Filed under: Culture, Health, People, Travel, Uncategorized | Tags: Andaman Sea, Bangkok, beaches, Bee Bee Bungalows, boat trip, boats, cooking, Emerald Cave, guesthouse, Hat Khlong Khong, Hollywood, hotel, island-hopping, islands, Khlong Khong beach, Ko Lanta, Koh Lanta, Krabi, Lonely Planet, motorbike rental, motorbike scam, motorbikes, movie, Open Water, pad Thai, police, press, rental scam, scuba, scuba diving, sea, snorkelling, swimming, Thai food, Thai language, Thai police, Thailand, tourism, translator
Island-hopping fun in Ko Lanta
If it’s the people that make a place, then Ko Lanta’s beauty is merely superficial.
An Andaman Sea island district in Krabi province, inevitably it boasts clean, warm sea water, miles of beaches, countless palm trees and a laidback atmosphere that attracts many visitors.
However, such assets lose their allure once a visitor experiences human failings on Lanta that range from merely unprofessional through to dangerous and even criminal.
I love Krabi. In fact, I’d probably rank it my favourite Thai province outside of Bangkok. So I will doubtless return, although I’ll lose no sleep if I never set foot on Lanta again after a shambolic final day which involved worry, danger, frustration, anger and eventually the police.
Last week, I spent three days on Lanta with my visiting step-brother, Andy, and his friend, Steve. It was OK for two of the days, save for a couple of minor reservations with the accommodation. We chose Bee Bee Bungalows on Khlong Khong beach, primarily because it was given the “Our Pick” rating by Lonely Planet. But sometimes the accolade precipitates a downturn in standards, because it guarantees custom and the proprietors may then cease making an effort.
At least the prices at Bee Bee had not been ramped up – another common side-effect of Lonely Planet backing – and you can’t really argue with 400 baht (£8) per night for a bungalow sleeping three people. The bungalow itself was fine for the price and the location was OK. The beach was overly rocky but swimming possible at high tide, and the stretch of coast was rather undeveloped, which can be what a lot of people are looking for – quiet, calm and with a “faraway” character.
However the staff were sorely lacking. There was often nobody at reception and we’d have to wander around the complex looking for someone. Even when there was somebody nearby, it was often difficult to catch their attention from our table without shouting or walking over to them. The kitchen was agonisingly slow. Even when we were the only ones ordering food one afternoon, it took 20 minutes to make one sandwich and 35 minutes to fry some pad Thai. Ridiculous.
But you might argue they were merely “normal” staff. Surely the manager would be competent. Unfortunately not. Clearly the man (I didn’t get his name) was not well schooled in the concept of keeping his customers happy and safe.
On the second day, the three of us rented motorbikes from a nearby shop and pottered around the island without incident. We returned the bikes the next morning before joining an island-hopping boat trip. It was a shambles – and a dangerous one – from start to finish.
I’ll come back to the Bee Bee manager and the rental bikes later. The boat trip – nominally by a company calling itself Four Islands Centre Riviera Tour – failed to deliver on almost every front.
First of all, the boatmen had taken a payment to transport a couple to a resort not on the itinerary. This added an hour to the journey out and meant one of the scheduled stops was scrapped.
That little bit of side-business complete, the first stop was to visit the Emerald Cave, inside a rocky island which had no shore, just a cliff dropping into the sea. I was snorkelling around rocks with other people, when suddenly there were no other people. The man leading the cave excursion had obviously taken the others through, but had not told me, nor had he done a head count.
I was alone – and that was when I spotted our boat leaving! With nowhere to stand or sit or even hold on to (all the rocks were covered with razor-sharp shells), I was left to tread water in the midst of the Indian Ocean. I can swim well and I’m fit, but at that point I had no idea how long I’d be left like that. The Hollywood movie Open Water – when a couple are left behind while scuba-diving and are later devoured by sharks – came to mind quite quickly.
At least Andy and Steve were also on the tour and they would notice my absence sooner rather than later. But after a while they emerged from the cave entrance (they thought I’d gone ahead of them rather than having been left behind) and were also pretty unhappy with their own turn of events.
The cave bores through to the other side of the island, where the boat picks up the swimmers – or at least those not left behind. Andy and Steve were at the back of the pack following the sole tour guide, who had a small torch and led the swimmers too quickly, rounding a corner and leaving the last two in pitch-black darkness, neck-deep in water and with no idea of which way they had come from. And the guide had not maintained a headcount nor turned back at the loss of two people.
Andy and Steve eventually made their way out – not before Andy raised a welt on his head after striking it on a rock – and they too were left to tread water with me.
At least it’s a popular tour spot, so before long we were resting on another boat which had pulled up and allowed us to sit on it. Finally our own boat returned and the day continued.
A Ko Lanta boat trip buffet
After another – thankfully hassle-free – island stop, we paused for lunch. After proceeding gingerly over the shallows of a beach strewn with jagged dead coral, we sat down for what was advertised as a “buffet lunch”, to be served a polystyrene punnet of cold rice, some cold soup with a bit of celery in it, and some cold tinned fish.
Then it was back on to the boat – which was very nearly driven straight into the side of another parked one. This was only averted by one of our fellow passengers sitting on the prow who was strong enough to keep them pushed apart.
Finally, on the way back, the boat’s steering wheel came off in the driver’s hands. Literally. By now, we and our fellow passengers just wanted to get back to shore but we had to wait longer still while our bungling duo of “tour guides” fixed their latest mishap.
We got back safe and sound – somehow! – and reported what had happened to the guesthouse manager, as we had booked the tour through him. We sought a discount, and he said he could knock all of 50 baht (£1) off it! That was not acceptable, because apart from not delivering on the advertised package, the tour was actually dangerous. The manager told us he couldn’t discount further because he’d get in trouble with the boat operators. Apparently the safety of his guests was less of a consideration, and even when I pointed out that dealing with such people reflects badly on him and his business, that didn’t seem to register. But then why would it, when his business is “Our Pick” in Lonely Planet?
We stood firm on wanting a larger discount when yet more trouble reared its head in the form of a woman from the motorbike rental shop.
Although happy enough with the state of the three motorcycles we’d returned at 8am, now they were claiming I had damaged one of them. The Bee Bee manager said they’d first come round at lunchtime, which meant a good four or five hours had passed since they’d happily taken the bikes back. In that time, a scratch had turned up on the front of the bike. Probably they’d tipped it over themselve and then sought to hit us for the repair bill. But I had a playing card.
As we’d still been riding at night the previous day, Steve had pointed out the back light didn’t work, and so made a point of riding behind me from then on so as to ensure my safety. I opened “negotiations” with the bike shop woman by demanding to know why she rented unsafe vehicles. She wouldn’t answer that, only repeatedly saying I’d had an accident. Eventually she said if I didn’t want to pay for repairs, she’d tell the police. I said she was welcome to, so I could report her for renting unsafe vehicles.
To my mind, it was “even” – if she didn’t report me, I wouldn’t report her. After all, the scratch was my word against hers, but the back light was indisputable as it hadn’t been fixed. She’d save herself trouble by not proceeding, but she wanted money – and I wasn’t going to give her any.
She called my bluff and the police came around, along with another woman, the driver from the boat tour and a man from the bike shop. It was apparently an attempt at intimidation. I was surprised they were so dogged, but I was determined to keep calling their bluff in return, so off to the cop shop we went, with Andy and Steve in tow for backup.
I still hadn’t yet told them I was a Thai resident rather than a mere tourist, nor that I worked for the press, nor had I spoken a word of Thai. I figured these were “weapons” I could pull out later if need be. Sometimes it works to not show your whole arsenal immediately. But also having lived here for a few years and working in the media has instilled in me a knowledge that Thai police are often not the most honourable of people, so I knew not to press my luck too far. I’d state my case and see where the cards fell – if the police were on the take, then paying up would be the path of least resistance.
Translator's accommodation offer
The translator clearly favoured the woman. His opening words were to ask us if we wanted to spend a week in jail! His job should have been simply to interpret what each person was saying for the monolingual officer on duty, but he took it upon himself to cross-examine me. At least I got him to admit that renting motorbikes with broken lights is a crime. Therefore I stuck to my position that I wouldn’t pay and that if she pressed charges against me, I’d press charges against her. So finally she decided not to go that route and the officer washed his hands of the matter. But the translator was still pushing for a cash resolution. As he put it, “if you’re a gentleman, you’ll pay her”. Sorry, but I’m only a gentleman for ladies, not for con artists.
The way he talked also insinuated that it would be in my best interests to pay something, and he suggested a sum of 1,000 baht (£20), which was way too much. But before anything could be negotiated, the woman drove away on the offending motorbike – broken back light and all (it was after dark by now).
On the ride back to the guesthouse, Andy suggested 200 baht – the price of a day’s rental – would be a fair amount. After all, as far as the police and the translator knew I may indeed have been guilty, as it had been simply her word versus mine.
Assuming she would be at the guesthouse, we had the money ready, but she wasn’t there. We waited a while, but she didn’t come. Andy even went to her house to hand her the cash, but nobody answered the door. By the next morning, when we left Lanta, there had been no sign of her. That confirmed her guilt for me.
I’d imagine in 99% of such instances – and the rental scam, plus its variants, are not uncommon in Thailand – more inexperienced folk baulk at the mention of police and pay up. But what I objected to most was that the Bee Bee manager could do nothing to help his guests. The scam was just one of those things – dishonourable people trying to make a dishonourable buck – but he must know of it and should fight his guests’ corner.
But more important was the boat trip issue. That was downright dangerous. Breakdowns at sea, near-crashes and, unforgivably, leaving passengers in the open ocean and in pitch-black sea caves. That such a shoddy business exists is bad enough, but the Bee Bee manager continuing to take bookings for them – and commission from them – and then offering distressed guests insulting discounts of ONE POUND is pitiful.
I will likely never go back to Ko Lanta. By all means visit yourself, and it is a geographically pleasant island, but DO NOT rent a motorbike on Khlong Kong beach, lest you may be scammed, DO NOT book a four-island tour, specifically not with Four Island Centre Riviera Tour, or you will literally be placing your safety in the hands of incompetents, and DO NOT stay at Bee Bee Bungalows, no matter what the Lonely Planet says, because if you experience any trouble they WILL NOT help you.
Filed under: News, People, politics, Thai news, Uncategorized | Tags: tourism, UK, Britain, Thai politics, massage parlours, business, media, Bangkok, politics, United Kingdom, anti-government protests, yellow shirts, People's Alliance for Democracy, PAD, UDD, Somchai Wongsawat, People Power Party, Democrat Party, Abhisit Vejjajiva, Samak Sundaravej, Thaksin Shinawatra, Great Britain, prime minister, protests, death, corruption, sex, massage, entertainment, babies, United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, Red Shirts, education, dogs, Thaland, Thai general election, Thai election, general election, election, Democrats, Abhisit, GB, Oxford University, Oxford, Thaksin, red Shirt protests, riots, Ben Owen-Browne, Suthep Thaugsuban, Suthep, United Nations, UN, Pheu Thai, Yingluck Shinawatra, Yingluck, Satan, prison, jail, nepotism, PPP, Rak Prathet Thai, Chuwit Kamolvisit, Chuvit Kamolvisit, Chuwit, Chuvit, cronyism, animals, women, bribes, police, Vote No, lizard, buffalo, monkey, high school, demographics
But as the election and its major players started to take shape, I started to think that even if I could vote, I would no longer be able to do so with conviction. That’s not because the campaigning has been so strong that it would be hard to pick which candidate would be best. Far from it. Now, it would be more a case of choosing the lesser evil.
With that in mind, let’s take a look at the major contenders – with “con” being the operative syllable.
DEMOCRAT PARTY – ABHISIT VEJJAJIVA
What happens when you judge a book by its cover? 92 people die.
Abhisit is the incumbent Prime Minister and head of the Democrat Party, which leads the coalition government installed by parliamentary vote in December 2008.
Young, photogenic, Oxford-educated and multilingual, Abhisit’s arrival as PM was largely hailed at the time. He was more charismatic than his immediate – and immediately forgettable – predecessor Somchai Wongsawat, more media-friendly than the cranky Samak Sundaravej, who came before Somchai, and stepped into office with a corruption-free reputation. The latter point was a feather in the cap of the Democrats’ supporters and/or the opponents of Thaksin Shinawatra, who at the time was only a few months into his self-imposed exile which followed a corruption conviction.
Abhisit was lauded as the first Thai premier to take office without any corruption stains on his copybook. But it speaks volumes of the state of Thai politics that a country’s leader should be celebrated for something many nations would take as a prerequisite of leadership
Despite all the high-level international education, clean reputation and good looks, the evidence of Abhisit’s premiership all points to someone sorely lacking in ability to effectively govern a country and its people.
The biggest example of this, of course, is last year’s Red Shirt anti-government protests which ran for a protracted two months and culminated in the riots which saw iconic buildings across Bangkok torched and Thailand hitting the front pages and news bulletins of mass media worldwide for about the worst possible reasons one could imagine for a country which prides and promotes itself as a safe, friendly tourism destination.
Downtown Bangkok goes up in flames, May 19, 2010. (Photo by www.benowenbrowne.com)
And more important than that distressing imagery was the death toll – 92 people were confirmed killed in the protests (not counting those who remain “missing”), most of them civilians. For sure, most of those deaths could have been avoided. It doesn’t matter what your political stance is, nor does it matter what you think of the Red Shirts and their actions. That the Prime Minister bungled the handling of the crisis to such a degree that almost a hundred people were killed would have led to his resignation in almost any civilised country.
I’m not saying Abhisit was wrong to break up the protests. After all, parts of the city were being held to ransom and innocent people’s daily lives were being affected. But if he’d taken decisive action much earlier, the outcome wouldn’t have been nearly so bad. Sure, it would have been an unpopular move with some, but in trying not to upset people he came across as weak, emboldened the protesters, and ultimately presided over a disaster.
That he didn’t step down counts against him. That he has refused to apologise counts against him. His idiotic attempts to look like a common man on the campaign trail by planting rice in a tailored white shirt count against him. His buffoon of a deputy, Suthep Thaugsuban, with his comments that he “doesn’t trust foreigners” when rejecting a UN investigation into the protests and then saying the army didn’t kill anybody at the rallies but “the protesters ran in front of the bullets” counts against him, and the Democrat Party as a whole, big time.
PHEU THAI - YINGLUCK SHINAWATRA
What's in a name? POWER, if your surname is Shinawatra.
A lot of people will vote Democrat simply because they don’t like Thaksin Shinawatra. On the other hand, a lot of people will vote for Pheu Thai simply because they DO like him. He’s the most divisive figure in Thai politics. People either love him or hate him. He’s either Satan or a saviour. There’s no middle sentiment.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, those who love Thaksin make up the majority of the Thai population, which has been borne out by Thaksin-helmed parties winning by a landslide in the past two elections. But the fact he was deposed in a coup, and that his following proxy government was overthrown by the Yellow Shirts in 2008, shows that popular sentiment is hardly the decisive factor when it comes to choosing governments and leaders.
Unfortunately for Thaksin’s supporters, not only is he unable to become the next prime minister, but he can’t even return to Thailand without being jailed. He fled the country in 2008, after which a two-year prison sentence was handed to him in absentia for corruption offences. If he returns, he will have to serve the jail term.
But that’s not to say he’s not involved in Thailand’s affairs. Far from it. Just look at the family name of prime ministerial candidate of the party he leads in all but official status. That’s right – Yingluck Shinawatra is Thaksin’s sister.
Now, I know nepotism is a big part of business and politics in Thailand, but this is ridiculous. Thaksin isn’t even trying to pretend Pheu Thai’s No.1 is there on merit or that he isn’t really the boss. Pheu Thai have said that if they form the next government, they will push for an amnesty for anyone convicted of political offences in the past five years. It’s clear who that refers to, although Yingluck has said the party is not about one person. Sorry, dear, but when you carry the Shinawatra name and are proposing a bill that will enable the most famous Shinawatra to plot a route back to power, I’m not buying that.
Red Shirt protesters
But in the bigger picture, it’s not necessary to hide this ambition. As said, most Thaksin supporters will vote Pheu Thai anyway, and his staunchest supporters will absolutely vote Pheu Thai if the stated policy is to bring him back, so an overt strategy along those lines won’t hurt. On the other hand, Thaksin’s opponents won’t vote Pheu Thai no matter what, due to the party’s association with him, so there’s nothing to lose with them by stating a “bring Thaksin home” agenda.
What bothers me, though, is not Thaksin or the goal of bringing him back. Of course he’s corrupt and of course his actions as a politician have been self-serving, but he’s far from alone in those two considerations and his actions have made a tangible difference to a lot of people. He was also elected – twice, and by a large majority – in fair polls. So him being the figurehead of the Pheu Thai campaign is fine.
But large numbers of Thaksin’s support base fought – and I mean literally fought – for him last year, with the Red Shirts pushing for elections (Abhisit was voted in the parliament, not the public, after Thaksin’s previous political incarnation, the People Power Party, was dissolved). Dozens of them died and hundreds were injured. Ostensibly they did so in the name of democracy, but Thaksin formed the spine of the movement. You could say, without melodrama, that many of the Red Shirts who were killed died for him, or at least for what he represented. So for Thaksin to then put his sister – a formidable businesswomen, no doubt, but utterly inexperienced in politics – in the Pheu Thai driving seat instead of the real politicians who fronted the Red Shirt campaign is tantamount to a kick in the balls for those who risked – and gave – their lives in last year’s pro-Thaksin rallies.
RAK PRATHET THAI - CHUWIT KAMOLVISIT
Whaddup dawg?
So, one candidate is incapable but heads the Democrat Party because he looks good and speaks well. Another has zero political experience but is in Pheu Thai’s top spot because of nepotism. What else can we add to the mix that so far includes superficiality and cronyism? How about hypocrisy?
I know just the man…
Chuwit’s election posters are the most eye-catching, after the Yellow Shirt animals (we’ll come to that next). He’s the guy frowning, scowling, growling and otherwise exasperating all over town. His fans like him because he’s a straight-talker and he’s not afraid to put the odd nose out of joint. His big ticket is that he wants to eradicate corruption, both in business and politics. Corruption makes Chuwit angry, and there’s a lot of corruption in Thailand, so there are a lot of posters around Thailand of Chuwit looking angry.
In fact, there are only two things that make Chuwit smile – dogs and women.
Dogs? Well, apparently so, according to his posters. Chuwit doesn’t even smile when there’s a baby in his arms. Most politicians on the campaign trail kiss babies. Chuwit holds them and scowls. But he’s quite happy to shake hands with a dog, and can be seen smiling while doing so in the one poster which is incongruous with his “I hate the world” character. The point of that poster is that, just like a dog, he offers loyalty.
There’s something else Chuwit can offer you which dogs are also famous for: casual sex.
This is also why women are the only other thing which can make him smile. Chuwit, you see, is a pimp. Or at least he used to be. He still has a “managerial interest” in certain “entertainment establishments”. They are advertised as massage parlours, but everyone knows what kind of “massage” is on offer, and Chuwit doesn’t deny this. He used to, but then eventually he confessed when he decided to launch his campaign against corruption. He had to confess because he went public with the amounts of bribes he would pay – and who he would pay them to – in order for his businesses to remain free of police inspection. But in 2003 he was arrested anyway, so he blew the whistle on the police officers who had taken his bribes.
In other words, he is fighting corruption because corruption didn’t work for him. If he’d never been arrested, then corruption would still be getting the thumbs up from Chuwit Kamolvisit.
PEOPLE’S ALLIANCE FOR DEMOCRACY – VOTE NO
The best way to appeal to "wise" voters is to use cartoonish imagery.
Don’t like the man who presided over 92 deaths? Don’t like the man who thumbed his nose at the 92 victims by appointing his sister to lead his party? Don’t like the massage parlour baron who’s laughably fighting corruption? Then why note “Vote No”, as the Yellow Shirts are imploring you?
The yellow posters of various animals in suits encouraging the no-vote are designed to evoke the negative qualities of politicians. There’s the lizard (slippery), buffalo (stupid), dog (aggressive), monkey (selfish), and so on.
But the no-vote is a bit different to abstaining or spoiling your ballot. The Thai ballot paper has a box to ”Vote No”, the equivalent of “none of the above”, and this will be recorded as an actual vote and the percentage of no-votes an official election statistic.
However, this won’t affect the final result. Even if the overall majority votes no, the next government will still be based on the total votes for candidates. So what is the point of this campaign, you might ask.
Back in 2008, when the Yellow Shirts rallied to overthrow the Samak administration – and succeeded – they answered questions as to why they were protesting against a democratically elected government by saying democracy itself was flawed. They did not believe the “one vote for one person” system worked. They said that having Thaksin or Thaksin-aligned politicians in government was proof of this, because if people were using their vote wisely, this wouldn’t happen.
Distastefully, they proposed a merit-based voting system, in that the value of a vote was based on someone’s class, level of education and place of residence. If you were middle class or above, educated to degree level and urban-based, preferably in Bangkok, you’d get a full vote, whereas your opinion would be deemed less valuable the further away from those attributes you were. If you were a rural member of the working classes who hadn’t gone beyond high school, your vote would be least important. Which was all very convenient, considering that demographic makes up the majority in Thailand, and that the majority voted for Thaksin.
So the logic now is that if enough people vote no, the Yellow Shirts’ stance that the current political system is flawed will be validated. They would not win any seats, but they could point to the results and say that the public agrees with them, and therefore it’s time to overhaul the current form of democracy.
Just one problem with that, though. By pushing this stance through the existing “one person, one vote” system, the Yellows can’t win. If they fail to encourage enough no-votes, then they can’t push for electoral reform as a result. But if the campaign does attract significant support, then isn’t that result flawed by their very own definition of what’s wrong with the voting system? You can’t say the voters aren’t intelligent enough to vote wisely, and then change your mind if the vote falls the way you want it to. Although that is exactly what I expect they would do…
Filed under: Culture, News, People, Thai news, Uncategorized | Tags: advertising, Asian girls, brown skin, Caucasian, Chinese, cosmetics, East Asian, editing, English language, European men, magazines, media, Miss Thailand, Miss Thailand 2009, mixed-race relationships, music videos, pale skin, prejudice, racism, skin-lightening products, skin-whitening products, subway stations, Thai media, Thai movies, Thai people, Thai society, Thai TV, white skin
Thai beauty
Thai people have brown skin. Well, there are different ethnic groups within Thailand, but generally speaking, the average Thai person has light to medium brown skin. I state the obvious merely because it is seemingly something the Thai media likes to avoid.
If you had never been to Thailand and only watched the majority of Thai movies, TV shows or music videos, and look at the advertising at subway stations, in magazines, and so on, you’d be forgiven for thinking Thais were a light-skinned race. Creamy, white complexions, sometimes even with rosy cheeks, represent a tiny minority in real life, but the great majority of the media’s idea of what Thais (should) look like. Pale skin is absolutely considered to be – and promoted as – attractive, and in many cases is actually a prerequisite to success. It doesn’t need me to point out how unfair this is, when skin colour is entirely a matter of birth – and something that cannot be changed, regardless of what the enormous market for sinister skin-whitening lotions will tell you.
I’m not sure if “racism” is the correct word for this peculiar cultural prejudice, since it’s Thai-on-Thai - although race does “help”, as a Thai with dose of Caucasian, Chinese or East Asian blood to lighten the mix can count on using this as an advantage. But whatever you call it, it is at the very least highly ignorant and offensive – and I say that as someone with white skin.
I could write at length on the subject, but maybe I’ll save that for another time. A couple of examples for now: There was the article on cosmetics I edited in work which contained the line “As every Asian girl knows, the key to self-worth is a pale complexion”.
Self-worth? How about confidence in your natural self and what you were born with, and not allowing people you will never meet to dictate to you what is attractive? Suffice to say I changed that particular line.
And then there was the drunken Thai man who approached a fellow farang and myself in a bar, asked if he could practise his English with us, and then fired off his first question with a disgusted sneer: “Why European man like the black one?”
We told him it was because we looked far beyond such superficial concerns, and that while it is true that you often see farang men with darker-skinned Thai women, it’s not because we actively “like the black one”, it’s simply because we don’t allow her being “the black one” to disqualify her as a partner. He either didn’t understand or didn’t accept this, shaking his head with contempt – clearly “the black one” was beneath him, and therefore so were those who would date such types.
Moving on, and to a point that brought home this situation again yesterday – Miss Thailand 2009, which was broadcast on terrestrial TV.
Naturally, the line-up was amost exclusively pale-skinned. A couple could have been described as olive-skinned or perhaps of a light caramel complexion, but the rest were typically paper-pale. While, again, this is not representative of Thailand, after a year and a half here I am accustomed to it. This is the Thai idea of beauty, so of course that was what would the contestants would look like.
However this competition crossed the line. The pale skin fetish certainly exists, but like most forms of prejudice, not many people will actually admit it, and even fewer will actively promote it in a public forum. But the criteria for judging Miss Thailand actually included “Complexion”, and this was even worth more points than figure, comportment and intelligence. And of course the “complexion” score was taking into account more than just a lack of blemishes – although in much of Thai society, darker skin apparently is a blemish.
Pathetic.
