Thailand, Conservative But Tolerant, May Legalize Gay Marriage | The Irrawaddy Magazine

Thailand, Conservative But Tolerant, May Legalize Gay Marriage | The Irrawaddy Magazine
AMY SAWITTA LEFEVRE / REUTERS WRITER, Wednesday, August 21, 2013

BANGKOK — On a sweltering Saturday night in Bangkok’s Patpong entertainment district, a group of men spill out of a neon-lit bar blasting dance music. Among them is Aashif Hassan and his long-term partner, both visitors from Malaysia.

“We’re celebrating tonight. Where we’re from, it’s illegal to be gay. Here we feel liberated,” said Hassan.

Known for its laissez-faire attitude, Thailand has positioned itself as a holiday destination for gay couples and could soon be cashing in on another niche market if a proposed law makes it the first Asian country to legalize gay marriage.

Other Southeast Asian countries such as Myanmar, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei ban sexual relationships between men, but Thailand has become a regional haven for same-sex couples.

A civil partnership law in the works aims to give lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) couples the same rights as heterosexuals. One lawmaker sees it passing by next year.
Same-sex unions are not currently recognized under Thai law, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. That stops gay couples applying for joint bank loans or medical insurance.

In 2012, a group of lawmakers and LGBT activists formed a committee to draft legislation recognizing same-sex couples. But critics of the law say it will not give a level playing field because it raises the age of consent to 20 from 17 for homosexual couples. For heterosexuals it is 17.

Rights activists have another problem: the law would force transgenders to register their birth gender on their marriage certificate. Thai law makes it impossible for people to change their gender on a national identification document.

Beyond legal aspects, some wonder whether Thailand, quite conservative in many ways, is really ready to blaze this trail.

Homosexuality was decriminalized in 1956 but considered a mental illness as recently as 2002. Many Thai Buddhists believe homosexuality is a punishment for sins committed in a past life.

Superficial Acceptance

In one notorious case in 2011, Nurisan Chedurame, 24, was found dead on her village rubbish dump with her head smashed in. Local media quoted police as saying her involvement with another woman was the reason she was murdered.

That same year, two women thought to have been in a sexual relationship were shot in a rice field outside Bangkok.

A worrying pattern of violent crimes prompted the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission to write to the Thai government in 2012 demanding that police stop dismissing gender-based violence as crimes of passion.

Anjana Suvarnanda, a co-founder of the Anjaree Group, an LGBT rights group, said violence towards lesbians was often blamed on the victims. Many turn to mainstream social networking sites like Facebook to air their grievances.

“Our inbox is overflowing with messages from women whose parents are pressuring them to marry men,” said Anjana.

Thai film and television has no shortage of LGBT stars. But Prempreeda Pramoj Na Ayutthaya, a transgender rights activist and programme officer at UNESCO, the United Nations’ cultural agency, in Bangkok, said acceptance is often superficial.

“The entertainment industry accepts us with open arms because we poke fun at ourselves and make people laugh. But if we want to be taken seriously in a field like medicine we are not afforded the same courtesy,” Prempreeda told Reuters.

Her friends will hesitate to back the draft bill, she said, because they do not want to be identified by their birth gender.

Wiratana Kalayasiri, an opposition lawmaker pushing the civil union bill, said getting it on the agenda was tough as most members of parliament have conservative views on the issue.
“At first they bad-mouthed me and wondered if I would be struck by lightning for backing this,” he said.

But many now see the merits of appealing to LGBT voters, he said, predicting the bill would pass in “less than a year”.

Rights activist Anjana believes there is no time to waste.

When her friend collapsed and fell into a coma, it took hours for staff at a Bangkok hospital to attend to her.

“They insisted her husband sign the medical release form. Her partner is a woman, but the nurses refused to acknowledge this,” said Anjana. “We urgently need the law to protect us. The rest, including less societal pressure, will follow.”

Australia: Gay marriage becomes key issue in election run-in | Asian Correspondent

Australia: Gay marriage becomes key issue in election run-in | Asian Correspondent
Rowena Dela Rosa Yoon, Aug 14, 2013

Marriage equality is one among the priority issues in this year’s federal election scheduled on Sept. 7.

Prime Minister and Australian Labor Party (ALP) leader Kevin Rudd promised that a re-elected government under Labor will put forward a bill that will legalise marriage equality within 100 days. The declaration was made during a debate with Opposition Leader Tony Abbott at the National Press Club in Canberra last Sunday.

PM Kevin Rudd (right) and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott (right) up for federal election.

The ALP has already launched a signature campaign, It’s time: Marriage Equality, to gather support. The party says Rudd needs a strong public endorsement to make what he has promised possible. The signature campaign is up and running with more than 7,000 supporters (as of press time) and counting.

Australian Marriage Equality, an advocacy group at the forefront of the issue, said marriage equality is of urgent concern among young voters. Showing a recent poll conducted by the Australian Institute, the group said the poll indicates that young voters see marriage equality as a “signature issue” that will strongly influence who they vote for. The group also warned that failure of Abbott or the Coalition MPs to make a conscience vote will not get the votes of young people.

The message to candidates is that support for marriage equality is the way to attract young voters….In particular, the message to Tony Abbott and the Coalition is that failure to allow Coalition MPs a conscience vote on marriage equality is driving away young voters.

Abbott, known for his conservative views on gays and lesbians, softened his stance during Sunday’s debate. The opposition leader announced he is supporting gay and lesbian rights.
Abbott, a former Catholic seminarian, has been vilified by his detractors as sexist and homophobic.

However, today he is under fire from various groups after a radio interview in which he said he would not be swayed on “fashion of the moment” issues.

This reinforces his old homophobic view. A few months ago Abbott gave an interview to News Limited Network in which admitted he would not allow a conscience vote on gay marriage while LP’s consistent position was against it.  “Coalition party policy is that marriage is between a man and a woman,” he was quoted as saying.

In a separate interview in 2010, Abbott was asked about his views on homosexuality in which he said, “I probably feel a bit threatened, as so many people do. It’s a fact of life.” He told ABC TV, “There is no doubt that (homosexuality) challenges, if you like, orthodox notions of the right order of things.”

The recent debate then questions Abbott’s sincerity on his election promises.
Rudd said church can keep its tradition, while gays and lesbians will find their way into the system.

Upcoming rallies to support marriage equality (Photo: Gay Marriage Rights in Australia)

The Greens have been supporting GLBTI rights issues (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex individuals). Senator Sarah Hanson-Young and Adam Bandt have bills before Parliament that seek to remove discrimination from the Marriage Act and give same-sex couples the right to marry. The bills, however, have faced tremendous challenge before the conservative majority.

The Greens’ LGBTI spokesperson, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said if Kevin Rudd is genuine about marriage equality, he will need to work across the Parliament and convince all parties from across the political spectrum to work together to achieve marriage equality.
In a party statement, the Greens claims they have led the way on marriage equality and have long been ready and willing to work with all parties to achieve it. ”The Greens plan for a bill to be cosponsored by members of all three parties is the only way to overcome the political impasse and actually achieve equality,” the party said.

Is NZ undermining its ‘greenest country’ status?

Is NZ undermining its ‘greenest country’ status?
Graham Land, Aug 09, 2013

A few years ago New Zealand announced its intention to become the first environmentally sustainable country. By preserving their already pretty well preserved nature, the Kiwis would benefit from eco-tourism. With the shortest history of human habitation and lowest record of human-driven environmental impact, I’d say they had a bit of a head start.

But recently it’s come out that some of New Zealand’s environmental credentials are spurious, especially its “100% Pure” marketing campaign.

Of course no country could live up to being 100% pure environmentally speaking. It’s a bit tautological, anyway. Doesn’t “pure” already denote 100%?

Waikato River. Pic: Abaconda Management Group (Flickr CC)

Recent revelations about contaminated dairy products and polluted rivers have put a stain on New Zealand’s good image. In fact, the two are intertwined.
From Reuters:

More than 60 percent of New Zealand rivers monitored by the Environment Ministry had “poor” or “very poor” water quality and were rated as unsafe for swimming due to pollution.
Dairy farming, which has a lot riding on New Zealand’s strong environmental reputation, has been a significant cause of poor river quality due to fertiliser and effluent runoff. Unlike many other countries, New Zealand cows are kept on grassy pastures year-round, a major selling point for its $9 billion annual global dairy trade.

A 20-year long lack of regulation on farm waste and no regular national reports on the state of its environment (the only OECD country to not do so) are not exactly conducive to becoming the world’s first sustainable nation.

Fortunately sometimes a bit of an international media exposé and accompanying shaming can produce results. In the wake of these revelations, New Zealand’s government has just announced that they will begin producing regular state of the environment reports.
From NZN:

The reporting system will provide information on air, climate and atmosphere, freshwater, marine and land states, with biodiversity as a theme across all five domains.
One environmental domain report will be released every six months and a “comprehensive synthesis” report will be released every three years.

However, New Zealand is not about to stop dairy farming, one of its largest industries. So how is it going to prevent the pollution of its lakes and rivers from agricultural nitrogen runoff?

New Zealand is big on grass-fed dairy cows. Pic: Matthew Flynn (Flickr CC)

At least New Zealanders seem to have quite high standards when it comes to water quality and the environment even if their industry and national government don’t. If the people know about such problems, something is much more likely to be done about them.

Waikato region, home to some of the country’s most beloved lakes and rivers, performed a 20-year study on its waterways. Results were shocking, but have prompted action.
From Fairfax NZ News:

Last year the regional council embarked on its Healthy Rivers: Plan for Change project, a $2.4m initiative to amend the Waikato Regional Plan.
The purpose is to manage adverse effects from discharges to land and water in the Waikato and Waipa catchments.

After all, no one wants to be wandering through lush hills only to find a hobbit floating belly up in an algae-choked mountain lake.

Thailand mulls lifting ban on gay marriage | Asian Correspondent

Thailand mulls lifting ban on gay marriage | Asian Correspondent
Casey Hynes, Aug 02, 2013 

Gay rights and the legalization of same-sex marriage has been a major story around the world this summer, particularly with the fall of the United States’ Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which for years prevented same-sex couples from receiving federal recognition.
Now it appears that Thailand might also take steps toward equality gay couples by becoming the first Southeast Asian nation to allow same-sex marriage. A draft of a new law that will be submitted to parliament would give same-sex couples in Thailand the right to legally marry, according to InterPress Service News Agency (IPS).

This effort toward marriage equality is being led by politician Wiratana Kalayasiri, who also chairs the Legal Justice Human Rights Committee.

IPS quotes Kalayasiri as saying, “At first, there was a negative impression and people were wondering why I was doing this but as this process went on people started to understand that this is a human right of the Thai people, guaranteed under the constitution. Since then minds have changed.”

Many have pointed to the 2012 case in which a couple who had been together for 20 years tried to marry legally, and were denied by authorities in the northern Thai city of Chiang Mai. That couple insisted that they were guaranteed equal rights under the constitution and brought their case to the Parliamentary Human Rights Commission, the Administrative Court and the National Human Rights Commission.

Kalayasiri described the support he has already seen for the proposed law.

“We have held five hearings on the bill at several universities throughout Thailand and in parliament as well. A survey of 200-300 people showed that 78 percent are in favour of allowing same-sex marriage and 10.3 percent are against it,” he said.

“I was particularly surprised when we went to Songkhla [a city of roughly 75,000 people] for a public meeting and 87 percent of Muslims in attendance were in favour [of gay marriage].”

The Asian Diplomat noted that while youth in Thailand are generally accepting of LGBT individuals and gay couples, older generations are more rigidly opposed – and it’s this demographic that does the decision-making in parliament. The situation is not unique to Thailand, but staunch anti-gay marriage sentimentality or discrimination against LGBT people seems strange in a country where “ladyboys” are such a prominent part of the culture.

But even they are discriminated against, as transgendered people cannot change their genders or names on major forms of identification, an issue that IPS says leads to harassment and a host of problems in instances such as border crossings.

In addition to the simple fact that all people should be able to marry whomever they choose, many activists in the gay rights fight acknowledge that the legal issues and protections are vital components as well.

LGBT activist Anjana Suvarnananda was quoted as saying, “If there is a severe accident or health issue, like if my partner becomes ill, then in the eyes of the law I am no one other than just a friend. This forces us [in the LGBT community] to struggle by ourselves. We want more security.”

IPS noted that the passage of a this type of law could have far-reaching effects when it comes to public health as well. The news service stated that:

Thailand has the highest adult HIV rate in Southeast Asia, with nearly 520,000 people between the ages of 15 and 49 living with HIV/AIDS; a 2010 survey in Bangkok found that 31 percent of gay men and transgendered people are HIV-positive.

In a society that was more accepting of gay and transgender people and relationships, there might be more incentive to get tested for HIV/AIDS and other medical conditions, thereby reducing the infection rate over the long-term.

Thailand is a major player in Southeast Asia, enmeshed in the region’s economic and political future. If Thailand were to make same-sex marriage legal, it could signal to other countries that this is a right that should be granted to citizens and promote greater tolerance and understanding there as well.

Change will not happen in Thailand overnight, but hopefully with continuing pressure from activists and from the public, the government will let people marry whomever they want, and take on names they have chosen for themselves.

In Burma, Internal Spy Network Lives On

In Burma, Internal Spy Network Lives On
TODD PITMAN / AP WRITER, Monday, July 29, 2013


MANDALAY — It’s been two years since Burma’s new government promised its people a more open way of life, but still they come, plainclothes state intelligence officers asking where former student activist Mya Aye is and when he’ll back.

Politicians, journalists, writers, diplomats, too, find themselves being watched: Men on motorcycles tailing closely. The occasional phone call. The same, familiar faces at crowded street cafes.

“It’s not as bad as it used to be,” said Mya Aye, who devotes much of his time today campaigning for citizen’s rights, “but it’s really annoying. They act like we’re criminals, harassing us, our families. It’s disrespectful and intimidating. It shouldn’t be this way anymore.”

Mya Aye was one of the student leaders of a failed uprising in 1988 against the repressive military junta that ruled for nearly five decades and employed a colossal network of intelligence agents to crack down on dissent.

In years past, he and thousands of other dissidents were hauled off to jail, instilling widespread fear in the hearts of a downtrodden population to ensure that nobody spoke out.

The level of oppression has eased markedly since President Thein Sein, a former army general, took office in 2011 after an opposition-boycotted election. But while many political prisoners have been released, newspapers are no longer censored and freedom of speech has largely become a reality, the government has not ceased spying on its own people.

“Old habits die hard,” said lawmaker Win Htein of the opposition National League for Democracy party, who spent nearly 20 years in prison during the military reign. He spoke to The Associated Press by telephone in a conversation he feared was being tapped by police.
Every day, six to eight officers from various security departments can be seen at a tea shop across the street from the opposition party headquarters, jotting down who comes and goes and snapping the occasional picture.

It is unknown how many intelligence agents are active nationwide, but at least two major information gathering services are still operating: the Office of Military Affairs Security and the notorious Special Branch police, which reports to the Ministry of Home Affairs.

A well-connected, middle-ranking officer, speaking on condition he not be named because he didn’t have authorization to talk to the media, said there are no top-down orders these days to follow a particular individual. Young, often-inexperienced agents instead are told to keep tabs on new faces or unusual movement in their “patch,” and then inform their bosses.
And so they do, often in crude or comic fashion, with little or no effort to be discreet.

When Associated Press journalists went to the city of Meikhtila to inspect a neighborhood destroyed by sectarian violence earlier this year, the watchers were everywhere, two men trailing close behind on motorcycles.

Yet more waited outside the hotel in Mandalay as the reporting team tried to find ways to lose them – finally entering a crowded temple and then slipping out the back – so they could interview massacre survivors so worried of being harassed by authorities that they would not even speak in their own homes.

Presidential spokesman Ye Htut insisted those days are over: “Special Branch is no longer monitoring on journalists.” Asked to comment further, he said the story is “based on false assumptions,” so he could not.

Human Rights Watch says intelligence gathering services tortured prisoners and detainees during military rule by using sleep deprivation or kicking and beating some of them until they lost consciousness. During another failed uprising, the 2007 monk-led Saffron Revolution, Special Branch officers videotaped and photographed protests, and then used the images to identify and detain thousands of people.

There are still reports of arrest, detention and sometimes torture, said David Mathieson, an expert on Burma for New York-based Human Rights Watch, but the number of incidents has fallen sharply, in part because activist groups and media report them when they happen.

State intelligence is still tracking targets out of “habit and continued paranoia,” he said. “The secret police are often the last people to embrace a transition, especially when so many of their past victims and opponents, such as former political prisoners and activists, are a central component of the transition and reform process.”

“The challenges for them now are that there are far more people to monitor, Burmese and foreigners, and a much less certain mission and confused political program,” he said. “Before 2011, the police, courts and military could use the rule of law to intimidate their opponents, cow journalists and throw critics in prison. They don’t have a green-light to do this anymore, so they have to be careful.”

Land rights activist Win Cho has his own way of dealing with the problem: He informs on himself.

“I just tell them everything I’m going to do,” he said. He often travels outside the city of Rangoon to advocate for farmers who are fighting against land grabs by the rich and powerful. “If we’re having a protest, I call the Special Branch and tell them where, when and how. Then they don’t bother following me. They know everything already.”

Local police also employ their own intelligence agents. One who followed the AP journalists in Meikhtila acknowledged following Win Htein in the same city in recent months, though he declined to say why. The opposition lawmaker had been critical of the failure of police and authorities to rein in sectarian violence there.

When an AP team visited a Muslim neighborhood in the western city of Sittwe, half a dozen police carrying assault rifles followed every step of the way, writing down everything they heard in notebooks. Police officers also appeared during interviews at camps for those displaced by sectarian violence – and sometimes afterward, asking whom the journalists had spoken to and what they asked.

Earlier this year, an obligatory three-man escort from the police anti-drug division, the Central Committee for Drug Abuse Control, tagged along when an AP team traveled with the UN drug agency through the rugged mountains of eastern Shan state.

They said they were there for the journalists’ safety in a region where an ethnic insurgency has thrived for decades. But they also filmed the journalists extensively during interviews with villagers. Every night, the police faxed a multipage handwritten report to their headquarters in the capital, Naypyidaw.

Asked why, the chief minder, police Maj. Zaw Min Oo, said: “We like to keep a record of what you do, who you talk to, what you eat … you are our guests.”

Analysis: China wary of Japan after Abe’s big election win | Asian Correspondent

Analysis: China wary of Japan after Abe’s big election win | Asian Correspondent
Michele Penna, Jul 25, 2013

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe triumphed in the election for the upper house earlier this week, with the Liberal Democrats obtaining 65 of the 121 seats up for grabs. Together with their smallerA Buddhist partner, they can now muster a majority in Parliament, which counts 242 seats. The Liberal Democratic Party must be rejoicing. But what does China – up to now rather at odds with the Japan’s new administration – think of it?

The Global Times, a traditionally nationalistic outlet, does not have much optimism to share. “Abe’s toughness against China will be further fuelled… It’s hard to ease the Sino-Japan relationship at large,” reads an article published on June 23. The paper dismisses Mr Abe’s declaration that the bilateral relationship between Beijing and Tokyo is one of the most important diplomatic connections to both sides as a cliché and foresees that China “shouldn’t expect any détente in the bilateral relationship during his term.”

Others, too, highlighted that a stronger administration in Japan could mean a tougher position on the international stage, much to the dismay of the Chinese government. China Daily wrote that “Abe is moving toward security policy changes that mark a big shift in a country that has prided itself on pacifist ideals even as it built up a military bigger than Britain’s. Among those changes are an expected reinterpretation of the constitution… Another is a review of defense policies that includes a consideration of acquiring the capability to attack enemy bases when an attack is imminent and no other options exist, and creation of a Marines division to protect remote islands such as those at the core of a heated territorial row with China.”

Opinions on Weibo, the Chinese Twitter, were not as many as one might expect, but those who took the time to comment were clear-cut in their thoughts. “War maniac! He should get a lesson!” wrote one. “The dog is about to come out and bite!” warned another. Taking a more balanced position, a netizen gave experts some food for thought in the debate on Asian nationalism: “the path Japan has taken looks more and more like that of Germany in 1931, what will happen next will be the legitimization of the army and its expansion. They will engage in provocations and move to oversea areas. The U.S. is like Chamberlain, supporting Japan in order to deal with China and nevertheless will become a victim. We must be aware of this trend.”

(READ MORE: New China coast guard ships seen in disputed area)

Mr Abe, the grandson of Nobusuke Kishi, prime minister of Japan from 1957 to 1960 and former member of the Tojo Cabinet during the Second World War, is outspoken about his plans to revive Japan’s role in international affairs. He does not shy away from nationalism: in the past, he said he was looking forward to replacing the 1995 apology offered by Tokyo to Second World War’s victims and government members have criticized the way in which history is taught in Japanese schools for a lack of patriotism.

Last Wednesday, in a show of patriotism right before the election, Mr Abe visited a vessel on Ishigaki, an island close to the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku group. He reportedly told the crew that “Japan faces a grim security environment because Chinese vessels are frequently sailing to areas close to our waters, and there are consistent provocations targeted at us… I will continue to take charge and defend our territory, territorial waters and territorial airspace.”

The most controversial move envisaged by Japan’s new leader is the modification of Japan’s pacifist Constitution, which everybody believes would cause anger among Beijing authorities. In June, the Prime Minister told the public he would raise the issue after the election. The chief target seems to be Article 9, according to which “Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes,” vowing that “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.” To be sure, Japan has an army, and a sophisticated one, too, but Tokyo cannot use it like other nations do.

While constitutional changes could be a major issue in the future, a short term irritant could be a visit to the notorious Yasukuni Shrine, where Japanese leaders convicted as war criminals are honored along thousands soldiers who died in the Second World War. As the anniversary of Japan’s defeat in the conflict on August 15 nears, eyes are fixed on the Prime Minister.

Manus Island, the new “promised land” for refugees seeking Australia | Asia News – Asian Correspondent

Manus Island, the new “promised land” for refugees seeking Australia | Asia News –  Asian Correspondent
Rowena Dela Rosa Yoon, Jul 20, 2013

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has come up with his own Papua New Guinea Solution to deal with boat arrivals containing people seeking asylum in Australia. In doing so he has scrapped predecessor Julia Gillard’s Pacific Solution Mark II and embarked on a bold move towards border protection while still operating within the parameters of the UN refugee convention.

Rudd sealed the deal with his counterpart, Papua New Guinea Prime Minister Peter O’Neill, in Queensland on Friday in a mutually beneficial pact: PNG will take in asylum seekers in exchange for a wide range of economic and social benefits, including funding assistance for education and health reforms, as well as security. The pact is reported to cost billions of dollars.

PNG will be the asylum seekers’ processing hub and refugees will be resettled in PNG. They will not be reverted back to Australia.

“Asylum seekers who are determined to be genuine refugees will therefore have a country of settlement, namely Papua New Guinea,” Rudd announced.

Rudd also projected a positive economic outlook for PNG as a result of the deal, although local people are reported to be pessimistic on the impact of overcrowding and severe “culture shock.”



Located in the north, Manus Island is the smallest province in PNG with an area of 2,100 square kilometres. As of a 2011 Census, it had a population of 50,321.

Rudd said the new pact would set ”no limit” to the number of people who will now be diverted to PNG, ignoring the fact that it is estimated that more than 15,000 asylum seekers have sought to arrive in Australia in the first six months of 2013.

Detention centres in Manus have been criticised for their poor living conditions. About 215 people live there in makeshift shelters and tents. The expansion of facilities on Manus Island is underway, including a 600-bed facility due for completion in January 2014. Manus Island can only accommodate a maximum of 3,000 people.