RIGHTS-THAILAND: Case Shows Double Standards for Women -Activists

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Chayanit Poonyarat

BANGKOK, Jul 29 2002 (IPS) - What began as just another court verdict — on the killing by a Thai academic of his wife — has become a larger debate about what critics say is society’s double standards toward women.

Nearly two weeks after the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court handed down a suspended two-year jail term for 44-year-old Pipat Lueprasitkul, rights activists are still aghast at what they call an unusually light decision.

On Jul. 18, the court sentenced Pipat, a former university lecturer, to four years’ imprisonment for physically assaulting his wife Wannee in July last year, causing brain damage and fatal injuries.

Suspecting that his wife was seeing her ex-boyfriend, Pipat confessed that in a fit of anger, he beat her with an umbrella and a golf club, and kicked her several times.

But because of his confession and record of “good conduct,” Pipat was let out on three-year parole and ordered to perform 50 hours of public service by teaching at an educational institute.

“The Pipat case reflected a problem of attitude prevalent in the entire judicial circle,” Wasant Panich, member of the National Human Rights Commission, said.

Pipat said he did not mean to kill his wife. Wasant said that this argument was “untenable and contravened the Constitution, which guaranteed equal treatment of individual”.

This case shows that more work is needed to bring into action the ‘equality’ principle mentioned in Thailand’s landmark 1997 Constitution, Wasant said, since the attitudes of those who practice the law have not changed much.

“The verdict on this case reflected a double standard caused by social and gender biases,” said Usa Lerdsrisuntad of the non-government Foundation for Women.

They were referring to the court’s statement defending its decision in the Pipat case, which said: “The court decided on the suspended jail term on the basis of Pipat’s intellectual capacity, academic background, profession, the pretext of criminality he faced and other factors warranting clemency.”

Usa says the leniency shown to Pipat has not been applicable to women convicts in similar cases.

“In cases where women are defendants, the legal standard is fully used without recognition of other related factors, regardless of issues like whether the women tried to protect themselves or who will take care of their children,” she said. “But when it comes to men, the issues are surprisingly raised.”

Likewise, Usa says, women involved in cases of assaulting or killing their husbands are usually charged and convicted of murder, but men assaulting their wives usually face a manslaughter charge.

A first-degree murder charge could bring up 15 to 20 years imprisonment while manslaughter, the charge against Pipat, could bring three to 15 years.

A network of 85 women’s groups called on the Office of the Attorney General to appeal Pipat’s sentencing. The attorney general’s office says it is studying the grounds for an appeal.

The Pipat case is but the latest example of a patriarchial system in place. Women’s groups were also outraged by a comment this month by Deputy Prime Minister Korn Davaransi, who attributed gender problems to modern women wanting too much freedom and rights.

“For instance, they want to use their last name after marriage and they do not want to use the title of ‘Mrs’ for fear of being disadvantaged. This is the beginning of the end for family security,” he said.

Other activists say that apart from showing up societal attitudes that see the women as being inferior to men, or men as having more value to society, the Pipat case also brings out the issue of violence against women.

A study by the Bangkok-based Institute for Population and Social Research at Mahidol University and the Foundation for Women showed that up to 44 percent of Thai women say they have been abused by husbands or lovers.

Of those who report abuse, 28 percent say they are physically abused, 29 percent sexually abused and 22 percent who say they get regular verbal abuse.

“Women who are beaten by their husbands wouldn’t mention it to others,” said fruit vendor Kanya, who spent months in jail after she was found guilty of killing her husband. “It’s nothing that women can be proud of.”

Kanya was sentenced to two years in prison for manslaughter, but her 13-year-old son wrote then Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai to explain that his mother was defending herself against abuse by her husband. Her sentence was later amended to two-year parole.

Because women do not often share problems of domestic violence, more violence often follows until the women are severely injured — or they turn from being victims to offenders out of frustration, the study adds.

“If Wannee didn’t die, probably no one would know that she had been abused by her husband,” Kanya said.

“Domestic violence is a new name for an old problem, embedded in the views of gender relations that are passed on by many social agents,” said Chalidaporn Songsampan of the political science faculty at Thammasat University.

It is usually viewed as a private affair between husband and wife, she adds. Therefore, police often try to reconcile couples and do not record such conflict, so records on domestic violence are hardly found.

“This gives problems to women when they want to file charges against their husbands or when they fight back and get their husbands killed,” said the Women Foundation’s Usa, because there is no proof of previous violence.

Chalidaporn also says that the mistaken perception that domestic violence occurs only among the poor and illiterate tends to narrow the understanding of the issue by many people — even those in judicial system.

Said Chalidaporn: “Thai law still embodies patriarchal values, which society views women’s subordination as natural. It becomes problematic when the law aims to protect these values rather than individuals’ rights.”