Siam: a nation for all peoples

The issue of changing the name of Thailand back to the old name of Siam has been in the news again recently. This is thanks to a petition launched by historian Charnvit Kasetsiri. The Nation reports:

"People who have been part of our country have different ethnic, linguistic and cultural identities. Therefore, to reflect historical fact and the present reality, the name of the country should be Siam, not Thailand," historian Charnvit Kasetsiri wrote in an open letter issued yesterday.

This is a viewpoint I am quite familiar with as it is also a frequent theme of Sulak Sivaraksa's writings. Sulak even goes so far as to refuse to use the name Thailand. For a little bit more background on the history of the names Siam and Thailand Wikipedia is a good place to start.

The country's official name was Siam (Thai: สยาม; IPA: [saˈjaːm], RTGS: Sayam) until 24 June 1939. [1] It was again called Siam between 1945 and May 11, 1949, when it was once again changed by official proclamation. The word Thai (ไทย) means "freedom" in the Thai language and is also the name of the majority ethnic group.

It is the nationalist sentiments in the name Thailand that are of most concern. The name implies that Thailand is a land for the Thai people. However, this excludes other ethnic groups, many of whom continue to be denied basic rights or are subject to education and propoganda which forces them to assume a Thai identity. Sulak's viewpoint is better explained in this book review by Jeffrey Sng:

He decries the name change from " Siam" to " Thailand" on June 24, 1939, as an attempt to claim ownership of this country for ethnic Thais at the expense of the Mon, Lao, Cambodian, Shan, Malay, hill-tribe and other ethnic minorities in our population. At a lecture he delivered at the Siam Society earlier this year, Sulak traced [he problem of separatist violence in the South back to a nationalist agenda which sought to establish the primacy of Thais over other ethnic groups- Modern Thai nationalism which emphasises the primacy of the former and its right to dominate other ethnic groups in the polity has alienated minorities, especially the Malay Muslims in the southern provinces. Sulak continues to campaign to have the Kingdom's name changed back to " Siam".

Sanitsuda Ekachai has an opinion piece (link via 2Bangkok.com) in the Bangkok Post further discussing the issue. She also identifies the issue of exclusion of minority groups as a key problem in the name and mindset that go with the name Thailand. She writes:

Name is a very important part of our identity. It defines how we see ourselves and how we relate to others. Naming is political, and politically dangerous when it makes one particular group more powerful than others.

While the inclusive Siam is more in line with our pluralistic society, the word Thailand gives ownership to only the ethnic Thais while alienating other ethnic groups as "the outsiders".

She concludes by saying:

For Acharn Charnvit, embracing cultural pluralism is the key. Reverting to Siam or not, discussing the pros and cons of it so we understand who are manipulating our sense of identity and what ugly forces are behind our patriotism, is a start in the right direction.

If his campaign has only received lukewarm reception, it is not his fault. The Pibul regime is long gone, but its racist legacy is deeply rooted in our minds, thanks to the education system and popular media. If we choose the path of prejudice and heartlessness through ethno-centric nationalism, we have but ourselves to blame.

I wholeheartedly agree and await the day when Thailand is once again Siam.

David Streckfuss on lese majeste

There is an excellent article in the Bangkok Post about the lese majeste law by David Streckfuss, academic and author of Modern Thai Monarchy and Cultural Politics.

Streckfuss discusses the use of the lese majeste law and suggests it does nothing to protect the monarchy. After noting some details of what HM the King himself had to say about lese majeste in his 4 December 2005 speech he goes on to note:

Lese majeste as it manifests itself in Thai political society represents a serious threat to the freedom of expression as guaranteed in Section 39 of the 1997 constitution. It inevitably becomes a political tool aimed at suppression of criticism.

As the King suggests, it also tarnishes the reputation of the monarchy when unscrupulous parties - or maybe even anyone - decide to level the charge. And yet even to talk about lese majeste impugns the patriotism of the speaker. How can this measure, fortified in the days of dictatorship, be reined in?

Thailand Jumped the Shark has also linked to the article and has some more comments.

Book review: Keeping the Faith

It's hard to believe that I wrote this review five years ago. I thought I would post it here. The book is a good one and still remains very relevant to Siam today.



Keeping the Faith: Thai Buddhism at the Crossroads
by Sanitsuda Ekachai
Bangkok: Post Books, 2001
ISBN: 974-228-016-9

Being at the crossroads means there is a choice about what direction can be taken. Each choice leads to a different destination and each road has its own characteristics. Some roads might be smooth, others might be rough and at worst some might be impassible.

Some of the problems facing Thai Buddhism are well known. For example, the sex and money scandals involving monks and the extreme conservatism of the Sangha council. Seeds of Peace readers will also be familiar with the more positive aspects of Thai Buddhism. The monks working for community development and environmental protection and the promotion of women’s status through attempts to establish the bhikkhuni order in Thailand.

Hence there are two main roads that can be found in this book, each leading to very different destinations. One road is the path of decline of the Buddha sasana due to the forces of consumerism, greed and lust. The other road is one less travelled but leading to a revival of the religion as Buddhism is used as a means to address social and environmental problems.

Keeping the Faith is a collection of articles written for the Bangkok Post over more than ten years. Interestingly, the book begins with some stories of people who have been able to remember and recount their previous lives. This is perhaps an antidote to the all pervasive attitude of materialism that has led most Thais to abandon their belief in rebirth. And with abandoning that belief they also give up on the even more important ethical guidelines of Buddhism. It is perhaps this which is a major part of the crisis in Thai Buddhism that is evidenced in this book.

Sex scandals involving monks have become so common place in Thailand these days that unless they involve a senior member of the Sangha they are not even seen as newsworthy. “Is a chaste life realistic in this society when even coffee must be sexy in order to be sold?” Sanitsuda asks. Sulak Sivaraksa comments that monks “have mistaken a chaste life as meaning only celibacy. Senior monks are then living in luxurious quarters similar to those of millionaires. They are riding in Volvos and Mercedes… They are strict on rules and forms which show that they are pure. But their way of life directly violates the pious existence prescribed by the Buddha.”

A reaction to this has been the formation of new sects. Santi Asoke is the one of a number of controversial sects in Thai Buddhism. Its leader Phra Bodhirak disrobed and ostracized from the mainstream Sangha. In contrast the other major controversial sect in Thailand, Dhammakaya, maintains a relationship with the mainstream Sangha, albeit a somewhat uncomfortable one. Perhaps this is because the capitalist nature of Dhammakaya and its large following among educated, urban Thais poses less of a threat to the status quo than the self-sufficiency and anti-consumerism promoted by Santi Asoke.

Outside these two large organisations though there is perhaps a much quieter revolution going on. This revolution does not grab the same headlines as the many controversies that have seemingly engulfed Thai Buddhism, but it is a revolution that will perhaps lead Thai society in a more positive direction in the future.

Sanitsuda details some of the fruits of this revolution. The revival of traditional medicines and methods of healing in the temples; the ordination of trees to protect Thailand’s rapidly diminishing forests; training monks in techniques of nonviolence; and changing some of the rituals to make them more meaningful and relevant to lay people.

Yet there is perhaps one revolution that has yet to take place, or is at least only in the early stages. That is the elevation of women to their rightful place as spiritual equals of men in the world of Thai Buddhism. Sanitsuda recounts an interview with the deputy abbot of Dhammakaya where she asked the monk his view on women’s spiritual status. He responded that women are spiritually inferior to men, which is why they are born women in the first place. Unfortunately such attitudes run deep through Thai Buddhism and perhaps represent the greatest obstacle to the genuine and meaningful reform of Thai Buddhism.

The problem is not the Buddha sasana but patriarchy. “To look for reasons in Buddhism is misleading because popular Thai Buddhism—like many other Thai cultural norms—has been coloured by the values based on male dominance and the belief that women are but male property, to entertain and nurture male egos and desires,” says Dr Chatsumarn Kabilsingh, now Samaneri Dhammananda, who went to Sri Lanka to be ordained as a samaneri (novice) last year. Historically Thailand has never had a bhikkhuni order and this is one of the many excuses used by those who oppose its introduction to the country. How much longer such excuses will hold up is open to question. The moral lapses of the Sangha and the willingness of Thai people to seek alternative spiritual paths detailed in this book shows that Thai people are willing to embrace something new, especially when it fulfills a need that cannot be satisfied by existing institutions. Let’s hope that the bhikkhuni ordination proves to be a case in point.

Keeping the Faith chronicles the events of Thai Buddhism over the past decade. It shows that it has not so much been a period of decline, but a time in which a revival and decline have been occurring in parallel. Hence Thai Buddhism may still be at the crossroads, but the choice of which road to take might also be becoming clearer.

*published in Seeds of Peace Vol. 18 No. 2 May – Aug. 2002

Buddhism and the constitution

Since the establishment to a constitutional monarchy in Siam in 1932 the nation has had 17 charters and constitutions. The "People's Constitution", proclaimed in 1997, was supposedly a landmark in Thailand's democratic development. It allowed for democratic election of both houses of parliament and explicitly acknowledged human rights. However, this constitution was replaced by an interim constitution following the 19 September 2006 coup.

The first draft of the constitution is set to be tabled this week. One major issue regarding the new constitution is whether to make Buddhism the national religion.

Sanitsuda Ekachai comments in an opinion piece in the Bangkok Post. She notes some of the problems that exist in Buddhist institutions in Thailand such as "extremely rich clergy are already enjoying heavy support from the state" and "no outside help can cure the clergy of the ills that stem from their own feudalistic and authoritarian structure which breeds inertia, nepotism and corruption." Strong words, but necessary I think. Sanitsuda goes on to say that most of what the Thais call Buddhism is nothing more than animism or spirit worship anyway.

Sulak Sivaraksa was interviewed by Radio Australia and has this to say about Buddhism and the constitution.

It is most inappropriate. Because Buddhism is universal - it includes all humanity and all sentinel beings. Once you make it part and parcel of nationalism you endanger not only Buddhism, you endanger nationalism also

Sulak goes on to say that while the King is required to be Buddhist under Thai law all other Thai citizens are free to choose their religion. The King himself opposed making Buddhism part of the 1997 constitution. According to Sulak this is "wise from the head of state". The King must govern for all the Thai people, a significant minority of whom are not Buddhist.

I will add my own opinion here. If the Buddhist clergy are so intent on being part of the constitution then perhaps they could also enact their own democratic reforms. They could democratically elect the Sangharaja and members of the Sangha Council. Any monk who has completed two rains retreats should be eligible to vote.

Finally, the most important thing the constitution should guarantee is freedom of religion. This would not only protect Buddhism, but minority religions in Siam. Any attempt to make Buddhism the official religion would only further marginalise those that are already marginalised. It would further reduce hopes for an end to the conflict in the South.

Lese majeste in the news and charges against Sulak

The Christian Science Monitor has an article about lese majeste laws in Thailand. It includes comments from Ajarn Sulak Sivaraksa who is currently subject to charges of lese majeste.

Sulak, a British-educated lawyer and Buddhist scholar, is facing two separate lèse-majesté cases over articles published in academic journals. He denies showing disrespect, though he says he advocates a modernization of the crown similar to that of European royalty, and the repeal of lèse-majesté laws, so that the institution remains relevant to Thailand.

Ajarn Sulak is a public intellectual of the highest integrity. His writings are based on a very deep knowledge and understanding of Thai history and culture. He is actually a supporter of constitutional monarchy. Canadian writer and intellectual John Ralston Saul wrote in a personal letter to Ajarn Sulak,

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 terms, it is the perfect argument for a constitutional monarchy. People in other countries could learn from this approach.

What Sulak is in fact critical of is those who use the monarchy and lese majeste laws as a political tool. In a speech on 4 December 2005, His Majesty the King himself epressed a desire to terminate the charge of lese majeste. He suggested that bringing the charge of lese majeste is in itself harmful.

Some more articles and letters concerning Ajarn Sulak's case can be found at his blog and at www.sulak-sivaraksa.org.