Thread: Billionaire hotel tycoon Bill Heinecke asks Thailand to charge foreigners more per ro

Originally Posted by Switch

It’s quite clear that the colonial past to which I referred belongs to SA.

It wasn't . . . and just because it is in SA's head doesn't mean itb translates to reality.

Originally Posted by Switch

Despite past centuries, when western countries vied for influence in Siamese matters.

Completely different thing to colonialism where foreigners visibly rule and subjugate the entire population; royal, regal, upper, middle and any other class.

Didn't happen.

Originally Posted by taxexile

Mrs. T's wonderful family live on Suk 22 and it has been our BKK bolthole since 1989 when we are not in either Hua Hin or the UK.

Back then it was primarily a residential area, gated mansions and terraces of shophouses existed side by side with dozens of noodle and curry shops, wet markets and the usual businesses that serve a residential area; doctors, dentists, repair shops, barbers, beauty salons, ma and pa shops selling individual cigarettes, rubber bands, shots of liquor and home made herbal drinks out of those huge glass fronted fridges for 1b. The owners of all these family run and owned businesses lived above the shop and were invariably welcoming and cheerful.

But slowly came the condominiums, followed by the huge hotels, the noisy bar complexes, the happy ending massage joints, the supermarkets, the horrible 7/11 and family mart stores, the terrible traffic jams down the soi with the pollution they bring and hordes of burmese workers living 10 to a room as all semblance of a thriving community where residents knew one another disappeared.

The family businesses couldnt compete with the corporate invasion, sold up and with the massive profits they made on their properties or rents moved out to western style moo baans in the suburbs.

The demographic there now is mostly sweaty bobbleheads, phlegm spewing chinks, fat drunk euros all served by the gimlet eyed sour faced grasping out of town thais that have replaced the once cheerful happy go lucky locals.

You and yer mate sa , are pretty fucked up.and out of touch with reality. Yes maybe the demographic changed but thats irrelevent to 2 twats that think speaking horseshit in a sort of plummy way makes it seem intelligent banter?. You are foreigners. Leave them to do what they do..its none of your fucking business

One of most succinct and germane comments upon blogging, vlogging and all other cyber interaction that has proliferated since the beginning of the internet’s application within social mechanisms back in 1990, was the guy who defined the medium as ‘ graffiti with punctuation’.

Reading BLD’s efforts, and most others who struggle with their deficient education and illiteracy, that observation remains as valid as the day it was uttered all those years ago.

bld

out of touch with reality.

so you're an authority on the condition now i see?

Originally Posted by taxexile

so you're an authority on the condition now i see?

Well, he has to deal with you following him around the forum making idiotic remarks

Didn't happen.

So you are not aware of the fact that not only did the British Empire 'manage' the Siamese governments finances for a period of time- but they charged them money for the privilege?

I thought that was a great one, up there with wresting HK from China and burning down the Summer Palace because on honest government official tried to stop us from selling opium to them. I'm sure Bill Heineke would agree.

Originally Posted by panama hat

It wasn't . . . and just because it is in SA's head doesn't mean itb translates to reality.


Completely different thing to colonialism where foreigners visibly rule and subjugate the entire population; royal, regal, upper, middle and any other class.

Didn't happen.

OK, it just wasn’t clear to you, and the French and the British Did vie for influence centuries ago in the Siamese court. (That’s the rouyal court, not the judiciary. Therefore, that Did happen.

Originally Posted by Switch

OK, it just wasn’t clear to you, and the French and the British Did vie for influence centuries ago in the Siamese court. (That’s the rouyal court, not the judiciary. Therefore, that Did happen.

They did but decided would be a win, win to leave Thailand nuetral to provide a buffer zone between French and English colonies.

Originally Posted by sabang

So you are not aware of the fact that not only did the British Empire 'manage' the Siamese governments finances for a period of time

Sources would be great . . . and let's not mistake 'advisors' with the British Empire - this is what yoiu do. You atke a kernel of truth and make it out to be the be all and end all of facts.

Originally Posted by panama hat

Completely different thing to colonialism where foreigners visibly rule and subjugate the entire population; royal, regal, upper, middle and any other class.

Originally Posted by panama hat

Didn't happen.

Try not to deflect and make shit up all the time, it's tedious.

Originally Posted by Switch

French and the British Did vie for influence centuries ago in the Siamese court.

That's what you call being colonialised? Good grief, you've swallowed an OhWoe.

I vied to be the PM of NZ but it didn't eventuate. According to you I am now the PM of NZ

Originally Posted by Switch

Therefore, that Did happen.

Yea, Thailand wasn't colonialised as per the original discussion:

Originally Posted by panama hat

foreigners visibly rule and subjugate the entire population; royal, regal, upper, middle and any other class.

It'd help if you stick to the issue. But please prove me wrong about the initial point made

Chas confuses trade agreements with colonialism. The western powers that shaped global development merely saw Thailand as a source of mutual commercial benefit, a partnership entered into by the Thai through the Bowring and Amity Agreements negotiated by Britain and the US respectively with the French promoting trade through the Ayutthaya agreement. This was to the benefit of all and promoted Siam’s development through the 19C galvanising modernisation and establishing a sound economic foundation on which the Siamese built their other preoccupation, the maintenance of their sovereignty.

The Kingdom was colonised not by the west but by the Chinese through their economic migration that began a thousand years ago and was harnessed by King Taksin into a flow that ultimately saw 50 Chinese-Thai families controlling the economy by the mid 20thC and those of Chinese ethnicity accounting for over 12% of the population.

Chas is an idiot.

Originally Posted by panama hat

That's what you call being colonialised? Good grief, you've swallowed an OhWoe.

I vied to be the PM of NZ but it didn't eventuate. According to you I am now the PM of NZ


Yea, Thailand wasn't colonialised as per the original discussion:



It'd help if you stick to the issue. But please prove me wrong about the initial point made

Your deliberate misunderstanding of the original point is to blame here, but do keep digging.

The epithet colonial was clearly dir3cted at Smugass, and his superior imperialist CS attitude to lesser mortals.

At no point did I even suggest that any other country colonized Thailand. I did intimate that the French and the British played games including seeking to influence Siam centuries ago.

As another poster helpfully pointed out. Thailand was a useful buffer protecting French and British colonies on either side of Siam.

There is a big difference between me suggesting that SA. has a colonial attitude, and A.N.Other country actually being colonized.

I never said it, so you must have assumed it, incorrectly.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

Chas confuses trade agreements with colonialism. The western powers that shaped global development merely saw Thailand as a source of mutual commercial benefit, a partnership entered into by the Thai through the Bowring and Amity Agreements negotiated by Britain and the US respectively with the French promoting trade through the Ayutthaya agreement. This was to the benefit of all and promoted Siam’s development through the 19C galvanising modernisation and establishing a sound economic foundation on which the Siamese built their other preoccupation, the maintenance of their sovereignty.

The Kingdom was colonised not by the west but by the Chinese through their economic migration that began a thousand years ago and was harnessed by King Taksin into a flow that ultimately saw 50 Chinese-Thai families controlling the economy by the mid 20thC and those of Chinese ethnicity accounting for over 12% of the population.

Chas is an idiot.

The British and French interests are not being discussed here at all.
I referred to your colonial attitude, Lording it over Thai simpletons. Presumably quite common among retired CS of your whining ilk.

PH incorrectly assumed my assessment of your status referred to colonization of Thailand. It did not.

When I need a history lesson, you will probably not be asked for your twisted, self entitled view of it. Leave the country you despise, or stay. I can use my free will to change location, so again, you are not the best source of advice when planning such moves.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

Chas confuses trade agreements with colonialism. The western powers that shaped global development merely saw Thailand as a source of mutual commercial benefit, a partnership entered into by the Thai through the Bowring and Amity Agreements negotiated by Britain and the US respectively with the French promoting trade through the Ayutthaya agreement. This was to the benefit of all and promoted Siam’s development through the 19C galvanising modernisation and establishing a sound economic foundation on which the Siamese built their other preoccupation, the maintenance of their sovereignty.

The Kingdom was colonised not by the west but by the Chinese through their economic migration that began a thousand years ago and was harnessed by King Taksin into a flow that ultimately saw 50 Chinese-Thai families controlling the economy by the mid 20thC and those of Chinese ethnicity accounting for over 12% of the population.

Chas is an idiot.

I see google is your friend.

Originally Posted by misskit

Thai billionaire and hotel tycoon Bill Heinecke advises Thailand to charge international tourists an extra 300 baht (US$8) per room per night

Amazing Thailand!

Originally Posted by panama hat

That's what you call being colonialised? Good grief, you've swallowed an OhWoe.

I vied to be the PM of NZ but it didn't eventuate. According to you I am now the PM of NZ


Yea, Thailand wasn't colonialised as per the original discussion:



It'd help if you stick to the issue. But please prove me wrong about the initial point made

Happy to help. To refute your point yet again. Go back and read post 46, in which I referred tp 'his (SAs colonial past) and his habit of lording it over locals. Not once did I refer to Thailand being colonized by the UK the British Empire or any other British institution. I merely intimated that the British and the French sought influence in Siam, which is correct, but also not British colonization. Quite how you managed such gymnastic extrapolation is anyones guess.

the british had already dragged burma, india and malaysia out of the primeval tribal swamps they existed in and replaced chaos with order.

thailand, the brits correctly reasoned, was beyond hope and better left alone or to the miserable french whose colonial misadventures in the far east paved the way for the destruction of both vietnam and cambodia from which they have only just recovered.