Bad monks erode trust
text size

Bad monks erode trust

Listen to this article
Play
Pause
Phra Thamma Wachiranuwat, 70, disgraced abbot of Wat Rai Khing in Nakhon Pathom, wears a white cloth after he was disrobed on Thursday night for allegedly embezzling 300 million baht from temple funds to gamble online. (Photo supplied/Wassayos Ngamkham)
Phra Thamma Wachiranuwat, 70, disgraced abbot of Wat Rai Khing in Nakhon Pathom, wears a white cloth after he was disrobed on Thursday night for allegedly embezzling 300 million baht from temple funds to gamble online. (Photo supplied/Wassayos Ngamkham)

The recent scandal involving a former abbot of the renowned Wat Rai Khing, accused of embezzling over 300 million baht to fund an online gambling addiction, is deeply disturbing but not surprising. It will not be the last blow to public faith in the Thai Sangha unless meaningful and fundamental reform is made.

Preliminary investigations suggest the damages may reach as high as 850 million baht, funnelled through accounts linked to a woman broker closely associated with the former abbot.

For years, the public has witnessed a plethora of reports about misconduct, mostly embezzlement of donations carried out by high-ranking and charismatic monks. Despite repeated calls for action, the Sangha Supreme Council overseeing temples, monasteries and monks has yet to out enforceable guardrails on financial management within temples.

Some argue temple funds are private donations, not public money. But this overlooks key facts. Temples are legal entities, and abbots are effectively public officials under Section 45 of the Sangha Act. Many, including major temples like Wat Rai Khing, receive state funding through stipends and maintenance grants. When religious institutions rely on public resources and shape national morality, financial accountability is not optional, it is essential.

The cost of weak regulation is palpable. Disillusioned devotees are losing trust, with many now reluctant to give alms or support temples. This erosion of faith threatens not just spiritual life but the integrity of Buddhism itself. While most of Thailand's nearly 300,000 monks and 43,000 temples are upright, a few high-profile scandals have cast a long shadow, just as the Thai proverb warns, "one rotten fish spoils the whole basket".

Temples are also evolving into commercial hubs, with some exploiting social media and marketing tactics to raise donations. The real teachings of the Lord Buddha have been compromised in favour of spectacle and drowned out by consumerism cloaked in saffron robes.

It is time for bold reform. A new legal framework must mandate financial transparency in temples, including regular account audits by certified professionals and mandatory reporting. An independent body should oversee temple spending to ensure it aligns with religious and community purposes. Clear lines must separate temple assets from personal wealth, especially for senior monks.

Moreover, a debate regarding how property and assets acquired by monks during their monastic life should be treated is long overdue. While many donors wish to give directly to individual monks out of personal reverence, it is difficult to reconcile such practices with the monastic ideal of detachment from material wealth.

This issue will require thoughtful, inclusive debate among religious leaders, lawmakers and members of the public.

Thailand remains a Buddhist nation in identity and tradition, with 93% of the population identifying with the religion. But identity alone cannot sustain the moral fabric of society. The three pillars of Buddhism -- the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha -- must stand in harmony. If one crumbles, all are weakened.

The latest scandal is a wake-up call. The cost of doing nothing is not just financial, it is the continued erosion of trust in the very institutions meant to uphold virtue.

Editorial

Bangkok Post editorial column

These editorials represent Bangkok Post thoughts about current issues and situations.

Email : anchaleek@bangkokpost.co.th

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (26)