PHRA METHEE DHAMMACHARN
THE SUPPORTER
Why are you urging a prompt endorsement of the 20th supreme patriarch?
The clergy is governed under the 1962 Sangha Act. During the time when Thailand was still an absolute monarchy, the king’s duties included governing both the people and supporting Buddhism. But after the 1932 revolution, in which Thailand changed to a democracy, Buddhism was neglected. In the past, the state and religion respected one another. Although monks were under the law, they had the right to govern themselves. Now you have a situation in which the SSC, the governing body of the country’s monks, nominated Somdet Chuang as the new supreme patriarch, but the state has not yet acted upon the resolution.
According to Section 7 of the Sangha Act, the SSC has the duty to select the supreme patriarch, while the King has the power to appoint the supreme patriarch. The government acts as the messenger by forwarding the name to the Royal Household Bureau. In the same way, the clergy has never meddled with state affairs. For instance, we accept all governments regardless of whether they came into power through democratic means or a military coup. According to the law, monks do not have the right to vote under any circumstance, due to the separation of religion and state. If the government today is this close [to interference], it means the clergy has totally failed in self-governance because they have lost that power.
Somdet Chuang is seen as having close ties to the controversial Dhammakaya temple. If this is true, would it have a negative effect on his role as supreme patriarch, given that many see Dhammakaya as a cult that has distorted the Buddha’s teachings to increase its wealth?
I admire Somdet Chuang’s virtuousness in being the preceptor of the abbot of Wat Dhammakaya. At this time, people look at the expansion of the temple and connect it to politics rather than looking at it as violating Buddhist discipline. Many people are afraid that the temple will control both the state and religion. They view the supreme patriarch as being the preceptor of the clergy, while [Dhammakaya] has many followers. They are afraid that this will affect election outcomes.
I have never had anything to do with this temple. I have never entered it and I have never seen this temple before. I do not have a relationship with them and I do not have to protect them. But the complaint regarding disciplinary action [against Phra Dhammachayo] was withdrawn in 1999 before a hearing could begin. If any issue arises regarding the temple, it is possible to proceed with disciplinary and legal actions. Somdet Chuang has never protected the temple. The issue of ethics is used as a justification to prevent the appointment of the supreme patriarch.
Somdet Chuang has faced criticism for owning a vintage Mercedes-Benz that the Department of Special Investigation says was illegally imported and registered. Would it be right to support someone who is under criminal investigation?
The government needs to realise that what is happening to Somdet Chuang is not a conflict. There is a small group of people who tried to set up a situation in order to create chaos and
conflict, leading to the prevention of the appointment of the supreme patriarch. The issue with the cars is a political issue. Up until now, the DSI has only publicly stated that the car was obtained in a wrongful manner, and they left people to come up with their own conclusion that since the car is wrong, the car owner is also wrong. The DSI has not yet provided a full picture of the case; they only mention the beginning. Monks nationwide pay respect to Somdet Chuang because we have been together for such a long time. If Somdet Chuang is aware that this issue is wrong, why would he risk losing his honour just for one car? I would like the DSI to quickly clear up this issue.
Do you think the dispute over the nomination of the supreme patriarch is politically motivated?
I want the government to respect the clergy, which has the right to self-govern. I am concerned that there will be disunity, because now many monks of the Maha Nikaya school are asking why it is so difficult for someone from their school to be appointed as supreme patriarch. Some groups are even proposing a separate governing body such as the system used in Sri Lanka or Cambodia, where there are two supreme patriarchs for the two different sects. That is not what we want.
As for the other side, there is a small group of people who are setting up a situation in order to create chaos. These agenda-driven people are political and religious hardcores who mix politics with the clergy in order to stir chaos.
Can you elaborate on exactly how they are using politics to cause chaos?
Right now the country is politically divided, and there is a view that most monks are on one side. So when the other side rises to power, they cooperate with those in power to attack their opponents. That is why I say that the temple at Pathum Thani [Wat Dhammakaya] does not reflect disciplinary issues but political issues. They fear that there will be a domination of the state and clergy; that if the clergy has power and the state has a large network of supporters, then they will lose in elections. This is something that no one is talking about.
It is clear that when the other side gathered to form a political movement, they mentioned clergy reform and a change in the Sangha Act during their “Bangkok shutdown” campaign. Today they are walking along the same roadmap. As for my side, I have to question Somdet Chuang’s familiarity with red shirt supporters. Which red shirt supporter is he familiar with? No one.
But why are there many red shirt supporters who support Somdet Chuang as the new supreme patriarch?
I am not quite sure whether or not the red shirts support him. What we can see is that most of the country’s population has not had a say in this issue. But I can confirm that all the monks in this country respect Somdet Chuang and regard him as their leader.
I do not have any interest in this issue, but the clergy needs to exist and move forward. The clergy must have the right to self-govern according to the law.
So the view that Somdet Chuang has close ties with Wat Dhammakaya, and that Dhammakaya has a close relationship with Thaksin, the red shirts’ patron, is a discourse that was created out of the blue?
It is clear that Somdet Chuang was the preceptor of Dhammakaya. His virtuousness towards his disciples is clear. As for Wat Dhammakaya and Thaksin, in what way are they close? There are many yellow shirt phu yai [senior figures] who have close relationships with Dhammakaya’s big donators, but the media does not mention this. But today when there is a fear of elections, a connection is made between him and this side, and that if there are elections they will help one another. When that happens, it will lead to one political side losing the opportunity to form government. That leads to blocking the clergy as well, in terms of how to prevent [Somdet Chuang] from being supreme patriarch, out of concern of domination of the state and religion.
What will happen if Somdet Chuang is not made the new supreme patriarch?
From now on, the clergy will be unable to exist as an organisation, due to the failure to govern themselves. There will be a large show of disunity within the clergy that has never happened before. The Maha Nikaya school will be viewed as being prevented from obtaining the highest rank, despite fully complying with the law.
Does the prime minister appear reluctant to act?
Many people view him as fuelling conflict, making the problem escalate and unsolvable. The prime minister is straightforward and ethical. He needs to be decisive and aware that a group of people are operating under an agenda.
Is it illegal for the government to not act in accordance with the SSC resolution?
They risk violating Section 157 of the Criminal Code [related to dereliction of duty]. If at least half the monks in the country urge the government to be prosecuted under Section 157, what will happen? Chaos will occur.
How do you think this problem should be solved?
Talks should be held, with the government acting as the facilitator. The talks should be straightforward and based on reason.
It is clear that Somdet Chuang was the preceptor of Dhammakaya. His virtuousness towards his disciples is clear. As for Wat Dhammakaya and Thaksin, in what way are they close?