forrestreid

You provide a good précis there of the conservative civil servant position on the last years of the British rule in Hong Kong. i don’t think either of us has much to add at this stage. However I hope that readers will note that the position elucidated is predicated on the notion that democracy in general, and in particular pressure from below in Hong Kong for more democracy, is being accepted as a bad thing. Not a worldview I can support.

To finally get to your question, of who got the situation right, I would nowadays say Patten. As it happens, that would have not always have been the case. My evolution went from being very positive about Patten early on, to coming around reluctantly to what you might call the Percy Cradock line by 1997. I felt that while Patten was well-intentioned, that a more softly-softly approach may have worked better, and that bringing in more democratic arrangements that the PRC would scrap as soon as they gained control was pointless. In those days I would have been more optimistic ( or naive ) about China as well, swallowing the establishment Foreign affairs line that once they joined the WTO etc they would slowly become more democratic and liberal. However, as I saw the fate of Hong Kong in the 25 years after 1997, I came to understand that Beijing never intended to let even the small spark of democracy survive indefinitely, and would eventually scrap it once it became too troublesome. In retrospect, I realise that Patten did the right thing to try and create a temporary bit of democracy in HK, even if the PRC were going to squash it. He may have not had much experience of China before his appointment, but he had the insight to realise that (to paraphrase Churchill) you cannot negotiate with a tiger. He at least created a memory of a democratic Hong Kong in the Nineties that will endure as a memory of the British period, as Hong Kong slowly loses status and declines from being a major international city to just being another Chinese city.

My point about the difference between your championing of Iranian democracy and lack of interest in it in Hong Kong is that one presumes that if you think democracy is good in one situation one would expect that you would be in favour of it in theory in another, even if there was not a huge clamour for it, I am far from an expert in HK but a brief perusal of Wikipedia informs me that in 1986, a multitude of local groups set up an organisation called the “Joint Committee on the Promotion of Democratic Government” which collected 200,000 signatures in a petition to speed up proper elections, so it was certainly in the air in the 1980’s. Then in 1995, in the elections the Democratic Party swept the board in the geographical seats. I think it is fair to say that the demand for democracy was building in the 1980’s and that Patten’s democratic programme was hugely popular among the actual HK electorate in the 1990’s. Regarding my background in Hong Kong, five days in the city state on holiday is my only practical experience of it. I was in my teens in Ireland in 1989 and I followed the news of Tiananmen and the subsequent debates over Hong Kong with interest in the British and Irish media until 1997. That gives me a particular perspective I guess. I think that those whose views were formed after 1989 tend to foreground the democratic question in Hong Kong more than those whose views were formed earlier. Regarding your comment that Major wanted to sack Patten twice. Well, maybe so, but the fact is that he didn’t, despite the fact that Patten held his job “at Her Majesty’s pleasure”. Presumably Major preferred dealing with the blowback of Patten annoying the Chinese by pushing forward with democratisation rather than having to justify to the UK parliament (and, after 1995, the pro-democracy majority in the HK Legislature) why he was replacing him with a more pro-Beijing figure.

I have just realised that I have not answered the question Peter posed in the opening post. I will reflect on that and post on that later.

I think that’s a bit unfair to Patten — and to John Major, for that matter. The 1984 agreement was mostly put together by the Foreign Office’s old “China hands,” and their main priority was getting Beijing to promise that Hong Kong would stay capitalist after 1997. Democratic reform for Hong Kongers wasn’t something they cared much about. In fact, a lot of them were openly dismissive of the idea of democracy in Hong Kong. Whether that came from old‑school colonial attitudes toward the Chinese or just a general dislike of democracy, who knows — with British colonial officials it could easily have been either. (And honestly, it is a bit surprising to see PeterRS — who was very keen to condemn the US/UK for toppling Mossadegh in neo-colonialist fashion in 1953 — quoting approvingly a colonial official who thought Hong Kong people didn’t deserve democracy in the 1980s…) Then Tiananmen happened in 1989, and suddenly the British public realised that Hong Kong was about to be handed over to an authoritarian regime. Newspapers started criticising the 1984 agreement from a democratic and human rights perspective. That created a political headache in London. So when it came time to appoint a new Governor, John Major decided the last one shouldn’t be another career civil servant. The feeling was that the “China hands” had mishandled things by not securing agreement to bring in more democracy back in 1984. That’s where Patten came in. He was a big political figure, he’d just lost his seat, and he was seen as someone who could push democratic reforms as far as possible before 1997. Sure, there may have been a bit of “jobs for the boys” in the mix — Patten wasn’t as wealthy as most Tories and needed a job — but the decision was political. Major probably didn’t expect him to charge ahead quite as forcefully as he did, but Patten was basically doing what he’d been sent to do. Naturally, the old Foreign Office crowd and parts of the Hong Kong civil service took his appointment as a slap in the face — which, in a way, it was. So they had their knives out for Patten from the start.

This could impact on flights transiting through the Gulf for a while. I see the well known Youtuber GabrielTraveler was caught out and is now stuck in Qatar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krw66qLUoD0

I think that’s true, and I’m definitely not trying to defend British colonial‑era laws. But I do think their lingering effects have faded quite a bit over the last decade or two.These days, the bigger factor seems to be how religious each country is—especially the influence of conservative Islam and evangelical Christianity. Take Senegal, Mali, and Niger. All three were French colonies, so they didn’t inherit laws criminalising homosexuality at independence. - Senegal later made homosexual acts illegal. Around 97% of the population is Sunni Muslim, and surveys show the same percentage saying homosexuality shouldn’t be accepted. With numbers like that, liberalisation doesn’t look likely anytime soon. - Mali also started out without anti‑gay laws, but according to Wikipedia, homosexuality was made illegal in December 2024. It seems to have been a political move aimed at appealing to the overwhelmingly Muslim population at a time when the government is under pressure from ISIS‑aligned rebels. - Niger likewise inherited no such laws. But again, Wikipedia notes that while same‑sex activity is currently legal, criminalisation is pending. Now compare that with the formerly British colonies of Nigeria, Ghana, and Uganda. - Nigeria did inherit British anti‑gay laws. In the Christian south, the federal criminal code (which would have copied a lot a British laws at inception) punishes sex between men with up to 14 years in prison. In many northern, Islamic states that have recently adopted Sharia‑inspired laws (under pressure from Muslim preachers) the penalty can be death. - Ghana also inherited British laws banning male homosexual activity. But then in February 2024 things got much worse as the legislature—backed by both major political parties—unanimously passed the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, which would criminalise even identifying as gay, with penalties of up to three years in prison. It’s currently tied up in court. - Uganda inherited British laws too. They went largely unenforced for decades, but from the 1990s onward (according to Wikipedia) there’s been a push to revive and strengthen them. That eventually led to the Anti‑Homosexuality Act, 2023, which includes up to twenty years in prison for “promotion of homosexuality,” life imprisonment for “homosexual acts,” and the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality.” Uganda is about 75% Christian and 15% Muslim, and evangelical churches in particular have been strongly anti‑gay. Interestingly—and worryingly—surveys show younger generations are more homophobic than older ones, which is the opposite of global trends. Presumably the older generation would have been more affected in their attitude by the inherited British laws, but they are ironically somewhat less homophobic. Therefore I think that harking back to British colonial laws banning homosexuality (unfortunate though they were) is increasingly irrelevant when talking about the legal status of gay people in Africa. Now you could argue that it was under the British that Christian missionaries got a foothold in certain countries, leading to the situation today where a more evangelical Christianity is spreading. But if it had not been for the Christian missionaries, I think it likely that Ghana, Nigeria and probably Uganda would be almost entirely Muslim now. This would have led to worse outcomes gay people today in those countries - after all, I would prefer to live in the Christian-dominated south of Nigeria subject to the draconian Federal Criminal code, rather than Sharia-ruled north, facing the death penalty.

I know what Happy ending is, but I thought that you were talking about the route to get to that place. I actually thought it was a typo for HJ and that is why I drew your attention to it. Happy to be corrected.

Thanks for the report GoldMember. Just one question- you said in it that with Yuya: “He wanted 3K for B2B. I told him I prefer just HE”. what is HE in this context?

Yes, you are correct. You didnt say that, that was my impression on it after a quick reading of your post. Apologies. However, your point did bring up the question of what would be a good replacement for the term, which is why I wrote started my "rambling" post. The fact that it produced a bit of a discussion about the use of Asian as a term amongst readers suggests that there was some merit in bringing what a more precise replacement of Oriental might be. You personally find it very offensive - that is respectfully noted. You might note that my commentary was prompted at least in part by seeking a replacement for the term, presuming that it was deemed unacceptable in say, Kuala Lumpur (in an acknowledgment of your presumed perspective). You suggest reading Edward Said to understand why the term is offensive. I have not read him but I was aware that the term has been politically incorrect in academia since that book was published in 1978. But I had presumed that was mainly an issue in academic circles. I did not presume that this had necessarily spread to the general public. Interesting that you chose to use him as a justification for the incorrectness of the term. I have to say that I would have been more impressed if you had said that the term would be seen as offensive amongst all your Malaysian Chinese contemporaries in present day Kuala Lumpur rather that it had been demonstrated as such in a dusty academic book in 1978 (not meaning that necessarily as a criticism of the Said thesis). Sorry if that seems snarky, but while I am all for equality and using non-offensive language (it would be a rather non-aware gay man who would say different) I prefer to think of it in terms of what the average well-intentioned man or woman in the street thinks rather than what is the current viewpoint in an academic seminar.

There are some ways to mitigate this if you are happy to stay a bit outside of Barcelona, and out of season. For instance, there are currently around ten hotels for less than €80 per night available within five minutes of Sitges train station for a random midweek night in March. It is just forty minutes from Sitges station to Sants Estacio station, which is 15 minutes walk from Thermas. Spend the afternoon in Thermas and go out in the gay village in Sitges for the evening. I am sure there would be a few places open even on a midweek evening in March in the gay village.

Regarding the comment of @mauRICE on the reference to a customer of the bar as “Oriental”, I will submit to his wisdom that is now regarded as rather “not cool” to use it. Personally I would have said that, although rather old-fashioned these days, it wasn’t necessarily an offensive term. However, given your location in Kuala Lumpur, I presume you have your finger on the pulse amongst the people about whom the term is used. However, I think you’re wrong to suggest it is purely an equivalent of "Asian". I think the term "Oriental" when describing a person is more understood to mean an East Asian person, as opposed to an Arab or Indian. So by saying Oriental rather than Asian, Vinapu was giving somewhat richer contextual information. Usage on this is depends on where you are from - in the UK Asian tends to mean somebody from the south Asian subcontinent whereas in America an Asian almost exclusively means East Asian. In England you might hear somebody saying “there used to be a Chinese restaurant there, but it closed and they opened an Asian restaurant in its place” which would sound weird to a North American, but would be understood in England to mean an Indian restaurant replaced a Chinese.

I think you are being a bit obtuse Peter. It was widely reported in the media that Bhumjaithai and Pheu Thai did well in Isaan and the Peoples Party did well in Bangkok. This is “common knowledge” at this stage and to demand that somebody show chapter and verse on it in a message board conversation is a bit ridiculous. It is also “common knowledge” that Bangkok is much wealthier than Isaan. So one can make fair assumptions about the income level of the typical supporter also.

Regarding the People's Party, we should remember that their vote held up better than Pheu Thai. They only lost 20% of their seats, compared to Pheu Thai who lost more than half. To be honest, I think it was probably a good election to lose for the People's Party. The enmity between them and the old establishment powers is very raw at the moment, perhaps a few years of playing the part of "loyal opposition" will cool things down, perhaps even to the stage that the constitutional court might let the People's Party form a government after the next election without disqualifying them because (to paraphrase Vinapu) the wind was blowing in the wrong direction on election day or whatever. Also, this result will leave Anutin having to extricate Thailand from the current situation on the Cambodian border, which might be difficult to do without annoying his more nationalistic base. Could be tricky for him...

Looking at the results, the obvious partner for Anutin would be the new, conservative, Kla Tham party, which seems have got most of its 58 seats in the north-west of Thailand. Between them the two parties have 251 seats, just a whisker above the majority. No doubt Anutin would want another party as well, for stability. He could choose between Pheu Thai and the Democrats, led by Abhisit Vejjaviva (remember him), who got 22 seats. I think Pheu Thai will be in a poor negotiating position. Just looking at the map breakdown of seats, it looks like the "khaki election"* aspect of the Anutin and Bhumjaithai campaign did well (unfortunately). By far the best area for Anutin was in areas close to the Cambodia border in southern Isaan, where, for example, they swept all the seats in Buriram province. Further north the heart of Isaan, the Pheu Thai strength held up. (*a "khaki election" is defined by wikipedia as any national election which is heavily influenced by wartime or postwar sentiment).

I think this was “T25 Beer and Bistro” on Thappraya Road. More of a disco than anything else.

Very nice vids there Suckrates. I know I have just criticised the Philippines as a prospective holiday destination in another thread, but they do seem to have the sexiest male beuty pageants!

From watching the video, it seems the sharp drop in Chinese tourists from 2019 to now is the main issue. Safety concerns might play a small role, but the report points much more strongly to the current tensions between the Philippines and China. That part made me think of what @Moses previously claimed here—that Chinese tourists aren’t heavily influenced by their government’s stance (he mentioned this in the context of Chinese tourism to Japan). But this video suggests they might be more affected than he thinks. To be fair, the suspension of the e‑visa program was probably the biggest factor in this case. It’ll be interesting to see how quickly Chinese tourism rebounds once the system is running again. Speaking for myself: I’ve used Bangkok as a base for trips to Malaysia, Singapore, Laos, Bali, and Cambodia over the last 12 years, and I’ve considered the Philippines a few times. But it always felt like poor value, mostly because of logistics. I was more interested in Boracay or Cebu than Manila, but it seemed awkward that you more or less have to fly into Manila anyway. I did consider spending time in Manila, and Intramuros (the old city) looked interesting, but the difficulty of getting around the city made it less appealing overall. On top of that, finding a reasonably timed flight from Manila to Caticlan (for Boracay) was more awkward and more expensive than I expected. If I had heard that there were good bars for guys available for hire people or a solid massage scene, I might have overlooked those issues—but from what I remember, even that side of things seemed a bit inconvenient. I know people who have went reported that the apps are good, but I prefer to meet people in a venue when I am on holiday.

I don’t think I have ever seen any videos of dancers from Nice Boys in Sunee Plaza on YouTube! Are you sure that you are not mixing it up with Sunee Bar in Jomtien? Their dancers feature on YouTube a bit.

It’s a mystery to me too…

I am well aware that this is a trend that is conquering the World, alas.

I had this experience in a few places, notably the 1000 Kip notes of Laos. Still and all they irritated me less than the shiny plastic fivers of London that feel as if they are poised to give you a paper cut every time you put your in your pocket.

I must say, I really despise plastic notes — purely because of how they feel in your hand. It always annoys me when I go to the UK and have to handle them - it actually encourages me to use my debit card there instead. It’s also frustrating to know I’ll have to deal with them the next time I go to Thailand, since I tend to be much more cash‑based when I’m there. At least the euros we use in Ireland are still paper notes… though I’ve heard a rumour that the next time they update them, they’ll be plastic as well.😒

Yep, it was broadcast on BBC Two this year. It was also on Irish television - RTE 1 - where I watched it. It’s gone woke itself nowadays - there was a focus on female composers this year. But don’t worry, it still finished with the Blue Danube and the Radetsky March.