Are Thais Taught Anything About The World Outside Of Thailand

[bonobo]

As this threads goes on, there are more and more slings and arrows being cast. Let's keep the posts civil and discuss issues, not personalities.

[bonobo]

I am writing this in the Vienna airport waiting for my flight back to Bangkok. Last night, at a dinner in Barcelona, I was in discussion with a German and a Tunisian about the Islamic occupation of much of Europe and its influence on history, and we eventually got around to Charles the Hammer's victory at the Battle of Poitiers/Tours which halted the Islamic expansion. An Austrian woman with us asked who Charles was, and to be honest, we were taken somewhat aback. We asked the other Austrian with us, the co-owner of a large manufacturing company. He had no clue. Curious, we imposed on a table of Spaniards with whom we had previously chatted, and not one of the 6 or 7 of them had heard of him. This opened up a long discussion on education in Europe and the USA.

When this thread started, most of what was written was about how Thais don't know about the Battle of Britain and other European-centric events. But we were in Barcelona, where Islamic expansion and occupation helped form the Catalan region as we know it today. And Charles' victory kept Germany and Austria from being occupied. So I am not sure how the Thais are so egregious in their education when from this one single incident, at least, even Europeans are not overly cognizant of their own history.

Education around the world sucks, if I can quote some previous posters. But I think ignorance of basic history is not limited to Thais.

[cardholder]

I am writing this in the Vienna airport waiting for my flight back to Bangkok. Last night, at a dinner in Barcelona, I was in discussion with a German and a Tunisian about the Islamic occupation of much of Europe and its influence on history, and we eventually got around to Charles the Hammer's victory at the Battle of Poitiers/Tours which halted the Islamic expansion. An Austrian woman with us asked who Charles was, and to be honest, we were taken somewhat aback. We asked the other Austrian with us, the co-owner of a large manufacturing company. He had no clue. Curious, we imposed on a table of Spaniards with whom we had previously chatted, and not one of the 6 or 7 of them had heard of him. This opened up a long discussion on education in Europe and the USA.

When this thread started, most of what was written was about how Thais don't know about the Battle of Britain and other European-centric events. But we were in Barcelona, where Islamic expansion and occupation helped form the Catalan region as we know it today. And Charles' victory kept Germany and Austria from being occupied. So I am not sure how the Thais are so egregious in their education when from this one single incident, at least, even Europeans are not overly cognizant of their own history.

Education around the world sucks, if I can quote some previous posters. But I think ignorance of basic history is not limited to Thais.

Also, we only know what we are taught (or choose to learn).

I don't think Charles the Hammer features at the top of the list of 'basic history' - interesting though it might be.

[metisdead]

More posts have been removed, let's take a moment and remember this from not too long ago:

As this threads goes on, there are more and more slings and arrows being cast. Let's keep the posts civil and discuss issues, not personalities.

[kerryk]

Let me paint you a mental picture. Thai and Indian troops were on the Burma Thai border ready to march in and occupy Thailand. Famine had attacked India severely during the war (4 million had died in Bengali alone). The troops had knowledge of the death camps on Thai soil and the 10,000 women that were raped in the first few days of the invasion of Burma by Japanese troops who the Thais had let march across Thailand.

The UK troops had seen nothing but death and destruction in the China Burma theater of war and Thailand was almost untouched by war.

The United States, Britain, and Thailand had signed a treaty. Thailand was being ceded to the British Empire. Thai rice production in Thailand in 1945 was 3.699.000 tons. Britain wanted 1.500,000 tons. What do you think would have happened if the Americans had not intervened?

Quality.

Kudos.

Apologies to the moderator, I'll stick to the facts. It has been stated here that Britain had a policy of starving Thailand. That is a very serious allegation. It indicates that Britain was prepared to commit mass murder by starvation.

The issue of intellectual honesty has been repeatedly referred to in this thread.

So now once again, I ask for proof that Britain had a policy of starving Thailand. Show me proof that Britain had this policy of starvation and I will fold my tent.

If you can't show it, then you have to ask yourself as educated men, as you obviously are, how intellectually honest it is to make these assumptions and claims. It is a quite diabolical thing to say.

I of course agree with Bonobo. I try to keep personalities out of my posts. I can understand how the Brits who have not experienced a colonial empire or a war would be upset at thinking the Empire would starve people. Or Americans not in Vietnam understand massacres of women and children. It is hard to come to grips with your country doing something we would consider today despicable. I especially don't know how the Japanese or Germans cope with it.

I grew up when the British still had parts of the Empire. I talked to Americans who had been in Thailand and involved with Thai diplomacy during WW II. It is certainly a different mindset.

I can understand why Thais would not to study history given their recent past. My half-so degreed Thai GF gets squeamish and tells me not to talk about politics close to bedtime because she will have bad dreams.

Unless the Americans intervened I think the combination of war reparations and the British occupation of Thailand would have caused Thais to starve. You may not agree with me but the figure of 1.5 million tons of rice along with the previous contracts to sell rice to other countries in a year when the harvest was not that great and all the damage in Burma from the war would have been disastrous for Thailand. Can I prove this? Nope because it didn't happen. Can I prove that the Brits wanted to occupy Thailand and take at least 1.5 million tons of rice? Yes. Did it happen in other countries occupied by the Allies? Yes 2 million died in Vietnam in 1945. The British and the French were allies, Would the Brits have taken rice from Thailand the enemy and given it to the French? I don't know. The British and French were the colonial powers in the area not the Americans. The Thais had a war with the French in 1940. Who knows.

Not a lot of love lost in SEA the Americans were the only power who did not have an axe to grind.

Did I answer your question? It seems to me they did but I can't be sure.

Edited September 24, 2011 by kerryk

[kerryk]

Let me paint you a mental picture. Thai and Indian troops were on the Burma Thai border ready to march in and occupy Thailand. Famine had attacked India severely during the war (4 million had died in Bengali alone). The troops had knowledge of the death camps on Thai soil and the 10,000 women that were raped in the first few days of the invasion of Burma by Japanese troops who the Thais had let march across Thailand.

The UK troops had seen nothing but death and destruction in the China Burma theater of war and Thailand was almost untouched by war.

The United States, Britain, and Thailand had signed a treaty. Thailand was being ceded to the British Empire. Thai rice production in Thailand in 1945 was 3.699.000 tons. Britain wanted 1.500,000 tons. What do you think would have happened if the Americans had not intervened?

Quality.

Kudos.

Apologies to the moderator, I'll stick to the facts. It has been stated here that Britain had a policy of starving Thailand. That is a very serious allegation. It indicates that Britain was prepared to commit mass murder by starvation.

The issue of intellectual honesty has been repeatedly referred to in this thread.

So now once again, I ask for proof that Britain had a policy of starving Thailand. Show me proof that Britain had this policy of starvation and I will fold my tent.

If you can't show it, then you have to ask yourself as educated men, as you obviously are, how intellectually honest it is to make these assumptions and claims. It is a quite diabolical thing to say.

I of course agree with Bonobo. I try to keep personalities out of my posts. I can understand how the Brits who have not experienced a colonial empire or a war would be upset at thinking the Empire would starve people. Or Americans not in Vietnam understand massacres of women and children. It is hard to come to grips with your country doing something we would consider today despicable. I especially don't know how the Japanese or Germans cope with it.

I grew up when the British still had parts of the Empire. I talked to Americans who had been in Thailand and involved with Thai diplomacy during WW II. It is certainly a different mindset.

I can understand why Thais would not to study history given their recent past. My half-so degreed Thai GF gets squeamish and tells me not to talk about politics close to bedtime because she will have bad dreams.

Unless the Americans intervened I think the combination of war reparations and the British occupation of Thailand would have caused Thais to starve. You may not agree with me but the figure of 1.5 million tons of rice along with the previous contracts to sell rice to other countries in a year when the harvest was not that great and all the damage in Burma from the war would have been disastrous for Thailand. Can I prove this? Nope because it didn't happen. Can I prove that the Brits wanted to occupy Thailand and take at least 1.5 million tons of rice? Yes. Did it happen in other countries occupied by the Allies? Yes 2 million died in Vietnam in 1945. The British and the French were allies, Would the Brits have taken rice from Thailand the enemy and given it to the French? I don't know. The British and French were the colonial powers in the area not the Americans. The Thais had a war with the French in 1940. Who knows.

Not a lot of love lost in SEA the Americans were the only power who did not have an axe to grind.

Did I answer your question? It seems to me they did but I can't be sure.

Add on,

Would this have been the first time the British were involved in starvation during WWII? No. Bengal had 30 or 40 famines during 182 years of British rule in Bengal.

Books: Churchill's Shameful Role in the Bengal Famine - TIME

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2031992,00.html

[StreetCowboy]

Think not what can my country do for me, but what can I do for my country...

Shouldn't we try to focus this on a comparison of education systems, or even solely on denigrating or commending the Thai education system, rather than dredging up previous misdemeanors in times of war. I'm sure we would all behave differently in such circumstances than in times of peace - I certainly hope so. WHich, I suppose, (straying off-topic - pots & kettles!) is one of the gragve dangers of the rhetoric of the "War on Terror" - or should that be "War Of terror?" (if you feel that warrants reply, please open a new thread!)

SC

[theblether]

Let me paint you a mental picture. Thai and Indian troops were on the Burma Thai border ready to march in and occupy Thailand. Famine had attacked India severely during the war (4 million had died in Bengali alone). The troops had knowledge of the death camps on Thai soil and the 10,000 women that were raped in the first few days of the invasion of Burma by Japanese troops who the Thais had let march across Thailand.

The UK troops had seen nothing but death and destruction in the China Burma theater of war and Thailand was almost untouched by war.

The United States, Britain, and Thailand had signed a treaty. Thailand was being ceded to the British Empire. Thai rice production in Thailand in 1945 was 3.699.000 tons. Britain wanted 1.500,000 tons. What do you think would have happened if the Americans had not intervened?

Quality.

Kudos.

Apologies to the moderator, I'll stick to the facts. It has been stated here that Britain had a policy of starving Thailand. That is a very serious allegation. It indicates that Britain was prepared to commit mass murder by starvation.

The issue of intellectual honesty has been repeatedly referred to in this thread.

So now once again, I ask for proof that Britain had a policy of starving Thailand. Show me proof that Britain had this policy of starvation and I will fold my tent.

If you can't show it, then you have to ask yourself as educated men, as you obviously are, how intellectually honest it is to make these assumptions and claims. It is a quite diabolical thing to say.

I of course agree with Bonobo. I try to keep personalities out of my posts. I can understand how the Brits who have not experienced a colonial empire or a war would be upset at thinking the Empire would starve people. Or Americans not in Vietnam understand massacres of women and children. It is hard to come to grips with your country doing something we would consider today despicable. I especially don't know how the Japanese or Germans cope with it.

I grew up when the British still had parts of the Empire. I talked to Americans who had been in Thailand and involved with Thai diplomacy during WW II. It is certainly a different mindset.

I can understand why Thais would not to study history given their recent past. My half-so degreed Thai GF gets squeamish and tells me not to talk about politics close to bedtime because she will have bad dreams.

Unless the Americans intervened I think the combination of war reparations and the British occupation of Thailand would have caused Thais to starve. You may not agree with me but the figure of 1.5 million tons of rice along with the previous contracts to sell rice to other countries in a year when the harvest was not that great and all the damage in Burma from the war would have been disastrous for Thailand. Can I prove this? Nope because it didn't happen. Can I prove that the Brits wanted to occupy Thailand and take at least 1.5 million tons of rice? Yes. Did it happen in other countries occupied by the Allies? Yes 2 million died in Vietnam in 1945. The British and the French were allies, Would the Brits have taken rice from Thailand the enemy and given it to the French? I don't know. The British and French were the colonial powers in the area not the Americans. The Thais had a war with the French in 1940. Who knows.

Not a lot of love lost in SEA the Americans were the only power who did not have an axe to grind.

Did I answer your question? It seems to me they did but I can't be sure.

I can tell the difference between a proposal and a policy. It would have been diabolical if the British had removed so much rice from Thailand that it would have caused mass starvation. However it is very pejorative to say that the British were intending to starve Thailand.

So I accept your point that there was a proposal to remove 1.5 million tonnes, I don't accept that it was a state policy to starve the country.

There is also a tendency by us all to use 20/20 vision on these matters. There were food shortages in the UK , ( though not to starvation levels ) and I am sure many of my older British ex-pat colleagues can remember the feeling of hunger very well. There was mass starvation in Germany at the end of the war also, and that was ingrained, ( maybe still is ) in the German psyche for a long time. I remember visiting the homes of elderly Germans during the 1990's and they had enough food to last 6 months.

Starvation is a touchy subject, and the pictures coming out of the concentration camps after the war caused mass revulsion in the UK. I cannot and will not believe that the Socialist Labour Party that was in power in the UK during the period your refer to would have sanctioned state sponsored starvation in Thailand.

Anyway, my Thai gf says she wishes that Britain had colonized Thailand. She has been to both Singapore and Malaysia, and she see's countries far more developed, far better educated, far more competitive, and far more advanced than Thailand. She also likes the idea of the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Man.

Hands up who likes the Rule of Law?

[StreetCowboy]

...

Hands up who likes the Rule of Law?

Rule of Law, rather than Rule by Law

SC

[Forethat]

Hands up who likes the Rule of Law?

Do I get paid 250 Baht if I say yes...?

[StreetCowboy]

Hands up who likes the Rule of Law?

Do I get paid 250 Baht if I say yes...?

Is it a steel rule or a plastic rule? Or an exception that proves the rule?

SC

[theblether]

Hands up who likes the Rule of Law?

Do I get paid 250 Baht if I say yes...?

[theblether]

Hands up who likes the Rule of Law?

Do I get paid 250 Baht if I say yes...?

Is it a steel rule or a plastic rule? Or an exception that proves the rule?

SC

I could mention Regal rule but that will kick off another bun fight

[StreetCowboy]

Hands up who likes the Rule of Law?

Do I get paid 250 Baht if I say yes...?

Is it a steel rule or a plastic rule? Or an exception that proves the rule?

SC

I could mention Regal rule but that will kick off another bun fight

I don't smoke,, though I've been steaming often enough

SC

[HeavyDrinker]

Could we get back on topic here and ask Somchai to pick holes in the spelling and Grammar?

[StreetCowboy]

Could we get back on topic here and ask Somchai to pick holes in the spelling and Grammar?

Darn Somchai!

SC

[kerryk]

You know Singapore isn't that far away. I was there 40 years ago and then again a few years ago. Big changes. I am asking here as I know little about it, are the students in Singapore more cosmopolitan? Do they know a lot about history and the world around them? I realize the two countries are not comparable but being so close geographically and generally with the same trade opportunities one can't help but ask what was the difference in post WW II behavior. Can Thailand learn anything from Singapore? And if so why don't they? Anyone know anything about education in Singapore?

[HeavyDrinker]

You could ask the same about Cambodia Kerryk.

The people there never cease to amaze me with their knowledge and their thirst for knowledge.

I have given lectures both in Thailand and in Cambodia (among others).

Here I get a polite ripple of applause after and then it's off to the coffee; in Cambodia I'm fielding questions for 30 minutes after...if I'm lucky...sometimes it's an hour or two...

Edited September 25, 2011 by HeavyDrinker

[Kananga]

You know Singapore isn't that far away. I was there 40 years ago and then again a few years ago. Big changes. I am asking here as I know little about it, are the students in Singapore more cosmopolitan? Do they know a lot about history and the world around them? I realize the two countries are not comparable but being so close geographically and generally with the same trade opportunities one can't help but ask what was the difference in post WW II behavior. Can Thailand learn anything from Singapore? And if so why don't they? Anyone know anything about education in Singapore?

I've lived in SIngapore for 8 years. Singaporean education is often criticized for being to imbalanced towards academic studies and stifling towards creative development, yet singaporeans (at least the ones I have conversed with over the years) are certainly aware of the world around them and capable of holding a conversation about past world events. Definitely more so that comparably educated Thais. Singaporeans ade definitely taught more about being part of a global community (which is reflected in their far superior English proficiency).

That being said, I have more Thai friends than Singaporeans and find them to be more open and sociable, even if we can't discuss the global impact of Brazilian deforestation.

[HeavyDrinker]

That being said, I have more Thai friends than Singaporeans and find them to be more open and sociable, even if we can't discuss the global impact of Brazilian deforestation.

Please refrain from posting about such things.

Somchard wouldn't understand.

Thank you very big.

[Richard4849]

You know Singapore isn't that far away. I was there 40 years ago and then again a few years ago. Big changes. I am asking here as I know little about it, are the students in Singapore more cosmopolitan? Do they know a lot about history and the world around them? I realize the two countries are not comparable but being so close geographically and generally with the same trade opportunities one can't help but ask what was the difference in post WW II behavior. Can Thailand learn anything from Singapore? And if so why don't they? Anyone know anything about education in Singapore?

I've lived in SIngapore for 8 years. Singaporean education is often criticized for being to imbalanced towards academic studies and stifling towards creative development, yet singaporeans (at least the ones I have conversed with over the years) are certainly aware of the world around them and capable of holding a conversation about past world events. Definitely more so that comparably educated Thais. Singaporeans ade definitely taught more about being part of a global community (which is reflected in their far superior English proficiency).

That being said, I have more Thai friends than Singaporeans and find them to be more open and sociable, even if we can't discuss the global impact of Brazilian deforestation.

Of course Singaporeans speak better English than Thais -- that is the lingua franca there! Not a good comparison.

[nong38]

Before I retired I worked in John Lewis, Oxford Street London, in the Audio and TV department, the biggest A and TV dept by takings in Europe. We had a lot of foreign visitors, many good speak little or no English, some were to shy to try. We did have a list of interpreters in the shop, so if we wanted to to business we first of all had to find out where the customer was from then call for an interpreter, I would try and find a fact about their country of origin to make them feel at ease till the interpreter arrived. Now think what happens in Thailand. A farang anyone speak farang? By default its English, they dont even bother, most of the locals to find out where you come from, now it is getting better and it needs to, when call Thais, Cambodians they dont like it and they still dont get it, until I explain it to them, probably forgotten tomorrow though. Still I think a few more locals know now I am from England.

[theblether]

You know Singapore isn't that far away. I was there 40 years ago and then again a few years ago. Big changes. I am asking here as I know little about it, are the students in Singapore more cosmopolitan? Do they know a lot about history and the world around them? I realize the two countries are not comparable but being so close geographically and generally with the same trade opportunities one can't help but ask what was the difference in post WW II behavior. Can Thailand learn anything from Singapore? And if so why don't they? Anyone know anything about education in Singapore?

Singapore is a happy fluke of geography and history, it would be difficult to draw comparisons. I think it would be fairer to compare Thailand with Malaysia.

[sbk]

Just deleted a whole bunch of inflammatory posts. Do it again and I will suspend the lot of you. Three public warnings to keep it civil as ample.

If you can't mind your manners you will find your posting rights restricted. Hope thats clear.

[theblether]

You know Singapore isn't that far away. I was there 40 years ago and then again a few years ago. Big changes. I am asking here as I know little about it, are the students in Singapore more cosmopolitan? Do they know a lot about history and the world around them? I realize the two countries are not comparable but being so close geographically and generally with the same trade opportunities one can't help but ask what was the difference in post WW II behavior. Can Thailand learn anything from Singapore? And if so why don't they? Anyone know anything about education in Singapore?

I've lived in SIngapore for 8 years. Singaporean education is often criticized for being to imbalanced towards academic studies and stifling towards creative development, yet singaporeans (at least the ones I have conversed with over the years) are certainly aware of the world around them and capable of holding a conversation about past world events. Definitely more so that comparably educated Thais. Singaporeans ade definitely taught more about being part of a global community (which is reflected in their far superior English proficiency).

That being said, I have more Thai friends than Singaporeans and find them to be more open and sociable, even if we can't discuss the global impact of Brazilian deforestation.

I do business in China and a recent survey of the G20 nations put China at the top for Mathematics, but 19th equal for Imagination and Creative studies. I have a lot of very sharp and sociable Chinese friends, mainly degree educated. A group of these friends finished their studies in the UK, and the running joke amongst them is they cannot believe how insular they were before going to the UK.

I refer to my Chinese friends as the predominant ethnic group in Singapore is of Chinese heritage, and I believe that there is severe pressure put on Singaporean children to do well in their academic studies. However at the same time Singaporean children are surrounded by some quite excellent museums, art galleries and architecture. Most Singaporean children are trilingual, and international trade is the bread and butter of the Singaporean economy. On top of that they are proud and active members of the Commonwealth and many other co-operative associations such as ASEAN.

Singapore seems to have taken the best of all worlds, and I can only see a fabulous prosperous future for the country. Malaysia is going the same way too, I reckon in about 15 / 20 years time these two countries will be at the top of their game. Thailand is having to play catch up.

[Kananga]

Singaporean children are surrounded by good museums, art galleries etc but I doubt many visit short of enforced school trips. And while most Singaporean children are bilingual (due to the mother tongue teaching policy) they are not masters of any particular one. For many chinese singaporean office workers they will speak hokkien at home (which is essentially just a dialect) and have an 11 year old's level of English and some very basic Mandarin knowledge.

Cost of living in SIngapore is also spiraling out of control, inflation is very high and the cost of living has exploded in the last few years. In fact a Malaysian in Malaysia has a larger purchasing power than the equivalent SIngaporean due to the cost of living. Many singaporeans cannot afford housing now and the situation will only get worse. If I was singaporean with no escape I would be very gloomy about my future.

Malaysia and Vietnam will be the economies to watch as their infrastructure catches up with Singapore. I wouldnt put my money on Singapore in the long term.

[theblether]

Singaporean children are surrounded by good museums, art galleries etc but I doubt many visit short of enforced school trips. And while most Singaporean children are bilingual (due to the mother tongue teaching policy) they are not masters of any particular one. For many chinese singaporean office workers they will speak hokkien at home (which is essentially just a dialect) and have an 11 year old's level of English and some very basic Mandarin knowledge.

Cost of living in SIngapore is also spiraling out of control, inflation is very high and the cost of living has exploded in the last few years. In fact a Malaysian in Malaysia has a larger purchasing power than the equivalent SIngaporean due to the cost of living. Many singaporeans cannot afford housing now and the situation will only get worse. If I was singaporean with no escape I would be very gloomy about my future.

Malaysia and Vietnam will be the economies to watch as their infrastructure catches up with Singapore. I wouldnt put my money on Singapore in the long term.

Fair comment, the cost of living can only go up due to the space constraints. The people at the bottom are always the first to be squeezed.

In regards to Thailand, I'm no expert but I believe there was a proposal to build a canal through Southern Thailand, hence reducing the weight of traffic in the Straits of Malacca, and reducing the distance of Chinese freight by 600 nautical miles as it meanders it's way towards the European markets. I understand the Chinese were prepared to fund the building of the Canal but the idea was rejected by the Thais as they feared greater social unrest in that area. I also believe that Samsung ( I could well be wrong ) re-located to Malaysia as there were no suitable deep water ports in Thailand.

I see there are plans to build a high speed train line from the Chinese mainland to Bangkok via Chiang Mai, and plans to build a Chinese business area in Bangkok.

Thailand will need to look very carefully at their infrastructure as that will be just as deciding a factor to their economic development as improvements to the education system.

Edited September 25, 2011 by theblether

[Kananga]

Singaporean children are surrounded by good museums, art galleries etc but I doubt many visit short of enforced school trips. And while most Singaporean children are bilingual (due to the mother tongue teaching policy) they are not masters of any particular one. For many chinese singaporean office workers they will speak hokkien at home (which is essentially just a dialect) and have an 11 year old's level of English and some very basic Mandarin knowledge.

Cost of living in SIngapore is also spiraling out of control, inflation is very high and the cost of living has exploded in the last few years. In fact a Malaysian in Malaysia has a larger purchasing power than the equivalent SIngaporean due to the cost of living. Many singaporeans cannot afford housing now and the situation will only get worse. If I was singaporean with no escape I would be very gloomy about my future.

Malaysia and Vietnam will be the economies to watch as their infrastructure catches up with Singapore. I wouldnt put my money on Singapore in the long term.

Fair comment, the cost of living can only go up due to the space constraints. The people at the bottom are always the first to be squeezed.

Thats a very good point. The wealth divide in SIngapore is getting larger and larger. Costs are rising all the time, yet inflation and cost of living is getting higher and higher. It is a very subservient society and there is a certain amount of fear of the authorities, however as public discontent increases (due to rising costs, increase in foreigners/ immigrants etc) it will get worse. Especially when the old man dies and the psychological grip he has on the population finally lifts.

[paulian]

Guess I've been hanging around the wrong Thai's. Most of the people I know here only have gone to 6th grade and think the world is flat. A few made it to High School and know a little more, however, some of the questions you are asking I seem to remember taking as a freshman or sophomore in college. Seems to me, not too many make it there in this country due to the poor economic conditions they are born in to.

[Richard4849]

Guess I've been hanging around the wrong Thai's. Most of the people I know here only have gone to 6th grade and think the world is flat. A few made it to High School and know a little more, however, some of the questions you are asking I seem to remember taking as a freshman or sophomore in college. Seems to me, not too many make it there in this country due to the poor economic conditions they are born in to.

Sounds like you need to expand your social contacts.