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

[tw25rw]

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.

If it hadn't been for British colonialism, Singapore would be a largely undeveloped island off of the Malayan peninsular and would never have developed the way it has.

[thailiketoo]

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.

The Index of Economic Freedom is an annual index and ranking created by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal in 1995 to measure the degree of economic freedom in the world's nations. The creators of the index took an approach similar to Adam Smith's in The Wealth of Nations, that "basic institutions that protect the liberty of individuals to pursue their own economic interests result in greater prosperity for the larger society.

Rank

Thailand 61

Vietnam 140

[hanssna]

Naw... Thailand just better off the way it is. Would'nt like it if it was like Phillippines... Or Indonesia. Let Thailand keep it's own style.

[Berkshire]

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.

So you ignore all the basketcases and applaud a few success stories...? You sound like a big fan of the Chinese system. Yes, those Chinese are pretty efficient in how they do things, whether it's Singapore, HK, or mainland China. Of course, they do sacrifice a few things, usually starting with the words "freedom of." But I'm sure you'd be willing to sacrifice that as well, for the good of an orderly society.

[332]

#100?

#200?

[citizen33]

I have to give myself a slap and not try a serious post here. However, one irony that struck me about the current wave of anti-US sentiment is that - at face value - the Yanks did Thailand a big favour at the end of World War II by stopping the Brits from getting their pound of flesh from a defeated 'enemy'. I have to be careful not to exaggerate how draconian the pay back might have been, but if it had gone ahead I doubt whether the Thais (and especially the military) would be quite as forgetful as they are about their past. Some might say it would have done them good.

Edited June 11, 2014 by citizen33

[hawker9000]

Each situation has to be considered on its own merits. Where the period of colonization no more than gave way to internal civil & religious rivalries (India), the religious factionalism & violence which ensued has to bear much of the responsibility for post-colonial travails and failures. Where their colonial period gave way to communist aggression (Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam), the communist militarization will have suppressed, destroyed or at least mitigated much, but happily not all, of the contribution of the colonial period. Though the American Revolution was a bloody one, the colonial period undoubtedly helped to formulate many of the most positive aspects of post-colonial American values, judicial practice, free markets and education. The French Revolution was little more than an orgy of bloodletting which ultimately substituted one imperial autocracy for another (which went on to threaten Europe & Russia), and did little to qwench the thirst for empire. The Russian Revolution resulted in the colonial block of all colonial blocks in Easter Europe, in the end simply sucking them dry for the benefit of Mother Russia. Thailand's lack of colonial experience has left it with a strong sense of self-determination and national pride, and helped it preserve certain values & traditions, but somewhat stunted and backwards in learning to "partner", and competitively & cooperatively operate modern technologies and function effectively on the global stage.

[thaibeachlovers]

India's social welfare budget is 70 billion. We have been giving 227 million which is 0.3% of the total spending. The combined budget for defense and space is 3 billion. Not so long ago India made a statement that the funding from the UK was so little that it was embarrassing and should stop. The UK rags have been telling us how India take our money but spend on defense and space programs, disregarding the fact that India spend 23 times more on welfare than defense.

Well great. Can build a hospital with staff in the UK with that figure saved...............

Most of the staff will probably be Indian...

Wrong. Most of the staff would probably be African or Phillipinos. In my NHS hospital there were many different nationalities, and very few English people, but no Indians that I can recall.

[thaibeachlovers]

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.

If it hadn't been for British colonialism, Singapore would be a largely undeveloped island off of the Malayan peninsular and would never have developed the way it has.

Hmmmmm Were you there in the 60s? Singapore was just a large military base for the British. Modern Singapore was created by Lee Kuan Yew ( IMO ).

[thaibeachlovers]

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.

So you ignore all the basketcases and applaud a few success stories...? You sound like a big fan of the Chinese system. Yes, those Chinese are pretty efficient in how they do things, whether it's Singapore, HK, or mainland China. Of course, they do sacrifice a few things, usually starting with the words "freedom of." But I'm sure you'd be willing to sacrifice that as well, for the good of an orderly society.

I lived in Singapore in the 70s, and yes, I'd <sacrifice that as well, for the good of an orderly society.>. Singapore in the 70s was a wonderful place to live.

[MyFriend You]

NO its fine just the way it is leave it alone!!

[MyFriend You]

8 pages and counting, Jeez, what have we lowered ourselves to, what ever happened to "Do Not Feed the Trolls" rules we self imposed on the forum??? Oh well, off to the 7/11 to buy a beer and contemplate my navel.

[AlexRRR]

Someone has an over active imagination and hugh ego, NO THAILAND WOULD NOT BE BETTER OFF.

Just look around to where the former colonial masters have been.

[thailiketoo]

8 pages and counting, Jeez, what have we lowered ourselves to, what ever happened to "Do Not Feed the Trolls" rules we self imposed on the forum??? Oh well, off to the 7/11 to buy a beer and contemplate my navel.

Who self imposed do not feed the trolls rules?

[kieran2698]

India's social welfare budget is 70 billion. We have been giving 227 million which is 0.3% of the total spending. The combined budget for defense and space is 3 billion. Not so long ago India made a statement that the funding from the UK was so little that it was embarrassing and should stop. The UK rags have been telling us how India take our money but spend on defense and space programs, disregarding the fact that India spend 23 times more on welfare than defense.

Well great. Can build a hospital with staff in the UK with that figure saved...............

Most of the staff will probably be Indian...

Wrong. Most of the staff would probably be African or Phillipinos. In my NHS hospital there were many different nationalities, and very few English people, but no Indians that I can recall.

There are over 50,000 doctors from India currently practicing in the UK which is more than 1/4 of all UK doctors. 40% of medical students in the UK are from India. Your hospital was unusual if it didn't have Indians working there.

[kieran2698]

Well, if you can show me ANY Western Country that actually works today ?

America is broke and falling apart.

GB is not better and social gaps are getting bigger and bigger.

Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal .... broke

Germany - education on it's lowest level in probably 500 years !!! Social problems all over the place.

Just because you don't read any of this in the newspapers does not mean it's not happening.

NONE of the western democracies is working ... as a fact no western country has a democracy [maybe a corporate one at best]

Thailand will have to find it's own way.

There is way too much western influence in this country already.

Western style of business is breaking society apart.

Fast food culture and depth based business [typical for Western countries] is doing it's magic here.

So, NO ... Thailand would be way better off without all this western influence !!!

All that Thailand needs is some honest men to guide the country. [... just like the western countries]

Sadly enough I cannot see too many running around these days.

I am really

Perhaps western countries giving HUGE amounts of cash to others "might" be a weeee problem.......

UK is to stop aid to India next year, dee ma, why should UK tax payers pay for their Nuclear weapons and space exploration when the cash is to help them improve life for the masses..

India's social welfare budget is 70 billion. We have been giving 227 million which is 0.3% of the total spending. The combined budget for defense and space is 3 billion. Not so long ago India made a statement that the funding from the UK was so little that it was embarrassing and should stop. The UK rags have been telling us how India take our money but spend on defense and space programs, disregarding the fact that India spend 23 times more on welfare than defense.

Well great. Can build a hospital with staff in the UK with that figure saved...............

If RBS was liquidated their assets could pay for 5000 hospitals but I don't suppose we need that many.

[thaibeachlovers]

Well great. Can build a hospital with staff in the UK with that figure saved...............

Most of the staff will probably be Indian...

Wrong. Most of the staff would probably be African or Phillipinos. In my NHS hospital there were many different nationalities, and very few English people, but no Indians that I can recall.

There are over 50,000 doctors from India currently practicing in the UK which is more than 1/4 of all UK doctors. 40% of medical students in the UK are from India. Your hospital was unusual if it didn't have Indians working there.

Oops, I think we may have had one Indian Dr if I remember correctly, but he grew up in the UK.

Perhaps unusual, but there you go. However, that may have changed since I left it in 2009.

BTW, I was referring to the permanent staff, and most of the Drs were students or getting specialist training.

I also was thinking of the staff other than Drs, as I try to think about Drs as little as possible.

[Thongkorn]

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

You forgot to mention the Good things left behind, . and how many Indians killed each other after the British withdrew because or religion that the Brits kept apart. Most of there infrastructure. ext ext.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Thongkorn

[Pattszero]

Thailand should have been subjected to the same political treatment as Japan after the last war. A constitution should have been imposed under the supervision of the Allies. The Thais facilitatef the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people through face saving cowardice. Then again, so did the Vichy French.

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Pattszero]

Colonial masters? They've been yo America, Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, and many others. Not bad, I'd say.

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[rsokolowski]

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?

The United States turned out OK (IMO).

[shadmo63]

Thailand should have been subjected to the same political treatment as Japan after the last war. A constitution should have been imposed under the supervision of the Allies. The Thais facilitatef the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people through face saving cowardice. Then again, so did the Vichy French.

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I don't think so. Siam was under Prime Minister and effective military dictatorship of Plaek Phibunsongkran at the time. Siam really did not have a lot of choice against Japan's military might. The declaration of war against Britain and USA was forced upon Phibun, although he did have fascist leanings. The other influential player from The Peoples Party (Khana Ratsadon who overthrew the Absolute Monarchy in 1932) Pridi Banomyong who subsequently became PM after Phibun was removed was stridently anti-Japanese. The underground Seri Thai (Free Thai) movement against the Japanese had a large and diverse membership from across Thai society including politicians, royals and military.

I don't think you can blame Siam for the actions taken firstly by dictator Phibun and secondly by the Japanese. Siam was never equal partners with Japan, who did whatever they liked and treated Siam as a conquered nation.

I do not understand the meaning of 'through face saving cowardice'. They acted cowardly to save face? Their face saving was cowardly? Maybe you mean 'life saving cowardice'? What actions do you think could have been taken and by whom, that would have prevented the deaths you speak of?

[thailiketoo]

Thailand should have been subjected to the same political treatment as Japan after the last war. A constitution should have been imposed under the supervision of the Allies. The Thais facilitatef the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people through face saving cowardice. Then again, so did the Vichy French.

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I don't think so. Siam was under Prime Minister and effective military dictatorship of Plaek Phibunsongkran at the time. Siam really did not have a lot of choice against Japan's military might. The declaration of war against Britain and USA was forced upon Phibun, although he did have fascist leanings. The other influential player from The Peoples Party (Khana Ratsadon who overthrew the Absolute Monarchy in 1932) Pridi Banomyong who subsequently became PM after Phibun was removed was stridently anti-Japanese. The underground Seri Thai (Free Thai) movement against the Japanese had a large and diverse membership from across Thai society including politicians, royals and military.

I don't think you can blame Siam for the actions taken firstly by dictator Phibun and secondly by the Japanese. Siam was never equal partners with Japan, who did whatever they liked and treated Siam as a conquered nation.

I do not understand the meaning of 'through face saving cowardice'. They acted cowardly to save face? Their face saving was cowardly? Maybe you mean 'life saving cowardice'? What actions do you think could have been taken and by whom, that would have prevented the deaths you speak of?

You wrote, "I don't think you can blame Siam for the actions taken firstly by dictator Phibun and secondly by the Japanese. Siam was never equal partners with Japan, who did whatever they liked and treated Siam as a conquered nation." Nope. Thailand kept it's army and invaded and occupied parts of Burma (Shan states I think)

Siam was allied with Japan during World War II, following numerous pre-war diplomatic exchanges and the beginning of a Japanese invasion of Thailand. The Japanese had won from Phibun a secret verbal promise to support them in an attack on Malaya and Burma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93Thailand_relations

Phibun not only ruled Thailand during WWII with the Japanese but after WWII with the help of the Americans.

Phibunsongkhram and his regime promoted a façade of democracy. American aid was received in large quantities following Thailand's entry into the Korean War as part of the United Nations' multi-national allied force in the Cold War against the communists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaek_Phibunsongkhram#Coup.2C_second_premiership_and_more_coups

You may ask what the above has to do with colonization. Well, Thailand's foreign policy has always been as stable as a feather in the wind.

[shadmo63]

"Phibun not only ruled Thailand during WWII with the Japanese but after WWII with the help of the Americans".

Yes that always amazes me that, but always as dictator. I have no doubt Phibun was behind the plot to remove Pridi.

[thailiketoo]

"Phibun not only ruled Thailand during WWII with the Japanese but after WWII with the help of the Americans".

Yes that always amazes me that, but always as dictator. I have no doubt Phibun was behind the plot to remove Pridi.

Isn't it normal to blame the country for misdeeds of the leader? Stalin and Mao and Tojo and so on.

I don't think the, "I'm just following orders" defense worked well at Nuremberg.

We did charge Germany and Japan with war reparations although they were both ruled by dictators.

Edited June 17, 2014 by thailiketoo

[shadmo63]

"Phibun not only ruled Thailand during WWII with the Japanese but after WWII with the help of the Americans".

Yes that always amazes me that, but always as dictator. I have no doubt Phibun was behind the plot to remove Pridi.

Isn't it normal to blame the country for misdeeds of the leader? Stalin and Mao and Tojo and so on.

I don't think the, "I'm just following orders" defense worked well at Nuremberg.

We did charge Germany and Japan with war reparations although they were both ruled by dictators.

Yes mostly, but maybe it depends on the support they have from the populace. They did remove Phibun from power pretty quickly.

If taking the Shan States as you mention was Siams only involvement in the war theatre of WWII it's understandable why the Brits and the Americans took it easy on them later. The Shan people are Tai not Burman so I guess they had an argument there too. Siam was in the unique situation of being the only country in all SE Asia at the time not to have a colonial master and was effectively defenseless (compared to the military might of Japan). What were Siams intentions at the time? I'd say survival with minimal damage was number one - grabbing the Shan lands probably just opportunism.

For arguments sake lets assume the anti-Japanese non-military statesman Pridi was in power when the Japanese came along. The monarchy played a minor power role at that time - Rama VIII was still a 16 y.o. boy studying in Switzerland. What could Pridi as the leader of Siam, have done differently to Phibun? Thrown some elephants at the Japanese war machine instead of rolling over? That would have delayed the Japanese war machine until breakfast.

Anyway I just don't see how you can compare what little old backward Siam did, with very little choice, with the deeds and ambitions of Germany, Italy or Japan.

[kingstonkid]

many high ranking and important dignitaries and crazy diplomats have all visited a tree in Pakistan near the Afghan border.

What makes this tree so special is that it is held down by 4 large chains and sits in front of what is now a museum and used to be a BRITISH OFFICER'S MESS.

Why the chains you may ask?

Well when Britain ruled the Indian country that was Pakistan and India which it had colonizing it had many outposts.

One night at this outpost a group of British officers of high blood lines got drinking.

As you might imagine one of the young lads was not able to hold his as well and came out of the mess, fell flat on his face rolled over and looked up.

Standing by him was an Indian Soldier and behind him was a tree. however, the tree was moving.

Being the ever astute officer he barked at the Indian soldier to get rope and tie that tree down so it would stop moving.

The soldier did and as a reminder of this auspicious event as the tree grew the Pakistani's have ensured that the chain remained.

And we think the Brits colonized what correctly.

Canada - French, English, Scottish and Americans

Australia - Penal Colony that figured it out themselves with the aborigines

India - how do you like me so far

Pakistan - See India

Burma - See india

SE Asia - Chinese migrants

The French are no better

The Americans well not gong to go there it is too easy.

Russia - Big boot great economy

Let's face it colonization does not work.

Best solution is just as Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos are dong figure it out as they go.

There is a growing period that takes time and energy.

They will figure it out.

[thailiketoo]

"Phibun not only ruled Thailand during WWII with the Japanese but after WWII with the help of the Americans".

Yes that always amazes me that, but always as dictator. I have no doubt Phibun was behind the plot to remove Pridi.

Isn't it normal to blame the country for misdeeds of the leader? Stalin and Mao and Tojo and so on.

I don't think the, "I'm just following orders" defense worked well at Nuremberg.

We did charge Germany and Japan with war reparations although they were both ruled by dictators.

Yes mostly, but maybe it depends on the support they have from the populace. They did remove Phibun from power pretty quickly.

If taking the Shan States as you mention was Siams only involvement in the war theatre of WWII it's understandable why the Brits and the Americans took it easy on them later. The Shan people are Tai not Burman so I guess they had an argument there too. Siam was in the unique situation of being the only country in all SE Asia at the time not to have a colonial master and was effectively defenseless (compared to the military might of Japan). What were Siams intentions at the time? I'd say survival with minimal damage was number one - grabbing the Shan lands probably just opportunism.

For arguments sake lets assume the anti-Japanese non-military statesman Pridi was in power when the Japanese came along. The monarchy played a minor power role at that time - Rama VIII was still a 16 y.o. boy studying in Switzerland. What could Pridi as the leader of Siam, have done differently to Phibun? Thrown some elephants at the Japanese war machine instead of rolling over? That would have delayed the Japanese war machine until breakfast.

Anyway I just don't see how you can compare what little old backward Siam did, with very little choice, with the deeds and ambitions of Germany, Italy or Japan.

Your a funny guy, Did you really not know Thailand had a 60,000 man well equipped and well armed and combat experienced Army that had defeated the French (French Foreign Legion). Look up Franco/Thai war 1940. Thailand,134 tanks, 140 aircraft 18 naval vessels. The French lost 321 killed or wounded to 54 for Thailand.

The Thai Army was a relatively well-equipped force. The largest was the Burapha Army, with five divisions. Independent formations under the direct control of the army high command included two motorised cavalry battalions, one artillery battalion, one signals battalion, one engineer battalion, and one armoured regiment. The artillery was a mixture of aged Krupp and modern Bofors howitzers and field guns, while 60 Carden Loyd tankettes and 30 Vickers six-ton light tanks made up the bulk of the army's tank force.

Among the 140 aircraft that composed the air force's first-line strength were 24 Mitsubishi Ki-30 light bombers, nine Mitsubishi Ki-21 medium bombers, 25 Hawk 75Ns pursuit planes, six Martin B-10 medium bombers, and 70 O2U Corsair light bombers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Thai_War

Thailand could have stopped or slowed the Japanese landings allowing Singapore to re deploy and perhaps resist invasion. Thailand might have shortened WWII by years.

Thailand invaded the Shan states to control opium production which they raised something like 400% and they also attacked Malaysia. After the war the Brits wanted blood in terms of rice reparations and the Americans said no. You can look it up.

Thailand in 1940 beat a colonial power on the ground; France. They had a large well equipped army but chose not to help the colonial powers instead opting for Japan who at the time (1940) looked like they would win in Asia.

First Thailand played cards smartly not to be colonized and did it again after the colonial powers were committed to release all of their colonies.

Look at the deaths that occurred because of WWII in Asia. Look at the deaths that occurred in Thailand as a result of WWII. Thailand, based simply on lack of loss of life appears to have made a series of wise moves in dealing with colonial powers and lost very few citizens compared to the other nations who were colonized.

[shadmo63]

Actually I did know about the irony and hollowness of Victory Monument in that it came from a rather unimpressive military victory that ultimately was not a victory at all.

Every thing you've written seems to be direct copies from Wikipedia and you've been somewhat selective in your edits. You have failed to say that Siam defeated a very depleted and poorly equipped Vichy France force made up mostly of Indochinese after 1. France had already been defeated in Europe, and 2. the Japanese had already moved into and set up bases in Indochina.

But I have learned some things and agree the Thais had more blood on their hands than I thought, but still under Phibun.

[thailiketoo]

Actually I did know about the irony and hollowness of Victory Monument in that it came from a rather unimpressive military victory that ultimately was not a victory at all.

Every thing you've written seems to be direct copies from Wikipedia and you've been somewhat selective in your edits. You have failed to say that Siam defeated a very depleted and poorly equipped Vichy France force made up mostly of Indochinese after 1. France had already been defeated in Europe, and 2. the Japanese had already moved into and set up bases in Indochina.

But I have learned some things and agree the Thais had more blood on their hands than I thought, but still under Phibun.

Why do you keep saying under Phibun? Thais had Phibun. Russia had Stalin. Germany had Hitler. So what?

Would you prefer I didn't use Wiki? I could tell you what I think about the Franco Thai war. My opinion might be as good as WikI but I thought you would want a source.

Edited June 17, 2014 by thailiketoo