‘Bahasa ASEAN’ – Can Thai or Malay be ASEAN lingua franca?

Posted on January 20, 2012 | 3 Comments

Originally published on Asian Correspondent for SiamVoices on 19 January 2012.

ภาษาไทย

Can Thai really be a common language of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations)? Apparently some people believe so. Voice TV reported:

A Chulalongkorn University research “Human Resources Preparation for the Opening of the ASEAN Market” has found that Thai will be another important language of communication and a common language in ASEAN on par with English because Thailand is the center of ASEAN. Lately it’s been found that [people in] the neighboring countries such as Lao PDR, Cambodia and Myanmar have become more interested in learning Thai.

Mr. Sompong Jitpradap, education lecturer, Chulalongkorn University, revealed that given the research findings, preparatory steps should be made to export Thai language teachers for foreigners [to] expand Thai education system. The ASEAN free trade will be an impetus for a more systematic education reform.

At present Thailand has many teachers of Thai language and students in Thai language major. However, the number and the quality of Thai language human resources have not yet been determined.

Unfortunately, the Voice TV report did not give any details of the research findings. No figures whatsoever were cited to back up such a drastic claim.

The online report has drawn quite a number of responses—from smiles and mild encouragement to snickers and the uniquely-Thai digital guffaws (5555+ – the number 5 is pronounced “Ha” in Thai). Some proud Thais readily rejoice in the future national glory promised in the news headline, “Chula research indicates Thai will become common ASEAN language.” More Thais are skeptical, though. Many point out that if any Southeast Asian language will have a possibility to come close to being a common ASEAN tongue, it will be Malay. Some wonder how the Chula research was ever concocted to have yielded such findings, while others tell the researcher to stop day dreaming and unspecified Thais to be less self-centered (only to be scolded by the proud Thais not to look down on a national heritage—and the usual online spat ensues).

Anyone who can count and know a bit of Southeast Asian geography and history will have a tough time being convinced that Thai—however beautiful a language it is—has a real chance of becoming an ASEAN lingua franca on par with English. Do the maths. ASEAN has 10 member countries, namely Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

Of all these, Indonesia is the largest country. Bahasa Indonesia is the sixth most widely spoken language in the world. In multiple but similar forms, the language is spoken by 240 million Indonesians, 26 million Malaysians, and many Southern Thais, Singaporeans, Bruneians, and East Timorese. That’s at the very least 260 million speakers of Bahasa Indonesia, or Bahasa Melayu as it is called in Malaysia, in ASEAN. Now look at Thai. Thai is spoken obviously by at least 65 million Thais, plus maybe about 20 million in close neighboring countries. The number of Thai speakers falls short of 100 million.

Besides the number, another obstacle against Thai language becoming an ASEAN lingua franca is its own uniqueness. Thai does not have Romanized scripts like Bahasa Indonesia/Melayu, but an elaborate phonetic system with 44 consonants, 28 vowel forms and five tones. Except Laotians and Cambodians who share common linguistic history and have watched Thai TV soap operas for years and a couple of million Burmese migrant workers in Thailand, not very many foreigners have a strong incentive to learn Thai. Because Bahasa Indonesia/Melayu has Latin alphabet and the vocabulary borrows heavily from English (as well as Sanskrit, Arabic, Chinese, Portuguese, and Dutch), it is much easier for foreigners both within and without ASEAN to learn.

Termina Kasih

In September last year, the Malaysian Minister of Information, Communication and Culture Rais Yatim proposed that Bahasa Melayu and Bahasa Indonesia, spoken by about 300 million people, be used as an official language in ASEAN. Interestingly enough, he acknowledged that his idea came from a research confirming that Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Melayu are used daily in Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore and southern Thailand.  At the Meeting of Journalists and Culture Experts of Malaysia and Indonesia, he urged journalists and culture experts from both countries to “jointly enhance the status of Bahasa Melayu and Bahasa Indonesia as the languages of knowledge, art and commerce.”

Malaysian officials seem to have a strong interest in seeing their national language an ASEAN lingua franca. In October 2011 after launching the Bera-level 2011 National Language Month, the Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob said:

Bahasa Melayu had once been the language of commerce during the Malacca Sultanate…. We hope champions of the Malay language can work on making Bahasa Melayu the official language for ASEAN countries…. However, this does not mean we are putting English and other native languages aside, instead it is an effort to uphold Bahasa Melayu in the region.

No one can fault the Malaysian or Thai officials for desiring to see their respective national language gain more prominence in the region. Indeed, there would be a lot of benefits, economically, culturally and politically. At the same time, however, no one can deny the importance of English, which is the de facto Bahasa ASEAN.

Attempts by major ASEAN member countries to push their national language as an ASEAN official language are likely to encounter challenges—even for Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Melayu. Edmund Sim, who teaches a course on the law and policy of the ASEAN Economic Community at the National University of Singapore, explained the challenges for both Bahasas as follows:

The bigger issues regarding the use of Bahasa are both historical and practical. The issue of which Bahasa to use, Bahasa Indonesia or Bahasa Melayu, raises both points. The vocabularies are somewhat different, reflecting the different influences of Dutch and English, respectively.  These language differences still have historical meaning. This is important in a region with long, proud histories, where Malaysians and Indonesians have had cultural disputes over the origin of batik, rendang and traditional dances.

Another issue, of course, regards resources.  If ASEAN adopts Bahasa as another official language, will the ASEAN members provide the additional funding to support it at the Secretariat and other institutions?  ASEAN won’t need the vast army of translators that the EU institutions use, but Bahasa, in either form, has nuances that require skilled bilingual personnel.

Finally, adopting another official language could raise questions about whether other languages should be adopted as official ASEAN languages.  Chinese and Thai/Lao are other potential candidates, but with their own practical, political and historical issues.

The reality is English will continue to be the most important language in ASEAN for a long time to come—perhaps until Chinese manages to take over. True, not all citizens of ASEAN are proficient in English but it is the only language that all ASEAN member countries have common proficiency and this proficiency will only increase. This is actually where Thai officials and citizens alike should be very, very concerned about: Thais’ dismal English proficiency. Reuters reported in May 2011:

Thailand produces a workforce with some of the world’s weakest English-language skills. The IMD ranks Thailand 54th of 56 countries globally for English proficiency, the second-lowest in Asia. Singapore was third and Malaysia 28th.

Thai workers can’t compete with the Filipinos either in English skills. It is doubtful whether they can compete favorably with their Indonesian and Vietnamese counterparts.

The ASEAN market will have a free flow in 2015. That’s barely three years left for Thais to improve English proficiency, if Thais are really serious about moving ahead in ASEAN. Thais should also start learning the languages of our neighbors. Promote Thai language too, of course. All of these can be done, while learning to talk English seriously. After all, it can only help.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Thai Society, Politics, etc.

Tagged , , ,

“We don’t know if she really is a witch.” – Thammasat Rector on Kanthoop

Posted on January 18, 2012 | 4 Comments

Matichon published its interview of Dr. Somkit Lertpaithoon on 4 January 2012. Dr. Somkit Lertpaithoon is the rector of Thammasat University who also teaches public law.  The entire interview covered several issues, mainly Kanthoop, lèse majesté law (Article 112), and the proposed constitution amendment. This translation of includes only the part of the interview which focuses on the rector’s views on Kanthoop’s admission to Thammasat despite the lèse majesté accusations against her and on Article 112.

สมคิด เลิศไพฑูรย์

สมคิด เลิศไพฑูรย์ Somkit Lertpaithoon, Thammasat University Rector (Photo from his facebook)

The Thammasat rector has faced strong criticisms from many royalists for the admission of Kanthoop to the university. Many have posted angry comments on his Facebook wall (to which he has not responded). I translated the Matichon interview of Kanthoop earlier here.

Dr. Somkit’s interview was conducted by Panthawit Thepchan.

…………………..

TRANSLATION NOTE: Additional texts in [brackets] are provided for clarity.

Panthawit: Why has Thammasat University admitted Kanthoop, while Silapakorn and Kasetsart Universities have both rejected her?

Somkit: I see no university rule that says Thammasat students must respect the [three Thai pillars] Nation, Religion and King. If there were such a rule, it would mean that Thammasat is obliged to check if this particular student loves the Nation and the Religion, or if she has a religious faith. This sort of questions would arise. It would not be just about Kanthoop. So I wonder why those who have posted on my Facebook are questioning only about Kanthoop and not about other students. Many Thammasat students go on many political stages, both Yellow and Red. Why only Kanthoop? This is my question.

Next, I don’t know if Kanthoop really has done what [she has been accused of]. Why demand the rector to investigate? A university rector has a lot of work to do. One student among 35,000 in the entire student body is a very small matter. The crux of the matter is, the alleged lèse majesté comments were made before Kanthoop was admitted to this university. Lastly, we should not have this witch hunt because we don’t know if she really is a witch. And even if she really is a witch, a witch can also live in society. Even those vampires in Twilight can exist alongside humans.

Panthawit: So your view is that [Kanthoop] should have an opportunity to study at this university?

Somkit: Let me give an example. If you understand Thai society, [you know that] in the 6 October 1967 [student protests] there were a group of students who loved the nation and the people, who joined the Communist Party, such as Seksan Prasertkul, Theerayuth Boonmee and many others. Today these people are among the crème de la crème of the country. They may have lost their way for a while but they returned when society welcomed them back.

Compare Kanthoop with those students who joined the Communist Party years ago. As a pooyai [elder], as the rector, and as a Thammasat person, [I believe] if the kid has the knowledge and the ability to have passed the entrance exam to this university then she is entitled to study at this university. She has not yet been charged or arrested for whatever she has done before she came here. There has been only an allegation of an illegal act. Thammasat’s rules and regulations clearly state that if any student has been legally charged and given a jail sentence in the final verdict in a court of law, the student will be expelled, except in cases of misdemeanor and wrongdoings by negligence. Therefore, I can only expel Kanthoop if the court gives her a jail sentence. Even if she is charged today, I still can’t expel her. Please, let’s not push anyone’s back against the wall. I think each individual has his or her own political opinion. What I think is that Kanthoop has radical ideas.

Panthawit: If you think Kanthoop has a radical view, how will the Social Welfare Faculty or the university deal with what has happened [in her case]?

Somkit: On the day Kanthoop was admitted to Thammasat, the Social Welfare Faculty was well aware of [Kanthoop’s history]. The faculty interviewed her twice. In addition, the dean of the faculty also raised Kanthoop’s matter at a deans’ meeting. At the meeting, none of the deans knew that Kanthoop was accused by [a segment of] the [Thai] online community that she posted comments deemed to be lèse majesté. [Some of us] only knew that she went on a redshirt stage. I’d like to say that if anyone wants me to punish her according to the accusations, then give me [information]. I will set up a disciplinary committee, and those who demand a disciplinary investigation must also be responsible if she is proved to be not guilty according to the accusations. There are only people who put pressure on the Thammasat rector, but those people who are putting pressure are not taking any responsibility. But the rector must take responsibility.

Having said that, the issue is not me being fearful of any lawsuit or not having courage to do what I am supposed to do. I look at this matter in terms of giving a chance to 18-19 year olds. In the case of Kanthoop, she may have obtained a certain set of information, so she thinks according to the information she has received. If, by this rationale, in which she must be expelled from Thammasat because of her political opinion, you’d have to expel certain MPs from the parliament for having spoken on a redshirt stage. I’ll tell you that most Thammasat students are not redshirt. Kanthoop has come to study here; she is bound to meet a lot of friends and many types of peer pressure. Somebody told me that at the freshmen welcome ceremony she didn’t stand to the royal anthem, but in the end she had to stand. I don’t know if that really happened the way some students told me. But if that was true, why did Kanthoop have to stand up? Had she wanted to sit, she could have done that.

Panthawit: Let’s return to this point. Why was there a need to have a meeting with all the deans in the university? Was expression of a different political opinion [by Kanthoop] such a big issue that it warranted such a major meeting?

Somkit: Because there were complaints from people within the university as well as from outside. We had to clarify the matter.

Panthawit: Weren’t you afraid of being accused yourself by admitting Kanthoop to Thammasat?

Somkit: No. What would I be afraid of? If I had to take care of [Kanthoop], I would have to take care of Somsak Jeamteerasakul, Worachet Pakeerat or Piyabutr Saengkanokkul [Thammasat lecturers who are vocal critics of Article 112]. How many people would I have to take care of for exercising freedom to express their different political opinions? It’s not just about Kanthoop or others who have different political opinions. Say, for instance, Thammasat Student A has [allegedly] killed Thammasat Student B, but as long as the trial is still ongoing, Student A is still entitled to study at Thammasat until there is a final verdict which results in unsuspended jail sentence.

Panthawit: In the case of Kanthoop, who is now a student at Thammasat, an online community has publicly revealed her personal data. A media outlet [ASTV-Manager Online] has published an article about her, questioning Thammasat for having admitted her. As the Thammasat rector, will you be making any official response to that? And if so, how?

Somkit: No. The rector isn’t that available. The floods have caused 2.8 billion baht damages. [Thammasat University was flooded.] I have many major issues to deal with, like how to improve research capacity of Thammasat lecturers, to become a world-class university. The dean of the Social Welfare Faculty has taken care of Kanthoop as well as served as her advisor. Ordinarily deans don’t serve as advisors to students. There are a lot of people handling this case. Don’t worry. Many people are watching Kanthoop. Let me stress that if Kanthoop commits any wrongdoing within Thammasat, I will take care of her. I personally don’t agree with Kanthoop’s behavior according to the accusations, so don’t say that I’m helping Kanthoop because I’m on her side. Kanthoop’s case had my attention, that’s why I took the matter to the deans’ meeting to discuss her admission, and the majority of the deans agreed we should admit her.

Panthawit: Was the admission of Kanthoop a way to mitigate the opposition to you from those with different political opinions from yours?

[Note: Dr. Somkit is perceived as a royalist and supporter of the 2006 coup. He was one of the drafters of the 2007 Constitution. He has challenged the merit of a proposal by a group of young progressive Thammasat law lecturers known as Nitirat to nullify all legal effects of the 2006 coup and to amend the lèse majesté provision in the Criminal Code.]

Somkit: That never occurred to me. We admitted Kanthoop because she passed the entrance exam; she was entitled to study [here]. If I had done that [admitting Kanthoop] to appease the redshirt government, I would have had to admit a hundred more redshirt students, which I wouldn’t have done. On the flip side, Thammasat does not distinguish students by their shirt color, but by their individual knowledge and ability. Whatever shirt-color you are, once you have entered Thammasat, you are Thammasat. If you are a redshirt, you must respect others of different colors in Thai society and at Thammasat. If you are Yellow, you must also respect that there are those who are Red. One must adjust oneself in Thai society. Thammasat endeavors to show society at large that [in] a good society, [we] can exist alongside one another, regardless of our colors. We shouldn’t be witch-hunting one another.

Panthawit: A dean has been appointed [Kanthoop’s] advisor and her case was discussed at a deans’ meeting. Doesn’t this reflect that political disagreement is a problem at Thammasat?

Somkit: Let me tell you that a number of people have complimented me on Facebook, saying that there is only one commendable thing ever done by the Thammasat University rector which is having admitted Kanthoop. As Thammasat rector, I don’t pay attention to the berating [of me] because I present myself as Yellow or Red. I adhere to the Thammasat principle that there is freedom in every inch of Thammsat. Thammasat teaches one to love the people. At Thammasat one can say anything as long as one does not violate another’s rights and freedom. Not only Kanthoop. Even Nitirat, I gave them warnings when they had their many press conferences. They can have their seminars about fixing the Article 112 problem, but if they violate others’ rights and freedom then I’ll have to take care of them. I must have measures [to deal with freedom and rights violations]. I won’t allow people to use Thammasat [as a political] stage to berate others or violate others’ rights. That’s a key Thammasat principle.

[Note: See some background of Nitirat’s proposal to amend Article 112 here, Worachet’s detailed presentation of Nitirat’s proposed amendment of Article 112 at Thammasat on 15 January 2012 here (YouTuve VDO), and Prachatai news archive related to Nitirat here.]

Panthawit: What do you think of Article 112 in the Criminal Code? Do you have any problem with how this law has been applied like a group of people in this society has been shouting?

Somkit: Article 112 is about defaming or insulting the king and the heir apparent. This law has existed for a long time in Thai society, evidently at least during the Rattanakosin period. And [such a law] exists not only in Thai society but also in foreign countries. This is a legal provision to protect the head of state, be they kings, presidents, or any other types of head of state. Every country has this type of legal provision because defaming and insulting the head of state is like defaming and insulting any other person in general.

Article 112 has always been problematic in the eyes of scholars. The problem is not the legal provision itself, but the interpretation thereof. Enforcement—the enforcers are the police and the courts—in the principle of the criminal law looks at intent. If there is no intent, then there is no accountability. Principally, there are three categories of Thai laws concerning defamation and libel.

1. Direct/face-to-face insult (ดูหมิ่นซึ่งหน้า), punishable by up to 6 months imprisonment

2.  Defamation/libel (หมิ่นประมาท), punishable by up to one year imprisonment, for which the court looks at intent

[3.] In the case of [defamation] of the king, [the punishment] is 3-15 years according Article 112; as it happens the practices of legal enforcement and court trials [of cases under Article 112] thus far have not taken the intent into account.

This is a big problem concerning Article 112, which is an enforcement problem. From a legal perspective, [some] lawyers have said that those who have been charged with Article 112 in many cases should not be punished because the court did not use intent for arrests in other cases. For instance, Sondhi Limthongkul has repeated the words of Da Torpedo [who has just been found guilty and handed 15 years jail sentence] on a [rally] stage aiming to protect the king, therefore he did not have an intent [to defame the monarchy] and should not be punished. If someone were to file a complaint against Sondhi and the police interpreted the case as I said, then they would not accept the complaint, the state prosecutors wouldn’t file a charge in court, and the court wouldn’t have to judge Sondhi guilty because it was an act that lacked intent. And all others who have made comments aiming to protect the monarchy wouldn’t have to be punished according to Article 112. But if you say, you can’t say that, if a defamation is a defamation, then it means the court does not take into account intent in enforcing the law because the fundamental principle of criminal law is always intent.

Another problem with this article in the Criminal Code is the punishment. The punishment for ordinary defamation/libel is up to 6 months imprisonment for a face-to-face insult and up to one year imprisonment in the case of Mr. A defaming Mr. B or an officer. If compared with Article 112, I personally think the punishment in [Article 112] is too harsh.

Panthawit: Nidhi Eiwsriwong [respected historian and public intellectual attached to Chiang Mai University] wrote in an article that Article 112 is aimed to benefit [protect] the head of state. From national security perspective, [lèse majesté] could cause a rebellion in the kingdom. However, most defendants under this article do not have sufficient power to impact the head of state with their speech or writings or cause a rebellion to be brought about in the kingdom. How do you perceive Nidhi Eiwsriwong’s view?

Somkit: No. Nidhi made a broad interpretation. When we look at the purpose of a law, we look toward the future. But Article 112—the way it has been written from the past to the present—refers to individuals, not just the king as the head of state but also the individual who is the king. The law is just like any other defamation/libel law. For instance, if someone berates me, s/he berates Mr. Somkit as well as the rector of Thammasat University. Therefore, the key aspect in the problem concerning this article is not [the content of] the article itself but the interpretation in the enforcement of this article because it does not focus on intent.

Panthawit: A group of lecturers-academics [led by senior academic] Charnvit Kasetsiri has called for a panel to be set up to screen Article 112 complaints. The proposed panel may be represented by members of civil society and members of the parliament or the senate. What you think about this?   

Somkit: It can’t be done. The law does not allow an establishment of any screening panel before a legal complaint can be made. Only the police, the state prosecutors and the courts have such an authority.

Panthawit: What about the proposal by the independent Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) which suggests that the government fix the Article 112 problem by allowing only the Office of the Principal Private Secretary of His Majesty the King to file [lèse majesté] complaints? What’s your view?  

Somkit: Even more implausible because the palace should not be involved in the judicial process. To make the Principal Secretary Office or the palace the complainant would further involve the monarchy in politics. This is the matter of the state [because it’s about] the head of state. If the palace becomes the complainant, questions will arise in society: why does the palace file a complaint against this person and not that person, why does it make complaints against citizens? I don’t see that the Principal Secretary Office should handle the complaint process.

Personally, I am not concerned about how to amend this article because I am not an expert on criminal law. Fixing [Article 112] will be done by other experts, including even what Nitirat is doing. Importantly, those demanding or proposing amending [Article 112] must provide answers to society: why should there be any amendment and what will the amendment offer to society? They must answer this question: why would the punishment for the defamation/insult of the queen and the heir apparent have to be the same as the punishment for the defamation/insult of ordinary people, which is up to one year imprisonment?

Article 112 is like any other law that can be amended or debated within academic circles. Those proposing amending Article 112 aren’t committing lèse majesté. I don’t think [Thai] society will say that former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun [who has publically said that certain amendment of Article 112 is advisable] has defamed the king. There are a number of people who want to have the article amended who have good intention for the king. The matter with Article 112 is, different people are talking about the same thing but have different ideas. Those who want to amend it must give clear explanations to society why it needs to be amended. Personally I don’t think I will lead in amending this law because I am a public lawyer, not a criminal lawyer. Plus, I am a university rector. I have many problems to think about.

………….

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Thai Society, Politics, etc.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Kan-thoop, A Witch or A Kid? – Matichon Interview

Posted on January 15, 2012 | 2 Comments

So who is Kan-thoop? Kan-thoop is a name that is familiar to those who have closely followed Thai politics over the past two years, especially if they are embedded in the social media.

ก้านธูป "Kan-thoop" (Joss Stick)

“Kan-thoop” (in Thai translates as “Joss Stick”) is the online nickname of a young female who has become a notable personality in Thailand’s recent political drama—she’s become an object of much hate, admiration and a source of not a little anxiety in some quarters. Just before the 2012 New Year’s eve, Kan-thoop resurfaced in national news and caused a buzz in the Thai online world. Not because she has done something outrageous recently, but because what she did two years ago has caught up with her—again. This time, officially.

Kan-thoop, a first-year Thammasat University student, has just recently been added to the growing list of alleged lèse majesté offenders in Thailand. Only 19 years old, she may be the youngest person to be officially charged under Thailand’s harsh “lèse majesté law.” If convicted of lèse majesté (a criminal offence according to Article 112 in Thailand’s Criminal Code), a person is liable to up to 15 years imprisonment. The rate of conviction among those charged with Article 112 is 94% (according to Thai lèse majesté historian David Streckfuss).

Kan-thoop received a summons from Bangkok police dated 25 October 2011 which states that she has allegedly defamed the King because of the comments she posted on her Facebook during March and April 2010.  She is scheduled to report to the police on 11 January 2012 but she has requested a postponement to 11 February 2012.

Whatever she said on her Facebook page, her comments drew fierce reactions and triggered a hate campaign that has plagued her ever since the comments became known in April/May 2010. At the height of the hate campaign against her in 2010, she received threats of physical violence and was denied a seat at a university despite having passed the entrance examination following loud protests against her admission. She was then rejected by another university and discouraged from the third, again, despite having passed the entrance examination to both. She missed one full year of opportunity for studies.

The hate campaign against her finally subsided and by 2011 few knew what became of her, only that she had changed her name to avoid further harassment and intimidation. Then on 26 December 2011 ASTV-Manager, the online newspaper of choice for many staunch Thai royalists, reported that Kan-thoop had been studying at Thammasat, a top tier university in Thailand known for its more liberal politics. The ASTV-Manager report not only identified the department in which she has been studying but also published her new official name. Since then it has come to light that she has been summoned by police for lèse majesté.

The wider public knows very little about Kan-thoop, even those who have heard of her, for she has kept silent—until just a few days ago. On 6 January 2012, the Thai-language newspaper Matichon published Kan-thoop’s first press interview.  Below is my translation of the transcript of the interview as reported by Matichon.

Matichon Interview with Kan-thoop by Fah-rung Sri-khow

Note: Texts in [brackets] are my own additions for clarification.

Fah-rung: Ever since you’ve finished high school, to which universities have you passed the entrance exam?

Kan-thoop: In 2009, I passed the entrance exam [for the 2010 academic year] to the Arts Faculty at Silapakorn University. I had an interview [which is part of the direct admission process] but the results came out that I failed. In the same year I also passed the exam for the Social Sciences Faculty (political science) at Kasetsart University but I decided not to go through with the interview because there were so many people there [on the day of the interview] and I thought I might not be safe. I was by myself that day, so I just forfeited my right to the interview. In 2010, I passed the exam to Srinakharinwirot University—Prasanmitr but when I went to the interview, the interviewing professors weren’t happy with the fact that I passed the [written] exam. The interview wasn’t quite finished and I was asked to leave and told to wait for the results, which were that I failed. Then in 2011, I got into Thammasat University.

Fah-rung: The night before you were going to have the interview at Kasetsart University, someone posted on a website to mobilize a crowd to stop you [going to the interview], is that right?

Kan-thoop: Yes.

Fah-rung: You said the professors weren’t happy with you. What were their reactions?

Kan-thoop: At Silapakorn there were no reactions, just a normal interview. At Prasanmitr, as soon as I went in to introduce myself and wasn’t quite finished with that, the professors just stopped me and said they knew who I was and what I had done, so they told me to go back and wait for the results at home.

Fah-rung: When did you change your name?

Kan-thoop: When I applied for Silapakorn University I hadn’t yet changed my name but I had changed it by the time I applied for Prasanmitr.

Fah-rung: When you applied for Thammasat, did you think that the history would repeat itself like what happened with the previous three universities?

Kan-thoop: I was hoping that it wouldn’t happen [but] I was mentally prepared for a rejection.

Fah-rung: Have you ever met the university executives like Ajarn Somkid Lertphaithoon [the rector] and Ajarn Prinya Thevanareumitkul [the deputy rector for student affairs]?

Kan-thoop: No, not personally but I have taken a class, TU 100, with Ajarn Prinya. So I inevitably saw him in class.

Fah-rung: At the freshmen welcome you did not stand to the royal anthem. Was that the case?

Kan-thoop: Not true. We all stood in the football field. Even if someone had not wanted to stand, they would have been pressured by the others surrounding us to stand. It was impossible for me or anyone else not to stand.

Fah-rung: Do you know that there’s been a rumor that you didn’t stand?

Kan-thoop: Yes, I’ve seen it. It makes no sense to attack me with this, which is not based on facts. It’s just not possible by any imagination.

Fah-rung: Have you ever been harassed [over your political stance] at Thammasat?

Kan-thoop: Occasionally. There have been slurs and sarcastic remarks made in class. The worst was a shoe thrown at me. This happened in the beginning of my time at Thammasat.

Fah-rung: Can you tell me more about that?

Kan-thoop: It happened at night. A group of students just returned from a retreat. Some were drunk. They got out of a car near where my friends and I were sitting, working. They were standing and talking. Then a shoe just flew at us. They came to pick it up and said the shoe just slipped.

Fah-rung: Did they know you were “Kan-thoop”?

Kan-thoop: From the time they got out of the car, they were whispering, and then got excited when they saw who was sitting there.

Fah-rung: So everybody knew you and knew that you had a case?

Kan-thoop: Yeah, all my classmates knew.

Fah-rung: What were the slurs and sarcastic remarks?

Kan-thoop: For instance, “who doesn’t love…, get out,” along the same line as the army chief telling people to get out of the country.

Fah-rung: What’s the positive side at Thammasat?

Kan-thoop: Everybody is different. And I think everybody being different is a beautiful thing in this world. I don’t return the hurt or the sanction to people, or feel angry. I understand those friends who have done those things to me, that they have got different information.

Fah-rung: How has your family responded to your having been accused?

Kan-thoop: They have been supportive.

Fah-rung: You got up on the redshirt stage. Is that true?

Kan-thoop: Yes, true. I went on a redshirt stage when I was in secondary school. It was in Bangkok during a rally to General Prem’s residence. That was the year of the first round of redshirt crackdown in April (2009).

Fah-rung: Are you still involved in student activities at the university?

Kan-thoop: I take part in normal activities at the university like other students. I am part of a free group, which works with any students’ groups [within the university], as well as outside.

Fah-rung: Aren’t you weary or afraid of any more [legal repercussions]?

Kan-thoop: I feel activism doesn’t necessarily have to be political. So I’m not quite sure how to respond to the word “weary,” because some activities have nothing to do with politics.

Fah-rung: What activities are you involved in?

Kan-thoop: Those relating to anti-SOTUS [freshmen hazing] activities, anti-use of violence against fellow humans and fellow students.

Fah-rung: Did you engage in any activities during the floods?

Kan-thoop: I tried to as much as I could but there were several limitations. My folks were concerned. I helped at the Thammasat flood shelter but as I was working there were people taking my pictures, so I went to help at Don Muang instead.

Fah-rung: Does your family forbid you to engage in any activities?

Kan-thoop: They do warn me and try to discourage me from doing too much.

Fah-rung: Why are you still active even when you have been accused of commiting a pretty serious offence?

Kan-thoop: I want to live a normal life. I don’t want it [the lèse majesté accusations] to dictate my life. No matter what, life goes on. The legal case will take its course.

Fah-rung: Is your family redshirt?

Kan-thoop: No.

Fah-rung: So how have they handled the matter about you?

Kan-thoop: They forbid me and warn me, and try to pull me back. I understand my family and why they would want to stop me. But in the end I just can’t stand the injustice in this society. Others would do the same thing if they saw what I have seen.

Fah-rung: What made you think this way?

Kan-thoop: Many things. Those who have followed politics likely have recognized the ongoing injustice in this society, be they double standards or unfair use of the law. Because of these things, you just can’t quit for your own survival.

Fah-rung: When you were accused you were only 17 years old. Did you also think about injustice at the time?

Kan-thoop: I feel that “realization” has nothing to do with age. If someone will learn or realize something, they just do, regardless of their age.

Fah-rung: What do you want to do in the future?

Kan-thoop: I want to be a teacher, like Ajarn Somsak [Jeamtheerasakul, a Thammasat historian and well-known critic of the establishment, who is also facing lèse majesté accusations and has been summoned by police].

Fah-rung: What subjects do you like?

Kan-thoop: I have taken only six courses and enjoyed them all.

Fah-rung: Have you taken any classes with Ajarn Somsak?

Kan-thoop: I have only sat in his class. He taught only one class this term at the Rangsit campus, so I sat in that class. It was Russian history.

Fah-rung: Have you also sat in other classes?

Kan-thoop: I’ve sat in classes at the Law and Political Science faculties.

Fah-rung: Have you studied with the Nitirat Group yet?

Kan-thoop: No, I haven’t yet got a chance.

Fah-rung: Why did you choose to study in the Social Welfare faculty?

Kan-thoop: Because I had done some volunteer work and got to know a senior student from this faculty. I just thought that his views about society were very beautiful. [I thought] the ideals and principles [he learned] in this faculty shaped him like that. I admired his way of thinking so I wanted to learn what made him that way.

Fah-rung: What do you think caused the serious accusations against you?

Kan-thoop: The accusations are used in political attacks…. It’s part of the process of political transformation.

Fah-rung: Do you see yourself as a victim or a phenomenon that reflects what’s happening in this society?

Kan-thoop: I think that’s for others to say because I’m still having my normal life. I go out, go to the movies, have fun, do my things normally.

Fah-rung: Do you know anybody who might be involved in the witch-hunt against you? 

Kan-thoop: I don’t know anybody personally, or if I did I wouldn’t know if they are in it or not. If that’s the case, I don’t have a problem being friends with them.

Fah-rung: Why do you think you can be friends with people who are hunting you?

Kan-thoop: The Social Welfare faculty teaches me to live with diversity in society, so I don’t have a problem being friends with people who are different from me. It depends more on them, if they’d have any problem with me, with a kind of difference like me.

Fah-rung: What principles do you have in leading your life facing this sort of thing at your age?

Kan-thoop: It’s just a learning process because everything that comes into your life will pass and become a lesson for you to learn. I have to continue to live my life.

Fah-rung: Have you ever been stressed?

Kan-thoop: Stressed as usual and not just about this matter. I am also stressed about my studies, exams and other things.

Fah-rung: Your family doesn’t want you to be so active [politically], how do you reconcile with them?

Kan-thoop: I try to avoid possible negative repercussions by staying more behind the scene and avoiding being too visible, like not having my name listed in the activities that I do. But I still continue participating.

Fah-rung: How would you like to see [Thai] society change?

Kan-thoop: I think it’s already changing. I’d like to see it more open, more tolerant, and more learning from one another.

Fah-rung: Ever thought “why me” with these accusations?

Kan-thoop: These accusations are made easily. If not me, it’ll be someone else, and there are more and more [accusations].

Fah-rung: Why did you ask for a postponement to report yourself to the Bang Khaen police to 11 February 2012?

Kan-thoop: Because [the date in the summons] is in conflict with the final exams of my first term which have been postponed due to the floods.

Fah-rung: The Article 112 summons alleges the incidents from which year?

Kan-thoop:  Probably 2010. The thing is, some people were circulating information on the Internet by capturing several images of [my] Facebook postings and put them together in forward emails. I’m not sure if cutting and pasting [images] from the Internet can really be used as evidence in filing a complaint because people can do whatever they like with cutting and pasting.

Fah-rung: So the fact is, there was cutting and pasting of images accompanied by the accusations that you posted certain comments. These were then circulated, and the hunting of you followed. Is that correct?

Kan-thoop: Yes.

Fah-rung: How has [Thammasat University] been taking care of you?

Kan-thoop: My advisor has been calling me to see how I’m doing, and told me to let the process run its course. My teachers also take care of my safety.

Fah-rung: Were you facing any threats when you moved to another province when you were in Mor 4 [Grade 10]?  

Kan-thoop: No, I wasn’t threatened. My family moved, so I moved with my family.

Fah-rung: Besides harassment on the Internet, have you faced any threats/intimidation in real life?

Kan-thoop: Some, for instance, last year someone went to my old province and asked people in the neighborhood if they knew me. Some claimed to be authorities and some just ordinary people.

Fah-rung: Among those who support you, what have they said to you?

Kan-thoop: They said they give me “moral support.” Those words are all that’s needed. I think morale is the most important thing. What keeps me strong is all the heartfelt support from my dear friends and my dear teachers.

Fah-rung: What has impressed you since you’ve attended Thammasat University?

Kan-thoop: I feel that this university is the most open minded of all the universities to which I’ve ever passed the exams. I’m very impressed by this [Thammasat’s openness].

Fah-rung: Do you have favorite historical figures?

Kan-thoop: Hmm, I don’t worship historical figures. I tend to admire people I actually know because, I believe, I can admire or love them more wholeheartedly than I can do the historical figures.

Fah-rung: You tend not to believe in stories that have been told, that you have not experienced yourself, is that what you meant?

Kan-thoop: I don’t give too much importance [to stories] to the point that I’d adore or worship [historical figures]. I don’t believe [in that].

Fah-rung: What kind of books do you read?

Kan-thoop: Books on history and novels.

Fah-rung: What kind of stories do you like to write for yourself?

Kan-thoop: Poems because I can compose some poems. They’re not just about politics, but also about love, nature, and nonsensical stuff.

Fah-rung: What poems are in your heart?

Kan-thoop: (Laughter) Poems by Visa Khanthap. But it seems Brother Visa has… (laughter) kind of changed.

(See more detailed background details and commentaries about Kan-thoop’s case by Voranai Vanijaka in the Bangkok Post; Bangkok Pundit on Asian Correspondent; and Political Prisoners in Thailand.)

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Thai Society, Politics, etc., Thai Women

Tagged , , , , , ,

The message or the accent? Hillary and Yingluck’s first meeting

Posted on December 27, 2011 | 4 Comments

This article was first published on 19 November by SiamVoices, on Asian Correspondent. Haven’t got around to re-post it here (for my own record) until now.

Source: US Embassy Bangkok Facebook

It was a historic meeting. At least in the sense that the first Thai female prime minister had her first official meeting with the top female diplomat of the United States, Thailand’s most powerful ally. It also took place right after her meeting with the UN Secretary General Bun Ki Moon. These two meetings were a mega-warm up for Yingluck before her entrance onto the world stage at the 19th ASEAN Summit in Bali where she would meet President Obama and other ASEAN and East Asian leaders.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was said to have cut short her visit to the Philippines to make a 17-hour pit stop in Bangkok on 16 November 2011 as her visit to Thailand was not on the original itinerary.

According to AFP, Secretary Clinton was on a mission to “update” the US relationships with its five treaty-bound regional allies—Australia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and Thailand. “These five alliances are the fulcrum for our efforts in the Asia-Pacific,” she said at the East-West Center in Honolulu before she commenced the Asia-Pacific tour.

If many of us in Thailand had an impression that the US was neglecting its old friend before, despite the deepening political conflict and worsening rights violations, we have now been told that it’s not true. Ostensibly, US policymakers have been concerned over Thailand after an extended period of political chaos.

And it was Hillary’s job to deliver a message to Yingluck and Thailand that the US really cares. A State Department official was quoted as saying before Hillary made it here:

One of the messages that the secretary will bring directly to the Thai people and the government is that we believe it is in the national security and political interest of the United States to have this government succeed…. We will do what we can to support that going forward. There are substantial tensions in Thailand and those tensions will not be resolved after one or even a few elections.

One can debate on the finer meaning of “this government” as Bangkok Pundit has done here, but the general message is clear. The US has confirmed its long-term commitment to Thailand and its intention to work with the current power holders. Whoever the power holders might actually be, there’s no denying that the face is Yingluck.

Hillary couldn’t have done a better job at making clear the message she was tasked to deliver at their joint press conference in the evening of 16November. In her statement, after delivering the American sympathies for the Thai people in the ravaging floods and the promise of $10 million US aid, she delivered the message:

I want to emphasize that although, of course, we are all focused on the immediate needs, the United States will be with you for the long run. We are working to help Thailand improve its capacity to prevent, prepare for, and respond to disasters like these floods. And we will support Thailand’s economic recovery as a trade investment and development partner. I recognize that these floods pose an early and serious challenge to the new Thai Government and to the hard-won peace that the Thai people achieved after the political violence that you have endured in recent years.

The United States stands firmly behind the civilian government of Thailand and the work it is doing to consolidate strong democratic institutions, ensure good governance, guarantee the rule of law, and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. We encourage the government to move forward with a political reconciliation process, which is critical to Thailand’s long-term stability and security. As it does so, it can also count on support from the United States.

I suppose it is a bit difficult to debate on the finer meaning of “civilian.” But no matter, it wasn’t even mentioned by most of the mainstream Thai press, which either glossed over the key message highlighted above or simply ignored it. Instead, the big fuss made by key media personalities in the mainstream press and by netizens who echoed their noises was about Yingluck’s English proficiency.

A well-known media personality, Somkiat Onwimon, who has more than 70,000 followers on Twitter tweeted (in Thai) after the press conference:

Having listened to the statement by Prime Minister Yingluck in response to Secretary Hillary Clinton, I found that her formal English communication was as terrible as her Thai. (1)

In formal communication with foreign countries, Prime Minister Yingluck should use Thai because her English is unserviceable. It is incomprehensible. Mistakes can do damage to Thailand. (2)

This evening Secretary Hillary Clinton answered the questions about Thailand better than the Thai prime minister, so much so that it made Prime Minister Yingluck a prop rather than the star. (3)

Prime Minister Yingluck will be at the ASEAN Summit in Bali. It’s worrying. [She’d better] use an interpreter from the Foreign Ministry to communicate with other 9 ASEAN leaders and +8 national leaders. (4)

That was more or less all the veteran newsman had to say about the joint press conference. There was no commentary on the substance of the statement by either leader. Nonetheless, or perhaps precisely because of that, his tweets were selling like hot cakes. The number of RTs for each tweet reached 100+ (tweet popularity doesn’t get any higher than that). His tweets have also been reproduced on Facebook and newspapers and on blogs like this one.

Make no mistake, the $10 mil US flood aid part got in most news headlines, but forget about the renewed ties between the two old allies or the unmistakable support of the US for the fledgling and battered Yingluck government. The bigger part of the Thai mainstream media, along with its “educated” urban consumers deeply embedded in social media, has been chewing, regurgitating, extrapolating, or refining on these tweets.

Somkiat, who has trained many Thai news anchors, apparently believes the prime minister’s English is potentially disastrous for Thailand’s interests. This point was quickly grabbed by those too inclined to shine a spotlight on any blemish of Yingluck. So came a deluge of comments on Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and news commentaries on her accent and incorrect grammar (as compared to their favorite Eton-Oxford-educated former prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva), and on using an interpreter.

Of course, not all think Yingluck’s English is that bad. Most believe it’s quite serviceable. Or not—depending on which side you are listening to. An indisputable fact is, however, that she has neither the Queen’s English nor the American Southern twang. Her accent is characteristically very Thai. And so?

Her supporters have been beating up on Somkiat and the ‘accent’ and grammar critics, arguing what’s wrong with having an accent. They point out that Somkiat and co. just couldn’t stop themselves picking on her. The defensive reaction is understandable given Somkiat has recently spent quite an inordinate amount of time analyzing Yingluck’s Thai language skills, criticizing her less than good pronunciation, how she doesn’t distinguish between the ‘r’ and the ‘l’, how her speech delivery is unpolished, etc, etc. In other words, he was criticizing her for not having the Thai equivalent of the Queen’s English.

On this point, I believe Yingluck supporters have it right: there is no one English accent. They also have support from a heavy weight academic and social critic like Chanvit Kasetsiri who simply said:

Thai elites have inferiority complex and lead themselves to believe that good English is the Queen’s English only… ‘Don’t worry, just speak, speak lah’…. And you’ll get better at it.

I’m certain Yingluck will get better at it; she has proven to be a quick study. But meanwhile, what about an interpreter? It seems the jury is still out on that score. The merit and necessity of using interpretation is still being debated at the moment—sincerely or snarkily.

It’s unfortunate that the person who raised the interpreter issue was Somkiat who is highly critical (some may say nitpicking) of PM Yingluck. I personally don’t think that her English is terrible or incomprehensible, but indeed not fluent. His point about using an interpreter is not without merit, if PM Yingluck’s answer to the press at the joint press conference in Bangkok was any indication. She can certainly benefit from a professional interpreter, especially during the Q & A session with the press.

Also unfortunate, that as the anti-Yingluck camp continues to mock her accent and grammar, Yingluck supporters are hesitant to see her use an interpreter. They say she will improve, and those who dislike her are going to criticize her no matter what.

What does Hillary think of Yingluck’s English? I’m willing to bet she’s a lot more forgiving than Somkiat and other Yingluck critics at home.

I also wonder if the two women have had any more chance to meet casually in Bali, when perhaps Yingluck could ask for Hillary’s advice on how to be a strong female politician and how to deal with the prickly issue of tears.

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Thai Society, Politics, etc., Thai Women

Tagged , , , , , ,

Bangkok Feminists, Where Are You?

Posted on November 15, 2011 | 4 Comments

UPDATE: A slightly different Thai-language version of this article is available on Prachatai: เฟมินิสต์ไทย คุณลืม Feminist Mind ไว้ที่ไหน?

…………………………………..

Nearly two weeks ago many in the Thai social networks were stunned by a comment made on Facebook. A number of people were outraged, especially people from the North. Here’s the comment that started the brouhaha:

“I really don’t want to say this because it will seem like I look down on women… but the truth is… Northern girls who are uneducated or lazy and intellectually retarded will look for an easy job that normal women won’t do… Mainly it’s prostitution … Therefore, the Northern woman who is devoid of intelligence and extremely stupid yet thick-faced enough to take up the position, you should know what profession suits you.”

That was what Mr. Akeyuth Anchanbutr, a “self-made” businessman, aspiring political pundit and relentless anti-Thaksin crusader, wrote on his Facebook wall on November 2, 2011.

Of course, which particular “Northern woman” Mr. Akeyuth alluded to was not lost to anyone with a functioning brain. Thailand’s first female prime minister is a woman from the North and a kid sister of Mr. Thaksin. Mr. Akeyuth has raised his profile in the Thai political world ever since he accused Mr. Thaksin of manipulating the stock market in 2005. He founded a “No color, no camp, but have the truth” and anti-anything-Thaksin-related website called Thaiinsider.com.

But this article is not about Mr. Akeyuth. As mind blowing as his comment was, for all its crassness and thoughtlessness, more interesting are the reactions to it.

Mr. Akeyuth’s Facebook comment has by now been shared by more than 1,200 people directly from his Facebook wall. This number has probably multiplied by many factors. Judging by the reactions on the original post, most readers didn’t like the comment one bit, though of course it has received 31 “Likes” on Mr. Akeyuth’s wall and probably more elsewhere. Most thought the comment was “too strong,” many pointing to the unfair stereotype, lack of substance in the statement, insult on others’ humanity and dignity, etc.

After much flak and little praise, Mr. Akeyuth reiterated his original comment. The gist of it was, he “did not accuse or look down on anyone but merely spoke the truth,” nor was he looking down on any profession, sex work included. Annoyed by the still nagging critics, Akeyuth put it plainly once and for all: “I already told you that I hate lazy people who want to have it easy, that’s all… Like it or not, it’s up to you.”

And that was from a man on the run for 20 years (until the statute of limitation ran out) from fraud charges for allegedly masterminding a ponzi scheme back in the 1980s. If anyone should have sympathy for Thaksin, you would think it’s Akeyuth. But self-awareness seems to be missing here.

No surprise that there was a public outrage especially from Northerners. An anti-Akeyuth Facebook page went up in no time. The page now has over 4,000 “Likes” and over 3,500 people talking about it.

A day after the comment was made, civil society groups in Chiang Mai gathered to condemn the man. Representatives from Northern women’s groups, Empower the NGO for sex workers, Red women’s group, Chiang Mai City organizations and Lanna University joined to condemn his comment. They said it was a “denigration and dehumanization of sex workers and an insult on the dignity of Northern Thai women.” The group demanded that Akeyuth take responsibility for his comment. A Lanna women’s group filed a complaint with the police against him for defaming Northern Thai women.

The statement by the Lanna University pointed out the economic structure that exploits poor rural women from the North and other regions as a reason for regional inequity that should not be ignored:

 “To say that Northern Thai women are lazy and stupid is to ignore that fact, and to speak of the prime minister in such a way is to insult the majority of people in the country who elected her… Lanna University faculty calls on all parties to condemn … the view that supports gender oppression, the view that looks down upon the people in a democratic system, and the view that denigrates the leader of the country.”

On November 4, the Phayao women’s networks also came out to demand an apology from Akeyuth.

As a Northerner, I myself was outraged and condemned Akeyuth for his blatantly sexist and racist remark as soon as I saw it on Twitter . Many others—women and men, Northerners and non-Northerners alike—were doing the same on social media. Some were calling the comment a “hate speech.”

Then something occurred to me. Chiang Mai University was missing in action. This is peculiar given CMU has a Women’s Studies Center which has feminists who can usually be depended on to be vocal about women’s issues.

But not all torchbearers of women’s rights were silent. In the first week there were two reactions from high-profile feminists.

The first was a Thammasat University lecturer in Bangkok, Chalidaporn Songsamphan, who responded on the first day with a series of 9 tweets, which was not a condemnation but a mini lecture on public criticism in Thai culture. Some selected tweets:

“It is understandable that many people dislike and condemn PM Yingluck for all kinds of reasons. The way she is reproofed tells us something interesting about Thai society (1).” (original tweet)

“Many groups of Thai people don’t debate on issues or reasons but tend to pick characteristics of individuals to point out how they are wrong such as they are bad people hence whatever they say is wrong (2).” (original tweet)

“Abusing the female PM by referring to her being a Northern woman may gratify those who dislike her, but it shows that in fact Thai society hasn’t moved away from gender prejudices (4).” (original tweet)

“PM Pou isn’t all good. To protect her without considering relevant issues and make her untouchable is not constructive. Abusing her without any reason using vulgarity isn’t  constructive either (8).” (original tweet)

I agree with most of Chalidaporn’s tweets above, but I couldn’t help feeling that something was missing in those tweets. Like feelings. Can feminists get worked up? Oh yes, probably more often than not. It is almost obligatory if one is a feminist actually: Ability to get worked up when the female humanity and dignity is violated. I don’t know Dr. Chalidaporn personally but I suspect she must have a very cool head.

If the first response from the famous Bangkok feminist made me feel like I was surfing in the vast, cool sea of adroitness, the second response from the famous feminist writer, public intellectual and TV host from Chiang Mai was like a bucket of icy water—that was thrown directly at your face. Kamphaka is not known for mincing words. She threw her exact sentiment and her political stance in the face of everyone who read her first response in the form of a 9-word tweet:

 “Selling pussy is more honorable than killing people, Akeyuth.”*  (original tweet)

The sharp-tongued Kamphaka  more eloquently elaborated her point of view in a Voice TV interview later that day (November 3). The video interview now has more than 12,000 views and spirited discussions in the comment section. Her key points:

Akeyuth’s comment was sexist as well as racist and it attempted to further divide Thai society along regional and ethnic lines.
Sex workers are people who also have dignity.
Akeyuth’s comment presented a good opportunity for Thais to reconsider our views on gender and regional prejudices.

Over the next several days, I looked for more well-known feminists to come out and make a stand. Not that I think Thai women need feminists to tell us where to stand as we can very well manage to find a place to stand by ourselves. Or that I think the reactions thus far from many local women’s and civil society groups aren’t meaningful. To me, they are indeed as meaningful as the muted response from leading feminists in Bangkok.

Still it was strange that the torchbearers of Thai women’s rights were silent.

I recall the outrage against the Oxford Dictionary many years ago, which had the audacity to define Bangkok as “a city famous for its temples and prostitutes” or something to that effect. Thai feminists and non-feminists alike were up in arms, hyperventilating and demanding change in the definition. Was I wrong to expect reactions from feminists in this instance? Especially those in Bangkok?

Why, only a few months ago those leading feminists were weighing heavily in on the first female prime minister of Thailand. Chalidaporn likened Ms. Yingluck’s historic rise to the premiership to her “flying” into it on the [Shinawatra] magic carpet. Arpaporn Sumrit, a lecturer at the Women’s Studies Center at Chiang Mai University, predicted Yingluck wouldn’t do anything for women because she’s a man in a woman’s body (I discussed Thai feminists’ first reactions to Ms. Yingluck’s coming to power here.) What’s more, Sutada Mekrungruengkul, director of the Gender and Development Research Institute made a splash by chastising the PM for calling herself by her nickname “Pou,”** suggesting that PM Pou “could not separate between the personal and the official” and “might risk confusing foreigners” by calling herself by her nickname. (I am not kidding!)

So I thought if these feminists found PM Yingluck’s rise to power, her potential (or lack thereof) and her choice of personal pronoun worthy of discussion before, they would surely think a man suggesting the first Thai female PM should work as a prostitute instead of a PM worthy of a little fuss. I was so wrong.

Luckily, other high-profile women thought it was worth making a fuss about. On November 7, Ladawan Wongsriwong, chairwoman of Thailand’s Women’s Voices Club, came out to condemn Akeyuth and called his comment “a slap on the face of all Thai women.”

A former deputy minister and a banned Thai Rak Thai politician, Ms. Ladawan and friends filed a defamation complaint against Akeyuth with the Bangkok police and called on all chapters of the Women’s Voices Club to do the same throughout Thailand. Her group also burned Akeyuth’s effigy (see news report or the video). Ladawan threatened Akeyuth, if a public apology was not issued by 15 November an aggressive boycott campaign against all his businesses will ensue. She said:

“Akeyuth needs to be taught a lesson and made an example of for the Thai society to see that it is not acceptable to insult women like it’s a pastime.”

A heavy counter punch! But that’s what you might expect from such a vocal veteran newswoman, a seasoned spokesperson, and a woman from the North.

Interestingly enough, several Thai men (not from the North) expressed their outrage. Some even wrote about it from the very first day, like this and this. Even the second deputy president of Parliament, Mr. Visut Chainarun, scolded Akeyuth, saying his action was “extremely inappropriate” and his opinion “disrespects women’s honour”. “Mr. Akeyuth should be a gentleman and make an apology to Northern Thai women,” he said.

If leading Thai feminists who are not from the North felt any outrage, they certainly kept it very well hidden. One can only ask why. Now that my expectation was much reduced, I was hoping for just any high profile non-Northern women to say something. Even if it’s obligatory. Somehow I felt the need for some female camaraderie. Perhaps to reinforce my understanding, my hope, that Thai women in all regions are entitled to equal rights and dignity. I didn’t think I was expecting too much. Was I?

On November 8, the first non-Northern Thai woman came out officially at last to plead for fairness for the prime minister and all Thai women. It perked up my spirit a bit. In her opinion piece on Matichon, Ms. Thitima Chaisaeng said:

“Ever since the PM came into office she has worked tirelessly … she has never shown weakness. On the other hand, she has shown leadership, patience, perseverance, decisiveness and dedication to her work and not discouraged by obstacles. More importantly, she has never come out to blame anyone, even when information is discovered that some problems are results of the failures of the last government.”

The spokesperson of the Prime Minister’s Office said, as a public figure the PM can be criticized, however the criticisms should be based on reasons and in good taste. Akeyuth’s comment was “an attack on the prime minister [and] a strong insult on Thai women.” She called on women to come out to fight against sexism.

Ms. Thitima’s op-ed was the first drop of rain that preceded a storm. I was not at all prepared for what was to come. On that same day, two female Democrat MPs caused a big stir with their direct reproof of Ms. Thitima’s boss. But they weren’t talking about Mr. Akeyuth’s comment. Their focus was the PM’s tears.*** Both blamed PM Yingluck for damaging Thai women’s image by causing women’s leadership to be scrutinized and inviting an insult on the rest of Thai women. In their own words:

Mrs. Siriwan Prasachaksatru, deputy leader, Democrat Party:

“Khun Yingluck has caused the fight for female leadership to be scrutinized and her repeated failures and repeated, incredible lies have become the talk of the town. People question: Is that all Northern Thai women have to give? Are they all like this? Why do they always cry if they can’t do a job and use feminine guiles inappropriately? This has caused the Democrat Party to think seriously, especially among us women, because we don’t want the image of women to be destroyed any further. We are probably going to put this matter on the agenda of the Party’s committee on women, so that we can advise the prime minister.”

Ms. Mallika Boonmeetrakul, deputy spokesperson, Democrat Party:

“Crying the first time invites sympathy. Crying the second time draws consideration. Crying the third time is suspicious. But crying the fourth time is getting a bit too much and shows the woman must have so much guile that it invites insults… Thailand is one of the leading countries in the world that have women in executive positions but that fact is contradicted by the behavior of the leader of the country… In less than three months, [Ms. Yingluck] has destroyed the image that we women have worked all our lives to protect. Of course, women are sensitive and can cry, but not so much that it becomes suspicious like play-acting, fooling the public…”

Then on the next day, as if to make sure that the message of the two female MPs above (both from the North) came across clearly to the Thai public, the most senior female executive of the Democrat Party stressed the point again. Khunying Kalaya Sophonpanich:

“There are no women or men in politics. When you volunteer to work you must be able to deliver. You must be strong. Be a role model who is strong and determined. Therefore, you should not cry because besides the fact that it doesn’t solve the problem, it destroys the image of women. People won’t believe that women can do the job.”

Prompted by the reporter who asked,: “What do the people feel if the leader of the country show this level of maturity?,” Khunying Kalaya did not miss a beat. She laughed while delivering a retort: “Is there any maturity?”

Any comment from me would be superfluous, I think.

At any rate, it’s probably too much to expect politicians (even those claiming to have “worked all their lives” for women’s rights) to understand that using women’s tears as a point to attack a woman leader isn’t going to advance their cause very far. But the merit of their attack is hardly relevant. Politicians, even the female ones, don’t usually let facts, principles, their own gender, or a sense of female camaraderie get in the way of political point scoring.

As I was about to lose all hope, a long-awaited opinion finally came on November 10 from the feminist journalist whom I have admired for many years, Sanitsuda Ekachai of the Bangkok Post. In her article “A mind dirtier than a pigsty,” Sanitsuda wrote:

“Despite having a big team of babysitters handpicked by her fugitive brother, her inability even to read a scripted speech correctly had made her a laughing stock. Her management of the current flood disaster is simply disastrous.

Criticise her poor performance if you will. That is what democracy is about. But what came from Mr. Akeyuth is not criticism. It is misogyny. It is ethnic prejudice. It is arrogance from the city centre against other regions. It is ugly chauvinism that must not be tolerated.

You don’t need to be a fan of PM Yingluck to feel indignant. You only need to believe that gender and ethnic prejudice is wrong… That is why I thought Mr. Akeyuth’s hate speech would be a good chance to unite women of all political colours to condemn it. How wrong I was.

As community leaders in the red zones with possible political links to the Pheu Thai government, they might be even expected to do something to protect Ms. Yingluck. But the silence from other women’s rights groups is simply deafening.

Why is this so?… Whatever it is, silence is the wrong move because advocacy is an important part of social activism for change.”

Personally I am not at all bothered by the PM’s tears and don’t see her as a laughing stock. Her performance thus far, especially the management of the floods, can be much improved but nothing near disastrous. But that’s a matter of opinion.  Sanitsuda said what needed to be said and I agree with all the other points she made. I commend her for overcoming her perceptible dislike of PM Yingluck to make a principled stand. Hers is a true spirit. But what about other women’s rights advocates whom she was calling out to? Will they be able to do the same? The signs are not very encouraging. It’s been three days and no one else has emerged.

Few insults can better serve than Mr. Akeyuth’s as a showcase of the old prejudice that persists at the root of gender and social inequalities in Thai society. The comment rightly stunned and outraged many. But for me, the initial anger for Mr. Akeyuth is long gone.

What remains is the dismay and disappointment at the unaccountable silence from those who profess to be the advocates of women’s rights: Those who claim to abhor violence against women, who complain about the appallingly low representation of Thai women in politics, but who ignore the blatant and public denigration of the first female leader and the entire female population of a region of the country. Their silence is far more stunning and outrageous than the original insult by Mr. Akeyuth.

So where are you, Bangkok feminists?

Where are you when your Northern sisters need you?

NOTES:

This article was first published by Siam Voices on Asian Correspondent on 13 November 2011.

*Kamphaka was alluding to the accusations from both sides: Akeyuth practically telling the prime minister she should become a prostitute and some Reds calling the former prime minister Abhisit “a murderer” for his responsibility in the 90+ deaths in the April-May 2010 protests.

**There is not one neutral “I” first person pronoun that everyone can use in Thai as in English. Thai women often call themselves by their nickname in informal interactions and use the pronoun “di-chan” in formal situation, while Thai men use the common and neutral pronoun “phom” in both informal and formal situations. “Di-chan” is not a true equivalent of “phom,” however, in that it is perceived as highly impersonal. Prime Minister Yingluck uses “di-chan” in official and formal situations such as in cabinet meetings, speeches and interviews.

***Ever since the floods inundated the Thai geographical and political landscapes, certain groups  among Thai media and Thai population have developed an obsession with the PM’s tears. Headlines and pictures have featured her in various stages of crying—actual and presumed—while she toured the flooded communities.

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Sexuality-Gender in Thai Culture, Thai Society, Politics, etc., Thai Women

Tagged , , , , ,

Weird Thai Nicknames – Deluxe Edition, Part 1

Posted on September 30, 2011 | 7 Comments

It’s been six months since I first wrote about weird Thai nicknames. I had thought it was going to be a single post on the topic but by the time I finished the article I realized it was just an hors-d’oeuvre.

Thanks to many of you for leaving comments and sharing more weird nicknames on the last post, which I added to my collection. There were also plenty more on the internet—mostly on Thai web boards. It seems not only foreigners have a thing for crazy Thai nicknames. Thais love strange Thai nicknames too. The research was great fun and educational. I could go on collecting more but it was going to be an endless process. At one point I had to tell myself to stop, otherwise I would never write a sequel I had promised.

Putting some order into weird Thai nicknames

Looking at my jumbled collection comprising several sheets of raggedy paper overcrowded with names handwritten in various colors, pointing to various directions, I was disorientated. There was no way I could make sense of it all without putting some order into it first. (I love putting things in order—an unfortunate personal affliction which sometimes comes in handy.) So I scanned for patterns and 13 categories of weird Thai nicknames jumped out at me (thankfully not all at once).

  1. Beverages
  2. Traditional Thai food and confectionery
  3. Western food and confectionery
  4. Sports and recreation
  5. Love of nature
  6. Catchy concepts and cool state of being
  7. Let’s not be shy about wanting riches
  8. More famous brands
  9. Parents must be either lazy or just sticklers for order
  10. Parents must be geeks who need to get out more
  11. Aww, how precious(ly weird)!
  12. Really? But why?!
  13. WTF!

Can you see now why I needed a system?

When is “weird” no longer “weird”?

Frankly I am now wondering how long the adjective “weird” will hold up for all the seemingly strange Thai nicknames. Looking for weird Thai nicknames is like looking for round pebbles on a beach. The more you look, the more round pebbles you find. You go from weird, to weirder, to how could it get any weirder, and there are still more where they come from.

When does “weird” stop being “weird”? I guess the point at which “weird” isn’t so weird anymore is when people don’t make much or any notice anymore. Maybe that point has already been reached for some of the nicknames I will include in this installment and future installments to come.

Does the fact that more and more Thai parents are crazily adopting ever more unusual, fantastic, strange, bizarre, far-out and mind-blowingly ridiculous nicknames for their kids make the nicknames any more normal, or less weird? Say, if every other Thai person has a weird nickname, does that make those commonly weird nicknames normal? But then “commonly weird” is an oxymoron.

Anyway, this is actually one of the things I appreciate about my fellow Thais, who ordinarily are obsessed with conformity. But when it comes to names and nicknames, Thais just can’t have enough uniqueness and go to ridiculous length to get it, even when it means naming their kids in the way that no other people on earth would even dare contemplating.

You’ve had your hors-d’oeuvre, so are you now ready for the main course? Yeah, you may chuckle. But at least in this first installment of the Deluxe Edition you will see that the gastronomy analogy isn’t so inappropriate as you might think. By the time you finish reading Part 1, you will likely feel stuffed or suffer a stomachache from over consumption of many different foods and beverages of the weird Thai nicknames.

Let’s have some drinks first.

1. Beverages

Fanta แฟนต้า & Sprite สไปรท์, along side Cola & Pepsi (not featured)

Pepsi เป๊บซี่ and Cola โคล่า are common, as already mentioned in the first post. Now added to the soft-drink category of Thai nicknames are their lesser peers Fanta แฟนต้า, Sprite สไปรท์ and Seven-Up เซเว่นอัฟ (the last often shortened to just Seven in actual use—like the “Seven” shortened from 7-Eleven).

If you are wondering whether Thais prefer Western-style beverages, the answer is no. There are plenty of Thai-style beverages that serve Thais’ needs for sustenance as well as unique individual designation. Among the more common ones:

Nam Wan น้ำหวาน /náam wǎan/ (syrup; sweet drink)

Nam Oy น้ำอ้อย /náam ôoy/ (sugar cane juice)

Nam Phueng น้ำผึ้ง /náam phûeng/ (honey)

As nicknames, these super sweet drinks are for girls. As beverages, for anyone with sweet tooth.

There are a variety of other healthful Thai beverages more recently adopted as nicknames, mostly for girls as well, but you won’t run into Thai girls with healthful beverage nicknames everyday as they aren’t in great numbers—yet.

Nam Som น้ำส้ม  /náam sôm/ (orange juice)

Nam Khing น้ำขิง  /náam khǐng/ (ginger drink)

Nam Khow น้ำข้าว  /náam khâaw/ (rice milk)

Nam Nom น้ำนม /náam nom/ (breast milk or milk)

Nam Rae น้ำแร่ /náam rÊE/ (mineral water)

(*Nam น้ำ means water, liquid, juice, or milk.)

Milk: Nom นม, Nam Nom น้ำนม

From here we leave the outer periphery and enter the inner realm of Thai nickname weirdness. Orange juice, ginger drink, rice milk and mineral water are normal as drinks and have a potential to soon become kind of normal as nicknames. But breast milk? While perfectly normal as baby food, I have doubt as to its future as a common beverage for people of any age, but who knows it may be just weird enough to become a common Thai nickname eventually. Still though, how can anyone ever call a girl “breast milk” and not think of the milk source?

Source of (one kind of) Milk

I have learned to never say never about Thai nicknames. According to at least one source there is a girl nicknamed simply Nom นม, which can mean either “breast” or “milk” (I hope, and likely, it’s the latter). Yes, in case you wonder, there are girls (maybe boys too) nicknamed with the English word Milk, although to western ears the nickname when said by Thais won’t sound like what you expect. It will likely sound like Miew มิ้ว (because Thais don’t express the final sounds that don’t exist in Thai final consonants, e.g. ‘s’, ‘t,’ ‘k’, ‘f’).

There are many more Thai drinks for many more Thai girls and boys in need of unique nicknames. Some resourceful parents have turned perfectly ordinary Thai beverages into extraordinary nicknames such as:

Nam Cha น้ำชา /náam nom/ (tea)

Ka Fae กาแฟ /kaa-fEE/ (coffee)

Cha Yen ชาเย็น /chaa yen/ (sweet iced milk tea)

O-Liang โอเลี้ยง /oo-líaang/ (sweet iced black coffee)

O-Liang โอเลี้ยง Sweet iced black coffee

But Thai parents are forever looking for the new extraordinary. Coffee and tea in liquid form may have lost their edge for some parents searching for the next, as yet unheard of, item for a nickname for the little one. I heard there is at least one kid somewhere nicknamed Bai Cha ใบชา /bai chaa/, “tea leaf.”

In recent years Starbucks has introduced to many urban Thai parents more shades, styles and sizes of coffee—all of which are considered hip (for now). For some reason as yet undetermined, certain parents felt that latte was among the hipper of all the hip Starbucks beverages on offer, so Latte ลาเต้ gets reborn, immortalized for at least one lifetime of a Thai kid. (Note to self: Look out for “Coffee Bean” reincarnation.)

Next, it might have been intended as a tribute to the usefulness and versatility of a certain liquid: Soda โซดา.

Previously I was under the impression that another common drink Beer เบียร์ was a boy’s name. I was recently proved wrong by Thailand’s new culture minister, a mother of three, nicknamed Beer. (Meet her here on Global Post, introduction by Patrick Winn.) I’m quite willing to pay 50 baht to know the nicknames of her three children… Okay, all right! 50 baht for each nickname!

UPDATE: How could I have forgotten Punch พั้นช์! (Thanks to my Twitter pal @Incognito_me for reminding me.)

Seagram ซีแกรม

The list of Thai beverages as nicknames will not be complete without spirits. One that keeps popping up in many threads discussing Thai nicknames is Seagram ซีแกรม. I’m not sure if it refers to the Chinese brand of gin pictured or something else. I have also seen a cheap wine-like beverage with very low alcohol content by that name.

Talking of wine, there is a nickname after this type of alcoholic beverage as well: Wine ไวน์. It’s unclear if it’s a girl or boy nickname. It could be unisex. Given there exists a tendency (as yet small) to pick nicknames after types of consumer products, I suspect there might also exist Thai kids going by Whisky วิสกี้, Brandy บรั่นดี, Vodka ว้อดก้า, Tequila เตกีล่า, or even Sake สาเก but I have no information to confirm this. I am less inclined to think that there’s a nickname “Lao Khow” เหล้าขาว /lâaw khǎaw/ (the extremely potent and illegal homebrew Thai whisky made from rice) but my incredulity has been shattered by so many Thai nicknames before. As you learn more you will come to believe like I do now, that anything under the sun is possible when it comes to Thai nicknames.

My research has not been exhaustive for nicknames in the distilled spirits department and this is not the area in which I am particularly well versed, being a non-drinker myself. Nonetheless, given the Thai love for brands I have a strong suspicion that the nickname Chivas ชีวาส exists because it appears to have such a popularity and that unquantifiable “preferred” sound and aura among Thais (educated speculation from having seen TV commercials of the said product).

Of course, there are also famous brands of alcoholic beverages like Singha, Chang and Heineken in the beer category, and Red Bull (known in Thai as Krathing Daeng กระทิงแดง) among energy drinks. But again I have no confirmation, so will stop speculating further on alcoholic nicknames—and end the Beverages section—right here.

 2. Traditional Thai food and confectionery

Rice: Khow ข้าว - We Thais are proud of our rice.

Thailand has long been a major rice producer and No. 1 rice exporter in the world until very recently when Vietnam snatched that title away from us. We Thais love eating rice and naturally are proud of our rice—many wonderful species and types of rice in fact. So it’s no wonder that rice is found among the Thai nicknames.

Our ancestors must have been proud of our rice too but I don’t believe it ever occurred to them to name their children after what they had for breakfast, lunch and dinner every day. But perhaps the present generation felt the need to remind ourselves of our cultural heritage now that we are also eating many other non-Thai foods—or some parents just couldn’t find other cool nicknames to give their kids. Whichever the reason, a few Thai kids are now nicknamed after various kinds of Thai rice, at various stages and in various styles of preparation.

Khow San ข้าวสาร - Khow Klong ข้าวกล้อง - Khow Niew ข้าวเหนียว

Khow ข้าว /khâaw/ (rice)

Khow Hom ข้าวหอม /khâaw hǑOm/ (fragrant rice; jasmine rice)

Khow San ข้าวสาร /khâaw sǎan/ (milled, polished rice)

Khow Klong ข้าวกล้อง /khâaw klÔOng/ (half-milled rice, husked but unpolished)

Khow Suay ข้าวสวย /khâaw sǔaay/ (steamed rice)

Khow Niew ข้าวเหนียว /khâaw nǐaaw/ (sticky rice)

Khow Pan ข้าวปั้น /khâaw pân/ (sticky rice roll)

Khow Maak ข้าวหมาก /khâaw màak/ (fermented rice, a stage before rice wine)

Khow Fang ข้าวฟ่าง /khâaw fâang/ (millet, Sorghum)

I’m sure I have left off some types and species of rice now walking around in Thailand on two legs, but you get the idea.

In Thai cuisine rice is the main staple that comes with various dishes, so naturally there are lots more yummy Thai nicknames that make you hungry. But lest you forget, this is not really a Thai gastronomy course. I’ll present only the Thai dishes that I have confirmed to double as nicknames.

Among those that go extremely well with rice, steamed or sticky kind, are Moo Hwan หมูหวาน /mǔu wǎan/, “sweet pork,” and Moo Ping หมูปิ้ง /mǔu pîng/, “grilled pork.”

Nam Phrik-Pla Too น้ำพริก-ปลาทู Source: Kochpon at Bloggang.com http://goo.gl/e0JT1

These two are my most favorites in the food category. A brother and a sister named Nam Phrik น้ำพริก /náam phrik/, “chilli paste,” and Pla Too ปลาทู /plaa tuu/, “mackerel.” This pair is as Thai as they come and go heavenly with steaming hot rice.

There is another common traditional Thai dish that surprised me despite it all: Kaeng Som แกงส้ม /kEEng sôm/, “spicy sour curry” (containing various vegetables and fish or prawns). Again, heavenly with steaming hot rice (but then just about any edible thing is heavenly with steaming hot rice—if you like rice, that is).

What’s more, it appears that single noodle dishes are also popular as nicknames.

Padthai ผัดไทย /phàt thai/ (stir-fried noodles)

Khanom Jeen ขนมจีน /khà-nǒm jiin/ (Thai rice noodles in various sauces or curries)

Mii Kiew หมี่เกี๊ยว /mìi kíaaw/ (yellow noodle and dumpling soup or dry dish)

Wun Sen วุ้นเส้น /wún-sên/ (vermicelli, often in spicy salad or plain or spicy soup)

Khow Kaeng ข้าวแกง /khâaw kEEng/ (rice topped with curry and/or other dishes)

Khamom Jeen ขนมจีน, the food

Among the five dishes above, my personal favorite is Khanom Jeen, the Thai rice noodles with many selections of sauce and curry in a variety of tastes and colors, including reddish spicy coconut milk soup with minced fish or fish balls (Nam Ya น้ำยา), red chicken curry (Kaeng Kai แกงไก่), green chicken curry (Kaeng Khiew Hwan แกงเขียวหวาน), sweet chilli peanut

Khanom Jeen ขนมจีน, the singer

sauce (Nam Phrik น้ำพริก), Northern Thai pork, tomato and blood curd curry (Nam Ngiew น้ำเงี้ยว), and refreshing sweet-salty dressing sprinkled with crushed dry shrimps and thinly sliced hot chili peppers in fish sauce and coconut milk with chopped pineapple on the side (Khanom Jeen Saw Nam ขนมจีนซาวน้ำ). Check out this galore of Google images of Khanom Jeen, in both human and culinary forms.

Nicknames in the food category also include basic food stuff like “flour”: Paeng แป้ง /pÊEng/, which also means “powder.”  I suppose you’ll just have to ask each Paeng you meet (a good chance you’ll meet many) whether she is flour or powder. And then there is “gluten,” you know, the kind of flour that becomes gooey and mucus-like when cooked: Paeng Piak แป้งเปียก /pÊEng pìak/, literally “wet powder.” I consider myself very broad-minded, but seriously, gooey, mucus-like flour for a name!

Yet, that wasn’t the end of sticky, gooey food as nicknames. We move from mucus-like flour to “wet tamarind paste”: Makham Piak มะขามเปียก /má-khǎam pìak/. And how about “boiled vegetables”?: Phak Tom ผักต้ม /phàk tôm/. These last three nicknames, I think, belong better in the later category of “Really? But why?!” but well, they are also food.

While we are at it, let’s see what other vegetables that have upgraded their status from mere veggies to cool nicks.

Phak-kad ผักกาด (Chinese lettuce)

Phak-kad ผักกาด /phàk-kàat/ (lettuce or cabbage)

Kana คะน้า /khá-náa/ (Chinese kale or Chinese broccoli)

Kwangtung กวางตุ้ง /kwaang-tûng/ (Chinese cabbage)

Phak-chi ผักชี /phàk-chii/ (cilantro)

Phak-chi ผักชี (Cilantro)


The fantastically, fragrant and versatile jade-green Bai Toey ใบเตย - They can be made into beautiful flowers like this, give color, flavor and fragrance to deserts, or be made into drinks

Bai Toey ใบเตย /bai tooey/ (pandanus leaf)

Phak-bung ผักบุ้ง /phàk-bûng/ (morning glory)

Fakthong ฟักทอง /fák-thOOng/ (pumpkin)

Fakthong ฟักทอง (Pumpkin)

While these are all very nutritious veggies, not all serve extremely well as nicks, especially the last. See, “pumpkin” may be a term of endearment in English but its Thai name isn’t exactly endearing or polite (to English-literate ears). Imagine a kid introduces himself to a foreigner: “Hi, my name is Fak-thong.” Luckily he can always get a new nickname when he’s old enough to figure out the English F-word.

That was the main course. Now let’s look at deserts.

Bua Loi บัวลอย

Bua Loi บัวลอย /bua lOOy/ (flour balls in coconut milk)

Thong Yip ทองหยิบ /thOOng yìp/ (syrupy golden sweet in flower shape made of egg yolks)

Thong Yod ทองหยอด /thOOng yÒOt/ (syrupy golden droplets, made of same)

Foi Thong ฝอยทอง /fǑOy thOOng/ (syrupy golden serpentine, ditto)

The golden Thai sweets - Thong Yip ทองหยิบ, Thong Yod ทองหยอด, Foi Thong ฝอยทอง

Unlike the rest of Thai nicknames mentioned here, these four are actually traditional names for Thai girls that have become old-fashioned. But I include them here for two reasons: first, they are absolutely yummy and you should know about them both as Thai deserts and names, and second, to show the arbitrariness of how certain names can sound old-fashioned while others sound cool, although they came from the same source.

More modern Thai desert nicknames are no less sweet, though less elaborately prepared. Here we have two basic ingredients of Thai deserts, “sugar,” Nam Tan น้ำตาล /náam taan/ and “coconut milk,” Kati กะทิ /kà thí/. The latter is apparently inspired by a recent SEAWrite award-winning and very popular book entitled “Happiness of Kati” (ความสุขของกะทิ), which features a girl named Kati.

Pui Fai ปุยฝ้าย "cotton fluff" Source: jadtem.com

Then there are traditional Thai deserts made adorable nicknames like Pui Fai ปุยฝ้าย /pui fâay/, literally “cotton-fluff” (which is a kind of steamed cake in various pastel colors), and Sai Mai สายไหม /sǎay mǎi/, “silk thread” (sugar fluff ball)—see pictures.

That final set among sweets are the candies:

Luk Om ลูกอม /lûuk om/ (candy)

Om-Yim อมยิ้ม /om yím/ (literally “suck and smile,” J otherwise known as lollypop)

Tang-me ตังเม /tang mee/ (sticky sweet, i.e. toffee)

Kalamae กาละแม /ka-la-mEE/ (Thai pronunciation for “caramel”)

 3. Western food and confectionery

Western food is still a newcomer among Thai nicknames, hence a very short list. In the last post, you saw Pancake แพนเค้ก, the actress. The update is she has found herself a subject of political news lately when she went out with the new lady PM Yingluck to visit flood areas about a week ago. So, perhaps to neutralize suspicions that she favors one political side over the other, she has appeared in public events with the ex-PM Abhisit as well.

Pizza, the Italian food

Pancake may be the best known Western food among Thai celebrities, but among Thai musical talents, it’s Pizza พิซซ่า. “Pizza” is better known as Trisdee Na Pattalung), Thailand’s young musical prodigy and fast rising star conductor /composer.

Pizza, the Thai conductor (better known as Trisdee Na Pattalung)

(He is my fellow twitterer @Trisdee, and I should have asked him how he got his nickname, or whether the Italians called him “Maestro Pizza” when he was conducting in Italy last year.)

Western fruits have fast rivaled Thai fruits as nicknames. But it seems western vegetables have some ways to go against their home-grown competitors.

I have collected just one western veggie nickname: Carrot แครอท. It’s possible as anything is possible that there might be Broccoli, Celery, Asparagus, Arugula or Artichoke out there, but not highly probable because Thais are averse to nicknames with more than two syllables, not to mention that the ‘r’ and the ‘l’ and the many vowels will make pronunciation just a tad difficult and confusing for Thais: Celery would become Celelly; Broccoli, Bockoli; and Arugula, possibly Alagalu…. Kind of defeat the purpose of cool nicknames.

More popular are the nicknames from western-style bakeries, such as: Cake เค้ก, Cookie คุกกี้, Brownie บราวนี่, Doughnut or Donut โดนัท and Waffle วาฟเฟิล. (Yes, Waffle.) There’s the Thai version of Caramel, so why not the original version too: Caramel คาราเมล, although the famous thirty-something Thai TV personality by that nickname chooses to spell it กาละแมร์  in Thai and Kalamare in English. (See Kalamare in the picture below.) I have no idea as to what a correctly spelled Caramel might look like.

Kalamare กาละแมร์, TV personality

Likewise, there’s Thai Luk Om ลูกอม, so why not the English original Candy แคนดี้. And although there is no “Butter” (that I know of), there’s the Thai version Noey เนย to represent the basics in western cuisine. Come to think of it, there must also be Khanom Pang ขนมปัง, if not Bread (but I can’t be sure, it’s all so arbitrary). I can be sure, however, of:

Yam แยม (Thai pronunciation of “jam”)

Yam Roll แยมโรล (jam roll)

Yam Roll แยมโรล (jam roll)

Jelly เจลลี่ or เยลหลี (in the latter pronunciation, another Thai female celeb, a luuk-krueng model)

And finally for this category, there’s supposed to be Snickers สนิกเกอร์ (chocolate bar), who might have a friend nicknamed Mustard มัสตาร์ด. Why? I wouldn’t even ask.

Snickers สนิกเกอร์

That’s the first installment in the deluxe edition. The next installment will cover the next 5 categories:

  1. Sports and recreation
  2. Love of nature
  3. Catchy concepts and cool state of being
  4. Let’s not be shy about wanting riches
  5. More famous brands

As always, your comments and suggestions of nicknames are welcome.

→ 7 Comments

Posted in Thai Nicknames

Tagged , , , ,

The First Thai Female Prime Minister and Thai Feminists

Posted on August 18, 2011 | 7 Comments

[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.

→ 7 Comments

Posted in Sexuality-Gender in Thai Culture, Thai Men, Thai Society, Politics, etc., Thai Women

Tagged , , , , , , , ,