Buddhist groups to campaign against Ombudsman’s Office

The Association of Scholars for Buddhism (ASB) and the Buddhism Protection Centre of Thailand (BPCT) want to gather as many as 20,000 signatures. 

The Ombudsman’s Office said last week that the nomination was not in line with proper procedure. 

However, Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said the Ombudsman’s point carried weight and was one reason behind the government’s hesitation to pass the nomination of Somdej Chuang, who is also called Somdej Phra Maha Ratchamangalacharn, on for royal endorsement before the issue was clarified.

At the press conference at Wat Sri Sudaram in Bangkok yesterday, about 20 police were present and there was a delay as Metropolitan Police Division 7 warned ASB head Sathien Wiphromma and BPCT secretary general Phra Medhi Dhammajahn that the event might violate the Public Assembly Act 2015. 

While the event did not have police permission, Phra Medhi Dhammajahn announced that the action was meant to protect Buddhism and the SSC without a political agenda. There was no intention to secure financial gain or to create a disturbance, he said. 

BPCT deputy secretary general Phra Khru Palad Kawiwat Katapunypo said the Ombudsman had no authority to rule on an SSC resolution because the SCC was not a state agency. He cited the Ombudsman’s January letter replying to an inquiry by the Phichit Buddhism Office in regard to a separate scandal involving monks, which stated that the Ombudsman had no authority over Sangha matters. 

The Council of State legal advisory body was responsible for clarifying relevant laws, he said, adding that the Ombudsman had incorrectly interpreted Article 7 of the Sangha Act, prompting the signature campaign to oust the Ombudsman involving both monks and lay people.

Metropolitan Police Division 7 Commander Uthasin Ritruangdej later said police had only asked for the monks’ cooperation to not break the law, while denying that police had detained people for “attitude adjustment” as news agencies had reported. 

Bang Khunnont precinct superintendent Pol Colonel Sukij Arunreukthawil affirmed that event organisers had cooperated with police by limiting the event to an interview and a press release.

Wissanu said the Ombudsman’s interpretation was a legal opinion that was not binding for the government. But an opinion from such a respected body should be considered as other opinions were. That was why the government was hesitating to propose Somdej Chuang’s name – given the sensitivity of the issue. 

The details of the opinion had not reached him or PM’s Office Minister Suwaphan Tanyuvardhana yet, Wissanu said, adding that they would discuss their next move once it was received.

Meanwhile, Ombudsman’s Office deputy secretary general Thawin Inthachamnong affirmed that his agency’s opinion was not binding but merely meant to inform further actions by relevant agencies. If the PM or other relevant officials fail to take action within 30 to 45 days, the Ombudsman could forward the matter to be debated in the National Legislative Assembly. He rejected the BPCT’s claim that the Ombudsman did not have the authority to interpret an SSC resolution. 

Claims that the office conspired with unnamed groups to block Somdej Chuang’s nomination was false, Wissanu said, adding that Ombudsmen must remain impartial.