PeterRS

I fully respect your views. Yet you will not be srprised that I do not agree with some of them. The above comment is one. Yes, Taiwan is to all intents and purposes a highly developed country. Democracy is now not only understood but practised in many levels of government from local to national level. As I think you may know from having read some of my past posts, I am a huge admirer of Taiwan and for almost a decade prior to covid visited quarterly for roughly 10 days each time. And yes, the PRC is not at all democratic other than with some democratic institutions at very local level. But to suggest that this is sufficient reason in international law for a part of one country unilaterally to secede and become a totally new country, I find that view very strange. I do not agree that conditions of Britain's annexation of and continued rule in Gibralter or indeed the Falklands is anything like an exact parallel. Historically the facts are different. Georgaphically Britain is nowhere near either territory. It is factually impossible for anyone to argue, legally or otherwise, that Taiwan was not a part of Imperial China for 250 years prior to the Japanese invasion. Even though Sun Yet-sen led the party following the demise of the Q'ing Dynasty and Chiang Kai-shek maneouvred a take-over after Sun's death, they were still heading the government of China. Republic of China was merely a name to differentiate from Imperial China. SImilarly the People's Republic of China merely differentiates from the Republlic of China. Equally, as I have repeatedly stated, world leaders including the USA agreed that Japan's stolen territories would be returned to the countries from which they had been stolen. Taiwan/Formosa was stolen from China. Mao roundly beat Chiang in the civil war. That in no way changed the fact that the country they both ran was China. And that in no way changes the fact that Taiwan was returned to a China government ruled from Beijing. That the USA used Taiwan for its own ends during the Cold War is uncontested. That, as far as I am aware, sowed seeds for an unofficial agreement in line with Chiang's intention to return to the mainland, take on Mao's forces and this time beat them. But had that happened, would Chiang have agreed to Taiwan becoming independent? Of course not! Chiang was a gangster, a self-serving thug who used murder and the Chinese triad gangs, especially the Green Gang in Shanghai, to maintain his power. Taiwan would have remained a part of China. But it would have been a China gladly backed by the USA and Taiwan would never have been allowed to veer away from Chiang's rule. Back to Gibralter. Can I suggest you read the following article which appeared in the Taipei Times in April 2021. In effect it is a rebuttal of an earlier argument put forward comparing the two territories. A few points which I believe illustrate the difference between the situations as they exist in Gibralter and Taiwan. "Creating analogies to illuminate the elusive nature of one object of study by comparing it with a more familiar one is a common form of explanation. But it also entails a conscious way of discursively constructing meaning according to the interest of the subject elaborating such analogy. First of all, analogies are not innocent tools of analysis, insofar as the mere choice of the object B with which A will be compared depends on a starting point, a common sense, as Gramsci (1971) would put it, in which the creator and the reader are unavoidably embedded. At the same time, as will be seen in this article, the analogies about Taiwan reproduced in mainstream media embarked in an anti-China narrative are not merely intended to explain to the rest of the world—and to the Taiwanese society itself—what Taiwan is or should be. Rather, these discourses seek a performative result through the establishment of a chain of equivalences around what Taiwan means, until it becomes naturalized as the truth—a mechanism perfectly explained by Laclau and Mouffe (1985)’s discourse-theoretical approach. "This short article begins with a recent analogy comparing Taiwan to Gibraltar, made in the Taiwanese media outlet, published in English, the Taipei Times, and written by Jerome Keating (2021), a 'writer based in Taipei'—these are the credentials with which he signs—who shows in each of his articles an undisguised hatred of China. His recent article, which does not deserve additional analysis, ends with this assertion: 'For the US and its Asian allies, Taiwan remains a solid rock of democracy; it can also be their Rock of Gibraltar for peace; they only need to step up to the plate'”. "Gibraltar is still an obvious reminder of colonial and imperialist times. Indeed, more than a safeguard of peace, Gibraltar is a centre of conflict. As a product of colonial occupation, Gibraltar has been a reason for constant sieges and threats between countries: it is now a source of diplomatic conflict due to the desire of the Spanish nationalists to recover the rock and the nostalgia of those who want to maintain the British colonial pride." . . . "what is here depicted as negative is not imperialism, but Chinese imperialism. The connection of this narrative with the current wave of Sinophobia is clear: anything coming from China is evil and jeopardizes 'all the rules, values and relationships that make the world work the way we want it to' [my emphasis], just as Anthony Blinken boldly stated (see Toosi, 2021) . . . " the real reason that justifies the transformation of Taiwan into a new Gibraltar is to instrumentalise Taiwan in order to subdue China or, better still, to incite a military conflict of which the main beneficiaries would not be neither China nor Taiwan but the US and its world hegemony." https://invisiblearmada.web.nctu.edu.tw/2021/04/10/gibraltar-as-an-anlogy-of-taiwan/ I must also take you up on your analogy between the effects of colonialism on China in the 19th century and the colonisation of Korea, Vietnam and The Philippines. The latter three were taken over completely by their colonial masters. There was no nationalist ruler in the countries other than those imposed by the colonial masters. Imperial China was never taken over by colonial powers. They merely ate away at large chunks of its coastline and eventually some of the cities like Shanghai and Qingdao. In parts of one independent power humiliatingly they imposed the rules and laws of their own ruling powers. It was like today's China taking over parts of various US states and imposing Chinese rule and laws. How would the US feel about that? Lastly, for those US citizens who advocate independence for Taiwan, is there not more or less a parallel closer to home. In the late 1840s the USA engaged in a war with Mexico. This was after the US had unilaterally annexed the state of Texas. The US then tried to negotiate with the Mexicans who refused to do so. War was declared by the USA and eventually won by US troops. As a result much of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, California, western Colorado as well as Texas was ceded to the USA for $15 million. So Texas is part of the USA, just as Taiwan is part of China. What would Americans think if Texas decided it wanted to become independent and apart from the USA? Would the USA permit it? Of course it wouldn't!

Absolutely no need. All your points are very pertinent and will certainly help me in the future. Many thanks.

With younger gay tourists seemingly wealthier and travel hopefully soon to become less expensive, I'm rather surprised that there seem to be no tour companies around organising gay tours to several countries on one trip. Many will recall the Utopia Tours company which was based in the Tarntawan hotel lobby. It did organise multi-country tours. Sadly it became the subject of a scandalous court case (the scandal surrounded the judge!) and later shut up shop. I believe it was reincarnated as Purple Dragon Tours. But even that no longer exists. Anyone wanting to know more about that case can check here - https://web.archive.org/web/20050606015724/http:/www.yawningbread.org/arch_2005/yax-435.htm I know that Siam Roads provides excellent guides around the region. But it does not include Malaysia, Hong Kong or Taiwan nor make transport and hotel arrangements. Once the covid entry restrictions in all countries are removed, I expect the gay scenes in these cities to be fully open to tourists again. Perhaps the new breed of sex-related tourist might wish to include at least 2 if not 3 destination countries rather than always sticking with Bangkok and Pattaya.

I think Thailand should emulate the Grabby Awards and have annual gifts for the bar boys who are the Hottest Top, have the Hottest Cock, and perform as te Best Duo. Can you imagine the Awards ceremony as clips of their performances are played (hopefully!)?

Re Taiwan, both the US and China have been ratcheting up tension. As long as that is all it is, I see no major problem as this happens all the time in international relations. But this and future US administrations always have to have in the back of their minds that China in 2022 is not the China rotting from within of 200 years ago. It is a modern country with a huge army, a vast arsenal of weaponry and air power - and a large stockpile of nuclear weapons. If China decides - or let's even suggest provoked - to take over Taiwan by force, what can the US do do stop it? The sanctions put in place over the Russian invasion of Ukraine have achieved nothing to stop the war. Would similar sanctions against China be more effective? A few aircraft carriers in the Taiwan Strait will achieve precisely nothing unless the US population is ready for outright war half a world away. I am sure it is not. And let's never forget that during such periods of tension accidents do happen. One happened on 3rd July 1988. During the Iran-Iraq War the US was patroling the Persian Gulf to ensure no interruption to the supply of oil. The guided missile cruiser the USS Vincennes shot down an Iran Air Airbus over Iranian airspace on the assumption that it was a military jet determined to fire missiles at the ship. Since civilian airlines had different radio frequencies from military ones and a whole host of other errors (the Vincennes had actually strayed into Iranian waters), the radar operators continued to assume the Airbus was a warplane. As a result 290 innocent passengers and crew were were killed. At first US authorites claimed the Airbus was flying outside the commercial jet corridor. A month later, they had to retract that statement and confirm it was indeed within the commerical jet corridor. Furthermore, when shot down it was continuing its ascent and not descending as the radar operators on the ship had claimed. The US Navy blamed crew error and paid US$62 million in damages to the familes of those on board.

In general that is perfectly true. Yet the Third Reich lasted less than 15 years. The Soviet Union barely 70 years before it collapsed. The Chinese regime has already outlasted them and is unlikely to collapse any time soon, despite the almost unprecedented challenges now being faced by that leadership. A key question for those who for their own valid reasons object to the Chinese leadership is, I believe, a relatively simple one. Get rid of that leadership and what do the Chinese people put in its place? You cannot create democracy overnight as we have surely seen in Russia where the alleged democracy is a total sham. Let's also remember Japan which was all but forced to open up with the Meiji Restoration and how shogun rule was replaced not by a functioning democracy but by its military rulers who were intent on building an Empire just as the western powers had done. The relatively simple actions of Commander Perry and his warships in 1853 was no doubt approved by many in the US administration, yet it came back to haunt them dreadfully in World War II. No doubt Pelosi's actions will similarly seem just and reasonable to some in present-day USA. But will they be worth the effort? Will they actually achieve anything useful to US interests? In such a massive country as China that is the second largest economic power on earth, where are the democratic institutions, the rule of just laws, even a basic understanding of what democracy is all about? How does a people which has for millennia been subject to strict rule imposed from the top change? Unless a country is defeated in war, as with Japan in 1945, you cannot impose political change from without. It must come from within. And with my knowledge of the country, however limited that is, I see no movement for change in China - at least for a long time to come. After Tiananmen Square, there were many stories appearing in the Hong Kong media that some of the leadership of the more prosperous southern Province of Guangdong were considering a breakaway from mainland China. It must have been discussed at some levels but it was never to happen. What makes China and the reforms of Deng Xiao-ping different from Stalin is that the only disagreements came from the hardliners in the leadership. Private ownership of land was anathema to them. But Deng got his way. In freeing up the economy and pulling hundreds of millions out of poverty, I do not believe China got rid of anyone. Yes, that's speculation. But when you are massively improving the lives of those who had hithertoo been eeking out a miserable existence, I doubt if there were any in the countryside who disagreed with the policy and were therefore "got rid of". I admit I know much less about the history of the Sino-Russian conflicts over land than I do about other areas. Treaties signed during the Q'ing Dynasty transferred land including most of Manchuria back and forth between the two countries and were indeed regarded as unequal treaties. As in the west of the country, there were skirmishes on the disputed northern border in 1969. The difference seems to be that whereas the western powers refused to renogiate those "unequal" treaties, the Soviet Union and later Russia along with its earlier satellite states bordering China did enter into extensive renegotiations. The 1991 Sino-Soviet Border Treaty put in place the terms under which negotiations would take place. The issue was finally resolved satisfactorily in 2004. I regret I have no idea of China's existing economic relations with Russia nor how they affect the country's geopolitics. I can only assume that the Chinese leadership is doing what it regards as best in its country's interests. As an aside, it is I think useful to remember that Manchuria was a haven for fleeing White Russians after the Russian Revolution. I have only been to Harbin, but the influence of Russia extends even to the main roads being signposted in 3 languages - Chinese, English and Russian. In the city centre there is an imposing decommissioned Russian Cathedral and Russian restaurants abound. China has never made any attempts to de-Russify that part of its territory.

I think you are pretty near correct - although I would question the adjective 'massive' and the noun 'regime'. I would prefer 'major' and 'admiration for the achievements of the PRC'. And my own personal journey as it relates to China is a large part of the reason. The fact is that many who have theories about China hardly know China or people who live in China. Their views are understandably shaped by what they read in the media and see on television. Perhaps they find a non-democratic form of government anathema. Perhaps the horrors of Stallinist Russia resulted in many to assume that communism equalled a form of massive internal genocide. And then they read about Mao's actions in the 1950s, '60s and early '70s and were convinced. So, I completely understand. What most people never seem to consider is the historical context going back at least two centuries and why China is both where it is and how it is run. They seem to assume that the 'century of humiliation' during the 19th century when China was virtually raped by many western powers and Japan was just an historical fact. And as with much history the Chinese should just put it behind them as they move on. That is hardly possible. Just as the Chinese plan far more into the future than other countries, so they have long memories. They do not forget. Admittedly by the start of the 19th century Imperial China was finally rotting from within. It was unable to stop the British traders from forcing it to accept opium instead of payments in silver, an act which condemned millions of Chinese to a dreadful death but one which had found favour in the government in London. It was unable to stop the missionairies who followed in the wake of the traders who, as they did almost everywhere, attemped to persuade tens of millions that their ancient historical and cultural beliefs were sinful and to follow Christ instead. That bred the 14-year Taiping Rebellion in which at least 20 Chinese million were killed. This was led by a Chinese who persuaded his followers that he was the brother of Jesus, a name all but unknown to almost all Chinese until the missionaries landed. Those who condemn China today conveniently tend to forget what the western powers did in those decades was the adoption of practices which in themselves should be more than roundly condemned in international courts. The rise of European and American settlements in which those nations' laws were followed instead of Chinese law resulted in what even today are called the Unequal Treaties. A weakened China simply did not have the internal administrative structure nor military power to resist. Chinese leadership in recent decades has several immutable aims - one being that China will never ever again allow itself to become as weak as it was in the early 1800s. If there was one act that so angered the ordinary Chinese that it remains an unresolved stain even today, it was the act of colonial powers towards the end of the Opium Wars. British and French troops were sent to Beijing to force the Emperor and his Court to open up more of the country to trade. When they failed, they went on what can only be termed a criminal rampage. Outside Beijing, they looted and destroyed one of the world's great series of cultural buildings, the Summer Palace. Today this has the same historical relevancy to all the peoples of China as the Crusades did in Arab eyes almost a millennium earlier. It will never be forgotten or forgiven. I'll skip over the fall of the Q'ing Dynasty, the birth of modern China and then its internal turmoil as warlords and criminal gangs fought to control the country. But it is important to remember that in Asia China had been on the side of the allies in World War 1 and had even sent 150,000 labourers to Europe who were then treated abysmally and of whom a huge number lie in simple graves in northern France. In most cases their families had no idea what happened to them. At the Treaty of Versailles, the Chinese diplomats assumed they would be given some concessions, especially in getting rid of at least the German foreign settlements on its coast. They were humiliated when the alies gave the settlements to Japan. They came away with absolutely nothing. Follow that with the Japanese occupation of Manchuria and the dreadful trail of death and destruction as they made their way down the coast and ended with the Rape and destruciton of Nanjing, the capital of Nationalist China - one of the most horrific acts in history with up to 300,000 citizens raped, beheaded and otherwise slaughtered by a seemingly mad Japanese military. After all these and many more events, what China and the Chinese desperately wanted was one thing - stabiliity. Mao seemed to offer that which is why he was so warmly welcomed. Little did the people of the country know that Mao's mad campaigns over the next 25 years would result in the deaths from hunger and murder of almost certainly at least 50 million, if not more. After that preamble, I found myself in Hong Kong at the start of 1979, just as the Cultural Revlution was finally over and Deng Xiao-ping restored to power. Deng was clearly a great pragmatist. He knew China needed to change its philosophy and that much of the economy, especially in the communes in the countryside, had to be set free. That needed cash. And so he first tapped the Chinese diaspora with great success. The first Special Economic zone was a fishing village across the creek from Hong Kong. Shenzen then had around 25,000 inhabitants. Now it is an economic powerhouse with a poulation in excess of 12.5 million. After my first year I took the daily tourist train across the border to Guangzhou. I saw the farming communes. I saw how poor the people were. I saw a slowly developing Guangzhou where I was a guest of the new US Consul there, Dick Williams. The Consulate was on the top floor of one of the few better hotels in the city. One morning, we went to walk by the river to see where the western powers had had their 'factories' for trade and which had been the origin of the Opium Wars. I saw almost every man wearing a loose grey Mao-style light suit and only a few of the ladies wearing anything but grey. It was like going back in time 100 years! Since that first visit, I have been in China well over 100 times. I have friends in several cities. I happened to be in Beijing for meetings with clients in May 1989 as Tiananmen Square was filling up. I was back in late July the same year to meet the same clients. All were totally shocked at what had happened and told me that the government had lost Beijing. But such feelings eventually were put to the back of minds as incomes rose at such a rate with Deng's reforms pulled well over 400 million out of poverty, the largest number in the shortest time in history. As incomes rose, I noticed what I can only describe as a vast increase in personal freedoms. In early 1997 I was in the city for a 3-week project. I stayed at the Beijing Hilton in the city's north east, one of many western chain hotels that had opened. In the eveing I often walked about half a mile to the Sanlitun area north of the Embassy district. Here about 3 dozen private cafes, bars and small restaurants had opened. At one I visited several times, I chatted a lot to a very cute waiter who was studying at one of the universities during the day. His English was virtually fluent. He made one point that stuck with me. He said all his colleagues admired the USA and more than a few hoped that perhaps they might have the chance of studying there. He then added "but some cannot understand why so many in the US government hate China so much!" Like those reading about China in other parts of the world, that view was largely based on what they were reading and being told. But my student friend and many of his friends realised that they did not trust the government's official media. They made up their own minds. Long before then, China realised it had to make friends in the west which in turn opened the doors to a vast new source of investment to further fuel the country's development. Perhaps the hardliners of whom there remain even today quite a number in the top leadership failed to realilse that this would open the country's internal affairs to greater worldwide scrutiny. But nowhere today is that leadership more unified than regarding the country's borders. Anyone who fails to understand this need only look back to 1969 and the 7-month border war with the Soviet Union. The Soviets were seriously considering the use of nuclear weapons but held back. Earlier there had been the 1962 border war with India. The Chinese actions in Hong Kong, Tibet and Xinjiang, however much the world condemns them - as indeed do I, are totally rooted in border control issues. Similarly with Taiwan, although as i have stated in an earlier post, I believe international law and wartime Agreements make it more than clear that the ultimate authority in Taiwan has to be Beijing. I fully accept that two blacks do not make anything other than two blacks. But it is easy to condemn China when we assume that ordinary Chinese are not able to think for themselves and what they really want is a different form of government. I consider these wrong assumptions. Equally, I think we have a tendency to forget the failings in our own systems of government. I wonder what the Chinese people think of a government which permits its citizens to own more guns that there are citizens, for example? Or where 41.5 million of the population exist as a result of food stamps. Or where so many in so many democratic countries now realise there are in fact major failings in the democratic systems these countries have adopted. I loathed Li Peng and his fellow hardliners in Beijing who undercut Deng and his reformers and directly led to the events of early June 1989. Many assumed Xi Jinping would be a reformer, given that his father, Xi Zhongxun, a companion of Mao on the Long March, and later a Vice Premier was very much a liberal reformer in the government who enjoyed a close, friendly relationship with the Dalai Lama. The elder Xi had championed the rights of the Tibetans, Uighurs and other ethnic minorities. Many felt his son would pursue similarly liberal policies - but only once he was totally assured of this own power base. From the purges near the start of his reign, it is clear that Xi had more enemies than the pundits thought. Will he change if he gets his new term at the next National People's Congress. Somehow I doubt it.

In my younger days when I lived and worked in Hong Kong, I always dreamt that if I won a big lottery, I would do several things - 1. donate a chunk to a charity or endow a chair at a university in my parents name. As there is no-one left in the familly with my name - too many girls - it would be nice to think my parents and their name were remembered somewhere. 2. buy an apartment in Hong Kong (since I had always had accommodation provided and planned then to keep HKG as a base). 3. buy a lovely smallish waterfront apartment in Sydney, one of my most favourite of cities. Naturally it would have to include a small boat dock and I could afford a small crew. 4. buy or rent a small house in one of the srunningly beautiful Renaissance hill towns in Italy so I could immerse myself in arts and culture occasionally. I could easily see myself flitting between the three, enjoying first class travel (this was before flat bed business seats) and all the trimmings. Caviar on board would be essential - indeed, with just one exception till now I have only ever been served caviar on a plane! Now with many fewer years ahead of me, priority 1 would remain the same, although with more going to charity. Priority 2 would be to buy a sightly bigger apartment in Bangkok. Sydney and Italy would still be on the list. A fifth would be to eat more often in some really excellent restaurants with some of the best wines - first growth Bordeaux, Domaine de la Romanee Conti burgundy, the best Sauvignon Blanc and Muscadet, ending with Chateau d'Yquem with dessert. No point hanging around unless you can eat and drink well! But with that consumption I expect my days might end up being more numbered!

I take all your points. I'll only again request a response to the issue about ExpertFlyer before I take out subscription. Does it give details of mileage seats available on all airlines in a certain Alliance on a certain date or series of dates? Specifically, does it differentiate between those seats only available to loyalty members of the issuing airline before they become available to others? As for your second point, I have been annually booking tickets (mostly business class) via Asia Miles ever since Cathay Pacific's first mileage programme Passages died. Asia Miles came into being 23 years ago with OneWorld. These have included tickets on CX, BA, AA, QR, AY, Lan Chile and others. I have a close friend who has just retired as a Board member of the airline's parent Swire Pacific. On the few occasions I have had a problem, I have referred the query to him and he has spoken to the Asia Miles management. It seems they do train their agents well and to date I have not had any major issue with them re detail. But then with his retirement and with presumably a lot of staff being rehired after covid, there is a chance I might have got a dud on my first call! Unlikely, though, because I wrote a long letter to the Manager and received a very long and detailed reply confirming QR had absolutely no business seats avaiable on any route between BKK and the UK in March when I called - or indeed on the date he wrote the email.

Now we know that Pelosi has a long history of being anti the government in Beijing. On an official visit in 1991, she escaped from her group for a quick visit to Tiananmen Square where she unfurled a banner stating "To those who died for democracy in China." CNN's correspondent Mike Chinnoy was part of her group. He was arrested for several hours although he had nothing to do with Pelosi's actions. As he stated, "It was my first experience with Pelosi's penchant for high-profile gestures designed to poke China's communist rulers in the eye - regardless of the consequences." This year she issued a statement to mark the 33rd anniversary of the Tiananmen demonstrations, calling them "one of the greatest acts of political courage." As far back as 1993 she opposed every Chinese attempt to host the Olympic Games. To the anger of Presidents Cllinton and Bush, she pushed for China's trade status to be linked to its human rights record and to attach conditions to its entry into the World trade Organisation. I wonder how strongly she has reacted to other dictator-led regimes and their human rights records? In other words, Pelosi is a loose canon. Little wonder that Biden is trying to stop her planned visit to Taiwan - fearful of what she might do in what is probably her last year as Leader of Congress. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-62343675

I will certainly look more into this. But going back to one of my earlier posts, I know that an airline in an Alliance does not always make its allocated mileage tickets available to all other members of the Alliance at the same time as it may first give preference to its own loyalty club members. Not sure of Mileage Plus, but this is certainly the case with OneWorld. I was given this information by one of the BA OneWorld execs after calling at 00:01 UK time on the day mileage tickets were supposed to become available 51 weeks in advance. I had then been informed "Sorry no mileage seats available!" In the case of my recent booking with Qatar, this has to be the case. Otherwise, how would specific flights I requested a month earlier suddenly become available half way through a phone call a month later and only after I had been told there were no seats. I realise mileage ticket holders can change dates on payment of an extra seat surcharge and it's just possible that my requested flight had suddenly had a seat become available. But when OneWorld mileage tickets on all carriers are supposed to be avaiable something like a year in advance, how does it explain the situation a month earlier when I was informed there was not even one seat available on more than 50 BKK/Doha flights in mid-March 2023? Looking at the QR website, it makes clear that mileage tickets are "subject to availability as determined by Qatar Airways and the Airline's Partner Programme." Yet Asia Miles claimed it had no knowledge of QR's policy on mileage tickets and only issued those available on their computers! I guess I should have been more aware that quite a few airlines have sold off their loyalty programmes to third parties. There's an interesting book "Designing Future-Oriented Airline Business" by Nawal K. Taneja which makes this point - "Frequent flyer programmes have become businesses in themselves and have their own objectives that may be different from the objectives of the airline!" I wonder if Expertflyer takes this into consideration, especially with Asian based airlines?

Singapore still has the colonial British law Section 377A which prohibits sodomy - and which the government interprets as homosexuality. That's not to say there aren't lots of gays in Singapore or gay venues, but forget gogo bars. There are a few gay saunas and a few gay bars. There is no gay club but some mixed clubs attract quite a few gay guys. I used to go to Zouk in the 1990s which was fun. I know it's still open but have not been since then. Frankly, SIngapore is not really a gay destination unless you want to spend your time shopping and wandering around in high heat and humdity - although the subway is very extensive. The main shopping streets will have a lot of eye candy, but Singapore guys seem not to have a developed gaydar! As others have said, it's also expensive compared to most other Asian cities.

Strong rumours from Singapore suggest that the government is finally going to get rid of the Section 377A anti-sodomy law left over from British colonial times. This is part of a letter recently sent out by Pastor Yang Tuck Yoong of Cornerstone Community Church, a long-time opponent of the repeal of Section 377A and LGBT rights in general, to other church leaders. The ruling PAP has informed them that Section 377A will be repealed within the next few months. On Thursday, several of us were invited to meet with Ministers Shanmugam, Edwin Tong and Desmond Lee to discuss about the future of 377A To summarise a few salient points of the meeting which are important: In a nutshell, we have been informed that 377A will be repealed in the coming few months because there is a general understanding that though it may be a sin, gay sex ought not be criminalised. To balance this, the government is likely to put in a constitutional clause referencing the definition of marriage in the Woman’s Charter. This is different from enshrining a definition of marriage in the constitution itself. It is a technical move that merely prevents constitutional challenges to the standing definition of marriage (on the basis of it discriminating against homosexuals). This means that while the government of today says it is ideologically committed to a one-man, one-woman marriage, this is not set in stone. The definition of marriage can be changed with a simple majority of parliament rather than a supermajority if it was enshrined in the constitution. This puts the crosshairs of LGBT activists squarely on marriage and the new battleground of our country will shift to marriage. LGBT activists will seek to shape public consciousness of what marriage is, and attempt to get parliament to enact gay marriage because they believe that homosexuals should have a right to marry. Likewise, the church must now protect the definition of marriage as a comprehensive and conjugal union of a man and a woman, ordered toward reproduction and the raising of healthy children.

I love Taiwan. It's not only the beauty of the island as a whole, I find much to see in Taipei for a gay guy. The Red House in the centre is a great meeting place with its plethora of bars, cafes, restaurants and gay-related shops. Not that you are kikely to make friends there as Taiwanese tend to go out in groups. But there are other bars - even a leather bar with a very dark room and often shows - saunas, massage spas and one of my favourite attractions the hot springs developed by the Japanese mostly to the west of the city but easily accessible by the very efficient subway. One atracts mostly gay guys. Although there is rarely any action, you see many wonderfully toned young Taiwanese in all their glory walking between the pools and in the steam room (unlike Thais, Taiwanese have no issue walking around naked without covering their fronts). I have found chatting to some very easy, exchanged contact details with some - and made two very good friends The apps will be quite busy. Above all, I find Taiwan guys the most attractive and polite of all Chinese. It's such a pity that the borders remain closed due to covid. I was hoping they might open in time for the gay pride parade on the last Saturday in October but increasingly that seems unlikely. I have been to 7 of the Parades since 2011 and just love the atmosphere. Around 200,000 now attend, many from around the region. As with most similar Parades, there are official parties around the week-end. Returning to my first point, a few years ago I took a 5-day round the island tour. The scenery is understandably very varied but also incredibly beautiful. Well worth the expense - and the apps are certainly far from inactive outside Taipei!

@macaroni21 makes many interesting points. But I'm not sure this one is particularly valid, the more so if a visitor is even slightly adventurous. As a start it is just a short walk to the famous Wat Hua Lamphong temple which I find one of the most visually interesting of the many dotted around the city. Then the Silom/Suriwong area is very close to both Skytrain and MRT subway stations. It's now only 4 stops on the Skytrain to get to the river at Saphan Taksin. Take either the leisurely slow or the fast express public boats (both very cheap) to see Bangkok from the river (and note some of its Chinese heritage) and then arrive very close to the Grand Palace and the stunning Wat Phra Kaew and Wat Pho temples. Depending on the time of day, it's worth taking a taxi or tuk-tuk for the relatively short distance to see the famous Marble Temple (Wat Benchamabophit) with its perfectly symmetrical frontage, A short distance away is the fascinating all teak Vimanmek Mansion built by King Rama V in 1900. As with the Grand Palace complex, like many royal tourist sites there is a dress code if you wish to visit - no short pants, no sleeveless shirts revealing shoulders and no flip flops. Being main tourist sites, there will almost always be tuk-tuks nearby if you don't want to walk. Then if traffic is bad after your wanderings, the river is only about 1 km away and the express boat from Thewes pier gets you back to Saphan Taksin in something like 20 minutes. It all makes for a fascinating if perhaps tiring day trip.

It's certainly not only you - or at least, it certainly shouldn't be! I'm just surprised that reading between the lines of your post you have left it so long to consult your lawyer. Hopefully it's only to revise an existing wil. lt also took me too long to decide on a will, the more so when I had a property and a reasonable amount of savings and investments either in the bank or due to come in a few years. I was nearing 60 at the time. I should have consulted a lawyer a good 20 or even 30 years earlier so that as I earned and saved more provision had been made for my assets should I fall under a bus. I do suggest that this is an issue everyone must discuss openly especially with a long time partner. It's particularly true when, I suspect in both our cases, our partners are considerably younger. If it so happened that I died without a formal updated will, I hate to think of all the problems that would leave him.

Xi is unquestionably playing to his own power base. Frankly, I don't think at the present time he gives a damn what happens in the USA - or any other country for that matter. He has far too many major problems and developing problems at home to be concerned about other countries. If Pelosi makes the visit, Xi's hand among the power brokers in Beijing is strengthened almost whatever he does.

This is precisely the point made by the British historian specialising in international relations, economic and military might, Paul Kennedy, in his excellent 1988 book "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers since 1500". Empires cannot last. Kennedy argues that there will always come a point when expenditure on the forces required to defend borders and overseas interests reach such a level it so destabilises a country's national economy that it has no option but to reconsider and retrench. This is particularly true in peacetime. Past empires have collapsed because over the longer term productive and revenue-raising capacities on the one hand could not continue to finance the military strength on the other. Thoroughly recommended reading.

Apparently according to news reports and a friend I just spoke to it's being very much played down. I looked earlier at the online edition of the Taipei Times. I can see nothing on the news pages but the lead editorial suggests her visit should be shelved. Against that there is an op-ed in which the writer takes the opposite view. But this writer is Dutch and teaches the history of Taiwan at the George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. Based in the USA it is perhaps not surprising that he very much spouts the Pelosi line, whereas the editorial is clearly the 'Taiwan view'.

In Taipei I always stay near Da'an Park. It's a small park and ideal for a short morning walk before breakfast. The Dandy Hotel Da'an Park is one of a big chain of hotels but very moderately priced and within meters of the Da'an subway station on the Red Line. Usefully this is the line that takes you to the main hot springs near Shipai station out west. It is also close enough to the very large National Taiwan University campus to be either within walking distance or a short bus ride. There are dozens of great cheap eateries around the Green Line subway stations by the University. And Taipei's main (perhaps only) sex shop is very near one of those Green Line stations! One comment I have heard many times from various guys I have met as well as a former long-term boyfriend is that there is a big lack of available older westerners in Taipei city. No doubt that's why in my view it is one of the easiest cities in the region to hook up with handsome young guys who are not money boys.

I don't think we are ever too old for sexual activity, although stamina may be reduced. I'm older than @Olddaddy and in Thailand I have my long time partner with me. Out of the country, though, I am let off the leash! A few years ago on a trip to Taipei when I was several years older than @Olddaddyis now, I relied on the apps. One day I had unusually set up two hook ups - one at lunchtime and the other late afternoon. Then just after breakfast a guy sent me a message. He worked nearby and would be going out soon to collect something for his company. Could we meet? I basically said I was busy, but he looked cute and pressed hard - so what was I supposed to do? He came, we met for a quick coffee in the lobby, he was indeed cute and - well, the next 45 minutes were extremely enjoyable. The only problem with 3 guys in one day is that I twice had to send out for dry towels! No doubt housekeeping was well aware of the reason! As I was relaxing after my last scheduled encounter, oops - it happened again. An art student had just finished a late class (I usually stay close to a university) and clicked on me. Could he see me before he went home? Although tired, he looked even more cute than my earlier encounters, and so I said ok but added I'd had a tiring day. He looked gorgeous both clothed and naked on the bed. He was also like a tiger and I had once again to work hard. But what a session! After he left, I went down to the bar for a stiff drink before heading back for a long sleep. All the boys were only out for sex. All seemed to enjoy being with much older westerners. As in the case of most on the apps in Taipei, none was a money boy. 4 is the most ever in one day and I have never come close to repeating it. One a day now is perfect for me. But what a day! What a memory!

With Congress Leader Nancy Pelosi seemingly determined to lead some of her flock on a visit to Taiwan despite the ire of the Beijing leadership, the US is once again misreading the signals and leading the USA into somewhat uncharted waters. Whereas the USA supported Chiang Kai-shek's often brutal dictatorship in Taiwan after he lost the war with Mao, it was purely for political reasons - precisely the same reason they supported the murdering, thieving Marcos in The Philippines. For well over a year the corriders in Washington rang out with the refrain, "Who lost China?" The thought of a second huge communist nation in the world was too much for the power brokers to accept. Many willingly believed in Chiang's boast that his refuge in Taiwan was merely temporary and he would soon return to defeat Mao and rule China again. Nixon's 1971 handshake with Mao in Beijing was the start of a major realigment in US realpolitik in the region. Soon, Taiwan was all but off the radar. US adopted a one-China policy which has remained firmly in place virtually since then. This is backed up by the Taiwan Relations Act, three joint US-China Communiques and six formal written Assurances. The US Department of State webpage makes it clear that US policy "opposes any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side; we do not support Taiwan independence" although it adds "we expect cross-Strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means." With China's National People's Congress meeting later this year, with President Xi hoping that his cronies will give him another 5 years in power, Taiwan has yet again become very much a hot button issue. In another thread elsewhere, I have detailed the wartime agreements made at Cairo and ratified at Potsdam in and after World War II that the Japanese would return all their colonial possessions to the countries from which they were stolen. As China had ruled Taiwan for some 250 years, naturally Taiwan was returned to China. But after China soon became communist, the USA did everything in its power to nullify those earlier Agreements, even conniving with the Japanese at the San Francisco Peace conference to change the return of Taiwan to China to the Republic of China. This has resulted in a field-day for international lawyers, but by far the majority accept and agree that the USA's tinkering isn't worth the paper it is printed on. But it did not all start with Taiwan. From before World War II US politicians were to get Asia so wrong for decades with often disastrous consequences. First Pearl Harbour. The staunchly isolationist US had cracked Japan's diplomatic codes, it had long known Japan was preparing for war and aware that a task force had sailed from Japan on November 26. In an era without satellites it just assumed it was heading to the Philippines and the oilfields in Indonesia. Yet The Philippines was only days away from Japan and no attack had taken place. The base in Hawaii was not put on any form of alert. Being a Sunday, many of its forces on the base were stood down. We know the result. Then Korea. Aware that Russia had taken over North Korea, when the US Secretary of State Dean Acheson publicly announced the US strategic Defence Perimeter in January 1950, the US was much more focussed on possible Soviet advances in Europe. So when Acheson forgot about Korea and left it out of his policy announcement, no one in Washington even thought about it. But the Russians certainly noticed it So in June they helped the North Korean regime to invade the South. As a History Channel series presently being shown in Thailand makes clear, the US and its allies were completely unprepared for war. Tactically General McArthur made huge mistakes. They were also totally unprepared for a Korean winter and Chinese participation, the more so when that country had no heavy weapons. Having turned around the initial attack and advanced into the North as far as the Yalu River marking the border with China, the retreat of US and UN forces that followed became a national humiliation. General McArthur, who had asked for approval to use nuclear weapons on China, was finally relieved of his command and replaced by General Ridgeway. Eventually, after huge personnel losses and tens of thousands suffering from frostbite, after 3 often senseless years the status quo was restored at the 38th parallel. Vietnam and Indo-China was a similar blunder. The USA totally failed to understand that Ho Chi Minh was in essence a nationalist. He had written to both Roosevelt and Truman begging them not to allow the French to return to their former East Asian colonies. It seems that neither replied. The US was staunchly anti-colonial and forced some of its allies to start a decolononisation programme soon afer the War. The French leader Charles de Gaulle refused. Allegedly he informed Truman that he would rather have Soviet troops march through France to the Atlantic than give up Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. It was a bluff, but it worked. So the French returned to their murderous rule in Indo-China. Ho was far from a saint and his people in the north suffered considerably. But he and his excellent General Giap ahd learned from the Chinese tactics in Korea. They lured the French into an open area surrounded by hills. The French defeat at DIen Bien Phu was a total disaster for de Gaulle and the end of French occupation. But Eisenhower and then Kennedy believed the US had a duty to protect democracy in the south just as they had propped up the murderous Syngman Rhee in Seoul, despite South Korea's democracy being a sham. That south Vietnam had a hugely corrupt government and that few in the south had much faith in it meant nothing in Washington. It even had the CIA help engineer a coup to get rid of and murder one Prime Minister and replace him with another rifdiculous man as President, General Ky. As Max Hastings says in his excellent relatively new history of that war, "Ky was a slick dandy, with a pencil-thin moustache; he affected a custom-made black flight suit and impressive procession of wives and girlfriends. He was publicly affable, fluent, enthusiastic about all things American but the taste of Coca-Cola - and as remote as a Martian from the Vietnamese people." Even before then, the CIA had secretly and illegaly - as it was without Congressional approval - created what was effectively the world's largest airport in the jungle in northern Laos. Later came the secret and similarly illegal intrusion into Cambodia which was to so destabilise that impoverished country that it led directly to the rise to power of the Khmer Rouge. And we know what then happened. China now, though, is very different from the postwar period. Under Xi it has become more hardline, it has broken international law in Hong Kong and got away with it, and the world seems to pay little attention to the disastrous policy in Xinjiang Province with the Uighurs. Xi's re-election bid is not certain and he has to have a considerable number of enemies in Beijing. He needs to go into that Congress with the air of a strong leader. Pelosi's trip threatens at this delicate time to awaken the dragon. There is absolutely no need for her to go at this time. The US has a lot of military power in the South China Sea. If there is any degree of misunderstanding, could this be yet another US disaster in the making in the region? I would not bet against it!

Agree with @fedssocr. Bangkok is a great first choice - and not just for the nighlife. The temples are magnificent and there is so much else to see in and around the city which is all so hugely different from western cities. I used to adore Bali - but that was decades ago when the tourist invasion had hardly begun. 15 years ago it had changed so much and I felt sadly for the worse. Yet, if you want a totally diffferent experience from Bangkok and other regional cities, I would still recommend a week there. Instead of sticking to Kuta and the hotels in the southern Nusa Dua beach area (although a trip or two to one of the island's beaches is always relaxing), immerse yourself in Balinese life and culture by staying elsewhere. Try to watch a Balinese religious festival, listen to the feint sound of different gamellin orchestras practising as you walk by the rice terraces, see the various forms of Balinese dance including the spectacular kecak dance, visit the temple in the sea at Tanah Lot, watch the sunset from the cliffs near the little temple of Ulu Watu, attend an evening shadow puppet play and just watch as the local Balinese love it, etc.

Is anyone else having difficulty getting mileage tickets around their preferred dates? A month ago I tried to use miles from the Asia Miles programme for a return business class ticket BKK/UK on Qatar covering a fortnight in March 2023. I was informed there were no such tickets avaiable, not only on my preferred dates but on any flight within the 14 day period. I pointed out that QR has at least 50 flights to and from BKK to Doha and probably more from DOH to the UK during that period and it was inconceivable there was not one business class ticket on even one flight available during that period. I even tried a few days either side. Same reply. I was merely told to try later. I argued but as expected I got absolutely nowhere. Yet I did not want just any flights because flight connections at Doha can sometimes be lengthy. I really wanted the shortest ones. Two days ago I contacted Asia Miles again. To start I got more or less the same response. No biz seats but this time they could offer me economy. I kept pressing. When I asked the lady to look at other dates around the time of my originally requested flights, there was a long wait. Then I was surprised to be told that my return flights ex-UK did in fact have a biz ticket available. Checking outward flights in the 3 days before the original date, now there was a seat 2 days beforehand. All had the short plane change! I immediately booked it. I was told I would have to call QR in BKK to chose seats, but the e-ticket had allocated seat 2A in all flights. Clearly that seat is avaiable for mileage tickets on most if not all QR flights. Why it had not been available a month earlier, I have no idea! The only other issue I had is that the extra charges for mileage tickets have risen considerably. No doubt fuel surcharges account for part of that. But I have my tickets and that is the main thing.

All this is of little use given that Hong Kong still requires almost all visitors to undergo the most stringent quarantine regulations. You still need testing on arrival at Hong Kong airport followed by a longish wait, then 14 days quarantine at home or in a hotel with daily RATs - and you cannot move out of either.