Poll: Would It Be Good For Business In Thailand To Change The Name To Siam?

[Jingthing]

Thailand, not so long ago, was ... SIAM.

While there are many angles of discussion as to why the name change to Thailand (effected by a fascist dictator) was done and whether it has been a benefit to the nation, this poll is intended to focus on one aspect of the question.

Would changing the name back to SIAM be good for business, or not?

Off hand I can think of a number of pros and cons of the name change as far as business impact.

But the question here is: would there OVERALL be a benefit to make the change?

Of course discussion of the pros and cons is expected/encouraged.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Jingthing

[bendix]

Huh?

What possible difference would the name of a country make to its general economic wellbeing and the state of its business environment?

[Jingthing]

Huh?

What possible difference would the name of a country make to its general economic wellbeing and the state of its business environment?

Image.

Thailand has image problems from the past.

Sex tourist haven, tsunami, financial crisis, land of scams, land of IP theft, floods, corruption, riots, coups, etc.

Siam is a beautiful word. It evokes romance and exoticism. It is short and sweet, perfect for a corporate rebranding ... of a country. It's old. It's new. It's everything.

All the old baggage, the hooker jokes, just don't work the same with the word Siamese instead of Thai.

So I reckon it could potentially (if marketed cleverly) create a boom in more quality tourism and foreign investment. People who hadn't thought about Thailand recently would need to pay attention. Instead of a change from something elegant like Burma to something kludgy like Myanmar, you get a change from something kind of dull and out place which sounds like it was invented by a fascist dictator, Thailand (land isn't a Thai word) to something sexy ... again, in a good way.

Bendix, I realize you are Mr. Logical Left Brainer and probably won't buy any of that, but there's my case!

Edited May 15, 2012 by Jingthing

[naboo]

Image.

Thailand has image problems from the past.

Sex tourist haven, tsunami, financial crisis, land of scams, land of IP theft, floods, corruption, riots, coups, etc.

Siam is a beautiful word. It evokes romance and exoticism. It is short and sweet, perfect for a corporate rebranding ... of a country. It's old. It's new. It's everything.

Surely better to wait until these things are truly in the past, or there'd be another tarnished name.

I voted grumpy expat, as its a pointless poll, IMHO of course.

[samsiam]

great idea....sexy siam....siam sin city.....sultry siam......seductive siam.....slutty siam........sodom & siam...... sin city, therefore siam..

Why not ask the Thais...its their country.

Edited May 15, 2012 by samsiam

[bendix]

Bendix, I realize you are Mr. Logical Left Brainer and probably won't buy any of that, but there's my case!

You're right. I buy none of that.

And Myanmar has always been the written name of that country in the Burmese language; Burma was a colloquial adaptation of the spoken name do all the government there did was clarify things and take it back to its proper name.

[DrTuner]

Oh yes those Siamese pussies with their short hair .. what was it about Siam-jokes again ?

Would be a shorter word, so why not.

Sent from my GT-P7500 using Thaivisa Connect App

[brit1984]

It depends, but for most businesses the answer is no

The exception is any business that is in need of re-branding, and for which the word Siam happens to strike accord with the new brand image they are trying to portray

For most businesses, changing their brand name would be unnecessary, cumbersome and costly, and could well lead to brand value erosion

[kerryk]

Bendix, I realize you are Mr. Logical Left Brainer and probably won't buy any of that, but there's my case!

You're right. I buy none of that.

And Myanmar has always been the written name of that country in the Burmese language; Burma was a colloquial adaptation of the spoken name do all the government there did was clarify things and take it back to its proper name.

I bet you really believe that.

[kerryk]

Huh?

What possible difference would the name of a country make to its general economic wellbeing and the state of its business environment?

Image.

Thailand has image problems from the past.

Sex tourist haven, tsunami, financial crisis, land of scams, land of IP theft, floods, corruption, riots, coups, etc.

Siam is a beautiful word. It evokes romance and exoticism. It is short and sweet, perfect for a corporate rebranding ... of a country. It's old. It's new. It's everything.

All the old baggage, the hooker jokes, just don't work the same with the word Siamese instead of Thai.

So I reckon it could potentially (if marketed cleverly) create a boom in more quality tourism and foreign investment. People who hadn't thought about Thailand recently would need to pay attention. Instead of a change from something elegant like Burma to something kludgy like Myanmar, you get a change from something kind of dull and out place which sounds like it was invented by a fascist dictator, Thailand (land isn't a Thai word) to something sexy ... again, in a good way.

Bendix, I realize you are Mr. Logical Left Brainer and probably won't buy any of that, but there's my case!

I want to know if it is "Say AM" like the Thai sky train says or is it "Si AM" like everybody else says. I mean is my cat a Say am ease cat or a Si Am Ease cat?

Are there people who would be confused it the name was changed. Sex pats are none too bright you know! Since sexpatism is 10% of the GNP maybe this is not a good idea.

I am all for a boom in quality tourism or a boom in just about anything actually as I really don't like the guy who changed the name. Siam was a lot nicer place than Thailand. Women didn't wear bras or shirts and men wore skirts. Both of those things make sense to me.

[Payboy]

"Siam" just dosen't cut it.

"Thailand" wears so much better with "Bangkok".

[tinfoilhat]

Huh?

What possible difference would the name of a country make to its general economic wellbeing and the state of its business environment?

Image.

Thailand has image problems from the past.

Sex tourist haven, tsunami, financial crisis, land of scams, land of IP theft, floods, corruption, riots, coups, etc.

Siam is a beautiful word. It evokes romance and exoticism. It is short and sweet, perfect for a corporate rebranding ... of a country. It's old. It's new. It's everything.

All the old baggage, the hooker jokes, just don't work the same with the word Siamese instead of Thai.

So I reckon it could potentially (if marketed cleverly) create a boom in more quality tourism and foreign investment. People who hadn't thought about Thailand recently would need to pay attention. Instead of a change from something elegant like Burma to something kludgy like Myanmar, you get a change from something kind of dull and out place which sounds like it was invented by a fascist dictator, Thailand (land isn't a Thai word) to something sexy ... again, in a good way.

Bendix, I realize you are Mr. Logical Left Brainer and probably won't buy any of that, but there's my case!

marketed correctly? non-stop showings of the King and I? A complimentary siamese kitten with every visa?

Didn't seem to do much for Burma, people still use the term Burmese when describing their maid or even the language spoken there.Then there is that other, you know, political stuff.

Likewise Mumbai is still frequently referred to as Bombay the world over..

Or do you see Siam as the Marlboro Gold of nations? -- same same but different.

Edited May 16, 2012 by tinfoilhat

[pauljones]

The first thing I would do is take the kok out.

Edited May 16, 2012 by pauljones

[DP25]

Siam is too regional of a name, that's why they changed it to Prathet Thai to begin with. Thai is more inclusive than Siam which is central Thai.

Thais don't care what foreigners call their country anyway. Krungthep is a million times better name than Bangkok but they've never shown any interest in getting foreigners to use Krungthep instead of the filthy sounding Bang-cock

[tinfoilhat]

Siam is too regional of a name, that's why they changed it to Prathet Thai to begin with. Thai is more inclusive than Siam which is central Thai.

Thais don't care what foreigners call their country anyway. Krungthep is a million times better name than Bangkok but they've never shown any interest in getting foreigners to use Krungthep instead of the filthy sounding Bang-cock

does bangkok really sound filthy or do you bring the filth to it yourself?

[toybits]

Only if it would mean that expats married to a Thai, living in Thailand for many years and has children who carry Thai passports could remain in Thailand without much visa problems - just like a green card holder. Otherwise - whatever.....

[Langsuan Man]

It would only be of any value for those that are geographically challenged and continue to think that Thailand is the same as Taiwan

[Trembly]

Huh?

What possible difference would the name of a country make to its general economic wellbeing and the state of its business environment?

Image.

Thailand has image problems from the past.

Sex tourist haven, tsunami, financial crisis, land of scams, land of IP theft, floods, corruption, riots, coups, etc.

Siam is a beautiful word. It evokes romance and exoticism. It is short and sweet, perfect for a corporate rebranding ... of a country. It's old. It's new. It's everything.

All the old baggage, the hooker jokes, just don't work the same with the word Siamese instead of Thai.

So I reckon it could potentially (if marketed cleverly) create a boom in more quality tourism and foreign investment. People who hadn't thought about Thailand recently would need to pay attention. Instead of a change from something elegant like Burma to something kludgy like Myanmar, you get a change from something kind of dull and out place which sounds like it was invented by a fascist dictator, Thailand (land isn't a Thai word) to something sexy ... again, in a good way.

Bendix, I realize you are Mr. Logical Left Brainer and probably won't buy any of that, but there's my case!

I want to know if it is "Say AM" like the Thai sky train says or is it "Si AM" like everybody else says. I mean is my cat a Say am ease cat or a Si Am Ease cat?

Are there people who would be confused it the name was changed. Sex pats are none too bright you know! Since sexpatism is 10% of the GNP maybe this is not a good idea.

I am all for a boom in quality tourism or a boom in just about anything actually as I really don't like the guy who changed the name. Siam was a lot nicer place than Thailand. Women didn't wear bras or shirts and men wore skirts. Both of those things make sense to me.

It's pronounced "S'yaaaaam".

[BookMan]

I'm using a very old Atlas... so I'd be happy of the name changed back to Siam.

[DP25]

Siam is too regional of a name, that's why they changed it to Prathet Thai to begin with. Thai is more inclusive than Siam which is central Thai.

Thais don't care what foreigners call their country anyway. Krungthep is a million times better name than Bangkok but they've never shown any interest in getting foreigners to use Krungthep instead of the filthy sounding Bang-cock

does bangkok really sound filthy or do you bring the filth to it yourself?

It really sounds filthy. It was right up there with Lake Titicaca for geography class laughs

[bendix]

Bendix, I realize you are Mr. Logical Left Brainer and probably won't buy any of that, but there's my case!

You're right. I buy none of that.

And Myanmar has always been the written name of that country in the Burmese language; Burma was a colloquial adaptation of the spoken name do all the government there did was clarify things and take it back to its proper name.

I bet you really believe that.

It's not a question of believing it or not. It's documented fact and is to do the complexities of the Burmese language the difference between how it is written and spoken.

In the Burmese language, Burma is known as either Myanma ( [mjəmà]) or Bama ( [bəmà]). Myanma is the written, literary name of the country, while Bama is the spoken name of the country. Burmese, like Javanese and other languages of Southeast Asia, has different levels of register, with sharp differences between literary and spoken language.^[1]

The colloquial name Bama is supposed to have originated from the name Myanma by shortening of the first syllable, from loss of nasal final "an" (/-àɴ/), reduced to non-nasal "a" (/-à/), and loss of "y" (/-j-/) glide), and then by transformation of "m" into "b". This sound change from "m" to "b" is frequent in colloquial Burmese, and occurs in many other words. Although Bama may be a later transformation of the name Myanma, both names have been in use alongside each other for centuries.^{[citation needed]} King Mindon in the mid-19th century was the first to refer to himself as the king of the 'Myanma people', in an attempt to ethnicize his rule, at a time when his rule was largely confined to the Irrawaddy Valley and the Myanmar ethnic group.^[2]

The etymology of Mranma remains unclear.^[3] The Burmans who entered the central Irrawaddy river valley in the 9th century founded the Pagan Kingdom in 849,^[4] and called themselves Mranma.^[5] The earliest record discovered of the word was in a Mon inscription dated 1102, inside which the name was spelled Mirma. The first record of the name in a Burmese inscription is dated 1190, in which inscription the name was spelled Mranma.^[3] Today in Burmese the name is still spelled Mranma, but over time the "r" sound disappeared in most dialects of the Burmese language and was replaced by a "y" glide, so although the name is spelled "Mranma", it is actually pronounced Myanma. In Chinese, the name appeared for the first time in 1273 and was recorded as 緬 (pronounced "Miǎn" in Mandarin).^[3] The current name in Chinese is 緬甸 (pronounced Miǎndiàn). The Vietnamese (Miến Điện) is derived from the same term.

In the decades preceding independence, independence parties were in search of a name for the new country to be born, which would be made up not only of Burmese speaking people, but also of many minorities. In the 1920s, some favoured the name Myanma, which had been the name applied to the old Burmese kingdom destroyed by the British in the 19th century. In the 1930s, the left-wing independence parties favoured the name Bama, as they thought this name was more inclusive of minorities than Myanma. Indeed, the Burmese puppet state set up by the Japanese occupation forces during the Second World War was officially called Bama. Curiously, when the Japanese used their own syllabary, they transliterated the three consonants of the Dutch name "Birma" and ended up with the name Biruma. At the time of independence in 1948, the "Union of Burma" was the name that was chosen for the new country, being further amended as the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma in 1974, following a military coup in 1962.

While both the names Bama and Myanma historically referred only to the Burmans and not other ethnic minorities, the Burmese governments in the post-independence period have instituted a differentiation of meaning between Myanmar and Bamar in the official Burmese language usage. The name Myanma/Myanmar was expanded to include all citizens of the country while the name Bama/Bamar was kept to its original meaning. Both are widespread use in colloquial usage. Most still use Bamar/Myanmar interchangeably, to refer to the country, depending on the context. Ironically, because of the official renaming of the country, the dominant ethnic group is now known by its colloquial name, Bamar, rather than by its literary name, Myanmar in official Burmese usage.^[1]

[bendix]

The first thing I would do is take the kok out.

What you do in your private life is of no interest to anyone here.

[Mosha]

Huh?

What possible difference would the name of a country make to its general economic wellbeing and the state of its business environment?

Image.

Thailand has image problems from the past.

Sex tourist haven, tsunami, financial crisis, land of scams, land of IP theft, floods, corruption, riots, coups, etc.

Siam is a beautiful word. It evokes romance and exoticism. It is short and sweet, perfect for a corporate rebranding ... of a country. It's old. It's new. It's everything.

All the old baggage, the hooker jokes, just don't work the same with the word Siamese instead of Thai.

So I reckon it could potentially (if marketed cleverly) create a boom in more quality tourism and foreign investment. People who hadn't thought about Thailand recently would need to pay attention. Instead of a change from something elegant like Burma to something kludgy like Myanmar, you get a change from something kind of dull and out place which sounds like it was invented by a fascist dictator, Thailand (land isn't a Thai word) to something sexy ... again, in a good way.

Bendix, I realize you are Mr. Logical Left Brainer and probably won't buy any of that, but there's my case!

marketed correctly? non-stop showings of the King and I? A complimentary siamese kitten with every visa?

Didn't seem to do much for Burma, people still use the term Burmese when describing their maid or even the language spoken there.Then there is that other, you know, political stuff.

Likewise Mumbai is still frequently referred to as Bombay the world over..

Or do you see Siam as the Marlboro Gold of nations? -- same same but different.

Actually the Thais I know use the word Barmar, which is the name for the largest ethnic group in Myanmar.

[PattayaParent]

I want to know if it is "Say AM" like the Thai sky train says or is it "Si AM" like everybody else says. I mean is my cat a Say am ease cat or a Si Am Ease cat?

It's "See Am" like they say on the skytrain.

[PattayaParent]

marketed correctly? non-stop showings of the King and I? A complimentary siamese kitten with every visa?

Didn't seem to do much for Burma, people still use the term Burmese when describing their maid or even the language spoken there.Then there is that other, you know, political stuff.

Likewise Mumbai is still frequently referred to as Bombay the world over..

Or do you see Siam as the Marlboro Gold of nations? -- same same but different.

Maybe because Burmese is the ethnicity, or as Bendix points out, close to the spoken name of the country.

Or maybe they're too tongue tied to say Myanmarian?

Edited May 16, 2012 by PattayaParent

[canman]

Siam is too regional of a name, that's why they changed it to Prathet Thai to begin with. Thai is more inclusive than Siam which is central Thai.

Thais don't care what foreigners call their country anyway. Krungthep is a million times better name than Bangkok but they've never shown any interest in getting foreigners to use Krungthep instead of the filthy sounding Bang-cock

Hey why not the full name: Krung Thep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin Mahinthara Ayuthaya Mahadilok Phop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Piman Awatan Sathit Sakkathattiya Witsanukam Prasit

[Trembly]

When the name of the country was changed to "Prathet Thai" it was actually quite a neat and perhaps rather ambitions pun.

Everyone knows that "Thai" means "free" thanks to the efforts of various "Thai" governments, but it also happens to be the name (minus the H in English for the sake of differentiation) of the ethnic group sprawled across the northern part of South East Asia. The Tai-Yai / Xian / Shan of northern Myanmar and southern China, the Tai-Dam and Tai-Daeng of northern Vietnam and southern China, the various other Tais in Lao and southern China are all branches of Tai with a great deal of overlapping language and culture. The Lanna kingdom and the various Laotian kingdoms are also undeniably Tai; it's there in their faces, bodies and language. They just happened to make it relatively big and were able to do more of their own thing more prominently than most of the aforementioned branches of Tai.

It was not even a few hundred years ago that after surviving all that trouble with the Burmese and Khmer the relatively large and prosperous (not landlocked) Tai Kingdom of Siam began to concentrate on gradually absorbing the Lanchang (Million Elephant) states of the North East in a process that extended right into the early 20th century, a T(h)ai version of Bismarck's subsuming of the more southerly Germanic states into a united Deutschland. The Sri-Vijaya derived principalities and sultanates of the South were easy to take care of because they were already fighting each other. Rama the 5th married the princess of the Lanna Kingdom and allowed the Lanna Royal Family to keep their titles and privileges until all that were left of them were his own offspring (sometime in the 20th century) so that was the North sorted.

I suspect that the chap who decided to eschew the appellation of Siam for Thailand might have harboured dreams of a pan-Tai empire or confederacy.

Changing the name back to Siam in the information age might provoke certain people to consider their Lanna, Lanchang or Laotian etc heritage in a more serious light, never mind the South . . .

I've always thought that Siam sounds so much cooler than Thailand, however.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Trembly

[eyebee]

I always thought they changed the name of the country so that Whispering Ted could say "Wattana Thailand" instead of "What an ass I am"...

[Trembly]

I always thought they changed the name of the country so that Whispering Ted could say "Wattana Thailand" instead of "What an ass I am"...

Your coat, sir . . .

[ruddy2000]

Huh?

What possible difference would the name of a country make to its general economic wellbeing and the state of its business environment?

I second this thought.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com