Why Was Thailand Never Colonised?

[chutai]

...... or because it's the south of Thailand is next to Muslim Malaya/Malaysia?

Unedifying sarcasm apart. Sorry, but you've lost me.

Edited May 4, 2007 by chutai

[KhunMarco]

Because in the age of colonialism they knew it's never a good idea to mix fun and business.

[LightSeeker]

just curious...though Thialand was never colonised by Western Powers in modern history, I distinctly remember in my oxford press history books during my days as a lad studdying for the GCE-O Levels, that Thailand along with Burma, Cambodia, Malaysia,Indonesia were part of the India Hindu empire something like the Vijay or something kingdom. Checking with other websites on history...I found this to be also mentioned in numerous sources but Thais never want to acknowledge this though a lot of evidence can be found ie" the Thai alphabets, brahmin rituals,etc.

But what i find is that these days in actual reality...Thailand has been colonised by the Chinese who are running the country etc....Just go to MBK. The patrons of the food outlets are Thais-Chinese while the local pure thais are the toilet attendants, cleaners, servers, etc.

Furthermore if you ask me......western Values have colonised Thailand these days. Just take a lot around

[Tilokarat]

At one time Siam (Thailand) controlled most of what is now Laos, and the four northern Malay states of Perlis, Kelantan, Kedah and one other one, which I have forgotten. Perhaps it was Perak, or Negrei Sembalan. By the time the French arrived on the scene, Britain controlled most of what is now central and southern Burma. The French wanted to build an empire based on the basis of Vietnam and its tributaries. They did some gerrymandering to argue that Laos and Cambodia were Vietnamese tributaries. In fact, Vieng Chan, Champassak and Luang Prabang were more oriented,and incorporated, into Siam.

In any case, the French pressed forward toward the Mekong pushing the Siamese out of Laos, although the retreating Siamese armies took a lot of Laotians with them and settled them in places like Udon Thani on the Khorat Plateau. The next step in French empire-building was to take Siam (Thailand).

However, since the signing of the Bowring Treaty (1850), the British had a key stake in Siam. And Kings Mongkut and Chulalongkorn were astute diplomats, and understood western diplomacy. When the French sailed their gunboats to Bangkok, Chulalongkorn expected the British to step in and halt further French advances. Eventually, the British did this. But not before France took Siem Reap and Battambang provinces from Siam in Cambodia. As a reward for their assistance, the British took over the four northern states of what is now Malaysia. It was the British goal to stop French expansion into Siam because the British did not want another western neighbour on its border. Thus, the British and the Thai rulers halted French colonialism over Siam.

The British and the French almost went to war over some disputed territory in the north, I believe these were Chiang Rung and Keng Lem. To prevent the war, the British negotiated the transfer of these Tai states to China. Subsequently, China turned them over to France. By this time, the British and French had signed the Entente Cordiale, and there was going to be no more threat of war between these allies.

Also, the British took over Mandalay and the rest of Burma, when King Thibaw tried to ally himself with France. The British Empire was not going to stand for that and it was a happy day for Lord Randolph Churchill, Foreign Secretary, when all of Burma was incorporated as a province of British India.

[the gent]

Although not generally known, the British sought reparations from the Thai at the conclusion of WW2 in return for their collaboration with the Japanese. My recollecton is that Lord Mountbatten was quite keen on this and at one stage the annexation of those states forming the erstwhile kingdom of Pattani was on the agenda.

Given current woes, it may now seem unfortunate that the US view, that Thailand should remain intact, won the day.

Colonisation of the Thai by the Chinese may be a reasonable interpretation of history but the American post war influence should not be underestimated. Their desire to retain Thailand, at any cost, as a bulwark against the perceived threat of communist world domination led to the long succession of military dictatorships that were only sustained by being bankrolled by an endless supply of US dollars. The exploitation of Thailand by these morally bankrupt regimes, it could be argued, long delayed it's economic development and inhibited the growth of political and social progress among the rural classes. Workers' rights and true suffrage are hallmarks of any modern society but since these amounted to a challenge to the rapacious military their exponents were simply labelled ' communists ' and consequently suppressed. Propping up corrupt dictatorships has long been an American tool of foreign policy and I suppose its ill effects will continue to be felt whether they occur in Central America or the Middle East but the legacy bequeathed to the modern Thai can easily be measured in the wealth that continues to be retained by the sainted few.

[lannarebirth]

Although not generally known, the British sought reparations from the Thai at the conclusion of WW2 in return for their collaboration with the Japanese. My recollecton is that Lord Mountbatten was quite keen on this and at one stage the annexation of those states forming the erstwhile kingdom of Pattani was on the agenda.

Given current woes, it may now seem unfortunate that the US view, that Thailand should remain intact, won the day.

Colonisation of the Thai by the Chinese may be a reasonable interpretation of history but the American post war influence should not be underestimated. Their desire to retain Thailand, at any cost, as a bulwark against the perceived threat of communist world domination led to the long succession of military dictatorships that were only sustained by being bankrolled by an endless supply of US dollars. The exploitation of Thailand by these morally bankrupt regimes, it could be argued, long delayed it's economic development and inhibited the growth of political and social progress among the rural classes. Workers' rights and true suffrage are hallmarks of any modern society but since these amounted to a challenge to the rapacious military their exponents were simply labelled ' communists ' and consequently suppressed. Propping up corrupt dictatorships has long been an American tool of foreign policy and I suppose its ill effects will continue to be felt whether they occur in Central America or the Middle East but the legacy bequeathed to the modern Thai can easily be measured in the wealth that continues to be retained by the sainted few.

I think 1.5 million tons of rice was asked as war time reparations by the British. The amount sent was only a percentage of that, over time, and I believe the British ended up even paying for some of it.

[chuchok]

It could be argued that Thailand has been colonised, by the Chinese. It is one of the cleverst acts of deception ever seen, and in such a short space of time. Every major business in Thailand and anything that matters - whether it be the military, education, or commerce has been carved up like a cake and run by powerful Chinese Thais families. Many of these Chinese Thais came from China to Thailand as immigrants in the 1940's and 1950's. Many, like Thaksin, had very little when they arrived, but they managed to carve huge business empires for themselves and work their way into positions of power; so, in effect, they have ended up running the country.

I think Heng put it "What they don't control is only one degree of seperation away" or something like that.

[think_too_mut]

From all the languages I have ever came to grasp, it's only Thai that does not have the word for straight "NO". That could be the root of their diplomatic way of independent survival and prosperity.

The people are nice, smiley, slippery - all that to their advantage. With the strong institution of Thai King, they have managed to outmanouver all the forces that came upon them. It's not a zero-sum game, somehow Thais knew how to play it and save the country from influence, exploitation, destruction and loss of lives.

Did not the Thais change sides 3 times in 2 weeks during the WW2?

[Tilokarat]

For the British, they preferred to have Siam as a buffer between British Burma and French Indo-china, much as Afghanistan was to be a buffer against Russian expansion toward British India. In addition, the Thai currency was tied to the British pound, and could not be increased or decreased in value without consulting the British. The Siamese Finance Minister was usually British or American. Economically, Britain was satisfied with this arrangement, and was happy to have the Siamese heartland ruled by the Siamese. However, the British annexed the four northern Malay states from Siam because of initiatives by Germany to built a canal across the Khra Isthmus. By the late 19th-century, the French imperial party, led by Jules Ferry, was out of favour in France. The French were not prepared to fight a war with Britain over Siam.

[katana]

From all the languages I have ever came to grasp, it's only Thai that does not have the word for straight "NO". That could be the root of their diplomatic way of independent survival and prosperity.

I think MAI ไม่ equates pretty closely to "No" doesn't it?

eg AO BIA MAI เอาเบียร์มั้ย - Want a beer?

MAI KHRAP ไม่ครับ - No thanks.

[think_too_mut]

From all the languages I have ever came to grasp, it's only Thai that does not have the word for straight "NO". That could be the root of their diplomatic way of independent survival and prosperity.

I think MAI ไม่ equates pretty closely to "No" doesn't it?

eg AO BIA MAI เอาเบียร์มั้ย - Want a beer?

MAI KHRAP ไม่ครับ - No thanks.

It's not straight "NO". Maybe, "not yes". Or, "not that".

My daughther says "mai non" when she does not want to sleep.

But "mai" is not what we westerners use to say "NO" and turn the discussion some other way.

[qwertz]

So what does mai chai mean if not no.

[Phil Conners]

mai chai means "not yes"

[Tywais]

I'm shutting this topic down due to several posts not following the below rule.

"Discussion of topics concerning the King or other current or deceased members of the Thai Royal Family is forbidden."

All posts not following this rule have been removed or edited.

/Closed

Edited May 4, 2007 by Tywais