PeterRS

I must admit I read only recent pages of the thread and then got caught up in the Taiwan/Ukraine discussion. I have no desire to read the rest of such a long thread and accept other readers comments. All I will add is that a previous owner also incurred the wrath of quite a few members. If you own a chat room Board, I guess you have the right to put forward your own views whenever you want. I only know that Moses lives in Moscow. It's his Board. He bought it. In my view he has the right to promote whatever views he holds just as others have every right to abandon it if they are unhappy with those views. Surely they can turn to the other two Boards or even start up their own if they wish.

I agree totally with @thaiophilus. That is a particularly long thread and basically compares parts of Ukraine with Taiwan. I don't see any proselytsing for Putin, merely what it is like to live in Russia and the various benefits citizens get from the state compared to Taiwan. Interestingly, though, Moses' main discussion seems to be with Dragonman, a poster who in one thread gets his history entirely wrong. He writes - "Taiwan (officially the Republic of China according to my passport) is not under the same pressure from the Mainland as Donetsk is under pressure from Ukraine. Like Donetsk, however, parts of the ROC were under bombing from the Mainland for years - look up the attacks on Quemoy and Matsu known as the First and Second Taiwan Strait Crises (the second was in 1958). Despite the claims of the PRC, it has never ruled Taiwan and the so-called "One China Consensus" is a lie. Until 1971 the Republic of China was a member of the UN and held a Security Council seat." He is certainly correct that after Mao took over China Taiwan was frequently attacked by the People's Republic. But his suggestion that China has never ruled Taiwan is nonsense. Naturally he will argue that he does not mention China - only the PRC and the Republic of China. But if he bothered to look into history, it is clear that at the 1943 Cairo Declaration with Roosevelt and Churchill in attendance and ratified under the 1945 Potsdam Agreement, it was agreed that all Japanese colonies would be returned to their original rulers. Imperial China had ruled Taiwan for almost 250 years prior to the Japanese invasion. It was therefore to a China ruled after the war by the murdering, thieving Chiang Kai-shek who had managed to take over the Kuomintang on the mainland after the death of Sun Yat-sen that Taiwan was returned. After Mao had won the civil war in China, Chiang and 2 million of his followers fled to Taiwan and took the "name" Republic of China with them. But Chiang never intended to remain in Taiwan. His followers committed many atrocities against the native Taiwanese. Probably he did not care because his attention, with the help of his fluent English-speaking Christian wife, Sung Mei-ling, who was particularly popular in Washington, was to reconquer mainland China. When Mao had won th civil war, those in the corridors of power in Washington were horrified. For years the question continued to be posed - "Who lost China?" Even so, Washington continued to recognise Chiang as the legitimate ruler of China, almost exclusively because they wanted a buffer in the South China Sea against a hated communist China - hence his party getting the seat at the UN. Washington also tried to overturn the Cairo and Potsdam agreements at a special Conference held in San Francisco around 1952. Neither Mao nor Chiang were invited. Some countries, notably Britain, were totally against what the US was planning to try to achieve. Britain had no intention of recognising a Taiwan under any sovereignty other than the rulers in Beijing. Chiang retained his vain hopes of returning to take over Beijing until Nixon decided that the US and China would mend fences and become friends in 1971. Chiang died in 1975. The one complicating factor in international law is that at the 1952 Conference when the Japanese officially handed over their colonial territories, they agreed to hand the Taiwan back to China but someone ensured that the document includes the term in use when they colonised it - the Republic of China rather than just China. Yet, when countries change their names, do the sovereign powers automatically change? Of course not! Much as I loathe to repeat it, Taiwan is irrevocably, officially and almost certainly in international law, a part of mainland China.

I also agree there seems quite a difference between the two sites. Sawatdee is definitely more Pattaya-centric. With respect I think that is just not true. So what if the owner of that board lives in Moscow? He took over the Board when it seemed it would bound to close. The owner, Moses, has been particularly helpful to both this Board and gaybuttonthai when each has had technical issues. Although i don't often read either much, I do look at them occasionally and I doubt it gaybuttonthai would exist without Moses' considerable help. As for sawatdee having a Putin bias, I doubt if any of the members of that site would agree. And I wonder where you got the idea that some posters stopped contributing for that particular reason? Again, I find that extremely difficult to believe - where is the proof? From what i see, Moses makes almost no contributions, so how can the Board have a Putin bias?

If that video rams home one point it is how disastrous the effects of covid and the tourism decline has been on the ordinary Thais who were barely able to scrape by without their usual sources of income. As for as those heading the tourism drive, without 16+ million Chinese tourists they probably have no alternative but to try and attract high spenders. Without them the industry and the economy as a whole has no chance of getting back to where it was in 2019. Then again Thais rarely admit they are wrong and so they will push on with the high-end tourism drive until either it's a success or they quietly and without publicity open the doors to far more lower-end tourists and backpackers. But the tourism industry is not doing itself much good the way prices for items like hotel rooms have been hiked. Hotels are never going to get back to anything near capacity when prices for many have been jacked up by 100%. We were thinking of a short staycation just in Bangkok. For August the price of the hotel we stayed in for a long week-end in February is now about 120% of the earlier rate we paid. To raise all prices and not have a menu of different prices to suit different budgets seems counter intuitive. The much smaller numbers of high-end tourists will pay for higher end rooms. So why not have a smallish number at lower rates? We've just abandoned our staycation

A little anecdote about the perfectly lovely Luang Prabang. I was there in 2003 and stayed in a newly opened small guest house on the banks of the Mekong run by a Lao who had spent many years sudying and working in Australia. I adored the short trip. One afternoon, I returned to the guest house to be told by the owner that I had just missed Mick Jagger sitting having a coffee with his daughter by the river. The Rolling Stones had had a concert in Mumbai cancelled and so Jagger had flown to Bangkok where he chartered a Bangkok Airways plane to visit Luang Prabang. The owner had actually met Jagger in Australia. He had often worked as a security guard at large-scale pop concerts. While on duty at a Stones Sydney concert, at one point Jagger went up to him, asked about his nationality and if he could get some marijuana. No problem said the Lao. I have a friend in the Embassy and he will get some sent down in the diplomatic bag overnight. Jagger recalled the unusual event and spent about 20 minutes withe the guest house owner. And I missed it!!!

I always wonder why so many people - even hotels - use the term "high tea" when it should be "afternoon tea". High tea is a totally separate meal that always includes one cooked dish and is generally taken around 6:00 pm. That said, i agree afternoon tea in the Mandarin-Oriental's Author's Lounge is a wonderully extravagant experience. But check beforehand if it will actually be served in the Lounge as that is frequently booked up for weddings. The last time I was there, afternoon tea was being served in the lobby. But the thread is about Sunday brunch. I have no hesitation of nominating the Sukhothai on Sathorn. It offers so much and an amazing variety you really should starve for days beforehand. But like all hotel Sunday brunches, it is really expensive. I also dislike the live jazz offered in many hotel Sunday bruch offerings. On the few occasions I go for Sunday brunch, I hate live music. I go with friends and want to chat without having to shout!

I did- twice. I saw one who looked Asian but was from Ecuador. Apart from the one identified as coming from indonesia there was one other not identified who could have been Asia. But no idea if he could be first or second generation Asian living in a South American country.

Anyone planning to fly from Heathrow over the summer should be aware that in addition to the cancellation of flights by carriers, Heathrow has informed airlines that it will fly a maximum of 100,000 passengers per day until Spetember 11. It has also advised airlines to stop selling seats for the peak season. This is in addition to the thousands of flights already withdrawn from the schedules. In summer 2019 Heathrow was handling around 125,000 passngers daily. One of those hardest hit will be Emirates even though it owns its own ground-handling and catering services. It flies 6 daily A380s from Heathrow to Dubai and is therefore able to get many more passengers out of the airport that those operating much smaller aircraft. That airline has slammed Heathrow for its inabiility to gear up as some of the airlilnes have done. Ridicuously it was given just 36 hours to comply wth capacity restrictions. When I go back to the UK, thankfully I elect to use smaller airports far from London. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jul/14/heathrow-emirates-airmageddon-summer-flights-disruption

What on earth is this 'contest'? It seems geared almost exclusively to guys from Central and South America. As far as I can see, no candidates from Thailand, the Philippines, South Korea, Australia, India and so many other countries. It seems similar to a couple of other 'contests' mentioned in this forum over the years - and they were pretty dodgy in terms of their titles matching the nationalities of the contestants. Interestingly, at least to me, winners of the much older Mister International in recent years included guys from England, India, Denmark, Columbia, Ireland, Spain and Brazil. Mistra-International only started in 2016 - but why so few candidates from around the world?

I have in the past railed against parts of the so-called democratic system as practised in the USA. Let me now redress the blaance a little by looking at the present disastrous situation that exists in the UK. For those who do not know much about the UK policial system, it is largely dependent on a series of constituencies, each of which eoects a Member of Parliament. Although there are more than two parties at Westminster, as in the USA there are two dominant ones - the Conservatives (often called the Tories) and Labour. Members of Parliament are elected on a first past the post system. So it can happen that the governing party has a minority of all votes cast. The outgoing Prime Minster Boris Johnson frequently boasted about he had created his party's large majority at the last election. If he were being truthful, he would admit that less than 30% of the electorate actually voted for that party. There was a very perceptive article in the Sunday edition of the Observer newspaper. Titled "The lesson from Johnson's tenure - British politics needs dragging into the 21st century", John Harris writes of the country's various crises - "One of our crises goes back centuries. The UK’s structures of government are based around an antiquated and centralised state, much of which was built during the distant days of empire, and that now barely functions. Swollen Whitehall departments cannot possibly do what ministers and civil servants claim. The Houses of Parliament are a shabby symbol of institutional decay. Thanks to the continued existence of the House of Lords, our legislators include a Russian-British newspaper proprietor, Ian Botham and 92 hereditary peers. And the way we elect the Commons is a creaking joke: the 'personal mandate' Johnson recently cited to try to keep himself in office amounted to the support of less than 30% of the electorate. "Worse still, there is a deep, symbiotic connection between the institutions of Westminster and Whitehall and the structures of privilege centred on a handful of private schools, and the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Together, they have churned out people trained in the arcane ways of the establishment and how to network their way into power, but who usually turn out to be dangerous bullshitters and chancers. Johnson, obviously, was all this incarnate: once he had got to the top of a system that grants prime ministers mind-boggling levels of power, he could trample over constitutional conventions, push through legislation nullifying basic civil rights, and champion the breaking of international law . . . "Drastically altering our systems of power – and, via radical thinking about private education and Oxbridge, breaking up ancient networks of privilege and influence – would open the way to changes that would start to pull us out of our endless malaise: a huge housing drive, a basic income, security both within and without work, the kind of moves towards a closer relationship with Europe that the stupidities of current politics rule out. It would also quash the chances of another entitled would-be Tory autocrat wheedling their way into power. This is surely the lesson of the past three torrid years – that if Johnson’s time in power demonstrates one thing beyond question, it is the fact that British politics has to finally leave the 20th century." Johnson had been widely reviled virtually before he became Prime Minister. Like Trump in the USA whom he often resembles, he has lied, cheated, been beset by scandal, broken his own government's covid isolation rules, not once but several times, and was felled by his major character flaws. He is the first Prime Minster in history to have been fined by the police whilst in office. Two of his party members had recently to resign in disgrace, one for sexual offences against a teenage boy and another for watching porn on his mobile phone in parliament. Johnson was also caught changing his story on the way he handled allegations of sexual misconduct by a senior member of his government. Long seen as a redeemer, his own party has now dropped him like a stone. It was unfortunate for the UK that his Labour party opponent in the last general election was regarded as weak and unelectable because of his strong left-wing and other less than savoury views. Inmore countries, democracy without strong democratic institutions seems in serious danger of becoming close to some form of autocracy. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/10/lesson-boris-johnson-british-politics-21st-century-democracy

Fortunately this did not have the result of the tyre blowout on the ill-fated Air France Concorde. From the position of that gaping hole, it is clear the tyre issue was not on take-off for I cannot see how rubber could have been blown around the side of that large aircraft and then created an inward puncture. And since both Emirates and a passenger stated the incident occurred during the cruise level, something must have happened in the wheel well. Odd, though, how that had enough force to puncture the outer skin but not tear a hole in the lower deck.

I don't think anyone wants to know more. Put it to bed!

Earlier @kjun12 sugested that this thread might be reposted to the Cambodia forum. This was shot down and the post ws deleted. However, @Min has made so many excellent points about Phnom Penh and Vietnam, might the moderstor consider linking this topic in the Cambodia and Vietnam fora?

While this site may seem purely based on sex hookups for money either in the bars or on the apps, the fact is there are lots of guys in Thailand perfectly happy to meet up for sex without a cash payment - other perhaps than money for transport in Bangkok. It is after all a very spread out city. The problem for tourists visiting for a short time is that it is less easy to find these boys. Most will be either studying or working and so not always avaiable. But around the turn of the century there certainly used to be an internet site primarily for Thai boys looking for hook ups with absolutely no mention of or requirement for a cash transaction. Much of it was in English. I know, because I met a few guys from that site. I cannot now recall the site name, but i am sure it no longer exists, at least in English. There may well be one in Thai for Thai guys looking for Thai company.

Sorry @kjun12 I just don't agree. There is a very good search engine. Anyone wanting information particularly about Pattaya can get most of it by merely typing in Pattaya. Besides, many posters are visitors who, on the basis on a number of posts in recent months, wish to visit more than one location. Having to fiddle between two or more threads is basically a waste of time. The other issue is: where does a split like this end? Should the Board spit Europe into specific desintations. In recent months there have been threads about Barcelona, Istanbul, Salzburg, Prague, Zurich, Vienna, Budapest, Bratislava, Spain, Portugal, Vienna, Brno, London, Lison and Rome. These have had more than 75k views. Should they all be separated, perhaps just into countries? Granted, the gaythailand forum is the most heavily read. On the other hand, the European Men & Destinations forum has many more 'reads' than the those for Gay Bangkok, Gay Pattaya and Gay Chiang Mai businesses put together. Since these cover a lot of information about bars and ther gay venues, is there a need for yet more forums?

I'm not sure now what the regulation is re heavily peopled places like th Skytrain and MRT. The Skytrain still has notices that masks must be worn at all times in the Skytrain system. Yet the other day I was on a near packed train on the Sukhumvit Line. Everyone that I could see was wearing masks except three burly tourists all of whom were speaking German. Sure they had masks, but they had them around their throats. When Thais see tourists getting away with flouting the Skytrain rules, I wonder how long it will be before local residents start taking off masks.

Ron Howard seems to love real life stories now. Problem is: he's not very good at it! His bio movie about the great tenor Luciano Pavarotti was a sham puff piece that revealed only what the financiers wanted seen. Not surprising given that these included his recording and video companies and his second wife. Pavarotti was a great singer with a great personality, but he was a pain in the neck for many. As early as 1989 the Chicago Lyric Opera banned him from future appearances because he had cancelled 26 of 41 scheduled performances, most at the last minute. I had friends who paid almost $2,000 to see his Farewell performance at New York's Metropolitan Opera. There's an excellent and amusing book titled "The King and I" written by the manager who made him a world star and whom he fired after 36 years. Almost every chapter starts with a phrase similar to "Luciano Pavarotti was the greatest singer the world has seen - but . . ."

I must have flown well over 2 million miles on CX and like the biz class product. But the rules for mileage tickets were changed a couple of years ago. Since I am not going to London but another UK city that is served by QR, I now would have to use one set of miles for one ticket BKK/HKG, another for BKK/LHR and then a third from LHR to my final destination. This would be a complete waste of the first and third sector miles since short distance flights proportionately require many more miles. I could of course purchase economy tickets for those two sectors, but that would set me back around 18,000 baht plus the extra charges for going through Heathrow on QR. That plus the hassle of two plane changes make the whole route not worth it.

The headline may be a little over the top, but the fact that Boris Johnson's government has had 40 resignations and the sacking of another all virtually in the last 24 hours is the worst in British history. Many have occupied the most senior cabinet posts in government. It is a truly damning indictment of the man and his leadership. Yet there were more than a few who realised at the outset that this is almost precisely how a Johnson administration would bite the dust. Indeed, I am reminded of what I wrote on this Board some years ago when Johnson was running for the position of Prime Minister. Earlier in his career he had been a journalist for the right-wing Daily Telegraph newspaper. His highly respected editor at the time, Max Hastings, wrote on June 24 2019 about the prospect of his becoming PM in what was a disastrous article for Johnson but one whose predictions, rather as those of the witches at the start of Shakespeare's Scottish play which we cannot name, have come spectacularly to fruition. Hastings wrote - "I have known Johnson since the 1980s, when I edited the Daily Telegraph and he was our flamboyant Brussels correspondent. I have argued for a decade that, while he is a brilliant entertainer who made a popular maître d’ for London as its mayor, he is unfit for national office, because it seems he cares for no interest save his own fame and gratification . . . We can’t predict what a Johnson government will do, because its prospective leader has not got around to thinking about this. But his premiership will almost certainly reveal a contempt for rules, precedent, order and stability. "Dignity still matters in public office, and Johnson will never have it. Yet his graver vice is cowardice, reflected in a willingness to tell any audience, whatever he thinks most likely to please, heedless of the inevitability of its contradiction an hour later. "Like many showy personalities, he is of weak character . . . Johnson would not recognise truth, whether about his private or political life, if confronted by it in an identity parade. In a commonplace book the other day, I came across an observation made in 1750 by a contemporary savant, Bishop Berkeley: 'It is impossible that a man who is false to his friends and neighbours should be true to the public.' Almost the only people who think Johnson a nice guy are those who do not know him." Johnson clearly cannot survive more than a few days - a week or two at most. Like the character in Shakespeare's Scottish play, his elevation will prove to have been his undoing. No doubt thereafter as he ponders what had happened to him, he will think of himself as another Shakesperean king whose weaknesses resulted in his downfall - "I am more sinn'd against the sinning." (King Lear Act 3, Sc. 2)

Anyone done any checking on mileage tickets from/to BKK to/from UK recently? My miles are always put into the Cathay Pacific programme, Asia Miles, which also includes Qatar Airlines. 3 weeks ago I tried to book a biz class mileage ticket on QR to the UK and back for next March. When told nothing on my preferred flights, I gave the operator a selection of other dates. Again nothing available. Merely to check, I then asked for any flight to Doha during a two week period. Although there are scheduled to be more than 50 flights during this period (and all QR flights seem to be operating), allegedly not one flight had even one biz class seat available. I found this totally unbelievable. Asia Miles could provide no explanation. But I do recall that when Qantas used to service BKK as a stop on its London/Sydney route, it had a policy of mileage tickets only being avaiable first to its loyalty members until about 6 months prior to flights. When then made available to others, there were never any seats avaiable. Anyone had a similar experience with QR 9 months in advance?

Let me add I don't think there is any model form of democracy. I'm not even sure that democracy is the ideal way of running countries any more. US democracy worked effectively for a long time once women and African Americans had finally been given the vote. With apologies to my American friends, I think it is in need of quite a major overhaul. Apart from the points I mentioned in my earlier posts, the US seems to have nothing but a continuous flow of elections for all manner of posts in States and towns, all requiring cash and I guess not a little corruption. Is such short-term thinking effective today? Britain always maintained it had a near perfect democracy, but for centuries the only people who could vote were landowners and the aristocracy. Most citizens can now vote - but only if you actually live in the country. As a Brit who has lived outside the country for some decades, my right to vote was stripped from me ages ago and even though I continue to pay for my National Insurance contributions I have also been stripped of my rights to the National Health service. A refugee has more rights to medical treatment under the Health Service than I. My moans aside, though, Britain's first past the post system, like that of the USA, is clearly undemocratic. Having a government frequently voted in by a minority of voters cannot be democratic. Singapore is much admired throughout the world for its stunning developments in the economy, housing for most citizens, superb urban planning and so on. Singapore under its founding Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew had amazing vision and determination but it was a dictatorship in all but name. Could it have developed so quickly in such a short space of time with several political parties constantly vying for power? Frankly I doubt it. Further north, many loathe the idea of communism but could China have dragged a number many now believe as more than 600 million out of poverty in the shortest period in world history if it had been a democracy as those in the west know it? I am certain the answer will be 'no'. Lee Kwan Yew consistently informed western nations they had to realise that western forms of democracy were not necessarily the way to run Asian countries. He called it democracy with Asian characteristics. Yet the 1997 Asian Economic Crisis unearthed the crony capitalism practised in many countries and proved that he was far from entirely correct. My guess is that countries which have basically just two parties can never form anything like a near-perfect functioning democracy. We are seeing that now in a big way in the USA and to a lesser extent in the UK. Corruption in one of its forms will never be far away from such a system. Long-term policy also becomes a near impossibility as power ebbs and flows between parties. On the other hand, Israel is the perfect example of a country with many parties and a different form of democracy but has massive difficulties in forming any government. In that sense, countries like China have a big edge. Could a country as large as China ever become democratic? Certainly not in my lifetime. Democracy has to come from within and there is as yet no stomach for such a shift in that huge country. I realise there are no easy answers. But are there in fact any answers better than what already exists?

Although not an American, viewing from afar I have to agree. I also think certain parts of the electoral system and the Constitution should be reviewed - at least from time to time. For example, why is it necessary to have such a huge gap between the declaration of the winner in a general election and the assumption of power? Clearly it was necessary 200+ years ago when travel was by buggy and it took States time to gather all the votes and then declare a winner in the electoral college. Then it took more time to get all those votes/electors from the west coast to Washington before they could all be certified by Congress. But we don't live in the 18th century. In many developed countries vote counts take hours rather than days or weeks and often, as in the UK, the loser moves out of the official residence in Downing Street only a day or so after the vote. When this takes more than 2 months, you end up with Trump and any other future President who is determined to use everything avaiable to him and much else to contest votes and remain in office illegally. Oh, I know there were the hanging chad shenanigans in 2000. Had there been a sensible and obvious voting system in place in Florida that would not have happened IMHO! The Constitution is often held up as an example of how prescient and great the framers were. Again I have to ask: how is it that what was seen as right and proper centuries ago remains so today? Did the framers really want their country to be overrun by guns and gun violence as it is today? Did they envisage the vast social changes that would engulf the world after World War II? Granted they were not always in agreement and there were major differences of opinion back then. But did they foresee the near total gridlock that now exists in Washington? Did they foresee a supremely political Supreme Court which, from those viewing from afar, seems to have two sex offenders on the bench, both put on the Court primarily for political reasons? Why did they determine that Justices would serve for life? With the vast majority of the population now having to retire at a certain age, why not those on the Supreme Court? Similarly with Congress? Just questions for discussion. The UK has its own set of major problems as do other countries. But US democracy in particular seems rooted in a period centuries ago with those in power determined not to enact what seem like necessary changes to bring it into the 21st century.

I don't think you are stupid at all. I try to do some research on transport from the airport before I hit a new city. If I haven't, my priority is to get to my hotel with the minimum of fuss and preferably without changing from one mode of transport to another. I'd have happily paid $10 extra for an air con Mercedes if I was not sure about taxis and the possibility of taxi scams. But I'm glad you're settling in and hope you will have great trip.

That's a fascinating read. Having lived in Asia through the 1997 crisis it took a while before the real reason for its occurrence became known to many. I do remember it was such a massive shock in Thailand that many stores failed to raise prices on existing stock purchased prior to July 1997. Shopping in Bangkok even in December that year was one big bargain sale. You could even have gone into Robinsons, then located in Siam Centre, and purchased a concert grand Steinway piano for roughly half price - effectively a $100,000 discount. The crony capitalism practised in many Asian countries highlighted in the article is obviously now far less prominent than prior to the crisis, but it is still there even if much reduced. As highlighted, in the 1990s the Thai government was determined to defend the Baht 25 = US$1 peg at all costs. And this was less for the country's good than the large companies run by their pals. The boom of the early 1990s had seen a large amount of capital inflow, some resulting from the long period of stagflation which hit Japan at the start of the decade. This had seen Thailand's annual growth maintained at about 8%. But by 1996 the warning signs were evident to some. Growth began to slow to just over 6% in 1996, partly as a result of the huge rise in dodgy finance companies keen to make a quick buck. Only a very few saw a financial tsunami on the cards. Real estate companies, spurred by the 400% increase in property values since 1990 had mushroomed but were being left with a huge amount of unsold residential and commercial property. Exports fell dramatically. Less obvious in the article is that Thailand had had very high interest rates continuously averaging 11% throughout the 1990s in order to maintain the currency peg. As a result many companies, large and small, decided to tap the Eurodollar market for loans with interest rates usually around 5% less. Assuming the baht/$ peg would never be changed, they failed to hedge their borrowings. Once the baht peg collapsed, their fate was sealed. Yet, the possibility of a tsunami had reared its head in May 1996 when, with a portfolio packed with bad loans, the Bangkok Bank of Commerce failed with debts of $3 billion, mostly in non-performing loans. It had to be taken over by the government to retain confidence in the increasingly shaky financial markets. Then, speculators had in fact hit the baht big time earlier in 1997. Using its considerable foreign exchange reserves, the government was able to fend them off and bought up many basically insolvent companies. But in doing so by May it had used up $28 billion of its $30 billion reserves. Thereafter there was little ammunition to fend off another attack were it to come. That was why the second wave at the start of July could not be defended. As a result of the crisis, currencies in every country in the region fell by an average of around 20% and were to stay at those levels for some time. Surprisingly, the only ones that remained at pre-crisis levels were China and Hong Kong. The Hong Kong dollar was also pegged to the US% - as it remains today. It is different from Bangkok's peg in that for every HK$ issued there is the equivalent of a US$ in a special currency fund. For almost three years it managed to avoid most of the fallout of the crisis. But by 2000 it was to enter its worst recession since World War 2. Even so, the government continued to maintain the currency peg. As an interesting aside, the speculators descended on Hong Kong in May 1998. Its government announced the threat in advance and stated that for every stock shorted by the speculators, it would purchase with government funds an equivalent amount. It expected this would cost around $100 million. It ended up spending a whopping $15 billion in the defence but won the fight and the speculators were left with major losses. As those securities had been purchased when the market was low, the government ended up with a huge surplus on its actions as the stock market rose.

I queried a post in another thread when a poster stated his Thai friend whom he has known for quite some time had had three customers all of whom he said were Chinese. My view then was that they must have been Taiwanese. I think not Singaporean or Malaysian Chinese where the accent is stronger and more noticeable. I was informed there are ways of getting out of China. My friends in Shanghai told me they could not possibly have recently come from China. The only possibility was that they were already here on a long term study course - which of course is perfectly possible. Then they would not be going home soon and would avoid all the hurdles. Getting to Hong Kong for business even for permanent residents remains a major hurdle with quarantine still in place and a further period of observation. Any non-Chinese permanent resident must renew his status within three years of last visit. As mine was in August 2019 I have written to the Director of Immigration about not being able to return but got the usual standard letter with the regulations. It did end, though, with mention about special discretion! Since I still need to travel there quite frequently, I hope I will fall into the discretion category!