Watpa Salawan Chapter 1

“Unless they are found naked together…”

Shame, racial prejudice and ethnic hatred, religious intolerance, criminal activity, civil disobedience, disrespect to Buddhist monks, secret financial dealings, and official apathy are part of what was - and remains -wrong with a Buddhist temple in the northeast Thailand metropolis of Korat, or as the city is officially known, Nakhonratchasima.

Watpa Salawan, a forest temple that in 2005 revered Thai abbot of northeast Thailand Luangta Mahabua himself saw fit to call “A practicing temple that has become a toilet in fundamentals,” is a story of pride and prejudice, of hatred and love.

What has gone on inside and beyond the temple has also been the subject of many intellectual commentaries by such Thai luminaries as Sulak Sivaraksa [who wrote, among other works, Seeds of Peace and Conflict, Culture, Change.]
Buddhism in today’s world is under general assault like other theologies are under assault around the world…from apathy, ignorance, prejudice, oppression and hatred. Too, global social mores that promote greed and impatience cloud individual judgment making, causing fundamental religious principles to appear too limiting and undesirable at best.
Basic religious principles seem to have been waived aside as in the United States where many television evangelists, the people who should illustrate restraint and good citizenship if anyone should, have multi-million dollar homes, luxury cars and undetermined ability to use church funds for their own edification. Yet, they cannot bring themselves to a tax audit.
The same religious meltdown is happening in Thailand where many Buddhist monks and temple abbots have been caught with their robes down – in banks and brothels.

When you talk to most Thais and foreigners in Thailand about Buddhism, you will likely meet welcome smiles, looks of pleasure and what appears to be deep respect toward the religion, its beliefs and accepted practices. But beneath this impressionable facade is another aspect of Buddhism in Thailand – a Buddhism that has more often become more corrupt than credible, a Buddhism that the country’s most revered monks and academics [themselves outside the mainstream fold of the Thai-based Sangha] cite as a national heritage in a great deal of trouble, one often contributing to the country’s woes instead of solving them.

Given this background what happened when I found myself driving into the Watpa Salawan grounds on 12 February 2005 should not have been a complete surprise.

As members of the local Thai media, that morning we had become directly involved in coverage of the temple’s abbot. He was being accused of improper sexual behavior. My Thai wife, owner of the Korat Post newspaper, had received a copy of a document, signed by the senior Sangha authority in Bangkok having jurisdiction over Watpa Salawan, demanding that the temple abbot immediately resign.
She had gone to the temple to discuss the matter with other monks there. It was because she had then called me to say an incident occurred, that she was going to file a complaint with the police that I quickly dressed and followed her over to the temple.

Pulling my truck clearly marked “Press” into the area directly in front of abbot Luang Pho Pherm’s office, I was greeted by a woman standing nearby together with a group of rough-looking men, representing herself then and later as the abbot’s chief defender and proponent with…
“Fuck you! Fuck you! Fuck you! Do you know who I am?”
I had never met this person before. I later discovered her name was Papatchanan Chingin [illegally also using a famous surname, Pringphuangkaew] self-proclaimed caretaker of Buddhism, guardian of Watpa Salawan and of the temple’s abbot. Also a self-proclaimed religious authority and self-proclaimed devout Buddhist, this former common-law wife of the son of a well-known Bangkok scion introduced herself to me in a way she seemed to me to know best – in direct conflict with principles of Buddhism doctrine and practice that she professed to protect.  

As an outsider, a foreigner, and certainly as no authority on Buddhism in Thailand, I am hard-put to demand from readers any sort of recognition that commentary throughout this book, as it pertains to Buddhism – that is, how Buddhism should be practiced and how it is actually practiced and taught, should be accepted as written. My comments are hardly authoritative. They rest on their own as a critique of the Thai religious regime, with regime being used in the broadest sense.

A reader of an editorial comment somewhat critical of Thai society I wrote to a local newspaper editor asked what perch I was sitting on where it was so simple to make judgments about a foreign culture I was living in. In fact, those who judge are not necessarily sitting on a perch, but may have become capable of making judgments based on years of battlefield experience, so to speak.

I consider myself one of those fortunate individuals. I was able to spend well over six years ‘embedded” - as the term seems to be befitting these days - with local Thai media, with them and as one of them.
Representing the Korat Post newspaper, I attended hundreds of Thai language press conferences, seminars, announcements, training sessions, policy speeches, public protests, and more, locally and nationally.
I had to learn local media ropes, doing so with no little help from a friend in Korat, Mr. Soontorn Jungrungsee, owner of the Korat Daily newspaper, who, among many other honors, in 2007 was appointed by His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej as one of the 100 members of Thailand’s constitutional drafting assembly. A fascinating study in and of himself, Soontorn was many years ago pulled out of his bullet-ridden automobile by a friend and lives today, with clearly visible scars on his torso, to tell the tale of how dangerous investigative reporting in Thailand can be.
Soontorn was instrumental in helping me with hundreds of social introductions as well as in printing our local English language newspaper.
Our mutual editorial approach and policies differed significantly. We did not generally feed each other news. There was a tacit agreement between two professionals – he provided a printing service, we provided money for it. Little did I dream that years after we first met I would be facing down one of his former female ‘associates,’ defending myself against her as she charged me as being an enemy of Buddhism and harming the country’s revered monarchy – the latter accusation taken to as far as her fraudulently filing an official complaint with police accusing me of lese majesty.

Khun Soontorn and others helped me and my Thai wife make some headway in our efforts to bring English language media to Korat with their political and publications knowledge, personal introductions, and more. This made it possible to learn more and more about how local members of the press operate, what severe conditions they operate under, how they are expected to behave and how they should behave, how they are bound by local business interests, often to the point of being subservient to them. Embedded like this, with former decades of overseas living in the Middle and Far East, we had an advantage over less-traveled local media in terms of covering news and observing events.

I earned my wings not as a local reporter and editor per se, but by assisting my editor-wife through appearing at frequent ongoing conferences, seminars and meetings to gather Thai language news, translate it into English, and after translation, to publish hardcopy and on our website at www.thekoratpost.com. Over the six-seven years that we published hardcopy, usually monthly and at great personal effort and cost, Korat’s local academic, business and government communities offered almost no encouragement nor assistance. Why is the subject of a chapter in this book.

From this ‘embedded’ perspective, and as a foreigner, I gained valuable insight – some of which is understandably uncomfortable but much also very rewarding – into Thai society, whether that insight is political, social, business or personal.
In reflection when a fellow foreigner asks me, in response to an editorial comment, from which perch I sit, I invite him to come to that same ‘perch,’ the same way, to see whether it is a simple perch or not.

Some background…

From mid-late 2004, several local monks at Watpa Salawan began wondering what their new abbot was really doing.
Their former abbot, Luang Pho Phut, highly respected and a prot?g? of Luangta Mahabua, had passed away. The new abbot, Luang Pho Pherm, moved in from Pakchong district of Nakhonratchasima province and was - in their view - acting inappropriately.
A record of the abbot’s alleged sexual impropriety is contained in subsequent court and police testimony and documents. Signed statements were also made by some ten monks in the temple, most of whom have at the time of this writing either been removed and/or made to face civil and criminal lawsuits sponsored by the abbot and his main advocate, Papatchanan Chingin.
Videotape evidence also shows the woman “Molee” in the abbot’s private quarters at three am the day the incident took place, a fact to which the woman and abbot both signed acknowledgement in a police daily report the same day.

The accusing group of monks claimed that ‘Molee’, an entertainer [singer], had been visiting the abbot frequently in the wee hours of the night, with direct physical contact taking place between the abbot and the woman (allegedly sex, foreplay, etc.) According to one monk witness, he had one woman sitting on the abbot’s lap. The monks alleged to police, media and Sangha authorities that this wrongful behavior had been going on for several weeks. They also later told police that the woman would regularly call ahead on her cell phone to make sure it was all right [that no one was watching] to drop by to visit the abbot.

What exactly was happening between the abbot and the woman remains conjecture. Statements – including in writing and verbal statements presented in court - conflict.
What is also still conjecture is the extent of relationships that the abbot and the woman shared. It may be that details have been fabricated by the abbot and his supporters to make it appear as if the relationship was plutonic when it was not; or that the relationship was constructed by opponents of the abbot. Conjecture was further fed by intimidation, incitement, threats, public pronouncements and public vilification.

In later personal accounts of what ‘really’ happened, the abbot contradicted himself several times, as the reader will note in this book. Such contradictions took place in statements to police, to a national Thai language Buddhism magazine editor, and to other media.
Denials of sexual wrongdoing, though, were difficult to fully support given that Luang Pho Pherm had signed a police daily report statement on 27 October 2004 admitting to being alone with the local woman, who also signed the same admission. But it did not matter. He got off the hook anyhow, later cleared of wrongdoing.
But Watpa Salawan will never be the same.

Some more background…

In her capacity as a local media representative living in the vicinity, my Thai wife had been asked by a temple monk  - a remote cousin living in Watpa Salawan in mid 2004 - what to do about alleged sexual misconduct at the temple between the abbot and the woman.
My wife informed the monk and his associates that clear evidence of the allegations was needed, if it existed. She advised that those monks making accusations should gather clear evidence before making the accusations formal. She indicated that evidence might, for example, include a video tape record if possible, and that the media should be invited to attend any discovery - but in any event to be very circumspect.

Early in the morning of 27 October 2004 my wife received a phone call.
“The abbot was caught this morning with a woman!”
Listening carefully, my wife - who had kept me away from matters concerning the temple because of always-present anti-foreigner sensitivities in Thailand - asked for more information.
She was told that a press conference would be held that morning at the temple by the abbot to explain his version of how a woman was caught in his private quarters. My wife was told that there was videotape evidence of the woman being caught together with the abbot.
Word spread quickly throughout not just the local community and Korat itself, but nationally. Major newspaper and media from television and radio appeared at the temple that morning to hear the accusations against the abbot and the abbot’s reply to them.
My wife went to the press conference. After discussion I went along bringing my digital audio recorder and camera.

The main hall or ‘sala’ at Watpa Salawan that day was crowded with local residents and visitors from the press, police, army and two groups of monks – those who supported the abbot, and those who had made sexual misconduct accusations against him - who had made a video recording purporting to prove the wrongdoing.
Prior to the abbot’s opening remarks, he did not inform those gathered there that earlier that morning he had visited the local police station and signed a written admission that he had been together alone with the woman. The following is a translation of the police report the abbot signed.

Translation

Office of Provincial Police, Meung District, Nakhonratchasima, Office of the National Police, daily report filing for evidence.

No. 1, dated 27 October 2004, at 05:30 hours.
Report
Phra Teep Athirotno, a monk at Watpa Salawan, Phra Phiksu Ratanasophon Thitpalo, Phra Samaan Satho, monks at Watpa Salawan, Mr. Udom Siribru, age 47, house no. 665 Seubsiri Road Soi 3, Nai Meung, Nakhonratchasima province, Mr. Bamroong Meekhoonthod, age 41, house no. 47/1 Dejudom Road, Soi 6, Nai Meung, Nakhonratchasima province, Mr. Samarn Paenphotiklang, age 54, house no. 726 Seubsiri Road, Nai Meung, Nakhonratchasima province, and Phra Monkolwatanakhun (Pherm) abbot of Watpa Salawan, Nai Meung, Nakhonratchasima, Miss Molee Suphanyo, age 48, house no. 455 (located in front of the temple), Seubsiri Road, Soi 3, Nai Meung, Nakhonratchasima province, jointly came to the central district provincial police station wherein temple monks and community members reported that today (27 October 2004) at approximately 02:45 hrs., temple monks and community members saw Miss Molee [Suphanyo] present in the kuti with the abbot together and alone, and as a result did report this to the police for them to investigate. When police officers arrived and investigated, they discovered Miss Molee was, truthfully, together alone with the abbot, and thus invited those involved to go to meet with the provincial Sangha governor at Wat Salaloi, to proceed in accordance with its jurisdiction. The provincial Sangha governor stated that the matter should be internally discussed by all those involved, and thus [all of us] came to the investigating authorities [police] so that a record could be made of this incident that took place and that further action could be taken according to jurisdiction.
Police Lt. Col. Kuankhit Chawajit accepted the report [written] as was intended by the group, and thus made a record thereof, and directed that all concerned affix their signatures to the statement accordingly in evidence [there were signatures of both the abbot and the woman Molee at the place of the incident – which can be viewed from the original report.] See Appendix A, Police statement 1.

End of translation

There are two important points in the above statement…this daily police report. First, the fact that the report of the situation described therein was signed as true by both the abbot and the woman, as well as by police officials. Thus there were four principal parties that attested to ‘admitted facts’: the abbot, the woman, the police and witnesses. Secondly, the report explicitly states that the abbot and the woman Molee were together alone.

One need not ask whether this constitutes a legal admission of wrongdoing, especially in regard to any female presence in a monk’s quarters, especially so early in the morning. Further, what happens when the abbot has a change of mind – which he did in this instance – and later gives at least two different versions of what ‘really’ happened – including one clear inaccuracy that he was told that the woman had not even entered his abode?
That the abbot has previously had serious questions raised concerning alleged financial improprieties when he was an abbot in Pakchong district of Nakhonratchasima province earlier also causes us to question the veracity of his claims, testimony and behavior.

As to the video taken by monks making allegations, it leaves a great deal to be desired. But it also provides evidence that clearly discounts subsequent lies and inaccurate statements made by the abbot and by others on the abbot’s behalf. On the negative side, it does not show the abbot and woman physically together. But it does show the woman inside the abbot’s residence leaving when police arrive.
Already discounting the probability that the abbot would be found guilty, one local policeman, who asked not to be identified, said the same day the two were caught together, “Unless they are photographed naked together, nothing will happen.”
His statement was to prove prophetic.

The video taken by accusing monks is shaky and technical expertise is certainly missing. It shows the woman inside the abbot’s private residence as she is being led outside by a police officer. It also indicates the woman’s personal medicine on the abbot’s bed, as well as the abbot’s robe with pronounced wet stains on it and no powder [the exact status of the abbot’s robe and the stains a policeman on the scene described as “That’s it!” (intentionally misrepresented by Papatchanan Chingin as talcum powder) on it becomes important later]. The abbot’s bed also had a pink heart shaped pillow on it – according to Buddhist beliefs this is forbidden.
These points may seem insignificant to some, but to knowledgeable Buddhists they are very serious and demonstrate a flagrant disregard for Buddhist doctrine on the part of the abbot.
The video also shows the woman distraught as she waits on a bench shortly after leaving the abbot’s residence to be taken to authorities where she jointly signed the admission of being together alone with the abbot. [See Appendix A, Abbot quarters video stills.]

That the abbot became subject to investigation as a result of allegations of sexual misconduct by other monks at the temple who had been watching him for some time is not surprising – this has been happening in Thailand with increasing frequency over the years. What is surprising is the scope and nature of criminal and other unethical activity that took place subsequent to these accusations, under the abbot’s eye and at least some awareness on his part, if not with direct conspiratorial involvement.

As a result of this activity, civil and criminal suits developed, racist and xenophobic harangues resounded over local community radio, and threats of violence against accusers – as well as actual assault and battery – were committed inside and outside the temple. It was all part of an arranged secret conspiracy among the abbot, his supporters and select Thai government officials.

All of the subsequent unpleasantness could have been completely avoided if one person had just kept silent on 12 February 2005. Instead, Papatchanan Chingin chose to publicly harangue, swear at, curse, threaten accusers and us, as well as to order an accomplice to commit assault and battery in front of witnesses – all, according to her, in defense of the abbot, the nation, the religion and the monarchy.  

The 12 February 2005 incident and subsequent events at Watpa Salawan are complicated by several factors. One is what might be viewed as a Thai cultural propensity toward secrecy and apathy. Another factor is that preventable incidents on 27 October 2004 and 12 February 2005, and many afterward, were not prevented by authorities - including by the former provincial governor. In a going-away party for him less than a year of serving, he was complimented as “having close relationships with the local Sangha.” The overall official approach was to view the issue as best handled by the Sangha. In fact the issues were not handled by the Sangha as much as they were first ‘formulated’ by a special steering committee consisting of the abbot and his lay supporters. In March 2005, for example, while Chingin was in Bangkok discussing the case with a Sangha senior official, she received a mobile phone call from the abbot of Watpa Salawan. As we sat next to her, she told the abbot, “Don’t worry, sir. I will handle it. I will take care of everything.”

It seems that Papatchanan Chingin did everything in her power, including attending multiple meetings with senior Sangha officials in Korat and Bangkok, engaging in wrongful public denunciations, engaging in use of violence and coercion, to make it appear as if the abbot was being attacked by foreigners trying to harm Thailand, the monarchy, and Buddhism.
Perhaps most amazingly, Chingin made public charges that my Thai-born wife and I were both foreigners in Thailand attempting to place Thais under foreign domination! This is a frequent and highly effective call to arms by Thai politicians who need to garner sympathy for themselves, almost as effective as charges of lese majeste.

The main issue of the abbot having been caught alone with a woman, and further, having admitted to it, was sidestepped in the limelight and replaced with a xenophobic attack on a foreigner and my wife.

My father-in-law had migrated to Thailand from India.
Although a Hindu, Sirinat raised all of his children as Buddhists. Over the years these children married, ordained and contributed tens of thousands of Baht to Watpa Salawan, and performed annual festivities and rites there.

Some foreigners and Thais have observed that ignoring facts and adoring fiction is a typical Thai way of handling situations that are embarrassing and uncomfortable to deal with. Rather than face issues and tackle them head-on, Thais have been criticized even by many of their own academics as seeming to prefer to imagine that issues are not really issues. In the process, society allows others to remold truth into fiction and fiction into truth.

One of the more important aspects of the story of Watpa Salawan is how crime and punishment are treated and can be expected to be treated in Thailand.
What is recounted in these pages may provide a heads-up to many who are seeking legitimate understanding into what Thailand is and what really makes up today’s ‘Thai culture’. This can provide a unique overview of Thai society so that anyone considering investing in Thailand or moving here for any purpose can get a small idea of what may be faced by him, his children and their descendents – as well as fellow investors.

To what is generally called the Thai, but which more accurately may be called Thai society in general, the concept of punishment itself is generally rationalized away in favor of leniency. This rationale also seems to conflict directly, but does not, with a lurking social propensity toward violence given the slightest provocation – a provocation that need only be imagined.
Punishment in the Thai mindset is held to be too severe a consequence for actions or words – too often provided that the wrongdoer is Thai!
If he or she is foreigner, then another set of standards is put into play. Even His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej has admonished Thai society (and its political and social elite) for possessing double standards and has encouraged Thai society to employ equal standards to all – an appeal lost in a society with growing prejudicial conflicts. 

For the Thai mindset, foreigners are first and foremost to be treated unequally because they are foreigners. This approach protects foreigners from certain unpleasant (and pleasant) aspects of Thai culture and the legal process. It causes foreigners to remain subject to both a positive and a negative bias as a situation may be felt to warrant.

It is essential that the concept of rationalizing punishment and criticism in Thailand be understood.
Further insight may be gain into understanding Thai society by appreciating that in Thailand when you indicate understanding with something, it usually is inferred by Thais that you agree with it. Thus, for example, if you understand the workings of a particular social taboo and express understanding, it would imply that you more or less agree with the taboo. You do not, perhaps, but having indicated you understand it automatically implies agreement.
The principle is similar to a television interview some time ago where two foreigners – an American and an Englishman – were discussing Bin Laden and the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States. The American had had long experience in the Middle East and had lived in Middle East cultures, becoming fluent in Arabic and understanding the local culture. He indicated during the interview, when asked, that he did understand what had prompted the attacks. The interviewer seemed taken aback by this because of the horrific nature of what had been done and a fellow Westerner apparently able to comprehend the justification needed to undertake such terrorist acts.
The mechanism is similar to rationalizations made at Watpa Salawan by supporters of the abbot, by the abbot, and by most government officials involved. While a matter can be extremely important, it can be overlooked in a social misinterpretation of what the issues were that led to the incident in the first place. Unless one understands such basic issues, unless one is exposed to underlying rationale and reasons for action, one cannot comprehend the sense of injustice some feel on the one hand, or on the other, even recognize that injustice is taking place at all.

Cross-cultural realities are not always recognized by foreigners living abroad, even Peace Corps volunteers. An experience I had back in 1966 in Thailand’s Buriram province while serving with the US Peace Corps reminds me of this lack of mutual recognition.

My fellow volunteer and I had been in Buriram province for over a year. We had been working with community development officials when we were joined by a fellow American female volunteer, Sharon Lim. Obviously with the surname she was Chinese American. Attractive and personable, she was pleasant to talk with. I spent some of my free time, accompanied by another American volunteer who later came to the province as a teacher at a local school, talking with Sharon in the early hours of each evening. We reminisced and spent hours just talking. We had overlooked the impression that we had been unintentionally making.

In Thailand (times have changed over the last four decades) previously boys and girls were not often found alone. In our case, our talks with one another were being viewed as highly inappropriate by the school’s female principal and her assistant, who had rented the apartment upstairs from where we were talking. Sharon, being Chinese American, also appeared to them to be more Thai than American, and as a result was fully expected to act Thai, to comply with perceived mores.
A bit dense perhaps, we did not really pay attention to the noise being made by the school’s principal and her assistant upstairs until they became overly obvious in walking across the floor by heavy-footed thumping. One evening after we heard this intentional noise making, we decided that it was time to call it a night.

I walked outside, taking hold of my bicycle to begin the ride home, when Splash!…an entire bucket of water was thrown out the window and landed on my head!
I looked up and issued a brief epithet.
Sharon immediately called out, “It was an accident, I’m sure!”

My fellow male volunteer then walked out and while taking hold of his bicycle, experienced another bucket of water strategically thrown out the window. We were fairly confident that this would never have happened to Thais, and surprised that a Thai school principal would do this.
It was a lesson as well – we had overstepped our bounds as guests, and needed to modify our behavior since modification was not likely on the other end. Whether the host needed to modify her behavior or not was apparently not even part of the equation.

Racial, ethnic and cultural separation of the foreigner from the Thai has both advantages and disadvantages for each. As indicated earlier, it can perpetuate bias, pro and con. On the one hand, the Thai may hold the foreigner in general to be rich, aloof, ignorant of Thai ways and social conditions/beliefs, and willing to subject poorer Thais to harsh [un-Thai] treatment. Such biased assumptions may yet ignore the much harsher treatment that Thais themselves would exact upon one another.
On the other hand, the foreigner may hold the Thai to be anything from outright charming and completely hospitable to treacherous and extremely prejudiced against foreigners.
The prejudices listed here are, of course, subjective value judgments in the extreme and simplistic. But they may aid the reader to understand, in limited depth, some of the unspoken characteristics of Thai society vital to appreciate, given the wide range and scope of international commitments that Thailand is engaged in today as part of a global society.

Misunderstanding of one another’s motives, of course, is not a phenomenon limited to Thailand in host country nationals-foreigner interaction, it is a human frailty. Despite the best intentions one’s immediate behavior can be judged by one’s fellows in any of a thousand ways, and thus leads to conclusions that may be totally wrong.
It is vital to recognize that with this human frailty at work, in Thailand any racial, ethnic and other prejudices add to the already complicated nature of human interaction – doubly important today given a still very strong nationalism trait of Thai society currently at conflict with inroads by the foreign community into various levels of Thai society.
For example, the Chinese community is now unquestionably dominant in politics, economy and society; in entertainment, western and eastern influences pervade; and at the lower end, the unskilled and semi-skilled labor pool, northeast Thais are prevalent. In Korat, according to the statement of a former governor, some 96% of the businesses in the province are run by Chinese.  

As a former Peace Corps volunteer to Thailand, I assume a particular responsibility toward the Thai people to limit my prejudices to the reasonable and to try to deal with those outside of me reasonably no matter how reasonable or unreasonable they may seem to be. This is part of the condition of living abroad: no matter what happens, you must accept certain things to be simple realities that possibly can not or should not be challenged, changed, chided or chosen. On the other hand, as a former Peace Corps volunteer, I also consider myself not merely an observer but an agent of change. Even more than as a foreigner, I consider myself obligated to fight for my own and others’ justice when the fight needs to be waged.
This is where the going gets a bit bumpy.

The process of reform, for example, from non-democratic rule to democratic government is a global process that seems to pit one set of beliefs against another. Simplistically, this conflict is often termed as a confrontation between Western society and non-western society, or between the rich and the poor, or between the East and the West, between the materialistic and the spiritual, between the influential and the powerless, etc. That it is also a conflict between those who wish to be free and those who wish others not to be free is seldom discussed in full, and sadly, never discussed between those who do not wish others to be free and those who wish to be free.
This is where the human frailty element really comes into play, and using the junta in Burma, and a sympathetic Thai government, as examples to illustrate the interactions does not seem to be overly unfair.

The Burmese junta is in office by force majure in the worst sense of the phrase. There was a democratic election but it was disregarded and instead the military took over – for the very same cited reasons that the Thai military has often stepped in – national security and political stability.

Shifting continents for a moment, we recall another democratic election that was abrogated in favor of a ruling elite that also claimed that its actions were for the good national stability – Algeria. In this case, the democratic process led to a democratically elected government that was radicalized by Islamic fundamentalists who were immediately after election victory threatening secular beliefs, including the freedom and rights of women. This new social uprooting pressure was causing national instability as well as international doubt as to the regime’s intent and ability to deal with international matters. Thus the Algerian government dismissed the election results.

The question, of course, is whether the end ever justifies the means.

The answer to this age-old question is two-fold: yes and no. Or perhaps it can be unified into “It depends.”
It depends on whether the ends achieved are right, wrong, fair or unfair, beneficial or non-beneficial. It also depends in a sense on the identity of the party making the judgment. Is it mankind in general, for example, that determines whether a particular political development is right or wrong, worthy of support or opposition? Or is it a given segment of mankind that is solely entitled to make decisions based on what it subjectively feels to be right, wrong, fair or unfair, beneficial or non-beneficial?
The answer to this enigma - for it is an enigma much more than a conundrum - is that all of us on this planet are now involved in an interchange of values, beliefs, actions and speech that pits established beliefs and practices against challenging new ones. Those comfortable with the changes accept them and adjust; those opposed do what they can to stop the process.

One of the realities generally accepted as unfavorable about this global interchange is that it often leads to diminishing or even erasure of traditional cultures. Ways of life are lost, erased, pushed aside or dismissed as easily as a wave of the hand. Subsequent adverse reactions that may lead to increased violent conflict are too often dismissed as unlikely to occur, if not impossible. Whether those ways of life are merely perpetuations of traditional prejudicial living is open to question. One may argue that as fascinating and intrinsic as certain local cultures are, they also possess established prejudices that more often than not abrogate the rights of their community members who have been conditioned and indoctrinated to comply.

It was in a microcosm sense that I found myself head to head with one of the former US Ambassadors to Thailand, Mr. Darryl M. Johnson, with whom I met several times, including during a trip he made to and through Korat.
During a brief conversation with the ambassador, I stated, based on my own observations which I felt were valid, that, ”There is a significant element in Thai society that is anti-American.”
Mr. Johnson immediately retorted, “It’s NOT significant!”
I let his comment go by without argument because it would have been worthless to argue. First, as a former Peace Corps to Thailand volunteer himself Mr. Johnson should have been aware of the propensity for State Department officials such as himself to minimize negative aspects of American foreign policy and to maximize beneficial appearances, and he should have had its eyes more open to Thai sensitivities, an issue Mr. Suttichai Yoon of the Nation Group often toys with during interviews with foreign dignitaries.

This is what diplomacy is all about in a sense – making things look good.
All one needs to do is to open one’s eyes and ears to listen to Thai comments, read Thai literature and to speak with various social levels of Thais to appreciate that there is an underlying prejudice against foreigners in general and westerners in particular (with Americans now up at the top thanks to American military adventurism/Israeli dominance over American domestic and foreign policies).
There is also a near-absolute prejudice in favor of Thais that demands adherence to what is conventionally considered as Thai values. The phenomenon is nationalism at work.

That values may not be Thai so much as they are merely nationalistic is not considered important: what seems to matter far more is the appearance of being Thai versus an appearance of being non-Thai and as a result to possibly be a traitor or sell-out to foreign interests deemed to be seeking to subjugate the Thai people, the Thai nation and the country’s institutions. In short, there is an inferiority complex at work. Some of this is explanation for the Thaksin ShinCorp stock sell-off issue.

Foreigners in many countries, including the US and Thailand, are often made a tool to promote vested interests where often at the same time these interests subvert justice and fair play. When foreigners either present in Thailand or abroad are seen to subvert – or are represented as subverting - Thai values or act in ways that are directly in confrontation with these values, or worse, when resistance to foreign ideas can best be accomplished by making it appear to fellow Thais that foreigners are seeking to create wrongful inroads into Thai society or to subjugate Thais to foreign domination, then this can be used as a tool to achieve vested interests.

This is the process that was at work at Watpa Salawan, Korat from 2004 to 2006. It is still at work undermining credibility of legitimate inquiry into criminal, unethical and other wrongful actions that have transformed this forest temple from one of the most respected temples in northeast Thailand to one where questions are forbidden and those who question are cursed.

Has a “practicing temple become a toilet in fundamentals,” as Luangta Mahabua has charged Watpa Salawan of having become? 

Given the broad range of questions that have been raised in reference to the temple and its administration, the apparent apathy and general non-responsiveness from authorities in response to those questions, it is evident that the Thai Sangha, and Thai society in general, are beset by internal and external challenges that make even basic understanding and practice of the Lord Buddha’s Middle Path sometimes impossible.

One of the questions being raised but not answered here is where the line is – or should be - between secularism and religion. This question, answered in the United States by an early separation of church and state that is now clouded by state inroads into free practice of  religion, has also been raised in alarming proportion in the global Muslim community by such things as publication of cartoons in Denmark depicting the Prophet Mohammed (even though in Iran there are thousands of artistic renderings of the Prophet, many of them on public display), and in interpretational and theological conflicts between the public and authorities the world over.
In the case of Watpa Salawan, did the Sangha have the sole right to restrict inquiries into what was happening inside the temple, or should secular authorities have taken a more prominent role? Who draws the line, and when? How much control should secular society and institutions exert over religious ones, and vice-versa? Are foreigners taking unfair advantage of Thailand, or are Thais themselves taking much more unfair advantage of one another? Does it matter?

Thai society as a patronage system deals with these issues traditionally and generally ineffectively, glossing over wrongdoing and replacing it with appeals to reconcile. It would be fine if this approach solved problems rather than temporarily resolving them, but this is not what occurs. Words such as reconciliation, peaceful coexistence, tolerance and understanding are bandied about in Thailand almost as if they mean nothing. Perhaps at Watpa Salawan, and in many, many other places throughout Thailand and the world in general, they do mean nothing. And if this is the case, caveat emptor in business or marriage.