As happy as Thailand is becoming, for some there’s little change.

First the came for the sexpats on visa runs and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a sexpat.
Then they came for the beach umbrellas and I did not speak out –
Because I use a SPF 45 sunblocker.
Then they came for the street vendors and I did not speak out –
Because I don’t really need another knock-off Rolex watch . . .

I hate to be one of those people who bemoans how things used to be, who rallies against the changes brought on by progress and the passage of time, who longs for the return of the good old days. But sometimes it’s unavoidable. Sometimes those changes aren’t necessarily for the good. Sometimes those good old days really were better. And sometimes it just pisses me off that Bangkok is far too quickly losing the exotic, wonderland appeal that I fell in love with decades ago.

There are things I miss that even I have to agree their loss really was a gain. Like the wide open expanse that Sukhumvit once was. Okay, so it was always a wide open expanse filled with cars playing parking lot, but the boulevard was open to the skies and the street’s hustle and bustle played out under the sun’s warming rays. Then they built the BTS. And the Sukhumvit of my youth became a shadow of its former self. Dark, cramped, and now slightly sinister looking – even if you don’t consider the Nigerian pimps and drug pushers – the tangled mess of barely overhead power lines and trash-filled gutters serving as a play pen for the city’s rat population took on a more ominous tone, prophetically filled with the light-blocking over-sized asses of women in burkas accompanying their men folk to whom Bangkok’s appeal is all those things they could face capital punishment for back home.

The street scene along Sukhumvit has changed over the years, and sometimes not.

But progress is what progress does and while the BTS cast its shadow upon what once was my playground, it also offered the opportunity to rise above it all, and be whisked past the stalled traffic at a mere 10 baht per ride. Now, I can’t imagine Bangkok without the Skytrain’s ease of getting around town and the air-conditioned journeys to my favorite shopping malls. I no longer have to attempt to negotiate a fare with a scamming taxi driver, no longer have to consider if the distance is short enough to risk my life in a tuk tuk. And while Sukhumvit no longer has the appeal it once did, now I can stay there and get to Soi Twilight within five minutes for 30 baht thanks to the BTS.

Landing at Don Muang was the perfect start to your holiday in the Bangkok of yesteryear. It looked, felt, and smelled just like the city did. Then Suvarnabhumi came along and its antiseptic greeting to the Land of Smiles foretold the changes awaiting your arrival some 45 minutes and a 500 baht scam later. I never understood those who bitched and moaned non-stop about the new airport. It’s an airport. It’s a place of transit. You’re not suppose to spend your afternoon there. But now, upon reflection, I think it wasn’t Suvarnabhumi itself that had the old-timers’ panties in a wad. It was what the new airport signified: a change to the Bangkok we’d all grown to love. And an end to life as we once knew it.

But Suvarnabhumi was progress too. Even if it being built was more about lining the pockets of Prime Minister Thaksin than it was about upgrading one of the city’s major transportation hubs. At least greed, corruption, cronyism, and kick-backs were part of Thailand’s landscape that we were all familiar with. Not so with the changes being imposed by The Good General. In his stated attempt at making Thailand a happy place, while power may still be the root cause of his brand of evil, the changes he’s championing are having a far more insidious effect on the Thailand we once knew.

Is it progress or is Bangkok just going to the dogs?

You can laugh at the notion that beach umbrellas are being banned from use on the country’s shores. And even agree that cutting down on the low-lifes who used visa runs to over-stay their time in the country is a good thing. And stamping out corruption is a noble goal, if perhaps an quixotic endeavor. But now the Good General is taking his happy campaign to the streets. And as Howard Beale put it in Network, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

Okay, so maybe cutting down on the number of street vendors isn’t all that bad of an idea. It actually might be nice to be able to use the sidewalks in Bangkok for walking. But I’m not sure the hustle without the bustle is the best answer. Street vendors are an integral part of the Bangkok experience. They’re like having a 7/11 spread along your entire path. You can buy souvenirs, the clothes you’ll wear tomorrow, and the protection – or assistance – you’ll need for tonight, all while you stroll back to your hotel. And without stall after stall lining both sides and sometimes the middle of the sidewalk, what excuse will German tourists have for standing and blocking those sidewalks in the future?

There may be those who think The Good General’s plan to upgrade the piers used by the express boats on the Chao Phraya is the good kind of progress too. But for me that just means one more of those things that made Bangkok Bangkok that will soon be but a distant memory. Watching a too prim Queen attempt an athletic leap to board a river boat is one of the joys of Bangkok. And when you take the danger out of using the piers, those boats will be filled with sun-burned farang faces, the very people you attempt to avoid by using water transportation in the first place. Next thing ya know they’ll be marking the piers clearly so touri will know when to get off. And then there will no longer be that small thrill in telling some lost soul the pier for the Grand Palace was two stops ago.

Or is it just a case of the blind leading the blind.

But I’m a live and let live kind of guy, and even though I’m usually too drunk to consider joining Alcoholics Anonymous, I too realize there are some things you have no control over and that you should accept those things you cannot change. Especially since I’m a guy and hate carrying around a pocketful of change anyway. But that too is on The Good General’s agenda. It’s no longer just Bangkok’s street vendors under attack. The city’s beggars who use stairs as chairs and open sidewalk areas as passing lanes to crawl along too have now found themselves facing The Good General’s wrath.

By now everyone knows those heart-wrenching scenes of homeless mothers and their urchinesque babies are as real as the love you can find in a gogo bar. Or if you didn’t, you know do. Those panhandlers are brought in by the mafia, assigned a child, and sent out to fleece the kind-hearted tourists who wouldn’t give the homeless in their home country a passing glance. Ditto for the cute tykes selling day-old flowers who interrupt you hitting on the beer bar boys; they too are just another money-stream for the city’s criminal master-minds. But according to The Good General the blind singers begging for baht while you beg them to quit screeching in your ear, and the slithering limbless who still manage to find a way to hold out their beggar’s cup, too are part of mafia and the result of Thailand’s trafficking problem. ‘Cuz its not just young women and fishing boat slaves at risk. The disabled too are being sold into a life of begging for tourist dollars.

Of course as anyone who has taken Anti-trafficking 101 knows, the best answer to the human trafficking problem is to arrest those who’ve been trafficked. So earlier this week Bangkok’s police announced they’d arrested 101 of Bangkok’s panhandlers. According to police General Siwara Rangsiphraphamonkun, his boys in brown divided the criminals into three separate and distinct groups: the blind who use speakers to play their accompanying music (beggars who qualify as being both blind and deaf), those with “troubling-to-unbelievable physical deformities”, and those who are just mentally ill (which would account for the 23 foreigners caught up in the police department’s panhandler sweep).

The changing face of Thailand is evident regardless of your level of perspective.

The Boys In Brown are using a little known and never before used law from 1941 that prohibits panhandling. And while some may think it’s criminal to arrest disabled beggars, those caught in the sweep are being sent to the Thanyaburi Homeless Shelter in Pathum Thani to receive career training. Or at least singing lessons.

Bangkok’s homeless always made for a good photo op; its begging urchins were easier to step over than trying to get around a slow moving dowager armed with an umbrella at eye height. And while a limbless man slithering along the sidewalk was never the Disneyland-like encounter you might think it would be, they did make for a good place to ditch the worthless satang that had been weighing down your pocket. And collectively, those folk made Bangkok part of what made Bangkok. The Good General’s plan to arrest them, just because they can’t run fast enough to get away, seems like a cheap shot. And if he really wants to clear the rubbish from Bangkok’s streets, why doesn’t he do something about those hilltribe ladies and their fucking wooden, croaking frogs?

Bangkok has always had a vibrant street scene. And yes, that included vendors selling everything under the sky, wretched looking mothers and not their young, blind karaoke aficionados, and slithering paraplegics. But when they come for the homeless, the disabled, and the disenfranchised, who’s next? The ladyboy hustlers? The helpful, friendly locals who know about a secret one day only state sponsored gem sale? The whispering sexy dvd sellers? Someday soon Bangkok’s streets may look just like those in any other major metropolitan area. It seems that’s what The Good General wants. But if he gets his way, I think Bangkok will be much less for it. Besides, once the sidewalks are cleared of vendors, beggars, and the homeless, what will keep tuk tuk drivers from using them as a thoroughfares?

Related Posts You Might Enjoy:
The Arrival: An Ode To Don Muang, Circa 1986	The Twilight Of Soi Pratuchai	This Is Thailand #1

Guess who The Good General doesn’t like now?

The Good General has decided Thailand will be a happier place if its monks were a bit less light in their sandals. His junta’s cabinet has approved a bill that would ban gay men from entering the monkhood and is preparing to submit it to the National Legislative Assembly. Included in the proposed legislation is wording that can be used to prosecute – with accompanying jail terms – people who propagate ‘incorrect’ versions of Buddhist doctrines, or cause harm to Buddhism. And that specifically includes prison sentences for homosexual monks. ‘Cuz evidently there’s only one kind of flaming monk the Buddha approves of.

Gay monks are not a new problem in Thailand. Assuming the problem with Maria is one of sexual identity. Back in 2009 there were rumors a ‘good manners guide’ would be published to discourage monks from wearing make-up and tight robes. The guidebook was to also address issues like smoking, drinking alcohol, walking, and going to the toilet properly, but of special concern was the flamboyant behavior of homosexual and transgender monks, who could often be seen wearing revealing robes, carrying pink purses, and sporting effeminately-shaped eyebrows. Because that’s how things are done in Thailand, that guide never materialized. The idea that it would be was enough. Until now. And The Good General doesn’t merely want an etiquette manual (although he feels that would be adequate to solve the Chinese tourist problem) but instead wants a ban on gay monks to become a matter of law.

“Buddhism is one of the pillars of the Thai nation and is the religion that most Thai people adhere to. Therefore, Buddhists should be united in patronizing and protecting Buddhism to make it prosper and enhance Buddhist principles and ethics to develop the quality of one’s life,” the proposed legislation’s preamble reads. The bill would allow the Sangha Supreme Council and the government to punish anyone seen to threaten their version of Buddhism. That includes abbots who ordain – knowingly or unwittingly – monks with ‘deviant sexual behavior’ as well as ‘sexually deviant’ monks who ‘harm and disgrace’ Buddhism.

The Sangha Supreme Council has a good working relationship with The Good General.

Not that solving the problem of gay monks through legislation is new either. Since 2006, the Sangha Supreme Council (the governing body of Thai Buddhist clergy) and the National Office of Buddhism (the secular office under the Prime Minister’s Office responsible for promoting Buddhism) have unsuccessfully tried to propose a bill to “Patronize and Protect Buddhism” several times. Each attempt was rejected by previous military and civilian governments who instead recommended that the issues raised by the bills should be included in monastic rules, but not apply to the general public. This time around, the results may be different. ‘Cuz The Good General tends to get what The Good General wants.

In Section 8 of the bill, Article 32 states that anyone who propagates wrong versions of Buddhist teachings – meaning versions that differ from those of the Sangha Supreme Council – could face one to seven years imprisonment. Provincial Buddhist committees will be established under Article 14 of Section 3, and one of the functions of these committees would be to form a warning center in each province against threats to the Sangha Supreme Council’s version of Buddhism.

Venerable Phramaha Paiwan Warawunno, a liberal Buddhist monk known for his criticisms of the Sangha Supreme Council, says the content of the bill violates the rights of individuals to interpret the Buddha’s teachings. “Whose interpretations of Buddhist doctrines are correct and shall be used as standards? Who will have the right to judge whether a specific version of the Buddhist doctrines is correct and point out that the others are not?” he questions.

Um, that would be The Good General’s. ‘Cuz he wants Thailand to be a happy place. But not, necessarily, a gay one.

The Good General is against gay monks. Flaming ones, not so much.

Venerable Shine Waradhammo, an undergraduate student monk at Wat Mahathat Yuwaratrangsarit’s Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University in Bangkok, said that if the bill is passed it may become the religious version of the controversial Article 112 of the Criminal Code, aka the lèse majesté law. “In order to thrive, religion must always be adaptable to societies to allow people to understand its practices and teachings, including, making itself open for debate and discussion,” he says. The proposed legislation would remove that debate in preference for State sponsored doctrine.

Vichak Panich, an expert on Buddhism and religious studies, pointed out that if the bill on protecting and patronizing Buddhism passes, it will become another obstacle to democracy in Thailand. “This bill will give the Sangha Supreme Council – which is already quite a dictatorial organization since it is not transparent and elected – the power to prosecute not only monks but also lay persons who defy its authority,” he says. His concern is that the version of Theravada Buddhism promoted by the Sangha Supreme Council and the National Office of Buddhism has two all-encompassing functions in Thai society.

“Theravada Buddhism is promoted as a part of the Thai identity and nationalism,” Vichak says. “Moreover, it promotes the intangible concept of virtue and morality over freedom and rights. This lends support and justification for some groups of people in society to judge others.”

“It is no surprise that this bill is being accepted under the current political regime.” adds the religious expert.

If the Bill To Patronize and Protect Buddhism passes, Thailand’s monks will only be allowed to play with pussy.

Nidhi Eoseewong, a prominent Thai historian and political commentator, says no one really knows what the Lord Buddha taught word by word. “You only have the Tripitaka which was in fact written some 500 years after the Lord Buddha died. Therefore, even the oldest Buddhist scripture is written through an interpretative process,” he says. And unlike with the Christian bible which specifically deems homosexuality to be an abomination – right along side having a tattoo, divorce, wearing polyester or any other fabric blends, and allowing your wife to grab the testicles of the guy you get into a bar fight with – The Buddha never addressed going gay. Whether while wearing saffron or not.

Buddhism teaches to, and expects from, its followers a certain level of ethical behavior. The minimum that is required of the lay Buddhist is embodied in the Five Precepts, the third of which relates to sexual behavior. Since homosexuality as it applies to the layperson is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha’s discourses, and since The Buddha seems to have had a profound understanding of human nature and to have been remarkably free from prejudice, one can assume that under his teachings homosexuality is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And unlike the Christian god, The Buddha did not feel sin-free sex was limited to the act of procreation.

In the Pali Canon (the scriptural texts that hold the Buddha’s original teachings) the Buddha describes the Five Precepts – which serve as voluntary guidelines for life and are the bases of Buddhist morality – as gifts toward oneself and others. The Third Precept – I undertake the training rule to avoid sensual misconduct – is further expounded upon in the Anguttara Nikaya, one of the numerous discourses ascribed to the Buddha contained within the Sutta Pitaka which covers the actions of non-monastic followers. In that text, sex with mutual consent – where adultery is not involved, and where both partners are of an appropriate age – is viewed as an expression of love, respect, loyalty, and warmth. Which follows the dictates of the Five Precepts. Whether between two people of opposite genders or not.

The Buddha never said that gay people were bad. Cruising for sex is a different matter.

The picture in the first of the three Tripitaka , the Vinaya, is a bit different. The Vinaya concerns itself with rules for monks and nuns and deals with all kinds of possible sexual behaviors. None of which are allowed by the Buddha. In fact, the Vinaya explicitly forbids monks from having sexual relations with any of the four genders. Two of those you are probably already familiar with. The third gender, ubhatovyanjañaka, is usually thought to describe people who have both male and female sexual characteristics (i.e., hermaphrodites and the intersex . . . like Bruce Jenner). The fourth gender is the pandaka, a complex category that is variously defined in different Buddhist texts, sometimes as homosexuals, sometimes merely as the hyper sexually promiscuous. However, The Story of the Prohibition of the Ordination of Pandaka from the Vinaya provides an example of a monk with an insatiable desire to be sexually penetrated by men, so both may be true. And in either case, it’s doubtful any fan of Sunee Plaza will ever be wearing saffron.

However. while homosexuality is explicitly mentioned in the Vinaya, and prohibited, it is not singled out for special condemnation, but rather is considered one of many forms of sexual misconduct contravening the rule that requires monks and nuns to be celibate. In several cases the penalty is actually less in the case of homosexual behavior. For example, for a monk to erotically touch another man is a less serious offence than the same act with a woman, which is a big no-no. In fact, the Buddha’s criticism of a monk who broke his celibate vows is especially snarky:

“Worthless man, it would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a poisonous snake than into a woman’s vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a black viper than into a woman’s vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into a pit of burning embers, blazing and glowing, than into a woman’s vagina.”

What’s a gay monk to do?

Kinda makes ya wanna swear off vagina for life. Which many of us already have. But within Theravada Buddhism, sex alone is not the sole principal transgression that entails expulsion from the Sangha. Theft, murder, and falsely boasting of superhuman perfections are viewed as equally bad offenses. And are as frequently committed by members of the clergy in Thailand if news media reports are to be believed. Monks behaving badly is a common enough subject in the news that you have to wonder why it is only the gay monks that The Good General and the Sangha Supreme Council single out in the proposed legislation.

The Buddha’s proscriptions against certain types of people joining the ordained community are often understood to reflect his concern with upholding the public image of the Sangha as virtuous; social acceptability was as vital for the clergy in his time – since it could not survive without material support from lay society – as it is today. In fact, seemingly in accordance with the Buddha’s wishes, back in 1989 the Sangha Supreme Council affirmed that ladyboys are prohibited from being ordained. But since Buddhist monastic rules already stipulate that monks must be celibate, the intent behind the proposed legislation is troublesome.

“It seems as if people who took part in writing this bill hold prejudiced views against people with alternative sexes and genders,” says Venerable Shrine. “This is a form of violence and a violation of human rights because naturally gender and sex can’t be straightforwardly defined as male and female.”

He believes that if the bill passes into law, its application will be problematic because it is based on prejudice and discriminates against monks with alternative sexes and genders. Which is an act the Buddha never blessed. Regardless of how happy its passage may The Good General make.

Related Posts You Might Enjoy:
Monk Shot! #66	Bangkok Tourism For The Phallically Inclined	Bonus Shot: Luang Prabang Monk Hunk