Thailand must stop measuring tourism success simply by visitor numbers and build a system that protects destinations, local communities and infrastructure, according to two researchers at the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI).

Nopparuj Chindasombatcharoen and Wirin Khowrat said tourism remains one of Thailand's largest income sources, but rising arrivals can also place severe pressure on natural resources, public services and the industry's future competitiveness.

Their warning comes as the government plans to reduce the visa-free stay from 60 days to 30 days, a proposal they say reflects the difficult balance between attracting visitors and managing the effects of overtourism.

For foreigners living in Thailand, as well as tourists, the issue is practical. Overcrowding, inadequate waste and wastewater systems, strained transport and public infrastructure, and safety concerns can directly affect daily life and the visitor experience in major destinations.

Sustainability schemes lack a common direction

Thailand has introduced several measures intended to support lower-carbon and more sustainable tourism. These include the Green Hotel Plus programme, Green Destination Standards for attractions, communities and small businesses, and carbon-accounting tools for hotels and low-carbon tourism routes.

However, the researchers said the schemes remain fragmented and largely voluntary. Green Hotel Plus, Green Destinations Standard, Green Health Hotel, Green Leaf Certification and carbon-measurement systems operate without a shared roadmap for the sector's transition.

They said there is also no clear common pathway setting baseline standards for tourism operators, financial incentives or government support. That leaves businesses to work out the requirements themselves rather than moving together.

Large operators generally have the money, specialist staff and management systems to meet sustainability standards, while smaller firms may lack funding, technical knowledge and operational capacity. Without changes, the researchers warned, sustainability policies could widen the gap between major companies and smaller tourism businesses.

Phuket illustrates the pressure

The authors said existing policies have not sufficiently targeted the biggest sources of tourism emissions: transport and energy use across the tourism supply chain. Many current measures instead focus on hotel standards, certification, carbon offsets and pilot projects.

They also stressed that sustainability involves more than emissions. Tourism income remains concentrated in a limited number of provinces, while many other areas have not turned visitor spending into meaningful local development.

Phuket demonstrates the risks, they said. As visitor numbers and tourism businesses have expanded, waste disposal, wastewater treatment and public infrastructure have come under growing strain, with local systems in some places struggling to cope.

Accidents and other incidents involving foreign visitors also continue to receive international attention, affecting confidence in Thailand as a destination.

Climate risks need local responses

Drought, flooding, extreme heat, coastal erosion and deteriorating marine ecosystems, including coral reefs and beaches, threaten the natural assets that draw travellers to Thailand, the researchers said.

They argued that destinations need locally tailored responses, rather than a single nationwide solution. Government should provide dependable information, improve infrastructure, coordinate agencies and help communities and tourism businesses prepare for climate impacts.

Thailand can continue growing tourist numbers, they concluded, but each additional visitor will add strain unless standards, incentives, safety, infrastructure, income distribution and climate adaptation are brought into one framework.

Join the discussion?

31 July 2026

View full article

One only has to look at the water problem on Koh Samui to see why the TDRI researchers are right. As reported only yesterday, Samui's water infrastructure simply cannot supply enough to meet the demand from tourists, and rationing is now happening.

High-volume tourism places unsustainable strain on local infrastructure because visitor resource demand can often exceed local capacity. This, in turn creates shortages for local communities, further highlighting the environmental costs of simply chasing raw arrival numbers.

Beyond water, tourists also require far more energy and services than locals. High electricity consumption for air conditioning, and increased transport use raise emissions. Worse still, surging visitor numbers can overwhelm local waste management, polluting land and marine ecosystems.

The bottom line is that too many tourists lead to shortages of water and electricity, congested roads, failing sewage systems, and pressure on local housing rents.

It is clear that Thailand needs to shift away from its fixation on "headcounts" in order to preserve popular destinations and maintain the lifestyle of its citizens.

Agree at last some common sense thinking .

Every Tourist Minister only ever talks about

"36" million tourist target and nothing else.

It has become a form of madness.

4 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

Thailand must stop measuring tourism success simply by visitor numbers and build a system that protects destinations, local communities and infrastructure, according to two researchers at the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI).

Thailand tourism office gave up on quality years ago, since Covid only numbers mean anything...

it's as if it's some measure of success.

What growth ? Last year down 7 percent plus another 4 percent so far this year.

4 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

and public infrastructure

Just dont even.

Edited July 31Jul 31 by blaze master

Should have been instigated 25 years ago..

The rot has set in and is here to stay. Most of the attractions that Thailand had are now unattractions and nothing but overcrowded eyesores.

Thailand can continue growing tourist numbers, they concluded, but each additional visitor will add strain unless standards, incentives, safety, infrastructure, income distribution and climate adaptation are brought into one framework.

Not all tourists are equal.

IMHO Thailand wants the more educated, sensitive tourists with higher levels of consciousness.

Maybe give a test before granting the visa...

Have them use "your" and "you're" in a sentence.

Filter out the layabout scroungers. 😄

Edited July 31Jul 31 by SiSePuede419
Dossers rejected

Totally agree the infrastructure cannot cope with the numbers of Tourists arriving never mind the local people who live there

The Thai tourist board is like many of the hotels Restaurants and clubs get what money 🤑 you can and worry about the future later which is not a good option

For the future of Tourism in Thailand

Money and corruption first every thing can wait..

Ko Larn is an example of overcrowding, ferry after ferry leaves Bali Hi dropping tourists off then about turn to bring more, no timetable, same with the speed boats. There should be a limit but the operators are too greedy to do this.

Thailand should look at the Bhutan model and get rid of the Cannabis shops

Edited July 31Jul 31 by malibukid

Thailand has never really had good planning when it comes to tourism, and the TAT is run by maniacs and pathological super freaks who only care about arrival numbers and revenue, and do not have any concern for the quality of life for the average Thai, nor the experience that the average tourist has while on vacation.

The fact that until recently tourism and sports were under one umbrella shows how little regard Thailand paid to either.

Quantity over quality works well if you're selling $2 items at a swap meet, it doesn't work well when it comes to tourism. Just look at all the problems that Spain Italy and France are experiencing when it comes to overtourism, not to mention places like Bali which have declined to the point where they're no longer recognizable.

Too late . They should have implemented all this before letting tourist places build hotels , villas and shops everywhere.

But as usual they were blinded by cash and thought it would never be a problem. Now to put it all in place will take years and even more money due to existing services and structures ! 🙈

5 hours ago, Jim Waldron said:

One only has to look at the water problem on Koh Samui to see why the TDRI researchers are right. As reported only yesterday, Samui's water infrastructure simply cannot supply enough to meet the demand from tourists, and rationing is now happening.

High-volume tourism places unsustainable strain on local infrastructure because visitor resource demand can often exceed local capacity. This, in turn creates shortages for local communities, further highlighting the environmental costs of simply chasing raw arrival numbers.

Beyond water, tourists also require far more energy and services than locals. High electricity consumption for air conditioning, and increased transport use raise emissions. Worse still, surging visitor numbers can overwhelm local waste management, polluting land and marine ecosystems.

The bottom line is that too many tourists lead to shortages of water and electricity, congested roads, failing sewage systems, and pressure on local housing rents.

It is clear that Thailand needs to shift away from its fixation on "headcounts" in order to preserve popular destinations and maintain the lifestyle of its citizens.

Especially for Koh Samui and the island's growing over-tourism, is the lack of infra structure in huge demand. But when that is said, it's worth remembering that it was tourism, which made Samui wealthy. It's a difficult balance, where it would make sense having demands to new hotel- and resort projects, so they fit into the infrastructure and pay their progress-share of same.

Water, electric supply, garbage collection and disposal of it — have the incinerators been fixed? — and roads and traffic are major issues, caused by increasing number of both visitors, and more workers needed to supply the island's tourist sector.

The problems are not solved by getting tourist arrivals — i.e., think of increased income by larger number of arriving tourists, which some might mention as 'greed' — more tourists just increase the already for long time well known problems, which was never fixed to a full level by income from already arriving visitors.

In my 20+ years as permanent resident on the island — total 25 years including my earlier visits — a lot of good improvements has been made. Actually water supply is better now, and number of black outs — and especially the shorter brown outs — in electric supply have been reduced manyfold. Also garbage collection has improved, even it is still a problem. And the newer sewages for rain water now seems to work so excellent that a flooded main road is rare. Furthermore, in general the condition of the roads is so much better — and safer based on improved tarmac and lack of the infamous 'black holes' — than before; not to forget the northern hill to Nathon, and the road by the cliffs between Chaweng Noi and Lamai.

But when that is said, the traffic has worsen to sometimes a stand still on the main road in rush hours, and more impatient drivers — especially motorbikes, but also some cars — generating dangerous situations; and yes, some die when that kind of driving is performed. Because, in the same 20-25 years period the number of both tourists, expats and workers have dramatically increased.

How to control it, or change it, apart from some infrastructure demands to be fulfilled before new tourist aimed constructions can open, might be a difficult task. To my knowledge, the local authorities already use the 2% local allowance of tourist tax, which is way to pay for increasing infrastructure demands.

Another question is, if we all — including us expats — pay enough share for our use of infrastructure. And yes, I'm aware of, my reply and I might be unpopular mentioning it. It has been said that hotels only pay a relative small fixed fee for garbage collection — when it was mentioned, it was 2,000 baht per month, I don't know if it has changed, we lacks a local newsmedia — and many residents don't pay anything, just drop their garbage bags in some piles somewhere by the main roads. And do we pay enough for water to justify investment in a better supply? This of course includes the tourist section, so they also pays for their actual demand and usage. There should be a way to figure out, how to share the costs in a relative fair way.

And by the way, what is a so-called quality tourist?

We often hear that expression mentioned, I believe that it was originally said by Uncle Tu, aka former junta-leader and prime minister Prayut Chan-o-cha. In my view — and it's not specific Koh Samui and her sister islands, but generally — quality tourist is not a question of how much money they spend, it's a question of behaviour. There are people coming that spends huge amounts, but behave bad. And there people coming on a small budget, who behaves as guests with respect for culture and local inhabitants. And even those guests don't spend a fortune, they can still be worth a minor fortune for the locals, by staying in modest guest houses and dining in small food outlets and restaurants, both owned by small independent entrepreneurs instead of global chains.

2 minutes ago, khunPer said:

Especially for Koh Samui and the island's growing over-tourism, is the lack of infra structure in huge demand. But when that is said, it's worth remembering that it was tourism, which made Samui wealthy. It's a difficult balance, where it would make sense having demands to new hotel- and resort projects, so they fit into the infrastructure and pay their progress-share of same.

Water, electric supply, garbage collection and disposal of it — have the incinerators been fixed? — and roads and traffic are major issues, caused by increasing number of both visitors, and more workers needed to supply the island's tourist sector.

The problems are not solved by getting tourist arrivals — i.e., think of increased income by larger number of arriving tourists, which some might mention as 'greed' — more tourists just increase the already for long time well known problems, which was never fixed to a full level by income from already arriving visitors.

In my 20+ years as permanent resident on the island — total 25 years including my earlier visits — a lot of good improvements has been made. Actually water supply is better now, and number of black outs — and especially the shorter brown outs — in electric supply have been reduced manyfold. Also garbage collection has improved, even it is still a problem. And the newer sewages for rain water now seems to work so excellent that a flooded main road is rare. Furthermore, in general the condition of the roads is so much better — and safer based on improved tarmac and lack of the infamous 'black holes' — than before; not to forget the northern hill to Nathon, and the road by the cliffs between Chaweng Noi and Lamai.

But when that is said, the traffic has worsen to sometimes a stand still on the main road in rush hours, and more impatient drivers — especially motorbikes, but also some cars — generating dangerous situations; and yes, some die when that kind of driving is performed. Because, in the same 20-25 years period the number of both tourists, expats and workers have dramatically increased.

How to control it, or change it, apart from some infrastructure demands to be fulfilled before new tourist aimed constructions can open, might be a difficult task. To my knowledge, the local authorities already use the 2% local allowance of tourist tax, which is way to pay for increasing infrastructure demands.

Another question is, if we all — including us expats — pay enough share for our use of infrastructure. And yes, I'm aware of, my reply and I might be unpopular mentioning it. It has been said that hotels only pay a relative small fixed fee for garbage collection — when it was mentioned, it was 2,000 baht per month, I don't know if it has changed, we lacks a local newsmedia — and many residents don't pay anything, just drop their garbage bags in some piles somewhere by the main roads. And do we pay enough for water to justify investment in a better supply? This of course includes the tourist section, so they also pays for their actual demand and usage. There should be a way to figure out, how to share the costs in a relative fair way.

And by the way, what is a so-called quality tourist?

We often hear that expression mentioned, I believe that it was originally said by Uncle Tu, aka former junta-leader and prime minister Prayut Chan-o-cha. In my view — and it's not specific Koh Samui and her sister islands, but generally — quality tourist is not a question of how much money they spend, it's a question of behaviour. There are people coming that spends huge amounts, but behave bad. And there people coming on a small budget, who behaves as guests with respect for culture and local inhabitants. And even those guests don't spend a fortune, they can still be worth a minor fortune for the locals, by staying in modest guest houses and dining in small food outlets and restaurants, both owned by small independent entrepreneurs instead of global chains.

As usual excellent points, and yes, infrastructure across Thailand has improved vastly, no doubt. However, I strongly suspect that no matter how good the infrastructure is, the massive influx of hordes of tourists from Europe, Australia, the states, India, Middle East, China etc will inevitably lead to a degrading of the local area. We saw this in Spain, in Mallorca, where huge amounts were spent on infrastructure. However, the island still has major problems with tourists, environmental issues, overcrowding and so forth. And that's Europe.

If you look at places where mass tourism is concentrated in Thailand, say Phuket, you can see that the island has suffered a major loss of beauty and easy of use. It feels tired and jaded. Everything does when you go there, even the hotels. The transport mafia tries to fleece the most money out of the tourists. The tourists behave like animals, as we saw during Songkran. By all accounts Phuket, is a horrific place now that no right thinking person would want to go to. Pattaya? The traffic alone, coupled with overcrowding gives you a similar experience. Sadly I now hear that Ko Samui has water rationing.

It seems to me to really enjoy Thailand you have to be away from major tourist hotspots. Even Pai has now been turned into a problem area.

In fact, this is now the same problem all over the world.

Unlike in the past, people can now travel and go wherever they like, and the result is that you can’t find a single attractive stretch of countryside, or anything of the sort, anywhere in the world because everyone is flocking to the same place.

Spain has already been mentioned above, where the locals themselves have started protesting against the tourists.

It is not an easy problem to solve, and it is getting worse.

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

As usual excellent points, and yes, infrastructure across Thailand has improved vastly, no doubt. However, I strongly suspect that no matter how good the infrastructure is, the massive influx of hordes of tourists from Europe, Australia, the states, India, Middle East, China etc will inevitably lead to a degrading of the local area. We saw this in Spain, in Mallorca, where huge amounts were spent on infrastructure. However, the island still has major problems with tourists, environmental issues, overcrowding and so forth. And that's Europe.

If you look at places where mass tourism is concentrated in Thailand, say Phuket, you can see that the island has suffered a major loss of beauty and easy of use. It feels tired and jaded. Everything does when you go there, even the hotels. The transport mafia tries to fleece the most money out of the tourists. The tourists behave like animals, as we saw during Songkran. By all accounts Phuket, is a horrific place now that no right thinking person would want to go to. Pattaya? The traffic alone, coupled with overcrowding gives you a similar experience. Sadly I now hear that Ko Samui has water rationing.

It seems to me to really enjoy Thailand you have to be away from major tourist hotspots. Even Pai has now been turned into a problem area.

Agree...👍

Tourists tax might be a solution in some cases — Venice and other destination tries that at the moment — or selecting tourists by visa, which is how Bhutan manage it with "High Value, Low Volume". Buthan's 'Sustainable Development Fee' (SDF) is $100 (US) per person per night. The money goes directly to the treasury of the Government of Bhutan and is an investment in the country's welfare and nature, for example, for healthcare and education for all Bhutanese citizens; environmental protection; cultural preservation, including the renovation of the iconic monasteries and historic fortresses; and infrastructure.

In a way, a tourist fee per night makes more sense than the suggested 300 baht arrival fee. Even a fairly modest fee per night as tourist — excluding long term visa holders, as they already have some financial demands — could make a (huge) change.

Talk about a schizophrenic conclusion. Thais can't decide whether the want tourists and don't want tourists. They should start a new TAT campaign.

Send Your Money To Thailand - but - Stay At Home.

That's Ok. If Trump's wars with Iran and Russia keep up at the current pace, the lack of jet fuel will put an end to Thailand's Tourism Problems. Then comes the crying and whinging.

33 minutes ago, khunPer said:

Agree...👍

Tourists tax might be a solution in some cases — Venice and other destination tries that at the moment — or selecting tourists by visa, which is how Bhutan manage it with "High Value, Low Volume". Buthan's 'Sustainable Development Fee' (SDF) is $100 (US) per person per night. The money goes directly to the treasury of the Government of Bhutan and is an investment in the country's welfare and nature, for example, for healthcare and education for all Bhutanese citizens; environmental protection; cultural preservation, including the renovation of the iconic monasteries and historic fortresses; and infrastructure.

In a way, a tourist fee per night makes more sense than the suggested 300 baht arrival fee. Even a fairly modest fee per night as tourist — excluding long term visa holders, as they already have some financial demands — could make a (huge) change.

Why exclude long term visa holders?

Vested interest perchance?

Ok for them but not for me, I'm special?

1 hour ago, Peterphuket said:

Spain has already been mentioned above, where the locals themselves have started protesting against the tourists.

It is not an easy problem to solve, and it is getting worse.

And for the Spanish to get upset at tourists that takes some doing. I grew up in Spain as a child and I was amazed how open, friendly and hospitable Spanish people were to me, in essence a foreigner. I could never understand how they can endure the hordes of tourists. But clearly even for the hyper tolerant Spanish, who are extremely aware that tourists brought money and benefits, there is a limit. And that limit has clearly been reached. Though to be fair times have changed, back in my day, foreigners went to a nightclub and donned a shirt and tie. Only in the 90s did it really start to degrade and t-shirts appeared everywhere. Times have changed, the people got worse.

Clearly not an easy problem to solve. You want tourists, but they degrade everything. But without them there is not enough money. Tough position to be in.

Bali is another case in point, another victim of its own success. All the issues of mass tourism, crime, pollution, overcrowding, traffic problems, taxi mafia.

Edited July 31Jul 31 by Cameroni

1 hour ago, khunPer said:

Agree...👍

Tourists tax might be a solution in some cases — Venice and other destination tries that at the moment — or selecting tourists by visa, which is how Bhutan manage it with "High Value, Low Volume". Buthan's 'Sustainable Development Fee' (SDF) is $100 (US) per person per night. The money goes directly to the treasury of the Government of Bhutan and is an investment in the country's welfare and nature, for example, for healthcare and education for all Bhutanese citizens; environmental protection; cultural preservation, including the renovation of the iconic monasteries and historic fortresses; and infrastructure.

In a way, a tourist fee per night makes more sense than the suggested 300 baht arrival fee. Even a fairly modest fee per night as tourist — excluding long term visa holders, as they already have some financial demands — could make a (huge) change.

I think you hit the nail on the head, they have to make the place more expensive. This is how Singapore has managed it. Everyone wants to move there. So they made it as expensive as possible and it seems to work, kind of. Though SG has its own disadvantages, you can't just buy a car. But they don't have the problems Phuket or Pattaya have.

Between the chaos at airports, in particular security and the throngs of tourists, 10 horses couldn't drag me there.

Can't even see the beach sand...

1 hour ago, emptypockets said:

Why exclude long term visa holders?

Vested interest perchance?

Ok for them but not for me, I'm special?

Because, as I said, there are already financial requirements in order for those kind of visas and their extension of stay. Don't forget that some long term visa holders also comes here to work on a work permit, and others already pay a relative high fee for their Privilege Card to enter.

4 minutes ago, khunPer said:

Because, as I said, there are already financial requirements in order for those kind of visas and their extension of stay. Don't forget that some long term visa holders also comes here to work on a work permit, and others already pay a relative high fee for their Privilege Card to enter.

They would be in the minority overall. Why shouldn't retirees pay to stay in the same manner that you suggest tourist to?

It's easy to sit back and make suggestions what other people should do as long as it doesn't affect yourself.

Were you a politician prior to coming to Thailand by any chance?

1 hour ago, emptypockets said:

They would be in the minority overall. Why shouldn't retirees pay to stay in the same manner that you suggest tourist to?

It's easy to sit back and make suggestions what other people should do as long as it doesn't affect yourself.

Were you a politician prior to coming to Thailand by any chance?

Retirees are not tourists, but residents like several other long-term visa holders, and retirees are supposed to in average spend at least 2,000 baht per day in Thailand being eligible to stay — some more, depending of their entry visa — we unfortunately lack statistics to know how much more than 2,000 baht in average retirees actually spend and invest in the country. Furthermore, people staying longer than 180 days in a calendar year are also income taxable.

My suggestions are based on good common sense and input from what they do in other countries; like places where they use tourist taxation. And I will also myself be hit by tourist taxes if I visit places that have those to do so — I'm actually interested in Bhutan — and I will suggest something similar for my home country, where people now also begin to complain about 'over tourism'.

14 minutes ago, khunPer said:

Retirees are not tourists, but residents like several other long-term visa holders, and retirees are supposed to in average spend at least 2,000 baht per day in Thailand being eligible to stay — some more, depending of their entry visa — we unfortunately lack statistics to know how much more than 2,000 baht in average retirees actually spend and invest in the country. Furthermore, people staying longer than 180 days in a calendar year are also income taxable.

My suggestions are based on good common sense and input from what they do in other countries; like places where they use tourist taxation. And I will also myself be hit by tourist taxes if I visit places that have those to do so — I'm actually interested in Bhutan — and I will suggest something similar for my home country, where people now also begin to complain about 'over tourism'.

Not residents at all. Non immigrants can't be residents, says that on your initial visa. You have a 12 month temporary permission of stay that may be extendable. Or not. Circumstances can change, agree unlikely, but not impossible. Only takes a very nationalistic government and everyone goes back home.

10 hours ago, Jim Blue said:

Agree at last some common sense thinking .

Every Tourist Minister only ever talks about

"36" million tourist target and nothing else.

It has become a form of madness.

Mr Tourist Minister must be related to Albanese (Albo) in Australia being the Prime Minister. They both have no idea!

"The authors said existing policies have not sufficiently targeted the biggest sources of tourism emissions: transport and energy use across the tourism supply chain. Many current measures instead focus on hotel standards, certification, carbon offsets and pilot projects.

Accidents and other incidents involving foreign visitors also continue to receive international attention, affecting confidence in Thailand as a destination."

More of the same old political and academic drivel with the same refrain repeated endlessly.

For example, I've been coming here for over 35 years and I still see the same old polluting taxis driving around Pattaya. In my country, if a vehicle no longer meets certain emissions standards, it's banned from the road.

Another example: it's still just as dangerous to cross the street, whether there's a crosswalk or not. Paradoxically, the place where you risk your life the most your life is at crosswalks protected by traffic lights. Some drivers obey them, and others don't, it is simply the law of the jungle the strongest wins.. All this because the existing laws aren't enforced by an invisible and absent police force. Furthermore, if an infraction is recorded, the penalty are so low that people don't care.

very easy to resolve problem for people with a normal logical brain.

·        easen the visa procedure and don't change it every two months

·        enforce the rules concerning road safety. The best example is pedestrian crossings.

·        Build a pedestrian infrastructure worthy of the name: reliable sidewalks, accessible to everyone including people with disabilities, and clearly separated from road traffic.

·        Regulate the exchange rate; let market forces take their course. Do not intervene to artificially inflate it in the mistaken hope of profiting from it.

·        In general, be open, frank, honest, and impartial when applying any kind of regulations to tourists. Double pricing, penalizing tourists in case of disputes with Thais, and harassment of tourists for traffic violations are common problems.

·        and last but not least Take care of your roads, maintain them for our safety.

But as initially stated, for this to happen, those in charge must act intelligently, logically, and impartially. Unfortunately TID, This Is Dystopia

8 hours ago, Hotchilli123 said:

Thailand tourism office gave up on quality years ago, since Covid only numbers mean anything...

it's as if it's some measure of success.

Wrong MONEY means everything to Thais and as long as that is flowing in nothing else matters.

59 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Not residents at all. Non immigrants can't be residents, says that on your initial visa. You have a 12 month temporary permission of stay that may be extendable. Or not. Circumstances can change, agree unlikely, but not impossible. Only takes a very nationalistic government and everyone goes back home.

Why are you so obsessed with flaming the post?
Residents are residents as determined by the tax laws. Do you not know that?
We are all subject to however governments want to treat us in any country.
Here we put up with a lot of extra effort to live here long term and that is not something tourists suffer.

I suggest you bury whatever hangups or greivances you have against long term foreign residents and start to understand more about what many long term foreign RESIDENTS, with many married to Thais, contribute to the economy. They are not the same as tourists.
I am posting to let others think for themselves.
Not interested in any further comment from what i see as un-justified criticism of a valid point made by the original OP.