Thai Morality

[jdv]

Again and again I hear the justification for revenge from Thai people. He did that to you? Ah, so now you should do X to him. This advice comes from many people of all ages. It seems like it is very much a part of the Thai cultural morality. But it's not even Buddhist.

Young Thais are less and less likely to learn about Buddhist morality, according to an ABAC survey conducted at some point last year (unfortunately I forget the details).

So without Buddhism as a moral crutch, and without any sincere attempt to teach philosophy in thai schools, where are the future Thai generations going to get their morality from once the current parental generation have died?

Of course, this question assumes that morality must be taught or learned rather than being somehow innate or self-realisable. I think that's a fair assumption, however.

I certainly don't hope hollywood or the growing Thai Celebrity industry will be expected to espouse ethical or behavioural norms to the next generation of teenagers..

So, I'm not trying to suggest any one moral system is right or wrong and that Thailand may or may not lack something, I am only wondering what source Thailand will be looking to in the future to provide such a system, whatever the nature of that system may be. Will it be a reversal to a more fundamentalist Buddhist philosophy? Will analytic philosophy be taught in schools? What happens when the vastly more liberal and although well-meaning, probably less "morally aware" strata of society become school teachers, ministers and agenda-setters?

Is Thailand becoming too western too quickly and is this causing problems for cultural morality? A bad answer, I think, would be "Thai culture will provide for Thai morals" - because we can see how much "Thai Culture" has changed even in the last few years. It might be a fundamentally different entity in a few more. Such inconsistency does not a moral foundation provide. What should replace the traditional motivational role of religion/superstition in modern Bangkok life?

What reasons will future Thai kids have to behave morally, if buddhism continues to become less relevant and schools do not fill the gaps?

Any thoughts welcome..

[jdv]

Ah well.. back to the flirting I guess.

[duanja]

I wish we get rid of all moral teaching in school. A bullying.

If we follow Buddhist very strictly, then we would end up like Iran.

A Dictatorship of Dharmma, the truth that you can't argue with.

Mr.Surayud= Oh..I am prime minister who keep five precepts of Buddhism, so I am not a liar. A Prime minister should be a person with a high moral authority (mee boon baramee) like me, not by election from ordinary people.

I like going to temple, and resort to nature. My policy ? You poor should have 'enough economy.' No alcohol advertisement. Kid age under 25 should be prohibit from drink! No prostitution. No pretty girl.

And you farmer 'sacrifice' you land for the flood so that bkk, our national economic centre, is not flooded.

[Loburt]

.

Mr.Surayud= Oh..I am prime minister who keep five precepts of Buddhism, so I am not a liar. A Prime minister should be a person with a high moral authority (mee boon baramee) like me, not by election from ordinary people.

I like going to temple, and resort to nature. My policy ? You poor should have 'enough economy.' No alcohol advertisement. Kid age under 25 should be prohibit from drink! No prostitution. No pretty girl.

And you farmer 'sacrifice' you land for the flood so that bkk, our national economic centre, is not flooded.

I think your criticism of PM Surayud is quite unfair. He had no part in planning or carrying out the coup. He was pressured to take the PM's post, and when he was army chief always supported democracy and never ever threatened a coup.

The sufficiency economy is not his creation. It was created by, and is the policy of, HM the King. If you want to criticize it, then you should direct your criticism at HM, not the PM.

I'm not aware of PM Surayud having done anything to crack down on prostitutioin or "pretty girls." And the culure police were very active during the Thaksin administration. Have you forgotten all about Purachai and the Social Order Crusade? The Cultural Surveillance Center's threat to arrest models at fashion shows if their boobs happened to be too visible? That was all Thaksin.

As for the mechanisms for controlling flooding, they were also in place long before he was named PM. Do you really think having been in office alittle over a month that he could have remade the entire infrastructure of the central plains of Thailand?

I guess you miss Thaksin. I guess you miss a PM who orders police and security forces to kill people he doesn't like, and changes the law to allow himself to steal from the people. A little metta and dhamma might have done him some good.

[chrispilok]

My thoughts; I don't think you need to learn morality at school or at a temple. In fact, I think most people learn this from their parents and family. I haven't lived here long enough to know if people treat each other better or worse but I'd guess that like in other parts of the world the changes have been mixed.

[breakofdawning]

As a Thai, I would say that I'm quite concern about Thai moral standard as well. When I look at younger people maybe 5-10 yrs younger than me, I wonder why they are so different from people my age. They seem to live their life under totally different priciple, while people who are around 5-10 yrs older are pretty much exercising similar principle.

I do not know whether it is our educational system, parents, or western/japanese influence that flows in that makes the younger generation so much different.

I remember various courses that I used to study in primary school but they don't have it anymore for students nowadays, esp those for buddism and manners. Schools are not a place for kids to learn about morales and parents don't have time for their kids anymore. We live in nucleus family, no grandparents or reltives to help keep an eye on the kids' behaviors. I'd say the social is pretty much in a mess.

But it'll survive. It will change in which way I do not want to predict nor guess. More and more scools are aware of the changes in the society and there are some schools that encourage religious teaching and meditation in schools right now. I only hope that it will contnue and maybe spread to more schools in the future.

Materialism and violence on TV is definitely unavoidable. Western and Japanese influences are also unevitable. In my opinion, it should be the family that helps the kids to be morally strong from the core. But as stated above, family structure is changing. So if western society can still function, Thai can as well but in which way, we'll have to wait and see.

[Stu_thailand]

I first worked in Thailand (Phuket) for a 1 year period back in 1994. From the very first day I arrived back then, I felt strangly at home. I fell in love with the food, the People, weather, beaches, there was nothing at all I cuold complain about.

I returned back to the UK in 1995, and after an eventful (mostly unhappy) 10 years, I was lucky enough to be given the opportunity to return back to phuket to work again.

There I was, on one of TG's 747's, hurtling through the sky, excited at the prospect of returning to my beloved Phuket. How wrong I was.

I was saddened to see that the Western countries had destroyed the culture. Tesco's, Big C, Boots, All the fancy shopping Malls - Central to name but one - had destroyed all the little shops along the road which were once so wonderful.

In 1994 I would go into a little tiny shop made from Bamboo, and buy Cigarettes, be greeted with a smile, thanked profusely, and made to feel appreciated. Now, I have to go into the 7/11 where the western companies are so greedy, they pay such a low salary to the people working there, that the staff really couldn't give a flying **** if I was there as a customer or not.

Due to the invasion of western hypocrisy, I found that the Thai's in Phuket had become easy to upset, easy to anger, were always in a hurry, and generally didn't like Farang very much.

Who can blame them...When I walk down Soi Bangla in Patpong, or even Nana, Cowboy in Bangkok, and see how some of my fellow countrymen behave, WHO can blame the Thai's for resenting us.

It's sad. But, Thailand is just one of many countries in the world to be sucked into this vacum of greed.

Having said all of this, I wuld not give up Thailand for the world. I hope one day, that the tables will be turned, and the Thai's will return to their traditoinal values, become the gentle people that they once were, and give us Farang a kick in the arse.

And yes, I am too bloody tired to use spell check, so don't complain about my spelling!!

[Kitschiguy]

Again and again I hear the justification for revenge from Thai people. He did that to you? Ah, so now you should do X to him. This advice comes from many people of all ages. It seems like it is very much a part of the Thai cultural morality. But it's not even Buddhist.

Young Thais are less and less likely to learn about Buddhist morality, according to an ABAC survey conducted at some point last year (unfortunately I forget the details).

So without Buddhism as a moral crutch, and without any sincere attempt to teach philosophy in thai schools, where are the future Thai generations going to get their morality from once the current parental generation have died?

Of course, this question assumes that morality must be taught or learned rather than being somehow innate or self-realisable. I think that's a fair assumption, however.

I certainly don't hope holly wood or the growing Thai Celebrity industry will be expected to espouse ethical or behavioural norms to the next generation of teenagers..

So, I'm not trying to suggest any one moral system is right or wrong and that Thailand may or may not lack something, I am only wondering what source Thailand will be looking to in the future to provide such a system, whatever the nature of that system may be. Will it be a reversal to a more fundamentalist Buddhist philosophy? Will analytic philosophy be taught in schools? What happens when the vastly more liberal and although well-meaning, probably less "morally aware" strata of society become school teachers, ministers and agenda-setters?

Is Thailand becoming too western too quickly and is this causing problems for cultural morality? A bad answer, I think, would be "Thai culture will provide for Thai morals" - because we can see how much "Thai Culture" has changed even in the last few years. It might be a fundamentally different entity in a few more. Such inconsistency does not a moral foundation provide. What should replace the traditional motivational role of religion/superstition in modern Bangkok life?

What reasons will future Thai kids have to behave morally, if buddhism continues to become less relevant and schools do not fill the gaps?

Any thoughts welcome..

The same could be said for virtually any society. Look at how Christian principals and morals have become less relevant in Europe. They have even had to change with the law. How do you think Europeans/westerners learn about moral values?

There are many Monks in Thailand who actively encourage Thai people to follow Buddhism as the Buddha intended. Some are even going as far as to discourage Thais from practicing superstitious rituals and focus more on meditation and The Noble Eightfold Path. Thai Buddhism is after all, Theravada, or Doctrine of The Elders, and is essentially the purest form of Buddhism. Many people practice Buddhism in Thailand as a philosophy as opposed to a religion, but never the less, enjoy the practices that have been inherited from Brahman or Animist beliefs as they believe they are making merit. Whatever one's view of this, it's certain that they are doing no harm. Thailand had a long history of Animist belief long before Theravada Buddhism arrived and naturally those traditions/superstitions have merged.

You said 'So without Buddhism as a moral crutch, and without any sincere attempt to teach philosophy in Thai schools...' you go on to say 'So, I'm not trying to suggest any one moral system is right or wrong and that Thailand may or may not lack something' The first statement doesn't appear to have been quoted so I assume this is what you are saying.

You also said 'Of course, this question assumes that morality must be taught or learned rather than being somehow innate or self-realisable. I think that's a fair assumption, however'. Would this not apply to negative traits or instincts too?

You also said 'I certainly don't hope Hollywood or the growing Thai Celebrity industry will be expected to espouse ethical or behavioural norms to the next generation of teenagers'. Why would it? And for what reason's do you mean?

Despite what many westerners think, Buddhism has served the Thai people very well for 2500 years and there is far more to a 2500 year old philosophy and an even older culture than they realise, and a crass and commercial culture such as 'Hollywood' is hardly likely to have a any real impact or lasting influence on the moral standards of practicing Buddhists in Thailand.

The desire for revenge is part of the human condition. Negative aspects of which are sometimes described in Buddhism as 'the fire in the lotus'. A fire that all Buddhists are trying to extinguish. Failure to do so however, doesn't mean you have failed as a Buddhist, or as a human. Merely striving for it makes you a better person, it is believed. It's estimated that 95% of Thais are Buddhists.

note: I would respectfully ask forgiveness from any Thai people who take offence to my pontifications. Also for any inconsistencies or wrong facts.

[afook06]

I believe a person's life growing up with any issues, is determined by their upbringing as a child.......some can change later on, but some will not. If family,faith, and religion are brought in early, then we all have a better chance in today's complexed world? Eddie

[jdv]

Thanks everyone for your interesting thoughts. I want to respond to just a few of them:

JC_HKT- I agree with you entirely. Shades of grey are where we find moral "truth".

chrispilok - If we could do some ontology and create the entity "moral sense" and then give this to the current generation of parents, we might be able to agree that it will "weigh" less when we pass it down to the current generation of children. So that by the time they are themselves parents, the "moral sense" again weighs less and they hand a lighter entity down to their children. Eventually then, morality is lost if we rely on the family alone, and in all cases. I do agree with you that the family has a vital role to play in the matter, but I do not think it realistic to rely on that alone. The family needs some support, not necessarily in teaching their kids, but in having the right information to teach them in the first place. Bad parents will be more likely to produce bad kids.

periboea - Thanks for your comments. I wasn't meaning to make any assertion when I asked "where will the future Thai generations gets their morality from". I agree a university survey and hearsay would not be enough to substantiate any particular claim about the state of morality one way or the other. I was meaning to ask a hypothetical question based upon the assumptions I laid out above, although I don't think I made that clear enough.

breakofdawning - Interesting comments. Why do you think schools are not the place for kids to learn about how to behave? You sound very level headed so I think if there are enough people like you Thailand is going to be just fine.

Kitschiguy - I agree the same can definitely be said of other societies. However, I think there are valid comparisons to be drawn between Britain and Thailand (for example) when it comes to the ways in which young people learn about morality. Firstly I do not think morality is a set of prescribed guidelines which one learns. I think we need to define a "moral being" in this context as a person who is simply morally 'aware and questions the right or wrong of their actions and makes informed decisions rather than intuitive or reactionary ones. It is how they become informed as to what might affect the right or wrong of an action etc that matters. I think British schools (the only ones I can talk about personally) do take an active role in attempting to raise the awareness of students to "moral thought" in various ways and I do not see the same level of this in the Thai education system at any level. Would you say that was a fair comparison?

I think you are right in your assertion that Buddhism is unlikely to crumble thanks to Hollywood influence, but I think we should be cautious not to overlook the strength of that influence nonetheless. "Hollywood", and by this I mean Western capitalist enterprises, has clearly had some sort of effect on Thai youth. I'm sure we could look at the figures and see a trend in certain markets becoming more profitable in Thailand and see that those markets can be linked to this western influence. You asked if my assumption that morality needs to be "learned" could also apply to negative traits too, which is an interesting question. I suppose I think that it does. At a basic level we seem capable of doing good and bad deeds without learning anything, but part of being "moral" would have to include an awareness of the question over the nature of a good act and not just that it is good in some subjective sense. We could get into very specific territory here and I would lose the original point of my post, so I will avoid it for now.

[duanja]

Dear Loburt

Firstly, you interpret my post to the point I don't intend. I didn't intend to attack PM who was appointed by a coup PERSONALLY. I just want to use an up-to-date example to illustrate the point about moral bullying. And I didn't use it to make Thaksin's image looks better. But thank you anyway for supporting my point with examples in Taksin government.

Secondly, I don't think it is right to conclude that : I should dirct my criticism at H.M. because principle of 'sufficiency economy' was created by H.M.

But to my understanding the first person who address buddhist economics in public is E.F Schumacher. I remember reading 'Small is beautiful' (1973)

long time ago. (My The Bottom line: Dear Mod. please dont try to bring harm to your client. I dont wanna end up being a lesbian na ja.)

Oh..I can't believe our Moderator is so naive by assuming that PM who was appointed by coup has nothing to do with the coup, and accordingly we should say that he has no responsibility for whatever coup govt did (or would do in the future) because he was just chosen to do the job.

Yepp...I think Gen. Surayud would answer like Loburt.

It is a fact that he used to be a commander in the event BLACK MAY 1992.

Well...how he apologized afterwards? I was a soldier who has a duty to listen to the Gen in upper levels.

Poor guy, he was just in a role that other put him to play. (Notice that a reason he used is similiar to our Moderator Loburt who defended our PM. I am not suprised why you are a coup advocate.) Then 1993 he ordained as a monk. (Kind of purification process in Thailand) After he leaved his monkhood in Nov. 1993, he was appointed as a Privy Councilor.

You see that Thai society doesn't throw off Buddhist principle especially forgiveness that jdv just show a concern for. We dont want to pay back the coup soldiers and its allies for the sake of national harmony. Moreover, ex- coup allies were, and are being, rewarded with positions and money. They have never been convicted. That is one reason why thai history moves forwards to a vicious circle.

In my opinion, revenge is good. Forgive is also good, but only when justice is done. If you are mistreated, then you should get back, otherwise they would harm you more and more in the future.

You mean something like Texas then?

Kazakh....What is Texas? I don't have any idea about it.

[Loburt]

Dear Loburt

Firstly, you interpret my post to the point I don't intend. I didn't intend to attack PM who was appointed by a coup PERSONALLY. I just want to use an up-to-date example to illustrate the point about moral bullying.

Yepp...I think Gen. Surayud would answer like Loburt.

It is a fact that he used to be a commander in the event BLACK MAY 1992.

Well...how he apologized afterwards? I was a soldier who has a duty to listen to the Gen in upper levels.

Poor guy, he was just in a role that other put him to play. (Notice that a reason he used is similiar to our Moderator Loburt who defended our PM. I am not suprised why you are a coup advocate.) Then 1993 he ordained as a monk. (Kind of purification process in Thailand) After he leaved his monkhood in Nov. 1993, he was appointed as a Privy Councilor.

You see that Thai society doesn't throw off Buddhist principle especially forgiveness that jdv just show a concern for. We dont want to pay back the coup soldiers and its allies for the sake of national harmony. Moreover, ex- coup allies were, and are being, rewarded with positions and money. They have never been convicted. That is one reason why thai history moves forwards to a vicious circle.

In my opinion, revenge is good. Forgive is also good, but only when justice is done. If you are mistreated, then you should get back, otherwise they would harm you more and more in the future.

Dear Duanja,

I've re-read your post and it certainly does read like an attack on the PM. You're entitled to attack him all you like, that's part of a free society - and depsite the coup, there is sitll a lot of freedom to do that. But if I disagree or think the attack is unfair, I also have a right to comment.

You are also misinterpreting my comments. I am not "a coup advocate" as you claim. But I do think Gen. Surayud is a good man. As for his role in May 1992, he says he never gave any of his soldiers an order to shoot.

Furthermore, if the leader of the Committee for the Relatives of May 1992, whose son was shot dead during the protests, can forgive Gen. Surayud and even say that he would be a good PM, why can't you?

Once again, you're entitled to your opinion, but some people who suffered more than you did (I am assuming you did not lose a relative in the violence, please forgive me if I'm wrong) still have a high opinion of Gen. Surayud.

As for me being naive in saying that Gen. Surayud did not play a part in planning or carrying out the coup, if you have proof he was involved, then show it. Because so far I haven't seen any.

Yes, those who carried out past coups and those responsible for massacreing innocent protesters in Thailand have never had to face justice, and in fact have been rewarded.

Just as many of those responsible for the 1997 economic collapse, the Bangkok Bank of Commerce collapse and other crimes were also rewarded with positions of power and influence in the Thaksin government.

This is a problem in this society. But I don't see that as having anything to do with Buddhism or moral bullying. I think it has more to do with feudalism, in my personal opinion.

[duanja]

Yes, those who carried out past coups and those responsible for massacreing innocent protesters in Thailand have never had to face justice, and in fact have been rewarded.

Just as many of those responsible for the 1997 economic collapse, the Bangkok Bank of Commerce collapse and other crimes were also rewarded with positions of power and influence in the Thaksin government.

This is a problem in this society. But I don't see that as having anything to do with Buddhism or moral bullying. I think it has more to do with feudalism, in my personal opinion.

Dear Loburt,

The social problem has something to do with Buddhist moral bullying.

Buddhist morals sound good, but it is unrealistic, such as, the

non-vengeance principle. You are not going to survive in a human world if you practice it. So non-vengeance principle was applied only in some chosen cases. Then it became a double standard, or a hypocrisy. For example, national reconciliation according to coup's standard; Military coup asked for forgiveness, and Long long ago, when the Communist party was haunting Thailand, thai monks, including Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, preached that by killing the communists, you 've got no sin.

Buddhist moral serves sakdina system (a thai version of feudalism) so well.

It understands justice in a super- natural way. You was born in an upper class, or royal family becuase you make merits (tam boon) in Last Life.

It explains that misery you've got in this life comes from your Last Life. It soothes people who was mistreated by persuading that justice will be done when karma follow up the wrong-doing in the Next Life.

It also tries to persuade people that the ruler should be the one who have ''Tossapit Rajatham", ten royal virtues. And that was enough.

Low class are not good at realizing high virtues, so they should not choose the ruler. (find more about Ten royal virtues at http://www.lankalibrary.com/Bud/dasa-raja-dhamma.htm)

-------As for my opinion about morality of Surayud, a coup PM.

You are also misinterpreting my comments. I am not "a coup advocate" as you claim.

Sorry to misinterpret you as ''a coup advocate.''

I think your appraisal of Surayud is in a very bad timing, then.

So what is your position? Or you just being neutral?

But I do think Gen. Surayud is a good man. As for his role in May 1992, he says he never gave any of his soldiers an order to shoot.

O.K. Let his claim that 'he never ordered to shoot' be granted.

( I am very suspicious, though. No shot order, why then orders soldiers to bring guns?) Then he would be inculpable if he had ever gone to a criminal court.

But see what he did : Provoking violence against people. Destroying political participation. Whatever rhetoric he used, I can't see that he was a good man.

Well, then he again claimed he was ordered to do. He just can't deny the order from the upper levels. O.K.... Granted that he should not be responsible for it. But in denying responsibility, he also losed the human dignity to be good or bad. So, I don't think he is a good person, nor bad person.

As for me being naive in saying that Gen. Surayud did not play a part in planning or carrying out the coup, if you have proof he was involved, then show it. Because so far I haven't seen any.

Well..I don't have empirical evidence to show his involvment in carrying out a coup. But he should be put in list of the suspected. I am not naive to drop him from the list because of his assurance that he was a good man, and a good buddhist who would not lie. However, the claim that Surayud is just a puppet PM sounds more reasonable now. I just read about Prem Tinnasulanond 's (also the privy councilor) comment about Surayud. He defended Surayud by likening Surayud with Sir Winston Churchill, whom Prem believed was also chosen by the Queen!? ( see thai version at http://www.matichon.co.th/khaosod/khaosod_detail.php?s_tag=03p0117161149&day=2006/11/16 Comparing it with an English version. An English version summarized Prem's speech by omitting the phrase ''chosen by the Queen'' in order to conceal the privy councilor's bad education (at that time Queen Elizabeth was not on the throne yet) , or to conceal something more important? I don't know but I just wanna show how medias under the coup's martial law choose to be inaccurate.

http://www.bangkokpost.net/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=114243

[Neo]

The social problem has something to do with Buddhist moral bullying.

Buddhist morals sound good, but it is unrealistic, such as, the

non-vengeance principle. You are not going to survive in a human world if you practice it.

Er.. actually many people have survived just fine practicing that principle. And the more that people do, the better place the world becomes. Not so long ago people scoffed at greenies as being impractical dreamers, now green issues are top of the political agenda in many countries. The world can change, but it won't if we all just give up on our principles.

[Loburt]

[Well..I don't have empirical evidence to show his involvment in carrying out a coup. But he should be put in list of the suspected. I am not naive to drop him from the list because of his assurance that he was a good man, and a good buddhist who would not lie. However, the claim that Surayud is just a puppet PM sounds more reasonable now. I just read about Prem Tinnasulanond 's (also the privy councilor) comment about Surayud. He defended Surayud by likening Surayud with Sir Winston Churchill, whom Prem believed was also chosen by the Queen!? ( see thai version at http://www.matichon.co.th/khaosod/khaosod_detail.php?s_tag=03p0117161149&day=2006/11/16 Comparing it with an English version. An English version summarized Prem's speech by omitting the phrase ''chosen by the Queen'' in order to conceal the privy councilor's bad education (at that time Queen Elizabeth was not on the throne yet) , or to conceal something more important? I don't know but I just wanna show how medias under the coup's martial law choose to be inaccurate.

http://www.bangkokpost.net/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=114243

Well there you have it, Duanja. You start off be admitting you have no evidence. That doesn't stop you, however, from making all sorts of allegations. In fact, the evidence does not support any of your contentions specifically about PM Surayud.

It's your timing, actually, that is quite bad in talking about PM Surayud, because while I can agree with some of what you say about the social system here in Thailand, I don't think PM Surayud is the embodiment of the negative things you are talking about. The fact that you chose to slam him instead of a host of greedy, corrupt politicians and military men who everyone knows and who have done great damage to the country, weakens your arguments.

I think what you've written about the media shows how misguided your arguments are. You wrote that the media chose to be innacurate under the coup's martial law. In the 12 years I've lived here I've seen inaccuracy in the media under every single prime minister.

By saying they are choosing to be innacurate under the coup's martial law, you are saying they are obeying or supporting the coupmakers. Yet, every day in the local media I read reports that are critical of the CNS, PM Surayud and even Gen. Prem. It certainly doesn't seem like the media is taking orders from them, or are in collussion with them, as you are suggesting.

You're taking a pattern of laziness and sloppiness on the part of local reporters that has existed in all the years I've read the papers here and turning it into a conspiracy theory. Prem made a statement. Reporters were too lazy to check whether his statement was true (although maybe the Post did, which is why they didn't print it) The facts don't support your contention.

As for PM Surayud, these are some of the people or groups who speak highly of him: relatives of those who died in Black May, rural people in the areas where he was a commander particularly in the Northeast, the 140,000 refugees from Burma, many Muslims in the south, various senators who were not on Thaksin's payroll (such as Sen. Kraisak, Somkiat, etc.) reformers within the military, several foreign diplomats and military analysts who would like to see a more professional military.

These are some of the people who have denigrated PM Surayud in the past: Thaksin, Chavalit, Newin Chidchob, Gen. Chetta, Gen. Chaisit Shinawatra, and Gen. Than Shwe, Gen. Maung Aye, Gen. Khin Nyunt, Gen. Kyaw Win - all of the Burmese junta.

I think I'll trust the opinions of the first group over the second.

You also blame him for "provoking violence against people." Yet you have nothing to back that up, as you admit you have no evidence he ordered any of his soldiers to shoot during Black May. Somewhere between 40 and 100-plus people died in Black May.

However, it's clear that former PM Thaksin provoked, if not directly ordered, the deaths of over 3,000 Thais in his War on Drugs, Tak Bai and Krue Sae Mosque. Thaksin killed more Thais than any Thai leader since Gen. Sarit, yet you are silent about him. And by the way, the National Human Rights Commission recently said most of those killed in the War on Drugs were innocent. Governors and police officials have said Thaksin gave them quotas for people to kill in the War on Drugs. Quotas for killing people. Quotas for killing Thais. Yet you are silent about him.

As for" Buddhist moral bullying", many people in power either try to use religion for their own purposes, or suppress it if they can't. Moral bullying has been used by Christians, Jews, Hindus and Muslims as well. I have not seen an instance of the current PM doing that.

But as Neo so rightly points out, Buddhist principles and beliefs have also been used in many positive ways by many people. The problem is often not with what the religion says, but with how people twist or manipulate that.

It seems you are opposed to Buddhism, religion in general and the principles that support the existence of the country's highest institution.

Your support for and obsession with vengeance - as opposed to justice - is also very disturbing. I would hate to see what would happen to any society if its leaders are primarily concerned with vengeance - which is what you seem to be primarily concerned with.

[CiaranM]

The social problem has something to do with Buddhist moral bullying.

Buddhist morals sound good, but it is unrealistic, such as, the

non-vengeance principle. You are not going to survive in a human world if you practice it. So non-vengeance principle was applied only in some chosen cases. Then it became a double standard, or a hypocrisy. For example, national reconciliation according to coup's standard; Military coup asked for forgiveness, and Long long ago, when the Communist party was haunting Thailand, thai monks, including Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, preached that by killing the communists, you 've got no sin.

i would suggest that this is an example of ppl twisting (or corrupting) the values of Buddhism rather than following his actual teachings. something ppl in power have been doing for centuries using every different type of religion and/or philosophy !!

[duanja]

Dear Loburt,

......As for PM Surayud, these are some of the people or groups who speak highly of him: relatives of those who died in Black May, rural people in the areas where he was a commander particularly in the Northeast, the 140,000 refugees from Burma, many Muslims in the south, various senators who were not on Thaksin's payroll (such as Sen. Kraisak, Somkiat, etc.) reformers within the military, several foreign diplomats and military analysts who would like to see a more professional military.

Even if PM of the coup is entitled to be A Nobleman of Krung Rattanakosin (or

more precisely in Surayud case,of Rattanakosin Hotel), or Pra Arahan (enlightened person in Buddhism), but the fact that he accepted PM position of the coup means that he used his goodness, his status of 'nobleman of Rattanakosin Hotel', plus 'privy councilor' to endorse the coup. Endorsement of coup is unacceptable.

...........The fact that you chose to slam him instead of a host of greedy, corrupt politicians and military men who everyone knows and who have done great damage to the country, weakens your arguments.

I wanna emphasize in red that you think that my neglect to mention about Thaksin's charge weakens my argument. To me you use the logics of slamming Thaksin, in order to endorse Surayud's appointment to PM by coup makers (or by the Queen, if you believe Prem Tinnasulanond's speech) , if you don't use it to endorse the coup as you claimed.

As for you charge against Thaksin (I suppose) as a greedy, and corrupt politician who provoked 'War on Drug' with a result of 3,000 people dead, plus Kruesae and Takbai events in the South, so I think that Thanksin should be allowed to come back to Thailand in order to go all the trials in the court.Thaksin should be entitled to defend for himself. So I don't understand why Coup of Heaven insists on denying Thaksin's coming back to Thailand, and retains marital law despite of the promise to take it away soon.

O.K. script writers are lazy to translate that Prem mentions that: The appointment of PM Surayud is like Churchill who was chosen by the Queen.

O.K. Media was not scared of marital law at the least. But then if no one is scared of it, I don't see the reason of launching marital law. What, then, is the use of it?

It seems you are opposed to Buddhism, religion in general and the principles that support the existence of the country's highest institution.

I suspend all religon that talks about next- life existence. Unfortunately, all important religions in the world talk about it. The religion that I am mostly suspect of is especially the one which lullaby us to tolerate injustice in this life as fairness coz it is a result of our bad conducts in last life.

Your assumption that I am opposed to the existence's of country's highest instition is incorrect. I am willing to support Consitutional Monarchy, on the condition that the members of royal extended -family are not entitled to chose PM, nor to influence on politics, nor endorsing a coup, nor backing up a coup,

and citizen should be entittled to criticize them too. The constitution should state these conditions as clear as possible, otherwise Monarchism,which I am opposed to, makes its reincarnation.

Your support for and obsession with vengeance - as opposed to justice - is also very disturbing. I would hate to see what would happen to any society if its leaders are primarily concerned with vengeance - which is what you seem to be primarily concerned with.

But to say that I am obsession with paying back is not inaccurate.

I acknowledge that life is short and has other things to do beside plotting a ''check bill'' Sometimes it is not worth to pay back, sometimes the cost of paying is too high to bear. But if I think it is worthy,and I have a chance, then I have no hesitation and no guilt. And the attempt to '' check bill''

to coup makers and supports is worthy for a society. To retaliate a coup, even decades later is not too late.

Retaliation is not opposed to justice, in my opinion. Justice is a kind of vengeance, that is, paying back what a person deserved.

A system of justice in every country is a kind of vengeance, don't you agree?What is your opinion about the trial of ousted President of Iraq? Should Saddam be prosecuted?

Dear CiaranM,

O.K. Then I say that Buddhist principle 'might be good'but it is twisted.

But I ensure you that even if the best man who follows five precepts of Buddhism,has to abandon non-vengeance principle coz legal retaliation is what the court is supposed to do.

Dear Neo,

If non-vengeance is practical for some people who practice it, then I am happy with them. Then the holy enlightened path belongs to them.

But since I am gladful of of kilet (passion), and want to live well in a human world, so I think that justice should be ensured.

Though, I think green policy is more convincing to more and more

people because all people don't want to die badly, but I don't think that a non-vengeance can be universal principle that convince people because it is not natural, and it is opposed to the idea of justice - paying back what people deserved, that is in everybody. Even Buddhist principle of non-vengeance wants people not to think of paying back because it contaminates the mind, and obstructs a process of enlightenment, but Buddhism ensures people

that paying back will be done in some day during the Samsara, even to the Arahan who still alives in their last life of Samsara. Actually important religion does not deny the idea of paying back, they just postpone that idea of absolute justice, which is inherent in people's mind, to next next life, or after life, but not this life.

[beej]

Remember last year, a guy took a stick to the Buddhist Statue opposite the world trade center, when a few people noticed what he was doing they kicked him to death....... very buddhist that was!

[jdv]

Yes, that was remarkable. I believe one taxi driver got sent down for it?

[inamorato25]

Dear Loburt...I can't believe our Moderator is so naive by assuming that PM who was appointed by coup has nothing to do with the coup, and accordingly we should say that he has no responsibility for whatever coup govt did (or would do in the future) because he was just chosen to do the job.

Well, duanja -- you're sitting over there, writing from Sweden -- Loburt is living in Thailand, actually writing in Time and other major publications and being trusted to report for CNN on the current state of affairs in Thailand. Hmmmm... who's the naive one here??

[Dekka]

The social problem has something to do with Buddhist moral bullying.

Buddhist morals sound good, but it is unrealistic, such as, the

non-vengeance principle. You are not going to survive in a human world if you practice it. So non-vengeance principle was applied only in some chosen cases. Then it became a double standard, or a hypocrisy. For example, national reconciliation according to coup's standard; Military coup asked for forgiveness, and Long long ago, when the Communist party was haunting Thailand, thai monks, including Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, preached that by killing the communists, you 've got no sin.

i would suggest that this is an example of ppl twisting (or corrupting) the values of Buddhism rather than following his actual teachings. something ppl in power

have been doing for centuries using every different type of religion and/or philosophy !!

Mahatma Gandhi Preached Peace& non-violence & he succeeded.

He argued India's Independence & was against British Rule.

He was the mainstay in helping India to gain her Independence

India was granted Independence on the 15th August 1947.

He did that in a non aggressive & Non -Violent way.

I know Gandhi was Hindu & not a Buddhist

But if a Hindu can do it why not a Thai Buddhist?

That's the only comment I want to make on this post.

[CiaranM]

Mahatma Gandhi Preached Peace& non-violence & he succeeded.

He argued India's Independence & was against British Rule.

He was the mainstay in helping India to gain her Independence

India was granted Independence on the 15th August 1947.

He did that in a non aggressive & Non -Violent way.

I know Gandhi was Hindu & not a Buddhist

But if a Hindu can do it why not a Thai Buddhist?

That's the only comment I want to make on this post.

it's a myth that India acheived it's independance through peaceful means. the major factor in the British decision to grant independance was the massive scale of Hindu-Muslim violence in the country. this eventually lead to India being split into three countries, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh something Ganghi was totally opposed to .... he was actually a failure and ended up getting shot by Hindu "extremists" !!!!!

[duanja]

Dear Loburt...I can't believe our Moderator is so naive by assuming that PM who was appointed by coup has nothing to do with the coup, and accordingly we should say that he has no responsibility for whatever coup govt did (or would do in the future) because he was just chosen to do the job.

Well, duanja -- you're sitting over there, writing from Sweden -- Loburt is living in Thailand, actually writing in Time and other major publications and being trusted to report for CNN on the current state of affairs in Thailand. Hmmmm... who's the naive one here??

I don?t like it what I?ve written quite long just gone. (My laptop?s problem. Damn it)

So to put it short:

Thanks for telling me that I shouldn?t disagree with a CNN reporter to avoid being naïve in TF. I simply express my opinion as a Thai citizen.

My only excuse is that I haven?t been informed that Loburt is a CNN reporter before. I promise I won?t be naïve again here.

P.S. And thank you for a concern about where live my life on earth, however for an accurate account about the location of my empirical existence, may I correct one bit that I was in Thailand when I wrote the post.

[inamorato25]

Thanks for telling me that I shouldn?t disagree with a CNN reporter.

I didn't. I simply stated that given the two of you, I'd put my money on you being the less informed party -- hence making your "naive" comment pretty funny. You're free to disagree with whomever you please. Except me, of course

And thank you for a concern about where live my life on earth, .

You're welcome.

Nice passive-aggressive writing style BTW. Kudos.

[GoldMember]

and being trusted to report for CNN on the current state of affairs in Thailand.

Hmm now it all becomes readily apparent.Loburt is really Larry King.Neat disguise.