Thailand’s Policy On Quality Tourism

[Galong]

"According to Mr. Suvit, quality tourists should have purchasing power and not exploit the country and the people. They must not create problems that lead to natural and environmental destruction."

Oh please, the locals have no respect for their natural surrounding and are raping it at every opportunity. For example, there used to be a lovely little tidal creek at Norpratara which the locals replaced with shrimp farms. I used to see monkeys and otters any time I went there. That's all gone now. There are countless examples of the locals raping the land. But, we all know that Thais never accept responsibility... it's always someone else who is the bad guy...

[Pepe']

"According to Mr. Suvit, quality tourists should have purchasing power and not exploit the country and the people. They must not create problems that lead to natural and environmental destruction."

Oh please, the locals have no respect for their natural surrounding and are raping it at every opportunity. For example, there used to be a lovely little tidal creek at Norpratara which the locals replaced with shrimp farms. I used to see monkeys and otters any time I went there. That's all gone now. There are countless examples of the locals raping the land. But, we all know that Thais never accept responsibility... it's always someone else who is the bad guy...

--------------------------

Thank you...

[Ulysses G.]

This may be a cyclical thing. Thailand will never be the Seychelles or a luxury island in the Caribbean. Who do they think will be fooled by this?

Exactemondo!

[Big A]

..........the "quality tourist" is considered by the TAT to be the one that arrives with pocket loads of cash, deposits it in a special reciptical at customs, turns around, boards the same flight he came on & returns home.

No, no, no!!! I have met some TAT officials who, as well as the above, actually let a farang past immigration as long as he gets into a tout's taxi for over B1,000 to the Chonburi motorway and immediately return to the airport for immediate departure.

faire...faireer tha....fairre than th.....fairer than t.............forrere tha.......... fairer theen....fairer that....faiere thonn...

You can't say fairer than that!

[JR Texas]

..........the "quality tourist" is considered by the TAT to be the one that arrives with pocket loads of cash, deposits it in a special reciptical at customs, turns around, boards the same flight he came on & returns home.

No, no, no!!! I have met some TAT officials who, as well as the above, actually let a farang past immigration as long as he gets into a tout's taxi for over B1,000 to the Chonburi motorway and immediately return to the airport for immediate departure.

faire...faireer tha....fairre than th.....fairer than t.............forrere tha.......... fairer theen....fairer that....faiere thonn...

You can't say fairer than that!

Said it before and will say it again, the phrase "quality tourist" is offensive to most Westerners. It surprises me that any thinking person associated with Thailand's tourism industry would use it.

About the sex industry in Thailand and all the other things that are attractive.........IMHO, Thailand has nothing that is particularly special in terms of spas, or hotels or beaches, etc. You can find similar things all over now and in many cases much better and cleaner places.

The sex industry, sadly, does stand out and is a big draw........let's not put on a pair of delusional glasses. Having said that, similar industries can be found in the Philippines and Cambodia and to a lesser extent Vietnam.....etc. Thailand's "industry" is, for some reason, more well known worldwide.

IMHO, the focus on quality tourists is a huge mistake for the simple reason that the vast majority of tourists/people are not "quality" if by that term one means "rich," and that is how Thais are seeing things.

It is truly amazing that people who believe in Buddhism and have just experienced a heavy dose of RICH BEYOND IMAGINATION TOXIN would embrace such a misguided value system.

Ultimately, the fundamental belief underpinning the quality tourists concept is simple: rich people are good and poor people are bad. History and common sense tells thinking people that this is not always true......there are good and bad rich people......there are good and bad poor people.

When will they wake up? Only a few people are going to stay at the Oriental Hotel no matter what misguided visa rules or advertising campaigns they embrace.

The easy solution is to publicly embrace all tourists no matter what their income level. That is what the USA does....that is what Australia does......that is what New Zealand does, etc. It simply makes economic sense........but making economic sense demands an elemental understanding of basic economics.

[samran]

The easy solution is to publicly embrace all tourists no matter what their income level. That is what the USA does....that is what Australia does......that is what New Zealand does, etc. It simply makes economic sense........but making economic sense demands an elemental understanding of basic economics.

Well, I am an economist and I understand basic economics pretty well. Additionally I have done some consultancy work in the past on this stuff for the private sector firms looking to enter the Asia pacific market, specifically in the tourism area.

My view on these things has nothing to do with TAT's approach, which in my mind is a primative and backward approach to these things. Indeed, my view on these things is more aligned to what Australia and NZ have done.

To say that Australia and NZ try to attract all classes of tourist is pure hogwash. If you look at it objectively, Australia have an even more cold hearted and business like in its approach to tourism than Thailand. Economic policy in Australia is run by economists and the basic formula seems to be:

1) Let them in

2) Make sure people who enter the country are of good character.

3) make sure they can afford to come

4) give them a good service

5) Make sure they don't stay too long but long enough so we can squeeze optimal amounts of cash out of them (unless they are working holiday maker in which case they can work and pay taxes for no more than 1 year).

Thailand does 1) but fails to do 2-5 effectively.

If you still have trouble beliving me on this, I suggest you read pervious studies commissioned by the Australian Tourism Commission. Each and every year, they look at which categories of tourist spend the most money, and look to attact them. Money, money, money babeee, is the name of the game.

Australia's favourite targets are the asian package tourist, the family, the back packer (spend lots and lots these guys) and the well off retiree.

It markets the country as clean, wholesome and innocent (so does NZ) as market research shows this is what people want.

To think that the people who do tourism well are soft and cuddly in an industry where margins are small and competition is fierce simply shows you have no idea....but then again, the world of academia is a bit like that isn't it?

[Ulysses G.]

Australia actively courts backpackers as customers, which means that they will allow just about anybody to visit.

As far as making sure that "people who enter the country are of good character", there is no practical way that they can do that. They ask tourists if they have a felony record in their own country on the entry form, but if the tourists simply lie, there is no way for the Australian Government to find out about a criminal past and most criminals know that. Western countries do not share this kind of information unless someone is suspected of being involved in a recent, fairly important crime.

In other words, Australia lets almost everybody visit, which is the opposite of what Thailand intends to do - none of this crap about excluding everyone but "quality tourists" - so who cares if they are "cold-hearted" and "businesslike" as long as people get a chance to see the place if they want to?

Edited August 10, 2007 by Ulysses G.

[JR Texas]

Australia actively courts backpackers as customers, which means that they will allow just about anybody to visit.

As far as making sure that "people who enter the country are of good character", there is no practical way that they can do that. They ask tourists if they have a felony record in their own country on the entry form, but if the tourists simply lie, there is no way for the Australian Government to find out about a criminal past and most criminals know that. Western countries do not share this kind of information unless someone is suspected of being involved in a recent, fairly important crime.

In other words, Australia lets almost everybody visit, which is the opposite of what Thailand intends to do - none of this crap about excluding everyone but "quality tourists" - so who cares if they are "cold-hearted" and "businesslike" as long as people get a chance to see the place if they want to?

Exactly.....I was about to point that out to counter the "pure hogwash" comment. Even Singapore is now promoting tourism for the majority........building more mid-level hotels. Both New Zealand and Australia are, as you stated, promoting tourism for "backpackers."

It is a fact that the majority of the tourists on the planet are not rich. It is a fact that the majority of tourism associated institutions/businesses cater to non-rich tourists. That is where the big money is because that is where the vast majority of spenders are.

There is no reason to attempt to exclude any segment of the tourism industry via public proclamations and advertising campaigns..........a win-win situation is easily created by attracting all tourists from all income levels...those in the minority (the rich) and those in the majority (everybody else).

This is a problem that never had to be created with an easy solution.

[soundman]

To say that Australia and NZ try to attract all classes of tourist is pure hogwash. If you look at it objectively, Australia have an even more cold hearted and business like in its approach to tourism than Thailand. Economic policy in Australia is run by economists and the basic formula seems to be:

1) Let them in

2) Make sure people who enter the country are of good character.

3) make sure they can afford to come

4) give them a good service

5) Make sure they don't stay too long but long enough so we can squeeze optimal amounts of cash out of them (unless they are working holiday maker in which case they can work and pay taxes for no more than 1 year).

Not sure of your reasoning here Samran. Aren't items 3 & 5 (with respect to a working holiday) a little contradictory?

On a different note I don't think we'll ever see the day where tourists can come and stay in Thailand on a working holiday - even if they are paying top tax bracket on every baht earned.

Cheers.

[samran]

Australia actively courts backpackers as customers, which means that they will allow just about anybody to visit.

As far as making sure that "people who enter the country are of good character", there is no practical way that they can do that. They ask tourists if they have a felony record in their own country on the entry form, but if the tourists simply lie, there is no way for the Australian Government to find out about a criminal past and most criminals know that. Western countries do not share this kind of information unless someone is suspected of being involved in a recent, fairly important crime.

In other words, Australia lets almost everybody visit, which is the opposite of what Thailand intends to do - none of this crap about excluding everyone but "quality tourists" - so who cares if they are "cold-hearted" and "businesslike" as long as people get a chance to see the place if they want to?

a few simple facts.

1) Visas.

Everyone who enters Australia requires a visa and for all nationalites except NZ'ers, this must be done in advance. Most western nationalities are able to apply for an 'e-visa' online which is an invisible visa, but nonetheless is a visa. Australia, along with a few other countries (UK, US, Canada I think, and one or two others) actively share intelligence information. SOME of this info is incorporated into to produce travel watch lists, which are incorporated into 'e-visa' facility.

Granted, this is mostly aimed at potential terrorists or those with serious criminal convitctions, but if a red flag is raised during the online application process you will be referred to the nearest embassy. The system is so successful, that the US and the EU are currently investigating implementing the same system in their own juristictions.

2) Backpackers

Simply, I refer you to the Australian Tourism Commission website. Backpackers are actively courted as they are some of the highest spenders of ANY category of tourist over their lifetimes. As young backpackers while they spend less on a per day average for accomadation, but they spend more on other activities which are run and employed by local business people, so the money stays in the local economy. On average at this stage, they spend lots.

Backpackers are usually highly educated 'gap year-ers' in between the completion of university and embarking on a proffessional career. They tend to be repeat visitors to Australia in the long run which is why they are such a juicy and 'welcomed' target market.

One thing you may not realise about backers in Australia (you appear to be an American, Ulysees.) is that most backpackers under 30 are given 12 month work rights by which they can fund their trip. From an economic perspective this allows Australia to have access to a cheap pool of about 80,000 workers per year to do the crappy jobs of fruit picking, waiting, bar work etc etc that the serivce industry deperately cries out for. It is a good money spinner for the government (backpackers pay tax) and value creator for certain sectors of the the economy which would litterally die on the vine if not not for their access to this labour market.

From a longer term perspective, a fair chunk of backpackers end up migrating to Australia as they like it so much. This essentially means that Australia gains an educated pool of workers for which the country didn't have to pay a dime for in training them.

This is why backpackers are 'welcomed' so much. Its got nothing to do with sitting around singing Kum-ba-ya and holding hands on the part of the Australian tourist commission. It is an active courting of a traveller market which brings lots of money, and eventually skills into the Australian economy.

[samran]

To say that Australia and NZ try to attract all classes of tourist is pure hogwash. If you look at it objectively, Australia have an even more cold hearted and business like in its approach to tourism than Thailand. Economic policy in Australia is run by economists and the basic formula seems to be:

1) Let them in

2) Make sure people who enter the country are of good character.

3) make sure they can afford to come

4) give them a good service

5) Make sure they don't stay too long but long enough so we can squeeze optimal amounts of cash out of them (unless they are working holiday maker in which case they can work and pay taxes for no more than 1 year).

Not sure of your reasoning here Samran. Aren't items 3 & 5 (with respect to a working holiday) a little contradictory?

On a different note I don't think we'll ever see the day where tourists can come and stay in Thailand on a working holiday - even if they are paying top tax bracket on every baht earned.

Cheers.

Working holiday makers usually have to show about $5000 worth of funds before they are granted a WH visa. They are encouraged to stay for a variety of reasons which I've just outlined in a previous post.

[bendix]

To suggest that Australia and NZ actively target 'lower quality' tourists is kind of ironic, considering there are literally hundreds of threads elsewhere in Thaivisa dedicated to the very subject of the difficulties of getting tourism visas for their wives, spouses and girlfriends.

Australia and NZ not only don't encourage low-spending tourists; they build very rigorous blocks to it in their tourist visa rules. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't Thai tourists have to prove they can support themselves or have a guarantor?

Australia and NZ may welcome backpackers and working holidayers, but only if they are:

1) white, and

2) have plenty of cash to spend already.

Edited August 10, 2007 by bendix

[soundman]

Working holiday makers usually have to show about $5000 worth of funds before they are granted a WH visa. They are encouraged to stay for a variety of reasons which I've just outlined in a previous post.

Don't get me wrong. I wholeheartedly agree with the principle of granting working visas (very un-restrictive on both employers & employees) to the under thirties group. Good for all parties concerned, especially with the nature of seasonal work in Australia for example - fruit picking.

Wonder if Thailand will ever go tit for tat?

[samran]

Working holiday makers usually have to show about $5000 worth of funds before they are granted a WH visa. They are encouraged to stay for a variety of reasons which I've just outlined in a previous post.

Don't get me wrong. I wholeheartedly agree with the principle of granting working visas (very un-restrictive on both employers & employees) to the under thirties group. Good for all parties concerned, especially with the nature of seasonal work in Australia for example - fruit picking.

Wonder if Thailand will ever go tit for tat?

No, that alright, I see where your question was coming from.

Under the last government Thailand actually created a working holiday programme. At the moment, only Australians and I think NZ'er are eligble (in the same way that limited number of thais can go to OZ on a working holiday per year). The agreement was part of the FTA's that were signed a couple of years back.

The problem is from the Thai side, it is an extrememly new concept and I don't think it is properly advertised. I also don't think it is worth the while for too many backpackers to come and work here...I mean a half a week waiting tables in OZ/UK befor you leave will earn you more than a months salary in most Thai companies, so there are more efficient ways to fund your holidays.

Having said that, there may be ways for entrapanerial expats in Thailand to take advantage of the programme. For instance, importing legally say, a bunch of bricklayers and young sparkies to build some quality housing for the high end of the market. It also could easily be used for English teachers as well, many of whom are flying under the radar at the moment work permit wise.

[mellow1]

Looks like the working man will have to find someplace else to go,which is probably lucky for him.

If Thailand doesn't want prostitution and all the other garbage that goes with it,why aren't they all in jail?They can control the entire Thai population,with guns and threats.Why cant they do this with prostitution?They can put all these undesirables to work improving roads as well as many other things needed.Get those chain gangs going,lets not waste anymore time.

Of course seeing how it's considered the oldest profession in the world it probably wont go away.I also understand that Thais use these services,very rarely of course.These individuals should get busted,put in the paper.The law should also be changed so that the spouse(wife),can take these individuals to court for a divorce and get all of their assets.This will help as a deterrent.Lets get serious about these high morality issues and lets also make sure these future quality tourists keep their pants zipped up.

[Ned]

Already 10% of the workforce here is from neighbouring countries. This number is set to increase at the same time as Thai companies move offshore.

Hey you Aussie backpacker! You want seventy baht a day to pick me fruit, huh?!

[Ulysses G.]

Australia and NZ may welcome backpackers and working holidayers, but only if they are:

1) white, and

2) have plenty of cash to spend already.

I don't think that you mean "white", I think that you mean that tourists from more wealthy countries are the ones that are granted almost unlimited access to the country without proving their income and that is true. The Australian Government feels that most people from these countries will be able to support themselves and will wish to return home.

I'm afraid that that is the way of most of the world and a completely different debate than the one that we are having here.

Edited August 10, 2007 by Ulysses G.

[samran]

Australia and NZ may welcome backpackers and working holidayers, but only if they are:

1) white, and

2) have plenty of cash to spend already.

I don't think that you mean "white", I think that you mean that tourists from more wealthy countries are the ones that are granted almost unlimited access - no one has ever asked me to show money - and that is true.

I'm afraid that that is the way of most of the world and a completely different debate than the one that we are having here.

Thats right, Koreans, Japanese, Hong Kong residents and I think Malaysians are eligble as well.

But, what Bendix says does have a large element of truth to it...Brits, Irish and the Scandanavians are the biggest users of the wHV programme.

[AlbertTatlockDeceased]

You are all getting worked up over nothing!

You need to stop reading the statements in the eyes of Farangs.

What the tourism minister means when he says "quality tourists" he is (being the usual blinkered narrow minded racist incompetent government minister) comparing quality, to Thai quality, as he obviously has no idea what "quality" means to Farangs,(or he would not open his mouth in the first place) hence, the average backpacker in Kao San Rd. with his 500 baht a day budget - when compared to an average (or majority in rural areas) Thai - is very much a quality tourist.

So, it's a win win situation, Thailand has now an abundance of quality tourists, and for the backpacker he walks head held high, knowing that he is up their with the sheiks and everyone else.

Comparatively speaking.

In fact the minister should be ecstatic - as every potential visitor to Thailand is a quality tourist, (apart from Scousers and Geordies of course) from any country in the world.

What Thailand is really afraid of is "intelligent tourists", not "poor quality tourists" because once the intelligent tourist realises the truth about the place - they won't be coming back! Next stop Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China.

What the tourist department needs is a bit of a wake up - how many years have we suffered "Amazing Thailand" amazed? not anymore. Wait til Phuket looks like a rubbish tip, (nearly said Pattaya - but it is already) when you get a rash in the seas, poisoned from the rivers, cancer from the heavy metal prawns in the msg'd Tom Yam....

LOL

[Payboy]

intelligent tourists

= the ones that don't fall for the "grand palace is closed today - i'll take you to the tat official ruby shop" scam

[Maigo6]

because once the intelligent tourist realises the truth about the place - they won't be coming back! Next stop Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China.

So where are you, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos or China ?

Or Thailand ?

[AlbertTatlockDeceased]

because once the intelligent tourist realises the truth about the place - they won't be coming back! Next stop Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China.

So where are you, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos or China ?

Or Thailand ?

Why Thailand of course - where else?

Spent the past 6 years here, not as a tourist though- work for the British Secret Service, but I really can't discuss that here, only to say...be careful Her Majesty's Government knows exactly which bars you Brits go to! and who and what you take home. can't go to Laos - kicked out for helping the  French in the '50's, can't go to Vietnam - was with the CIA before I joined Coronation Street, can't go to Cambodia - they have started the trial without me, so need to keep my head down a bit and 

hina, the times spent with Chairman Mao tend to go against me a bit. They're funny about things like that you know the Chinese - long memories!

 

[steveromagnino]

One point; I think that perhaps 60-70% of THai tourism now would fall into an acceptable quality by anyone's measure.

We are not talking about turning away millions of people who come here, have a good time, enjoy themselves.

It is all about getting growth in revenue - 3 options: more people, get existing people to stay longer, get the same number of people but get them to spend more per day.

The 3rd one will tend to have the least impact on the environment - sheer numbers are what have destroyed Pattaya, Phuket, Samui, etc - clearly the tourism industry has not developed enough to be able to do things in a sustainable way.

Along the way, quality means tourists who don't wander around (let's start at an extreme) drunk driving, sleeping with children, working illegally, trafficking drugs or people, running booky rings, pretending to be hip and cool by going to Q Bar etc. There are plenty of all of the above going on within Thailand already, we don't really need more as a result of tourists coming in as well.

That continuum (and it is a subjective continuum) then goes all the way to the other end of a number of prongs of what could be construed as quality, refering to the original quote of:

'quality tourists should have purchasing power and not exploit the country and the people. They must not create problems that lead to natural and environmental destruction. '

It isn't black or white, anymore than most businesses can depend on one group of customers for their business alone, but at least...this quote suggests we don't want destitute beggars, we don't want people trafficking women and children, we don't want gangsters doing business illegally and we don't really want sex tourists.

Since my own guess is the vast majority of tourists coming now don't do any of the above, I am absolutely amazed that anyone would object to not trying to encourage visits from the gutter dwellers of Thai tourism - the small minority that screw up the country for everyone else! I put it down to some people maybe seeing something in the message between the lines that I must be missing out on?!

it's either...get people to stay longer, gradually upgrade the quality of tourist here....Or would we rather have far greater numbers coming in, traffic jams, water shortages, environmental destruction with a much larger number of visitors....and the same overall revenue?

To all those who think THailand has nothing to offer.....I suggest you go to your paradise; I and my family feel exactly the same way about Europe and UK, that's why I/they only have been there (grudgingly) for work. I speak with my wallet. That's what the tourists choosing to come here are doing as well...as do the 'quality tourists' that so many seem to claim don't exist, yet which most of my client's businesses are directly based on such as a $500m USD hospitality fund and a $6m per villa mixed purpose property developement neither of which is premised on the idea that THailand's only market are dodgy sex tourists spending $20 USD a night LOL. Of course, some might claim that hiring a maid and a boat boy and a full time cook year round for one villa plus furniture, food, entertainment, etc expenses doesn't contribute anything to the Thai economy not to speak of the cost of leasing the villa and buying a boat, car, etc.

Each time I hear that Thailand has killed the golden goose (night life closing hours, visa restrictions) I still see the same crowd of sexpats and tourists swilling booze in the lower Sukhumvit sois, and a multitude of dodgy hos that look after such guests. I suspect that attempts to get rid of such a group have little to do with tourism marketing; they are entrenched here like genital warts. If someone actually thinks that we should actively market to get even more of them, I bet the first thing that will come up on this board is that there is no reason to do so - the existing guys parked down there don't want to see an increase in demand - prices would go up.

I still fondly recall one of these guys on a web board similar to this hoping that Thaksin's govt would cause the economy to crash, as it would force an increase in supply of women he could pay to sleep with. nice chap that. I would have thought some of the sex tourists would be happy; with an increase in non sex tourists, logically demand would decrease, and we would see a reduction in prices and more choice!

In short....do you want quality tourism focus and more hos for you to choose from, or nonquality tourism and more competition for dodgy skanks?

Come on...give us ya answer.

Edited August 10, 2007 by steveromagnino

[Khun ?]

Just wonder what the % of tourist are single guys and how many are families. What % of the tourist numbers

are those crossing borders to get a new visa in the cheapest manner possible.

Edited August 10, 2007 by Khun ?

[mellow1]

Closing down the sex trade, or business, is absolutely fine with me.I don't use it,never have.I couldn't care less.What impact it would have on the economy, or tourism, is of no concern to me.I believe if a government wants to do that,they should basically have no problem in doing it,especially in a country under military law,where they don't have to worry about anyones rights.So why has it not been done.

For those of you who indulge in this kind of activity,I want you to know that I am not judging you.It is none of my business.If you find amusement,or solace there it's quite alright with me.As long as children or unwilling women are not involved.In which case I would make it my business, as well as that of the police.

As for sex workers,I don't care if this is your chosen profession,for whatever reason.I will not throw rocks,or verbal abuses at you.Nor try to convert you to Christianity.I couldn't care less.

But if the government wants to shut it down,I don't see why this would be hard for them.It's not like it's hidden.

Bring on the high quality tourists,if it's good for Thailand, I'm all for it.Thailand can use all the good it can get.

But let not call middle class tourists undesirables,or the young backpackers, expanding their horizons bums.Even a poor person,having saved money for a very long time,should be allowed to vacation where they want.As long as they don't break the law, all should be welcome.It's called equal rights,or human rights.

If you don't want the sex trade ,get rid of it,same with whatever dope trade that may be available.

[Austhaied]

Let's ditch the myths:

Plenty of high end tourists staying at high end hotels also spend money in the local

Plenty of high end tourists, particularly the ones who are investing in condos like the Heights in Phuket are coming here monthly. They are not 1 time visitors. However....to suggest that the only reason visitors come here is for dodgy sex and booze, and that Thailand is unable to attract high end tourists at all sounds a bit like some posters should look beyond their own group of mates.

MOST "high-end" tourists that are repeat visitors to Thailand come for the nightlife and companionship no matter what YOU have decided. There is not a lot else here to attract them that they can't get a million other places with better restaurants, service and shopping and a lot less rip-offs.

What about the temples UG ?? :D

[Jingthing]

They most certainly will not shut down the sex trade. Not sure all the reasons but that seems obvious. Money interests tied to the power elite. It serves as a kind of hope lottery for the people of Isaan as well. Won't shut the lottery either.

[soundman]

What about the temples UG ??

How many temples would you want to see in a two week holiday. One would be enough for me! Couldn't imagine that temples would be a repeat attraction for most.

[Ulysses G.]

One point; blah, blah, blah ...

Do you spend a lot of time talking to yourself in a mirror?

[qwertz]

The ideal tourist anywhere is the one who spends up in record time and goes home, leaving room for more spenders.

Apart from that, the tourist trade doesn't differentiate between desirable or undesirable.