Would the people and the country be better off as a whole?

The society. Less hierarchal. More emphatically natured with better consideration for those considered below oneself.

The culture: Perhaps less impetus on repressing all negative emotions, which result in a number of emotional health issues such as regressed anger. Less impetus on face above all else. More open to constructive criticism, thus aiding development and progression.

The daily life of the people: Better educated. Better services and industries with more modern ways of thinking. Less of a wealth gap.

The educational system: Perhaps on par with Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore.

The country: more stable governments and systems.

The country on a global level: Likely increased GDP, more foreign investment, and better global ranking.

Do you think the people and the country as a whole would be better off if they had gone through 50-100 years of Western colonization?

You mean , lets turn the east into the west, no thanks.

Yes,they may also have some decent railway's.

like laos, cambodia, burma and vietnam??

Look at India to see what a mess was left behind by a colonizing power (yes, I'm a Brit and not proud of what we did there), 60 years on and it's still broken in so many ways

What are the prospering countries now that were colonized before, by the West?

OP - how do all those things apply to India?

Have you not been down the eastern seaboard lately?

Edited June 10, 201412 yr by samran

Well if history is any example, Great Britain was colonized by the Romans in the First Century, and then again partially colonized by Denmark in the Tenth Century and Great Britain is still uncivilized.

The revolution needs to come from the educators.

like laos, cambodia, burma and vietnam??

I would say Malaysia and Singapore did benefit in some way, because of the British there is a high level of English proficiency there and there is also respect for the constitution and the rule of law to some extent.

.

NO

.

like laos, cambodia, burma and vietnam??

I would say Malaysia and Singapore did benefit in some way, because of the British there is a high level of English proficiency there and there is also respect for the constitution and the rule of law to some extent.

england was in dozens of other countries . what happened to them?

Actually, I decided that my above post was to complex ... so a wee visual for you ...

.

like laos, cambodia, burma and vietnam??

I was thinking more along the lines of Malaysia,singapore and India with the railways,agree about the countries you mention,Burmese trains are very slow and have derailment problems i think Cambodia does not even have a passenger service,along with Laos, Veitnam does have a railway system along the coast, but how good i don't know, it seem's the French were not as keen on building railway's as the British.

Look at India to see what a mess was left behind by a colonizing power (yes, I'm a Brit and not proud of what we did there), 60 years on and it's still broken in so many ways

India has had a very long time to go their OWN way , cannot blame the UK for the way they went.............

Look at India to see what a mess was left behind by a colonizing power (yes, I'm a Brit and not proud of what we did there), 60 years on and it's still broken in so many ways

India has had a very long time to go their OWN way , cannot blame the UK for the way they went.............

65 years is a very long time?

Look at India to see what a mess was left behind by a colonizing power (yes, I'm a Brit and not proud of what we did there), 60 years on and it's still broken in so many ways

India has had a very long time to go their OWN way , cannot blame the UK for the way they went.............

Agree Transam,the caste system is India biggest problem.

Well if history is any example, Great Britain was colonized by the Romans in the First Century, and then again partially colonized by Denmark in the Tenth Century and Great Britain is still uncivilized.

But we did have central heating in the UK a thousand years back thanks to the Romans.... ....................

Can we at least agree to discuss Thailand?

Not what, should have or could have had happened in India ...

.

like laos, cambodia, burma and vietnam??

I was thinking more along the lines of Malaysia,singapore and India with the railways,agree about the countries you mention,Burmese trains are very slow and have derailment problems i think Cambodia does not even have a passenger service,along with Laos, Veitnam does have a railway system along the coast, but how good i don't know, it seem's the French were not as keen on building railway's as the British.

I would say it's a very good thing that they are slow if they have derailment problems. I'd hate to derail at speed.

Can we at least agree to discuss Thailand?

Not what, should have or could have had happened in India ...

.

he used other colonized countries in comparison in the OP

But we English taught folk the way to go way back, I remember..................

Look at India to see what a mess was left behind by a colonizing power (yes, I'm a Brit and not proud of what we did there), 60 years on and it's still broken in so many ways

India has had a very long time to go their OWN way , cannot blame the UK for the way they went.............

When the British left India, they told the natives not to touch anything...so they haven't

Can we at least agree to discuss Thailand?

Not what, should have or could have had happened in India ...

.

he used other colonized countries in comparison in the OP

Thanks mate ... though I did understand the analogy.

.

like laos, cambodia, burma and vietnam??

I would say Malaysia and Singapore did benefit in some way, because of the British there is a high level of English proficiency there and there is also respect for the constitution and the rule of law to some extent.

Do you think the people and the country as a whole would be better off if they had gone through 50-100 years of Western colonization?

I don't think it would of made things worse!

Lack of a reasonable education is holding Thailand back.

A quality education is the privileged of the empowered elite.The masses do not have access to a decent standard of education, and are socially prevented from benefiting from any meaningful advancement. When will an educated population (an informed electorate), be in the best interests of the powers that be ? Perhaps when the centrally controlled system finds itself falling behind Burma or Vietnam.

like laos, cambodia, burma and vietnam??

I would say Malaysia and Singapore did benefit in some way, because of the British there is a high level of English proficiency there and there is also respect for the constitution and the rule of law to some extent.

I'm not sure that UMNO's constant changing of the Malaysian constitution to suit themselves for 50 odd years could really be classed as respect...

Yes, I'd say more but it would be illegal in Thailand.

like laos, cambodia, burma and vietnam??

I would say Malaysia and Singapore did benefit in some way, because of the British there is a high level of English proficiency there and there is also respect for the constitution and the rule of law to some extent.

england was in dozens of other countries . what happened to them?

Well , what happened was, as soon as we gave them back the natives screwed it all up.

Look at India to see what a mess was left behind by a colonizing power (yes, I'm a Brit and not proud of what we did there), 60 years on and it's still broken in so many ways

That's absolute crap , you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Look at India to see what a mess was left behind by a colonizing power (yes, I'm a Brit and not proud of what we did there), 60 years on and it's still broken in so many ways

the Brits brought something very important and positive to the countries they colonised and that is a unifying language. that they introduced a paralysing bureaucrazy, which the natives expanded, is a real pity.

to me it's an enigma how the Thais developed their bureaucrazy without the help of the Brits.