Would Thailand have benefited if it had been Colonized?

[buksida]

The contrast is obvious when you go to another Asian country that doesn't have 7-Eleven, McDonalds, Burger King, Big C, Tesco, Starbucks, Dunkin' Doughnuts, KFC, Family Mart, Boots, Home Mart, Pizza Hut, Subway ...

Thailand has already been colonised!

[pharvey]

A true definition is that "..if it's in the national interest..." I'm not going to research it but I'm sure your Parliament said that thousands of times in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. America really started to say it after WWII and still does today. For sure, we're all smiles and lollipops and the benefits are huge concerning food, money, development etc., but it is indeed all in the national interest. Why shouldn't it be? It's my and every American's tax money that's being bled out.

BUT.......let's try to get back to the the Thailand scenario to see what folks think specifically about that. Pete

Apologies Pete, it was not the intention to take it away from the "Thailand Scenario" as you say, I was just trying to put the whole coloni(z)sation bit into perspective - why would it benefit Thailand more or less than others etc.? From what I've seen in India for example (where I have more experience), there are advantages and disadvantages, and certainly nothing is straight forward........

Can of worms you've opened......

[lindosfan1]

forgot the Asean bit. If it goes the same way as the EU, elf and safety brigade will shut Thailand down.

[pharvey]

forgot the Asean bit. If it goes the same way as the EU, elf and safety brigade will shut Thailand down.

China will probably run "elf and safety", so zero problem for Thailand!!

[Dr Mike]

A President if Mexico once said---Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States of America.

In the same way ---- Poor Asean, so far from God, so close to the Peoples Rebublic of China.

[Dr Mike]

There is an interesting point about ASEAN and the new level of integration--- the language of ASEAN is going to be English-- other countries are scrambling to rewrite regulations affecting, trade, ASEAN wide standards etc in English--In Thai what are they doing--Take a guess--almost nothing

[GLCQuantum]

There is an interesting point about ASEAN and the new level of integration--- the language of ASEAN is going to be English-- other countries are scrambling to rewrite regulations affecting, trade, ASEAN wide standards etc in English--In Thai what are they doing--Take a guess--almost nothing

No no no, you are absolutely wrong Dr Mike. Thailand are going all out on this one. They are getting 100 volunteer teachers over from the Uk to come and teach English in various destinations for a whole 6 weeks.

Stupidity and delusion at its finest.

[jingjoe]

Of course the thais are proud of not been colonized,but they did make a deal with the emperor of japan during ww2 to let the japanese cross through thailand,as long as they didn't attempt to overthrow the govt they had free reign to do what they wanted,which included raping and pillaging the poorer villages and people,but krungthep was safe...so nothing was said..............

[pharvey]

Wasn't Thailand "coloniz(s)ed" to a certain extent during the Vietnam War and with the USA stationed there?

[Bamboo Grove]

Pete, your question just put me off for a long time, so I haven't replied earlier, sorry. GOFES (Grumpy Old Fart Expats) maybe I'm one but I just can't understand this topic. Let me ask this way: Would it have been better if Napoleon or Hitler had colonized the rest of the Europe? Would U.S be better if Canada colonized it?

I just don't think that any place in the world is any better off after colonization. That's when you press your point of view upon others. I personally think that the world would be much better place if no colonization had ever happened. Be it the Europeans in Asia, Africa or America or the Chinese, Japanese in Asia. No society has gained from some other being physically superior to theirs, you always lose a lot in that way.

Sign me a person from a country which once was under Sweden's and then Russian's power.

P.S. sorry, I'm a bit drunk so may have not been able to write coherently, I'll be back to this tomorrow but I just don't think any colonization has ever been good to any country.

[PeteC]

Wasn't Thailand "coloniz(s)ed" to a certain extent during the Vietnam War and with the USA stationed there?

I guess it depends upon how far you stretch the definition Pharvey. I would call it more of a very expensive lease with billions of dollars of infrastructure left behind when the tenant moved out. There was no benefit of hindsight then and not only Thailand but Malaysia and Singapore as well believed that the Vietnamese with their Russian backing would not stop at the border but keep coming. There was massive insurgency into Thailand. Would that have happened if the bases were not here? A question for the ages. Pete

[margaretcarnes]

I wouldn't say that Japan 'colonised' Thailand. It occupied for a while and has left no cultural evidence of that as far as I'm aware. The Thai government was in fact very clever in the way it handled the situation IMO.
That aside - it's an interesting question. Globalisation is happening regardless and Thailand can't escape that even if it wanted to. It's Board of Industry has just begun running TV ads on Sky to promote the country as a forerunner in Asia. (OK maybe it has to right now - but the ad does make some valid points.)
Yes - it still has a big class divide but probably no more so than India and Burma etc. The only things the UK got out of colonising India were Tata Steel, a shed load of corner shops, curry, and somewhere to operate call centres from. We have had no influence whatsoever on it's birth control policies - but could probably learn a thing or two from it about running a rail system for the people.
The States got Canada (so not all bad despite a rogue State) and proceded to bastardise the English language and bend Governance into something resembling a side show. It also still has some extreme poverty. Again the UK has in fact drawn on Americas' Welfare 'model' in an attempt to reform it's own.
The thing is there are - or should be - advantages both ways as a result of any colonisation. And that is where any attempt to colonise Thailand in the past would probably have failed. Yes the country needs a better education system. But the one it has now is the very thing which maintains what we see as it's class divide, and I really can't see that they would have let that go without putting up a mighty fight, and probably winning. Because Thai people from the top down live by a totally different set of beliefs, and I think colonisation would have destroyed that.
It isn't a case of 'oh it's a quaint country', but more a case of it's a country which has retained it's individuality.

[PeteC]

I understand what you're saying Bamboo, and I agree with your philosophy, but it is just a philosophy. The hard facts are that coloniz(s)ation did exist and perhaps still does in the terms expressed by Mr. P., Lindosfan and others concerning modern economic conquests.

What I'm driving at are the examples of some of Thailand's neighbors who were colonized, given independence, not greatly influenced or turned upside down by a military junta or communist system after independence, and are thriving at a higher level than Thailand is.

As Pharvey states about India, there are many disadvantages and advantages in his opinion. My opinion still stands that many of the troubles we see Thailand burdened with today wouldn't exist if they had been introduced to a different system a century or two ago.

The wildcard is what damage would have been done by colonis(z)ation? I don't have that answer and maybe no one does if history books about places and events tend to ignore that bad side of history. Do most of them? I don't know.

As Pharvey said, it is a can of worms, but an interesting one. Pete

[MrPlum]

As an expat colonizer, I think the UK should be colonized by Thailand. Pad Thai instead of British Rail sandwiches; 200 bht traffic fines, instead of 5000. I get my paperwork processed faster in Thailand than I ever did in Britain. There's no Child support agency harassing already paying fathers and AFAIK the State isn't supplying children for paedophiles. The villagers manage that aspect themselves. I can start a business tomorrow without having to pay taxes or worry about H&S laws. Road traffic laws aren't so repressive they drive me off the road completely. Women still respect men. The Thai culture... with respect to movies and music... aren't as 'dark', subversive and immoral as ours. Leeds supporters would learn to 'Wai' instead of trying to 'smash yer face in' and when the wife leaves me for her Yoga instructor, to 'find herself' she wouldn't get the house, the kids, the car, half the pension and a decade of child support, leaving me queuing up at the soup kitchen.

Thailand should be thankful it hasn't fallen to Neo-colonialism. Instead of Singapore, it could be Haiti.

Does establishing military bases make a country a colony?

I guess you find that out when you ask them to leave.

[PeteC]

Voranai in a sense has picked up on our theme here. Pete

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opin ... rench-fort

When Bangkok was just a French fort

Published: 21/10/2012 at 02:57 AM
Newspaper section: News

The perception is that "them" _ the richer and more powerful _ manipulate, undermine and take from "us".

The game then is to take from them what we can, while giving them as little as we possibly can

On the Bangkok Post forum, a topic that arises from time to time is why Thailand is so open to foreign money, but so resistant to foreign ideas, influences and ownership.

Adopt Western school curriculums, but resist Western ways of learning and thinking. Embrace the democratic system, but thumb your nose at free speech and equality. Love foreign premier leagues, but limit the amount of foreign players in ours. Welcome foreigners, but charge dual prices, restrict occupations and make work permits a pain in the gluteus maximus.

We only have to look at history to see why all this is the case.

Everyone loves prosperity, but no one likes their sovereignty, traditions, values, identity and, most importantly, authority undermined. The following story isn't about good versus evil, nor is it exclusive to this land; it's a tale of conflicting interests begetting conflicts, which can and does happen just about everywhere.

When Phra Petracha led the 1688 Siamese Revolution that deposed King Narai the Great and established a new dynasty in the Kingdom of Ayutthaya, he was merely following a trend common among non-Western nations of the time to resist Western encroachment.

The reign of King Narai was credited as one of the most prosperous periods of the Kingdom. It saw great commercial and diplomatic activity, with Siamese envoys visiting China, India, Persia, England, France and the Vatican. It was also a time when Greek adventurer Constantine Phaulkon became first counsellor to the king and one of the most powerful men in Ayutthaya.

To check Dutch and English encroachments, strong relations were established with France. A 1687 conflict with the British East India Company resulted in the banning of the company from the country and the temporary end of England's influence.

French officials and soldiers rose in the ranks of the Siamese aristocracy and military, while French missionaries challenged the power of the Buddhist clergy. There was also a rumour the king might adopt Christianity.

At this time Bangkok and Thon Buri were basically two French military forts. Among conservative forces and the Buddhist clergy, this was unacceptable and it was a matter of saving the Kingdom for the Thais. Between June and November of 1688, Phra Petracha and 40,000 Thai troops besieged 200 French soldiers at their Bangkok fort. Though the battle was a stalemate, the French position was untenable. The latter negotiated a withdrawal, ending the Siamese Revolution of 1688. Phaulkon was executed. The French were expelled. The Dutch and British were again permitted limited trade. Phra Petracha became king and established a new dynasty.

So opening up to the West begot a revolution that led to the fall of one dynasty, the rise of another and the adoption of isolationism as a national policy. Everyone enjoys prosperity, but matters of sovereignty, tradition, values, identity, and most importantly authority, take precedent. The world can turn upside down so easily. And we somehow won wars against the English and the French, but don't get too excited over that.

Down through the centuries there has been a tug-of-war between the need to open up and catch up, and the fear of losing sovereignty, tradition, values and identity, but most importantly authority. Territories were lost and regained. Wars fought, lost (the Franco-Siamese War of 1893) and won (the Franco-Thai war of 1940-41).

We are who we are today as a consequence of historical evolution on an individual, community and national level. The consequences of these conflicts were not just territories lost and gained, sovereignty preserved or reduced. They also resulted in the forming of the national psyche, the ''us versus them'' mentality.

The perception is that ''them'' _ the richer and more powerful _ manipulate, undermine and take from ''us''. The game then is to take from them what we can, while giving them as little as we possibly can. This mentality is neither right nor wrong; morality has nothing to do with it. It is merely a consequence of historical evolution. In fact, this is the game every nation plays.

If in the United States they put up walls to block would-be immigrants, if there's a cry against making Spanish the official second language, and if the religious right bemoan every shift and change in society, this too is all merely a matter of protecting sovereignty, tradition, values and identity, but most importantly authority, against encroachment. The same goes for Europe, where there's a raging conflict between native Christians and Islamic newcomers, along with frequent demonstrations and riots.

All of the above are not newly invented conflicts, but rather the latest manifestations of what has been going down for centuries and millennia.

This is not a debate over which nation has more conflicts and baggage or which is morally superior, but simply a statement that human conflicts are rather similar the world over. The conflicts merely manifest in different ways depending on the geopolitical evolution of each nation.

The conflict over Preah Vihear temple is no sillier, yet no less sentimental than the one over the Falkland Islands. The rage over the sale of Shin Corporation to Temasek Holdings is no more ludicrous than the animosity directed at a mosque in the middle of a European capital. Dual pricing is merely the poor and downtrodden bleeding the rich, for a change.

Misplaced, misunderstood and sometimes downright ludicrous, nationalism is a consequence of emotions, not logic. The only thing that is right, rational and sensible is to learn from whence we came, where we are and where we want to go. That's why we've just gone through centuries of history to explain why Thailand is so open to foreign money, but suspicious of and resistant to Western ideas and influences.

The former is simply because everybody loves money. The latter is merely because Thais at their core are no different from anyone else.

Nationalism, xenophobia, paranoia, fear, hate, mistrust and greed are not the monopoly of any race, creed, breed or passport-bearers. Sovereignty, tradition, values and identity, but most importantly authority, are what every society stands to protect _ at times for the right reasons and at times for the wrong reasons.

Readers who understand and recognise this might offer constructive criticisms on the way to work together for mutual benefit. Those who do not are getting ready to write comments degrading Thailand and celebrating their own perceived superiority, and thereby lending their hand to the perpetuation of the conflicts.