Temple, state forever tied at the hip

On Oct 2, the Lower House rejected a bill to liberalise the liquor industry. Such a decision reflects the desire of Thai policymakers and legislators to control and reduce alcohol consumption and related industries. Earlier this year, the bicameral parliament passed the strictest alcohol control act to date — a complete prohibition of alcoholic advertisements and sponsorships, regardless of whether they are explicit or implicit.
The tough alcohol law points to something of a contradiction in Thai society. Despite being a world-leading tourist destination famous for its beach parties and nightclubbing, the country has some of the most sophisticated and stringent alcohol regulations.
Since World War II, the government has tightened control of alcohol production, distribution, marketing, and consumption.
In 1972, liquor-selling hours only were curbed to between 11am and 2pm and from 5pm to midnight. The regulatory system matured into the enactment of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act in 2008, which not only demarcates alcohol-free zones but also includes many tedious rules, such as a ban on alcohol vending machines, a ban on sales promotions of booze, and a ban on sales of alcoholic beverages on major Buddhist holidays.
In late 2020, a new regulation outlawed alcohol sales on all online platforms — with violators liable to face up to six months in prison.
For years, Thai craft brewers and local distillers have been struggling to loosen these draconian laws. Proponents of alcohol industry liberalisation often criticise that these state laws are calibrated to facilitate a monopoly (or duopoly) by major corporations, notably ThaiBev and Boon Rawd Brewery.
I beg to differ. In my view, Thailand’s tough alcohol control measurements indiscriminately affect all breweries and distilleries without favouring big corporations over micro businesses. In the bigger picture, the Ministry of Public Health, as well as civic groups, have worked closely in campaigning to reduce alcohol consumption. One consistent campaign is “Ode Lao Khao Pansa” which means no alcohol consumption during Buddhist Lent days, or from mid-July through mid-October. Statistics show that since the early 2000s, liquor consumption in Thailand has declined steadily.
Despite Thailand having no official state religion, as a student of Buddhist studies I am of the view that Thai legislation and public policies on alcohol consumption are shaped by a Buddhist perspective.
Indeed, Thailand is one of the most religious countries in the world, with over 90% of its population identifying as Buddhist. The cultural openness and religious tolerance of Thai Buddhism should not be mistaken as a sign of secularism. Some research indicates that more than half of the Thai population supports making national laws based on Buddhist teachings and practices. Government officials frequently organise Buddhist merit-making events and participate in Buddhist rituals. In short, Thailand has no political consensus of separating religion from state governance.
Although being an overwhelmingly Buddhist-majority country, Thailand somehow has a drinking problem. More than 40% of Thais are reportedly regular drinkers. Drunk driving is common. With an annual consumption of about 8 litres per capita, Thailand is one of the heaviest drinking countries in Asia. In comparison, the Southeast Asian region has an average of about 4.5L per capita.
But imbibing is hardly associated with the Buddhist way of life. According to tradition, Buddhist laities must follow five precepts: no killing, no stealing, no sexual misconduct, no harmful speech, and no alcohol consumption. Later exegeses clarify that the fifth precept should be “no intoxication”, since the problem is not alcohol per se but the sluggishness, the lack of self-control, and the hindrance of other practices caused by inebriety. In general, sobriety is valued as a critical prerequisite for cultivating wisdom and enjoying a good life from a Buddhist perspective.
Thai Buddhist groups and institutions, adhering to these precepts, have been campaigning against alcohol consumption in the country. One of the most significant social protests was made by Wat Dhammakaya in 2005. Some 2,000 monks from the temple, against the listing of Thai Beverage PLC (owner of the Chang beer brand), chanted Buddhist prayers in front of the Stock Exchange of Thailand. Later, more than 100 religious and social organisations joined the protest. That led to the resignation of the stock exchange chief and an indefinite blockage of ThaiBev’s listing. Eventually, ThaiBev was listed in Singapore instead.
Moreover, some Thai temples are world-famous rehab centres that specialise in drug and alcohol treatments. For instance, Wat Thamkrabok in Saraburi province started its rehabilitation programme in 1959. It has since treated more than 100,000 addicts and continuously attracts Westerners with its hardcore and effective treatments. Thai Buddhism, as a social institution, is persistently advocating for total abstinence from alcohol.
Many Thai politicians are openly Buddhist. Ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra first entered politics by joining the Palang Dharma Party, which was a Buddhist-Socialist party led by former Bangkok governor Chamlong Srimuang, known as a devout Buddhist. While the party collapsed in 1996, and many members regrouped into a new political party, others like Sudarat Keyuraphan (a former minister of public health and now active Buddhist practitioner) remain influential figures in Thai politics. Many envisioned a Buddhist-Socialist democracy, pushing for policy against alcohol, cigarettes, and gambling. It is thus impossible for the predominantly Buddhist parliament to liberalise the Thai liquor market just for economic benefit. Their bona fide motive is clear — a sober Thailand. In my opinion, the strengthening alcohol controls merely testify to the improbability of temple-state separation in Thailand.
Guanxiong Qi is a Thai Studies PhD student at Chulalongkorn University specialising in Thai Buddhism.