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

[kerryk]

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

You mean when they changed if from Siam to Thailand in the 1930's or back to Siam in the 1940's or back to Thailand also in the 1940"s?

[bendix]

You mean when they changed if from Siam to Thailand in the 1930's or back to Siam in the 1940's or back to Thailand also in the 1940"s?

Yes, that's exactly what we mean.

The question is not have they changed it in the past; the question is what possible impact would a name change on economic growth and business activity.

Try to keep up kerry.

[necronx99]

Signage would be cheaper.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[Semper]

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

Would not fit in the passport, if issued in above mentioned city.

[Jingthing]

A note about about all this.

The question of changing the name back to Siam has been discussed before on the forum and I reckon well be discussed in Thailand, as long as Thailand is ... Thailand.

So the idea here was to look at the question in a somewhat fresh way, from the aspect of improving the economic well being of the nation alone.

As far as rebranding, I continue to think its an interesting tactic. However, as another poster mentioned, the fundamental underlying problems responsible for the bad part's of Thailand's reputation are largely still in place. Any attempt at rebranding might be more successful at a later time if the rebranding was somewhat more credible. For example, the political stability question.

Of course if there ever is a name change, it probably won't be made based on such a narrow reasoning as economic advancement. Just as the last time it wasn't.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Jingthing

[Payboy]

[media=]

[/media]

[F1fanatic]

Well it worked pretty well for Sellafield (previously Windscale).

Edited May 16, 2012 by F1fanatic

[arthurwait]

Well apparently it means 'dark brown race' so I can't see half the girls in Bangkok going for it.

[bendix]

Well it worked pretty well for Sellafield (previously Windscale).

The fact that you referenced to the two names in case people didnt get it, suggest that it didnt work well at all.

[PattayaParent]

Well it worked pretty well for Sellafield (previously Windscale).

And Calder Hall !!

[zzaa09]

"Siam" just dosen't cut it.

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

Only because you've been conditioned that way.

[zzaa09]

A note about about all this.

The question of changing the name back to Siam has been discussed before on the forum and I reckon well be discussed in Thailand, as long as Thailand is ... Thailand.

So the idea here was to look at the question in a somewhat fresh way, from the aspect of improving the economic well being of the nation alone.

As far as rebranding, I continue to think its an interesting tactic. However, as another poster mentioned, the fundamental underlying problems responsible for the bad part's of Thailand's reputation are largely still in place. Any attempt at rebranding might be more successful at a later time if the rebranding was somewhat more credible. For example, the political stability question.

Of course if there ever is a name change, it probably won't be made based on such a narrow reasoning as economic advancement. Just as the last time it wasn't.

Before we got off on this Siam business, wouldn't we have to understand the etymological background first?

[Payboy]

"Siam" just dosen't cut it.

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

Only because you've been conditioned that way.

I'd rather go to Bangkok in Thailand than Krungthep in Siam.

[aussiebebe]

I voted yes just because the name change to Thailand and the new flag in the 1930s or whenever was a sign of alignment with Western economies and this may change in the 21st century as China economic power grows. It's plausible that Thailand may benefit economically from 're-branding' themselves.

Personally I think the name 'Bangkok' should be first up for discussion; as a transgender prostitute in the Hollywood movie 'The Hangover 2' quipped, there's a reason they don't call it 'Bangc*nt'!

[Trembly]

I voted yes just because the name change to Thailand and the new flag in the 1930s or whenever was a sign of alignment with Western economies and this may change in the 21st century as China economic power grows. It's plausible that Thailand may benefit economically from 're-branding' themselves.

Personally I think the name 'Bangkok' should be first up for discussion; as a transgender prostitute in the Hollywood movie 'The Hangover 2' quipped, there's a reason they don't call it 'Bangc*nt'!

I agree about Bangkok. I couldn't care less about the schoolboy jokes but I just think that Krungtep sounds better, not to mention the fact that Bangkok is actually the name of the area where many of the Embassies used to be. Those diplomats must have been from the same water as the morons who called the Pueblo Indians Pueblo Indians.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Trembly

[elliss]

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

what would you put there ?.

imo , brtitain should be renamed ,

BRITAINISTAN.

more , the merrier .

[Trembly]

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

what would you put there ?.

imo , brtitain should be renamed ,

BRITAINISTAN.

more , the merrier .

Don't sit on the fence, why don't you just say West Pakistan?

[F1fanatic]

Well it worked pretty well for Sellafield (previously Windscale).

The fact that you referenced to the two names in case people didnt get it, suggest that it didnt work well at all.

I disagree. The reason I edited the post to add the earlier name was because it occurred to me that most wouldn't remember that Sellafield used to be Windscale.

[chooka]

Huh?

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

When it was Siam was there corruption, scams, prostitutes, dual pricing and the like? If these things were only the result of changing thier name to Thailand then they should change it back to Siam.

It will still be Thailand the same as Myamar is still Burma to most.

Change Australia back to Terra Australis Incognita but it will still be the land down under.

[bendix]

Well it worked pretty well for Sellafield (previously Windscale).

The fact that you referenced to the two names in case people didnt get it, suggest that it didnt work well at all.

I disagree. The reason I edited the post to add the earlier name was because it occurred to me that most wouldn't remember that Sellafield used to be Windscale.

You would disagree with me if I said eggs were an important ingredient in an omelette.

[F1fanatic]

Well it worked pretty well for Sellafield (previously Windscale).

The fact that you referenced to the two names in case people didnt get it, suggest that it didnt work well at all.

I disagree. The reason I edited the post to add the earlier name was because it occurred to me that most wouldn't remember that Sellafield used to be Windscale.

You would disagree with me if I said eggs were an important ingredient in an omelette.

Errr, no. I posted pointing out how quickly a name change can work - you then tried to say I was wrong...

Edit - I disagree with you on pensions, otherwise I take your post at face-value.

Edited May 17, 2012 by F1fanatic

[BigJohnnyBKK]

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.

With as much right to do so as Kampuchea's. IMO if a properly elected representative government decides to propagate that change then that's when we should go along with it.

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

If they were able successfully get rid of the endemic corruption and simultaneously eliminate the visible farang-targeted sex industry (including Internet wives and rent-a-girlfriend segments) - only after that very unlikely event would a re-branding have any chance of success.

And I would credit the actual change with a lot more of the resulting accelerated development than the name change, but I'm sure it would have a positive effect.

[trainman34014]

Off topic really but I've lived in the North of the country now for 4.4 years and I've never heard a Thai refer to Myanmar as Myanmar. They always call it Burma and the people Burmese.

Just for the record, Wifey thinks that Siam is a much nicer name than Thailand. She also thinks that Myanmar should be changed back to Burma !

[VocalNeal]

Siam Commercial Bank

Siam Cement

-

-

-

-

and so on.

If you like the name use it. It will though make "searches" for Thailand more difficult if what you are selling involves Thailand. if selling widgets it doesn't matter.

Edited May 17, 2012 by VocalNeal

[Jingthing]

Off topic really but I've lived in the North of the country now for 4.4 years and I've never heard a Thai refer to Myanmar as Myanmar. They always call it Burma and the people Burmese.

Just for the record, Wifey thinks that Siam is a much nicer name than Thailand. She also thinks that Myanmar should be changed back to Burma !

Agree with your wife.

[Semper]

I've lived in the North of the country now for 4.4 years and I've never heard a Thai refer to Myanmar as Myanmar. They always call it Burma

I've lived in the North (CM) for more than a decade and never heard anything else than Myanmar.

[Semper]

OP.

There is a place called Chinese Taipei. So how about Chinese Siam?

[Beetlejuice]

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!

The reasons you quote for disbanding the country of Thailand simply does not make sense and what would be the point anyway.

Sex tourist haven: Mostly exaggerated hyped up narratives from the Western media to discredit Thailand. What about the red light districts of Holland and Germany, the legal brothels of Sydney, Australia and in some States of America.

Tsunami: I think Japan beats Thailand hands down on the tsunami front and considering they sided with Hitler during WW2, than Japan definitely has more reasons to change it`s name than Thailand.

Financial crisis: The American Wall Street crash comes into mind, which had a knock on affect to most of the world. That sure takes some beating.

Land of scams: I believe Nigeria overtook Thailand in the scams department years ago. These days only need to mention the word scams and Nigeria always comes to mind.

Land of IP theft: I would guess that again Nigeria is the world leader in ID theft, probably closely followed by Russia and the Philippines.

Floods: due to global warming, flooding is now a worldwide phenomenon. Taking another educated guess, I would say extreme natural disasters in China, the Philippines, Indonesia and India probably well out number those in Thailand.

Corruption: Compared to some African nations, India, South American countries and a few Middle Eastern countries, I would say Thailand is well down the list.

Riots: England and Greece have experienced the crem della crem of all riots recently, making the Bangkok riots appear insignificant in compassion.

Coups: I’ll give you that one. Yes, Thailand has become illustrious for it`s coups.

I cannot see any Significance for Thailand to revert back to it`s old imperial name of Siam. That would be taking the country backwards not forward.

[pipo1000]

"Siam" just dosen't cut it.

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

So maybe Siam wears better with Krung Thep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin Mahinthara Ayuthaya Mahadilok Phop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Piman Awatan Sathit Sakkathattiya Witsanukam Prasit ?

[Jingthing]

I don't buy the "imperial name" thing as any kind of argument. What the name pushed by a fascist dictator is better? Come on now ...