Undiplomatic Remarks From Foreign Office Mandarins

[Ulysses G.]

Hello, former professor!

I did not say there were no good books in Thai.

Sorry professor, but no one said that there were "no" good books in Thai, at all. However, a number of people said that there were not a lot of them and no one seems to be pointing out any great ones - including you.

As you said, "cream rises to the top", and there seems to be very little of it in the literary scene around here.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[bonobo]

Sorry professor, but no one said that there were "no" good books in Thai, at all. However, a number of people said that there were not a lot of them and no one seems to be pointing out any great ones - including you.

As you said, "cream rises to the top", and there seems to be very little of it in the literary scene around here.

Don't bullsh*t a bullsh*tter. No matter how you spin it, Thai 'literature" is not up to much.

Sorry if I somehow misinterpreted the quote above as thinking you don't  think there is good Thai literature. 

And I do not read Thai, so I certainly cannot read any Thai books with enough authority to give my personal opinion as to how "great" it is or not.  My whole point is that some posters here have castigated Thai literature without, in my humble opinion, the wherewithal of making such a determination. If it doesn't fit the western-approved classification of great literature, then it cannot be.  At least this is how I read some of the posts here.  And that is elitism. 

[sabaijai]

There is plenty of good Thai literature, but if you don't read Thai well, you will probably remain blissfully ignorant on the subject for the remainder of your days

[sabaijai]

Pira Sudham is a Thai writer who I enjoy, but he only writes in English as he claims that the Thai Language can not express many ideas that are common in other languages.

It seems to me, that it would be difficult to write well when one is so limited by the language itself.

Do you have a source for that quote or paraphrase? I know Pira personally and he has never expressed such an idea to me. He told me he wrote in English to reach a wider audience. If he does believe that, I would argue that he's wrong. 'Common in other languages?' Like what languages?

Aside: with all due respect to Pira - and I think he would wholeheartedly agree - there are better Thai writers than him, both in English and in Thai. The winner if this year's SEA Write Award for Thailand, Uthis Haemamool, is an extremely promising writer, as have been some of his predecessors. I've been reading his novel Laplae Kaeng Koi. It's excellent. It probably won't be translated, which is a shame.

As for the Thai language somehow being inadequate for creating great literature, I would argue that all languages have equal capacity as tools for great written works. The size of the lexicon has nothing to do with it. For expressing emotion, I personally find that Thai has much more of a capacity than English. The two discourse styles are so completely different, however, that I don't think they can fairly be compared. It's apples and oranges.

I know people who think French and Spanish literature both put English literature to shame, that their languages are much more suited to novels, romance, philosophy and more. Ethnocentrism knows no national boundaries.

[Ulysses G.]

Saying that it "is not up to much" is not the same thing as saying that it does not exist at all - We are talking about Great Literature. I have read a few Thai books that were quite enjoyable, but they certainly were not up there with The Stranger or War and Peace - not even close.

You say that is because they have not been translated correctly, but you really don't know that. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

You can't read Thai yourself and you feel that translations are not reliable and you can't even name any books that anyone thinks are "great."

Professor, it sounds like your theory would get a failing grade if we were still in school.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[bonobo]

Saying that it "is not up to much" is not the same thing as saying that it does not exist at all. I have read a few Thai books that were quite enjoyable, but they certainly were not up there with The Stranger or War and Peace - not even close.

You say that is because they have not been translated correctly, but you really don't know that. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

You can't read Thai yourself and you feel that translations are not reliable and you can't even name any books that anyone thinks are "great."

Professor, it sounds like your theory would get a failing grade if we were still in school.

I am truly at a loss to understand your logic here.

I am not an expert on Thai literature, so I have made no assertions as to the quality of Thai literature.  What I do object are off-handed remarks that Thai literature "is not up to much" when, quite frankly, I believe that very few of the literary experts are qualified to make any such assertion, much less the average ThaiVisa  poster here (myself included as being unqulaified).

I am saying that without an exemplary translation, unless a person is a native speaker in a given language, then he or she cannot make a valid judgment as to the quality of that work.  

And yes, I am making an assumption that the pure number of translations as well as the quality of those translations are less than translations between some of the more common languages used worldwide in literature.  If that assumption is incorrect, and if you can show that to me, well, mea culpa. 

I do know about Chinese.  And I do know that no translation into a phonetic alphabet can fully translate Chinese poetry.  It is a conceptual impossibility.  So I don't think it is too far a stretch to assume that translation problems could exist between Thai and English, Spanish, German, etc.

[Ulysses G.]

[Do you have a source for that notion? I know Pira personally and he has never expressed such an idea to me. He told me he wrote in English to reach a wider audience. If he does believe that, I would argue that he's wrong.

I read it in an interview or one of his books, but it was many years ago. If I remember correctly, he said that the Thai language for commoners was specifically designed this way so that the underclasses would not get any notions that might upset the apple cart.

I'm not saying that he is right, but he certainly knows a lot more about Thailand than we do.

[Ulysses G.]

I am truly at a loss to understand your logic here.

I feel exacty the same way. We can leave it at that.

[caf]

Saying that it "is not up to much" is not the same thing as saying that it does not exist at all. I have read a few Thai books that were quite enjoyable, but they certainly were not up there with The Stranger or War and Peace - not even close.

You say that is because they have not been translated correctly, but you really don't know that. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

You can't read Thai yourself and you feel that translations are not reliable and you can't even name any books that anyone thinks are "great."

Professor, it sounds like your theory would get a failing grade if we were still in school.

I am truly at a loss to understand your logic here.

I am not an expert on Thai literature, so I have made no assertions as to the quality of Thai literature. What I do object are off-handed remarks that Thai literature "is not up to much" when, quite frankly, I believe that very few of the literary experts are qualified to make any such assertion, much less the average ThaiVisa poster here (myself included as being unqulaified).

I am saying that without an exemplary translation, unless a person is a native speaker in a given language, then he or she cannot make a valid judgment as to the quality of that work.

And yes, I am making an assumption that the pure number of translations as well as the quality of those translations are less than translations between some of the more common languages used worldwide in literature. If that assumption is incorrect, and if you can show that to me, well, mea culpa.

I do know about Chinese. And I do know that no translation into a phonetic alphabet can fully translate Chinese poetry. It is a conceptual impossibility. So I don't think it is too far a stretch to assume that translation problems could exist between Thai and English, Spanish, German, etc.

Again I agree with Ulysses. You seem to be arguing with few supporting facts and arguing just for the sake of it. Why not pause and then type something more substantive as others have done.

Non native speakers can apprecaite the literature of a language as I said before. Poetry translation is much more difficult and is almost certainly best in the original; but again a good translator can make a very passable effort - with some poetic licence.

However this is really off topic but I know Ian appreciates this banter

[IanForbes]

However this is really off topic but I know Ian appreciates this banter

Only because I learn something new. It also gives me better insight on who I am exchanging posts with.

A good, lively debate is always refreshing when both parties don't insult each other and yet bring good amunition to the cause.

[Laganside]

I can recall an article in the Bangkok Post some years back in which the correspondent, a Thai, bemoaned the absence of any great literature emanating from his country that had been recognised by the West. He puzzled over this and concluded that such an aberration verged upon the inexplicable since a country such as his, an independent state with its rich tapestry of history and home to so many highly respected individuals , should as a consequence be automatically endowed with a cultural benefit readily recognised by the world at large. That it evidently has not produced anything of any value would suggest that geography and a national hubris contributes little to the equation but I remember that the hapless correspondent failed to draw such an inference in his empty headed meanderings.

Of course, the notion that the world's next Nabokov was scratching around among the chickens and dust in deepest Isaan waiting for his absent mother's Pattaya sourced remittance to fund his next school year was a thought beyond him as much then as it probably is now, a thought the inestimable Rumbold would have instantly recognised back in 1967.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Laganside

[richard_smith237]

Given the recent news articles it came as somewhat of a surprise that after reading the full version the majority of Sir Anthony Rumbold's letter to Mr. Brown was rather complimentary to Thailand.

It is quite clear that he offered his successor a candid insight into the Thai politic, persona and culture.

While making politically correct apologies for his comments perhaps many people have overlooked the numerous compliments Sir Rumbold paid to Thailand and its people. His letter to his successor offered advice and recommendations as to how the United Kingdom can best assist Thailand in its development and how the UK can develop trade with this developing nation.

After reading the full letter is it shockingly apparent that a couple of news agencies have subtracted a couple of sentences from their context and sprinkled them into a wok of political incorrectness.

In doing so a sub-political shit storm has materialized where many Thai’s are now annoyed at the British for such arrogance, but without being given the opportunity for clarity of context.

Shame on the reporters...

"And if anybody wants to know what their culture consists of the answer is that it consists of themselves, their excellent manners, their fastidious habits, their graceful gestures and their elegant persons. If we are elephants and oxen they are gazelles and butterflies"

Along with the negative, why did we never see that quote in the press?

Answer: Sensationalist glory seeking bastÆrds !

[LooseCannon]

Given the recent news articles it came as somewhat of a surprise that after reading the full version the majority of Sir Anthony Rumbold's letter to Mr. Brown was rather complimentary to Thailand.

........

My sentiments exactly.

Taking selective quotes that have appeared in a tabloid rag is generally not a good basis to form an opinion.

His insight is quite surprising considering it was obviously a struggle for him to leave the air conditioned confines of the British Embassy.

Thank you to Jayboy for providing the full document.

[Camelot]

Quinton Quayle's statement would have served a purpose if he had pointed out that part of the quote was missing and then given the whole quote, which is well-balanced. That would have conveyed the vital information that was missing.

Instead he blathered on contritely about a brand called Amazing Thailand. I think Rumbold would have handled it better.

""And if anybody wants to know what their culture consists of the answer is that it consists of themselves, their excellent manners, their fastidious habits, their graceful gestures and their elegant persons. If we are elephants and oxen they are gazelles and butterflies"

Magnificent! The Thais I know would have loved that.

[pjclark1]

I can recall an article in the Bangkok Post some years back in which the correspondent, a Thai, bemoaned the absence of any great literature emanating from his country that had been recognised by the West. He puzzled over this and concluded that such an aberration verged upon the inexplicable since a country such as his, an independent state with its rich tapestry of history and home to so many highly respected individuals , should as a consequence be automatically endowed with a cultural benefit readily recognised by the world at large. That it evidently has not produced anything of any value would suggest that geography and a national hubris contributes little to the equation but I remember that the hapless correspondent failed to draw such an inference in his empty headed meanderings.

Of course, the notion that the world's next Nabokov was scratching around among the chickens and dust in deepest Isaan waiting for his absent mother's Pattaya sourced remittance to fund his next school year was a thought beyond him as much then as it probably is now, a thought the inestimable Rumbold would have instantly recognised back in 1967.

Best post on this thread so far

[samtam]

Of course the newspapers have taken the quotes from the report out of context and overlooked the complimentary aspects. It was a well-balanced and erudite rendering obviously written by an educated man. The other important context is that it was 40 years ago. That much of what has been written is still true reminds us that Thailand is still very much in the grip of a hierarchical society, which provides it both with its good points, and its bad. The bad includes the fact that in its present form it will never compete with its neighbours, as it does not allow society to question authority, or to think freely. A lack of competition may not necessarily be a bad thing either, but to pretend that Thailand is developing is to be delusional. It is stuck in a very rigid system. To invest money (for example) in property that is heading towards prices seen in developed states or territories like Singapore or Hong Kong is equally delusional, and those who do are foolhardy. The sad fact that no one Thai writer (as far as I am aware) can discuss their society as openly as this is surely the worst indictment of all.

[IanForbes]

Good post, samtam. I agree.

[jayboy]

Admiration from peers is the focal point of human society and interaction.

The point he makes about the way achievements are valued in Thai society is very true. In America, a young person would likely have more ambition and admiration towards a writer, film maker or musician (artists) than towards a successful businessman. In Thailand, money is worshiped above all by a wide margin and thus its not surprising that such massive corruption exists throughout society while at the same time, the arts suffer massively.

Art is expression. Expression in Thai society is frowned upon.

Now, look at the American founding fathers. These guys were tripping over themselves to be the bigger gentleman. That was the way to become the most admired in that social group. Think of how many of them willingly freed their slaves because they thought it was morally wrong and gave up everything - money/power/potentially their lives all for the principles they believed in.

I do not want to get into one of those America is better than Thailand, Westerners are smarter than Thais types of arguments. I just want to say that, the creme of the creme are a reflection of the entire population of a people and their values, goals, ambitions and rules flow down through society. If those at the top, like the American founding fathers, gain esteem by selfless actions (Think Warren Buffet and Bill Gates giving away billions of dollar) and those at the top of Thailand gain esteem by stealing the most, its no surprise that Thailand has had 59 coups, 815 state of emergencies and 287 prime ministers in the last 70 years.

I don't understand why it is very unpopular to suggest that certain societies or segments of those societies have developed better habits or values than others.

Interesting.What you are referring to is known as moral relativism.There was an interesting oped on this in the London Times today

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle6886174.ece

By the way surely most of the American founding fathers who were slaveholders kept their slaves, didn't they - reminding one of the great Samuel Johnson's line:

"How is it we hear the loudest yelps of liberty from the drivers of negroes?"

[TheGoodDoctor]

It was quite common to release slaves. Not all of the very well known founding fathers did so, but many did. I cannot recall exact names off the top of my head but I remember reading/making lists in American History in High School. If I recall correctly, Jefferson was one of the very few who never did release his slaves up until his death.

[jayboy]

It was quite common to release slaves. Not all of the very well known founding fathers did so, but many did. I cannot recall exact names off the top of my head but I remember reading/making lists in American History in High School. If I recall correctly, Jefferson was one of the very few who never did release his slaves up until his death.

No Jefferson didn't but Franklin and Hamilton for example did.I think you are right that most thought it morally wrong but the reality is that the founding fathers didn't abolish the "peculiar institution".What I don't understand is your comment that some of the founding fathers gave up everything (sic) for the principles they believed in - "money, property, potentially their lives".They didn't give up much at all and despite their scruples did almost nothing to solve the problem of slavery.

Every nation filters its history and the US certainly attributes some liberal characteristics to Americans in the late eighteenth century that just weren't there..One good example is the Mel Gibson movie "The Patriot" where the slaves are depicted as supporting the rebellious colonists.In fact black Americans tended to support -if they had a choice in the matter -the loyalists, and many fled to Canada to escape what they perceived (correctly in my view) the overt racism in the U.S.

[sabaijai]

But you have completely failed to demonstrate this ...

The best in Thai literature, such as it is, tends borrow heavily on much other greater and sophisticated cultures, notably Indian but overall it is simply not in the league as China, Japan, India, or even Vietnam.

The lack of translated works doesn't prove a thing. IMO the burden of proof lies with you. Please critique some works of fiction you have read in Thai.

Comparing with huge countries with much longer histories, such as India and China isn't really much of a game, is it? India has more great literature than almost any country, including England.

In fact modern Thai fiction borrows nothing from Indian writing and is quite unique, possibly more unique than Vietnamese literature, presumably influenced by French colonialism, like the visual arts in VN (I'm only guessing, as I know nothing about VN lit). The only Thai literature influenced by Indian lit are the classic epics, written centuries ago. Even there, where the story lines may be borrowed (just as much European literature borrowed from Greek and Roman storytelling, and continues to), the actual expression of the narrative is quite Thai, not Indian at all.

Vietnam is a more balanced comparison, and a place that has experienced much more censorship, overall, than Thailand (China too, for that matter).

A lot of it has been translated into English, but it sold so badly that they stopped printing it!

That says more about the translations, and lack thereof, than it does about the originals, in my observation.

Translation is a key issue here. I have the program from the SEA Write 2009 awards dinner, with excerpts from winning entries from each of the competing countries. In my opinion the Thai entry was far and away the best, both in Thai and in English (in this case, the translation was surprisingly excellent). In a blind reading of all the translated entries, where you didn't know the nationality of the writer (although in some cases the writing contains clues), I think many people would find the Thai entry strong. The Vietnamese entry paled by comparison. However the translation for the VN entry was also shockingly bad. In the original language it may have read beautifully; since I don't read Vietnamese I have no way of knowing, which again illustrates the importance of translation.

Another example where you can see that translation makes an obvious difference is the gap between the English translation of Kukrit Pramoj's Si Paen Din (Four Reigns) and his earlier, and shorter, Pai Daeng (Red Bamboo). The translation for the latter feels effortless and natural; the former translation is turgid. It's not just the difference in subject matter because I've read them both in Thai and Kukrit's style is more or less the same in each.

No one's saying Thailand has one of the world's great literary traditions (but neither does, say, New Zealand, I'd wager). But to say there is nothing worthy of praise is hogwash.

[Aiba]

He should have learned the difinition of the word "culture" before became a diplomat. I observed that most farang don't know what "culture" really mean.

[Ulysses G.]

No one's saying Thailand has one of the world's great literary traditions (but neither does, say, New Zealand, I'd wager). But to say there is nothing worthy of praise is hogwash, as anyone who has delved into modern Thai writing knows.

As far as I can find, only one person on the thread stated that there was nothing worthy of praise:

The Thais came out poorly too, in the eyes of Sir Anthony Rumbold, who served in Bangkok from 1965-67.

"They have no literature"

Edited October 23, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[caf]

But you have completely failed to demonstrate this ...

The best in Thai literature, such as it is, tends borrow heavily on much other greater and sophisticated cultures, notably Indian but overall it is simply not in the league as China, Japan, India, or even Vietnam.

The lack of translated works doesn't prove a thing. IMO the burden of proof lies with you. Please critique some works of fiction you have read in Thai.

Comparing with huge countries with much longer histories, such as India and China isn't really much of a game, is it? India has more great literature than almost any country, including England.

In fact modern Thai fiction borrows nothing from Indian writing and is quite unique, possibly more unique than Vietnamese literature, presumably influenced by French colonialism, like the visual arts in VN (I'm only guessing, as I know nothing about VN lit). The only Thai literature influenced by Indian lit are the classic epics, written centuries ago. Even there, where the story lines may be borrowed (just as much European literature borrowed from Greek and Roman storytelling, and continues to), the actual expression of the narrative is quite Thai, not Indian at all.

Vietnam is a more balanced comparison, and a place that has experienced much more censorship, overall, than Thailand (China too, for that matter).

A lot of it has been translated into English, but it sold so badly that they stopped printing it!

That says more about the translations, and lack thereof, than it does about the originals, in my observation.

Translation is a key issue here. I have the program from the SEA Write 2009 awards dinner, with excerpts from winning entries from each of the competing countries. In my opinion the Thai entry was far and away the best, both in Thai and in English (in this case, the translation was surprisingly excellent). In a blind reading of all the translated entries, where you didn't know the nationality of the writer (although in some cases the writing contains clues), I think many people would find the Thai entry strong. The Vietnamese entry paled by comparison. However the translation for the VN entry was also shockingly bad. In the original language it may have read beautifully; since I don't read Vietnamese I have no way of knowing, which again illustrates the importance of translation.

Another example where you can see that translation makes an obvious difference is the gap between the English translation of Kukrit Pramoj's Si Paen Din (Four Reigns) and his earlier, and shorter, Pai Daeng (Red Bamboo). The translation for the latter feels effortless and natural; the former translation is turgid. It's not just the difference in subject matter because I've read them both in Thai and Kukrit's style is more or less the same in each.

No one's saying Thailand has one of the world's great literary traditions (but neither does, say, New Zealand, I'd wager). But to say there is nothing worthy of praise is hogwash.

You say that Vietnam is a more balanced comparison after admitting you know nothing about its literature.

I personally would not agree that India has more great literature than England. Perhaps you can give us all a "critique" of that

[JimsKnight]

I think if some of the people actually read the full letter he wrote about his summary they'd not be so bold in their criticism. He actually praises the thais quite highly but regretted that the climate was getting to him.

[TheGoodDoctor]

It was quite common to release slaves. Not all of the very well known founding fathers did so, but many did. I cannot recall exact names off the top of my head but I remember reading/making lists in American History in High School. If I recall correctly, Jefferson was one of the very few who never did release his slaves up until his death.

No Jefferson didn't but Franklin and Hamilton for example did.I think you are right that most thought it morally wrong but the reality is that the founding fathers didn't abolish the "peculiar institution".What I don't understand is your comment that some of the founding fathers gave up everything (sic) for the principles they believed in - "money, property, potentially their lives".They didn't give up much at all and despite their scruples did almost nothing to solve the problem of slavery.

Every nation filters its history and the US certainly attributes some liberal characteristics to Americans in the late eighteenth century that just weren't there..One good example is the Mel Gibson movie "The Patriot" where the slaves are depicted as supporting the rebellious colonists.In fact black Americans tended to support -if they had a choice in the matter -the loyalists, and many fled to Canada to escape what they perceived (correctly in my view) the overt racism in the U.S.

The Constitution was setup in favor of state rights. That was what the Civil War (which under the Constitution was an illegal war but perhaps morally just) was all about, creating a powerful Federal government that could dictate laws to individual states. The northern states illegalized slavery shortly after the American revolution. During the American revolution, the North tried to put an end slavery but the South would not go for it. The South was pro slavery, North anti slavery. The majority of the founding fathers were anti-slavery and those in the North were overwhelmingly anti-slavery.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that they risked nothing at all. They were the rich, aristocratic elite of the land and they would have been in penalty of treason if they lost the war.

[Xangsamhua]

Nice to know that even recent ambassadors to Thailand can engage in a little politically incorrect humour.

Politically Incorrect Exit for the UK Ambassador to Thailand and Laos

Richard S. Ehrlich - 7/27/2007 http://www.globalpolitician.com/23163-thailand-laos

BANGKOK, Thailand -- The British Ambassador to Thailand and Laos, David Fall, ended his career as a diplomat by giving a wildly hilarious, shockingly blunt, comedy performance of taboo jokes about Scotsmen using condoms, trigger-happy Americans, and sexual double entendres involving British, Turkish and French officials.

Nearly 200 people, including diplomats, businessmen, journalists and others enthusiastically cheered and applauded every punch line Mr. Fall delivered during his 40-minute speech at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand.

His appearance on the night of July 24 and was titled, "Released into the community: His Excellency David Fall, on the verge of parole, reflects on 36 years as a British diplomat."

Pacing his lines like a professional stand-up comedian, and frequently stressing accents to emphasize foreign voices, Mr. Fall began by warning:

"Stereotypes can be very misleading. I've known German ambassadors with a sense of humor. Well-organized Italians. Australians with no chips on their shoulders whatsoever. Americans who are sensitive to local feelings: 'Take 'em out! Nuke them!' And French ambassadors who speak English without spitting every second word."

Mr. Fall, who retires in August, said he regretted how British diplomats now had to be politically correct, unlike decades ago when a British ambassador could speak and act with greater freedom.

"One of the many things we are not supposed to do these days is say anything which might be dubbed as racial stereotyping."

Tweaking that protocol, he then told an elaborate joke about a Scotsman who buys a condom while complaining it was "really expensive." During the next several weeks, the Scotsman repeatedly returns to the shop, demanding the condom be fixed, because holes are appearing from overuse.

The shopkeeper tells him to buy a new condom, but the Scotsman refuses because of the price.

The punch line? After one month, the suddenly generous Scotsman tells the stunned shopkeeper, "the regiment has decided to buy" a new condom.

"I tell you that purely as an illustration, because we're not allowed to tell that silly joke anymore," Mr. Fall said amid hysterical laughter. "It's also in extremely bad taste."

The ambassador said London's Foreign Office contains archives of witty dispatches written by British diplomats in the mid-20th century.

"Actually, I do recommend a trawl through the Foreign Office's re-computerization archives. There are some real gems in there," Mr. Fall said.

"For those of you with a sensitive disposition, you may wish to go to the toilet now," the envoy then advised his audience. "I would like to read to you now, from an official Foreign Office document. It is a letter dated 6 April 1943, from Sir Archibald Clerk Kerr, Her Majesties ambassador in Moscow, to Lord Pembroke, the Foreign Office, London."

Exaggerating a pompous British accent, Mr. Fall read:

"My Dear Reggie, In these dark days man tends to look for little shafts of light that spill from Heaven. My days are probably darker than yours, and I need, my God I do, all the light I can get. But I am a decent fellow, and I do not want to be mean and selfish about what little brightness is shed upon me from time to time.

"So I propose to share with you a tiny flash that has illuminated my somber life, and tell you that God has given me a new Turkish colleague, whose card tells me that he is called Mustapha Kunt.

"We all feel like that, Reggie, now and then, especially when spring is upon us, but few of us would dare to put it on our cards. It takes a Turk to do that."

Amid whoops, chortling and cheers, Mr. Fall said, "If anybody needs to explain that to somebody, well, good luck.

Asked by a mischievous audience for more anecdotes, Mr. Fall told a story about France's former leader Charles de Gaulle, while stretching the general's French-accented English.

"Charles de Gaulle and his wife were at a banquet in London, sitting at opposite ends of this long table, and the conversation was going on. And somebody asked Madam de Gaulle what she thought was the greatest thing in life.

"Madam de Gaulle replied: 'I think the greatest thing in life is a penis.'

"At that very moment, all the talking had stopped and everybody turned and looked at her. To his credit, General de Gaulle, at the other end of the table, backed up and said, 'No no, ma chere, I think what you mean to say is: happiness.'"

After the chuckles died down, Mr. Fall described his future plans by saying: "I'm not intending to work for anybody that I don't want to work for anymore. Thirty-six years as a bureaucrat is absolutely enough, as far as I'm concerned.

"You just want to be yourself," the gray-haired envoy said, predicting a leisurely life of writing, painting, cartooning, gardening, walking the length of the United Kingdom, raising dogs and chickens, and doing international charity work.

Hailing from an Anglo-Welsh family of tenant farmers and coal miners, Mr. Fall's Diplomat Service career included three tours of Thailand, totaling 12 years, plus stints in South Africa, Australia, Vietnam and London, accompanied by his wife Gwendolyn and their three sons.

Richard S Ehrlich is a Bangkok-based journalist who has reported news from Asia since 1978 and is co-author of "Hello My Big Big Honey!", a non-fiction book of investigative journalism. He received Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism's Foreign Correspondents Award.

[caf]

Interesting to see how the "colonial mentality" extended well beyond the Empire's colonial days...

I would gues these comments are typically british,a class thing,stuck up and they think they are so superior

We are, for a start we can spell/proof read, we can use uppercase characters in the right place and can correctly use punctuation with it's attendant spaces.

Diplomats, whatever we may think of them, are entitled to their points of view or do you think they should all be sychophantic arse licking nonentities as yourself.

Funny isn't it? Views like this, when they come to light, are ripped apart by the ThaiVisa intelligentsia who will then go on to similarly shred other nationalities based on little or no direct experience except what they read on their sole source of information, the infallible internet.

can correctly use punctuation with it's attendant spaces.

[BangkokJazz]

What a worthless topic - commenting on 40 year old comments from a long dead Brit. Next.

[caf]

Although everything written is often taken out of context for sensational purposes, I found the rantings of the various diplomates to be typical of pompous people who have lived with wealth and were protected by the local authorities. There are very good reasons why the Monty Python skits were and are so humourous... they are accurate depictions of what really happens... only taken to the extreme.

And, there was probably a good bit of truth to what the diplomates said.

How do you reconcile:

"the rantings of the various diplomates to be typical of pompous people"

with

" a good bit of truth to what the diplomates said"

The diplomats were making personal comments for the benefit of their successors.

Chris Patten is in fact an avid fan of Monty. Monty's script writers produced their excellent satirical humour for the benefit of the viewers. They were not making political points.