The Sathirakoses-Nagapradipa Foundation (SNF) is situated on a land plot owned by Ajarn Sulak Sivaraksa’s family—his maternal side. The names of his aunts and mother are in this order: Ngern, Mee, and Ma. Subsequently, Ajarn Sulak inherited this plot of land and donated it to SNF.

Within the compound of the Garden of Fruition stands “Ruen Roi Chanum,” a fairly new building whose construction was jointly funded by “the people of Japan” and the Kled Thai Company. It is used as a library, a place to hold trainings and conferences, and a dorm for monks, activists and social workers. This office residence serves as a central nerve for the various works of SNF in Bangkok.

The Garden of Fruition compound also houses several semi-autonomous NGOs under the SNF umbrella, namely, Santi Pracha Dhamma Institute (SPD), Spirit in Education Movement (SEM), Pacarayasara magazine, Seeds of Peace journal, International Network of Engaged Buddhists (INEB), Sekhiyadhamma Group, and the Puey Forum. The offices of these NGOs are situated in the original house of Ajarn’s Sulak’s mother. It is very old and dilapidated. It is often flooded during the rainy season, and is terribly hot during the long summer. SNF thus sees the necessity for the construction of a new office building to cope with the demands of its activities.

The new office to be constructed will be a 3-storey concrete building with an office space of 792 sq m. The ground floor is designed to be used for holding trainings and conferences. Offices will be situated on the second floor. And the third floor will serve as another dorm for visiting guests; the one in “Ruen Roi Chanum” is already congested.

The estimated cost of the new office building is 6.2 million baht. Kled Thai Company will provide 3 million baht to fund its construction. Any interested donor should contact Mr. Siroj Angsuvat

Background

More than six decades of development and modernization (which emphasized material progress) have contributed to numerous crises: the weakening of grassroots communities, environmental degradation, spiritual and cultural decline, and so on. Market values have displaced ethics and spirituality in society. These crises are getting increasingly complex, violent, and difficult to mitigate or tackle.

At the same time, the Sangha is dominated by the State, capitalism, and consumerism. It lacks transparency and accountability. In general, the bond between lay and ordained communities is also rapidly weakening. The Sangha is in decline, and there is no sign that it will be able to halt this downward momentum. It can be said that the Sangha no longer serves as a major source of wisdom and spiritual guidance in society.

Amid this crisis, there are a number of monks and nuns who steadfastly uphold the Dhamma. They offer guidance in terms of wisdom and spirituality to society at large. Most of them reside in the rural areas, in areas far from ‘modernity.’ They cooperate with local villagers in empowering grassroots communities—attempting to make them more self-sufficient, for instance. Additionally, many of them are engaged in ‘academic’ work, offering knowledge, guidance, and solutions to present crises based on the teachings of the Buddha.

In 1990 the Thai-Inter-religious Commission for Development (TICD), an organization under the umbrella of the Sathirakoses-Nagapradipa Foundation, invited several monks mentioned above to a meeting to share views and experiences on social work. The meeting also provided a forum to meditate together and to provide moral support for each other’s work.

Many at the meeting agreed that monks and nuns who were working in the field of development should create a network that would provide support and coordination as well as facilitate the adaptation of Buddhist teachings to contemporary life and society based on sufficiency and sustainability. As such the “Sekhiyadhamma Group” was created. Its primary objective was to increase the relevancy of Buddhism, to make it socially engaged and capable of coping with the crises in contemporary society.

Aside from upholding the Dhammavinaya, the Sekhiyadhamma Group also came up with common observances: avoiding a way of life that supports capitalism and consumerism; abstaining from all forms of intoxicants (e.g., cigarettes, betel nuts, soft drinks, energy drinks, etc.); and minimizing/discontinuing the use of plastic and Styrofoam products as well as luxury goods that impede the cultivation of contentment and the proper behavior for the ordained.

At present, membership of the Sekhiyadhamma Group is open to both the lay and the ordained.

Objectives

1. To promote celibacy that is sustainable and happy
2. To foster the condition of being kalyanamitta between monks and nuns working in the field of development
3. To promote self-cultivation and social development giving due consideration to the natural environment based on Buddhist teachings
4. To strengthen the Four Buddhist Assemblies, making them play a beneficial role in society
5. To serve as a network coordinating the work of monks and nuns involved in development

Goals

1. To attain celibacy in a sustainable and happy manner, being beneficial to both the self and the other
2. To achieve liberation (spiritual and intellectual independence)
3. To promote and strengthen the faith in Buddhism
4. To promote the condition of being kalyanamitta among the members as well as in society at large

Distinct Features

1. A model of simple and frugal livelihood
2. A model to anyone interested in self-cultivation based on the Three-fold Training
3. A model of freedom from intoxicants and the causes of ruin to anyone interested in leading a healthy life
4. A model of an alternative to consumerism
5. A model of the promotion of local wisdom and the conservation of the natural environment, tradition, and culture
6. Fostering reconciliation and building bridges between the sexes and racial, ethnic, national, and religious groups

The Thai words for “monarchy” (sathaban pramahakasat) and “constitution” (rathamanoon) bear the traces of foreign origination. The word sathaban is a fairly recent construction while the word rathamanoon made its appearance after the 1932 revolution. During the Meiji era, Japan promulgated the constitution in 1879 in order to exhibit its modernity. It was the first Asian country to do so. The Meiji constitution fully declared the absolutist nature of the country. The emperor was made sacred and divine, beyond reproach or criticism. The royal family was said to originate from the sun goddess. People must be willing to sacrifice their lives, whether or not for the emperor’s war. In other words, the constitution used the monarchy to oppress the citizens of Japan as well of other countries that the Japanese army invaded such as China, Korea, and Siam during WWII. When Japan was defeated in WWII—60 years ago—the American military occupiers, as the victor, rewrote its constitution. The monarchy lost its sacredness. The emperor became an ordinary person who could be criticized and who is under the constitution and other laws—like all Japanese.

The Meiji era coincided with the reign of King Rama V. The Siamese king wanted the monarchy to be the core of absolutism. This was also the political situation in Europe, such as in England, Prussia, Russia, and the Holy Roman Empire in Austria. Absolutism was however in the twilight of its power, but the Siamese ruling elites couldn’t grasp this fact.

King Rama V wanted to be an absolutist monarch like his European counterparts. He wanted to be respected by farangs. He did not want to be like other absolutist monarchs in Asia (with the exception of Japan) whose kingdoms lost their independence and sovereignty such as in Burma and Vietnam or like the emperor of China who did not succeed in adapting to modernity. He consulted with Prince Prisdang who was his contemporary and whom he felt was more modern in part because the latter was educated abroad—while King Rama V wasn’t. Therefore, the king believed that Prince Prisdang would give him good advice on how to transform the status of the Thai monarch so as to be respected by civilized nations in the world. He did not want to be seen as inferior to the European monarchs. If Siam had a legitimate form of government, the king reasoned, it would be able to escape from the clutch of colonialism.

Prince Prisdang made a big blunder by disseminating the king’s query as well as many important official documents pertaining to the Thai monarchy to a wider circle. As a result, several government officials had the opportunity to express their views. They wanted to have a constitution in which the power of the king is clearly limited and reduced. This political position emerged 3 years prior to the Meiji constitution.

The king’s reply to Prince Prisdang and others clearly expresses the view that he opposed the constitution or any reduction of royal power—even though England had started serious political reforms since 1832. Although England has no written constitution, that year clearly marked the reduction of royal power and that of the nobility. The House of Commons increasingly gained more importance vis-à-vis the House of Lords. But the Siamese ruling elites weren’t aware of this transition, except for the few who petitioned the king in 1885. In Siam, it seems that only Prince Bichitpreechakorn who openly supported the promulgation of a constitution that circumscribed the monarch’s power along democratic lines. (Here I am excluding commoners like Tianwan.) On the other hand, Prince Devawongse Varoprakarn, reflecting the king’s stance, fully supported absolutism.

Kullada Kesboonchoo Mead has clearly narrated the rise and decline of Thai absolutism in her book of the same name. Therefore, I will not retell it. Benjamin Batson has also recounted well the final years of absolutism in The End of Absolute Monarchy in Siam, which has been translated into the Thai language.

On January 19, 2007 Sulak Sivaraksa will be the keynote speaker at Thammasat University. He will speak on events occurring over the 5 months since the last coup. In light of current events, this will be a sensitive subject. We do hope that the event will pass without incident.

Teaching Tour in Thailand of The Venerable Tenzin Palmo:
January 2007
5 January Seminar “Female Dhamma Masters: Opportunity, Obstacle and Future” 9:00 - 15:00 hrs. Political Science Alumni Association Auditorium, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University
6-7 January Visit to Ven. Dhammananda at Songdham Kalyani Temple, Nakorn Pathom province
8 January Visit to Suan Mokkh in Surath Thani province
9 January The 13th Sem Pringpuangkaew Lecture “Woman Dhamma Masters and Healing of the World” 18.00 - 20.00 hrs. Auditorium Hall, Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University
10 January Talk to Social Venture Network Thailand
11-14 January Meditation Retreat, Wongsanit Ashram, Nakorn Nayok province
16-18 January Meditation Retreat in Chiangmai

For more information, please contact: INEB at ineboffice@yahoo.com

It was a jittery start to 2007 for Thailand as rumours flew about another coup taking place following the New Year Eve bomb blasts.

AS BANGKOK swirled with rumours of an impending coup on Thursday night, a female editor moaned: “Yesterday I was waiting for bombs, today I’m waiting for a coup, tomorrow I don’t know what it will be.”

On Wednesday, soldiers swarmed Thailand’s leading English newspaper The Nation to investigate a bomb threat at the newspaper’s premises in the suburbs of Bangkok.

The 1.18pm phone call that warned “listen carefully, I have set three bombs in your building to go off in three hours”, turned out to be a hoax.

In total, nine sites in the capital and six provinces received bomb threats on that day.

Welcome to a jittery Thailand at the start of 2007.

Since the eight bomb blasts that killed three people in Bangkok on New Year Eve, the country has been hoping for the best and worrying over the worst.

For instance, an explosion was heard outside The Nation building an hour before the bomb threat warning. It was enough to stir anxiety that another bomb – Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil (an industrial blasting agent of 94% ammonium nitrate and 6% petrol) packed with nails and set off by digital alarm clock – had exploded.

False alarm. It turned out that a vehicle tyre had burst on the Bangna-Trat highway that connects Bangkok to Suvarnabhumi Inter- national Airport.

Thailand grew more anxious on Thursday night.

Reports of troop mobilisation led to speculation that hardliners among the Sept 19 coup makers, who ousted then prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, were about to launch another coup to boost their own power.

At about 8pm, the military made a televised announcement on the Army-run TV5 denying troops were being mobilised with ill intent.

“The army urges all citizens not to believe the rumour and be confident in our ability to control the situation. Army chief Gen Sonthi (Bunyarat-kalin) has given an assurance the situation is normal,” it said.

Still, the coup rumours intensified. The denial seemed to give credence that there was indeed a coup.

Later, Assistant Army chief Gen Saprang Kallayanamitr told a radio station: “My boss has been too nice to those who have ill-intent for the country and the people. From now on, we will adjust our strategy and get tough with those people.”

By 10.30pm, the rumours took another swirl. Word went round that the coup was averted as Gen Saprang was locked in negotiations with his bosses, Prime Minister Gen Surayud Chulanont and Gen Sonthi, at the Army Headquarters.

And that depending on the outcome of the negotiations, Surayud may have to step down as interim Prime Minister because hardliners were gunning for tougher measures against Thaksin.

The scenario echoed the words of Sulak Sivaraksa, a 74-year-old social activist who was twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, during an interview on Wednesday.

“This Sept 19 is the weakest coup that we ever had. Because in every coup those who have taken power are in real control.

“They assassinate their opponents, put them in jail or exile them,” he noted.

“But these coup leaders have done nothing. Either they are too goody-goody or they don’t know how to exercise power or there is no unity in the army.”

Yesterday, The Nation reported: “Rumours abound about conflicts within the Council for National Security (CNS, the official name of the coup perpetrators) – and between the CNS and the Surayud government – over how to deal with Thaksin. These conflicts reportedly intensified in the wake of the bomb incidents.”

Sulak also noted that if the interim government were efficient, the New Year’s Eve bombing would not have happened.

“Surayud is a nice man. Sonthi is a nice man. The trouble with this country is we have so many nice men; but they are not efficient,” he explained.

An efficient government, he added, would have taken a harder stance against Thaksin who faced a slew of corruption allegations.

On the consequences of the New Year Eve bombings, Sulak said that if there were more bombings, the Surayud government might have collapsed.

“Somebody will kick them out, somebody within the army,” he said before Thursday’s rumours.

THAI TAKES: By PHILIP GOLINGAI

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.

After considering the statements of the witnesses for both the defense and prosecution, and the complete transcripts of the defendant’s speech, most fair-minded people would question why the defendant had been charged, what was the defendant’s intention, and toward whom was his public talk directed. We cannot only consider literally what he said. We can see clearly that the intention of the talk was to make the students and the people aware so they would be awakened to resist the unjust authority of the NPKC [National Peace-keeping Council] in seizing power from an elected government and its attempts to prolong its hold on power. The talk also tried to clarify the basic principles of democracy, liberty, and equality of the people. No group should use the monarch to serve their own political purposes, and the military groups which have seized power have violated these basic principles throughout the history of Thai democracy. The defendant also denounced the validity of the five points the NPKC used as an excuse for staging the coup. He also condemned individuals and groups that were submissive to the NPKC as having a part in destroying Thailand’s reputation within the international community.

When considering the first and the second phrases that the prosecution charged as lese majeste within the context of the complete talk, it is clear that the defendant sought to teach the students to be conscious of the essence of democracy which has the King as head of state. He warned the students not to live a luxurious, consumer-oriented lifestyle, not to worship being rich, not to admire people in power, and to be concerned about justice and righteousness.

My case during the Thaksin Shinawatra government is similar to the one during the time of Suchinda Kraprayoon. Both leaders were equally tyrannical. Both employed devious legal means to penalize me. I have already warned the inquiry officials to use their judgment wisely based on the final court decision cited above; that is, “within the context of the complete talk, it is clear that the defendant sought to teach the students to be conscious of the essence of democracy which has the King as head of state. He warned the students not to live a luxurious, consumer-oriented lifestyle, not to worship being rich, not to admire people in power, and to be concerned about justice and righteousness.”

In the light of my protest against the construction of the Thai-Burmese gas pipeline on 6 March 1998, I struggled to show that every government had abused power by secretly allowing the Petroleum Authority of Thailand (PTT) to destroy the natural environment without undertaking an environmental impact assessment. The trial ended on 18 August 2006. The court acquitted all the defendants, including me. The court even praised me thus:

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.

I must emphasize that the first trial lasted four years and the second one seven years. Although in both cases the court not only acquitted but also praised me, I must say that the trials consumed a lot of time and money. And my family, relatives, and close associates were psychologically spent though I was granted bail in both cases.

As for the latest case, the charge was filed one day before the coup d’etat. The Royal Thai Police sent a warrant to my office, declaring that Pol. Gen. Charan Chittapunya had accused me of committing lese majeste following the publication of my article in Seeds of Peace (Vol. 21, No. 1, January-April 2005).

The tyrant was overthrown. But the Royal Thai Police is still pursuing the case against me. It continues to summon numerous individuals as witnesses.

More important, the King made it clear that any charge of lese majeste filed would hurt him as well as the monarchy. The Royal Thai Police insists that it is a loyal subject but acts contrarily.

The latest case was expanded, now also involving an English magazine in my network. Previous charges of lese majeste had never involved a foreign language publication. In a royal speech, the King once stated, “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.”

I must stress that pursuing my case to the end will have far-reaching ramifications. The plaintiffs (Pol. Gen. Charan Chittapunya and the Royal Thai Police) are not the only one who will be in trouble because the case involves an English material; as stated earlier, it will be an unprecedented move. And if that English article is translated into the Thai language, the case will gain further publicity, attracting the interest of those who do not read English. At the international level, it is well-known that I have long been seen as a defender of the Thai monarchy.

As John Ralston Saul, a world-renowned writer who was also appointed to the Order of Canada, writes in his personal letter to me: “I’ve just read your April 2006 talk—the Monarchy and the Constitution. It is a very fine piece, which lays out the sort of parameters of justice with which so many countries and systems have struggled. In historic term, it is the perfect argument for a constitutional monarchy. People in other countries could learn from this approach.”

It also must be pointed out that in the latest lese majeste case against me eight other individuals were summoned as witnesses. It seemed that the police chose the eight names blindly, carelessly, and randomly, eliciting little compassion for ordinary citizens. For instance, Mr. Thepsiri Suksopha, who works in Chiangmai province, was asked to come to Bangkok to testify in the case. He drew a picture of Direk Jayanama and Kularb Saipradit (to celebrate their birth centenaries) on the cover of that Seeds of Peace issue. The police thought that it was a picture of Kings Rama VIII and IX.

The things I have stated thus far constitute an important national affair which is linked to the monarchy. I am not sure to what extent the civil servants in the Royal Thai Police and in the Office of the Prime Minister do actually understand their importance even though some of them may have good intentions. I therefore ask Mr. Prime Minister to read my letter and reply personally. (When Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat was premier he personally read and responded to the letter of Phya Saraphaipipat who was an oppositional voice. And when Anand Panyarachun was premier he also personally read and directly responded to my letters.) I also ask Mr. Prime Minister to have moral courage and to personally and immediately take action bypassing the bureaucratic red-tapes.

Yours respectfully,
Sulak Sivaraksa
(The alleged offender)

P.S.

I would like to paraphrase the words of Phya Manavarachasewi, the last Director General of the Office of the Attorney General during absolutism, President of the National Assembly during the Eighth Reign, and one of the Regents to the present King, who stated that it is easy to legally penalize a writer or publisher, but governing a country is based not only on the law but also on the principles of political science, emphasizing legitimacy and the permission of criticism.

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.

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.