Were Thanpuying Phoonsuk Banomyong to have lived to 2 January 2008, she would have completed her 8th cycle; that is, she would have been 96 years old. For those of us who have great respect for her, we even hoped that she would live even longer and continue to serve as an important source of moral support. Among our contemporaries, it is impossible to find someone like her. She had deftly blended traditional notions of femininity with modern values associated with meaningful democracy. She had stood with the marginalized and steadfastly upheld truthfulness and nonviolence. She was also a loyal subject of the royal family, whom she had served since the time of H.M. Queen Sawang Vadhana, Grand mother of Rama VIII and Rama IX. And the one who had granted her the name “Phoonsuk.” was none other than H.M. Queen Saovabha, Mother of Rama VI and Rama VII.

Thanpuying Phoonsuk dearly loved her husband and children. She served as a model wife and mother. She extended her love and compassion to others as well. In this respect, she was a true Buddhist. She never violated the Five Precepts and was full of generosity. Above all, she never developed a grudge against all those who had oppressed, directly or otherwise, her and her family, in particular her husband and son.

Were Thanpuying Phoonsuk to live to 24 June 2007 she would have been the last living witness of the 1932 Revolution in Siam, a revolution that has been consistently betrayed and perverted by numerous dictatorships in various guises, including the most recent coup on 19 September 2006. That Thanpuying Phoonsuk will not be around to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the revolution is perhaps appropriate, since the political climate in the country is morally and democratically half-baked at present.

More significantly, she passed away on 11 May (or 12 May based on the modern calendar), which is the day of birth of her husband. The two had been a loyal couple. Together they had persevered through many hardships and difficulties. But Thanpuying Phoonsuk had always considered the sufferings of the people to be more severe than her own. Therefore she was able to confront her personal sufferings with strength, courage, and mindfulness. Again, this shows that she was a true Buddhist. In contemporary Thai society, it is difficult to find someone of comparable status manifesting this feature. Understanding the multifaceted sufferings faced by the majority of her compatriots, she collaborated with her husband and devoted her life to the cause of emancipating them from these sufferings—politically, economically, and culturally. Of course, it is still unaccomplished because of the exiting negative structures that are highly unjust and violent at the national and international levels.

Ajarn Pridi had failed in his revolutionary ambition. Conservative, anti-democratic, and anti-revolutionary forces were by and large the order of the day. But this defeat can be seen as only temporary. Nothing is permanent. I believe that the seeds of democracy nurtured and sowed by Pridi and the People’s Party along with the Free Thai Movement that helped liberate Siam during World War II will be reactivated prior to the centennial anniversary of the revolution. Miracles do happen. At least Thanpuying Phoonsuk had lived long enough to commemorate the 100th birth anniversary of her husband, whom the Thai ruling elites have consistently betrayed since 8 November 1947. She also witnessed the commemorative ceremony marking the 60th anniversary of the end of WWII in Siam on 16 August, 2005 which meant that Siam was not on the defeated side despite the fact that the Thai government had declared war against the allies due to the Free Thai Movement led by her husband. The movement was likewise betrayed by the ruling elites.

Among Thais, Ajarn Pridi was the exception rather than the rule. He never lusted for more power when assuming political positions. He always sided with the marginalized. He was also an exceptional Thai man in the sense that he had never been disloyal to his wife. He was devoted to his family but never pampered them with luxuries even when he had the means and capacity to do so. Equally important, Pridi was devoted to the Thai people and to humanity at large. He sacrificed a lot of personal energy, time, and money. On the last point, he built a publishing house and a printing press prior to the 1932 Revolution. Then he collaborated with his friends to launch the Bank of Asia. Finally, he donated these establishments to the newly opened University of Moral and Political Science (Thammasat) so that it would be independent from government interference. He also refused to accept any remittance for participating in the board meetings of state and private enterprises. Thanpuying Phoonsuk firmly supported this decision. (more…)

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.

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.