Peter Skilling's project; the problem with freedom of speech

If we're going to talk about Skilling in earnest, then, here is a
summary of what little I know, and if Skilling himself or anyone else
would be so kind as to contradict my one-sided understanding, I am
indeed willing and eager to learn that I may be wrong.

I would like to re-iterate that I have not said/written anything _ad
hominem_ about Skilling in my prior messages, nor have I written any
criticism of his published work. Like just about everyone else in the
field, I've enjoyed his contributions to the JPTS and other
publications, and appreciate his contribution to the corpus of western
opinion on the subject.

With that caveat stated, I proceed.

Over the past five years I have spoken with many scholars about Peter
Skilling's "Fragile Palm Leaves" Project, and virtually every one of
them has expressed some form of moral reservation about it --along
with raising speculations as to its legality.

At its most basic, the Project *does* buy manuscripts from "dealers"
and "smugglers", and has built up its inventory in what could be
called an ethical and legislative grey area.

If you buy a Burmese manuscript from a dealer in Thailand (and do not
remove it from Thailand) then you are not directly liable for
smuggling; however, you are certainly remunerating smugglers, and are
legally obliged to turn over the (known-to-be) smuggled goods to the
authorities at some point prior to crossing the border.

The organisation claims to be "holding" the manuscripts prior to their
hypothetical return to Burma, and claims that they have "rescued" them
from ending up in other private collections; both of these claims may
well be true, however, the moral argument is quite tenuous from my
perspective.  One could as easily argue that it is a moral act to buy
opium in Burma, as every dose of opium purchased will be prevented
from getting into the hands of some addict; however, in either
instance, the reality is that the money is contributing to a cycle of
exploitation.

Fundamentally, the project's money *is* directly encouraging the
illegal trade in Pali MS flowing out of Burma and into Thailand.

They have purchased "more than 5,000" manuscripts with this method
since 1994, and (therefore) have not had an insiginificant (direct)
effect on the black market for these goods.

The indirect effects are also significant: there is now a large
collection of MS in Taiwan that was acquired (reportedly) entirely by
Taiwanese private collectors buying what Skilling passed over or
rejected in his own shopping for "his" collection.  With that
collection alone, we have a very palpable example of the way in which
a project like F.P.L. can (and does) indirectly encourage other
private collectors to put money into the black market for these
antiquities.

It seems to me that there is a complex balancing act so far as the
legal and financial backing of the project is concerned, with various
promises having been made to (and by) the PTS, the Thai authorities,
and (directly or indirectly) the Myanmar Junta in Pyinmana --who still
have some hypothetical legal right to their cultural patrimony under
international and national law, as the Fragile Palm Leaves project
explicitly recognises.

This is indeed a subject that has stirred up rumour and innuendo among
many scholars, and it may well be that I am the victim of a common
misperception of the facts --but, if so, I assure you that I am not
the only one.  It may be of some real utility to answer these
perceptions --be they valid or invalid-- in some format more durable
than e-mail.

However, Justin has not responded to the issues raised, instead, what
he has written to me is this:
> You have no business reporting rumors or opinions of
> another scholar that cannot be cross-checked. Speak for
> yourself, not others. Let them speak for themselves. Please
> refrain from this and only report what is published or what
> can be checked.

That might be true of a submission to an edited journal, Dr. McDaniel,
however, it is no constraint upon my freedom of speech in writing mere
e-mails to friends and colleagues.

I have chosen a hard path in rejecting academia, but one of the few
benefits is that my freedom of speech is absolute: I may indulge in
the most reckless comments imaginable, without having to answer to any
thesis advisor or department head.  I do not live in the glass house
of an academic in need of other academics' support, and, accordingly,
I do not refrain from making moral arguments on moral issues.

Justin already knows this quite well about me, as he recently enjoyed
my 12-page article on the "immoral" activities of certain charitable,
international organisations in Northern Laos (
www.akha.org/content/sexualabuse/onerebuttaltothenoradreport.pdf ).

I feel that I have nothing to apologise for in trying to engage in
some degree of open discussion about the Fragile Palm Leaves project
--and even less would I apologise for all the accusations I have slung
against "Action Contra La Faim", the UN World Food Programme, or
numerous others for that matter.  Just this is the danger of freedom
of speech, and we all know that there is damn little of it (inside or
outside of academia) in Thailand today.

E.M.