Thailand's Sangha Bill still controversial<\/p>\n
Tavivat Puntarigvivat, Director World Buddhist University's
\nInstitute of Research and Development, The Nation, Asia News Network,
\nBangkok<\/p>\n
The much-publicized controversy over the new Sangha Bill,
\nwhich seeks to reform the country's Buddhist monastic community,
\nhas attracted public interest in a bitterly-contested question of
\nhow best to govern the more than 300,000 Buddhist monks
\nnationwide.<\/p>\n
The new Sangha Bill will be taken back to the drawing board.
\nThose who have a vested interest, one way or another, who want to
\nrush the proposed legislation through Parliament will find it
\nmore difficult to do so due to heightened public scrutiny.<\/p>\n
The next step should be for the government to set up a review
\ncommittee made up of senior monks, lay experts and legal experts
\nfrom the Juridical Council to seek a consensus.<\/p>\n
Ideally, wider public participation should be encouraged. A
\nnational assembly similar to the one assigned to draft the
\npresent Constitution should be created comprising Buddhist monks
\nand lay Buddhists.<\/p>\n
Social and economic development over the years necessitates
\nreform of the Buddhist monastic community.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, the new Sangha Bill endorsed by the Sangha
\nSupreme Council, is modeled on the most \"authoritarian\" version
\nof previous Sangha Acts.<\/p>\n
Going back centuries, Buddhism in Thailand was protected and
\npreserved by a checks and balances system among the state,
\nmonastic authority and the public.<\/p>\n
The interaction between the three had been effective in
\nensuring that monks adhere to precepts and good behavior as well
\nas solving problems that arose.<\/p>\n
The people have the responsibility to provide for the
\nfinancial and material needs of the clerical community as well as
\nto monitor the behavior of monks, who are supposed to concentrate
\non studying the Dhamma.<\/p>\n
Local people and the community imposed sanctions on wayward
\nmonks.<\/p>\n
At the same time, the state provided the monastic community
\nwith security from domestic and foreign threats, including heresy
\nand false teachings.<\/p>\n
The advent of the first Sangha Act changed all that. People
\nand the various communities have since been excluded from having
\na say in monastic affairs.<\/p>\n
Monks are no longer accountable to the public. The monastic
\nauthority provides protection for Buddhist monks. That's why
\nmonks who commit wrongdoing can continue to remain in the
\nmonkhood despite being involved in well publicized scandals,
\nprovided they are protected by the monastic authority.<\/p>\n
The monastic authority is now operating not unlike a state
\nbureaucracy, with the same inefficiency, lack of accountability
\nand corruption.<\/p>\n
At the same time, the state has been reduced to serving as the
\nsecretariat for the Sangha Supreme Council instead of playing an
\nactive role in the governing of Buddhist monks.<\/p>\n
Under the Sangha Act BE 2535 (1992), the King's power to
\napprove the appointment of the Supreme Patriarch was removed,
\neffectively ending any vestige of state control over the monastic
\nauthority, which went on to be come accountable to no-one in the
\nland.<\/p>\n
The new Sangha Bill must make sure that the state and the
\npeople are restored as key players in the administering of
\nmonastic affairs.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/thailands-sangha-bill-still-controversial-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}