WELL-KNOWN social critic Sulak Sivaraksa says he will petition both the United Nations and the National Human Rights Commission and file a case in the Administrative Court to challenge the police’s decision to ‘. ban and confiscate one of his recent books, which touched. on politics and the monarchy.

“I can assure you that all that I wrote was ‘true,” Sulak told The Nation.

“For three decades now, the authorities have not stopped harassing citizens and even [Prime Minister] Surayud [Chulanont] once remarked that police are like the mafia.”

Sulak said he received a Special Branch police notice on Tuesday ordering him to stop printing, selling and disseminating the book “A Quarter of a Century of Thai Politics: A Thorn-filled Path”, published by Song Siam publishing house.He said the order claimed the book “may cause unrest and degrade good morals” in Thai society, a charge Sulak rejected.

“I don’t know where and how many copies they have confiscated already.”

He said the printing law cited in the police order dated from, the dictatorial era of 1941.

“I also heard a rumour that they may come and arrest me,” said Sulak, who has twice been tried and acquitted on lese majeste charges.

A source who asked not to be named said the whole affair was putting the Surayud administration in a negative light and may be part of a plan by some influential group seeking to undermine the interim government.

Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation

——————————————————————

published in The Nation, October 4, 2007

The Special Branch Police has banned a book on Thai democracy written by respected scholar Sulak Sivaraksa.

The ban on Khawn Sattawat Prachatippatai Thai (Thai Democracy After More Than Half A Century) was issued by Pol Maj-Gen Sombat Supacheeva, chief of the Special Branch Police printed media affairs section, who claimed the book ”undermines social order and public morals”.

Police said sales and distribution of the book are prohibited. They will confiscate copies already on sale.

Mr Sulak said the ban came as a surprise since the book, an anthology of his articles and speeches, was released in March. He doubted the ban was politically motivated.

”Normally I would say this case reflects an attempt to suppress freedom of expression. But this time I think there is a hidden agenda as it will tarnish the government’s image and may derail the planned election,” he said.

He has asked human rights lawyer Somchai Hom-laor to bring the case to the Administrative Court and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

He denied that his book undermines social order as claimed by the police.

”This is preposterous. What I wrote were the facts. [Police] must prove that I was wrong before banning it. My book is little or nothing compared to threats from corrupt politicians and the use of taxpayer money to sponsor lavish functions,” said the outspoken scholar.

Mr Sulak has been in hot water before for his forthright remarks on social and political issues. He was charged with lese majeste several times but acquitted.

Many of his recent works are on sensitive topics. For instance, he wrote a review of The King Never Smiles, a banned book, for Pacarayasara, a bi-monthly magazine published by the Sathien Koset Nakhapratheep Foundation.”

—————————————————

published in Bangkok Post, October 4, 2007

On October 2nd, 2007 the Special Branch of Police issued a warrant to confiscate Sulak Sivaraksa’s Thai book entitled “75 Years of Thai Democracy: Full of Obstacles” citing the Criminal Law that the book creates unrest in Thai Society. There is not yet a warrant of arrest on the author.

For more information about this case please called 02 236 7783, 086 566 3735, 084 066 7161

Five days after the National Peace-keeping Council (NPKC) overthrew the democratically elected Chatichai Choonhavan government on 23 February 1991, the Asian Wall Street Journal came to interview me—at that time, the local dailies were too afraid to do so. In the interview I insisted on the following points. Thais in general would initially support the new rulers after the removal of the previous government. They wouldn’t see it as unjust to usurp power illegitimately. However, three months later, the people would begin to get dissatisfied with the new government. After six months, they would start criticizing and denouncing the new government. They might even feel nostalgic for the good old days under the previous regime, often forgetting its sins or flaws. This is either because the new government is really worse than the one before; or the government in power is often seen as worse than the one out of power. This has long been the case.

One month after the NPKC coup d’etat, I passed by Los Angeles, USA. The Thai newspaper in L.A. is called Siam Media. And the Association of Thai Journalists in California invited me to give a talk on Thai politics, which I gladly complied. The event took place on 22 March, and it was news in Siam Media. Subsequently, Matichon newspaper in Bangkok sent someone to inform me that I should not criticize the NPKC abroad. (Before that, someone big in Matichon who was close to someone big in the NPKC had also told me not to publicly oppose the NPKC.) I thanked the informer for the message, but replied that it was an impossible demand.

Three months after the coup, I was invited to give a talk along with Mr. Phoovadon Songprasert at Thammasat University. Only one local daily (and in this case it happened to be an English one) reported on what I had said in a very brief manner. Moreover, Phoovadon’s views, which I consider to be better than mine, were not reported at all. Subsequently, some thugs even beat him up.

Prior to that, I had been a Matichon columnist. At the time the standpoint of the newspaper was that the NPKC was a just dictatorship. I held the opposite view, however. Therefore, I resigned from the newspaper—though I remained close to its boss.

Six months after the coup, I was once again invited to give a talk at Thammasat University. The talk was entitled “Six Months of the NPKC: A Regression in Thai Democracy.” General Suchinda Kraprayoon lodged an anti-defamation suit against me because of this talk. Moreover, he also charged me with lese majeste because of this speech.

(more…)

RE: Requesting for fairness in the prosecution of two lese majeste cases
Enclosed: Three letters written to the prime minister and two reply letters from the Prime Minister’s Office

Dear Acting National Police Chief Seripisuth Temiyavej,

First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your new important position. To my knowledge, you are known for your fairness and compassion for ordinary citizens. As such, you are different from the national police chief under the Thaksin government. Also, the prime minister seems to be of this view. As reported in Thai Post newspaper on 19 January:

The Prime Minister criticized the inefficiency of the police, their inability to adapt to social changes. The whole system needs to be revamped. All the police care about is catching thugs at the expense of other considerations and with disregard for the consequences. The police are used to the patron-client system and are prone to abuse the freedom of others. The Prime Minister is determined to set in motion police reforms in an open and honest manner to regain the trust of the people.

It is clear that former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra persecuted me for my oppositional views by filing the two charges of lese majeste against me. The letters I sent to the prime minister were forwarded by the Prime Minister’s Office to the Royal Thai Police Office to be used in the deliberation of the prosecution against me. I have called for the ending of the prosecution. (Please refer to the enclosed materials.) But the Royal Thai Police Office seems indifferent.

Therefore, I write to call upon your impartiality to bring about an end to the prosecution so as not to disturb H.M. the King. The King made it clear that any charge of lese majeste filed would not only hurt him but also the monarchy.

Ending the prosecution will facilitate national reconciliation and solidarity. The second lese majeste case lodged against me has to do with an English material that still has not been translated into Thai. Its translation into Thai will lead to widespread ramifications, and the translator may even face the charge of lese majeste as in the case faced by former police chief Pol. Gen. Sawat Amornwiwat.

If my case is brought to the attention of the international community, the credibility and image of the kingdom will be undermined. The king had raised this point before in one of the royal speeches. I am known nationally as well as internationally as a royalist who wants to protect the monarchy within the framework of democracy.

Previous charges of lese majeste lodged against me were also done with malice, for instance at the time when General Arthit Kamlang-ake was jockeying for power vis-à-vis Prime Minister Prem Tinsulanonda. In this particular case, my lese majeste case was already sent to the military court, but the prime minister intervened to stop it. And when General Suchinda Kraprayoon illegally toppled the Chatichai Choonhavan government, my trial lasted four years. I was eventually acquitted of the charge of lese majeste. The court affirmed my innocence, declaring thus:

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 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.

I am confident that you fully understand the court’s decision cited above and that you have the moral courage to order the ending of the prosecution when it is still within the authority of the national police chief to do so.

Yours respectfully,
Sulak Sivaraksa
(The alleged offender)

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.

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.

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

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.

Subscribe