Bangkok Pride: Meet LGBTQ+ who lead the way for equality in Thailand

[PeterRS]

 

10 hours ago, reader said:

I'm not comfortable with the idea that they may make great partners in bed but can't be trusted to vote for whom they choose. They're not stupid. They can't possibly do any worse than the current crew that rules the roost.

I agree with almost all the comments of both @reader and @z909 in their recent posts. I have just two points.

1. We all know only too well that millions of votes in Thailand are bought. Thaksin won 20 years ago because he dispensed vast sums to village leaders who then told their communities how to vote. He then used the powers of the state to hide this corruption and the fact that he should never have been elected in the first place since he had hidden vast amounts of his assets and not declared them as mandated by law. Did anyone seriously believe that his housekeeper and gardener each owned many millions of shares in his company? Of course not. But then he bribed the Constitutional Court to look the other way and it ruled 4 to 3 that it was a genuine oversight! Please do not mistake me. Thaksin did a lot of good for the country. He also did quite a lot of bad and he again used the levers of power to ensure he personally did not need to pay nearly 2 billion baht in tax on a share sale. By controlling the media and having some journalists and editors fired, he ensured much of his dirty deeds were given little coverage. His extra judicial killings of almost 2,500 people, he alleged before a crowd, had rid Thailand of drugs. As if that lie justified those deaths! 

Then take his sister whose strings were pulled by her brother exiled in Dubai. The rice pledging scheme was known to be a massive economic disaster before it was even implemented - every rice expert in the world said so - but it was popular in the countryside. How many billions did it lose? Around 600 billion baht and it is estimated it will take the government - i.e. the people - another 8 years before that debt is finally paid off. The implementation of the one tablet per child was another popular vote catcher but a disaster in its implementation. After the debacle of the Chinese firm awarded the contract to supply them being unable to fulfil it, all the kids who finally received tablets wanted to do was play games on them!  I won't go on. I suppose my point really is: did those in the countryside - the majority of the population - really know what they were voting for? Did they know the effects this would have on their villages, towns and the country as a whole? I doubt it. There are few democratic institutions in Thailand, few checks and balances, and those that exist can be bought by those in power. Just providing one man with one vote does not democracy make! Until Thailand's education system teaches all kids about democracy and how it should function - almost the same as Taiwanese kids being taught Confucius' values as part of their curriculum - and until real checks and balances are put in place, Thailand is never going to have anything more than a sham democracy.

2. The thread is about Gay Pride and who leads the way to Equality. I have made my points about Pride marches being taken over by those with a separate agenda. My own view is that a Pride march here should have just three goals other than showing the government and the public that there is a strong gay community out there - understanding, acceptance and equality. The organisers have to ensure that March participants agree to this and to have Parade marshalls along the way to ensure that the March takes place smoothly. Diluting the message with political and other objectives ruins it.

[reader]

 Equality for gays can't be achieved by parades or dot parties alone. At some point it requires legislation to ensure those rights to be treated as equals. It's a human rights issue at its core.

Far from ruining your discussion, talking about the political implications of attaining equality is indeed necessary. It provides the actual context in which equality can be assured. For equality to be permanent, at some point those rights must be enshrined in law.

Pretending that gay pride is not as much a political issue as it is a social issue is short sighted at best.

 

[PeterRS]

1 hour ago, reader said:

 Equality for gays can't be achieved by parades or dot parties alone. At some point it requires legislation to ensure those rights to be treated as equals. It's a human rights issue at its core.

Far from ruining your discussion, talking about the political implications of attaining equality is indeed necessary. It provides the actual context in which equality can be assured. For equality to be permanent, at some point those rights must be enshrined in law.

Pretending that gay pride is not as much a political issue as it is a social issue is short sighted at best.

I certainly do not disagree. I think we differ in terms of how the whole process should be started. I do not believe the issue of gay rights, gay acceptance, equality etc. can be legislated at the outset if society is basically against it. It first must come from society (or key elements of it) which then puts pressure on the legislators. This is how Taiwan developed its hugely successful gay agenda. It is how Japan is slowly moving forward. When I lived in Japan I never for a moment believed that gay rights would ever be accepted. Over time and with observance of typical Japanese politeness, In 2015 the up-market Shibuya district in Tokyo was the first to recognise a form a civil partnership with certain benefits for same-sex couples. Now there are 103 municipalities and three prefectures with similar systems in place. These constitute around 38% of the Japanese population. At the same time, public opinion polls have been moving also in favour of gay rights, with a majority in favour - of which a big majority are those under 60.

Each country has to find its own way. Gay Pride is a start for some. A Parade in the capital city that involves a maximum of 2,000 people, quite a few of whom have other distinctly controversial non-gay objectives, is hardly going to persuade any group of legislators anywhere that the status quo should be changed. It is that dilution that I objected to and which I believe ruined the gay elements of last year's Bangkok Parade. Some students calling for the ouster of the Prime Minister and changes to the monarchy only got a lot of people quite angry when a Pride Parade surely has to be primarily a celebration of being gay. As Khun Natee realised decades ago, it is a long process and in Thailand it has to be clearly focussed.

[vinapu]

12 hours ago, PeterRS said:

 

..... We all know only too well that millions of votes in Thailand are bought....

......Until Thailand's education system teaches all kids about democracy and how it should function.......

while correct it doesn't make Thailand unique .

Vote buying , perhaps more subtle  but not always applies to even most matured democracies. If not cash dispensed, bridges to nowhere are being built and tax relief granted to segments of population know for   disciplined election participation i.e. seniors as an example.

Pupils in USA have every chance to observe functioning democracy and and well taught about her advantages and it doesn't  not stop from electing very questionable leaders  with bad hair to add. Attacks on Congress building in Jan were far from universally condemned either.

So sometimes we need to accept fact that even fully democratic process may lead to bad decisions by majority. Still better to give people that chance to learn by their own mistakes.

  

[PeterRS]

30 minutes ago, vinapu said:

So sometimes we need to accept fact that even fully democratic process may lead to bad decisions by majority. Still better to give people that chance to learn by their own mistakes.  

That's a fair point. I think every democracy should learn to a certain extent as it progresses and voters become more aware of the meaning of the vote. But I am not as optimistic as you. I see what has been happening in the USA, the UK and some other European countries where democracy simply does not function as it should and as it did some decades ago. I see what I regard as the idiotic stupidity of certain US elected officials to overturn a legitimate democratic election using undemocratic means. And a former President who plays this lie to the hilt. Does this happen in a mature democracy? But somehow the public accept the flaunting of the much vaunted US Constitution by elected officials for their own selfish ends.

I see on our doorstep here in Asia a democracy that has been for the most part totally dysfunctional in The Philippines ever since the Americans gave up its colony. A democracy in Japan that is not a democracy. And a dictatorship in Singapore where, despite citizens having a vote, there has only ever been one ruling party because it uses the power of the state and the legislature either to ban or jail those who stand against it! Much admired Singapore is essentially a benevolent dictatorship, but still a dictatorship and still a country where gay rights are stuck in an old colonial time warp. After all, we should always remember what Lee Kwan Yew said - 

"I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters – who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think.”  

He also said -

“We have to lock up people, without trial, whether they are communists, whether they are language chauvinists, whether they are religious extremists. If you don't do that, the country would be in ruins.”

Is that the language of democracy? I doubt if anyone would agree. Yet Lee did develop Singapore's economy spectacularly and he gave the citizens many benefits like their own housing, pension funds, much personal wealth and much else besides. The groundwork for a well functioning democracy is in place. But it does not exist!

So let me throw the question back to @readerand @vinapu. I have had my say. You believe that Thailand needs to be more democratic. I agree, but I have absolutely no idea, given all the issues I have raised, how that can be achieved with any degree of success. So let me ask you what you believe is achievable in Thailand, in Thai society and in Thai politics which will strengthen democracy and make life more equal and more fair for all its citizens? And then how do you go about actually achieving that?

[reader]

6 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Some students calling for the ouster of the Prime Minister and changes to the monarchy only got a lot of people quite angry when a Pride Parade surely has to be primarily a celebration of being gay.

Fighting oppression can indeed make some people angry. But if the gays who were attacked at the Stonewall Inn didn't get angry, we probably wouldn't even be discussing gay pride today. Human rights is something worth fighting for. Whether you're seeking voting equality, racial equality or sexual equality, no one said it was going to be easy. It often involves risk and admonishment.

1 hour ago, PeterRS said:

So let me throw the question back to @readerand @vinapu. I have had my say. You believe that Thailand needs to be more democratic. I agree, but I have absolutely no idea, given all the issues I have raised, how that can be achieved with any degree of success. So let me ask you what you believe is achievable in Thailand, in Thai society and in Thai politics which will strengthen democracy and make life more equal and more fair for all its citizens? And then how do you go about actually achieving that?

Lee Kwan Yew's method is to rule his subjects essentially by fear. So I automatically eliminate the Singapore model. And ruling a city state is much easier than a country as large and diverse as Thailand.

As for what's achievable, that remains an unknown. But what is definitely known is that you'll never find out unless you try.

As to how do you go about actually achieving it, you begin by giving all citizens the right to directly elect their leaders. That's ground zero.

I don't think this quote will ever go out of fashion:

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

Winston Churchill, 11 November 1947

 

[PeterRS]

10 hours ago, reader said:

Lee Kwan Yew's method is to rule his subjects essentially by fear. So I automatically eliminate the Singapore model. And ruling a city state is much easier than a country as large and diverse as Thailand.

As to how do you go about actually achieving it, you begin by giving all citizens the right to directly elect their leaders. That's ground zero.

As to SIngapore, having dragged what was virtually a swamp with no natural resources to one of the richest and most admired countries in the world in an incredibly short time, I do not believe Singapore can be ruled out so dismissively. Understandably there is a degree of dissent within the city state, but I doubt if you will find many Singaporeans who are unhappy with their lot. I believe economic development either must precede or go hand in hand with democracy, as in the case of Taiwan. In Singapore I am less sure about the people being afraid. I think the government is afraid!

If achieving equality means giving a population the right to elect its leaders, presumably that means something along the lines of one man one vote. But Thailand essentially has that. Thailand was also one of the first countries in the world to give women the right to vote. But that has not resulted in equality. So 'achievement' cannot only stand on that. What other factors/institutions are required to ensure equality?

As for the Churchill quote, I believe it is very important to remember the time when it was made. By far the mass of the population in the west took as their understanding of what was going on in their countries and what their leaders, politicians and would-be politicians were saying only from a variety of newspapers or from the radio. Those newspapers were owned by rich men with their own political bias. So the sources of information were very few. The class system remained in operation. If you were a working man i the UK, you voted for the Labour party, most often because your Union advised you to vote Labour. The Unions ensured that Churchill, having won the war, was immediately voted out of office. 

Nowadays entire populations have a vast array of information thrust down their throats from so many differing outlets that could never have been imagined seven decades ago. Further, a small number of huge international companies and hugely wealthy individuals now skew elections to help to persuade individual voters to vote for the candidates or the platforms they want elected. Lies are frequently becoming the norm. Would Britain have left the EU if the Brexiteers had not openly lied with banners on buses and repeated in the mass media that leaving the EU would result in an extra £350 million per week for the National Health Service? This was roundly condemned at the time, but it was an extremely potent claim given the very high degree in which the NHS is regarded in the UK. I cannot estimate how many were influenced by this. But I have a strong suspicion it could have been one of the key tipping points when it came to the referendum. Real facts are now routinely dismissed as fake news.

With all this flood of information, how does an individual make a considered opinion in an election? Then there is the popularity issue. Would Donald Trump have been elected had he not been the star of a popular TV show? Would Joseph Estrada have been elected President of The Philippines had he not been a famous actor? Both were impeached. Estrada ended up in jail. There seems a reasonable chance that Trump's future may be similar.

Finally, looking back at history, democracies cannot be the be all and end all of government if only because they have a habit of not lasting. Two years ago there was an interesting Wall Street Journal article. titled "The Global Crisis of Democracy" This started by pointing out that by 2006 the number of countries with democratic governments had reached its highest level - 86. It goes on - 

"But we are now at a precarious moment. Democracy faces a global crisis. We have seen 12 consecutive years of erosion in global levels of political rights and civil liberties, with many more countries declining than gaining each year, according to the nonprofit group Freedom House. Over the past decade, one in six democracies has failed. Today only a bare majority of the world’s larger states remain democracies. 

"Nor do the numbers capture the full extent of the danger. Behind the statistics is a steady, palpable corrosion of democratic institutions and norms in a range of countries. China, Russia and their admirers are making headway with a new global narrative, hailing strongman rule—not government by the people—as the way forward in difficult times."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-global-crisis-of-democracy-11558105463

[reader]

5 hours ago, PeterRS said:

If believe economic development either must precede or go hand in hand with democracy, as in the case of Taiwan. In Singapore I am less sure about the people being afraid. I think the government is afraid!

If the government is afraid of its people, it should be trying to figure out why--unless, of course, it's satisfied with it. China has made great economic strides but rules by fear as a matter of preference.

5 hours ago, PeterRS said:

If achieving equality means giving a population the right to elect its leaders, presumably that means something along the lines of one man one vote. But Thailand essentially has that.

Well that's a far from accurate description how Thailand elects its leaders.

The House of Representatives consists of 500 members, of which 350 are directly elected. The other 150 is elected through party lists given to the election commission by the political parties before election day. In the current system as laid out by the 2017 constitution, known as "mixed member apportionment (MMA)", the voter casts a single vote for his or her constituency MP, which is then also used in the calculation of the party list seats. This differs from the previous 2007 constitution, where the vote for constituency MP and party list MP were separate.

Special elections can be called if the candidate fail to pass the commission's standards (known as yellow-cards) or if a vacancy occurs. The commission also have the authority to annul or ban candidates based on their standards (red-cards). The last election for the House occurred in 2019, with a special election being held in Chiang Mai after the winning candidate was disqualified.

The current 250 senators of the Senate of Thailand were not elected, but were appointed by the National Council for Peace and Order, the military junta which ruled Thailand from 2014 to the 2019 general election. The 2017 constitution does not include elections for the Senate.

That's all a far cry from the goal of allowing each citizen to directly elect their leaders.

5 hours ago, PeterRS said:

"But we are now at a precarious moment. Democracy faces a global crisis. We have seen 12 consecutive years of erosion in global levels of political rights and civil liberties, with many more countries declining than gaining each year, according to the nonprofit group Freedom House. Over the past decade, one in six democracies has failed. Today only a bare majority of the world’s larger states remain democracies.

We may face a global crisis, but deviating from the right for voters to directly elect their leaders is not the answer. Only the voters should decide that matter, not a select group of appointed elite members of those societies. Th choice is clear: you either put your trust in each man and woman or you trust a group of the economically and politically privileged. 

In the end, that's the only way to achieve true democratic institutions.

[PeterRS]

45 minutes ago, reader said:

That's all a far cry from the goal of allowing each citizen to directly elect their leaders.

I have no doubt you are correct in how democracy works in Thailand. But given that each vote seems to help elect both individual representatives and then those on the party list, I do not see how this is very different from the sort of democracy practised in many other countries. Is the antiquated Electoral College system in the USA the equivalent of one man one vote? No! What you seem to want is for the popular vote to be the means of electing the ruling Party. It's never happened in the USA. Are the British and other constituency systems representative of one man one vote? No! Here again governments can be elected by a minority of the votes, sometimes a substantial minority. One man one vote does not result in the majority of votes electing the rulers! 

My question to you was not about one man one vote which I know you want and which I agree should be the basis of a true functioning democracy, it was about how you will achieve Thailand becoming more democratic. Perhaps I should have added 'given Thailand's current and historical circumstances', for we should not be having merely a theoretical discussion. Improving the one man one vote system alone does not democracy create. Since you have not provided suggestions, I'll start.

You need a population which understands what democracy is, which is prepared to participate by understanding the issues and then voting. A population which pays no attention or merely sits back and votes as he/she is told to vote as occurs in Thailand will never ensure true participation. You need functioning democratic systems in place - a system of checks and balances which ensures politicians are held accountable; an independent judiciary and a rule of law which applies to all citizens not a select few; a free press (at least up to a point); the right of citizens to have their own views, religion and culture; the right of free assembly; the right to protest . . . That's a start. But being frank, it is not going to happen. In my view after decades in Asia and Thailand, only through a major revolution will the changes you want to see happen. One man one vote will not result in such changes. Fo example, how will one man one vote completely overhaul the judicial system? Maybe a revolution will occur. I doubt it. Clearly you will probably do not agree, but I still would like to hear your views about how a properly functioning democracy can work here in Thailand.

[reader]

40 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

 But being frank, it is not going to happen. In my view after decades in Asia and Thailand, only through a major revolution will the changes you want to see happen. One man one vote will not result in such changes. Fo example, how will one man one vote completely overhaul the judicial system? Maybe a revolution will occur. I doubt it. Clearly you will probably do not agree, but I still would like to hear your views about how a properly functioning democracy can work here in Thailand.

When you adopt that conclusion in a discussion about achieving equality, it doesn't leave much room for hope and all this windy talk is nothing more than an academic debate.

But judging from what I've seen you express over time, I believe you do see some solutions, and one in particular that we all seem to have touched upon at one time or another: change the public education system which rates among the worst in SE Asia.

At the moment, only those families with sufficient income to send their children to private schools can prepare them to succeed in university. So, I'd argue, that the ruling class has designed it this way as a means of insuring that only their sons and daughters inherit the levers of all forms of power--commercial, government, social, electoral, judicial, higher education.

And the only way to change that is for citizens demand those changes. Otherwise, you tacitly accept the premise that they are nether capable or deserving of equal access.

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, PeterRS said:

As to SIngapore, having dragged what was virtually a swamp with no natural resources to one of the richest and most admired countries in the world in an incredibly short time, I do not believe Singapore can be ruled out so dismissively. Understandably there is a degree of dissent within the city state, but I doubt if you will find many Singaporeans who are unhappy with their lot. I believe economic development either must precede or go hand in hand with democracy, as in the case of Taiwan.

The Singapore government has done a superb job since independence.   Of all the Asian countries, it would probably be top of my list of places to live if I were 18 and had my full career ahead of me.    They have elections and as far as I can see, the PAP have done such a good job, that no one wants to elect an alternative. 

That's probably better than the kind of democracy where a country puts forward idiots for it's electorate to choose between.

As for Thailand, well we cannot even discuss certain aspects and it is probably wise for expats and tourists to stay well clear of the boundaries.   Besides, resolving these issues is a matter for Thai nationals, not foreigners. 

Also, looking at lessons from a few centuries of history in other countries, it is probably wise for expats to ensure they can always afford to leave if necessary.

[PeterRS]

25 minutes ago, reader said:

When you adopt that conclusion in a discussion about achieving equality, it doesn't leave much room for hope and all this windy talk is nothing more than an academic debate.

But judging from what I've seen you express over time, I believe you do see some solutions, and one in particular that we all seem to have touched upon at one time or another: change the public education system which rates among the worst in SE Asia.

At the moment, only those families with sufficient income to send their children to private schools can prepare them to succeed in university. So, I'd argue, that the ruling class has designed it this way as a means of insuring that only their sons and daughters inherit the levers of all forms of power--commercial, government, social, electoral, judicial, higher education.

And the only way to change that is for citizens demand those changes. Otherwise, you tacitly accept the premise that they are nether capable or deserving of equal access.

I certainly do not wish to see it as just an academic debate. This country needs change. Over decades I have made Thai friends from a variety of social backgrounds, including a couple who have been business colleagues and who I'd put on the border of being hi-so. All of them want to see changes. All of them vote. But not one has the remotest clue how it can be achieved. Perhaps it's partly the general Thai main pen rai attitude.

But we can definitely agree about the education system. It needs a complete revamp. On a lighter note, I recall a meeting I had a few years ago at Siam BTS station. By one of the lines I saw a stout African American lady looking very lost. I asked if I could help. In a strong southern American accent she said she'd been trying to find Paragon but none of the station staff could tell her. Is it near here? I asked her to turn around 180 degrees. There in large letters was Paragon! She laughed. I asked if she was a tourist. No, she said," I'm here from Louisiana in the USA." So you're working? "Yes". I myself was having a little difficulty understanding her. It turned out she was a teacher. The Education people in Washington had asked for volunteers to teach English in Bangkok for 3 months. She thought it would be a good chance to see Thailand. "But the students are dreadful," she added. "They never do anything I ask them." I felt like suggesting this was almost certainly because none of them would have a clue what she was saying. But I just saw her to her exit. Why the US authorities would believe that anyone with any major accent would be right to teach English to kids in Thailand totally beats me!

As for citizens demanding changes, again I agree. But like my Thai friends, I see no way of this happening even if every man and woman were given a vote and a political Party standing for election with a platform that included such changes. So we agree to differ. And I suggest that @z909's comments below are apt. I for one will cease this discussion. I will leave the last word to you should you so wish.

18 minutes ago, z909 said:

The Singapore government has done a superb job since independence.   Of all the Asian countries, it would probably be top of my list of places to live if I were 18 and had my full career ahead of me.    They have elections and as far as I can see, the PAP have done such a good job, that no one wants to elect an alternative.

As for Thailand, well we cannot even discuss certain aspects and it is probably wise for expats and tourists to stay well clear of the boundaries.   Besides, resolving these issues is a matter for Thai nationals, not foreigners. 

 

I agree totally about the superb job done by Lee and his cohorts. But I totally disagree about the PAP having done such a good job that no-one wants an alternative. From dozens of visits to Singapore, I have seen how the PAP was never prepared to brook any form of opposition. It took many measures to cut opposition off long before more than a handful of candidates ever reached parliament which has a total of 89 directly elected seats. The Constitution allows also for up to 18 non-elected seats.

Just take the case of the very first opposition party member to be elected, J. B. Jeyaretnam a Crown Council lawyer who had been Registrar at the Supreme Court. He won a by election in 1981 and was re-elected in 1984. But in 1986 he was expelled for a conviction allegedly for falsifying his Party's accounts. That was all a lie. The conviction was subsequently overturned by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which called the conviction a "grievous injustice".  He returned to parliament in 1997 but was again expelled in 2001 for failing to keep up payments for a libel action he had taken out against the PAP and lost. These were among the tactics of Lee Kwan Yew to maintain control.

[reader]

1 hour ago, PeterRS said:

IOn a lighter note, I recall a meeting I had a few years ago at Siam BTS station. By one of the lines I saw a stout African American lady looking very lost. I asked if I could help. In a strong southern American accent she said she'd been trying to find Paragon but none of the station staff could tell her. Is it near here? I asked her to turn around 180 degrees. There in large letters was Paragon! She laughed. I asked if she was a tourist. No, she said," I'm here from Louisiana in the USA." So you're working? "Yes". I myself was having a little difficulty understanding her. It turned out she was a teacher. The Education people in Washington had asked for volunteers to teach English in Bangkok for 3 months. She thought it would be a good chance to see Thailand. "But the students are dreadful," she added. "They never do anything I ask them." I felt like suggesting this was almost certainly because none of them would have a clue what she was saying. But I just saw her to her exit. Why the US authorities would believe that anyone with any major accent would be right to teach English to kids in Thailand totally beats me!

That's certainly an odd anecdote you've selected. You describe a black woman from America (who you say you stumbled upon at a BTS station) who can't speak or read Thai as an example of what's wrong with Thai public education? Hmmm.... That's (how can I put it charitably) convenient? It's also a twofer: you get to disparage both a black woman and the US in the same anecdote.

Perhaps you might have described problems directly related to Thailand's management of its public education. But I guess a yarn about a "stout African American lady" from Louisiana was just too rich to pass on.

Gimme a break.

1 hour ago, PeterRS said:

As for citizens demanding changes, again I agree. But like my Thai friends, I see no way of this happening even if every man and woman were given a vote and a political Party standing for election with a platform that included such changes. So we agree to differ. And I suggest that @z909's comments below are apt. I for one will cease this discussion. I will leave the last word to you should you so wish.

Somehow this doesn't come as a complete surprise. When you can't envision a solution then you--and your like-minded Thai friends-- assume none can possibly exit.

[reader]

From The Thai Enquirer

Thai LGBTQ+ history through the looking glass: religious freedom and LGBTQ+ rights in Thailand

In 2015, Thailand enacted the landmark Gender Equality Act that made gender-based discrimination illegal. However, gender discrimination is allowed if it serves to protect “the welfare and safety of a person or for following religious rules, or for the security of the nation” according to Section 17 in the Act.

Despite the lack of overt persecution of LGBTQ+ individuals, Thai society is still not wholly accepting of gender and sexual minorities according to a 2014 UNDP report.

In this article, we interview LGBTQ+ activist Sirisak “Ton” Chaited (they/them) about their recent gender-inclusive monasticism #ทุกคนต้องบวชได้ #ทุกเพศต้องบวชได้ campaign and dive into the brief LGBTQ+ history in Thailand to better understand the intersectionality between religious freedom and LGBTQ+ rights in Thai society.

As 95% of Thais are Buddhists, Buddhism has been the cornerstone of Thai culture for many centuries. Regardless of your interpretation of Buddhist religious scriptures, texts, and teachings, some Thai Buddhist-practioners are of the belief that nonconforming sexual orientation and gender identities may be viewed as a punishment for past lives’ sins or the inability to control sexual tendencies and impulses.

Yet a closer look at Thai history may explain why this notion is not a noble truth.

Predating the Rattanakosin era (1782 AD – present), various temple murals depict homosexuality among Thai men and women according to Chaingmai-based Dutch journalist Sjon Hauser’s observations in Transsexuality in Northern Thailand Historical Notes. “Whether or not Buddhism has been instrumental in influencing the development of the popular Thai notion [of กะเทย “kathoey”, the Thai term commonly used with, but is not limited to, transwomen, intersex individuals, and effiminate gay men], a very similar mixing of physical and psychological sex, gender behaviours and sexuality occurs both in the Pali terms [sic] pandaka and in the Thai term kathoey.

Both terms are parts of conceptual schemes in which people regarded as exhibiting physiological or culturally ascribed features of the opposite sex are categorized together. If Buddhism was not the source of the popular Thai conception of kathoey then at the very least it has reinforced a markedly similar pre-existing Thai cultural concept” wrote Thai history scholar Peter A. Jackson, PhD. in the book Queer Dharma: Voices of Gay Buddhists.

After Thailand transitioned from an absolute into a constitutional monarchy in 1932, the state propagated national culture by implementing traditional concepts of gender as one of the tools to establish social order as observed by Scot Barme, a visiting fellow at the History Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies at the Australian National University in his book Luang Wichit Wathakan and the Creation of a Thai Identity; and renowned Thai scholar Thongchai Winichakul in his book Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-Body of a Nation.

The concept of Thai nationhood at the time included imposing “modern” notions of gender identity and sexual orientation through state institutions such as the military, the police, and school which remained to this day. Through this “modernization”, the Thai moral construct was propagated to be inherently intertwined with Thai gender roles — modeled after the Victorian middle-class movement in Europe in order to portray Thailand as a “civilized nation”– which is reflected in personal sense of virtue.

Supposedly, adhering to an indoctrinated gender role naturally serves to reflect good morals and character in Thai society. A deviation from the Thai indoctrination of gender roles, in this sense, would allow individuals to shy away from morality, exemplary character, and the Thai nationhood. It is interesting to see how once socially flexible concepts of sexual orientation, gender identity, and morality in ancient Thailand was shaped into an austere and rigid pre-conceived declaration of righteousness by modernity in the pursuit of nationhood. In our pursuit of being civilized we became uncivilized, as it were.

According to LGBTQ+ activist, TEDx speaker, organizer of the first-ever Chiangmai Pride Parade in 2009, and Amnesty-acclaimed human rights defender, Sirisak “Ton” Chaited, the gender-inclusive monasticism #ทุกคนต้องบวชได้ #ทุกเพศต้องบวชได้ campaign was initiated because “religious freedom is a basic human right”.

For Ton, “religion is generally used as a tool for segregation and is more often than not the root cause of discrimination unto an individual or community; a systemic issue embedded in almost each and every society, including ours”. 

Continues at

https://www.thaienquirer.com/29087/thai-lgbtq-history-through-the-looking-glass-religious-freedom-and-lgbtq-rights-in-thailand/

 

[reader]

From the BBC

The colonial law that left an anti-LGBTQ legacy in Asia

For much of the past two centuries, it was illegal to be gay in a vast swathe of the world - thanks to colonial Britain.

Till today, colonial-era laws that ban homosexuality continue to exist in former British territories including parts of Africa and Oceania.

But it is in Asia where they have had a significantly widespread impact. This is the region where, before India legalised homosexual sex in 2018, at least one billion people lived with anti-LGBTQ legislation.

It can be traced back to one particular law first conceptualised in India, and one man's mission to "modernise" the colony.

'Exotic, mystical Orient'

Currently, it is illegal to be gay in around 69 countries, nearly two-thirds of which were under some form of British control at one point of time.

This is no coincidence, according to Enze Han and Joseph O'Mahoney, who wrote the book British Colonialism and the Criminalization of Homosexuality.

Dr Han told the BBC that British rulers introduced such laws because of a "Victorian, Christian puritanical concept of sex".

"They wanted to protect innocent British soldiers from the 'exotic, mystical Orient' - there was this very orientalised view of Asia and the Middle East that they were overly erotic."

"They thought if there were no regulations, the soldiers would be easily led astray."

While there were several criminal codes used across British colonies around the world, in Asia one particular set of laws was used prominently - the Indian Penal Code (IPC) drawn up by British historian Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, which came into force in 1862.

It contained section 377, which stated that "whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal" would be punished with imprisonment or fines.

Lord Macaulay, who modelled the section on Britain's 16th Century Buggery Act, believed the IPC was a "blessing" for India as it would "modernise" its society, according to Dr Han and Dr O'Mahoney's book.

The British went on to use the IPC as the basis for criminal law codes in many other territories they controlled.

Till today, 377 continues to exist in various forms in several former colonies in Asia such as Pakistan, Singapore, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Brunei, Myanmar and Sri Lanka.

Penalties range from two to 20 years in prison. In places with Muslim-majority populations which also have sharia law, LGBT persons can also face more severe punishment such as flogging.

Lasting legacy

Activists say these laws have left a damaging legacy on these countries, some of which have long had flexible attitudes towards LGBTQ people.

Transgenderism, intersex identity and the third gender, for example, have traditionally been a part of South Asian culture with the hijra or eunuch communities.

In India, where for centuries LGBTQ relationships were featured in literature, myths and Hindu temple art, present-day attitudes now largely skew conservative.

"It's in our traditions. But now we are getting so embarrassed about [LGBTQ relations]. Clearly the change happened because of certain influences," says Anjali Gopalan, executive director of Naz Foundation India, a non-governmental organisation which offers counselling services for the LGBTQ community.

One common argument governments have made for keeping the law is that it continues to reflect the conservative stance of their societies. Some, like India, have even ironically argued that it keeps out "Western influence".

But activists point out that this perpetuates discrimination and goes against some countries' constitutions which promise equal rights to all citizens.

This has a "de-humanising effect" on an LGBTQ person, and can seriously impact their access to education and career opportunities as well as increase their risk of poverty and physical violence, said Jessica Stern, executive director of LGBTQ rights group OutRight International.

"If you're a walking criminal, you're living with a burden every day. Whether you internalise it or not, it affects you and everyone who loves you," she told the BBC.

The Covid pandemic has exacerbated these problems, she added.

One recent example her group found was in Sri Lanka, where the police were tasked to distribute emergency rations while the country was under curfew - but some in the LGBTQ community were too afraid to come forward due to the country's anti-sodomy law.

"People said they have to risk arrest or risk going hungry… it's a stark life or death choice they have to make," said Ms Stern.

Some governments, like Singapore, have tried to tread the middle ground by publicly promising never to enforce the law. But the LGBTQ community in the city-state say this is unfair as they live knowing the government could change its mind at any time.

Olivia and Irene Chiong left Singapore five years ago for the US, where they got married and are both legally recognised as the mothers of their two daughters - something that would not be possible back home.

The lack of rights is one reason they find it difficult to return, as well as the refusal among some Singaporeans including government ministers to acknowledge that there is discrimination.

"I think for me the biggest frustration comes from the fact that Singaporeans think everything's okay - that as long as gay people keep quiet... keep themselves in the closet, it's fine!" said Olivia.

"There are many rainbow families in Singapore…You can't just keep sweeping things under the carpet.

"The only reason why Singapore is holding so tightly to (377) is because it gives them the illusion of control," she said.

A long road ahead

There has been progress - most notably, of course, with the Indian Supreme Court's decision in 2018 to repeal 377, following years of legal challenges mounted by determined activists.

It was a historic decision and a major step forward for LGBT rights in India. But three years on, there is still a very long way to go in changing cultural attitudes, activists say.

"The most common thing we still see in counselling is families wanting their gay sons to get married (to a woman)," said Ms Gopalan.

"Everything is linked to the family in India, and marriage is a very big part of our lives. So the first issue is acceptance from the family and then by extension, society."

Activists say more protection is needed, such as anti-discrimination laws. Earlier this month, a court in Chennai ordered officials to draw up plans for reforms to respect LGBTQ rights.

Still, India's repeal of 377 has helped to lessen the stigma - and inspired other countries.

In Singapore and Kenya, activists have used the repeal in legal arguments against their own colonial anti-homosexuality laws.

Two centuries after it was used by the British as a legal blueprint, India once again is seen as an example to follow - this time to strike down that very law that was exported across Asia.

"It has emboldened others in Asia, unequivocally... it sent a message to all former colonial outposts," said Ms Stern.

"Activists I spoke to have said that if it can happen in India, it can happen here too."

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/the-colonial-law-that-left-an-anti-lgbtq-legacy-in-asia/ar-AALyE86#image=3

[reader]

From Thai Enquirer

Rainbow Capitalism is all sizzle and no steak

Pride month may be over but many challenges remain for the LGBTQ+ community in Thailand. Among the biggest challenges are sorting allies from opportunists, especially corporations eager to capitalize on the growing LGBTQ+ market without actually taking meaningful steps to support the community.

This opportunism is known as rainbow capitalism or pink capitalism. 

The LGBTQ+ market was worth 1.7 trillion baht as far back as 2016 and is undeniably one of the biggest Thai consumer markets out there. While campaigns like the 2018 Tourist Authority of Thailand’s ‘Open To The New Shades’ ploy brings tourism dollars into the country, legislation has fallen ironically behind the progressive facade the TAT put in place.

While Thailand is the first country within the region to enact a Civil Partnership Bill, something the TAT can promote to the tune of billions of tourist dollars, activists say it is not enough in the long run. Ta Kasitipradit, a graphic designer and activist on LGBTQ+ issues at Thaipface is one of those critics who say that corporations and the governments can do more.

“A corporation’s solidarity to the LGBTQ+ community does not and should not lie in the flags put up every Pride Month but rather their receipts, their financial spendings and contributions towards LGBTQ+ causes, their vote in support of bills concerning LGBTQ+ rights — pride is not superficial”.

Critics like Ta understand that while Thailand and Thai corporations like to position itself as a gay friendly paradise, the truth is that the LGBTQ community still faces discrimination when it comes to legislation.

Continues at

https://www.thaienquirer.com/29302/thailands-rainbow-capitalism-is-all-sizzle-and-no-steak-when-it-comes-to-supporting-lgbtq-rights/

 

[PeterRS]

14 hours ago, reader said:

From Thai Enquirer

While Thailand is the first country within the region to enact a Civil Partnership Bill, something the TAT can promote to the tune of billions of tourist dollars, activists say it is not enough in the long run.

That is surely not true. There is a Bill being discussed in parliament but it has not been passed and there is doubt if it will in fact be passed. As written recently somewhere on the Forum, Taiwan now has  gay marriage on the statue books, and Japan has roughly similar types of civil partnership in three prefectures and many municipalities. These countries are way ahead of Thailand.

[spoon]

3 hours ago, PeterRS said:

That is surely not true. There is a Bill being discussed in parliament but it has not been passed and there is doubt if it will in fact be passed. As written recently somewhere on the Forum, Taiwan now has  gay marriage on the statue books, and Japan has roughly similar types of civil partnership in three prefectures and many municipalities. These countries are way ahead of Thailand.

Perhaps the region here means southeast asia? 

[PeterRS]

6 hours ago, spoon said:

Perhaps the region here means southeast asia? 

Even if it does, Thailand has not enacted a Civil Partnership Bill.  If I am wrong I am sure someone will correct me.

[spoon]

13 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

Even if it does, Thailand has not enacted a Civil Partnership Bill.  If I am wrong I am sure someone will correct me.

I dont think they have but in southeast asia, thailand is definitely ahead than its peers, perhaps even singapore.