The tragic story of the murder and suicide involving a Trium Udom Suksa Pattanakarn student has sparked off a bitter debate across the country about violence among Thai children.
The incident really serves as a wake-up call for the whole society. The message is clear: young people are becoming increasingly violent in their behaviour and thinking. And before anyone can put the blame on young people, they have already voiced their opinions. They are hitting back by blaming society and their own families for the violent behaviour of some of their friends.
If you don't quite understand their statements, just take a look at the findings from a study that is part of Chulalongkorn University's Child Watch Project. Conducted by Amornwich Nakhornthap, the study polled 1,000 children in each of 12 provinces (no sampling representation in Bangkok) before coming up with the following interesting conclusions:
l About 10 per cent of teenagers are addicted to computer games. Some 25 per cent of them play computer games regularly.
l Some 45 per cent of Thai children have never given food to monks. And some 65 per cent have never listened to a religious sermon.
l About 40 per cent have not gone out with their parents or sisters and brothers in a month. They are left to face the world by themselves.
l There are about 220 places of sin (brothels or night clubs) in each province on average. On the contrary, there are only 26 public parks and playgrounds. Lampang has the least of all: only seven public parks for the young people to spend their leisure time.
The conclusion? The study shows that young people are physically surrounded by places of vice more than places of morality. A teenage forum held recently at Chulalongkorn University brands Thailand now as a "sick and violent" society.
Nowadays, our young children tend to live their lives in a violent world without parental guidance. Verbal abuse from their parents and other forms of domestic violence have also combined to create a sense of insecurity, leading to violent behaviour.
On the psychological side, the children are either raised protectively or negligently. By now, we realise that the two extremes bring about the same tragic results. The fact is nothing new: we have been told that a spoiled child is never happy. It's a universal truth but somehow the parents tend to forget this truth.
Teen psychologist Dr Prasert Palittapolkarnpim has a very good point. He observes that parents neglect children not only because of economic factors. Parents of all socio-economic levels share the same behaviour: they are striving for a higher standard of living. At the same time, they have become "low-quality" parents and have little time to pay attention to their children.
Supawadee Hanmethi, publisher of a wide range of family magazines including Life &Family, has been advocating the strengthening of family ties for years. The mother of two sons, Supawadee repeatedly writes that family members must be close to each other and every family should create an atmosphere of open discussion that allows children an equal chance to voice their opinions.
She also points that "children with good grades are not always good children". By now, enough examples show that not every good student is a successful or happy child. Recall the case of a top student at Thammasat University who jumped from a building just because she got a B in one subject, destroying her chance to get a gold medal.
Too much love can prompt parents to pressure their children for academic success which, in turn, can kill them. At a forum of young people at Satri Witthaya School, student Wimwipa Pumee noted that "parents are cruel for they always tell us that our destiny is to secure a seat in a prestigious university."
That's why Supawadee warns parents: "Never ask a child, 'Did you get a good grade?'" Smart parents should not narrowly define a child's success by only academic reports.
Parents tend to think that a good academic record shows their success in child raising. But many people no longer agree with that idea. The education system forces students to compete fiercely, producing selfish children who aim at nothing but climbing to upper status in grades. No need to mention what kind of adults they will become when they enter the workplace.
There is a saying that "Children are like white cloth. It depends on what the artists will draw or paint on them." The parents are no doubt the artists of this great project of child rearing. Or if the kid were a building, the parents would be the architects. It's time we rethink what kind of design we want for the building.
If we excuse ourselves and insist that we have no time, our building will only become a rotten concrete structure with no character. The parents, not the kids, must take the credit or blame for their creation.
Chanachai Srichaphan showed us that when he put his life into his son, the result was a state-of-the-art work. Paradon may be an exceptional case in Thai society but let that be our inspiration to make every parent realise that their child can be successful in many ways apart from acting like a robot to produce good grades.
If we can't do anything about our education system (is education reform still on track?), all parents can start by giving time to their children, staying close to them, and give them love.
Perhaps that is the simplest solution and the good thing about it is that you don't need to pay for it. It's God-given. Don't let evil take it away.
Published on Jun 21, 2003
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Creativity cannot be legislated
Thanks in part to the groundwork laid during last year's "Fan Chan" phenomenon, Thailand's film industry is now riding a wave of momentum with "Hom Rong" (The Overture), which has received attention from both the public and the government. The prime minister went for a special screening recently, while diplomats saw it at the arrangement of the Foreign Affairs Ministry.
This is a very positive sign indeed for Thai film, which has long been overlooked by the country's policy-makers. However, promoting the local industry is a rather complicated issue, requiring more than the PM showing up for a movie screening. In fact, industry people and film buffs alike have been enthusiastically waiting for the government to replace the outdated laws that govern the industry with new ones that keep up with international standards.
Their demand is a simple one: They want the government to introduce a movie rating system and to revamp censorship standards. An effort was made over a decade ago, but there are still no signs of an approving nod from the policy-makers.
Why is a rating system so important, the government may ask. From the perspective of policy-makers, a rating system will improve two factors. The government can provide better protection to youngsters who may not be ready for some movie content. But more importantly, the rating system will allow filmmakers to enjoy the full rights and freedom to create, without concern over possible dangers to the young and society as a whole.
As for filmgoers, the rating system will provide them with greater freedom to enjoy the real art of filmmaking and at the same time more choice in terms of stories. The government may not consider film to be art, but for filmmakers and film lovers, one blurred sequence or a cut scene is like vandalising a piece of art.
Leading Thai director Nonzee Nimibutr expressed his bitterness about the effects of outdated legislation when his controversial film "Jan Dara" was subject to censorship. Although he could show his director's cut outside the country, he had no choice but to have a "mild" version with less explicit sex scenes for local audiences. Like his filmmaking friends, Nonzee hopes only to have local film buffs enjoy his work in full. "After all, I make films for Thai audiences, not international ones," he said.
Sadly, Thailand's famed film producer Duangkamol Limcharoen died without seeing the local film industry enjoy freedom of expression. Her very last words to the press showed that she had little hope that the government would support her craft. "I only hope they won't obstruct our industry if they won't support us."
Gone are days when Thai films are for Thai people alone. Our films now travel around the world, receiving attention from both festivals and distributors. But under the existing system of restrictions concerning content, we have to struggle hard to compete with filmmakers from "free" countries.
Duangkamol was a pioneer in marketing Thai films abroad, as well as managing the Asian filmmaker's alliance to produce bigger film projects. She had a vision and therefore a great concern regarding Thailand's outdated legislation.
Movie industry people who travel from one film festival to another realise how unfortunate they are when compared to their counterparts in countries where the government seriously promotes film as art. Yet local filmmakers don't dare to hope to enjoy the advantages of France or South Korea, where the industry is not only completely free to create cinematic art, but also receives generous assistance.
Now that Thaksin has seen "Hom Rong", which highlights the intriguing issues of art, liberty and state control, we hope he at least understands the film's most important message: Nobody, least of all the government, can say what is good art or how it should evolve. All artists need is freedom, just like we humans need air, and the rest will take care of itself.
Published on Mar 13, 2004
This is a very positive sign indeed for Thai film, which has long been overlooked by the country's policy-makers. However, promoting the local industry is a rather complicated issue, requiring more than the PM showing up for a movie screening. In fact, industry people and film buffs alike have been enthusiastically waiting for the government to replace the outdated laws that govern the industry with new ones that keep up with international standards.
Their demand is a simple one: They want the government to introduce a movie rating system and to revamp censorship standards. An effort was made over a decade ago, but there are still no signs of an approving nod from the policy-makers.
Why is a rating system so important, the government may ask. From the perspective of policy-makers, a rating system will improve two factors. The government can provide better protection to youngsters who may not be ready for some movie content. But more importantly, the rating system will allow filmmakers to enjoy the full rights and freedom to create, without concern over possible dangers to the young and society as a whole.
As for filmgoers, the rating system will provide them with greater freedom to enjoy the real art of filmmaking and at the same time more choice in terms of stories. The government may not consider film to be art, but for filmmakers and film lovers, one blurred sequence or a cut scene is like vandalising a piece of art.
Leading Thai director Nonzee Nimibutr expressed his bitterness about the effects of outdated legislation when his controversial film "Jan Dara" was subject to censorship. Although he could show his director's cut outside the country, he had no choice but to have a "mild" version with less explicit sex scenes for local audiences. Like his filmmaking friends, Nonzee hopes only to have local film buffs enjoy his work in full. "After all, I make films for Thai audiences, not international ones," he said.
Sadly, Thailand's famed film producer Duangkamol Limcharoen died without seeing the local film industry enjoy freedom of expression. Her very last words to the press showed that she had little hope that the government would support her craft. "I only hope they won't obstruct our industry if they won't support us."
Gone are days when Thai films are for Thai people alone. Our films now travel around the world, receiving attention from both festivals and distributors. But under the existing system of restrictions concerning content, we have to struggle hard to compete with filmmakers from "free" countries.
Duangkamol was a pioneer in marketing Thai films abroad, as well as managing the Asian filmmaker's alliance to produce bigger film projects. She had a vision and therefore a great concern regarding Thailand's outdated legislation.
Movie industry people who travel from one film festival to another realise how unfortunate they are when compared to their counterparts in countries where the government seriously promotes film as art. Yet local filmmakers don't dare to hope to enjoy the advantages of France or South Korea, where the industry is not only completely free to create cinematic art, but also receives generous assistance.
Now that Thaksin has seen "Hom Rong", which highlights the intriguing issues of art, liberty and state control, we hope he at least understands the film's most important message: Nobody, least of all the government, can say what is good art or how it should evolve. All artists need is freedom, just like we humans need air, and the rest will take care of itself.
Published on Mar 13, 2004
Fight sexual harassment the whole year round
For unknown reasons, our most famous festival, Songkran, frequently serves as an occasion on which to address social problems that have been waiting in the wings, so to speak.
In the recent past the authorities have expressed concern over young women donning spaghetti-strap tops during the water-splashing festival, for fear it will provoke unseemly male behaviour (this at a time when the sleeveless top has virtually become a uniform among teenagers). This year we learn that Thai women are quite aware they may be subjected to sexual harassment during the festival, although not for the reasons cited by the authorities.
Even as the government was focusing on security issues during the festival, Thai women expressed long-time worries about sexual harassment. Nearly 43 per cent of almost 3,000 respondents told a survey conducted by Assumption University that it was their top concern during Songkran. Fear of terrorism ranked only third. It should come as no surprise to anyone that women are speaking out on this issue. Thai society has been exceptionally tolerant of this form of discrimination. And it’s not only during Songkran that we should be voicing our concern.
Sexual harassment occurs in a variety of circumstances, both overtly and covertly. It happens to women almost every day, on the street, at school, in the workplace. Perhaps it’s time for both men and women to address this social problem without waiting for this big holiday.
In fact the effects of the physical contact that takes place when people splash water on each other are quite small compared with a superior who harasses you at your university or office and wields his power over you for his own perverse satisfaction.
The majority of victims quietly put up with such boors, hoping they’ll soon stop. They fear retaliation in the form of bad grades or promotion being withheld. There are a few brave ladies who complain about their superior, but they stand little chance of bringing the offender to book or winning damages. Unsurprisingly, in Thailand, most victims end up resigning from work or dropping out of school.
The really sad part about sexual harassment, though, is not that the victims cannot win, but rather that many women out there blame themselves for their plight. They also fear that others will blame them. We’ve heard it before: a woman is physically harassed, and her first reaction is to say she was too naive, or she didn’t try her best to protect herself. In the worst-case scenario, the harasser says the woman seduced him.
“Don’t just hope it will stop” is the very first thing every woman who is being victimised ought to remember. I have also found useful tips on various websites that deal with sexual harassment in the workplace. They say you should allow yourself to get angry and use the energy of your anger to help you focus and take action. They also stress that you let the harasser know.
However, all this works only if you want it to. Few Thai women dare to address unwanted attention or offensive behaviour clearly and directly.
To be fair, some Thai men are naive themselves when it comes to harassment, touching your shoulder while speaking without knowing it makes you uncomfortable or telling dirty jokes that offend you. This type of harasser doesn’t realise the effects of such behaviour on others. It often helps if we try to educate these men.
Overt sexual harassment is only the tip of the iceberg. Thai women also face problems from being stereotyped. In Thailand, a woman who has friends of the opposite sex is often referred to as raet (“loose” or “unprincipled”). But if she stays single and shows little interest in having a relationship, she is branded as kheunkhaan (“on the shelf”). There are many such age-old labels. Neither the authorities nor some NGO championing women’s rights can make them all disappear by waving a magic wand.
If you want to avoid a traffic accident, you drive carefully every day, not only during Songkran. Similarly, don’t wait for a special day or occasion to voice concern. There are 362 other days in the year on which you can do it just as effectively. To break free of sexual discrimination, start with yourself. Make your feelings known to the men around you. Informing them that certain behaviour is not welcome would be a constructive step.
Sitting and hoping that you won’t be the victim of harassment is rather like parking your car on the road during the Songkran holidays and praying that no drunk driver will come and smash into it.
Published on Apr 16, 2005
In the recent past the authorities have expressed concern over young women donning spaghetti-strap tops during the water-splashing festival, for fear it will provoke unseemly male behaviour (this at a time when the sleeveless top has virtually become a uniform among teenagers). This year we learn that Thai women are quite aware they may be subjected to sexual harassment during the festival, although not for the reasons cited by the authorities.
Even as the government was focusing on security issues during the festival, Thai women expressed long-time worries about sexual harassment. Nearly 43 per cent of almost 3,000 respondents told a survey conducted by Assumption University that it was their top concern during Songkran. Fear of terrorism ranked only third. It should come as no surprise to anyone that women are speaking out on this issue. Thai society has been exceptionally tolerant of this form of discrimination. And it’s not only during Songkran that we should be voicing our concern.
Sexual harassment occurs in a variety of circumstances, both overtly and covertly. It happens to women almost every day, on the street, at school, in the workplace. Perhaps it’s time for both men and women to address this social problem without waiting for this big holiday.
In fact the effects of the physical contact that takes place when people splash water on each other are quite small compared with a superior who harasses you at your university or office and wields his power over you for his own perverse satisfaction.
The majority of victims quietly put up with such boors, hoping they’ll soon stop. They fear retaliation in the form of bad grades or promotion being withheld. There are a few brave ladies who complain about their superior, but they stand little chance of bringing the offender to book or winning damages. Unsurprisingly, in Thailand, most victims end up resigning from work or dropping out of school.
The really sad part about sexual harassment, though, is not that the victims cannot win, but rather that many women out there blame themselves for their plight. They also fear that others will blame them. We’ve heard it before: a woman is physically harassed, and her first reaction is to say she was too naive, or she didn’t try her best to protect herself. In the worst-case scenario, the harasser says the woman seduced him.
“Don’t just hope it will stop” is the very first thing every woman who is being victimised ought to remember. I have also found useful tips on various websites that deal with sexual harassment in the workplace. They say you should allow yourself to get angry and use the energy of your anger to help you focus and take action. They also stress that you let the harasser know.
However, all this works only if you want it to. Few Thai women dare to address unwanted attention or offensive behaviour clearly and directly.
To be fair, some Thai men are naive themselves when it comes to harassment, touching your shoulder while speaking without knowing it makes you uncomfortable or telling dirty jokes that offend you. This type of harasser doesn’t realise the effects of such behaviour on others. It often helps if we try to educate these men.
Overt sexual harassment is only the tip of the iceberg. Thai women also face problems from being stereotyped. In Thailand, a woman who has friends of the opposite sex is often referred to as raet (“loose” or “unprincipled”). But if she stays single and shows little interest in having a relationship, she is branded as kheunkhaan (“on the shelf”). There are many such age-old labels. Neither the authorities nor some NGO championing women’s rights can make them all disappear by waving a magic wand.
If you want to avoid a traffic accident, you drive carefully every day, not only during Songkran. Similarly, don’t wait for a special day or occasion to voice concern. There are 362 other days in the year on which you can do it just as effectively. To break free of sexual discrimination, start with yourself. Make your feelings known to the men around you. Informing them that certain behaviour is not welcome would be a constructive step.
Sitting and hoping that you won’t be the victim of harassment is rather like parking your car on the road during the Songkran holidays and praying that no drunk driver will come and smash into it.
Published on Apr 16, 2005
Get your money the old-fashioned way: win it!
A friend of mine complained recently that she was feeling bloated as a result of drinking too much of a certain well-known brand of bottled green tea. To my surprise, her motive had nothing to do with any health benefits to be derived from the drink – she just wanted to win the jackpot of Bt1 million allegedly hidden under some of the bottle caps. She is but one of millions of consumers who I’m sure have been taken in by a simple and yet very clever marketing ploy: you buy the tea, look under the cap and if you’re real lucky, you win Bt1 million!
As recent sales figures show, the brand (which is offering Bt30 million in all underneath a total of 30 lucky bottle caps) sells an average of 20 million bottles a month. So the probability of winning is just about more than one in a million. Easier to bump into George Clooney and get invited on a hot date!
The craze to buy the green tea has intensified since a number of fairy-tale stories about winners have come out, most notably one where three “rag pickers” went from rags to riches.
The story of these three is very touching and reads better than most best sellers. A low-income civil servant found the lucky cap among plastic bottles she collected at Chatuchak Weekend Market to resell for Bt13 a kilogram, which is how she and her two friends regularly supplemented their low monthly salary of about Bt5,000. She said she had no idea how many decades it would have taken her to save the same amount of money. That struck a chord among all consumers who dream of snagging some instant cash just by drinking some green tea.
Marketing mavens know very well that such stories sell and that the media cannot afford to ignore such real-life fantasies. So, all of the winners have received prominent coverage in the media, especially in the Thai-language press.
It would have been a different story had the winners already been wealthy. The green-tea manufacturer would probably have received very little publicity then. But as it turns out, the manufacturer has been very fortunate – the winners have all had perfect story lines to date.
For instance, that story about the rag pickers, unofficial pillars of Thailand’s recycling industry, received massive publicity. What would a company get in return from spending Bt30 million on television commercials? Pretty limited mileage once the costs of producing the commercial were deducted. The same amount would have been spent in vain if used for advertisements in mass-circulation newspapers. When was the last time you were so impressed with a print ad that you went right out and bought a product off the shelf? So far, the bottle-cap campaign must be succeeding beyond the maker’s wildest dreams – almost as if it were being plotted and directed. In fact, cynics have already suggested it would make for the perfect Hollywood flick, a conspiracy theory involving manufacturers who go and dump the lucky caps in rubbish piles around town.
The even more cynical among us have questioned the transparency of this type of campaign. Are there really as many lucky caps as are claimed? And could they actually be distributed in such a way so that poor scavengers could be sure to win and spark a fairy-tale media frenzy?
But for those who feel moved by the campaign, nothing else matters. Earning Bt1 million by drinking green tea is infinitely more attractive than working hard to earn it. Aren’t the chances of winning it rather far-fetched? Well, many don’t think so. The gullibility of the masses is a given. We have a prime minister who vows to eliminate poverty in four years, and very few people have any doubts about that, despite spiralling prices. So what’s all the fuss about drinking some green tea? After all, if you win, you don’t have to wait four more years for prosperity to come knocking at your door. It may be wishful thinking, but there’s just no stopping some people from dreaming. Having said that, I think I’ll go and grab one and see if I’m lucky today. Sorry, George, but I feel greedy today!
Published on Mar 19, 2005
As recent sales figures show, the brand (which is offering Bt30 million in all underneath a total of 30 lucky bottle caps) sells an average of 20 million bottles a month. So the probability of winning is just about more than one in a million. Easier to bump into George Clooney and get invited on a hot date!
The craze to buy the green tea has intensified since a number of fairy-tale stories about winners have come out, most notably one where three “rag pickers” went from rags to riches.
The story of these three is very touching and reads better than most best sellers. A low-income civil servant found the lucky cap among plastic bottles she collected at Chatuchak Weekend Market to resell for Bt13 a kilogram, which is how she and her two friends regularly supplemented their low monthly salary of about Bt5,000. She said she had no idea how many decades it would have taken her to save the same amount of money. That struck a chord among all consumers who dream of snagging some instant cash just by drinking some green tea.
Marketing mavens know very well that such stories sell and that the media cannot afford to ignore such real-life fantasies. So, all of the winners have received prominent coverage in the media, especially in the Thai-language press.
It would have been a different story had the winners already been wealthy. The green-tea manufacturer would probably have received very little publicity then. But as it turns out, the manufacturer has been very fortunate – the winners have all had perfect story lines to date.
For instance, that story about the rag pickers, unofficial pillars of Thailand’s recycling industry, received massive publicity. What would a company get in return from spending Bt30 million on television commercials? Pretty limited mileage once the costs of producing the commercial were deducted. The same amount would have been spent in vain if used for advertisements in mass-circulation newspapers. When was the last time you were so impressed with a print ad that you went right out and bought a product off the shelf? So far, the bottle-cap campaign must be succeeding beyond the maker’s wildest dreams – almost as if it were being plotted and directed. In fact, cynics have already suggested it would make for the perfect Hollywood flick, a conspiracy theory involving manufacturers who go and dump the lucky caps in rubbish piles around town.
The even more cynical among us have questioned the transparency of this type of campaign. Are there really as many lucky caps as are claimed? And could they actually be distributed in such a way so that poor scavengers could be sure to win and spark a fairy-tale media frenzy?
But for those who feel moved by the campaign, nothing else matters. Earning Bt1 million by drinking green tea is infinitely more attractive than working hard to earn it. Aren’t the chances of winning it rather far-fetched? Well, many don’t think so. The gullibility of the masses is a given. We have a prime minister who vows to eliminate poverty in four years, and very few people have any doubts about that, despite spiralling prices. So what’s all the fuss about drinking some green tea? After all, if you win, you don’t have to wait four more years for prosperity to come knocking at your door. It may be wishful thinking, but there’s just no stopping some people from dreaming. Having said that, I think I’ll go and grab one and see if I’m lucky today. Sorry, George, but I feel greedy today!
Published on Mar 19, 2005
Bangkok, it's time to loosen up and live!
It was only in preparation for a recent interview with fashion expert Georgianna Appignani from New York's Fashion Institute of Technology that I started thinking, for the first time in a while, about my own fashion sense. How could I possibly turn up dressed as I do at the office to discuss Bangkok's prospect for becoming a global fashion mecca?
Like many, I was wrong to assume that Appignani was the key to unlocking the latent haute couture vibrancy we assume is lurking in the city, waiting to be unleashed. In fact, her task as an advisor to the Thai Garment Development Foundation is to advise on the establishment of a fashion institute. Somewhat more practical, if less visionary.
Still, according to Appignani, cities don't become fashion hubs without a top-rate fashion institute. She cites the Polimoda institute in Florence, Italy, which she set up and where she served as director from 1992 to 2001. Polimoda, she says, produces the human resources necessary to maintain and build upon Italy's famed fashion industry. China, meanwhile, recently set up two institutes in Donghua and Zhejiang.
The establishment of an institute is the first step towards becoming a fashion city. And such cities don't necessarily have to be the best-dressed, Appignani points out. What's important is that fashions from the city sell well. City residents needn't be fashionistas themselves, though it helps build the overall couture culture, she says.
Appignani steered the conversation away from generalisations about Bangkok's chances of making a real dent in the world of high fashion. She'd much rather discuss building the institute first, and let the good results follow as they will. She's right. How can any one person come here and turn things around to make Bangkok a world fashion destination?
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra loves the idea and last year gave the greenlight to a project to attempt just that very thing.
Good luck, but there remain a few things to be done if we want the plan to have any chance of succeeding. I'll admit I don't have any fashion background to speak of, but here are a few minor items I suggest we improve before we declare our capital a "fashion city".
- Get rid of the dinosaurs in the Culture Ministry. These are the people who openly or secretly criticise the way youngsters dress themselves. With this bunch in positions of power, you can't expect Bangkok to become adventurous and experimental.
- The Education Ministry should revoke the rule requiring college and university uniforms. Students don't have to think about their dress (bad practice for art and fashion students), and they don't need to buy much in the way of clothing because there are so few days they have a choice in their appearance (bad for consumerism in general). Even when uniform designs are adapted to current fashions, it's often met with abuse - like the body-hugging blouses worn by female students, which are denounced as "too sexy".
- Add more pedestrian streets. There are few streets in the city where one can stroll socially. And believe me, without pedestrian-friendly space, there's not much motive for women to don beautiful clothes for an eye-turning stroll on the piazza.
- Get rid of uniforms in government agencies such as the military and the police. They all look so awful and unfriendly. If government officials don't have the freedom to decide how to dress, how does the state think it can somehow promote "creativity" here?
- Install DJs on every street corner to turn the capital into one large "catwalk".
- Make it cheap to dress well! All we talk about is Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Christian Dior, Prada, Versace, Celine, etc. Why? The designer fashions and leatherwear are subject to a luxury-import tax of 20 to 40 per cent. Luxury brands are priced higher than in any other key Asian shopping destination. So we end up selling less even though the brands themselves are well-established. We Thais tend to be attracted to brands for all the wrong reasons - their price tags.
- Replace faux satin motorcycle taxi driver's vests with leather versions by the House of Dior. Imagine how chic the city would be with over 100,000 fashionable motorcyclists in Bangkok at every street corner.
- Change the word "somtam" to "julienned mango al dente with piquant essence of garlic ala Bangkok". All somtam vendors should claim they are "fusion" bistros with limited seating capacity.
- Outlaw the "tropical holiday" look and insist that farangs vacationing in Thailand wear the same clothing they do at home. They can don the "backpacker uniform" only in the restricted zone of Khaosan Road. Gentlemen, let's cover up those vericose veins in the finest grey worsted wool . . . we don't care what the thermometer says!
- Lower the tax on wine and raise it on Dr Pepper.
- Declare Klong Toey Market an "installation art piece". If successful, many more projects could follow, and no need to hide vast tracts of the city from the Apec delegates.
- Conduct all drug tests at the Bed Supper Club and Qbar with Baccarat crystalware.
- All amulets, phalluses and tiger's teeth must be traded through Sotheby's. Anyone caught visiting eBay will be made to go through snob re-education camp.
- Lottery tickets redesigned by Paul Frank, tuk-tuks by Lexus, and at least one daily photo of Naomi Cambell or Kate Moss on the front page of Thai Rath.
- I know the guy's great, but if you really want Bangkok to become a fashion hub, don't vote for Purachai Piumsombun as the next governor. His victory will bring an end to evening dress completely.
- Last but not least, the whole society needs to loosen up. Fashion is about liberty, creativity and respect towards what others are doing.
Published on Sep 13, 2003
Like many, I was wrong to assume that Appignani was the key to unlocking the latent haute couture vibrancy we assume is lurking in the city, waiting to be unleashed. In fact, her task as an advisor to the Thai Garment Development Foundation is to advise on the establishment of a fashion institute. Somewhat more practical, if less visionary.
Still, according to Appignani, cities don't become fashion hubs without a top-rate fashion institute. She cites the Polimoda institute in Florence, Italy, which she set up and where she served as director from 1992 to 2001. Polimoda, she says, produces the human resources necessary to maintain and build upon Italy's famed fashion industry. China, meanwhile, recently set up two institutes in Donghua and Zhejiang.
The establishment of an institute is the first step towards becoming a fashion city. And such cities don't necessarily have to be the best-dressed, Appignani points out. What's important is that fashions from the city sell well. City residents needn't be fashionistas themselves, though it helps build the overall couture culture, she says.
Appignani steered the conversation away from generalisations about Bangkok's chances of making a real dent in the world of high fashion. She'd much rather discuss building the institute first, and let the good results follow as they will. She's right. How can any one person come here and turn things around to make Bangkok a world fashion destination?
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra loves the idea and last year gave the greenlight to a project to attempt just that very thing.
Good luck, but there remain a few things to be done if we want the plan to have any chance of succeeding. I'll admit I don't have any fashion background to speak of, but here are a few minor items I suggest we improve before we declare our capital a "fashion city".
- Get rid of the dinosaurs in the Culture Ministry. These are the people who openly or secretly criticise the way youngsters dress themselves. With this bunch in positions of power, you can't expect Bangkok to become adventurous and experimental.
- The Education Ministry should revoke the rule requiring college and university uniforms. Students don't have to think about their dress (bad practice for art and fashion students), and they don't need to buy much in the way of clothing because there are so few days they have a choice in their appearance (bad for consumerism in general). Even when uniform designs are adapted to current fashions, it's often met with abuse - like the body-hugging blouses worn by female students, which are denounced as "too sexy".
- Add more pedestrian streets. There are few streets in the city where one can stroll socially. And believe me, without pedestrian-friendly space, there's not much motive for women to don beautiful clothes for an eye-turning stroll on the piazza.
- Get rid of uniforms in government agencies such as the military and the police. They all look so awful and unfriendly. If government officials don't have the freedom to decide how to dress, how does the state think it can somehow promote "creativity" here?
- Install DJs on every street corner to turn the capital into one large "catwalk".
- Make it cheap to dress well! All we talk about is Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Christian Dior, Prada, Versace, Celine, etc. Why? The designer fashions and leatherwear are subject to a luxury-import tax of 20 to 40 per cent. Luxury brands are priced higher than in any other key Asian shopping destination. So we end up selling less even though the brands themselves are well-established. We Thais tend to be attracted to brands for all the wrong reasons - their price tags.
- Replace faux satin motorcycle taxi driver's vests with leather versions by the House of Dior. Imagine how chic the city would be with over 100,000 fashionable motorcyclists in Bangkok at every street corner.
- Change the word "somtam" to "julienned mango al dente with piquant essence of garlic ala Bangkok". All somtam vendors should claim they are "fusion" bistros with limited seating capacity.
- Outlaw the "tropical holiday" look and insist that farangs vacationing in Thailand wear the same clothing they do at home. They can don the "backpacker uniform" only in the restricted zone of Khaosan Road. Gentlemen, let's cover up those vericose veins in the finest grey worsted wool . . . we don't care what the thermometer says!
- Lower the tax on wine and raise it on Dr Pepper.
- Declare Klong Toey Market an "installation art piece". If successful, many more projects could follow, and no need to hide vast tracts of the city from the Apec delegates.
- Conduct all drug tests at the Bed Supper Club and Qbar with Baccarat crystalware.
- All amulets, phalluses and tiger's teeth must be traded through Sotheby's. Anyone caught visiting eBay will be made to go through snob re-education camp.
- Lottery tickets redesigned by Paul Frank, tuk-tuks by Lexus, and at least one daily photo of Naomi Cambell or Kate Moss on the front page of Thai Rath.
- I know the guy's great, but if you really want Bangkok to become a fashion hub, don't vote for Purachai Piumsombun as the next governor. His victory will bring an end to evening dress completely.
- Last but not least, the whole society needs to loosen up. Fashion is about liberty, creativity and respect towards what others are doing.
Published on Sep 13, 2003
Thaksin the father fails to impress
It took me by surprise when I saw Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra make his humble, almost tearful plea to the media, urging them to stop dragging his youngest daughter Paetongtarn into the national entrance-exam leak scandal. No, it wasn't the apparently "straightforward" and "sincere" manner of a heartbroken father that struck me. It was the timing of his official response to the explosive issue. The loving father's rise to his child's defence came far too late, not to mention how little it did to heal her deep wounds.
A wise man like Thaksin should have known that the damage had been done and asking people to stop talking about it could well have the reverse effect. Although he singled out the media, he must have been informed that gossip and contempt had gone far beyond what was written in news reports.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of students, have expressed their anger and frustration on websites. Should he check relevant webboards, Thaksin would learn that his daughter had been a target of social punishment long before her father came out to respond to the public.
Thaksin was probably busy familiarising himself with the lives of people in the Northeast, so busy he hardly found time to properly protect his beloved daughter. He won some sympathy, yes, but whether he has done enough as a father, considering the magnitude of rumours and allegations, I have my doubts.
He told the public how his heart was broken to see his daughter weeping when he peeked into her bedroom and how his daughter studied so hard to improve her grades. Some people were moved, but others remained unconvinced. There are parents who have seen their children work equally hard or even harder. There are other mums and dads who have seen their children's tears. The difference is they can't go on television and seek nationwide sympathy.
In the case of Thaksin, some view him as a father struggling to protect his daughter while others took it as another great "act" of our leader. I'm in the latter group. And if anyone asks, I can explain it. As a mother, I'd probably launch into a similar speech, but my protective instincts wouldn't take me on a tour of the Northeast, posing in my Fendi towel, before I opened my mouth to defend my child.
My evaluation: Thaksin did fairly poorly in this see-if-you-are-a-good-father test.
And what about his chief-executive responsibilities? He flunked. Again, the timing was very late and out of proportion. To show the public that he was serious about the investigation, he could have done a lot more. He left the entrance-exam leak controversy develop from a tiny wound into a large, festering sore. This is unlike the decisive man who launched the war on drugs that led to over than 1,000 deaths.
In this entrance-exam episode, Thaksin would have won the public's praise if he had chosen to react soon enough both as a father and as "CEO" of Thailand.
As the leader of the government, he should have at least put more pressure on two men, Education Minister Adisai Bodharamik and former secretary-general of the Higher Education Commission Voradej Chandarasorn. A credible and swift investigation would have overshadowed the rumours and hearsay, thus limiting the damage to innocent people, including those he loves.
Sad to say, he failed to exercise either of the roles when the public needed him to do so.
I ask myself whether, if I were in his shoes, I would do a better job. I'm not sure in the capacity of PM or CEO. But as a mother, I am positive that my instincts would drive in the right direction to defend my child. More importantly, I wouldn't let a political road show become a bigger priority than my daughter, but having said that, I know why I could never be prime minister and why some politicians can't be good fathers.
Published on May 8, 2004
A wise man like Thaksin should have known that the damage had been done and asking people to stop talking about it could well have the reverse effect. Although he singled out the media, he must have been informed that gossip and contempt had gone far beyond what was written in news reports.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of students, have expressed their anger and frustration on websites. Should he check relevant webboards, Thaksin would learn that his daughter had been a target of social punishment long before her father came out to respond to the public.
Thaksin was probably busy familiarising himself with the lives of people in the Northeast, so busy he hardly found time to properly protect his beloved daughter. He won some sympathy, yes, but whether he has done enough as a father, considering the magnitude of rumours and allegations, I have my doubts.
He told the public how his heart was broken to see his daughter weeping when he peeked into her bedroom and how his daughter studied so hard to improve her grades. Some people were moved, but others remained unconvinced. There are parents who have seen their children work equally hard or even harder. There are other mums and dads who have seen their children's tears. The difference is they can't go on television and seek nationwide sympathy.
In the case of Thaksin, some view him as a father struggling to protect his daughter while others took it as another great "act" of our leader. I'm in the latter group. And if anyone asks, I can explain it. As a mother, I'd probably launch into a similar speech, but my protective instincts wouldn't take me on a tour of the Northeast, posing in my Fendi towel, before I opened my mouth to defend my child.
My evaluation: Thaksin did fairly poorly in this see-if-you-are-a-good-father test.
And what about his chief-executive responsibilities? He flunked. Again, the timing was very late and out of proportion. To show the public that he was serious about the investigation, he could have done a lot more. He left the entrance-exam leak controversy develop from a tiny wound into a large, festering sore. This is unlike the decisive man who launched the war on drugs that led to over than 1,000 deaths.
In this entrance-exam episode, Thaksin would have won the public's praise if he had chosen to react soon enough both as a father and as "CEO" of Thailand.
As the leader of the government, he should have at least put more pressure on two men, Education Minister Adisai Bodharamik and former secretary-general of the Higher Education Commission Voradej Chandarasorn. A credible and swift investigation would have overshadowed the rumours and hearsay, thus limiting the damage to innocent people, including those he loves.
Sad to say, he failed to exercise either of the roles when the public needed him to do so.
I ask myself whether, if I were in his shoes, I would do a better job. I'm not sure in the capacity of PM or CEO. But as a mother, I am positive that my instincts would drive in the right direction to defend my child. More importantly, I wouldn't let a political road show become a bigger priority than my daughter, but having said that, I know why I could never be prime minister and why some politicians can't be good fathers.
Published on May 8, 2004
The contentious issue of film-ratings revisited
When the 2nd World Film Festival of Bangkok wraps up tomorrow, it could leave a significant mark on the Thai film industry, as the organisers plan to forward the outcome of filmgoers’ votes to the government offices grappling with the long-delayed and contentious issue of movie ratings.
Postcards will also be sent to parliamentarians to seek support for a bill to introduce Thailand’s very first film-rating system. The issue is also being taken up at major mass-communications faculties at Chulalongkorn, Thammasat, Bangkok and Rangsit universities.
While it might be a fledging first step by film enthusiasts to address the growing need for film-rating in Thailand, it is a movement that reflects two major implications. First, it demonstrates public acknowledgement of the benefits of having such a system and the will to push for it. But at the same time, everyone seems to want a guarantee that this system will be independent of government control.
It won’t be easy. Opponents of ratings are afraid that any system may fall into a “legal trap” that would keep provocative innovations at bay. And there’s the commercial reason, as youngsters are a fast-growing market here.
Yet we need to do something. The Thai film industry is no longer in its infancy. It has made great leaps and achieved exposure and recognition domestically and internationally. Meanwhile, globalisation has brought countless imported films, mainly from Hollywood. We have come to a point where regulations need to be updated and a balance struck between accommodating the growing talents in the domestic industry and taking into account vulnerabilities of children and young audiences.
But we are somewhat fortunate that almost all imported movies have been rated at the original source, so the task of applying ratings can be focused on locally made films and unrated foreign films.
The debate on the pros and cons continues. The foremost benefit is certainly the protection of children from unsuitable content. Here in Thailand, we often associate youth with deviant behaviour, but we adults – parents, teachers, politicians and policy-makers – have done little to protect them.
Most people tend to zero in on sexual content as dangerous, but it is not the only thing that the young are ill equipped to be exposed to and absorb. In fact, excessive on-screen violence can do children more harm than sexual content. Introducing film ratings will certainly help guard them until they are mature enough to interpret such content realistically.
Many adults, especially parents, have dropped their guard. On weekends many parents take their children to cinemas to see the movies they like to see. Many assume that Thai films are for children because they can understand the story lines well. This is dangerous. Thousands of children are exposed to realistic violent and sexual content from which they would have been excluded had ratings been applied and enforced.
Ratings would encourage parents to be more cautious about a film’s content. At least they would have a way to judge what their children should be allowed to see.
Cinema-operators too would be encouraged to conform. There are times when they show family films but children are exposed to trailers for films that elsewhere would be rated as unsuitable for young audiences.
Surprisingly, we have relied solely on official censorship for the past several decades. The United States has used its Motion Picture Association of America film-rating system since 1968, while Britain first introduced the British Board of Film Censors in 1912, before changing the name to the British Board of Film Classification in 1984. Although Thailand has a National Censorship Board, it doesn’t work independently, as do it’s US and UK counterparts
The Thai National Censorship Board is often subjective and has a “blanket” mentality. The authorities have been bombarded from both sides. On the one hand they are criticised for not appreciating or encouraging artistic freedom and sometimes for discriminating against certain producers. On the other hand censors have been ironically blamed for not providing enough protection for the country’s young citizens.
While liberals lament restrictions on artistic expression, conservatives complain that films that pass censorship are full of nudity, sexuality, violence and improper language.
An independent panel comprising parents’ representatives, academics and artists, among others, could be the solution. For the local film industry, the introduction of an “independent” film-rating system would allow movie-makers to freely exercise their creativity without any barriers, although those in the business must keep in mind that their product will have limited audiences with sensitive content like drugs, nudity and bad language. Ratings would clear away the frustrations film-makers experience over indiscriminate censorship or ignorance of artistic elements by the authorities.
For economic reasons, policy-makers must look closely at how much foreign revenue or repute Thai films like “Satree-Lek”, “Last Life in the Universe”, “Ong-bak”, “Bang Rajan” and “Sud Pralad” brought to Thailand. If cinematic artists could work more freely under the guidance of a rating system, Thai movies would become second to none in the global market in terms of quality, diversity, boldness and creativity.
Compromise and a rational approach are the key. Enjoying “Eyes Wide Shut” or “Kill Bill” is one thing, but finding out that our 12-year-old daughters have seen them too is quite another.
Published on Oct 23, 2004
Postcards will also be sent to parliamentarians to seek support for a bill to introduce Thailand’s very first film-rating system. The issue is also being taken up at major mass-communications faculties at Chulalongkorn, Thammasat, Bangkok and Rangsit universities.
While it might be a fledging first step by film enthusiasts to address the growing need for film-rating in Thailand, it is a movement that reflects two major implications. First, it demonstrates public acknowledgement of the benefits of having such a system and the will to push for it. But at the same time, everyone seems to want a guarantee that this system will be independent of government control.
It won’t be easy. Opponents of ratings are afraid that any system may fall into a “legal trap” that would keep provocative innovations at bay. And there’s the commercial reason, as youngsters are a fast-growing market here.
Yet we need to do something. The Thai film industry is no longer in its infancy. It has made great leaps and achieved exposure and recognition domestically and internationally. Meanwhile, globalisation has brought countless imported films, mainly from Hollywood. We have come to a point where regulations need to be updated and a balance struck between accommodating the growing talents in the domestic industry and taking into account vulnerabilities of children and young audiences.
But we are somewhat fortunate that almost all imported movies have been rated at the original source, so the task of applying ratings can be focused on locally made films and unrated foreign films.
The debate on the pros and cons continues. The foremost benefit is certainly the protection of children from unsuitable content. Here in Thailand, we often associate youth with deviant behaviour, but we adults – parents, teachers, politicians and policy-makers – have done little to protect them.
Most people tend to zero in on sexual content as dangerous, but it is not the only thing that the young are ill equipped to be exposed to and absorb. In fact, excessive on-screen violence can do children more harm than sexual content. Introducing film ratings will certainly help guard them until they are mature enough to interpret such content realistically.
Many adults, especially parents, have dropped their guard. On weekends many parents take their children to cinemas to see the movies they like to see. Many assume that Thai films are for children because they can understand the story lines well. This is dangerous. Thousands of children are exposed to realistic violent and sexual content from which they would have been excluded had ratings been applied and enforced.
Ratings would encourage parents to be more cautious about a film’s content. At least they would have a way to judge what their children should be allowed to see.
Cinema-operators too would be encouraged to conform. There are times when they show family films but children are exposed to trailers for films that elsewhere would be rated as unsuitable for young audiences.
Surprisingly, we have relied solely on official censorship for the past several decades. The United States has used its Motion Picture Association of America film-rating system since 1968, while Britain first introduced the British Board of Film Censors in 1912, before changing the name to the British Board of Film Classification in 1984. Although Thailand has a National Censorship Board, it doesn’t work independently, as do it’s US and UK counterparts
The Thai National Censorship Board is often subjective and has a “blanket” mentality. The authorities have been bombarded from both sides. On the one hand they are criticised for not appreciating or encouraging artistic freedom and sometimes for discriminating against certain producers. On the other hand censors have been ironically blamed for not providing enough protection for the country’s young citizens.
While liberals lament restrictions on artistic expression, conservatives complain that films that pass censorship are full of nudity, sexuality, violence and improper language.
An independent panel comprising parents’ representatives, academics and artists, among others, could be the solution. For the local film industry, the introduction of an “independent” film-rating system would allow movie-makers to freely exercise their creativity without any barriers, although those in the business must keep in mind that their product will have limited audiences with sensitive content like drugs, nudity and bad language. Ratings would clear away the frustrations film-makers experience over indiscriminate censorship or ignorance of artistic elements by the authorities.
For economic reasons, policy-makers must look closely at how much foreign revenue or repute Thai films like “Satree-Lek”, “Last Life in the Universe”, “Ong-bak”, “Bang Rajan” and “Sud Pralad” brought to Thailand. If cinematic artists could work more freely under the guidance of a rating system, Thai movies would become second to none in the global market in terms of quality, diversity, boldness and creativity.
Compromise and a rational approach are the key. Enjoying “Eyes Wide Shut” or “Kill Bill” is one thing, but finding out that our 12-year-old daughters have seen them too is quite another.
Published on Oct 23, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)