The International Network of Engaged Buddhists (INEB), a global network of activists, spiritual leaders, organizations and academics of all Buddhist sects, who integrates the practice of Buddhism and social actions for a healthy, just and peaceful world, hereby conveying our strongest supports and solidarity with the Buddhists monks and the people of Burma who are peacefully calling for the end of social and political sufferings in Burma. In particular, we strongly support the peaceful expressions of the loving-kindness and compassions for the Burmese society by the Buddhist monks across Burma. We also support their demands for the SPDC to offer their apologies to the monks :

• To reduce all commodity prices, fuel prices, rice and cooking oil prices immediately,
• To release all political prisoners including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and all detainees arrested in ongoing demonstrations over fuel price hike,
• To enter into dialogue with democratic forces and ethnic nationalities for national reconciliation immediately, and
• To resolve the crises and difficulties facing and suffering by the people.

Welcome the State and Peace Development Council or SPDC’s restraint on the use of violent means on the first day (September 18,2007)of the demonstrations by Buddhist monks in various towns and cities across Burma except the use of tear gas and violent break up of the demonstrations in Sittwe, the capital of Arakan State in western Burma. We also welcome the release of three monks, one novice and ten other protesters who were arrested on Tuesday afternoon in Sittwe.

We are extremely concerned over the latest news report on the SPDC’s secret declaration of the state of emergency which authorized regional and local authorities to use violent means, including an order to open fire, in cracking down the demonstrations.

We urge the SPDC, who are also Buddhists, to apply and practice Panna (wisdom), Metta (loving-kindness) and Karuna (compassion) in responding to the current situations by

1. revoking the authorization of, and ban, the use of all violent means, in dealing with all demonstrations in Burma including the use of tear gas and opening fires, the hiring of local thugs, Swan Arr Shin and SPDC’s proxy USDA to confront and crackdown on the peaceful protests and the arresting and beating up of the demonstrators.

2. stopping the surveillance and all restrictions on monasteries and temples.

3. allowing the peaceful demonstrations and expressions of the concerns and cares for the society by the Buddhist monks and the people of Burma.

4. allowing independent media to cover the current events without any restrictions so that both sides of the stories can be known and heard.

5. start entering into dialogue and working for the solutions with Buddhist monks who play a very significant roles as spiritual, cultural and social leaders in Burmese society.

The INEB believe that every human beings, including the personnel of SPDC, have a seed of Buddha, the potential for awakening and enlightenment. We hope the SPDC will take the current situation as the opportunity to let the seeds of Buddha within them grow by awakening to the need to start resolving the crises facing Burma by releasing Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, all political prisoners including imprisoned ethnic nationalities’ leaders and start a meaningful and compassionate dialogue with all relevant parties.

We will continue watching Burma closely with our utmost concerns and we send our best wishes to all people of Burma. May Peace Prevail in Burma very soon!

The International Network of Engaged Buddhists September 20, 2007.

Last week’s brutal crackdown on protests in Burma will not stop the growing movement for reform in the pariah state, pro-democracy leaders in exile said Friday in Bangkok.

The unprecedented Buddhist monk-led protests ignited a fire among long-suffering Burmese that will not be easily extinguished, but the international community must pressure the military regime to avoid further bloodshed, the activists told a Bangkok press conference.

“Many people are saying the Burmese revolt is over, but that is not true,” said Naing Aung of the Forum for Democracy in Burma. “A movement that brought out 1 million people willing to defy bullets cannot easily disappear.”

Leaders of several groups said the images thousands of monks marching peacefully, and finally being beaten, had brought together both Burmese citizens and people around the world to stand up to the regime.

“Those two contradictory images of peace and brutality were powerful for the world to see, but this has been going on in Burma for the last 50 years, especially in the ethnic areas,” said Salai Lian Sahkong of the Ethnic Nationalities Council.

“We have been suffering and dying and crying without the world knowing about it, but now the people of Burma are uniting, and we’re saying: ‘no more killing, no more beating.’”

The exiled pro-democracy leaders agreed that the moral authority of the country’s monks has lent powerful impetus to the movement, and said the military regime is fearful because it has not been able to control the monkhood.

“People in the communities always give food to the monks, but now the people have started to go to the monks to ask them for food,” said Naing Aung of the Forum for Democracy in Burma. “The monks see how the people are suffering, and as the moral authority of the communities, they are now demanding to change the system.”

Khin Ohmas, an advocate for political prisoners and veteran of the mass 1988 democracy uprising that ended with a bloody crackdown, said the resurgent movement is stronger for past experiences and for the new leadership of the monks.

“When we were out in the streets, many people might’ve just seen us as rebellious kids - and, in a way, we were,” she said. “But now people see that the monks are leading the way, and they represent the highest level of respect in our society.”

Sulak Sivaraksa, a Thai author, teacher and devout Buddhist, said monks have a duty to be involved in politics when injustice is being committed.

“Buddhist monks must strive for peace on the inside, and peace on the outside - it is about looking for balance all through life - and politics is part of that whole,” he said. “It is only in the West that Buddhism has become some kind of escape.”

U Maung Maung, of the National Council of the Union of Burma, rejected the commonly held idea that the military junta is deaf to international criticism.

“If you don’t read Burmese, you may think that,” he said. “But the Burmese media, which are run by the regime, they are reacting all the time to what the US says, the EU, the UN. They do care about international opinion, and it is important to pressure them.”

Bangkok Post

WELL-KNOWN social critic Sulak Sivaraksa says he will petition both the United Nations and the National Human Rights Commission and file a case in the Administrative Court to challenge the police’s decision to ‘. ban and confiscate one of his recent books, which touched. on politics and the monarchy.

“I can assure you that all that I wrote was ‘true,” Sulak told The Nation.

“For three decades now, the authorities have not stopped harassing citizens and even [Prime Minister] Surayud [Chulanont] once remarked that police are like the mafia.”

Sulak said he received a Special Branch police notice on Tuesday ordering him to stop printing, selling and disseminating the book “A Quarter of a Century of Thai Politics: A Thorn-filled Path”, published by Song Siam publishing house.He said the order claimed the book “may cause unrest and degrade good morals” in Thai society, a charge Sulak rejected.

“I don’t know where and how many copies they have confiscated already.”

He said the printing law cited in the police order dated from, the dictatorial era of 1941.

“I also heard a rumour that they may come and arrest me,” said Sulak, who has twice been tried and acquitted on lese majeste charges.

A source who asked not to be named said the whole affair was putting the Surayud administration in a negative light and may be part of a plan by some influential group seeking to undermine the interim government.

Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation

——————————————————————

published in The Nation, October 4, 2007

The Special Branch Police has banned a book on Thai democracy written by respected scholar Sulak Sivaraksa.

The ban on Khawn Sattawat Prachatippatai Thai (Thai Democracy After More Than Half A Century) was issued by Pol Maj-Gen Sombat Supacheeva, chief of the Special Branch Police printed media affairs section, who claimed the book ”undermines social order and public morals”.

Police said sales and distribution of the book are prohibited. They will confiscate copies already on sale.

Mr Sulak said the ban came as a surprise since the book, an anthology of his articles and speeches, was released in March. He doubted the ban was politically motivated.

”Normally I would say this case reflects an attempt to suppress freedom of expression. But this time I think there is a hidden agenda as it will tarnish the government’s image and may derail the planned election,” he said.

He has asked human rights lawyer Somchai Hom-laor to bring the case to the Administrative Court and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

He denied that his book undermines social order as claimed by the police.

”This is preposterous. What I wrote were the facts. [Police] must prove that I was wrong before banning it. My book is little or nothing compared to threats from corrupt politicians and the use of taxpayer money to sponsor lavish functions,” said the outspoken scholar.

Mr Sulak has been in hot water before for his forthright remarks on social and political issues. He was charged with lese majeste several times but acquitted.

Many of his recent works are on sensitive topics. For instance, he wrote a review of The King Never Smiles, a banned book, for Pacarayasara, a bi-monthly magazine published by the Sathien Koset Nakhapratheep Foundation.”

—————————————————

published in Bangkok Post, October 4, 2007

On October 2nd, 2007 the Special Branch of Police issued a warrant to confiscate Sulak Sivaraksa’s Thai book entitled “75 Years of Thai Democracy: Full of Obstacles” citing the Criminal Law that the book creates unrest in Thai Society. There is not yet a warrant of arrest on the author.

For more information about this case please called 02 236 7783, 086 566 3735, 084 066 7161

Were Thanpuying Phoonsuk Banomyong to have lived to 2 January 2008, she would have completed her 8th cycle; that is, she would have been 96 years old. For those of us who have great respect for her, we even hoped that she would live even longer and continue to serve as an important source of moral support. Among our contemporaries, it is impossible to find someone like her. She had deftly blended traditional notions of femininity with modern values associated with meaningful democracy. She had stood with the marginalized and steadfastly upheld truthfulness and nonviolence. She was also a loyal subject of the royal family, whom she had served since the time of H.M. Queen Sawang Vadhana, Grand mother of Rama VIII and Rama IX. And the one who had granted her the name “Phoonsuk.” was none other than H.M. Queen Saovabha, Mother of Rama VI and Rama VII.

Thanpuying Phoonsuk dearly loved her husband and children. She served as a model wife and mother. She extended her love and compassion to others as well. In this respect, she was a true Buddhist. She never violated the Five Precepts and was full of generosity. Above all, she never developed a grudge against all those who had oppressed, directly or otherwise, her and her family, in particular her husband and son.

Were Thanpuying Phoonsuk to live to 24 June 2007 she would have been the last living witness of the 1932 Revolution in Siam, a revolution that has been consistently betrayed and perverted by numerous dictatorships in various guises, including the most recent coup on 19 September 2006. That Thanpuying Phoonsuk will not be around to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the revolution is perhaps appropriate, since the political climate in the country is morally and democratically half-baked at present.

More significantly, she passed away on 11 May (or 12 May based on the modern calendar), which is the day of birth of her husband. The two had been a loyal couple. Together they had persevered through many hardships and difficulties. But Thanpuying Phoonsuk had always considered the sufferings of the people to be more severe than her own. Therefore she was able to confront her personal sufferings with strength, courage, and mindfulness. Again, this shows that she was a true Buddhist. In contemporary Thai society, it is difficult to find someone of comparable status manifesting this feature. Understanding the multifaceted sufferings faced by the majority of her compatriots, she collaborated with her husband and devoted her life to the cause of emancipating them from these sufferings—politically, economically, and culturally. Of course, it is still unaccomplished because of the exiting negative structures that are highly unjust and violent at the national and international levels.

Ajarn Pridi had failed in his revolutionary ambition. Conservative, anti-democratic, and anti-revolutionary forces were by and large the order of the day. But this defeat can be seen as only temporary. Nothing is permanent. I believe that the seeds of democracy nurtured and sowed by Pridi and the People’s Party along with the Free Thai Movement that helped liberate Siam during World War II will be reactivated prior to the centennial anniversary of the revolution. Miracles do happen. At least Thanpuying Phoonsuk had lived long enough to commemorate the 100th birth anniversary of her husband, whom the Thai ruling elites have consistently betrayed since 8 November 1947. She also witnessed the commemorative ceremony marking the 60th anniversary of the end of WWII in Siam on 16 August, 2005 which meant that Siam was not on the defeated side despite the fact that the Thai government had declared war against the allies due to the Free Thai Movement led by her husband. The movement was likewise betrayed by the ruling elites.

Among Thais, Ajarn Pridi was the exception rather than the rule. He never lusted for more power when assuming political positions. He always sided with the marginalized. He was also an exceptional Thai man in the sense that he had never been disloyal to his wife. He was devoted to his family but never pampered them with luxuries even when he had the means and capacity to do so. Equally important, Pridi was devoted to the Thai people and to humanity at large. He sacrificed a lot of personal energy, time, and money. On the last point, he built a publishing house and a printing press prior to the 1932 Revolution. Then he collaborated with his friends to launch the Bank of Asia. Finally, he donated these establishments to the newly opened University of Moral and Political Science (Thammasat) so that it would be independent from government interference. He also refused to accept any remittance for participating in the board meetings of state and private enterprises. Thanpuying Phoonsuk firmly supported this decision. Read the rest of this entry »

Five days after the National Peace-keeping Council (NPKC) overthrew the democratically elected Chatichai Choonhavan government on 23 February 1991, the Asian Wall Street Journal came to interview me—at that time, the local dailies were too afraid to do so. In the interview I insisted on the following points. Thais in general would initially support the new rulers after the removal of the previous government. They wouldn’t see it as unjust to usurp power illegitimately. However, three months later, the people would begin to get dissatisfied with the new government. After six months, they would start criticizing and denouncing the new government. They might even feel nostalgic for the good old days under the previous regime, often forgetting its sins or flaws. This is either because the new government is really worse than the one before; or the government in power is often seen as worse than the one out of power. This has long been the case.

One month after the NPKC coup d’etat, I passed by Los Angeles, USA. The Thai newspaper in L.A. is called Siam Media. And the Association of Thai Journalists in California invited me to give a talk on Thai politics, which I gladly complied. The event took place on 22 March, and it was news in Siam Media. Subsequently, Matichon newspaper in Bangkok sent someone to inform me that I should not criticize the NPKC abroad. (Before that, someone big in Matichon who was close to someone big in the NPKC had also told me not to publicly oppose the NPKC.) I thanked the informer for the message, but replied that it was an impossible demand.

Three months after the coup, I was invited to give a talk along with Mr. Phoovadon Songprasert at Thammasat University. Only one local daily (and in this case it happened to be an English one) reported on what I had said in a very brief manner. Moreover, Phoovadon’s views, which I consider to be better than mine, were not reported at all. Subsequently, some thugs even beat him up.

Prior to that, I had been a Matichon columnist. At the time the standpoint of the newspaper was that the NPKC was a just dictatorship. I held the opposite view, however. Therefore, I resigned from the newspaper—though I remained close to its boss.

Six months after the coup, I was once again invited to give a talk at Thammasat University. The talk was entitled “Six Months of the NPKC: A Regression in Thai Democracy.” General Suchinda Kraprayoon lodged an anti-defamation suit against me because of this talk. Moreover, he also charged me with lese majeste because of this speech.

Read the rest of this entry »

RE: Requesting for fairness in the prosecution of two lese majeste cases
Enclosed: Three letters written to the prime minister and two reply letters from the Prime Minister’s Office

Dear Acting National Police Chief Seripisuth Temiyavej,

First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your new important position. To my knowledge, you are known for your fairness and compassion for ordinary citizens. As such, you are different from the national police chief under the Thaksin government. Also, the prime minister seems to be of this view. As reported in Thai Post newspaper on 19 January:

The Prime Minister criticized the inefficiency of the police, their inability to adapt to social changes. The whole system needs to be revamped. All the police care about is catching thugs at the expense of other considerations and with disregard for the consequences. The police are used to the patron-client system and are prone to abuse the freedom of others. The Prime Minister is determined to set in motion police reforms in an open and honest manner to regain the trust of the people.

It is clear that former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra persecuted me for my oppositional views by filing the two charges of lese majeste against me. The letters I sent to the prime minister were forwarded by the Prime Minister’s Office to the Royal Thai Police Office to be used in the deliberation of the prosecution against me. I have called for the ending of the prosecution. (Please refer to the enclosed materials.) But the Royal Thai Police Office seems indifferent.

Therefore, I write to call upon your impartiality to bring about an end to the prosecution so as not to disturb H.M. the King. The King made it clear that any charge of lese majeste filed would not only hurt him but also the monarchy.

Ending the prosecution will facilitate national reconciliation and solidarity. The second lese majeste case lodged against me has to do with an English material that still has not been translated into Thai. Its translation into Thai will lead to widespread ramifications, and the translator may even face the charge of lese majeste as in the case faced by former police chief Pol. Gen. Sawat Amornwiwat.

If my case is brought to the attention of the international community, the credibility and image of the kingdom will be undermined. The king had raised this point before in one of the royal speeches. I am known nationally as well as internationally as a royalist who wants to protect the monarchy within the framework of democracy.

Previous charges of lese majeste lodged against me were also done with malice, for instance at the time when General Arthit Kamlang-ake was jockeying for power vis-à-vis Prime Minister Prem Tinsulanonda. In this particular case, my lese majeste case was already sent to the military court, but the prime minister intervened to stop it. And when General Suchinda Kraprayoon illegally toppled the Chatichai Choonhavan government, my trial lasted four years. I was eventually acquitted of the charge of lese majeste. The court affirmed my innocence, declaring thus:

After considering the statements of the witnesses for both the defense and prosecution, and the complete transcripts of the defendant’s speech, most fair-minded people would question why the defendant had been charged, what was the defendant’s intention, and toward whom was his public talk directed. We cannot only consider literally what he said. We can see clearly that the intention of the talk was to make the students and the people aware so they would be awakened to resist the unjust authority of the NPKC in seizing power from an elected government and its attempts to prolong its hold on power. The talk also tried to clarify the basic principles of democracy, liberty, and equality of the people. No group should use the monarch to serve their own political purposes, and the military groups which have seized power have violated these basic principles throughout the history of Thai democracy. The defendant also denounced the validity of the five points the NPKC used as an excuse for staging the coup. He also condemned individuals and groups that were submissive to the NPKC as having a part in destroying Thailand’s reputation within the international community.

When considering the first and the second phrases that the prosecution charged as lese majeste within the context of the complete talk, it is clear that the defendant sought to teach the students to be conscious of the essence of democracy which has the King as head of state. He warned the students not to live a luxurious, consumer-oriented lifestyle, not to worship being rich, not to admire people in power, and to be concerned about justice and righteousness.

I am confident that you fully understand the court’s decision cited above and that you have the moral courage to order the ending of the prosecution when it is still within the authority of the national police chief to do so.

Yours respectfully,
Sulak Sivaraksa
(The alleged offender)

RE: Stopping the prosecution
Ref: Sulak Sivaraksa’s letter to the Prime Minister dated 14 December 2006 and the reply letter of the Permanent Secretary of the Office of the Prime Minister dated 29 December 2006

Dear Prime Minister,

I thank Mr. Prime Minister for asking the Permanent Secretary of the Prime Minister’s Office to reply to my letter referred to above and for directing the national police chief to give my appeal a careful consideration.

Furthermore, on 18 January Mr. Prime Minister presided over the opening ceremony of a seminar on the development of the Thai police system. Thai Post newspaper reported on 19 January that “The Prime Minister criticized the inefficiency of the police, their inability to adapt to social changes. The whole system needs to be revamped. All the police care about is catching thugs at the expense of other considerations and with disregard for the consequences. The police are used to the patron-client system and are prone to abuse the freedom of others. The Prime Minister is determined to set in motion police reforms in an open and honest manner to regain the trust of the people. ‘Chirmsak’ does not believe that revamping the police system will solve the problems of bribery, kickbacks, and extrajudicial killings since the national police chief still monopolizes power.” Thai Post headlined its news column thus: “Breaking the Police State.”

It’s highly unfortunate that some agencies under the Royal Thai Police are acting like a state within a state, turning a deaf eye to the wishes of Mr. Prime Minister.

The coup was four months old on 19 January. A seminar was held at the Faculty of Economics, Thammasat University, on that day. Please see the enclosed material. Someone brought along copies of Fah Diew Kan to sell. The police arrested the seller for supplying prohibited books. The seller was ultimately charged with lese majeste. As mentioned in the previous letters, the king stated that any charge of lese majeste filed would hurt him and undermine the monarchy. It seems that Thai police officers are disloyal to the king.

As for my case involving Seeds of Peace magazine mentioned in my letter to Mr. Prime Minister dated 14 December 2006, I’d like to add that the magazine primarily focuses on nonviolence and Buddhism. The police alleged that a volume of Seeds of Peace contained articles that defamed the king. I would like to point out that that volume in fact contained articles attacking the then prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, demanding him to return democracy to the people. Additionally, none of the charges of lese majeste filed against me in the past was based on materials written in the foreign languages. Pursuing the charge against me requires that materials be translated into the Thai language, which will make them more accessible to society at large. Moreover, the officer(s) in charge of the translation job will have to be responsible for it—as in the case of former police chief Pol. Gen. Sawat Amornwiwat who translated prohibited materials and published them in the Royal Gazette. Likewise, the monarchy will be negatively impacted if the materials in my case are translated and published in Thai. Pursuing the charge against me to the end will not be beneficial to the reputation of the monarchy and the spirit of national reconciliation in the present.

If my case is brought to the attention of international organizations such as Amnesty International and International Jurists Commission, they will likely mobilize an international protest on my behalf since it is a case that involves the freedom of thought and belief. The image and credibility of the kingdom will be undermined. Thus far I haven’t asked these organizations to mobilize international support for me since I trust in the impartiality of Mr. Prime Minister. I am confident that you will help put an end to a trouble created by the former prime minister by ordering the Royal Thai Police to drop the charges against me.

At present, the Royal Thai Police still hasn’t dropped the charges against me. I face two charges: one involving Fah Diew Kan magazine, the other concerns Seeds of Peace magazine. The latter is the latest charge filed against me.

I thus have high hopes in Mr. Prime Minister—not only for my sake, but also, and more importantly, for the sake of the monarchy. It seems that many high-ranking officers in the Royal Thai Police do not understand this latter point. They are only blindly enforcing the law, by pursuing both charges against me without taking into consideration that they were the actions of the Thaksin Shinwatra government, which had often used the law to silence its critics.

Yours sincerely,

Sulak Sivaraksa
(The alleged offender)

The majority of Thais may not know of this man who passed away quietly last Saturday. But over the past six decades, Udom Yenrudi has been making pivotal, behind-the-scenes contributions to society. His efforts are best described by the well-known Thai saying pid thong lang phra (to paste a gold leaf on the back of Buddha’s statue), which is applied to describe those who do good deeds without seeking recognition.

Udom came from a Thai-Chinese family. As a boy in Thon Buri he won a government scholarship and went to study in England. Following the outbreak of World War Two, Udom returned to Thailand to work as a lecturer at Chulalongkorn University’s Arts Faculty (unlike some of his peers who refused to come back). The overbearing limits on academic freedom under the military regime, however, eventually prompted him to resign. Udom then became arguably the first ever Thai correspondent with Reuters. At the same time, he worked as secretary to the president of the Thai-Chinese Chamber of Commerce, Tan Siew Meng.

During the war, leaders in the Thai-Chinese community were divided over whether they should side with or oppose the Japanese who were occupying the country. Tan Siew Meng somehow managed to earn the respect of both sides. The Japanese wanted to force the ethnic-Chinese to supply them with rice and labour to build the Thai-Burma railway. Tan Siew Meng, however, insisted that the Chinese must abide by Thai laws and reminded the Japanese of their declared policy of non-interference. In the end, the Japanese paid a good price for the rice and resorted to using forced labour from Malaya and Singapore instead. Tan Siew Meng received a series of personal threats from the dissatisfied Japanese as a result.

As Tan’s secretary, Udom informed a Japanese former classmate of his, who was working as an assistant to the press officer at the Japanese embassy, that the Japanese military’s threatening of the president of the Thai-Chinese Chamber of Commerce violated diplomatic protocol. Apparently, Udom was highly trusted by Tan. When Tan was murdered during the subsequent regime of Khuang Abhaiwong, Udom was a key witness at the investigation.

After the war, and especially during the the conflict in Vietnam, Thailand received a flood of foreign correspondents. Most of them knew Udom and considered him a good friend. A number of these foreign journalists pooled their funds and set up a mining company, which they asked Udom to be the president of.

Among the US correspondents was Darrell Berrigan, formerly the owner and editor of the Bangkok World. When he passed away, his son invited me to preside over a youth camp organised by the mining company to train young people to serve society.

That was in 1970. I was not able to accept the invitation, but in my place I sent a few young students who were keen on social issues, one of whom was Komol Kheemthong.

A senior at Chulalongkorn University’s Faculty of Education, Komol was diligent, active and well-connected with several youth groups in other universities. Although his teachers wanted him to take up a teaching job at his alma mater, Komol became fascinated with the youth camp experience and wanted to set up a community school. He set his mind on working as a rural teacher after he graduated.

Udom fully supported Komol’s idea. The school Komol established was a genuine pioneer in drawing on and promoting indigenous sources of knowledge and wisdom. Komol invited many local villagers, as well as friends of his to come and teach his students. Those who were not able to go often contributed novel ideas to the dedicated teacher.

Unfortunately, the area where the school was located, at Ban Song in Surat Thani, was caught in the fighting between the Thai army and Communist insurgents. Komol came under the suspicion of both camps and was gunned down on February 22, 1971.

Udom took up the task of organising Komol’s funeral. The present Supreme Patriarch (then known as Phra Sasanasophon) gave a dharma lecture at the event and the late privy councillor, Sanya Dharmasakti, sought special permission for a royally sponsored cremation. Udom spent a lot of money on the funeral books, which were sold to raise funds for what is now known as the Komol Kheemthong Foundation, an organisation set up to promote alternative education and instil social ideals in young people.

Sanya was the foundation’s first president until he resigned to become prime minister in 1973. Udom succeeded him in the post, stepping down several years later due to his advanced age. He continued to support the foundation’s activities for the rest of his life. As well as from foreign correspondents, Udom also made friends with a number of Asian leaders, notably Belen Abreu of the Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation. Udom personally nominated several Thais to receive the prestigious award, including winners Puey Ungpakorn, Prateep Ungsongtham and Phra Chamroon Parnchand of Tham Krabok Temple for his work with drug addicts.

Prateep used the award money to set up the Duangprateep Foundation. Udom actively supported the foundation and helped Prateep set up another organisation for babies born in slums. Evidently, Udom’s life-long interest lay in the problems of children and the underprivileged.

Udom was married to A-ngoon Malik. Although they later separated, A-ngoon also played a key role in supporting progressive political and cultural student movements. A large property she donated on Soi Thong Lor became the Pridi Banomyong Foundation.

Throughout his life, Udom continued to help relieve people of their suffering, be it at a personal or social level. Some people may not even realise that they were assisted by him.

This is a summarised translation of the obituary written by Sulak Sivarksa, which has been published in a funeral book that is being distributed at the funeral rite held at Wat Sommanas until today. Phra Paisan Visalo will deliver a dharma lecture at 10am. For more details, call 02-438-0353.