Would Thailand be better off if it was colonized by a Western power?

[stickylies]

@ sticky.

It's free for a non tax payer too.................

so an adult, who has never worked (not paid taxes), and does not intend to work (which is perfectly ok for me btw!), and who is not physically disabled or mentally ill, can get free healthcare in that country u are refering to. i don't believe that.

and if it is true, tell me the name of the country so i can marry a woman there ASAP and start my new cheapo life....

England......................

i see. utter BS as expected. i happen to know the english (non-)system.

don't tell me u're yet another bitter, crypto-rightwinger on TV who wishes all them "foreign freeloaders" should go back to their country.

[wolf5370]

Malaysia and Singapore did not benefit from the colonization, but from the Chinese who were brought as labourers there. Thanks to the working spirit of the Chinese immigrants, these countries gained wealth. See Hong Kong as well. In most cases colonization was only to take as much benefit and profit of the colonized countries as possible. I doubt that Thailand would have been better off. It might have been worse. Look at all the colonized countries. How well are they doing? What suffering had the population of these countries to go through, to get rid of the colonialists...?

And if you think that countries like the US, Canada, and many countries in South America benefited from colonization, then you're wrong too. The local population has been murdered and decimized and now the "locals" are all descendents from Europe.

They most certainly did benefit, the school curriculum is in English and still is the de facto official business language in Malaysia. Everyone I know in Malaysia is fluent in English and that is a rare thing for a south east asian country, Malaysia also has the highest levels of English proficiency in Asia. The British brought in a lot of Indians and they were the ones favored to be professionals, that's why you see an overwhelming amount of the doctors, engineers and lawyers in Malaysia are Indian. If the British did not colonize Malaysia, it would be a backward Islamic state and the constitution written with the help of the British is what is keeping that from happening today.

so explain burma's mess

I did earlier. Burma was independent in 1948 - the junta came in 1962 - the civil war and problems between was due to the same problem they have now - they are a collection of different cultures entirely and will continue to fight as Yangoon hold universal control there. Religion differs from region to region too - probably the only country in the world that has fanatical Buddhists! Britain left it after 2 years of talks, left it with a functioning government and a democracy. Mandalay did not fall until 1886, so was Empire for only 62 years! A lot of the problem during the occupation was between the Indian workers and traders Britain brought and the Burmese.

In 1937 Burma became an Independently Administered Colony and had its first PM (a Burmese called Ba Maw - who was very anti-British and pro independence - how many Imperial powers would allow that to come about! - he did eventually resign and ended up being arrested for sedition for anti-war protests during WW2). In Japan, during the war, Aung Sun formed the so called Burmese Independence Army (BIA). When Rangoon fell to the Japanese - it was Ba Maw who reappeared (proving his sedition true) to run the Burmese Executive Administration (BEA) under the Japanese Empire (so not really independence then!). The biggest single regiment the world had ever seen (Indian - one million strong) fought the Japanese for 2 years - 150,000 Japanese died (less than 2000 captured - it was bloody). Burma had taken the brunt of the collateral damage of the war in Asia and was basically devastated. Although initially the Burmese fought for the Japanese from 2, by 44 most were fighting with (or even in) the British army against the Japanese (Arakan National Army switched sides in 44 officially).

After WW2 Aung Sun and other negotiated the Panglong Agreement for independence with ethnic leaders (not Britain) to demand independence and for a single state of Burma. In 47, Aung San became Deputy Chairman of the Executive Council of Burma, a transitional government. He was assassinated the same year by political rivals along with much of the cabinet! The following year - six months later - the nation became an independent republic, The Union of Burma, with Sao Shwe Thaik as its first President and U Nu as its first PM. It refused invitation to join the Commonwealth (a rare event). Three elections were held between then and 1960.

In 61, U Thant, (the Burma's Permanent Representative to the UN), was elected Secretary-General of the UN, a position he held for ten years! Among the Burmese to work at the UN when he was Secretary-General was a young Aung San Suu Kyi, who went on to become winner of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize.

A year later General Ne Win overthrew the democracy by way of a coup. And not much changed from then until 2011.

Much of the problem has been, s I said, between different cultures in Burma: Kachin (Kachin Independence Army - see Kachin Conflict via Google for details); Rohingya Muslims, Arkan, Shan, Lahu, Karen, Wu, and the government of course, and so on. Burma should never have become a Union - it was not and is not ready for it - though that was agreed between the leaders and taken to the British before the transition government was put in place to over see it (all Burmese in the Transitional Gov I might add).

So that's why they are in a state - World War 2 devastation, and a vicious Junta ruling by way of a coup and an iron fist.

[AYJAYDEE]

Malaysia and Singapore did not benefit from the colonization, but from the Chinese who were brought as labourers there. Thanks to the working spirit of the Chinese immigrants, these countries gained wealth. See Hong Kong as well. In most cases colonization was only to take as much benefit and profit of the colonized countries as possible. I doubt that Thailand would have been better off. It might have been worse. Look at all the colonized countries. How well are they doing? What suffering had the population of these countries to go through, to get rid of the colonialists...?

And if you think that countries like the US, Canada, and many countries in South America benefited from colonization, then you're wrong too. The local population has been murdered and decimized and now the "locals" are all descendents from Europe.

They most certainly did benefit, the school curriculum is in English and still is the de facto official business language in Malaysia. Everyone I know in Malaysia is fluent in English and that is a rare thing for a south east asian country, Malaysia also has the highest levels of English proficiency in Asia. The British brought in a lot of Indians and they were the ones favored to be professionals, that's why you see an overwhelming amount of the doctors, engineers and lawyers in Malaysia are Indian. If the British did not colonize Malaysia, it would be a backward Islamic state and the constitution written with the help of the British is what is keeping that from happening today.

so explain burma's mess

I did earlier. Burma was independent in 1948 - the junta came in 1962 - the civil war and problems between was due to the same problem they have now - they are a collection of different cultures entirely and will continue to fight as Yangoon hold universal control there. Religion differs from region to region too - probably the only country in the world that has fanatical Buddhists! Britain left it after 2 years of talks, left it with a functioning government and a democracy. Mandalay did not fall until 1886, so was Empire for only 62 years! A lot of the problem during the occupation was between the Indian workers and traders Britain brought and the Burmese.

In 1937 Burma became an Independently Administered Colony and had its first PM (a Burmese called Ba Maw - who was very anti-British and pro independence - how many Imperial powers would allow that to come about! - he did eventually resign and ended up being arrested for sedition for anti-war protests during WW2). In Japan, during the war, Aung Sun formed the so called Burmese Independence Army (BIA). When Rangoon fell to the Japanese - it was Ba Maw who reappeared (proving his sedition true) to run the Burmese Executive Administration (BEA) under the Japanese Empire (so not really independence then!). The biggest single regiment the world had ever seen (Indian - one million strong) fought the Japanese for 2 years - 150,000 Japanese died (less than 2000 captured - it was bloody). Burma had taken the brunt of the collateral damage of the war in Asia and was basically devastated. Although initially the Burmese fought for the Japanese from 2, by 44 most were fighting with (or even in) the British army against the Japanese (Arakan National Army switched sides in 44 officially).

After WW2 Aung Sun and other negotiated the Panglong Agreement for independence with ethnic leaders (not Britain) to demand independence and for a single state of Burma. In 47, Aung San became Deputy Chairman of the Executive Council of Burma, a transitional government. He was assassinated the same year by political rivals along with much of the cabinet! The following year - six months later - the nation became an independent republic, The Union of Burma, with Sao Shwe Thaik as its first President and U Nu as its first PM. It refused invitation to join the Commonwealth (a rare event). Three elections were held between then and 1960.

In 61, U Thant, (the Burma's Permanent Representative to the UN), was elected Secretary-General of the UN, a position he held for ten years! Among the Burmese to work at the UN when he was Secretary-General was a young Aung San Suu Kyi, who went on to become winner of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize.

A year later General Ne Win overthrew the democracy by way of a coup. And not much changed from then until 2011.

Much of the problem has been, s I said, between different cultures in Burma: Kachin (Kachin Independence Army - see Kachin Conflict via Google for details); Rohingya Muslims, Arkan, Shan, Lahu, Karen, Wu, and the government of course, and so on. Burma should never have become a Union - it was not and is not ready for it - though that was agreed between the leaders and taken to the British before the transition government was put in place to over see it (all Burmese in the Transitional Gov I might add).

So that's why they are in a state - World War 2 devastation, and a vicious Junta ruling by way of a coup and an iron fist.

nope. british colonialism is what led to the fractured societies that LED to the civil wars and junta as well as the japanese brutality.

[wolf5370]

Let's face it. The colonial powers are there to enrich themselves and nothing else. Canada, Oz and NZ can't be compared to an India, Burma or Rhodesia as they weren't raped of their wealth in quite the same manner. In those countries new society's were built from scratch in the image of Britain, rather than subjugating the local populace to meet their aims.

How so? There is no difference in what happened. Australia was very much raped for its wealth - it still is being (just ask the Aborigines in the Northern Districts being thrown off their land and forced into "settlement villages" so that the oil under their land can be got at! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tcq4oGL0wlI). In all counties the indigenous people were subjugated where possible and removed (usually physically or by forced agreement) - this happened in Africa and it happened in America - and it happened in Canada - and it happened in Australia. Most of the worst stuff actually happened after independence in those countries - when Native American's were systematically wiped out (either by the like of Custer - or by seeding blankets with Cholera!) - in Australia the Aborigines were rounded up and shot in the early days, later there were attempts to breed them out of existence and now they are being...well watch the documentary above!

Britain tied to make each country it colonised into a British state - from the very beginning it used local people to run things under the Empiric rule (initially Maharajas then Indian traders, businessmen and civil servants). Not everywhere that people think was British Empire actually was - many were "owned" land un der British administration -

e.g. Ceylon (Sri Lanka): was not Empire for most of the time it was held by the British - indeed first it was a Portuguese colony (1619 - prior to that it was an independent kingdom of Jaffna, but Portugal held area since 1517), then after a hundred years the Dutch won it after the Portuguese Dutch War (1650s).

The British took it during the Napoleonic wars (because otherwise France would have as they controlled the Netherlands). 1796-8 (they took the coastal areas first then the rest of the island following the kings death - from ill health). It was held not by Britain, but by a British Company (I.e Privately) the infamous British East India Company. Britain planted Coffee which was successful until the coffee prices fell - then a disease wiped out all the plants within two decades. So they switched to tea. In 1843 Ceylon became part of the Empire (and thus subject to her laws - and slaves were immediately freed - last enclave of Britain to have slavery - although here were very few in Ceylon anyway as the British East India Company had other ways to get cheap labour - they made laws for free labour one in every six days for example). It was made independent at the same time India was - and again it was later that they had problems (firstly the Soulbury Reforms agreement was basically ignored). The Royal Navy was stationed there until 56 - and pretty much after they left it went to poop. Bandaranaike was elected and brought in very divisive policies like enforcing Sinhala as the only language legally allowed! He was very anti Tamil. He was assassinated by a Buddhist monk in 59. His wife took over as PM in 60 and defeated a coup attempt the same year. During her second term she instituted socialist economic polices, strengthening ties with the Soviet Union and China. Civil war in 75 due to the anti-Tamil policies and pro socialist stance. In 77 it changed tact with UF being kicked out of office and Jayawardene took office and created a constitution based on the French (also free market - first in S.Asia - and presidency - also modelled on France). And on it goes thought eh 80s with uprisings every other year or so. The war lasted 26 years - and only ended 2009!

[wolf5370]

so explain burma's mess

I did earlier. Burma was independent in 1948 - the junta came in 1962 - the civil war and problems between was due to the same problem they have now - they are a collection of different cultures entirely and will continue to fight as Yangoon hold universal control there. Religion differs from region to region too - probably the only country in the world that has fanatical Buddhists! Britain left it after 2 years of talks, left it with a functioning government and a democracy. Mandalay did not fall until 1886, so was Empire for only 62 years! A lot of the problem during the occupation was between the Indian workers and traders Britain brought and the Burmese.

In 1937 Burma became an Independently Administered Colony and had its first PM (a Burmese called Ba Maw - who was very anti-British and pro independence - how many Imperial powers would allow that to come about! - he did eventually resign and ended up being arrested for sedition for anti-war protests during WW2). In Japan, during the war, Aung Sun formed the so called Burmese Independence Army (BIA). When Rangoon fell to the Japanese - it was Ba Maw who reappeared (proving his sedition true) to run the Burmese Executive Administration (BEA) under the Japanese Empire (so not really independence then!). The biggest single regiment the world had ever seen (Indian - one million strong) fought the Japanese for 2 years - 150,000 Japanese died (less than 2000 captured - it was bloody). Burma had taken the brunt of the collateral damage of the war in Asia and was basically devastated. Although initially the Burmese fought for the Japanese from 2, by 44 most were fighting with (or even in) the British army against the Japanese (Arakan National Army switched sides in 44 officially).

After WW2 Aung Sun and other negotiated the Panglong Agreement for independence with ethnic leaders (not Britain) to demand independence and for a single state of Burma. In 47, Aung San became Deputy Chairman of the Executive Council of Burma, a transitional government. He was assassinated the same year by political rivals along with much of the cabinet! The following year - six months later - the nation became an independent republic, The Union of Burma, with Sao Shwe Thaik as its first President and U Nu as its first PM. It refused invitation to join the Commonwealth (a rare event). Three elections were held between then and 1960.

In 61, U Thant, (the Burma's Permanent Representative to the UN), was elected Secretary-General of the UN, a position he held for ten years! Among the Burmese to work at the UN when he was Secretary-General was a young Aung San Suu Kyi, who went on to become winner of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize.

A year later General Ne Win overthrew the democracy by way of a coup. And not much changed from then until 2011.

Much of the problem has been, s I said, between different cultures in Burma: Kachin (Kachin Independence Army - see Kachin Conflict via Google for details); Rohingya Muslims, Arkan, Shan, Lahu, Karen, Wu, and the government of course, and so on. Burma should never have become a Union - it was not and is not ready for it - though that was agreed between the leaders and taken to the British before the transition government was put in place to over see it (all Burmese in the Transitional Gov I might add).

So that's why they are in a state - World War 2 devastation, and a vicious Junta ruling by way of a coup and an iron fist.

nope. british colonialism is what led to the fractured societies that LED to the civil wars and junta as well as the japanese brutality.

I disagree - and so does history - explain how so?

You obviously have some anti-British feelings here, so if you only have animosity as your argument point, then I may as well leave it here - as no amount of facts will change such a view and it is not possible to debate when no salient point has been raised.

[AYJAYDEE]

so explain burma's mess

I did earlier. Burma was independent in 1948 - the junta came in 1962 - the civil war and problems between was due to the same problem they have now - they are a collection of different cultures entirely and will continue to fight as Yangoon hold universal control there. Religion differs from region to region too - probably the only country in the world that has fanatical Buddhists! Britain left it after 2 years of talks, left it with a functioning government and a democracy. Mandalay did not fall until 1886, so was Empire for only 62 years! A lot of the problem during the occupation was between the Indian workers and traders Britain brought and the Burmese.

In 1937 Burma became an Independently Administered Colony and had its first PM (a Burmese called Ba Maw - who was very anti-British and pro independence - how many Imperial powers would allow that to come about! - he did eventually resign and ended up being arrested for sedition for anti-war protests during WW2). In Japan, during the war, Aung Sun formed the so called Burmese Independence Army (BIA). When Rangoon fell to the Japanese - it was Ba Maw who reappeared (proving his sedition true) to run the Burmese Executive Administration (BEA) under the Japanese Empire (so not really independence then!). The biggest single regiment the world had ever seen (Indian - one million strong) fought the Japanese for 2 years - 150,000 Japanese died (less than 2000 captured - it was bloody). Burma had taken the brunt of the collateral damage of the war in Asia and was basically devastated. Although initially the Burmese fought for the Japanese from 2, by 44 most were fighting with (or even in) the British army against the Japanese (Arakan National Army switched sides in 44 officially).

After WW2 Aung Sun and other negotiated the Panglong Agreement for independence with ethnic leaders (not Britain) to demand independence and for a single state of Burma. In 47, Aung San became Deputy Chairman of the Executive Council of Burma, a transitional government. He was assassinated the same year by political rivals along with much of the cabinet! The following year - six months later - the nation became an independent republic, The Union of Burma, with Sao Shwe Thaik as its first President and U Nu as its first PM. It refused invitation to join the Commonwealth (a rare event). Three elections were held between then and 1960.

In 61, U Thant, (the Burma's Permanent Representative to the UN), was elected Secretary-General of the UN, a position he held for ten years! Among the Burmese to work at the UN when he was Secretary-General was a young Aung San Suu Kyi, who went on to become winner of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize.

A year later General Ne Win overthrew the democracy by way of a coup. And not much changed from then until 2011.

Much of the problem has been, s I said, between different cultures in Burma: Kachin (Kachin Independence Army - see Kachin Conflict via Google for details); Rohingya Muslims, Arkan, Shan, Lahu, Karen, Wu, and the government of course, and so on. Burma should never have become a Union - it was not and is not ready for it - though that was agreed between the leaders and taken to the British before the transition government was put in place to over see it (all Burmese in the Transitional Gov I might add).

So that's why they are in a state - World War 2 devastation, and a vicious Junta ruling by way of a coup and an iron fist.

nope. british colonialism is what led to the fractured societies that LED to the civil wars and junta as well as the japanese brutality.

I disagree - and so does history - explain how so?

You obviously have some anti-British feelings here, so if you only have animosity as your argument point, then I may as well leave it here - as no amount of facts will change such a view and it is not possible to debate when no salient point has been raised.

neither history nor you have any idea how it would have turned out if britain had not been a colonial power in burma. i have anti-colonial feelings with good reason. your "facts" are nothing more than what happened and I am of the opinion that it would not have turned out that way except for british presence. disagree if you wish but that doesnt mean you have any facts to back up your opinion

[Payboy]

Would Thailand be better off if it was colonized by a Western power?

Why, what's wrong with the previous and current Japanese occupation?

[Strangebrew]

Why Screw up Thailand more than it is?

[socksy01]

On a light hearted note on this subject.

Bring in the Roman's.

https://www.google.co.th/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QyCkwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DExWfh6sGyso%26feature%3Dkp&ei=P5uXU4TOFMP88QXC6oLoCQ&usg=AFQjCNGqOkqtsgzwKcUxMZSjq1gAunRu9Q

[ToS2014]

While it is technically true that LoS was never colonizied, it was heavily influenced by Western powers during the colonization period. It remained a buffer zone, if you will, between the Brits (in Burma and Malasia) and the French (in Laos, Cambo, and VN). A lot of people think that colonization helped states progress. That may be true, but also can be endlessly debated. Remember the primary inputeus for Western powers to colonize other states in the period was to increase trade; basically for economic reasons and to stop other states from increasing their status.

Another reason why LoS was never colonized is that it manuevered itself, signed trade agreements with Western powers among others, to be aligned more with Western practices.

The question can be endlessly debated with good and bad examples. While LoS nieghbors were colonized, are they better off? What about the Philippines, colonized by the Spanish and U.S.?

[shadmo63]

Let's face it. The colonial powers are there to enrich themselves and nothing else. Canada, Oz and NZ can't be compared to an India, Burma or Rhodesia as they weren't raped of their wealth in quite the same manner. In those countries new society's were built from scratch in the image of Britain, rather than subjugating the local populace to meet their aims.

How so? There is no difference in what happened. Australia was very much raped for its wealth - it still is being (just ask the Aborigines in the Northern Districts being thrown off their land and forced into "settlement villages" so that the oil under their land can be got at!

). In all counties the indigenous people were subjugated where possible and removed (usually physically or by forced agreement) - this happened in Africa and it happened in America - and it happened in Canada - and it happened in Australia. Most of the worst stuff actually happened after independence in those countries - when Native American's were systematically wiped out (either by the like of Custer - or by seeding blankets with Cholera!) - in Australia the Aborigines were rounded up and shot in the early days, later there were attempts to breed them out of existence and now they are being...well watch the documentary above!

Britain tied to make each country it colonised into a British state - from the very beginning it used local people to run things under the Empiric rule (initially Maharajas then Indian traders, businessmen and civil servants). Not everywhere that people think was British Empire actually was - many were "owned" land un der British administration -

e.g. Ceylon (Sri Lanka): was not Empire for most of the time it was held by the British - indeed first it was a Portuguese colony (1619 - prior to that it was an independent kingdom of Jaffna, but Portugal held area since 1517), then after a hundred years the Dutch won it after the Portuguese Dutch War (1650s).

The British took it during the Napoleonic wars (because otherwise France would have as they controlled the Netherlands). 1796-8 (they took the coastal areas first then the rest of the island following the kings death - from ill health). It was held not by Britain, but by a British Company (I.e Privately) the infamous British East India Company. Britain planted Coffee which was successful until the coffee prices fell - then a disease wiped out all the plants within two decades. So they switched to tea. In 1843 Ceylon became part of the Empire (and thus subject to her laws - and slaves were immediately freed - last enclave of Britain to have slavery - although here were very few in Ceylon anyway as the British East India Company had other ways to get cheap labour - they made laws for free labour one in every six days for example). It was made independent at the same time India was - and again it was later that they had problems (firstly the Soulbury Reforms agreement was basically ignored). The Royal Navy was stationed there until 56 - and pretty much after they left it went to poop. Bandaranaike was elected and brought in very divisive policies like enforcing Sinhala as the only language legally allowed! He was very anti Tamil. He was assassinated by a Buddhist monk in 59. His wife took over as PM in 60 and defeated a coup attempt the same year. During her second term she instituted socialist economic polices, strengthening ties with the Soviet Union and China. Civil war in 75 due to the anti-Tamil policies and pro socialist stance. In 77 it changed tact with UF being kicked out of office and Jayawardene took office and created a constitution based on the French (also free market - first in S.Asia - and presidency - also modelled on France). And on it goes thought eh 80s with uprisings every other year or so. The war lasted 26 years - and only ended 2009!

Well subjugation and outright genocide aren't quite the same, are they? My definition of raping a country is taking its resources and wealth back to the mother country rather than it being used locally.

I can't remember the Australian aborigines ever being used to run things under the Empiric rule. I think that when a 50,000 year old semi-nomadic hunter gatherer society runs into a modern society (I use the word modern loosely) there is only ever going to be one outcome possible, and not a pretty one. 200 years later and the aboriginal problem is no nearer any satisfactory solution. At least by law they have rights these days, which is better than what the average Palestinian gets. Yes people judge us Australians harshly on our human rights record and rightly so in some respects - the white Australia policy was only abolished in 1972, but since then we've welcomed all and sundry. Despite how multicultural we are today there are still pockets of racism both overt and covert. Some paternalistic government policies like banning alcohol in certain communities and our current boat refugee asylum seeker policies are harsh in the extreme, but sometimes effective. Maybe if we came across the aborigines today for the first time we would do it better. A dirty big fence like in Israel/Palestine might be a good solution, not that I support that Jewish solution in any way.

[jmccarty]

Do the flapping wings of a butterfly in the Amazon in January create a tornado in Kansas in July?

[shadmo63]

Do the flapping wings of a butterfly in the Amazon in January create a tornado in Kansas in July?

Arai wa?

[332]

Do the flapping wings of a butterfly in the Amazon in January create a tornado in Kansas in July?

Arai wa?

It's code.

It means: I have nothing to add to then thread, but need to leave a comment anyway.

[Thai at Heart]

They might have left behind a functioning legal system which would have stopped 90% of the problems the country faces today.

[thailiketoo]

They might have left behind a functioning legal system which would have stopped 90% of the problems the country faces today.

Like Afghanistan? Afghanistan would remain a British protectorate until 1919. Or Sudan or Egypt?

[Thai at Heart]

They might have left behind a functioning legal system which would have stopped 90% of the problems the country faces today.

Like Afghanistan? Afghanistan would remain a British protectorate until 1919. Or Sudan or Egypt?

I wonder if those countries dismantled the systems. Singapore and Hong Kong seem to have done rather well. Malaysia is OK.

Unless of course you want to hold the Thai legal system up as something of a model for export of course.

Nz and Singapore are both in the top 10 least corrupt countries in the world. Not bad going.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[chakatee]

Do the flapping wings of a butterfly in the Amazon in January create a tornado in Kansas in July?

No idea what it means but this sounds so bloody awesome that I will definitely use this in many future discussions.

[thailiketoo]

Like Afghanistan? Afghanistan would remain a British protectorate until 1919. Or Sudan or Egypt?

I wonder if those countries dismantled the systems. Singapore and Hong Kong seem to have done rather well. Malaysia is OK.

Unless of course you want to hold the Thai legal system up as something of a model for export of course.

Hong Kong is a totalitarian dictatorship as is Singapore (almost). So, are those the British system? Malaysia? Like I hope gay people don't hear.

Colonization is characterized by raping the people and resources of the country colonized.

Check your Irish and Scottish history for verification.

[transam]

Like Afghanistan? Afghanistan would remain a British protectorate until 1919. Or Sudan or Egypt?

I wonder if those countries dismantled the systems. Singapore and Hong Kong seem to have done rather well. Malaysia is OK.

Unless of course you want to hold the Thai legal system up as something of a model for export of course.

Hong Kong is a totalitarian dictatorship as is Singapore (almost). So, are those the British system? Malaysia? Like I hope gay people don't hear.

Colonization is characterized by raping the people and resources of the country colonized.

Check your Irish and Scottish history for verification.

Rubbish...............

[thailiketoo]

Like Afghanistan? Afghanistan would remain a British protectorate until 1919. Or Sudan or Egypt?

I wonder if those countries dismantled the systems. Singapore and Hong Kong seem to have done rather well. Malaysia is OK.

Unless of course you want to hold the Thai legal system up as something of a model for export of course.

Hong Kong is a totalitarian dictatorship as is Singapore (almost). So, are those the British system? Malaysia? Like I hope gay people don't hear.

Colonization is characterized by raping the people and resources of the country colonized.

Check your Irish and Scottish history for verification.

Rubbish...............

Educated response. What grade level would you suspect?

[Jonmarleesco]

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

You are aware, I suppose, of the history of Singapore, Malaysia, HK, Vietnam, et al? All comfortably ahead of Thailand, economically, socially, and educationally.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Jonmarleesco

[Jonmarleesco]

Like Afghanistan? Afghanistan would remain a British protectorate until 1919. Or Sudan or Egypt?

I wonder if those countries dismantled the systems. Singapore and Hong Kong seem to have done rather well. Malaysia is OK.

Unless of course you want to hold the Thai legal system up as something of a model for export of course.

Hong Kong is a totalitarian dictatorship as is Singapore (almost). So, are those the British system? Malaysia? Like I hope gay people don't hear.

Colonization is characterized by raping the people and resources of the country colonized.

Check your Irish and Scottish history for verification.

Scotland and NI are, surprisingly, part of Britain.

[thailiketoo]

Like Afghanistan? Afghanistan would remain a British protectorate until 1919. Or Sudan or Egypt?

I wonder if those countries dismantled the systems. Singapore and Hong Kong seem to have done rather well. Malaysia is OK.

Unless of course you want to hold the Thai legal system up as something of a model for export of course.

Hong Kong is a totalitarian dictatorship as is Singapore (almost). So, are those the British system? Malaysia? Like I hope gay people don't hear.

Colonization is characterized by raping the people and resources of the country colonized.

Check your Irish and Scottish history for verification.

Scotland and NI are, surprisingly, part of Britain.

The Wars of Scottish Independence were a series of military campaigns fought between the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England in the late 13th and early 14th centuries.

The Irish War of Independence. Black and Tan War. The Norman invasion of the late 12th century marked the beginning of more than 700 years of direct English and, later, British involvement in Ireland.

The 1613 overthrow of the Catholic majority in the Irish Parliament was realised principally through the creation of numerous new boroughs which were dominated by the new settlers

[shadmo63]

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

You are aware, I suppose, of the history of Singapore, Malaysia, HK, Vietnam, et al? All comfortably ahead of Thailand, economically, socially, and educationally.

@Jonmarleesco have you been to Vietnam? et al? My guess is Vietnam will pass Thailand one day but they're 20 years behind at the moment.

Singapore is an economic marvel but under a rigid notionally democratic system, Malaysia is restricted by Islamic laws - socially I'd go with Thai personal freedoms any day.

[shadmo63]

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

You are aware, I suppose, of the history of Singapore, Malaysia, HK, Vietnam, et al? All comfortably ahead of Thailand, economically, socially, and educationally.

@Jonmarleesco have you been to Vietnam? et al? My guess is Vietnam will pass Thailand one day but they're 20 years behind at the moment.

Singapore is an economic marvel but under a rigid notionally democratic system, Malaysia is restricted by Islamic laws - socially I'd go with Thai personal freedoms any day.

[332]

Do the flapping wings of a butterfly in the Amazon in January create a tornado in Kansas in July?

No idea what it means but this sounds so bloody awesome that I will definitely use this in many future discussions.

It's the Chaos Theory Butterfly Effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

[catweazle]

O.P. - you either have too much time on your hands, or have absolutely - I mean AB-SO-$%#ing-LUTELY - no expat Thailand experience at all, or you are completely out of your mind, or you are simply a troll (but for that you've put too much effort in writing this inquiry)... perhaps it is all of the above...

Let me ask this, "Would perhaps the whole world be better off, if it would have been colonized and forced into western submission right from the very start, right after stone age?" Perhaps, because then we could have spared us the thousands of years of slaughtering "uncivilized savages" all over the world and the mass genocides performed on indigenous people in northern and southern America, plus we would not need to philosophise about Thailand being better off or not because the "civilized" world population with ONE culture, ONE leader, ONE religion, ONE goal (more money, more consuming, more luxury, less work) would have managed to deplete earth's resources much quicker and today there would be no human around anymore to philosophise about anything, letting alone if a colonized Thailand would be better off since it would not have existed in the first place, because it does not quite exactly fit in our white, arrogant and oh, so educated picture.

Hands off!!! Leave Thailand alone! It is absolutely great and amazing and perfect in it's imperfection. Enjoy Thailand as you find it or go home! ... and stop wasting our time! Thank you!

Edited June 11, 2014 by catweazle

[Thai at Heart]

Like Afghanistan? Afghanistan would remain a British protectorate until 1919. Or Sudan or Egypt?

I wonder if those countries dismantled the systems. Singapore and Hong Kong seem to have done rather well. Malaysia is OK.

Unless of course you want to hold the Thai legal system up as something of a model for export of course.

Hong Kong is a totalitarian dictatorship as is Singapore (almost). So, are those the British system? Malaysia? Like I hope gay people don't hear.

Colonization is characterized by raping the people and resources of the country colonized.

Check your Irish and Scottish history for verification.

Indeed, the Hong Kong thing might have something to do with the fact that it reverted to China just a while ago.

At the end of the day, both these countries dont have a corruption problem. What do gay people have to do with legal justice system. I didnt point out anything to do with other aspects of colonisaition, other than some countries benefitted greatly from having a functioning legal system left behind.

[thailiketoo]

Like Afghanistan? Afghanistan would remain a British protectorate until 1919. Or Sudan or Egypt?

I wonder if those countries dismantled the systems. Singapore and Hong Kong seem to have done rather well. Malaysia is OK.

Unless of course you want to hold the Thai legal system up as something of a model for export of course.

Hong Kong is a totalitarian dictatorship as is Singapore (almost). So, are those the British system? Malaysia? Like I hope gay people don't hear.

Colonization is characterized by raping the people and resources of the country colonized.

Check your Irish and Scottish history for verification.

Indeed, the Hong Kong thing might have something to do with the fact that it reverted to China just a while ago.

At the end of the day, both these countries dont have a corruption problem. What do gay people have to do with legal justice system. I didnt point out anything to do with other aspects of colonisaition, other than some countries benefitted greatly from having a functioning legal system left behind.

Malaysia 20 years in jail; sentence imposed by the legal system, for sodomy. Caning for various offenses and hanging for small amounts of drugs imposed by the legal system in Singapore. The Hong Kong system will eventually change to the Chinese system (Opinion).

Surely the form of government encompasses the legal system. The fact remains that one can not pick and choose the forms of rape that colonialism imposes on the country colonized. For example nice sewage system sorry for those millions of people starved to death.

Edited June 11, 2014 by thailiketoo