Why Dhammachayo should fight here and now

Politicise the case and it might never end. For example, if Dhammachayo is convicted after democracy is reinstated, his supporters can always claim charges against him were brought under military rule. That the charges have absolutely nothing to do with coup-imposed laws won’t matter much. They will call for a new inquiry, which will probably lead to one of two scenarios.

The first has the new inquiry absolve him, which will satisfy his followers. But the second scenario has the charges confirmed, in which case his followers can claim the inquiry is illegitimate since it resulted from charges brought when Thailand lacked full democracy. This could go on and on and on.

If Dhammachayo had been accused of making anti-government speeches or threatening national security, then the “political persecution” outcry might make sense. But he’s facing charges related to very traceable and concrete things, like cheques and bank deposits. You can’t forge the evidence for a case like this, not even in Thailand. Neither can you turn honest donations into fraudulent money transfers. We are living in an era where that simply can never happen.

The first thing I would do if I were Dhammachayo is scramble to clear my name. That’s because the charges involve one of Buddhism’s biggest enemies: greed. And if I had to do it when Thailand was under “dictatorship”, then so be it. I would allow the authorities to scrutinise every donor and would offer explanations for why suspicious donations slipped through. I would not wait, because “democracy” is political, and it couldn’t help me whatsoever in the religious context.

Another thing is that people flee all the time when they lose in court, democracy or no democracy. Thaksin Shinawatra did it in 2008, when Thailand was governed by elected politicians virtually under his control. So much for “waiting until full democracy returns to Thailand”.

There are similarities between the Dhammachayo and Thaksin cases. The latter was tried for something he did when the country was under democratic rule. To be specific, Thaksin was accused of abusing his power as prime minister to help his wife buy a plot of state-auctioned land for a knock-down price. Yet no legal action was taken against him when Thailand was under democratic rule; charges concerning the land purchase only started to form after a coup. He was found guilty when his own political party was in power.

Meanwhile, the alleged embezzlement and money laundering in the Dhammachayo case took place when Thailand was not being run by men in uniform. And no legal action was taken against him under democratic rule. The charges came to fruition only when a coup leader was prime minister. 

Do you see a pattern here?

Crucially, neither case has anything to do with a post-coup regime or any unjust laws.

We can also see who stands to lose: People demanding that high-profile suspects are charged according to the law, for once. This doesn’t mean we must presume that Dhammachayo is guilty. This is to say that things would be much better in this country if democracy could effectively handle cases like the Ratchadapisek land purchase and the massive temple-donations scandal.

Back to the religious context, Dhammachayo’s supporters are ill-advised to link the process of trying to determine whether he’s a saint or Buddhism’s worst sinner to whether democracy exists or not. For decades, the junta-ruled people of Myanmar visited temples a lot more often than Thais did. Temples or mosques dot China, Vietnam and other countries ruled by so-called dictatorships. Last but not least, haven’t Dhammachayo’s followers seen “Spotlight”? The movie, based on real events in America, showed the degree to which religion can be abused in a full-blown democracy.

How a country is governed shouldn’t be used to measure religious standards. After all, the world’s leading religions came into existence during the times of absolute monarchy or dictatorship, when people had little if any notion of what “democracy” meant. And importantly, religions have often blossomed in the direst of social circumstances. Which means that claiming your religious innocence can only be judged in a “rosy” political system is not necessarily a good idea.