PeterRS

Seegasm is a different form of porn site. It seems to be run by one guy who features as the top in many dozens of vdos. He's either training cute naked young guys in different forms of sexual pleasure as a bottom or just giving them a good time. He records each vdo from 2 or 3 angles and then releases them individually. Initially quite interesting but they do tend to be pretty repetitive.

I also hope and pray that calmer heads will prevail. Yes, I totally agree it's a beautiful island (a few photos below from a round-the-island trip i did a few years ago), the people are warm, friendly and kind, and the men sure are hot. That's one reason I always go to a hot spring on my visits - and hot does not mean hot from the really hot pool! I think one of the reasons so many of the guys are hot is a result of that military service. Many of the guys in their 20s have great bodies. The museum is stunning. Extaordinary that it can only show a tiny fraction of its treasures at any one time. Yet as I am sure you are aware, those treasures were actually stolen from China by Chiang Kai-shek when he fled to Taiwan. They had been crated up during the Japanese invasion of China so they could be moved around for safety. It was therefore relatively easy for Chiang to have the crates shipped to Taiwan.

I have been very spoiled. From the mid 1980s I have worked for companies in Asia which allowed me to travel in business class. For three years in the early 90s, one of those companies alllowed me first class travel for long haul intercontinental flights, of which I took about a dozen a year. Travelling so frequently, I amassed a very large number of air miles each year and these enabled even more business class trips for vacations, often for annual visits to friends in Sydney and once for a trip to and around South America. Intercontinental first class in the early 1990s was not much better than business class in most airlines now. Only two real differences - a lot more space and mostly very fine cuisine and wines, especially the latter. In the years since then, I have been upgraded a few times and find the difference with business class getting even closer. Since semi-retirement, I have had to pay for most of my own travel and the mileage bank is close to empty. I'm medium height and now 88 kg. I have still only done 2 longish-haul returns in economy class. First was LHR to Chicago on BA in mid-2015. Hated it. Outward trip I was seated in the middle of about 30 girls who had been at some hockey tournament in Israel. They were as high as a kite. The flight was miserable. On the overnight return, I declined dinner but said I would like breakfast. Assuming this would at least be juice, coffee and a bacon roll or something lilke that, little did I know how desperate BA's economy catering had become. Breakfast was tea or coffee and a tiny hard wrapped slab of fruit cake that was all but frozen! At the other end of the scale JAL's economy class 787 on the BKK/Tokyo route in 2018 was extremely good. Comfortable window seats and the best economy menu I have ever experienced. This had been created by JAL chefs especially for economy passengers.

I am sorry if I misinterpreted your post, but it certainly read as though you were quoting the Guardian article to make a point. At least we share one thing in common. I had a Taiwanese boyfriend for five years and we have still been meeting up regularly on all my quarterly visits to the island. I believe I have a pretty clear idea of how the average Taiwanese view China and what they want. Much that I agree with. But if 57% voted for a party with a form of independence as its platform, that means 43% or did not agree with everything on the platform of which that form of independence was the main plank. Yes, 57% is a majority. But that surely also illustrates there were 6.23 million of the electorate who did not want the key plank on that party's platform. Am I not correct in thinking that constitutional change in the USA requires a 2/3rds majority? The people of Taiwan are very clearly divided on how to proceed. It is quite wrong to put forward the view that there is little or no opposition to a form of independence. I realise other posters do not agree with my views. But I have not had any response to a point I made earlier and it is one I find difficult to accept. Pelosi, after making her error about congratulating Taiwan on the way it handled covid (the country's borders are still closed, for goodness sake!), basically stated that the USA would not abandon Taiwan. What precisely did she mean by that? I have stated before that the USA will not enter a war should, heaven forbid, there be serious armed conflict emanating from China. The people of America will never agree to yet another war in Asia when it is against a China that is as powerful as it now is. Laos, Vietnam and Vietnam were poor counties - and the USA still lost those wars. So what will the US do re Taiwan? If it is not prepared to go to war, why risk giving China the impression that the US is diverging from the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act? And surely it is also interesting that the one Asian country most dependent on the USA did not put out the red carpet for Pelosi. The President of South Korea did not even interrupt his holiday to meet her, even though it has been reported he is actually in Seoul. As most political commentators have stressed, he was not prepared to send out the wrong political signals.

Since @kjun12 contributes virtually nothing of value to any discussion, he only needs 10 words!

Why should I do that? There is no regulation which states you need to read anything I write. Have you criticised other posters for lengthy posts - e.g. @reader who posts a great many longish comments from news outlets, many interesting? Your comment borders on an insult!

Much more informative for those who have actually visited Bangkok or stil live here is Alex Kerr's Bangkok Found. It delves under the surface to explose more of the city's background, historical and architectural influences as well as its culture and all the influences which have shaped that culture. There's even a section on nightlife - although this has obviously changed somewhat since the first edition was published in 2010.

I have tried consistently to make that point whenever there has been a discussion about Taiwan. But with respect you have quoted from that Guardian article incorrectly. It does not state that the people of Taiwan consider Taiwan an independent country. What the writer actually states is the following - "The Democratic Progressive party, which emerged from Taiwan’s democracy movement, holds power. It currently advocates for maintaining the status quo, (which means the ambiguous position where Taiwan is de facto but not de jure independent) . . . Most Taiwanese people seem to support the status quo too, with only tiny minorities wanting full independence or unification with China as soon as possible. The full picture is hard to ascertain since there are arguments that the Taiwanese would be more firmly pro-independence if there were no threats from China." Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen ran on an independence platform in 2020. She won the election by 57.13% of the vote - a significannt majority but far from a resounding vote for independence. Siginifcantly the Kuomintang Pary which advocates closer relations with Beijing increased its share of the vote in that election with actualy majorities in 6 of the administrative regions. My Taiwanese friends just want to be left alone without interference from either China or the west.

Just look at history! And then consider the present situation of Xi XInping. Then you might consier talking to some people who actually live in Taiwan. No, not the politicians. The men and women who live there and who have seen how China reacts whenever anything to do with independence or dependence on the USA comes up. Ask their feelings about that. Take the tourism industry for a start. China opened its doors and let floods of mainland tourists visit Taiwan from 2009. Hotels and other parts of the tourism industry benefitted from a very large influx of tourists. Many new hotels opened and many more flights were added. Initially only mainland groups were permitted to travel from China to Taiwan. Then from 2011 Chinese could travel individually, many of them spending considerable amounts of cash according to Taiwan statistics. Roughly 4 years later with the prospect of a new Taiwan government openly talking about independence, China's open-door Taiwan policy was all but abadoned and many Taiwanese suffered as a result. In 2015 when the open door policy was at its height 41% of all tourists were from mainland China - 4.2 milion compared to just 329,000 in 2008. As with all tourism revenues, the benefits were not merely to the tourism industry. For the island as a whole they were very significant. You should also take into account the fact that historicaly the two main markets for tourism to Taiwan used to be Japan and the USA. But soon after the mid-2000s, both those markets started to contract. Tourism to Taiwan has traditionaly come from just 20 world markets. These have shown almost no geographical variation. So the drop in total revenues from 2015 are very significant. We know covid has killed most international tourism to the island and that the Chinese are just not going to return given the position of both governments. With heightened tensions across the Taiwan Strait, others will understandably become more nervous. Is the USA suddenly going to make up the difference for all the lost tourism revenues since 2015? It happily sells the island advanced weapons but these don't help the budgets of the average household. But the tourism screw has been turned. China has other screws it can turn. And turn them it will.

Breaking what I had earlier said about not adding more to the debate, there is one issue which came up on a news programme yesterday before it was certain Pelosi would be going to Taiwan. There are three parties in the present "dispute" over Taiwan. Only one will suffer for some considerable time as a result of Pelosi's visit - the people of Taiwan.

I was not referring specifically to Thailand. Travel pricing depends on a host of factors and there is no reason to believe that, as in the past, high prices are here to stay in the long run. Re air fares, of course they are higher due to much greater than expected demand after covid, oil price, high inflation rate, finding new staff fast, peak summer demand etc. But airlines have been through similar price hikes before and prices have eventually come down. Remember when oil was almost $150 per barrel? That was in 2008 and 2012 and was followed by predictions of doom and gloom for the travel industry. By 2016 it was down to around $60. Just yesterday alone there was a cut of 12% in the price of jet fuel.

@belkinDC is an invaluable asset! Just one question about an unlikely event. A friend in Australia used to fly extensively on Ansett which went bust in 2002. At the time he had almost 350,000 Ansett miles. Although Ansett was part of Star Alliance, he lost the lot. How likely is this to happen again in the 2020s if another airline goes bust?

I have taken up enough space to make my case (even if some has not been totally clear) and so will not take up more. I merely add here two points. 1. You again call Taiwan a country. I think the vast majority around the world including the US administrations do not agree. I suggest the term used by the British during its administration of Hong Kong is more appropriate. Hong Kong was a "territory". And in international law there is zero doubt that Hong Kong and Kowloon were indeed British territory much more than Taiwan can be called an independent country, even though they formed a greographical part of mainland China. Why the British colonial powers negotiated a 99-year lease for the administration of the New Territories when there was nothing preventing their negotiating the transfer in perpetuity, is one of the quirks of history. Had it negotiated the transfer in perpetuity, there would have been no 1997 issue and perhaps no Taiwan issue. But we cannot say for sure that others would not have arisen. 2. In talking yesterday with a good friend visiting Bangkok who is far more expert in China and Asian issues than I - his degrees from two top universities in the US and UK were in Asian studies, he bascially disagrees with many of my comments, even though he agrees the Taiwan situation in international law is relatively clear. He hopes Pelosi will visit Taipei and basically call Xi's bluff. Like me, though, he agrees there is little the rest of the world can do if China decides to invade Taiwan by force. Western powers may support Taiwan as they have been supporting Ukraine. But war with China is not an option. What will be left of Taiwan and how it will adapt to its new reality would be the big question. And is this one reason which may prevent China from using force?

Wonder what heppens when the tunnel gets flooded by heavy monsoon rains LOL

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?