Last week’s brutal crackdown on protests in Burma will not stop the growing movement for reform in the pariah state, pro-democracy leaders in exile said Friday in Bangkok.

The unprecedented Buddhist monk-led protests ignited a fire among long-suffering Burmese that will not be easily extinguished, but the international community must pressure the military regime to avoid further bloodshed, the activists told a Bangkok press conference.

“Many people are saying the Burmese revolt is over, but that is not true,” said Naing Aung of the Forum for Democracy in Burma. “A movement that brought out 1 million people willing to defy bullets cannot easily disappear.”

Leaders of several groups said the images thousands of monks marching peacefully, and finally being beaten, had brought together both Burmese citizens and people around the world to stand up to the regime.

“Those two contradictory images of peace and brutality were powerful for the world to see, but this has been going on in Burma for the last 50 years, especially in the ethnic areas,” said Salai Lian Sahkong of the Ethnic Nationalities Council.

“We have been suffering and dying and crying without the world knowing about it, but now the people of Burma are uniting, and we’re saying: ‘no more killing, no more beating.’”

The exiled pro-democracy leaders agreed that the moral authority of the country’s monks has lent powerful impetus to the movement, and said the military regime is fearful because it has not been able to control the monkhood.

“People in the communities always give food to the monks, but now the people have started to go to the monks to ask them for food,” said Naing Aung of the Forum for Democracy in Burma. “The monks see how the people are suffering, and as the moral authority of the communities, they are now demanding to change the system.”

Khin Ohmas, an advocate for political prisoners and veteran of the mass 1988 democracy uprising that ended with a bloody crackdown, said the resurgent movement is stronger for past experiences and for the new leadership of the monks.

“When we were out in the streets, many people might’ve just seen us as rebellious kids - and, in a way, we were,” she said. “But now people see that the monks are leading the way, and they represent the highest level of respect in our society.”

Sulak Sivaraksa, a Thai author, teacher and devout Buddhist, said monks have a duty to be involved in politics when injustice is being committed.

“Buddhist monks must strive for peace on the inside, and peace on the outside - it is about looking for balance all through life - and politics is part of that whole,” he said. “It is only in the West that Buddhism has become some kind of escape.”

U Maung Maung, of the National Council of the Union of Burma, rejected the commonly held idea that the military junta is deaf to international criticism.

“If you don’t read Burmese, you may think that,” he said. “But the Burmese media, which are run by the regime, they are reacting all the time to what the US says, the EU, the UN. They do care about international opinion, and it is important to pressure them.”

Bangkok Post

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

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