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.
Filed under: Engaged Spirituality, Environment, Human Rights, Non-Violence
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
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)
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, 21st 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
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.
It is debatable whether one calls Buddhism religion or not. However as an organized creed practiced by many peoples in Asia and now in the west too, it contributes both a blessing and a curse to mankind.
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.
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.
Yadana Pipeline Protest Case Dismissed
By Sai Silp
August 18, 2006
The case against prominent Thai social activist Sulak Sivaraksa, accused with other protestors six years ago of disrupting the building of a gas pipeline crossing part of Burma, has been dismissed by Thailand’s criminal court.
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.
S. Sivaraksa 