The Thais pride themselves and boast that the country has never been colonized, but have they ever looked at the other side of the coin to understand the benefits had they been colonized?
I realize that as GOFES (Grumpy Old Fart Expats) read this thread they will no doubt say "NO...we like things the way they are. The country is quaint and provides entertainment in the way it's managed, and it's a jolly good show...." Deep down inside however I'll bet the ranch they have the exact same feelings that I'll express here and as others will in reply.
No research on my part, just thinking about what I've learned and experienced, indeed the British did it much better than the French, Spanish, Dutch and Belgians IMO. The USA was founded by a handful of British men and except for the Monarchy, the structure of government is basically the same, but goes by other names.
Focusing on Asia, compare Singapore, Malaysia, India and Hong Kong to countries colonized by other European countries and I think the consensus will bear out what I say above. Malaysia has been diluted by Muslim thinking unfortunately, but before you poo-poo India, look at the intelligence and quality of the graduates they're turning out. We really need to discount Burma, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia because of events such as the Khumer Rouge and military/communist disposal of all aspects of former colonization in those places, both good and bad.
So, what if Thailand had been colonized for say 100 years during the 18th and 19th centuries before given its independence?
1) The Monarchy would be much as it is now, a constitutional monarchy.
2) The ongoing modern feudal system and the patronage system would not exist.
3) Corruption would be much less than it is now, and controlled better such as it is in Hong Kong by the ICAC.
4) The financial system would be the same as it is now, as it has all already been copied from the west.
5) The education system would be light years ahead of where it currently is.
6) The standard of living for everyone (key point) would be about 3/4 of what Singapore is IMO.
7) Agricultural practices/production/sustainability would be on a par with France given the similarity in size of country.
8 ) The environment would be in much better shape.
There's probably more benefits but I'll stop there and let others contribute. I'll let others go into the bad points of colonization and there are some...but which wins the day...yes or no?
The sad point is that Thailand has always been colonized and is today, by its own upper class people. Another sad point is that a charlatan has taken up the banner of the poor and the fight for independence...IMO. Pete
Pete 
) regarding coloniz(s)ation ( 
) of Thailand with regards to the huge international corporations - what's the true definition?
