ABC News Slams Somdej Chuang with Bad Journalism

On March 29th 2016, ABC News published an article titled “Thailand's head monk to be summoned by police over luxury Mercedes-Benz”. Despite the fact that ABC News has a reputation of credibility, the article contains lots of inaccurate information that must be fixed before it can rightfully belong in the news section.

The journalist, Liam Cochrane, had already corrected one of the mistakes five hours after posting the article. The mistake was replacing the title “Somdej” with “Mr.,” a big no-no in the Thai and Buddhist culture. Thus, it would not be new if all the other mistakes should be corrected also.

The article lacks both the full facts and justness. This response is aimed to shed light to all this misinformation, so ABC News and Mr. Cochrane may have all the correct facts to enhance the credibility of their article.

By law, monks cannot be ‘summoned’

From the very first few paragraphs, the article has already picked a side: against Somdej Chuang. The article presents observations from only one side of the case without fully addressing the full rights and privileges of Somdej Chuang.

Somdej Chuang

Let’s first discuss the rights. The article failed to mention that Somdej Chuang is a witness in this DSI case, NOT a suspect. He must be treated accordingly, not as a criminal. His decision to not speak about the subject without the presence of a lawyer is his full rights, and should be respected. It is only the DSI that “prefers” to have the witness testimonials in speech. They do not have the authority to force Somdej Chuang to give any testimony. Though, Somdej Chuang did volunteer to cooperate, but in writing through the facilitation of proper lawyers, which is easy to keep record of for both parties and is a lawful decision.

Let’s now discuss the privileges. By Thailand’s civil procedure code, monks cannot be summoned as a witness. DSI must request for affidavit. It is the Thai law that 3 types of people may not be summoned as witnesses. These people have been granted special privileges that states they may only be invited in the circumstance that they are only witness to a case:

1. Royalty

2. Monks

3. Diplomats

The act of “summoning” Somdej Chuang is both undiplomatic and against the law. General Paiboon’s statement quoted in the article that “we have to issue the arrest warrant,” is based on his own ignorance of this lawful privilege. DSI’s gift of candles and incense to Somdej Chuang does not give them the free ticket to show that kind of disrespect.

Mr. Sulak and Mr. Mano have no facts, only opinions

On the topic of the article’s attempt to jump on to the train of defaming the Dhammakaya Temple, the following must be presented.

The Dhammakaya’s embezzlement case in 1999 has been settled long ago. The abbot was found innocent. To bring up this settled case is not only unethical, but very unprofessional. The case is way too old for a throwback. #tbt? Maybe it belongs on Twitter or Instagram instead.

Even an older throwback is to give credibility to Mr. Mano, who had been removed from the temple in the 80’s.

Mr. Mano

Both Sulak and Mano as cited in this piece have never presented any evidence in their allegations against either Dhammakaya temple or any people. They made oral and unsubstantial claims toward many people but none of those statements can be supported. It must be a mistake in the ABC’s source checking system, because such a credible news channel cannot possibly consciously choose them.

Mr. Sulak

Mr. Sulak’s quote, "[It's] teaching people that to be powerful is good, to have money is good, the more you spend money on the Dhammakaya you can even see the Buddha — and you can even live forever," carries absolutely no weight. The temple has never taught such ridiculous teachings. The quote was a blatant lie from Mr. Sulak. Just by making this one absolutely slandering and defaming statement is enough to complete discredit Sulak’s opinions about the temple, or even about Buddhism. How could someone comment on anything Buddhist, if he couldn’t even keep the five precepts?

*For anyone caring to know, the five precepts are the basic guidelines for all Buddhist to live by. One of them is to not tell a lie.

No proper reference to the scripture saying which teachings were wrong

The article also accuses the Dhammakaya temple for wrong teaching, while they have never attended any of the teaching sessions, but only offers a one sentence quote of the teachings.

The temple teaches the teachings of the Lord Buddha. The Tripitaka scripture has 84,000 entrances. Anyone can attend any of the teaching sessions and compare them to the entrances. However, to make such a claim that the teachings have been changed from the scripture, it requires reference to scripture. No such proper references have been made in the article by any of the “credible” people interviewed.

Political ties? Really?

Lastly, to make a link between the temple and a single political figure or party is quite weak. The temple has no political ties to Mr. Thaksin, or any political figures in Thailand. However, the temple is quite big, a fact that everyone knows. There is no denying that there are people from every walk of life attending the temple. Common sense says that some of them may be Yellow shirts, some Red shirts, some undecided; it is each person’s freedom. What ever political groups they identify with, when they are inside the temple’s premises, they are White shirts.

As juicy as the article was, ABC News and Mr. Cochrane must correct all these fallacies or move the article to the opinion section of the website. Failing to do so will only make ABC News and Mr. Cochrane less respectable.

For more information regarding this case, see "The Guardian Presents Incomplete Story Regarding Somdej Chuang."

T Gardner

from : http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/home/2016/5/1abc-news-slams-somdej-chuang-with-bad-journalism

DSI Seeks Arrest Warrant: A Lawyer's Perspective

1. Why did DSI choose to release a written statement instead of an announcement via live press conference? This is highly unusual for a high profile case being followed closely by the public, particularly, when reporters from most of the Thai media outlets had been on standby outside of DSI headquarters for most of the day.

2. Why is DSI so eager to expedite the process when the accused (Luang Por Dhammajayo) is not a flight risk. In fact, if the postponement request is due to genuine health issues or legitimate circumstances, he should be granted the request.

If DSI didn't find the medical certificate submitted by the lawyer to be credible, due process dictates they appoint a physician to examine him at the temple. If upon examination it is found that he is not ailing in accordance with the medical certificate, a request for an arrest warrant could be made.

In sum, DSI curtailed due process and reached a conclusion without expert medical opinion. It is this decision, amongst numerous others, which makes DSI appear biased against the abbot.

By Patrick Chan

: http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/home/2016/4/25/dsi-seeks-arrest-warrant-a-lawers-perspective

A Perspective on the Klongchan Credit Union Cooperative Case

What Transpired and How It Can Be Rectified

Klongchan Credit Union Cooperative (KCUC) initially had a working capital of 21,000 M baht. The issue arose when it permitted 12,000 M baht in loans, making itself illiquid—a state of lacking sufficient funds to meet its obligations. This led to a deficit preventing the cooperative from having available funds for circulation, putting it at risk for bankruptcy. Potential approaches to rectify the situation and restore the cooperative are as follows: 

1. Negotiation with its creditors for leniency/grace period

2. Secure additional investment sources 

3. Collect debt payments

4. Increase its membership

The cooperative shouldn’t have permitted DSI to file money laundering charges. Doing so essentially suspends the cooperative’s financial operations and increases its likelihood of bankruptcy, as few financial institutions would risk lending to the cooperative, further exacerbating its situation.  

Supporters of Wat Phra Dhammakaya understood the gravity of the situation and raised over 600 M baht in funds to revitalize the cooperative and prevent the 53,000 members from going bankrupt. They recognized the current economic state would lead to difficulties in securing loans from other banking institutions. Moreover, as the cooperative weakens, competitors see it as a good sign that a sizable community bank will be eliminated from the market. The problem worsened when DSI in turn accuses the Abbot of Wat Phra Dhammakaya of money laundering, further troubling temple supporters who had generously raised funds in an act of goodwill. 

1. These supporters feel betrayed by the cooperative.

2. They feel DSI is specifically targeting Wat Phra Dhammakaya.

3. In addition, the cooperative’s members are being misled into believing the 12,000 M baht can be demanded from the temple.

The truth is 857 cheques worth 12,000 M baht were paid to seven groups. Five were cooperative debtors. Two others – Wat Phra Dhammakaya and various other temples – became victims when the donations received via cheque were drawn from borrowed cooperative funds.

What is most perplexing is DSI has not filed charges against any other group, but it has singled out the Abbot of Wat Phra Dhammakaya for money laundering charges. As stated earlier, the Abbot’s supporters have already raised funds to aid the cooperative’s members during this trying time.  

Please consider the following:

1. The cooperative lost 12,000 M baht through 857 cheques paid out to various groups, yet all money laundering accusations are directed only at the Abbot of Wat Phra Dhammakaya. Is this a fair way of exercising the law? 

2. Will DSI’s accusation of the Abbot of Wat Phra Dhammakaya for money laundering help restore the cooperative and recover 12,000 M baht from its debtors?

3. When accusations of money laundering occur down the line, one ultimately has to start at the front of the line – the cooperative by implication. Will financial institutions step in to assist the cooperative if it is accused of money laundering as well?

  4. If the cooperative went bankrupt as a result of money laundering accusations, will the DSI take responsibility for the bankruptcy of its members?

5. Among the 53,000 members are several thousand who are temple supporters. Some are deceased yet funds still cannot be withdrawn for those accounts; others have deposited millions yet withdrawals are on hold for those. Will the DSI take responsibility for these hardships? Will it secure funds to assist members who are also temple supporters? 

6. If the cooperative goes bankrupt, will DSI assume responsibility for returning 600 M baht in funds raised by temple supporters for the cooperative?

 7. If donations made to a Buddhist temple place the abbot at risk for money laundering charges and accepting stolen property, would any monk risk assuming the roles and responsibilities of a temple abbot? 

If this manipulation of the law leads to the abandonment of the 35,000 temples throughout Thailand, will DSI be accountable for Buddhism’s decline? When exercising the law, one must go beyond the scope of the law and examine potential repercussions. DSI’s actions will set a precedent for law administration regarding charges of money laundering and receipt of stolen property to be potentially applied against all Buddhist temples, as well as for methods used for revitalization of financial institutions in Thailand.

By Patrick Chan

from: http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/home/2016/4/21/a-perspective-on-the-klongchan-credit-union-cooperative-case