Thai women demand equal representation in parliament

[Baerboxer]

<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?

Or did it go into someone's pockets?

[AGareth2]

equal marriage rights would be a start

[Keesters]

yes the thai lady did good for thailand

800 billion baht down the drain

If it was in the drains we could send some prisoners to help retrieve it. It's more likely to be found in a few Gucci handbags or stuffed in some mattresses.

[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.

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?

Wrong and wrong again?

Did you read my post? I wrote that gender discrimination would be against the charter article of gender equality. I wrote that the government may go for a 'positive discrimination' policy, but would find it difficult to put it in law. I wrote women should look for education. I might have needed to write "forget about men, take care of yourself" but that might have been misunderstood.

So, your rant may describe the difficulties women face, but that's a struggle which can only be solved by proper education. Even in Western Democracies it took time and still takes time, but there's nothing in constitutions to 'promote' gender inequality'.

[cup-O-coffee]

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.

Since the population of Thailand is predominately poor, the poor should be equally treated and given an 80 percent quota in all monies and decisions.

That is how I read the logic of her quote.

[rubl]

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.

At first I thought we had a serious discussion, but now I'm not so sure.

Theoretically you're right. If the Constitution says "Women are more equal than men" an enforced 50/50 filling of political and government positions would be mandatory. Practically such article would be against some UN human rights and other accepted statutes to which even Thailand is signatory. A novel idea though and why stop there. Why not include the '3rd gender' as well and as some have it even aliens need constitutional rights. Next you might want to write to the European Commission in Brussels to push your ideas.

As for the Senate, there is no Senate at the moment, but all Senators who became Senators the last six years met all requirements as set in the 2007 Constitution (which for the requirements was slightly stricter compared with the 1997 version). Even for the proposals on a 100% indirectly elected Senate all candidates will have to meet all requirements set. I haven't seen details, but expect the requirements to have been tightened even more.

[nidieunimaitre]

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?

Wrong and wrong again?

Did you read my post? I wrote that gender discrimination would be against the charter article of gender equality. I wrote that the government may go for a 'positive discrimination' policy, but would find it difficult to put it in law. I wrote women should look for education. I might have needed to write "forget about men, take care of yourself" but that might have been misunderstood.

So, your rant may describe the difficulties women face, but that's a struggle which can only be solved by proper education. Even in Western Democracies it took time and still takes time, but there's nothing in constitutions to 'promote' gender inequality'.

QUOTE from your last sentence:

Even in Western Democracies it took time and still takes time, but there's nothing in constitutions to 'promote' gender inequality'.

In Belgium, candidates lists at the elections have - by law - to alternate men and women.

If the first candidate is male, the next one has to be female, and so on.

That's a good start.

I do not know about your country, and other European states.

[Keesters]

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?

Wrong and wrong again?

Did you read my post? I wrote that gender discrimination would be against the charter article of gender equality. I wrote that the government may go for a 'positive discrimination' policy, but would find it difficult to put it in law. I wrote women should look for education. I might have needed to write "forget about men, take care of yourself" but that might have been misunderstood.

So, your rant may describe the difficulties women face, but that's a struggle which can only be solved by proper education. Even in Western Democracies it took time and still takes time, but there's nothing in constitutions to 'promote' gender inequality'.

Absolutely true. Some women want the cake and eat it too. I recall UK in the 70s. Went to engineering college. Only 2 girls in the class of 20. Now its about 50:50. Equal Opportunities act come out saying women must be treated & paid same as men. Fine I thought so when do I get my pension at 60 (like women) rather than 65. Only just a few years ago women's pension age was made same as men. So for over 30 years men were unequal to women as far as UK pensions were concerned. Where were all the women demanding equal pension rights with men? Not one stood up as they were now more equal than men. Constitution should not have specific clauses for women anymore than it should have specific clauses for gays, trangenders and other minority groups. It should simply state that all persons are equal and that discrimination on any grounds is illegal. Probably better legal terminology but I sure you can see where I coming from.

[rubl]

Wrong and wrong again?

Did you read my post? I wrote that gender discrimination would be against the charter article of gender equality. I wrote that the government may go for a 'positive discrimination' policy, but would find it difficult to put it in law. I wrote women should look for education. I might have needed to write "forget about men, take care of yourself" but that might have been misunderstood.

So, your rant may describe the difficulties women face, but that's a struggle which can only be solved by proper education. Even in Western Democracies it took time and still takes time, but there's nothing in constitutions to 'promote' gender inequality'.

QUOTE from your last sentence:

Even in Western Democracies it took time and still takes time, but there's nothing in constitutions to 'promote' gender inequality'.

In Belgium, candidates lists at the elections have - by law - to alternate men and women.

If the first candidate is male, the next one has to be female, and so on.

That's a good start.

I do not know about your country, and other European states.

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that. With your comments I searched a bit and found a.o.

Quota Project with status in many countries

http://www.quotaproject.org/country.cfm

"Political party laws may include provisions aimed specifically at enhancing women’s political participation. For example, they may require parties to affirm their position on gender equality in the party constitution. They may mandate that party management and party policy committees be gender balanced. Political party laws, or in some cases election laws, may require a gender balance in candidate lists as well. Alternatively, laws may offer parties incentives such as more free broadcast time or additional public funding if they include certain numbers of women among their candidates. New laws are often introduced in post-conflict countries, providing an ideal opportunity to incorporate these and other provisions aimed at ensuring equal political participation for women."

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/wps/publication/Chapter3.htm

[Balance]

Women currently have no rights in a divorce. Men are not obligated to take financial responsibility for their children. Current law is completely male sided and it is unlikely that women will be given equal status under the law until they are making the laws. This is even more the case given there are very few, if any, enlightened male politicians running around.

[seajae]

the biggest laugh about this is the fact that they are not calling for equal rights but to have favouratism toward women. I am against any sort of gender inequality but all appointments must be based purely on the applicants ability and knowledge not whether or not they have breasts and a vagina. Women with the same qualities as other applicants should be given the opportunity to be appointed but it should not be because they are female, it should be because they have the necessary qualifications and are the best available for the position. These groups calling on equal representation based on gender are beyond a joke, if they are good enough they should have equal standing, if they do not have the same qualifications of the other applicants they should not be considered.

The other thing we have to look at is a lot of those calling for this sort of thing do not have the ability, intelligence or experience to get these sorts of job based on exactly that so they push for equal representation knowing they would not qualify any other way

[rubl]

Women currently have no rights in a divorce. Men are not obligated to take financial responsibility for their children. Current law is completely male sided and it is unlikely that women will be given equal status under the law until they are making the laws. This is even more the case given there are very few, if any, enlightened male politicians running around.

Do women still need the signature of their legal husband for certain transactions (like Ms. Potjaman needed when she was still married)?

Such discrimination in laws would surely need to go before enforcing quotas in parliament as women need to be independent and not just a front for a male.

[Keesters]

Women currently have no rights in a divorce. Men are not obligated to take financial responsibility for their children. Current law is completely male sided and it is unlikely that women will be given equal status under the law until they are making the laws. This is even more the case given there are very few, if any, enlightened male politicians running around.

Not so sure that the things your talking about are law or just custom. When my friend was divorced here his estranged wife was given ample opportunity to make any claim she wanted against her husband. She didn't though as the breakup was mutual. Her husband was asked exactly the same question. Don't see any discrimination with that. You'll have to do better with actual quotes from the law showing where women are discriminated against in divorce or child rearing. It is probably custom and will only change with education not having women lawmakers as there's no laws to change in this regard.

[Keesters]

Women currently have no rights in a divorce. Men are not obligated to take financial responsibility for their children. Current law is completely male sided and it is unlikely that women will be given equal status under the law until they are making the laws. This is even more the case given there are very few, if any, enlightened male politicians running around.

Do women still need the signature of their legal husband for certain transactions (like Ms. Potjaman needed when she was still married)?

Such discrimination in laws would surely need to go before enforcing quotas in parliament as women need to be independent and not just a front for a male.

Both signatures are required for some transactions as it is a marriage a partnership where the rights and obligations are shared including debt. For one half of the marriage to enter into something that could effect the other it is only fair that both parties sign. Of course this works both ways. When I tried to gain guardianship of a Thai kid, father was OK with it, mother not. Without her signature it never happened.

[Humberstone]

Should always strive for a meritocracy, having quotas based on gender won't work.

However, equality in society for women has some way to go and that needs action. Family law, equal pay, longer maternity leave, advertising standards etc. The list is long.

[lvr181]

Girls it is easy: No representation, no sex!

[bkkcanuck8]

Having women appointed proportionally to the senate is a moot point if the CDC actually listened to the people (which they said they would do, but my guess is they won't). The results of the first survey done by the CDC on what the people want.... 62.5% want an elected 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?

Wrong and wrong again?

Did you read my post? I wrote that gender discrimination would be against the charter article of gender equality. I wrote that the government may go for a 'positive discrimination' policy, but would find it difficult to put it in law. I wrote women should look for education. I might have needed to write "forget about men, take care of yourself" but that might have been misunderstood.

So, your rant may describe the difficulties women face, but that's a struggle which can only be solved by proper education. Even in Western Democracies it took time and still takes time, but there's nothing in constitutions to 'promote' gender inequality'.

Rubi, my response was to your 'ladies should go for education' and 'work their way up in political parties'.

How do they do this in a male bastion of power?

How do women get offered protection under the new constitution? Its a bit more than 50% representation. Its more about protection.

"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.

[Strangebrew]

Setting an limit is not democracy voice is the power of the vote if women vote you then your in.

[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?

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.

Specific professions only serve to load the deck and make sure status-quo conservatives will dominate. As a group it would be against their interest to do things like educate the masses because a pyramid shaped population when it comes to class affords them a lifestyle that they just would not be able to get in the west.... they would no longer be able to afford a nanny, or a maid etc. The educational system as it stands now is corrupt and does not "educate" those that should be there based on merit.... it is slanted heavily to those that can afford a quality education.

BTW, Your statement is not completely accurate. Positive discrimination in a meritocracy only works for those it discriminates in favor of. It's negative for the rest. The problem is Thailand is far from a meritocracy, and mandating percentages that reflect the general population only serves to mean they are representative of the population as a whole -- that is of course unless you are saying women are second class citizens and just don't merit equal representation.