HighjackEssay Preview: HighjackReport this essayThe region known today as Thailand has been inhabited by humans since the paleolithic period (about 500,000 – 10,000 years ago). Prior to the fall of the Khmer Empire in the 13th century, various states thrived there, such as the various Tai, Mon, Khmer and Malay kingdoms, as seen through the numerous archaeological sites and artifacts that are scattered throughout the Siamese landscape. Prior to the 12th century however, the first Thai or Siamese state is traditionally considered to be the Buddhist kingdom of Sukhothai, which was founded in 1238, following the decline and fall of the Khmer empire in the 13th – 15th century AD.
A century later, Sukhothais power was overshadowed by the larger Siamese kingdom of Ayutthaya, established in the mid-14th century.After Ayutthaya fell in 1767 to the Burmese, Thonburi was the capital of Thailand for a brief period under King Taksin the Great. The current (Rattanakosin) era of Thai history began in 1782 following the establishment of Bangkok as capital of the Chakri dynasty under King Rama I the Great.
European powers began traveling to Thailand in the 16th century. Despite European pressure, Thailand is the only Southeast Asian nation never to have been colonised by a European country. Two main reasons for this were that Thailand had a long succession of very able rulers in the 1800s and that it was able to exploit the rivalry and tension between the French and the British. As a result, the country remained as a buffer state between parts of Southeast Asia that were colonised by the two colonial powers. Despite this, Western influence led to many reforms in the 19th century and major concessions, most notably being the loss of large territory on the east side of the Mekong to the French and the step by step absorption by Britain of the Shan (Thai Yai) States (now in Myanmar) and the Malay Peninsula. The loss initially included Penang and Tumasik and eventually culminated
The Thai system of taxation was developed by the British, and the result was that a large part of Thailand’s wealth was distributed evenly between the rich and poor under the monarchy, a system that would have benefited both the wealthy and the poor alike. But as the royal family in Thailand was often not well informed about the royal family policies on this matter, it was difficult for the Thai ruler to discern in public statements the royal interests of the royal family and would be likely to hold that view to be against economic equality.
Even though the monarchy and crown was often seen as being opposed to economic development, there could not be an effective and rational policy to achieve this. The fact that both the royal family and the royal family had a shared interest in economic development could also have made economic development less effective. While the government had to be seen as being for economic development, not all elements of the kingdom were on the same page. There was strong support for the Royal family to work with the federal government, and strong opposition to the government being in favour of a balanced budget, which was seen as a weakness from a Western influence (especially in areas such as agriculture). The fact that the crown family was often seen as a strong supporter of economic development could have made economic development less economically sound, and could lead to corruption in the Thai government.
It was only in mid-1960s on 6th February that Thai people became aware that the British foreign secretary, Sir Hugh Owen was seeking to establish an intergovernmental fund to finance the transition from the monarchy to monarchy. However, this fund was largely cancelled down under Owen’s efforts and ended up having a very negative impact on Thai politics.
The UK and the British government had had a long history of dealing with different governments in Thailand, each of which were able to deal with Thailand’s problems and have an independent parliament. All the major elements of the monarchy were seen to be in favour of economic growth, but of the three other political parties, it wasn’t likely that the British would have received any support from the Thai people when faced with a political situation similar to that seen in the UK. The British government is usually seen as a power play but, as I mentioned earlier, it is not a position commonly held in Thailand because of the way the country operates. This can also explain some of the difference seen between the various parties.
In Thailand, the government is often viewed as being more interested in protecting its own interests than its own people. One example would be the monarchy’s claim that it is committed strictly to developing the economy. Thailand has a fairly large government, with some government officials and government businesses, while other government officials and many business leaders operate out of the province, and many of its businesses, and do not operate in rural regions. Additionally, the government is often seen as more interested in protecting the royal family than in doing business in the provinces, but the Thai government uses it that way very often.
By the time the Thai government began its transition from monarchy to monarchy it had lost a substantial amount of money and influence, and it only enjoyed a small amount of political rights. Despite all this, a number of Thai politicians, businessmen, bankers, religious figures and politicians were elected, and some people worked directly for the monarchy. Most of these people were well educated, and they often worked in their local areas in order to make this transition. Many were businessmen, or other political figures, but they were not the most important elements of the