Category Archives: Thai Men

Tourism minister’s, Krabi police’s damage control in Dutch tourist rape case backfires

The reactions of Thai officials in the rape case of a young Dutch tourist in Krabi are looking like a remedy worse than the illness.

What gave Thailand a black eye in the past few weeks is the YouTube video Evil Man from Krabi made by the rape victim’s father outraged that the suspect easily got bail. The father sings:

Evil man of Krabi, we’ve got to put him into jail. Evil man of Krabi, we don’t accept no bail. They let him free, so he can do it again and again. Don’t you feel the pain you put inside my child?


The video has gone viral and is causing damage to Thai tourism industry.

It wasn’t rape because she had dinner with him.

In response to the YouTube video, Thai tourism minister and deputy prime minister made a comment that has made Thailand now look worse. If Thailand has one black eye from the Evil Man from Krabi video, the minister has managed to punch the other one. We Thais are now sporting two black eyes instead of one.

Tourism and Sports Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Chumphol Silapa-acha

The backlash against the minister’s rape faux pas is not surprising. It’s hard to believe that he didn’t see it coming. His comment (which wasn’t direct) was reported in The Nationon November 10, 2012:

Tourism Minister Chumphol Silapa-archa had said earlier that the incident could not be considered rape. He quoted provincial tourism police chief, Pol Maj-General Loi Ingkhaphairoj as saying: ‘The woman had dinner with the Thai suspect and a foreign man. Later, she told the foreign man to return to the hotel before heading off with the suspect.’

The foreign man referred to in the quote above would prove to be the victim’s tired boyfriend and the suspect, a tour guide, would be reportedly beating her up before forcing himself on her by the roadside and leaving her there in the middle of the night. But apparently that didn’t amount to “rape” in Mr. Chumphol’s book – which makes one wonder what would in his mind.

According to news report, the victim told police that she was beaten so badly that she had to stop resisting in order to survive. She was treated for her injuries at a Krabi hospital before she filed a police report and returned to the Netherlands.

A statement by the victim’s boyfriend details what happened in the night of the alleged rape as reported on Andrew Drummond’s blog. The account is supported in this Phuket News report in September 2012 by the Krabi city police who confirmed that at the time the complaint was made (late July) the victim had suffered deep bruising to the right side of her face and a split lip.

She was rushed to Krabi Hospital by a team of rescue foundation workers. They said that she had been in a motorbike accident. However, she was later examined by a doctor who confirmed that there were signs of rape.

Since it was posted on October 23, Evil Man from Krabi has gone viral with over 450,000 views and 1,500 comments, and over 3,000 likes and 122 dislikes as of 9:00 p.m., Nov. 13.

President of Krabi Tourism Association Mr. Ithirit Kinglek said the video has “definitely hurt” Krabi tourism industry. Many tourists have cancelled their bookings after the video emerged on YouTube and European tourists have questioned their safety in Krabi.

Frog-in-a-coconut-shell damage control

That the Thai authorities rushed into damage control is understandable. With 19 million foreign visitors last year, tourism is Thailand’s major source of income and Krabi is one of Thailand’s top destinations. However, their approach shows a sad lack of understanding of today’s world.

The permanent secretary to the Tourism and Sports Ministry Mr. Suwat Sitthilor said he wanted to “rebuild the country’s image” by helping the father of the rape victim to “understand the situation.” He believed the victim’s father is “possibly furious” due to a “misunderstanding.”

The tourism permanent secretary toys with the idea of blocking Evil Man from Krabi video, but this hasn’t happened and there has been a lot of negative feedback to the idea.

The Krabi provincial police chief Pol Maj-Gen Nanthadet Yoanual also came out to discredit the video, saying it was “not entirely true.” He refuted the victim’s father’s claim that the police gave an “easy” bail to the accused, arguing it was the court that gave the bail “over objections of provincial police.” The Krabi police then followed up with posting a video on YouTube, in response to Evil Man from Krabi.

Since it was posted on November 9, the Krabi Police Comment video (featuring a Krabi policeman speaking in Thai with no English subtitles) has received over 7,000 views and 130 comments, and 12 likes and 207 dislikes as of 9:00 p.m., Nov. 13. In terms of popularity it’s no contest, and it’s easy to see why.

The Krabi Police Comment video is 8.26 minutes of rambling by a cop who does not introduce himself and appears listless. He tries to assure whoever is intended as audience that he and his superiors and subordinates in Krabi police force are conscientious enforcers of the law – Thai law, he emphasizes.

He assures that “every case” involving foreigners is important and receives “swift action” and “good service.” He explains–twice–that rape cases involving tourists all happen after 2-3 a.m. In lieu of directly addressing the Dutch girl case, he describes a common tourist rape case like this:

Someone doesn’t just rape [a tourist] out of the blue… The man and woman go together to have drinks at a bar until closing time, then they go off to do the thing that they do and in the morning a rape is reported to have taken place.

He goes on, “police have to follow the law… [We] use all legal procedures… Arresting the perpetrators is the first priority.” “It’s not that hard” to catch the bad guys who, he says, tend to be local gangsters preying on the tourists (despite the fact that it took them two months to get the alleged rapist who voluntarily turned himself in, confessed and later changed his mind, and got bail). On the issue of bail, the policeman emphatically confirms that his police force “never, never allow bail” for arrested suspects.

Towards the end of the video, the Krabi policeman stresses how “everyone” is ready and dedicated to work to make Krabi a nice place to live, a place full of friendly people. He himself thinks it’s “the best place” to visit with “few crimes” and not many undesirable bars (which police work hard to control). He appeals to Thais:

Don’t believe all the rumors. Don’t just hear but listen and think whether these rumors might damage our society. The news that goes out comes from people who benefit from tourism. It’s like inflicting a wound on yourself.

By this time his mobile phone begins to ring and he becomes more distracted. “That’s it. No more to tell… Police follow policy and the law… Thank you.” He takes out his mobile phone and looks at it. End of 8:26 minutes of Krabi Police’s self-wounding exercise.

Though the video screams PR nightmare, it is a perfect sociological material that shows the classic mentality of traditional Thai police. The policeman-talking-non-stop video is likely aimed at the Thai audience, given it’s all in Thai with no English subtitles, or it could be that the Krabi police just put out something to appear they have done something to counter the victim’s father’s video–without thinking how it would work (which is also probable). But if the intention was to appeal to Thais, the 90%+ dislikes of the video shows it has spectacularly failed.

On Nov. 10, Krabi Police posted (and later took down) another 4:31-minute video entitled The Truth from Krabi . The Thai title of the video was Krabi Police Clarify Evil Man from Krabi Video. This video showed many Krabi police officers in a conference room and on location, as well as many still pictures, including one showing the victim receiving flowers from a policeman. The clip explained the facts and the legal process in the case. The key message was that Thai laws are different from foreign laws and Thailand needs to do a better job of explaining Thai legal process to foreigners.

Again, this second video was all in Thai with no English subtitles. For some reason this video got many more views than the previous one. The number of views jumped from under 4,000 at mid-day Nov. 12 to over 50,000 by 9 p.m., Nov. 13, but with the same staggeringly high ratio of dislikes vs. likes: 355 vs. 24 (93%). (UPDATE: By morning of Nov. 14, the video was “taken down by user.”    However, Terry Frederickson of the Bangkok Post made a transcript and English translation of this video here.)

A heavier blowback may be yet to come. The victim’s father who has thus far not talked to international press is said to be considering going on a major program in the Netherlands, and is seeking advice from his government.

“Cover up worse than the crime”

What the Krabi police and the Thai officials fail to grasp is the reality that Thailand ceased to be a small coconut shell long ago. A frog-in-a-coconut-shell damage control strategy no longer works because too many Thai frogs have hopped out of the coconut shells, so to speak. Many Thais no longer buy the same old, unsophisticated propaganda, as evidenced in overwhelmingly negative comments on both Krabi police videos. While a number of Thais disapprove of the Krabi police’s response, many apologize and express sympathy to the victim’s father under his video.

Save a handful of comments giving the benefit of the doubt to the Krabi police, the overwhelming majority slam the Krabi Police Comment video as nonsensical, pointless jabbering full of excuses. Many tell the police to better spend their time attending to the cases. Among the more polite and constructive comments for the video [translated from Thai]:

Nick Sookate: Apprehending the criminals will recover the image of Thai tourism more than forgetting about this case and making a clip giving excuses. Fix it where it needs to be fixed.

SpeedDeva: If this clip was made in response to Evil Man from Krabi, redo it because I want to know the development of the case. [Evil Man] being accurate or not, you should clarify. You say you have all the evidence then you should bare it all. 8:26 minutes, not helpful at all. Where’s the substance? Somebody tell me.

As for the The Truth from Krabi video, the night before it was taken down it had nearly 300 comments from both Thais and foreigners, a number of which were critical and abusive of Krabi police. Many Thais berated Krabi police and Thai police in general for incompetence, greed and corruption, and lack of professional care for victims, foreign or Thai. The same from foreigners. Many Thai as well as foreign viewers complained about the lack of English subtitles, while some Thais comment sarcastically that it was better not translated because that would be even more embarrassing for Thailand. One Thai commenter lashed out [in Thai] at the Krabi police:

ucoo83stardust: It’s not just foreigners who can’t understand. Thais can’t understand it either. All these long-winded explanations, just words but no substance. Then what? What’s the conclusion? The culprit walks free? He has been released. Wait till the story dies down and the case quietly works itself out? Everybody can see through this kind of method. Don’t think people are stupid. If he’s guilty, then make him pay for it!!! And foreigner visitors are guests of the country, we should take good care of them, so that we wouldn’t have this kind of shame. Now what? Our reputation suffers. And are you capable of paying for what you have done?

The Bangkok Post editorial also slammed the Krabi police on November 12:

Officials in Krabi are in the process of proving yet again that a cover-up is worse than the crime. They have been busy for almost a week in an attempt to cheapen a YouTube video on law enforcement in their province… It is difficult to decide whether the campaign is more tasteless or self-defeating. Either way, it must stop.

It also chastised Thai officials (none of whom has said a word of sympathy to the victim or her father) for making Thailand look “heartless.”

[The officials] have essentially tried the tired old trick of turning a rape allegation back on the victim.

Blaming the victim

Indeed, the comments by the Thai officials and the Krabi police highlight the persistent, chauvinistic attitude about sex and sexual violence. While the Krabi police video hints at what’s wrong in the Thai justice system, the policeman’s message that the foreign rape victim was “asking for it” was hard to miss.

What he didn’t spell out was that only “good girls” are really raped. Good girls don’t go out at night to have drinks with men. Girls who do and get sexually assaulted by a person known to them must have given an invitation to the alleged rapist. One of the top comments on the Krabi Police Comment video reads:

Johninthai: In Western society it is quite normal for a man and woman to have drinks together as friends and without the man thinking that he has the right to assault her because he thought ‘she liked him’!

Evidently this is not how the Krabi police see it.

Police attitudes about sexual violence, barrier to justice

Rape cases in Thailand have been on the rise in the past years, despite recent changes in rape law which expands definition of rape, from sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who is not his wife (against the latter’s will), to cover raping of people of all sexes and all types of sexual penetration. Marital rape has also been made illegal and penalties for rape and sexual abuses are severe (UN-Women & Thailand Law).

Legislative progress notwithstanding, the biggest barriers to realizing justice for victims of sexual violence in Thailand have been the police attitudes and their gender bias.

While foreign victims of sexual violence in Thailand potentially face Thai police’s arcane attitude about rape on top of stereotype of western sexual mores, Thai police’s lack of understanding about women’s rights and gender equality is a major obstacle to justice for local victims as well.

UN reports in 2007 and 2011 about domestic violence in Thailand mark police attitudes as the key obstacle. Many Thai police still see domestic violence as “family matters” and tend to discourage women from pressing charges and convince them that violence is a “normal thing” in relationships. Forget about rape of transgendered persons who are believed to “enjoy” sexual advances in all degrees from all men. As a result, many rape and domestic violence cases in Thailand are not reported because the victims don’t want to go through insensitive handling of the police.

Arcane attitude about sex and rape is not limited to Thai police but is widespread among men (often also women) in many traditional cultures, and ultra-conservatives in developed societies.

Two US politicians who made offensive remarks about rape both lost their bid in a Senate race in the recent US election. One said female bodies had a way to prevent pregnancy in the case of “legitimate rape” and the other made a remark that pregnancy resulting from rape was “something God intended.”

Thais can’t send our police and bureaucrats packing via the poll booth because they are not elected, but at least we can vent our displeasure and disapproval of their behaviors on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, and tell them loud and clear that we are no longer in the coconut shell.

UPDATE: The rape victim gave an interview to the Bangkok Post on 25 November. See here. I also gave an interview discussing about attitudes on rape and sexual violence and the justice system in Thailand to TrustLaw on November 14 here, and another to a Swedish radio Studio ETT which appeared on a program “Sexövergrepp i Thailand” on 29 November 2012.

NOTE: An earlier version of this article first appeared in SiamVoices blog on Asian Correspondent on November 12, 2012. See more comments, including one from the victim’s family, on the article there.

Are Thais really the most adulterous couples in the world?

That’s what Durex, the world’s No. 1 condom maker, would have you believe. True or not, statistics has been thrown at the media like a juicy piece of bone. As if on cue the media jumped with all four, grabbed it midair and ran with it.

Here’s that piece of bone. The Bangkok Post on August 28, 2012: “Thais top infidelity chart.”

Thai men are ranked on top and their women are ranked second as the world’s most unfaithul [sic] lovers, with well over half of them admitting to frequent infidelity, according to a survey conducted by Durex, a condom producer.

Women from Thailand are ranked the world’s second most unfaithul [sic] lovers, according to the survey report.

The survey of 29,000 women in 36 countries names the women of Ghana the world’s most unfaithful, with 62 per cent of the women questioned there admitting they often cheat on their boyfriends and husbands.

Thai women were just a little more faithful, with 59 per cent admitting to infidelity, followed by Malaysia with 39 per cent.

In fourth and fifth place were Russia (33 per cent) and Singapore (19 per cent).

As for men admitting to extramarital affairs, Thailand came out on top (54 per cent) followed by South Korea (34 per cent) and then Malaysia (33 per cent).

Scandalous statistics

So Thai women are more adulterous than Thai men! Can anyone living in Thailand seriously believe that? It bears repeating: 59% of Thai women are unfaithful compared to 54% of Thai men who fool around behind the back of their spouse or lover. With the still prevalent old practice of mia noi (minor wife), the new casual kik culture, and the ubiquitous sex-for-sale (mostly for men) in massage parlors, clubs, brothels and all manners of establishments, who is kidding whom here?

I’m not saying Thai women are all prim and proper and would never cheat for that would be delusional. Surely a significant percentage of Thai women cheat on their husbands and lovers, as each society must have its fair share of female and male cheaters. But 6 in 10 of Thai women “often” cheat on their partners? Egad!

Consider that about 30% of Thai women of marriageable age (15-45) nationwide are single (the figure is over 40% in Bangkok).* How can that be? If 6 in 10 Thai women are adulterous, while 3 don’t have a husband to cheat on, that leaves 1 in 10 being truly faithful in the religious sense of the word. I know quite a few Thai women (girlfriends and old classmates) in their late 30’s and early 40’s who probably have never had sex, never been kissed till they were 30 or ever, who are still husbandless, boyfriendless, and very likely sexless. How do we square all these with Durex’s 59%-Thai-women-are-unfaithful statistics?

Not well received

It’s hard to imagine image-sensitive Thais taking kindly this unsolicited world-class status. As the Bangkok Post reported the news provoked criticisms on the popular Thai web board Pantip. Many Thais cannot believe that our women can be unfaithful to such a scandalous extent. (Somehow nobody is vehemently defending the reputation of Thai men touted as the world’s top cheaters in the men’s division. Perhaps that doesn’t rancor as much?)

Hence The Nation’ headline that quickly followed: “Thai infidelity claim brings strong denials.” It reported at 1am of August 29, 2012 that the Durex survey “has been challenged by local medical and gender groups.”

… deputy director of the Mental Health Department, Dr Tawee Tangseri, said he doubted Thai women often cheated on their partners because they adhered to tradition and preserved their purity. Only a small proportion cheated on their partners to have sex with other men.

… Supensri Puengkoksung of the Women and Men Progressive Movement Foundation said the poll did not reflect the real situation in Thailand. It just reflected the opinion of people who were approached and ready to answer the survey. ‘You could not say that all Thai women had cheated on their partners and always had affairs with other men,’ she said.

Whether or not Thai women really “adhere to tradition and preserve their purity” is open to debate. If one goes by casual observation, that statement is not quite true at least for younger Thai women, given the younger and younger average age of Thai girls having their first sexual experience and Thai teenage pregnancy at the top of world ranking. Dr. Tawee and many Thais may believe that “only a small proportion” of Thai women cheat on their partners. But we have no way of knowing exactly how “small” (or “big”) that proportion is, though many would be willing to bet good money it ain’t higher than the Thai men’s.

Assuming no respondents lied in this Durex survey — a big assumption — Ms. Supensri was probably closer to the mark in saying that the findings “just reflected the opinion of people who were approached and ready to answer the survey.”

Which brings us to the question of …

Durex sex survey methodology

What is this Durex survey anyway? Unlike past surveys by this condom maker, the sources and details of the latest statistics are not readily available. Some digging online resulted in very scant information. The statistics may have been part of the Sexual Wellbeing Global Survey sponsored by Durex which started in 2006. This is what it has about that survey on its global website. Not much.

Some country websites like the US and Singapore give more details. The information on the survey methodology refers to the Sexual Wellbeing Global Survey (SWGS) as follows:

By questioning more than 26,000 people in 26 countries about all aspects of their
sex lives, we believe this is the most comprehensive study of its kind.

Curiously, neither mentions 36 countries and 29,000 people. The Singapore SWGS was conducted in 2006, but the SWGS survey in the US was just conducted in late 2011 and the Durex report released on the World’s AIDS Day (December 1, 2011) mentioned it was a survey involving 36 countries and 29,000 people. No PDF available.

On the selection of survey participants:

Random samples of participants aged 16 + or 18+ were sent an email invitation to participate in the survey. The sample was primarily sourced from Harris Interactive’s internet panel.

It’s hard to ascertain if the latest statistics as reported by the Thai papers above came from the original set of data or from a new set in this ongoing global survey. The 26 countries included in Durex SWGS reported in 2008 are below.

Source: Asian Offbeat http:\\www.asianoffbeat.com\\default.asp?display=1732

As you can see from the chart released in 2008 above, if Thais are really the world’s most adulterous couples we are not the most frequently sexed: supposedly only 65% among us have sex weekly. Thais are not even in the top league of the world’s sex athletes. So what happened between then and now? Is it possible that even though Thai women and men don’t have the most frequent sex on the planet (or more precisely among the 26 countries listed), Thais may have the most frequent sex behind their partners’ back? Could it be that those 65% Thais who have a history of having sex at least weekly disproportionately have it mostly with people other than their spouse and lover? Or even Thais who don’t have sex that often (less than weekly) have it while cheating? Possible, but how probable? The scenario gets rather complicated.

To complicate the picture even further, less than a decade ago (2003) Thailand was named among the top countries where people were “most satisfied with their sex life” (along with China and Vietnam). But then just 5 years later, the Chinese were reported by Durex to have a serious trouble with sex: 76% of the previously sex-happy Chinese could not reach orgasm! Either that was an unfortunate and swift turn of event, or something was not quite right about the new numbers or the old ranking, or both.

The Bangkok Post reporting doesn’t help. It said that the statistics reported came from the survey covering 29,000 women in 36 countries (The Nation gave no information whatsoever on that). This contradicts with other media reports on the same set of statistics in other countries like this, this, and this, all of which said that the survey covered 29,000 people (not just women) in 36 countries. We don’t know what are the 10 additional countries included since 2008. Do we smell recycling of data?

Durex sex survey credibility

Durex explains how its Sexual Wellbeing Global Survey is credible:

We have used a sample size of 1,000 for the majority of countries surveyed which is
the recommended sample size required for social policy and PR activity. [my emphasis]

So, if 1,000 sample size is the required minimum, 29,000 for 36 countries doesn’t exactly meet the required standard for social policy or PR activity, does it? In Thailand’s case, we have no idea what the sample size was. If “the majority of the countries” had 1,000 sample size like the US as reported here, it means some countries had a smaller sample size, certainly smaller than the 805 average among 36 countries. The US has about 310 million people, about 250 people aged 15 or above (the US data were collected from respondents aged 18+). But no matter, though the larger sample size is better in terms of confidence level, a 1000 sample size is tolerable since a sample does not need to correspond exactly with the population size. In other words, a 1000 sample size can tell you as much about a town with a population of 100,000 as one with 10 or 20 million. But that is only true IF the sample is genuinely random.

The Durex SWGS data collection methodology was via email. The sample was “sourced through an Internet panel” as it explained on its website. I’m sure the sampling process went though whatever standard the research company commissioned to conduct the research by Durex set up and followed. But could it have been genuinely random?

Besides, there’s always the issue of people lying in polls. Granted, it’s hard to imagine that people would lie that they cheat on their partners while they really don’t but it’s easier to imagine that people would lie that they don’t cheat on their partners while they actually do. 59% of Thai women admit they cheat vs. 54% of Thai men admit they do the same. What do you think?

Who really are the world’s top female adulterers?

Another very curious bit. Both the Bangkok Post and The Nation reported that the women of Ghana rank the worlds’ first in the women’s division of infidelity at 62% admitting to cheating on their partners. But just a few months ago Nigerian women were crying foul that Durex tainted their reputation by putting them on that very spot — that same 62% infidelity spot! The same set of statistics has been reported since December 2011, naming them as “the most unfaithful women in the world” (see for example here, here, and here.)

Unsurprisingly Nigerians have not been very well pleased. The Pointer just lashed out at Durex in early August 2012:

The report of the purported survey is seen by many as an insult to Nigerian women, to say the least. It is condemnable and totally unacceptable. Experts have even reasoned that the sample used by the company for the [survey] was neither representative nor objective. …

Surveys in the past have portrayed Nigerian women as some of the most hardworking and highly spiritual women globally, who religiously follow their christian and muslim beliefs no matter the odds. Again, ours is a society that prides itself of cultures that frown at adultery, sexual promiscuity and infidelity…

The so-called research is nothing but a marketing ploy to attract undeserved attention to its product. The same goal could have been achieved without degenerating to the level of conjecture and underserved global embarrassment…

Durex, without any further delay, should, therefore, tender an unreserved apology to Nigeria and its people for its extremely embarrassing, highly deplorable and cententious [sic] survey.

Nothing short of an apology would pacify Nigerians, particularly our diligent and patriotic women whose collective ego has been injured and integrity stained by the vicious and pervasive outcome of Durex’ ‘unscientific’ survey.

No apology from Durex has been offered to the Nigerians that I know of.

At first I thought the Bangkok Post and The Nation were the only papers that might have been given the wrong press release, but that was proved otherwise. Other media such as this and this reported Ghana women as the world’s top adulterers as well. So how come? Women from two countries are claimed by Durex to be the world’s top adulterers from the same set of data? Could the fierce reactions from the Nigerians have persuaded Durex to change the nationality of the world’s top adulterous women to Ghana? I would very much like to hear Durex explain this.

Behind salacious headlines

With the help of Google, one can collect many sex-related salacious headlines involving one country after another purported to have a certain best or worst record in sex. Invariably you’ll see Durex behind the juicy statistics.

Only in May 2012 New Zealand’s Conservative Party leader landed in hot water for claiming that Kiwi women were “the most promiscuous young women in the world” hence the New Zealand government should not be providing free contraception for those who choose to “sleep around.” Ouch! The NZ prime minister had to come out to denounce the claim as having no proof. The claim was quickly revealed to have been based on what else but Durex’s 5 years old statistics, which give Kiwi women an average of 20.4 sex partners, the highest in the world (compared to Kiwi men’s average of 16.8 and the 7.3 world’s average for both men and women).

Now, how about the men? Durex’s latest round of statistics claims that:

According to the survey, Asian men were the most promiscuous in the world. Men in Singapore and Hong Kong had an average of 16 bed partners in their lifetime, while Malaysian men had about three.

Keeping in mind the statistics for Kiwi women and men from 2007 above (20.4 and 16.8 sex partners respectively), now how could Singapore and Hong Kong men be “the most promiscuous” men in the world in 2012?

What’s more? Only in December 2011, Durex survey claimed that:

[American] men have an average of 20 different sexual partners in total — fewer than the men in Canada (27) or Australia (24) but more than in France (19), Britain (17) or Mexico (15).

So how exactly does Durex make its so called “world ranking” apparently from the same set of data over different years and get different ranking for different countries at different times? Again, I would love to hear Durex explain its secret at creating highly fluid, various and flexible world ranking.

A bucket load of …

At the end of the day what really matters is not women or men of which country are the world’s sexiest, fastest, biggest, best, or worst lovers or adulterers, for that is as useful and as reliable as Durex’s statistics. The real question is why are we even having this discussion? Or why have I written this article?

Unfortunately it may have helped boost the latest buzz for Durex, but something needed to be said against recurring numbers that pass for statistics. Remember next time you see numbers flying around with a Durex tag, prepare a bucket of salt. You’re going to need the whole load of it.

Note: *Population and Social Research Institute, Mahidol University (2000-2010 figures)

This article first appeared on Asian Correspondent on 29 August 2012.

The First Thai Female Prime Minister and Thai Feminists

[Originally published by Siamvoices on AsianCorrespondent.com]

Yingluck Shinawatra - 28th Prime Minister of Thailand Source: Time Magazine http://goo.gl/9IFM0

Thailand has its first female prime minister at last. It has taken 79 years since the country has adopted constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy in 1932.

The idea of Thailand having a female prime minister was floated once or twice. About 15 years ago Khunying Supatra Masadit  (Dem), the first female minister of Thailand who was an elected MP, was thought a possible first female PM, but nobody really expected to have a madam prime minister anytime soon.

Then it all happened so quickly. Just three months ago Ms. Yingluck Shinawatra  suddenly came on the scene. Almost out of nowhere (or “nowhere” in Dubai) she was named the top party list candidate of the opposition party, Pheu Thai—the latest reincarnation of Thailand’s most popular political party founded by her big brother Thaksin Shinawatra (the man in Dubai). She campaigned dutifully for two and a half months. Closely watched, she surprised and impressed more than a few. The Economist described her as “taking the campaign by the storm” and effectively wrong-footing the ruling Democrats. Came July 3rd, 2010, Thailand elected her party by a huge majority (52% of the votes and 265 of 500 parliament seats). On the 8th of August 2011 Yingluck Shinawatra was royally endorsed as the 28th prime minister of Thailand.

A successful, beautiful modern career woman, Yingluck Shinawatra at first glance looks like the first female national leader that Thai women would be proud of. Reports of her on the campaign trails especially in the party base North and Northeast often showed her being swarmed by local women. Surely, of the 15.7 million Thais who voted for her party there must be millions of Thai women who voted for her. Yet, one group of Thai women have made it clear—quite loudly—that they are not among the many admirers of Ms. Yingluck.

As soon as Pheu Thai victory catapulted Yingluck to the national top spot and it became clear she was to become prime minister, several Thai feminists were already expressing their disapproval.  In the news under the headline “Thailand’s first female PM no victory for feminism”  Sutada Mekrungruengkul, director of the Gender and Development Research Institute (GDRI) of Thailand was quoted:

How can we be proud? The whole world knows it’s about Thaksin… Compare that to Aung San Suu Kyi who has struggled for 20 years and is still not the prime minister of Myanmar.

As if it was Ms. Yingluck’s fault for having succeeded too easily, too fast without experiencing any house arrest. Sutada apparently also forgot that Ms. Suu Kyi originally came into politics because of her father.

Undoubtedly most people, feminist or no, are not naïve enough to believe that Ms. Yingluck would have become Thailand’s prime minister were she not Thaksin’s sister. Two Western male political analysts quoted in the same news article said as much, but they were more forgiving of Yingluck’s family connection. Chris Baker pointed to Indira Gandhi of India, Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan and Corazon Aquino of the Philippines as examples of how family connection and femininity has been a tried-and-tested formula of female political leadership in Asia. Andrew Walker of Australian National University predicted:

Many women, young and old, will be delighted and inspired by Yingluck’s dramatic rise to the top.

Evidently he wasn’t listening in on leading Thai feminists.

It appears Ms. Yingluck got off on the wrong foot with Thai feminists from the start. What she said in the announcement of her candidacy on May 16, 2010 has rubbed them the wrong way. Yingluck said:

I will utilize my femininity to work fully for our country.

Not something a feminist would surely.

Arpaporn Sumrit, a lecturer at the Women’s Studies Center at Chiang Mai University, Yingluck’s alma mater, observed:

She might have the anatomy of a woman, but she thinks like a man and I don’t think she will do anything extraordinary for women.

It’s clear, these Thai feminists see no feminist in Yingluck—and they have some good reason. Sutada of GDRI:

She never said a single word about women’s rights promotion during her campaign… We have a lot of women’s issues in Thailand, particularly violence against women and discrimination against women.

A few days after the election, a seminar “Women’s power changing the face of the election” (พลังสตรีพลิกโฉมเลือกตั้ง) was organized by the political science department at Thammasat University. A number of women’s rights activists attended.  Here viewpoints were more mixed with a bit more openness, though enthusiasm could not be detected from the news report. The general tone regarding Yingluck’s potential in working on women’s issues was cautious and tentative at best.

Chalidaporn Songsamphan, a prominent feminist and a Thammasat political science lecturer, warned the seminar participants not to pin too much hope on Yingluck that because she is a woman she would necessarily be aware of women’s issues in Thai society. While women’s rights movements may bring feminist issues to Yingluck’s attention, one should keep in mind the factors that have set her “flying” (เหาะ)–like on a magic carpet–into the [prime minister] position, she said. Another Thammasat political science lecturer Malee Phruekpongsawali also reminded the participants how Thailand went crazy over Pornthip Nakhirankanok Miss Universe 1988 and the fever quickly died down when she announced she was getting married. And since the seminar was about women and electoral politics, she also reminded the participants that vote buying was still rampant though a lot more subtle in Thai society.

It was not all bad for Yingluck, however. At least one woman at the seminar approved of her using her femininity in politics. Laddawan Tantiwittayapitak of Political Development Council said, true that Yingluck “flew in” as prime minister but female leaders in many countries have done so before. If Yingluck would learn from her brother’s mistake in being too aggressive and manage the country with independence and, yes, femininity, there might be hope for Thailand to avoid violence and move towards reconciliation, she said.

Kornvipa Villas, a representative of Women’s Power Network for Reform told participants she was actually “violently gratified” (สะใจ) that finally Thailand would have a female prime minister, given that only 15% of Thai parliamentarians were women despite Thailand having signed all kinds of international conventions that require 30% quota of women in political office [and has never abided by them]. She was gleeful because Thai women have long been oppressed by men and now Thai men all accept and bow to Ms. Yingluck because she decides who gets to be a minister.

Kornvipa also had something to say about Thaksin:

As for her brother… now the world knows the people stand on his side. Emotions that ran wild have now calmed somewhat. What could the female PM do? I’d like to tell [Thai] society: let’s move beyond how she got here. We must look ahead and help her, enable her to work [for the country].

The key suggestion from the seminar was that Yingluck would do best to learn more about social and women’s issues. 

Reactions to Yingluck leadership from some of the leading (mainstream) feminists mentioned above have drawn flak from a few feminists among the Red supporters. Khampaka, a well-known columnist, writer and social critic with a large following among young progressive Thais, lashed back, saying it’s “ridiculous” that those feminists suddenly jumped up and down complaining that the first female prime minister-to-be has no feminist mind even before she gets to work.

We can’t demand feminism from Khun Yingluck because she has never defined herself as a feminist. If Khun Yingluck has never used feminism or her being a feminist to campaign for votes, why would you demand that she suddenly declare policies for women? … Especially when you are making the demand based on the logic that the “feminist mind” does not need the [female] sexual organ, why didn’t you demand [women’s policies] from all the prime ministers before her?

Khampaka held no punches:

If having no feminist mind is such a crime, every single Thai prime minister in the past deserved equal scolding.The contradiction in this line of argument is that if women without a feminist mind deserve heavier punishment, then you [the female feminists] are oppressing your own kind.

With regard to Yingluck “flying” into the prime minister position, Khampaka had this to say:

So that’s another of her bad points. Amidst all the disadvantages—the mainstream media never understood Redshirts, never sided with democracy—Khun Yingluck still came out on top. It shows she must have something. People aren’t stupid these days. If you have any contact with the Redshirts you will see that they are quite conscious of their rights because it wasn’t easy for them to get an election;  they had to sacrifice with their lives. Yingluck didn’t get here because of luck alone.

Khampaka also responded to some women’s issues mentioned by the feminists critical of Yingluck. Violence against women and gender inequality have long existed and are persistent problems that every government needs to be pressured to address, she said. She pointed to the power structure that remains the major obstacle in advancement in Thai women’s rights. The major problem with women’s rights movement in Thailand in her view is Thai feminists’ “blindness to human rights problems” which encompass women’s rights problems:

Women are humans, but human rights in Thailand are still lacking… Thai feminists are concerned about domestic violence and human trafficking but never said anything about 91 people killed [in the April-May 2010 crackdowns]. Isn’t it also domestic violence? Is 91 people killed as bad as human trafficking?

According to Khampaka, the priorities in today’s Thailand are truth, justice and the economy. There are people, including women, in jail without bail who need immediate justice, and men and women laborers and their children struggling to make ends meet. A number of people who voted for Pheu Thai see these as the top priorities. She told the interviewer, given the leading feminists’ reactions, she’d like to resign from her status as a feminist to be just a human being. As usual Khampaka’s comments drew strong reactions: support and kudos at the left- and Red-leaning Prachatai website and severe beating at OK Nation blog  where Yellow supporters congregate.

In fact, the views of leading Thai feminists were challenged even before the election. At the seminar entitled “Democracy, power, violence and women in Thai politics” organized by Chiang Mai University, Pinkaew Lueangaramsri a social science lecturer, criticized the narrow definition of gender and politics in the traditional Thai women’s rights movement (where most of the critics of Yingluck belong). She also pointed to the gap in class consciousness of traditional Thai feminists.

Pinkaew said those in the women’s networks that initiated the “Women’s power changing the face of the election” as a result of the revelation that female political candidates represented only 18% of all 3,832 candidates in the July 3, 2010 election, were concerned about this male-female discrepancy and afraid that Thailand would be left behind in ASEAN. The truth is, she said, Thai women are quite active politically. They are over-represented as voters (National Statistics Office: 1.5 million more female than male voters, compared to 1.2 million more female than male population). Grassroots Thai women are also active in local politics and political rallies [mostly Red] at home and in Bangkok since the 2006 coup, demanding their political rights and an election.

Yet, Pinkaew observed, the leading feminists have not paid attention to this type of women’s movement and don’t see it as a women’s movement. Instead they see these grassroots women as being misled by their political leader (Thaksin), having no political consciousness.  She said, this view showed that Thai feminists were out of touch with the [lower class] rural Thai women, who are not feminists but ordinary women who can think for themselves and see the connection between their political rights and their rights as women. But this new grassroots women’s movement will thrive with or without the traditional Thai feminists’ support, she predicted.

Jitra Kochadech, a leading female labor activist and a Redshirt supporter, said at the Chiang Mai seminar that she would like to look at gender through the class lens. She would elect a political leader based on what policy benefits s/he offers rather than whether the person is female because “women also oppress.” Jitra is known for her slogan dii-tae-poot (ดีแต่พูด) “only good at paying lip service” after she raised her placard and shouted the phrase at former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and it stuck.

In her interview with the Bangkok Post, Jitra explained how she came up with the slogan idea:

I had researched and found out that Mr. Abhisit talked a lot about women workers’ rights and made various promises, none of which materialized. An idea popped into my head that Mr. Abhisit was only paying lip service to policy.

However, she said the phrase can apply to any politician.

If Ms. Yingluck fails to honor her campaign promises, she will be ridiculed with that slogan just as Mr. Abhisit was. I believe her opponents would like to apply this phrase to her, and are waiting for the right opportunity. She must be careful about what she promises.

There is no doubt that the first female prime minister of Thailand faces a very daunting task ahead. Among the most daunting are healing the divided nation plagued by social injustice and widening inequalities and dealing with an economy in a looming global recession.

The problems of social injustice and inequalities that Yingluck will be asked to address involve not only women and girls but also many marginalized populations: rural and urban poor, ethnic minorities, Muslims in the restive South, migrants, etc. All will put their demands on her government. She has to find a delicate balance in pleasing both the Redshirt supporters who helped put her in power who will demand that she deliver justice and more equitable distribution of resources, wealth and power, and the aggressive military and the unhappy elites who are not eager to share.

It is worth noting that while many leading Thai feminists are lukewarm at best or dismissive at worst at Yingluck’s sudden rise to power, men seem more willing to withhold judgment at this early stage. As most observers are tentative of the kind of leadership Ms. Yingluck will offer, her current support comes more often from men:

Chris Baker, political analyst: 

Until we see her strut her stuff it is difficult to judge, but everything we have seen of her so far suggests she has quite a lot of substance.

Chookiat Panaspornprasit, Chulalongkorn University political science lecturer:

I think she should be given a chance. So far, so good. She could be a strong leader.

Men seem to also appreciate her femininity more and see it as a good asset in her leadership. And as for Ms. Yingluck  herself, despite the criticisms coming from her fellow Thai women on the value of her femininity, she stands firm:

I will repeat again that females are the symbols of nonviolence… Another thing I would say is that a female is more compromising. A female can talk with anyone easily.

Also, while everyone has noticed that Ms. Yingluck is beautiful and it is possible that she may have benefited from the so-called “beauty premium,” one cannot help wonder whether the “beauty premium” effects are felt more strongly among men than among women.

If polls are to be believed, Thai men are more supportive of the first female prime minister of Thailand than Thai women in general. A Suan Dusit poll conducted during the two days after the election with 1,574 Thai men and women revealed 78% of men and 60% of women supported the idea of Thailand having a female prime minister, and 63% of men and 37% of women had confidence in Ms. Yingluck as the first female national leader. Both men and women saw identical weaknesses in Yingluck’s leadership:  indecisiveness (50%), appearance as Thaksin’s nominee and may not be able to handle pressure (28%).

Another poll also by Suan Dusit conducted a month later during August 5-6 (1,336 respondents) showed 68% thought that Yingluck would probably succeed or fare reasonably well in her job, with 52% thinking she should be given at least six months to prove her mettle. The figures in the second poll are a bit more supportive (the news report does not give breakdown figures by sex), so the question remains open to what extent Thai women are willing to give Ms. Yingluck a chance. Indeed, what she has asked for herself and her cabinet is six months to give it a go at the job before the gloves come off. Hopefully by that time more Thais, especially Thai women and feminists, will have adjusted to having a woman prime minister.

Round Two: And the Dicky’s Gone to … the Ducky

We continue with the unfinished business between Dicky and Ducky. In Round One, Ducky had it pretty bad. Got shot at and neutered by an *asterisk. Besides death, it’s hard to imagine a worse fate. But now, in Round Two, Ducky’s luck is turning for the better and Dicky’s for the worse.

Rambo Dick (Cheney) แรมโบ้ ดิ๊ค (เชนนีย์)

Rambo Dick (Cheney) แรมโบ้ ดิ๊ค (เชนนีย์)

We know well by now that Ducky (in the Northern hemisphere) is petrified by Dicky – as anyone who knows anything about Dicky (the Cheney) or who has read my previous post ‎can testify. (But if you’re absolutely clueless about Dicky, look at the picture on the left. Who wouldn’t be scared of the guy, huh?)

Truth be told, it’s not just the poultry that are scared shi*tless and squeal at the sight of Dick. Even humans squirm at the mere mention of his name, and shake in their boots when spotting him with a rifle. Ask one of his (former?) friends, the Texas lawyer Mr. Harry Whittington.  One has a feeling that Dick ain’t afraid of nothin’ or nobody — people or poultry.

But then these people and poultry live in America, not Thailand, where things are quite different. In fact, quite the reverse.

a harmless duck

a harmless duck

See, if Donald Duck had been born in Thailand, he would never even contemplate changing his name to Donald Dick just to feel appropriately macho. There is absolutely no need to do that in my country, I’d tell Donald. Unlike Western men, Thai men don’t do duck hunting for sport (yes, they might hunt other things – but ducks, no). Instead, in Thailand, men squirm, some may even squeak, at the sight of a harmless duck.

Now, Thailand old hands who know a thing or two about Thai ducks and certain Thai duck food are nodding, giving me a knowing look. If they are male, they might nod a bit somberly and squirm a little. If they are female, I see a smirk that is tinged with undue gleefulness.

I am not very good at keeping people in suspense (can never tell jokes or ghost stories), but I’ll try to explain for the benefit of those who know little or nothing about Thai ducks. Here’s the thing. Many Thais will tell you that even macho Thai men (and foreign men who have lived long enough in Thailand) have a certain regard – even fear – for the Thai Ducky.

Peking duck เป็ดปักกิ่ง

Peking duck เป็ดปักกิ่ง

Sure, non-vegetarian men in Thailand are not averse

fried duck eggs ไข่เป็ดทอด

fried duck eggs ไข่เป็ดทอด

to eating a Peking duck or two on some occasion, or duck eggs for breakfast. But in case you haven’t noticed, this kind of Duckies and their (prematurely aborted) offspring are dead. As in fried or crispy-fried.

We’re talking about the living, breathing and quacking ducks that men with a Thai wife (Thai and farang alike) have a certain regard for. Especially those ones that are actively looking for food. Why? This expression will reveal the mystery.

ตอนให้เป็ดกิน /tOOn hâi pèt kin/ = literally, “castrate and feed [the Dicky] to the Ducky”

….. (Take as much time as you need to digest this.)

….. (Welcome back, to those gentlemen who just fainted and came to.)

….. (Okay, ready for more?)

…..

Every so often Thai newspapers report the recurring incident that a certain “member” of an unfortunate Thai man being cut off by his wife and fed to an (actual or metaphorical) duck. Almost always the cause of such crime against manhood is infidelity (on the part of the husband, if it needs to be said). Luckily for foreign husbands and boyfriends of Thai women, this type of penile crime remains limited to Thai-Thai couples. As far as I know, Thai ducks have not yet developed a taste for foreign Dickies.

I scratched my chin once again – this time over the mystery of why only ducks, and why not chicken, or geese, or pigs, or any other species of livestock? Or soi dogs? Or even pet dogs to whom a piece of rare steak must be reliably a special treat? There must be something special about ducks, I reckoned.

Well, where else would I go but Google? And there I found that I was not alone in pondering such an existential question. Other Thais were before me. Someone raised this question on the popular Thai online community Pantip a few years ago (discussion in Thai). And around the same time  a women’s online magazine also raised the same question, quoting two news articles about two Thai couples in separate incidents involving a cutter, a kitchen knife, a plastic bag, but interestingly no mention of any actual duck – dead or alive. In each case, a man’s จู๋ /jǔu/ n., “dicky”) really became truly /jǔu/ (adj., “very short”, “truncated”, “stumpy”). And as can be expected, a reattachment surgeon was on site as a source quoted on the condition of the unfortunate /jǔu/ in the news.

In the first incident, the butchered /jǔu/ was put in a plastic bag and thrown into a klong (คลอง /khlOOng/ = canal). No surgeon was going to be of any help to the unlucky husband in that case, I’m afraid. In the second incident, the kitchen knife was apparently less effective than the cutter; the member was not completely severed but “dangling precariously, causing onlookers to gasp with fright” (this is not my literary flourish, mind you, I’m quoting almost verbatim from the news – such is the Thai style of news reporting). But, graphically horrific as the second case was, there was hope for the unfortunate /jǔu/ and its owner. The chance of the owner getting his precious possession back was actually quite good, given Thai surgeons’ world-renowned skills in this particular field of medicine.

There was a similar penile crime reported in 1993 in the United States, involving a young American couple in Virginia. The reportedly rare reattachment surgery was performed by a team of doctors and made a big news splash in the New York Times,  causing chill to run down many spines, and certain members to shrink, both in and outside of the American medical community. (FYI, the shrinking bit would be described inThai as จู๋หด /jǔu hòt/ — “shrunken dicky”.)

All right, all right, I didn’t get into why the ducks are complicit in this quintessentially Thai crime against manhood. … It’s … uh, I really don’t know, sorry. … But some older Thai person conjectured that about 30-40 years ago, the first Thai woman who committed this dreadful crime tossed her husband’s  Dicky over to her Ducky. And the expression stuck — /tOOn hâi pèt kin/ (“cut/hack/slice/sever”, take your pick, “and feed to the duck”), in other words, “the Dicky is gone to the Ducky.”

So, willingly or not ever since Thai ducks have become co-conspirators in the Thai penile crime. Still some others speculated on the ducks’ eating habit and digesting system: ducks don’t chew but simply swallow and they have a heavy-duty digestive enzyme, guaranteeing the irreversible destruction of any swallowed objects. This latter theory sounds to me too premeditated to be a crime of passion. So, I’ll give my vote to the former theory.

It’s hard to verify whether any unfortunate Ducky has really eaten any severed Dicky, but that’s neither here nor there. The feeding-the-ducky expression is here to stay.

It is also unclear where exactly scorned Thai wives with a ready knife ever got their imagination (and, I’d say as a Thai wife myself, such a nerve of steel to go through with the act). Yet, all is not bleak for cheating husbands in Thailand.

Thailand is said to be the preeminent country of penis reattachment surgery in the world. With lots of practice, a man can never get better surgeons elsewhere. And if a man’s going to get his thing cut off, what better country to be in than Thailand, eh? ;-)

If you still have a taste for more psychology and history of penile crime, a Thai surgeon gave an interview to AFP some years ago, giving a summary of medical advances, as well as opinions on the matter and on Thai tradition of polygamy: Penis hacking all the rage. See also Penis News: Penis re-attachment is big in Thailand.