The Kallaya temple conflicts eventually concluded with the abbot being found guilty of destroying national treasures and receiving a suspended one-year prison sentence.
The punishment against the abbot, Phra Promkavi, was made for his demolition of monks' residential units and ancient pavilions surrounding the main chapel that were registered as national treasures in the early 2000s. The monk who was then ranked Phra Promchedi, a less senior position in accordance with the Sangha hierarchy, replaced the old residential units with a new luxury structure for the Thon Buri-based temple which is also a major tourist attraction in Bangkok.
The case was brought to the court by the Fine Arts Department in 2015 after the abbot ignored advice that the demolition, which violated the archaeological and historical buildings conservation act, was illegal. As the conflict rumbled on, the Fine Arts Department dismantled some of the new structure during the court battle.
The court initially handed three-year jail term to the monk but, as he confessed, reduced it to one third and suspended it. The reduction was made because the court believed the senior monk's claim that he carried out the act "with an aim to develop and beautify the temple". The Office of Buddhism also defended the monk, saying he acted out of "good will" and as an abbot was in a position to improve the temple. There are reports the department is satisfied with the suspended term and wants the case closed.
In fact, the residential units and pavilions were only a few items that were removed under the monk's orders. According to a report by the Fine Arts Department, more than 22 items were torn down at his command. Among them was a stupa dedicated to the wife of King Rama V, Chao Chom Manda Chaem, and ancestors of the Prawitra family, who have royal lineage from King Rama V. Chao Chom Manda is the rank of a wife who bore a child or children for a king. The destruction drew harsh criticism and the monk, who confessed that he was not aware of the stupa's importance, was made to promise that he would rebuild the structure for the family.
His other infamous act involved ordering the tearing down of an old community that had rented temple land for several generations. There were allegations the monk was upset by the community's stance on conservation, as the community stood in the way of his plans for the land. He saw these residents as whistleblowers and enemies and mercilessly booted them out. Several dozen families lost their homes.
It remains to be seen whether the senior monk will be held accountable for these other abrasive acts that he pursued regarding temple grounds. But it seems some state agencies want to settle the case and spare him. He is the first senior monk to face such punishment over a conservation dispute. Indeed many are of the opinion that the punishment does not fit the crime, and what he did at that ancient temple went against the core cultural values of the institution. But it at least sets a precedent.
It must be admitted the Wat Kallaya saga is just one example of monks, with no idea about conservation, inappropriately pursuing what they believe to be development of an area. Take the cases of a "gold rush" at several temples when abbots believed painting the structures gold would attract more supporters. These temples form the core of the country's cultural treasures and damage to their structures cannot always be undone.
Another major culprit in conservation cases is state agencies which tend to believe they have the jurisdiction and authority when a problem arises. On the other hand, the Fine Arts Department tends to be reluctant to take action, possibly to avoid conflicts with fellow bureaucrats. Not to mention that the conservation laws are riddled with flaws and loopholes that may fail to provide protection for some old buildings or places that deserve conservation simply through a lack of properly submitted paperwork.
With such limitations, the department needs to educate those with such treasures under their jurisdiction to appreciate what they have and conserve the heritage appropriately. In addition, the agency should know it cannot act alone. It must acquire partnerships with communities, equipping them with knowledge and encouraging them to play a constructive role in conservation.
