reproach.

I will not offer any view on the recent coup d’etat. I will not criticize those who are in power now and will not discuss about the government of the present prime minister and his ‘parliament’.

I think many individuals in power now are good. At least, they have good intentions and want to make changes to benefit the people as a whole. Of course, some have vested interests in various degrees. But in terms of the system, it is impossible for those in power to reach out to or understand the people. As long as the fixed hierarchical structures are still in place, the people will not be able to raise their heads, will not be counted equally as those above them. It is also difficult to find any ‘ordinary’ folk at the center of power. How then can the new elites in power understand about meaningful democracy? At best, the new elites will merely (and inappropriately) copy the democratic paradigms available in western textbooks and adapt them to Thai society. How many among the new power elites actually understand about constitutional monarchy? Some of them even suggested that democracy is incompatible with Thai culture.

On this last point, my views are different. I affirm that the democratic spirit is vibrant among Thai citizens. At least this democratic spirit is stronger than in many neighboring countries. In the past, the jataka (“Birth Stories”) collected and edited by Buddhist monks invariably challenged or confronted the illegitimate power of the ruling class. In the present, we can see this spirit in the Assembly of the Poor and similar organizations scattered throughout the kingdom. The democratic conscience of the middle class has also been awakened. We can see it in the conservationist movement in Kanchanaburi province, in the Bo Nok and Baan Krut communities and in Udonthani province, in Songkhla, in Chiangmai, etc. The ruling elites are impervious to the potentialities of these movements. Through collaboration the middle and lower classes have narrowed the gap between them. The democratic spirit can also be found within the business community, especially among members of the Social Venture Network, although it is nor as widespread.

On the whole, the bureaucracy and education institutions are still weak on democracy. And so are the sangha especially the monks in the hierarchy. But there are some individuals within these sites that are democratic in spirit. They are aware of the ills of capitalism, consumerism, neoliberalism, and so on. They see no future in a monarchy walled off from the citizens. Thus they offer us a glimmer of hope—though they have yet to attain a critical mass.

Despite the (numerous) deficiencies of the core leaders of the PAD the movement’s positive elements may be employed to serve the people. We may begin to learn from local communities more than simply attempting to educate them. We will be learning from one another in this respect. We may begin to re-valorize aspects of the de-valorized local knowledge systems, which in fact contain many democratic elements that are distinct from western democratic models. These are knowledge systems that valorize nonviolence, morality, self-sufficiency, humility, simplicity, and generosity—typical of rural Thai communities. They are not perfect, but provide vital resources for democracy in Siam.

If we know how to adapt morality and generosity to contemporary society, we will be able to transform religion into an important political resource. Thammasat University attempted to do this in its early years. We may use generosity as a vehicle for some form of welfarism. And morality will be a wheel propelling us toward peace and justice. The sangha has long served as a model of democracy. But the class system and fixed hierarchies have ground down equality, fraternity, and liberty (from greed, hatred, and delusion) in society. An important element that is missing in Thai society is contemplative education. Without contemplation we have no hope for moral training (fostering normality at the individual and collective levels, for each and all) and for the attainment of wisdom. We’ll be trapped in violent structures and mindless violence, for instance.

It is heartening to see a growing interest in meditation practice in various circles in society—the Vong Lor (Wheel) and the Jit Wiwat (Mental Transformation) groups in Bangkok, the Kwan Muang group in Chiangrai, etc. We must also not forget the Spirit in Education Movement and the Sekiyadhamma network. If they are on the right track (practicing mindfulness not to isolate the self from society but to be socially engaged as well) they will be able to foster inner peace, minimize self-attachment, and expand their circles of virtuous companions to create equality and liberty in society.

We should train ourselves to be humble (in both form and content), to reduce greed, hatred, and delusion. Although we may not be able to fully eradicate them all, at least we should be mindful of our feelings, conducts, and words so as to benefit the majority of the people. We should be mindful in the face of different opinions. We should be willing to ask forgiveness for the negative consequences of our conducts. We should be forgiving too. To forgive means to have no fear. We always fear the enemy. But Buddhism teaches that the enemy is really within—emanating from our greed, hatred, and delusion, from self-attachment.

In other words, it is important to cultivate the (seven) conditions of welfare (Vajji-aparihaniyadhamma), which are as follows:

1. To hold regular and frequent meetings

2. To meet together in harmony, disperse in harmony, and do their business and duties in harmony

3. To introduce no revolutionary ordinance, or break up no established ordinance, but abide by the original or fundamental Vajjian norm and principles

4. To honor and respect the elders among the Vajjians and deem them worthy of listening to

5. The women and girls of the families are to live without being forced or abducted

6. To honor and worship the Vajjian shrines, monuments and objects of worship, both central and provincial, and do not neglect those righteous ceremonies held before for them

7. To provide the rightful protection, shelter and support for the Wise Ones and wish that the Wise Ones who have not come may enter the realm and those who have entered may dwell pleasantly therein

Moreover, the ten virtues for the king as well as the four virtues wheeling one to prosperity are not simply there for lip service—but for serious practice.

We don’t have to throw away all western textbooks dealing with democracy. I’d like to suggest some books to read. The first is Mindful Politics: A Buddhist Guide to Making the World a Better Place. From a Muslim’s perspective, a good book is Ghaffar Khan: Nonviolent Badshely of the Paktuns by Rajmohan Gandhi. Don’t forget the works by Eqbal Ahmad (especially Islam and Politics) and by Noam Chomsky. Of course I need to mention the volume edited by Pracha Hutanuwatr and Ramu Manivannan entitled The Asian Future.

The Tibetan government in exile is also experimenting with a Buddhist form of democracy. And the government of Bhutan is replacing the calculation of Gross National Products with that of Gross National Happiness, which is gaining widespread interest at the time. (The Sathirakoses-Nagapradipa Foundation may co-sponsor an international conference on Gross National Happiness next year.)

These books are useful for making sense of world affairs. But we must find the time to breathe properly and mindfully. As mentioned earlier, this is also a crucial step toward the prospering of democracy in Siam.

If we want to know how to make democracy meaningful, we must first clearly perceive Thai and western societies. I hereby make six proposals to match the ones in the First Declaration of the People’s Party in 1932:

1. We must understand that our society has no future if it is still dominated by fixed hierarchies, violent structures, half-truths, moral cowardice, global capitalism with the American empire at the center, and so on.

2. If we still don’t clearly understand the issues raised in Point 1, we must seek further knowledge about them and disseminate this knowledge as widely as possible. We can in part rely on the mainstream mass media, mainstream education institutions, politico-economic elites who have some understanding of the Right View, and so on.

3. Those of us in the NGO sector who want to strengthen democracy in the country must properly train ourselves and others in our circles to understand the importance of equality, fraternity, and liberty from greed, hatred, and delusion. There must be transparency, accountability, and responsibility at every level of our work. If we train ourselves to achieve inner peace, we can thereby legitimately demand that other organizations or institutions (public and private, local and international) do so too.

4. We must recognize our strengths and weaknesses. Are we too elitist? Too bourgeois? Do we know anything about the poor or the lower class? Are we ‘fake’ Thais? Do we recognize the mistake(s) of nationalism? To what extent do we honestly respect other cultures and religions? Are we willing and ready to devote ourselves to benefit the majority of the people, gradually reducing our self-attachment?

5. Urban residents should travel to the rural areas to learn from the local villagers and to confront various forms of suffering there. We may begin to realize that our luxurious and comfortable way of life may be the cause of numerous sufferings or social injustice. We should not simply blame TNCs and our ruling elites.

6. Learning from the poor will enable us to understand the villagers’ wisdom, to understand the substance of democracy rooted in Buddhist, Muslim, and minority cultures. We can adapt values from these cultures and use them in our lives to transcend mainstream culture, which moves in the direction of capitalism and consumerism.

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)

Subscribe

To be truly religious is not to reject society but to work for social justice and change. Religion is at the heart of social change, and this change is an essence of religion. The teachings of Buddha have much more to offer to mitigate sufferings of both humans and nature in the world. If one is worth living, there are ways one can live.

This was the crux of the talk on the challenges and prospects of Buddhism given by Sulak Sivaraksa from Thailand at the conference hall of the Centre for Bhutan Studies on 23 August.

He is a teacher, a scholar, a publisher, an activist, founder of many organizations and author of more than hundred books and monographs. He is among the handful of leaders world-wide working to revive the socially engaged aspects of spirituality and was granted the Right Livelihood Award, also known as Alternative Noble Prize in 1995.

According to Sivaraksa, 21^st century is the century of spirituality. Otherwise the world would have been destroyed. Buddhism plays a vital role in Asia especially in South and South East Asia, not only spiritually but also morally, socially and ecologically. Simplicity guides one to be mindful of materialism and sensual pleasures.

Bhutan has developed the concept of Gross National Happiness instead of Gross National Product, which will help in the post-modern era, realizing that what they wanted is happiness, not money nor power.

Sulak envisions a future built on traditional wisdom and culture. Bhutan is unique in this regard.

“We must chain our society to be transparent and accountable. One cannot practice good politics without being a spiritual person,” said Sulak.

During the 1970s, Sulak became a central figure in a number of NGOs in Thailand. He said, “Whatever you do, don’t do it out of selfish motives but out of understanding and kindness. Itีs you who decide.”

Sonam Pelden
from Bhutan Observer
Saturday August 25, 2006

Subscribe

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.

Subscribe

He once wrote that “simply performing the outer rituals of any tradition has little value if it is not accompanied by personal transformation”.

To him, the kingdom has enough temples, so more money should be spent on training monks.

As a young boy, Sulak attended two Christian schools before entering monkhood for a while.

“I thrived on it. I would have stayed on if my father had not talked me out of it. He asked me: what happens if you fall in love?” Sulak recalled. (He has three children and his wife runs a publishing house.)

He described his father as his very first friend, so the teenaged Sulak was devastated when he died at 43 of cancer.

Sulak, who later studied in England, has often ventured into uncharted territory. He openly admitted that his grandfather was from China back in those days when Thais shunned their Chinese roots. He was also in exile twice.

He has outspoken views of the monarchy but seems to get away with his controversial remarks. Last year, he gave a magazine interview that was deemed lese majeste.

“The police questioned the editor but they have not touched me yet,” he said.

Sulak, who has addressed the crowds at anti-Thaksin rallies, said he had initially seen hope in the premier when he came into power in 2001.

“One of the first things Thaksin did was to have lunch with the Assembly of the Poor (a group representing the marginalised lot), something which the previous Democrat government never did. It never even looked at the Assembly of the Poor.”

But gradually, Sulak said, he found that Thaksin’s policies were drafted with his own personal interest at heart. Now, he seems to have nothing good to say about the prime minister.

Neither does Sulak profess any respect for Sondhi Limthongkul, a leader of an anti-Thaksin group, whom he views with distrust.

“He is, however, cordial to me. So as a Buddhist, I return his cordiality.”

Sulak himself is not without flaws. Those around him and reporters who know him find that he has quite an ego.

And people wonder how someone who espouses religious values could use such harsh words against those whom he criticised.

“Perhaps my strength is my weakness,” he admitted.

His long-time friend said Sulak’s views were sometimes considered old-fashioned in these fast-changing times. And he remains that rare breed who prefers to go around in his traditional Thai attire.

Is Sulak, who grew up in Bangkok when it was still known as Venice of the East (“there were no more than 400 cars then”) optimistic of Thailand’s future?

“Yes, we can’t get any worse than now. A military coup is the last resort. And I have hopes of the young people. Some of them are even bolder than me.”

Still, they don’t make them like him any more.

By FOO YEE PING
Sunday July 16, 2006

The writer can be contacted at e-mail: yeeping@nationgroup.com

Subscribe

My late spiritual teacher, Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, whose centenary this year is recognized by UNESCO as a man who contributes so much for peace in the world, has warned his disciples that we should understand the best in Buddhism, that is how to transform greed into generosity, hatred into loving kindness and delusion into wisdom or proper understanding.

He also says that Buddhists must respect other religions – not just tolerance – as much as our own.

People with different religions must collaborate together and with atheists and agnostics too, in order to overcome the new demonic religion of materialism and consumerism i.e. to liberate mankind from greed, hatred and delusion.

The hard core of the Buddha’s teaching is skillful means to reduce selfishness to serve all sentient beings yet all through these years, Buddhism has compromised itself with superstition, nationalism, feudalism, male chauvinism and lately with economism. As an institution Buddhism contributed negatively to mankind too. Baker Roshi will no doubt confirm the information in the book Zen at War that Japanese practitioners of Buddhist meditation used that technique of inner strength to kill the enemy more effectively, even with the loss of their own lives, for the sake of the Emperor and the Empire.

In Sri Lanka , many Sinhala Buddhists are against the Tamil Hindus on the island very violently. Likewise in my own country, quite a number of Thai Buddhists are not at all tolerant towards the Malay Muslims who are also citizens of Siam.

Subscribe

One could add more curses of mankind committed in the name of Buddhism, although those violent acts come out more from nationalism, economism and the like. The good Buddhists would say that crisis arises from greed, hatred and delusion – the three root causes of suffering. The Buddhist contribution to overcome world crisis is that one should cultivate peace within first.

The Dalai Lama says that world peace will not be possible unless each of us cultivates peace within. Although this is a very difficult task, His Holiness opines that it is the only way.

If we consider this seriously we may have to agree with this simple Buddhist monk who asks all of his followers not to hate the Chinese, despite their ruthless aggression in Tibet and to the Tibetan people.

The Dalai Lama argues that whether one believes in any religion or not is not as essential as the fact that one should learn to be kind, to cultivate loving kindness and compassion to all beings.

The first truth of the Buddhist teaching is the truth of suffering, personally, socially and ecologically. The Buddha recommends that we should confront suffering and be aware of it – not to get away from suffering as the new demonic religion of consumerism and globalization would like us to do.

The second truth is to find out the cause of suffering which links directly or indirectly with greed, hatred and delusion, which is now personified in economism, imperialism and main stream education and the mass media.

The third truth is the cessation of suffering through the fourth truth of the nonviolent way to overcome personal crisis as well as world crisis.

John B, Cobb Jr., a leading American Theologian who started a Buddhist-Christian Theological encounter over two decades ago, stated that Buddhism is perhaps the clearest in identifying TANHA – craving – as the most dangerous cause of crisis. It creates the sense of lack. Globalization and consumerism use this psychological fact to steer people to crave more, especially in materialism, whereas the teaching of the Buddha points the way to tame craving and to overcome it. Yet traditional Buddhists seem to be unable to see the danger of consumerism or neoliberalism. Indeed the Buddhists or anyone interested in contributing to change crisis into opportunity has to understand structural violence which helps the rich and the powerful at the expense of the poor and the environment. Yet the rich are not happy either.

Cobb went on to say that the Bush Administration makes it clear that no country will be allowed to challenge the supremacy of the American Empire, which will dominate the world with the most sophisticated weapons and the mass media. Together with Transnational Corporations the US will push more for a monoculture of Americanization which is called globalization.

Cobb argues that this will be destructive more and more to ecological balance and the poor will suffer beyond imaginable.

Cobb feels that the only way to confront and overcome American imperialism is through spirituality, moral courage and resistance nonviolently. Cobb is sad that most religions institutions compromise the teaching of their founders so much that religions lose its moral courage of speaking truth to powers and fail to show alternative way to the mainstream culture of materialism and consumerism.

Cobb proposes that if religious leaders would allow some members of their institutions or organization, especially the young to use spiritual force, with effective disobedience and non-operative on nonviolently. This may be the way to overcome world crisis, personally, locally and globally.

As a Buddhist I organized an International Network of Engaged Buddhists to confront social suffering with alternative economic, politics and education. We work with Christians and Muslims as well as with those of other living faiths and ideologies. We collaborate with the Royal Bhutan government in proposing Gross National Happiness instead of Gross National Products. We admire the Tibetan Government in exile for their experiment with the essence of Buddhist democracy which the west may need to learn form. We work with the poor of Siam that they are now empowered spiritually and economically to challenge the oppressive system. However we learn not to hate the oppressors, but to overcome the oppressive system. We also work with leading business people and set up Social Venture Network that those engaged in commerce work for their personal spiritual growth as well as for the well being of their employees as well as their clients and the environment, beyond mere profit; compassion becomes more effective them competition.

What I have said briefly is some Buddhist contribution to change the world in crisis to the world of opportunity beyond the American Empire.

Johan Galtung, a Norwegian Buddhist, predicts that American hegemony will end by the year 2020. Whether this prophecy will be true or not is besides the point. If we prepare ourselves with the culture of awakening from hatred, greed and delusion nonviolently and specifically, we can certainly contribute towards blessing for mankind.

Through the Mind and Life Institute, the Dalai Lama has also worked with leading scientists, so that a number of scientists have now become more and more humble and admit that science should go beyond materialism. Buddhism also welcomes scientific approach in helping to strengthen spiritual depth vis-à-vis life and death as well as transcendental wisdom. This is indeed unique for science and religion to collaborate constructively for the benefit of mankind and all sentient beings.

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.

Subscribe

Sulak was charged with obstructing the pipeline when it was being built in 1998. It now transmits gas from the Yadana field in Burmese offshore waters to Thai power plants, via Mon and Karen areas. The pipeline was being built by state-controlled oil ands gas conglomerate PTT, formerly the Petroleum Authority of Thailand.

Sulak said the outcome was a victory for justice of sorts, but the issues of compensation for villagers in Burma whose land was taken and the misuse of the income from the gas by the Burmese regime remained unanswered.

“The pipeline project has not provided benefit for local people both Thai and Burma,” he told The Irrawaddy on Friday. “It is a shameful project. The Thai government has to pay US$ 400 million per year to the Burmese government and they use this money to abuse and threaten ethnic people in their country.”

The case was dropped because the law under which Sulak was charged related to the former state-owned Petroleum Authority of Thailand which had since been partially privatized as PTT plc.

PTT implied that it might still pursue Sulak. “We have not decided yet whether to move on in the legal process or not. [PTT] executives will discuss the matter after we have got the official report from Office of the Attorney General,” a company legal department spokesman said.

It is widely known that much of the income from Burma’s gas, which now totals about US $1 billion from Thailand alone, goes to buy military equipment and weapons. Activists say this helps the junta harass ethnic groups opposed to the regime.

Sulak Sivaraksa is a high profile social commentator and environmental campaigner. In 2005, was nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for his social work among Thai communities, including the Assembly of the Poor, indigenous peoples and Buddhist groups.

Subscribe