Thai women demand equal representation in parliament

[Lite Beer]

Thai women demand equal representation in parliament

BANGKOK, 8 March 2015 (NNT) - A network of women’s organizations nationwide marched along Ratchadamnoen road in celebration of the International Women’s Day on 8 March, urging the government to ensure equal representation of women in politics in the new charter.

Donning purple, more than 1,000 activists from the network and relevant oganizations on Sunday demonstrated on Ratchadamnoen road before traveling to Thammasat University at Tha Phrachan. They attended an International Women’s Day forum focusing on the country’s reform and women’s equal rights in politics.

President of the Integration of Women’s Labor Group Aruni Srito said the activities on Sunday were organized to commemorate women’s fights and celebrate the 104th anniversary of the International Women’s Day. She emphasized that women were an important force propelling the country and reform for gender equality. Due to the fact a female population of Thailand was now almost two million more than male population, the new constitution should stipulate a 50:50 ratio of females to males in parliament, said Ms Aruni.

-- NNT 2015-03-08

[Soutpeel]

hold on a minute there has just been a lady PM, unless the rumour was true that it was old square head in a wig

cant get much fairer than a lady PM even though Maggie Thatcher she wasn't

[smedly]

unless there is something in the Charter that denies them that right then surely they have it already

[bkkcanuck8]

For all positions that are appointed, there should be a mandate to have fair representation of women. They talk about using appoint a diverse cross-section of professions etc., well there is not anything more fundamental than a good cross-section of gender representation.

[rubl]

In the charter men and women are equal and that's as far as the charter should go. Government policies may include 'positive discrimination', but even putting that in law would be against the charter.

So, the ladies should go for education, of themselves and of males. Work their way up in political parties, have influence, get on party lists, etc., etc.

[clockman]

Yes the population of females is far greater When you consider alot of males want to be female. And take out the monkhood. Jail convicts. Whats left?

[bkkcanuck8]

In the charter men and women are equal and that's as far as the charter should go. Government policies may include 'positive discrimination', but even putting that in law would be against the charter.

So, the ladies should go for education, of themselves and of males. Work their way up in political parties, have influence, get on party lists, etc., etc.

When you have elections I agree with you. When you are appointing a senate as a "cross-section" of professions, why would you not also appoint a cross-section of genders? How is that against the charter? How is appointing specific proportions or professions within the charter (which does not exist yet), while appointing specific proportions of genders is not?

[h90]

For all positions that are appointed, there should be a mandate to have fair representation of women. They talk about using appoint a diverse cross-section of professions etc., well there is not anything more fundamental than a good cross-section of gender representation.

Qualification before gender.

True equal is when also women don't get the job because a man is better qualified. Else it is discrimination of men.

[Lite Beer]

Women’s rights groups rally to demand gender equality

BANGKOK: -- About 1,000 women representing various women’s rights groups rallied at the Democracy Monument this morning before staging a march to Thammasat University in a symbolic campaign to demand for gender equality in celebrating the International Women’s Day.

The groups issued a joint statement calling for the following:

Recognition of the principles of human dignity, liberty and gender’s equality;
Special mechanism to be issued by the state to promote process which will lead to the creation of gender’s equality;
Adherence to the international convention on elimination of discrimination of all forms against women;
The new constitution must incorporate provisions of the 1997 and 2007 charters which guarantee the rights and liberty of women;
Women should be given a 50 percent quota in political and legal policy decision makings at all levels.
Ms Arunee Srito, chairwoman of Women Workers’ Unity Group, reasoned that since the population of women was two million more than men, women should be equally treated and given a 50 percent quota in political policy decision making processes.

She pointed out that national reform envisaged by the NCPO and the government would be pointless if the reform did not take into account gender equality.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/womens-rights-groups-rally-to-demand-gender-equality

-- Thai PBS 2015-03-08

[bkkcanuck8]

For all positions that are appointed, there should be a mandate to have fair representation of women. They talk about using appoint a diverse cross-section of professions etc., well there is not anything more fundamental than a good cross-section of gender representation.

Qualification before gender.

True equal is when also women don't get the job because a man is better qualified. Else it is discrimination of men.

What qualification???, the primary qualification as they are writing is that they are of a certain profession.... how are these certain professions qualification for running a government more than other selection criteria. If you have a senate with 100 people in it, you mean you cannot find 50 qualified women out of a nation of 66 million with supposedly many women running "corporations" (my guess is they are including road-side stalls in their count).

I don't want the government intruding into private business that way, but this is a government to "represent" the people (supposedly). I don't see some national vetting board going over the qualifications of elected members of the government selecting the most qualified do you? Therefore how can it be qualification before gender?

BTW, people tend to pick people they are "comfortable" with and convince themselves it is all about qualifications.... So if people selecting the people for positions are predominantly men, you will have a natural bias to hiring other men (with the exception of their secretaries where they hire pretties for window dressing).

[lildragon]

Women’s rights groups rally to demand gender equality

BANGKOK: -- About 1,000 women representing various women’s rights groups rallied at the Democracy Monument this morning before staging a march to Thammasat University in a symbolic campaign to demand for gender equality in celebrating the International Women’s Day.

The groups issued a joint statement calling for the following:

Recognition of the principles of human dignity, liberty and gender’s equality;

Special mechanism to be issued by the state to promote process which will lead to the creation of gender’s equality;

Adherence to the international convention on elimination of discrimination of all forms against women;

The new constitution must incorporate provisions of the 1997 and 2007 charters which guarantee the rights and liberty of women;

Women should be given a 50 percent quota in political and legal policy decision makings at all levels.

Ms Arunee Srito, chairwoman of Women Workers’ Unity Group, reasoned that since the population of women was two million more than men, women should be equally treated and given a 50 percent quota in political policy decision making processes.

She pointed out that national reform envisaged by the NCPO and the government would be pointless if the reform did not take into account gender equality.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/womens-rights-groups-rally-to-demand-gender-equality

-- Thai PBS 2015-03-08

I fully support what these ladies want but huge political gathering? Breaking martial law no? (stupid, archaic martial law)

[longway]

The best person for the position gets it. Quota systems are inherently discriminatory.

[bkkcanuck8]

The best person for the position gets it. Quota systems are inherently discriminatory.

A quota system is exactly what is proposed..... so either it is or it is not inherently discriminatory (can't have it both ways).

Appointing senators is by it's very nature discriminatory in a representative government. Once you appoint, you are discriminating. Appointed senators all over the democratic world hold people that do not represent the people but are there because they are connected to the right people at the right time.

If you are appointing a senate to counterbalance "the democratic will" then is that not discriminating for the elite and against the people?

[DLock]

We just tried a female at the helm and it was an unmitigated disaster.

Demand?

Try earning.

[bkkcanuck8]

We just tried a female at the helm and it was an unmitigated disaster.

Demand?

Try earning.

Please explain how this is earned then? The "representative" government is not some sort of meritocracy. Party lists are not a meritocracy. I know of no country that has a meritocracy when it comes to senators. It is beginning to feel like I am arguing with a parrot that only is able to say a few words, that are parroted but don't quite fit into the argument of how government is selected (when it becomes selection and not election).

[Soutpeel]

We just tried a female at the helm and it was an unmitigated disaster.

Demand?

Try earning.

Was that because she was female per se, or just because she was proxy for her brother and a complete buffoon and airhead to boot ?

[rubl]

In the charter men and women are equal and that's as far as the charter should go. Government policies may include 'positive discrimination', but even putting that in law would be against the charter.

So, the ladies should go for education, of themselves and of males. Work their way up in political parties, have influence, get on party lists, etc., etc.

When you have elections I agree with you. When you are appointing a senate as a "cross-section" of professions, why would you not also appoint a cross-section of genders? How is that against the charter? How is appointing specific proportions or professions within the charter (which does not exist yet), while appointing specific proportions of genders is not?

As far as I know there is no charter anywhere which calls people equal based on intelligence, education and/or experience.

So, even appointed senators need to pass strict qualifications similar or even more extensive than the requirements MPs need to meet. To state in the charter that 50% must be male/female would be a contradiction to the article describing all people as equal independent of gender.

BTW I don't think there a mention of 'race', but that's a misnomer anyway as we're all humans.

[bkkcanuck8]

In the charter men and women are equal and that's as far as the charter should go. Government policies may include 'positive discrimination', but even putting that in law would be against the charter.

So, the ladies should go for education, of themselves and of males. Work their way up in political parties, have influence, get on party lists, etc., etc.

When you have elections I agree with you. When you are appointing a senate as a "cross-section" of professions, why would you not also appoint a cross-section of genders? How is that against the charter? How is appointing specific proportions or professions within the charter (which does not exist yet), while appointing specific proportions of genders is not?

As far as I know there is no charter anywhere which calls people equal based on intelligence, education and/or experience.

So, even appointed senators need to pass strict qualifications similar or even more extensive than the requirements MPs need to meet. To state in the charter that 50% must be male/female would be a contradiction to the article describing all people as equal independent of gender.

BTW I don't think there a mention of 'race', but that's a misnomer anyway as we're all humans.

It is contradictory to state that male and female are equal and not be able to find 50% that can match these same criteria.

The qualifications for the membership of the Senate can be found in section 115, Part 3, Chapter 6 of the 2007 Constitution. A candidate intent on being a member of the Senate must be a natural born citizen of Thailand as well as being 40 years or older on the year of election or selection. The candidate must have graduated with at least a bachelor’s degree or an equivalent. If the candidate is to be elected, he or she must be born, must have a home and be registered to vote in the province which the candidate intends to represent. The candidate must not be an ascendant, spouse or a child of a member of the House of Representatives or any person holding a political position. Must not have been a member of a political party for at least five years.

All other disqualifications are similar to that of the House, the individual must not be: addicted to drugs, been bankrupt, convicted felon, member of a local administration, a civil servant, a member of the judiciary or any other government agency. Being disenfranchised (being a member of the clergy, felon, or mentally infirm). If the candidate was a member of a local administration or a Minister he must have left his post for a period of at least five years before being eligible.

You're being facetious if you are saying you cannot get 50% of the senators with those same "strict" qualifications. Again, the qualifications leave it open and it is more that the person is like minded to those selecting the senators and they are comfortable with them.....

[rubl]

As far as I know there is no charter anywhere which calls people equal based on intelligence, education and/or experience.

So, even appointed senators need to pass strict qualifications similar or even more extensive than the requirements MPs need to meet. To state in the charter that 50% must be male/female would be a contradiction to the article describing all people as equal independent of gender.

BTW I don't think there a mention of 'race', but that's a misnomer anyway as we're all humans.

It is contradictory to state that male and female are equal and not be able to find 50% that can match these same criteria.

The qualifications for the membership of the Senate can be found in section 115, Part 3, Chapter 6 of the 2007 Constitution. A candidate intent on being a member of the Senate must be a natural born citizen of Thailand as well as being 40 years or older on the year of election or selection. The candidate must have graduated with at least a bachelor’s degree or an equivalent. If the candidate is to be elected, he or she must be born, must have a home and be registered to vote in the province which the candidate intends to represent. The candidate must not be an ascendant, spouse or a child of a member of the House of Representatives or any person holding a political position. Must not have been a member of a political party for at least five years.

All other disqualifications are similar to that of the House, the individual must not be: addicted to drugs, been bankrupt, convicted felon, member of a local administration, a civil servant, a member of the judiciary or any other government agency. Being disenfranchised (being a member of the clergy, felon, or mentally infirm). If the candidate was a member of a local administration or a Minister he must have left his post for a period of at least five years before being eligible.

You're being facetious if you are saying you cannot get 50% of the senators with those same "strict" qualifications. Again, the qualifications leave it open and it is more that the person is like minded to those selecting the senators and they are comfortable with them.....

I didn't say a 50% match couldn't be found. I only said it would be unconstitutional to enforce such match. It would also be unconstitutional to phrase requirements in such a way as to make it more difficult for women.

As the final text is not available I assume for the moment that requirements will be identical or very similar to those stated in the Interim Constitution and the 2007 Constitution. There doesn't seem to be any gender prejudice in there. Mind you, in the part you quote there's at the end "he must have left his post for a period of at least five years before being eligible.". I wonder how that was phrased in the original Thai text, or is there a general note on "when stating 'he' this should be interpreted as he" ?

[englishoak]

No point whining about representation in parliament, they dont even have it at home or on the street. Unless of course your rich and then...............................

[bkkcanuck8]

As far as I know there is no charter anywhere which calls people equal based on intelligence, education and/or experience.

So, even appointed senators need to pass strict qualifications similar or even more extensive than the requirements MPs need to meet. To state in the charter that 50% must be male/female would be a contradiction to the article describing all people as equal independent of gender.

BTW I don't think there a mention of 'race', but that's a misnomer anyway as we're all humans.

It is contradictory to state that male and female are equal and not be able to find 50% that can match these same criteria.

The qualifications for the membership of the Senate can be found in section 115, Part 3, Chapter 6 of the 2007 Constitution. A candidate intent on being a member of the Senate must be a natural born citizen of Thailand as well as being 40 years or older on the year of election or selection. The candidate must have graduated with at least a bachelor’s degree or an equivalent. If the candidate is to be elected, he or she must be born, must have a home and be registered to vote in the province which the candidate intends to represent. The candidate must not be an ascendant, spouse or a child of a member of the House of Representatives or any person holding a political position. Must not have been a member of a political party for at least five years.

All other disqualifications are similar to that of the House, the individual must not be: addicted to drugs, been bankrupt, convicted felon, member of a local administration, a civil servant, a member of the judiciary or any other government agency. Being disenfranchised (being a member of the clergy, felon, or mentally infirm). If the candidate was a member of a local administration or a Minister he must have left his post for a period of at least five years before being eligible.

You're being facetious if you are saying you cannot get 50% of the senators with those same "strict" qualifications. Again, the qualifications leave it open and it is more that the person is like minded to those selecting the senators and they are comfortable with them.....

I didn't say a 50% match couldn't be found. I only said it would be unconstitutional to enforce such match. It would also be unconstitutional to phrase requirements in such a way as to make it more difficult for women.

As the final text is not available I assume for the moment that requirements will be identical or very similar to those stated in the Interim Constitution and the 2007 Constitution. There doesn't seem to be any gender prejudice in there. Mind you, in the part you quote there's at the end "he must have left his post for a period of at least five years before being eligible.". I wonder how that was phrased in the original Thai text, or is there a general note on "when stating 'he' this should be interpreted as he" ?

You fail to understand the word "unconstitutional". To be unconstitutional it must violate the constitution. If it is in the constitution, then by its very definition it is constitutional. They are drafting the constitution now, which means it does not exist for the purposes of this argument.

They are discussion a quota system for the constitution with respect to "professionals" with former government / military leaders taking up to 50% of the senate.

[Chris Lawrence]

In the charter men and women are equal and that's as far as the charter should go. Government policies may include 'positive discrimination', but even putting that in law would be against the charter.

So, the ladies should go for education, of themselves and of males. Work their way up in political parties, have influence, get on party lists, etc., etc.

Got it wrong again Rubi.

Have a read why Ticha resigned reported 3 March.

One female reported on the CDC; as any new proposal suggested by the 3 women on the committee was looked down on by the male members. Ticha's resignation appears to have prompted a reply by the General to say women should have more representation in Government. But he has not delivered on how this should happen.

So what is your way of setting up better education for women in Thailand? That is a problem in itself.

'Gender inequality is manifest in violence against women, societal discrimination against women, and trafficking in women for prostitution. Efforts to improve the status of women have increased, and the 1997 constitution provides women with equal rights and protections, although, some inequalities in the law remain. Domestic abuse affects women in all social classes. Specific laws concerning domestic violence have not been enacted, and the rules of evidence make prosecuting such cases difficult. Domestic violence often is not reported, since many victims and the police view it as a private matter. Sexual harassment in the workplace was made illegal in 1998, but only in the private sector, and no cases have been prosecuted. Thailand serves as a source, place of transit, and destination for trafficking in women for prostitution. Prosecutions for such activities are rare.' http://www.everycult...h/Thailand.html

As you mentioned the 'Charter', I dropped the above in for you to read.

Representation at a political level should help to combat other issues that women face in Thai society.

To state that women work their way up a male dominated bastion displays a lack of understanding on the issues.

How many women generals are on the boards of prominent Thai companies, that the current regime have appointed?

[webfact]

Equality not the answer, activists say
Pratch Rujivanarom
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Women's rIghts activists were "naive" to believe that working-class women would have a better life if the new constitution contained a clause guaranteeing that women would have an equal representation in local administrations, panellists said during a discussion held to mark International Women's Day yesterday.

The controversial issue came to the fore last week when Ticha Na Nakorn stepped down from her role as a constitution drafter to protest over the rejection of her proposal that local administrations be staffed by more women.

Speaking yesterday at a discussion on "Women, Freedom of Expression", Saowalak Phongam, of Workers Democracy Group, said she believed more female representatives in Parliament would not really represent the voice of lower-class women.

"I have to use the word 'naive' to criticise the feminist activists who campaign for the equal share of seats in Parliament between male and female. If such a campaign is successful, there will be only elite women in Parliament," Saowalak said.

The discussion, held at the 14th October Memorial Monument, was organised by Maledprik, a group of social activists.

"The general election is the method by which the lower class can speak out their voices," Saowalak said, adding that the real aim of International Women's Day has changed.

"The origin of International Women's Day really has its roots in socialism. It is a day to celebrate the fight for the rights of women. But now in Thailand, this day has become an occasion for the upper class to reward the well behaved women," she said.

Natcha Kongudom, a Bangkok University student and activist, said the problem in Thai society nowadays is less about gender equality and more about class.

"Some people in the country still think that Thai people are not ready for elections. They think elections always bring corrupt politicians. This is the real problem and it is more dangerous than gender inequality," Natcha said.

Seven speakers were invited to the discussion, all of them women involved in political and social struggles. The main objective of the discussion was to highlight the need for a national election to allow people to have their fundamental rights and gender equality.

At the end of the discussion, the members of Maledprik, dressed in traditional Thai folk dress, organised a symbolic demonstration to express their demand for the end of martial law and fresh elections.

Women's organisations, State Enterprise Workers' Relation Confederation, WeMove - women's movement for Thailand's reform - UN Women, Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and the Trade and Development and International Republican Institute marched from Rajdamnoen Avenue to Thammasat University yesterday. They called for an equal gender proportion of parliamentarians to be enshrined in the new charter.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Equality-not-the-answer-activists-say-30255605.html


-- The Nation 2015-03-09

[NongKhaiKid]

Yes class distinctions are alive, well and very active in LoS and since it's the ' haves ' that run the show that's how it will remain.

As for gender equality don't think too much ladies as Thailand's macho men will keep you in your place.

[LuckyLew]

They marched along rachamandoen .... I thought gatherings / protest were illegal in Thailand under marital law

Hope they were all arrested and sent for attituude adjustments

[BSJ]

Don't know about the broader community but my wife gets a fair say in every matter that crosses the table here. And more often than not she is right and I am wrong!

But other woman may not fair so well. Rather than focus on equality how about a fair go for the woman in less democratic relationships.

How about:

1/ Not getting a slap across the chops when the drunken pig returns home and the food isn't on the table the second he crosses the threshold.

2/ A share in the household income so she can buy woman stuff so she doesn't look like a disheveled peasant.

3/ Given the right to use contraceptives as she deems necessary.

4/ To be treated fairly by police when she has trouble to deal with.

You can add more if you wish, I've been told to eat my bacon and eggs before they get cold!

[Keesters]

They want a 50:50 female:male parliament. Nothing stopping them having that when Thailand returns to democracy. All the women got to do is stand for election and see what happens. That is what democracy is all about not fixing the constitution to a predetermined figure.

[scorecard]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Equality not the answer, activists say
Pratch Rujivanarom
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Women's rIghts activists were "naive" to believe that working-class women would have a better life if the new constitution contained a clause guaranteeing that women would have an equal representation in local administrations, panellists said during a discussion held to mark International Women's Day yesterday.

The controversial issue came to the fore last week when Ticha Na Nakorn stepped down from her role as a constitution drafter to protest over the rejection of her proposal that local administrations be staffed by more women.

Speaking yesterday at a discussion on "Women, Freedom of Expression", Saowalak Phongam, of Workers Democracy Group, said she believed more female representatives in Parliament would not really represent the voice of lower-class women.

"I have to use the word 'naive' to criticise the feminist activists who campaign for the equal share of seats in Parliament between male and female. If such a campaign is successful, there will be only elite women in Parliament," Saowalak said.

The discussion, held at the 14th October Memorial Monument, was organised by Maledprik, a group of social activists.

"The general election is the method by which the lower class can speak out their voices," Saowalak said, adding that the real aim of International Women's Day has changed.

"The origin of International Women's Day really has its roots in socialism. It is a day to celebrate the fight for the rights of women. But now in Thailand, this day has become an occasion for the upper class to reward the well behaved women," she said.

Natcha Kongudom, a Bangkok University student and activist, said the problem in Thai society nowadays is less about gender equality and more about class.

"Some people in the country still think that Thai people are not ready for elections. They think elections always bring corrupt politicians. This is the real problem and it is more dangerous than gender inequality," Natcha said.

Seven speakers were invited to the discussion, all of them women involved in political and social struggles. The main objective of the discussion was to highlight the need for a national election to allow people to have their fundamental rights and gender equality.

At the end of the discussion, the members of Maledprik, dressed in traditional Thai folk dress, organised a symbolic demonstration to express their demand for the end of martial law and fresh elections.

Women's organisations, State Enterprise Workers' Relation Confederation, WeMove - women's movement for Thailand's reform - UN Women, Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and the Trade and Development and International Republican Institute marched from Rajdamnoen Avenue to Thammasat University yesterday. They called for an equal gender proportion of parliamentarians to be enshrined in the new charter.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Equality-not-the-answer-activists-say-30255605.html


-- The Nation 2015-03-09

Was there any representation from 'Yinglucks Womens Development Fund".

In fact is there any reporting of this fund in recent times? Does it still exist or did it go to sleep?

[maidee]

yes the thai lady did good for thailand

800 billion baht down the drain

[Baerboxer]

In the charter men and women are equal and that's as far as the charter should go. Government policies may include 'positive discrimination', but even putting that in law would be against the charter.

So, the ladies should go for education, of themselves and of males. Work their way up in political parties, have influence, get on party lists, etc., etc.

When you have elections I agree with you. When you are appointing a senate as a "cross-section" of professions, why would you not also appoint a cross-section of genders? How is that against the charter? How is appointing specific proportions or professions within the charter (which does not exist yet), while appointing specific proportions of genders is not?

What about religion? There are Buddhist, Moslem and Christian Thais. And of course some atheists ought to be there. Then maybe ethnic origin - the portion of people from Lanna, Siam and especially those immigrant Chinese should be reflected. Then perhaps financial strata - so many amply rich, so many middle class, so many working class - oh, but that would require a real declaration of assets so maybe not. What about age too? Some old, young, middle aged? Then we have disability to consider too.

The specific professions would indicate a level of qualification, education and ability. Those qualities are not gender specific.

Positive discrimination only works for those it discriminates in favor of. It's negative for the rest.