Tourist Numbers Drop By Almost One Million

[WinnieTheKhwai]

more Brits get killed in LOS than any other tourist destination, so perhaps thousands are stopping off in Portugal, etc. instead, which may account for part of the number, but I doubt it

"more Brits get killed in LOS than any other tourist destination". You mean except for Spain, France and Germany? ( http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/...&id=5226726 )

Why on earth do posters without a clue keep on posting misinformation like this?

Well, that same link also shows the total tourist and resident expat numbers, so you should really convert at a number of incidents per 1000 visitors. Then Thailand is higher than Spain, Germany and France.

Then the ranking is as follows:

If I add the other information:

Here I scored the worst countries in red until I hit Thailand. Thailand is worst in terms of deaths.

Edited October 23, 2009 by WinnieTheKhwai

[WinnieTheKhwai]

^ Note: The lower numbers are worse; it's " 1 in X " people who experience that particular kind of trouble. For the totals I added tourists and residents together.

(I'm a little disappointed with you on that, Priceless, because I rate you so highly on statistics when it comes to pollution data. What went wrong?

NB: I did notice that the number of resident Brits seemed low; this may throw Thailand's numbers off?

Edited October 23, 2009 by WinnieTheKhwai

[Priceless]

more Brits get killed in LOS than any other tourist destination, so perhaps thousands are stopping off in Portugal, etc. instead, which may account for part of the number, but I doubt it

"more Brits get killed in LOS than any other tourist destination". You mean except for Spain, France and Germany? ( http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/...&id=5226726 )

Why on earth do posters without a clue keep on posting misinformation like this?

Well, that same link also shows the total tourist and resident expat numbers, so you should really convert at a number of incidents per 1000 visitors. Then Thailand is higher than Spain, Germany and France.

Then the ranking is as follows:

If I add the other information:

Here I scored the worst countries in red until I hit Thailand. Thailand is worst in terms of deaths.

If you can supply me with the average length of stay for the British tourists visiting each country (and preferably the age distribution of the expats in each country), then it might be possible to come up with something meaningful. In other words, if your looking at the tourists, it would be the total number of 'tourist days' that would be the meaningful measure to relate to.

Anyway, the poster I argued against said nothing about 'per capita', he just said "more Brits get killed in LOS than any other tourist destination" which is obviously false.

On a lighter note: Did you notice that out of 41,000 UK expats in Thailand, only 269 die every year (if we assume for a moment that none of the deaths concern tourists). This gives an average life expectancy for UK expats in Thailand of 152 years. This is obviously a very healthy place to live

/ Priceless

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

FWIW. I have a Thai friend in the Hotel/Resort brokerage business in BKK and according to her ~60% of the large hotels in CM need to be bought out or reorganized because they cannot service their debt. A lot of them are talking with Chinese investors but so far the interest has been mild.

Edited October 23, 2009 by CobraSnakeNecktie

[Donnyboy]

FWIW. I have a Thai friend in the Hotel/Resort brokerage business in BKK and according to her ~60% of the large hotels in CM need to be bought out or reorganized because they cannot service their debt. A lot of them are talking with Chinese investors but so far the interest has been mild.

who can blame them, they probably wont see a good return unless theyre sold at prices the thais are less willing to go to

i wouldnt think there will be any major new hotel construction in CM for a long long time, but all bets are off if Thaksin returns to power

[WinnieTheKhwai]

If you can supply me with the average length of stay for the British tourists visiting each country (and preferably the age distribution of the expats in each country), then it might be possible to come up with something meaningful. In other words, if your looking at the tourists, it would be the total number of 'tourist days' that would be the meaningful measure to relate to.

Good point. Though to be honest, given that Thailand is about as long-distance a destination as it gets, it is likely to be a longer average stay compared to closer destinations. You're not 'popping over for the Easter weekend', like you could with Germany or France. Given that you're looking at a single country (Britian), I'd say the length of stay for a holiday is comparable. If it was a mix of nationalities then you could make a point that Germans and Swedes get way longer holidays than Americans, but when just looking at Britain, I doubt you find a lot of difference between destinations.

Anyway, the poster I argued against said nothing about 'per capita', he just said "more Brits get killed in LOS than any other tourist destination" which is obviously false.

Come on. In the context of this discussion he raised it as a possible factor that negatively influences a person's decision to go somewhere, so that would be a 'risk based' factor. When talking about risk then you're not talking absolute numbers, you're talking that 1 in 99 folks get into shit in Indonesia, versus a lot less people get into shit in France, Germany or Spain, the three countries you suggested were worse than Thailand. Honestly, in context you made the point that Germany was less safe than Thailand.. That's ludicrous: You can't rent Honda Clicks in Germany while drunk, without a helmet, wearing shorts and flip-flops, and with no motorcycle license. Plus the roads are better, Germany has ambulances that look a couple shades better organized than your average body-hauler in Thailand. Heck, even Germany's Emergency Veterinarians drive better equipped emergency vehicles! Please tell me I don't need to go on? Honestly it's really very hard to get yourself killed in Germany, as most things fun are against the law.

On a lighter note: Did you notice that out of 41,000 UK expats in Thailand, only 269 die every year (if we assume for a moment that none of the deaths concern tourists). This gives an average life expectancy for UK expats in Thailand of 152 years. This is obviously a very healthy place to live

That's a good point.. You would assume though that for a regular old age death of natural causes, that wouldn't get to the British embassy and especially not into these statistics? You have a valid point though that this isn't made clear. Another factor that might differ could be the demographic that travels.. Families going to the South of france with a camper tend to not get themselves killed or arrested as much as footie hooligans in Samui. (But then surely a similar demographic goes to Spain and such.)

Edited October 23, 2009 by WinnieTheKhwai

[caf]

more Brits get killed in LOS than any other tourist destination, so perhaps thousands are stopping off in Portugal, etc. instead, which may account for part of the number, but I doubt it

"more Brits get killed in LOS than any other tourist destination". You mean except for Spain, France and Germany? ( http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/...&id=5226726 )

Why on earth do posters without a clue keep on posting misinformation like this?

Well, that same link also shows the total tourist and resident expat numbers, so you should really convert at a number of incidents per 1000 visitors. Then Thailand is higher than Spain, Germany and France.

Then the ranking is as follows:

If I add the other information:

Here I scored the worst countries in red until I hit Thailand. Thailand is worst in terms of deaths.

If you can supply me with the average length of stay for the British tourists visiting each country (and preferably the age distribution of the expats in each country), then it might be possible to come up with something meaningful. In other words, if your looking at the tourists, it would be the total number of 'tourist days' that would be the meaningful measure to relate to.

Anyway, the poster I argued against said nothing about 'per capita', he just said "more Brits get killed in LOS than any other tourist destination" which is obviously false.

On a lighter note: Did you notice that out of 41,000 UK expats in Thailand, only 269 die every year (if we assume for a moment that none of the deaths concern tourists). This gives an average life expectancy for UK expats in Thailand of 152 years. This is obviously a very healthy place to live

/ Priceless

Come on. Priceless, be gracious. You know what posters were getting at. The perecived and actual danger is one cause for tourist number decline - which is the topic of this thread.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Come on. Priceless, be gracious. You know what posters were getting at. The perecived and actual danger is one cause for tourist number decline - which is the topic of this thread.

Hold on, I was making the point that Thailand is objectively a relatively dangerous place. I don't think that's too contentious a thing to say looking at Priceless' own reference statistics and expect Pricers to admit that. (Though it seems they show only top holiday destinations; in a full list of countries you will not find Thailand near the top of the shit list, then places like Cambodia, Philippines and boat load of African countries come into play. )

But anyway, point I was about to make is that I'm not convinced that it's much of a factor. Finding an 'adventurous' / dangerous place might as well be a good thing when you're 25 and bored out of your skull in Reading. Then again for other groups (families, a segment that was on the rise for Thailand) it may be a bigger factor.

[Priceless]

An interesting discussion, though probably rather off-topic. My comments in red below.

If you can supply me with the average length of stay for the British tourists visiting each country (and preferably the age distribution of the expats in each country), then it might be possible to come up with something meaningful. In other words, if your looking at the tourists, it would be the total number of 'tourist days' that would be the meaningful measure to relate to.

Good point. Though to be honest, given that Thailand is about as long-distance a destination as it gets, it is likely to be a longer average stay compared to closer destinations. You're not 'popping over for the Easter weekend', like you could with Germany or France. Given that you're looking at a single country (Britian), I'd say the length of stay for a holiday is comparable. If it was a mix of nationalities then you could make a point that Germans and Swedes get way longer holidays than Americans, but when just looking at Britain, I doubt you find a lot of difference between destinations.

I don't quite follow you here. You start out with something I fully agree to, then draw a different conclusion from mine. I would think that the average stay (by Britons) in Spain, France or Germany would be significantly shorter than the average stay in Thailand. This would lead to relatively fewer 'tourist days' in the three countries and consequently more deaths 'per tourist day'.

Anyway, the poster I argued against said nothing about 'per capita', he just said "more Brits get killed in LOS than any other tourist destination" which is obviously false.

Come on. In the context of this discussion he raised it as a possible factor that negatively influences a person's decision to go somewhere, so that would be a 'risk based' factor. When talking about risk then you're not talking absolute numbers, you're talking that 1 in 99 folks get into shit in Indonesia, versus a lot less people get into shit in France, Germany or Spain, the three countries you suggested were worse than Thailand. Honestly, in context you made the point that Germany was less safe than Thailand.. That's ludicrous: You can't rent Honda Clicks in Germany while drunk, without a helmet, wearing shorts and flip-flops, and with no motorcycle license. Plus the roads are better, Germany has ambulances that look a couple shades better organized than your average body-hauler in Thailand. Heck, even Germany's Emergency Veterinarians drive better equipped emergency vehicles! Please tell me I don't need to go on? Honestly it's really very hard to get yourself killed in Germany, as most things fun are against the law.

Here you are touching on a couple of very relevant and important issues. 1/ If the poster had said something like 'Thailand is perceived as a more dangerous country' I would not have protested, he would probably even be right. 2/ I think (though I obviously don't know) that tourist behaviour is a more important factor than the 'riskiness' of the country. I am under the impression that a fairly high percentage of British tourists in Thailand are single men in their 20's and 30's, with the potentially risky behaviour that would entail. I wish that I had been able to get hold of similar (i.e. death) statistics for Scandinavian tourists. Again my impression is that they have a much higher percentage of families with small(ish) children. One would expect this to lead to a less risky behaviour...

On a lighter note: Did you notice that out of 41,000 UK expats in Thailand, only 269 die every year (if we assume for a moment that none of the deaths concern tourists). This gives an average life expectancy for UK expats in Thailand of 152 years. This is obviously a very healthy place to live

That's a good point.. You would assume though that for a regular old age death of natural causes, that wouldn't get to the British embassy and especially not into these statistics? You have a valid point though that this isn't made clear.

Here I have to disagree. I think you would have a very hard time dying in a foreign country without your consulate being informed. This is very much standard procedure in how countries deal with each other and with each other's citizens. The pretty much only way, I believe, is to become an unidentifiable corpse. (What a morbid subject.) I can think of a number of explanations to the high 'life expectancy', though. One would be that humans, like some other animal species, tend to go back to die where they were born. Another would be that a large proportion of the expat population are here for a longer or shorter period of work, i.e. they are reasonably young and relatively healthy. A third could be that the number of retirees has grown sharply in the last few years, which would mean that most are still relatively young and healthy. I have no way of knowing which, if any, of these explanations would be the more important.

I actually included the paragraph on 'life expectancy' just to demonstrate how dangerous it is to draw conclusions on a very limited set of data. This is unfortunately rather common in Thailand, or at least in the English-language Thai press that I follow...

Regards

/ Priceless

[Priceless]

[...]

Come on. Priceless, be gracious. You know what posters were getting at. The perecived and actual danger is one cause for tourist number decline - which is the topic of this thread.

What you're saying is that I should not have replied to what the poster was saying, but rather to what I might think that he actually meant to say? This, I am sure, could lead to a very long and heated but unfortunately not very meaningful discussion. I prefer to stay out of that one

/ Priceless

[bungalowbill]

I would gladly visit Chiang Rai if I could get a clean, comfortable hotel with a swimming pool for a good rate like I can in Pattaya. I enjoy it there and I can swim and hang around the hotel if there is nothing else to do.

One problem with Thailand is room rates are too expensive for many backpackers and they find much better deals in other countries. They just keep going up even though there are fewer customers.

Hi UG, Can you name a few countries where backpackers can go that is cheaper than Thailand?..Thanks

[caf]

[...]

Come on. Priceless, be gracious. You know what posters were getting at. The perecived and actual danger is one cause for tourist number decline - which is the topic of this thread.

What you're saying is that I should not have replied to what the poster was saying, but rather to what I might think that he actually meant to say? This, I am sure, could lead to a very long and heated but unfortunately not very meaningful discussion. I prefer to stay out of that one

/ Priceless

No, that is not what I am saying or in fact what I said.

I see that you have now said elsewhere that Thailand is perceived to be dangerous. I think that is a factor but maybe not the most important one. By all means quote me on that but please don't quote things I do not say.

[Ulysses G.]

I would gladly visit Chiang Rai if I could get a clean, comfortable hotel with a swimming pool for a good rate like I can in Pattaya. I enjoy it there and I can swim and hang around the hotel if there is nothing else to do.

One problem with Thailand is room rates are too expensive for many backpackers and they find much better deals in other countries. They just keep going up even though there are fewer customers.

Hi UG, Can you name a few countries where backpackers can go that is cheaper than Thailand?..Thanks

Off the top of my head, Indonesia seems to be making a real effort to lower the price on everything from plane tickets to hotel rooms. Malaysia also seems to be making a real effort to offer a lot of discounts. Vietnam has offered more for one's money than Thailand for quite a while, and it is also percieved as being more of an adventure.

I'm sure that there are other places outside of this region, although I am not familiar with them.

[samuibeachcomber]

I would gladly visit Chiang Rai if I could get a clean, comfortable hotel with a swimming pool for a good rate like I can in Pattaya. I enjoy it there and I can swim and hang around the hotel if there is nothing else to do.

One problem with Thailand is room rates are too expensive for many backpackers and they find much better deals in other countries. They just keep going up even though there are fewer customers.

Hi UG, Can you name a few countries where backpackers can go that is cheaper than Thailand?..Thanks

Off the top of my head, Indonesia seems to be making a real effort to lower the price on everything from plane tickets to hotel rooms. Malaysia also seems to be making a real effort to offer a lot of discounts. Vietnam has offered more for one's money than Thailand for quite a while, and it is also percieved as being more of an adventure.

I'm sure that there are other places outside of this region, although I am not familiar with them.

how about Laos and Cambodia being cheaper too?

[Ulysses G.]

Both countries have to import a lot of items from Thailand and Vietnam, so they tend to be more expensive. I have not been to either country for quite a while, so I could be wrong, but I am just guessing.

[dave2]

samuibeachcomber

re .... how about Laos and Cambodia being cheaper too?.

ive been to laos and cambodia twice in the last four years

a nice room in luang prabang laos was about 4 to 6 dollars the same in vientiene the capitol would be aroung 20 dollars

a nice room in phnom pehn cambodia would be around 20 to 30 dollars in sihanookvile by the sea you could get a nice one for 4 to 10 dollars

thats my experience of going there .... dave2

ps ... prices quoted were per night

[siamamerican]

samuibeachcomber

re .... how about Laos and Cambodia being cheaper too?.

ive been to laos and cambodia twice in the last four years

a nice room in luang prabang laos was about 4 to 6 dollars the same in vientiene the capitol would be aroung 20 dollars

a nice room in phnom pehn cambodia would be around 20 to 30 dollars in sihanookvile by the sea you could get a nice one for 4 to 10 dollars

thats my experience of going there .... dave2

ps ... prices quoted were per night

I'm planning on a trip to Cambodia next year. Thanks for the info but without a comparable reference to Thailand it doesn't help much. We all have different perceptions of a nice room. How much does a nice room in Thailand set you back? Thanks

[elektrified]

I would gladly visit Chiang Rai if I could get a clean, comfortable hotel with a swimming pool for a good rate like I can in Pattaya. I enjoy it there and I can swim and hang around the hotel if there is nothing else to do.

One problem with Thailand is room rates are too expensive for many backpackers and they find much better deals in other countries. They just keep going up even though there are fewer customers.

Hi UG, Can you name a few countries where backpackers can go that is cheaper than Thailand?..Thanks

Off the top of my head, Indonesia seems to be making a real effort to lower the price on everything from plane tickets to hotel rooms. Malaysia also seems to be making a real effort to offer a lot of discounts. Vietnam has offered more for one's money than Thailand for quite a while, and it is also percieved as being more of an adventure.

I'm sure that there are other places outside of this region, although I am not familiar with them.

how about Laos and Cambodia being cheaper too?

I've never been to Cambodia so no comment there, but I've been to Laos a couple of times and it is much more expensive than Thailand. And for more money I found the hotels to be much less comfortable and the employees far less helpful than in Thailand. The popular restaurants in the capital city I thought were over-priced as well.

[Mapguy]

Sawasdee Khrup, TV Friends,

While I share the general impression that tourism is down (and significantly down), so far, this year, I question the reliability of the sources of information in the article cited at the start of this post in the following ways :

1. as is typical of Chiang Mai Mail screed (one reason I don't bother to read it) : the article is not dated and does not identify the place and the context in which the (speech ? presentation ?) was made. While there are some quotation marks used in the article, it is hard to tell the difference between the (assumed) author of the article's contents and the content that came from the person who supposedly is the source of the article's content. Who was the audience for this speech or presentation; who sponsored the event, and what agendas might the speaker, or the sponsor of the event have ?

2. there is no identification of the statistical sources, and the methods of data gathering, for describing tourism as being "one million down."

3. other comments on this post have mentioned, vaguely, private information from sources "who should know," and while I don't question the veracity, or intent, of other posters in sharing remarks like this, neither can I give them "creedence" other than as "hearsay."

4. the general question of whether any "reliable" statistical information on hotel bookings, tour bookings, occupancy rates is available AT ALL is, to me, an "open question" : simply because "face" gets involved : do you really think the very high-end 4-star+ hotels here are going to make publicly known how "bad" their revenues and occupancy rates are ?

5. Yes, I would also question information from TAT and any other national-level "official" organization.

Maybe I've got this all wrong : I would love for someone to correct me and point me to a rigorously audited survey, conducted on a regular basis, with data collection methods described, and statistical summary analytic methods revealed !

As I write this, less than two kilometers from where I live : a gigantic new hotel/spa going up (work is going on night and day) with (my guess) at least 100 rooms due to open in the first few months of 2010. It's in a neighborhood which, imho, is dingy, and has nothing to offer in terms of access to anything but the railway station, has almost no "nature" left around it (but they are busy importing huge trees right now and planting them on the grounds of the to-be-hotel). A new two meter fence with barbed wire (military grade) is now being finished along the narrow side soi that runs along the north-south side of it (almost guaranteeing if I am run off the road on my bicycle I will go to the hospital).

Somebody is betting many milions of baht on the future of that hotel, but who, and why ?

Sorry to sound like a nattering skeptic, and I and I wish in our hearts for all the best for this lovely city.

Meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy the "psychic readings" being given so freely here by our many resident clairvoyants for whom it obviously makes no difference how many tea leaves there are to read

best, ~o:37;

Good post! Glad to see detox worked !!

[Ulysses G.]

I've never been to Cambodia so no comment there, but I've been to Laos a couple of times and it is much more expensive than Thailand. And for more money I found the hotels to be much less comfortable and the employees far less helpful than in Thailand. The popular restaurants in the capital city I thought were over-priced as well.

In the past, Cambodia was much more expensive than Laos, but I have not been to either one in ten years.

[Mapguy]

more Brits get killed in LOS than any other tourist destination, so perhaps thousands are stopping off in Portugal, etc. instead, which may account for part of the number, but I doubt it

"more Brits get killed in LOS than any other tourist destination". You mean except for Spain, France and Germany? ( http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/...&id=5226726 )

Why on earth do posters without a clue keep on posting misinformation like this?

/ Priceless

The reference given from the Foreign Office is really quite interesting. Thank you, Priceless, for finding it. However, your criticism is more than a little narrow minded in its scope. Seems rather pointless, really.

The report --- which I do encourage people to read --- is more literary than scientific in its presentation, but I don't fault it terribly much for that. You can parse such posts as Priceless complained about that occasionally appear on TV Chiang Mai all you want, or a report such as Priceless has found, but that isn't a particularly useful exercise. TV Chiang Mai isn't a scientific symposium, for Pete's sake! It is virtual pub chatter a huge amount of the time

Regarding the linked report, what, after all, should people expect from such reports, which depend upon very chancy data? In fact, it is noted that the report is based in part on anecdotal reports. But I think it fair to say that it is informative.

A reader gets a pretty good idea from the FO of what's going on with too many Brits on vacation. And, if one reads more broadly, what is mentioned in the report isn't really very surprising. Indeed, it seems that Brits abroad have developed a truly awful reputation in the popular press in recent years. I seem to recall it started with the football fans traveling to Europe for matches. Whatever...

One item certainly rings true in the FO report: Better to stay off any two-wheeled vehicle in Thailand! But then, I think most of us know that! Or do we?

[cmdream]

more Brits get killed in LOS than any other tourist destination, so perhaps thousands are stopping off in Portugal, etc. instead, which may account for part of the number, but I doubt it

This could be the reason why the murder rate is going up in Portugal.

[dave2]

siamamerican

re .... How much does a nice room in Thailand set you back?

fair comment ... im 60 years old and wont stay in anything i think needs cleaning

this is what i call a nice room and it costs me 4000 baht a month plus electric , water , 60 channels for wee tv etc ... my total monthly bill for the past 7 months of living here have never been over 5600 baht ... last months was 5380 baht which i can just about manage to pay ; ) .... a third the price of the same in thing in england ... : (

love thailand .... dave2

ps ... if anyone doesnt think it a nice room worth 4000 baht a month please keep your comments to yourself coz i dont need your opinions : )

enjoy pics !

[Donnyboy]

good pics dave

just wondering why you have a video camera on a tripod facing the bed?

[dave2]

donnyboy.

shhh !!!! or everyone will be filming the lightning shows over doi suthep

enjoy ..... dave2

[WinnieTheKhwai]

good pics dave

just wondering why you have a video camera on a tripod facing the bed?

LOL!!!

[WinnieTheKhwai]

I don't quite follow you here. You start out with something I fully agree to, then draw a different conclusion from mine. I would think that the average stay (by Britons) in Spain, France or Germany would be significantly shorter than the average stay in Thailand. This would lead to relatively fewer 'tourist days' in the three countries and consequently more deaths 'per tourist day'.

Oops, you're right about that one. So for argument's sake let's ignore the countries closest to Britain and compare Thailand with other longer distance destinations. I do note however that you didn't seem to mind to not drill down to tourist-days when you wrote that Thailand was ranked better in terms of deaths than those countries!

Here you are touching on a couple of very relevant and important issues. 1/ If the poster had said something like 'Thailand is perceived as a more dangerous country' I would not have protested, he would probably even be right. 2/ I think (though I obviously don't know) that tourist behaviour is a more important factor than the 'riskiness' of the country. I am under the impression that a fairly high percentage of British tourists in Thailand are single men in their 20's and 30's, with the potentially risky behaviour that would entail. I wish that I had been able to get hold of similar (i.e. death) statistics for Scandinavian tourists. Again my impression is that they have a much higher percentage of families with small(ish) children. One would expect this to lead to a less risky behaviour...

No argument there. You know what, I think we basically agree:

- Thailand is inherently more dangerous than first world countries; it's simply not a first world country in terms of safety regulations, health & emergency services, law enforcement, and so on. This may scare off some groups, while being 'part of the attraction' to other groups of visitors.

- This slightly elevated risk may not be too much of a factor in reduced tourist numbers. The elephant in the room really is the economy.

WTK

Edited October 24, 2009 by WinnieTheKhwai

[Priceless]

[...]

No argument there. You know what, I think we basically agree:

- Thailand is inherently more dangerous than first world countries; it's simply not a first world country in terms of safety regulations, health & emergency services, law enforcement, and so on. This may scare off some groups, while being 'part of the attraction' to other groups of visitors.

- This slightly elevated risk may not be too much of a factor in reduced tourist numbers. The elephant in the room really is the economy.

WTK

I couldn't agree more

/ Priceless

[WinnieTheKhwai]

This marks the first time in the history of the world that actual agreement was reached in a Thaivisa discussion.

( Does everyone remember where you were at this historic moment? )

[Thailand]

This marks the first time in the history of the world that actual agreement was reached in a Thaivisa discussion.

( Does everyone remember where you were at this historic moment? )

Afraid I cannot agree with your comment that this is the first time an agreement has been reached in a Thaivisa discussion.