Questions I’ve Been Asked

Over the years, living in Thailand and writing about it, I’ve been asked plenty of questions. Some are practical, some are political, and some are sensitive. People want to know how things work here, what I think about controversial figures, and how Thailand compares to the West on big issues.

This post is my attempt to answer five of those questions. I’ve been asked about driving safely in Thailand, whether the Fabian Society is trustworthy, whether Aung San Suu Kyi should be freed, why Thais don’t think – and whether England should remove the monarchy.

These are not easy questions. Some touch on politics, culture, and history. Others touch on deeply held beliefs. I’ve tried to answer them honestly, with evidence and context, and with respect for the people and countries involved.

How to Drive Safely in Thailand

Driving in Thailand is different from driving in the West. The rules exist, but they are often treated as suggestions rather than requirements. If you are planning to drive here, whether on four wheels or two, there are some basic principles that will keep you alive.

First, assume nobody sees you. Thai driving culture is defensive only in the sense that you must defend yourself against everyone else. Motorcycles will appear from nowhere, often going the wrong way down a one-way street.

Trucks will overtake on blind corners. Cars will turn without indicating. This is not malice, it is simply how people drive here. You cannot change it, so you must adapt to it.

Second, wear a helmet. This sounds obvious, but the number of foreigners I see on rented scooters without one is astonishing. Thai law requires it, but more importantly, your skull requires it. The roads here are unforgiving and the hospitals are expensive. A helmet costs a fraction of what a head injury costs.

Third, get insurance that actually covers you. Many travel policies exclude motorcycle accidents. Check your policy before you ride. If you rent a car, make sure you have comprehensive cover.

The police checkpoint culture here means you will also need to carry your license and registration at all times. International Driving Permits are recognised, but only if accompanied by your home country license.

Fourth, do not drink and drive. Thailand has strict penalties for drunk driving, but enforcement varies. The real risk is not the police, it is the road itself. Alcohol and Thai roads are a deadly combination. I have seen the aftermath of such accidents and they are not something you want to be part of.

Finally, drive defensively and slowly. The tortoise approach works as well here as it did for the Fabians. Patience on Thai roads is a survival skill. Let the impatient drivers overtake you. Do not race through amber lights. Do not assume right of way. Just drive carefully and you will get there.

Is the Fabian Society Trustworthy?

This is a question I have been asked since publishing my longer piece on the Fabian Society. The short answer is that it depends on what you mean by trustworthy.

The Fabian Society has been a fixture of British political life since 1884. It has always been transparent about its goals: democratic socialism achieved through gradual reform rather than revolution. In that sense, they have never deceived anyone. Their methods are patient and their ideals are clear.

However, the Society’s history is complicated. They championed the welfare state, universal healthcare, and workers’ rights – all of which are now seen as fundamental to a decent society. But they also championed eugenics, selective breeding, and empire. These were not fringe views at the time, but they are deeply troubling today.

The Society has acknowledged these failings. Their website now explicitly states that “leading members of the society held racist prejudices and opinions which were not in keeping with the society’s commitment to equality for all.” That honesty is to their credit.

Financially, the Society is transparent. It is funded through membership fees, donations, grants, and publications. It does not accept money from companies deemed unethical. It is rated positively by organisations like Who Funds You? and Transparify.

So, is the Fabian Society trustworthy? If you are asking whether they hide their goals, the answer is no. If you are asking whether they are open about their history, the answer is yes. If you are asking whether they still hold views that most people would find unacceptable, the answer is no. They have changed.

But trust is personal. Some will never forgive their past support for eugenics. Others will argue that judging a 19th century society by 21st century standards is unfair. I leave that judgment to you.

Should Aung San Suu Kyi Be Freed

This is one of the most difficult questions I have been asked. Aung San Suu Kyi is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who spent years under house arrest fighting for democracy in Myanmar. She is also the former leader of a government that stood by while the Rohingya were subjected to atrocities. Both things are true and both must be acknowledged.

On 3 August 2026, the military-backed government of Myanmar announced that Suu Kyi had met with a representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in the capital Naypyitaw . The ICRC confirmed the visit and stated that its delegate spoke with her in private.

Photographs released by the government show her shaking hands with Arnaud de Baecque, the ICRC’s resident representative to Myanmar, as well as cutting a birthday cake with the inscription “Happy Birthday Aunty Suu”.

Some commentators claim they are fake. The Myanmar military government has refused to let her son, Kim Aris, see his mother so that he can see for himself if she is well. He claims she has been refused access to her doctors.

Her son, Kim Aris, described the meeting as “an important first step” but noted that he has not yet received independent confirmation of his mother’s condition or well-being. He urged continued international pressure for her release and for access to all political prisoners .

The timing of this meeting is significant. It comes as Myanmar’s junta leader, Min Aung Hlaing, seeks international legitimacy after the country’s 2025 election and ahead of a planned trip to Bangkok.

Analysts have described the government-permitted meeting as a “wildcard” gesture to the international community, with one suggesting that allowing access to Suu Kyi could help facilitate Myanmar’s re-invitation to ASEAN political summits .

So, should she be freed? On humanitarian grounds, yes. She is 81 years old and has been in detention for over five years. The charges against her are widely regarded by rights groups as politically motivated. The UN has called for her “swift and unconditional release”.

But the moral case is more complex. Suu Kyi’s defence of the military during the Rohingya crisis damaged her reputation irreparably. For some, she is no longer the symbol of hope she once was. For others, her detention remains a symbol of injustice.

I believe she should be released, not because she is blameless, but because no one should be detained on political charges without a fair trial. That is a principle worth defending.

Why Thais Don’t Think

This question always provokes strong reactions, so let me be clear. I am not saying Thais are unintelligent. That would be absurd and offensive. What I am addressing is a cultural observation about the role of authority in Thai society.

King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the late and revered King of Thailand, was reported to have said that Thais do not have to think because he would do their thinking for them. Many Thais recall these words as a reflection of his paternal role.

He was the Father of the Nation and his word was final. Thais did not find this condescending. They saw it as comfort, guidance, and protection.

This attitude persists today. Respect for authority runs deep in Thai culture. Children are taught not to question their elders. Students are taught not to question their teachers. Citizens are taught not to question their leaders. The result is a society where independent thought is not always encouraged.

But this is changing. Younger Thais are more questioning. The pro-democracy protests of 2020–2021 showed that a new generation is willing to challenge authority.

However, even among those who want reform of the monarchy – and polls suggest around 60% of Thais support some reform – very few want abolition. The monarchy remains a revered institution.

The contrast with Britain is striking. In the UK, public debate about the monarchy is open and often critical. Republicans argue for abolition. Tabloids publish scandals. The monarchy’s future is genuinely uncertain.

In Thailand, such debate is illegal. The lèse majesté law protects the monarchy from criticism. This difference is not about intelligence. It is about political culture and legal structure.

So when I say “Why Thais Don’t Think,” I am really asking why Thai society discourages critical thinking. The answer lies in its history, its education system, and its political structure. The King’s reported words, whether he said them or not, capture a reality that Thais themselves acknowledge.

They do not need to think about some things because the state does it for them. Whether that is a good thing is a question I leave for my readers to answer.

Should England Remove The Monarchy

This question is often asked by Thais who see the British monarchy as irrelevant or outdated. It is also asked by Britons who see the monarchy as an expensive relic.

The arguments for abolition are straightforward. The monarchy is undemocratic. It costs taxpayers millions each year. It represents privilege and inherited wealth. Countries like Australia and Canada have shown that a country can function perfectly well as a republic. The monarchy, these critics argue, belongs to a bygone era.

The arguments for retention are equally familiar. The monarchy provides stability and continuity. It is a symbol of national unity. It attracts tourists and generates economic value. It performs a ceremonial role that a president would have to fill anyway. Abolishing it would open a constitutional can of worms.

Public opinion in Britain is divided. Polls consistently show a majority support the monarchy, but the margin is shrinking. Younger Britons are more likely to favour a republic. The monarchy’s future is not guaranteed.

A comparison with Thailand is instructive. In Thailand, the monarchy is protected by law. Criticism is illegal. In Britain, the monarchy is protected by convention but criticism is free and open. The British monarchy survives not because it is legally protected but because it has evolved and modernised. Whether it can continue to do so is the real question.

About Me

Some of My Published Posts – Understanding Thailand