Focus On Quality Tourists, Not Quantity, Urges PM Abhisit

[TimTang]

Oho! Typos is it? Well Mr TimTang don't forget your spell checker and gammar checker too

Actually I type fairly fast but quite often I miss the last character without knowing. I usually try to correct spelling and grammatical errors within the grace period allowed by TV. Having said that, I'm not a professional writer and I didn't think that was a prerequisite to participate on the TV forum. I probably would have been more careful had I known there was going to be a test.

You might want to take some of your own advise. Here's a few gems I found in 2 sentences from one of your posts:

"You may not be aware but the sex tourist spend huge amount of money, by far much more then any family or the so called quality. You will not see Pattaya business crying for not making any money, they only cry they do not make as much as they use to."

Here are some suggestions followed by a question mark, for your approval:

"You may not be aware but the sex tourist (s?) spend (a?) huge amount of money, by far much more (far OR much not both?) then (than?) any family or the so called quality (quality what?). You will not see Pattaya business (es?) crying for (about?) not making any money, they only cry (when?)they do not make as much as they use (used - past tense?) to.

To quote and old expression, "people that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

Edited March 3, 2011 by TimTang

[KKK]

haha, big spenders only huh? Reminds me of that statement from Thaksin where locals should just get all the cash from the tourists they can while they're here, instead of thinking of ways to satisfy and make one happy and wanna return.

A bit like the way he (Thaksin) got all the money he could out of the Thai nation before he left probably never to return.

[paymaster]

A good start might be taking a bulldozer through places like Pattaya. Round up all the bargirls on the streets. Quality tourists don't flock to Thailand for ladyboys and the sex industry.

So in your dizzy little world, Pattaya = Thailand?

By the way have you seen how many tourists flock to Sydney and San francisco for their gay mardi gras? Oh and Hey the tourist numbers that flock to Rio's carnival have really diminished thanks to heaving mass of prozzies there.

More simplistic dross from a simpleton.

couldn't agree with makkam more except to correct one minor point. siam simon is most likely the simpleton while softgeorge dosn't like Pattaya probably because he's always

soft. Puritans the pair of them who think prostitutes exist only in Thailand for so called "sex tourists". Aussie country boys who visit King's Cross in Sydney and visitors to Soho

or the Reeperbhan are there for a good time. Visit Bangkok,Phuket or Pattaya and your a "sex tourist'. I don't get it.

[mca]

This type of announcement seems to be almost an annual event here

I agree with LivinLOS, it's a two way street. If the Thai government wants a better class of tourist then they need to come to the party to ensure a better class of tourist experience ... not just approving a few more 5 star hotels, not just more money spent on promotion in glossy mags, but addressing the well-known and long-running problems in the tourist industry here .... including but not limited to:

1. Environmental problems (litter, air pollution, or just plain ugliness, etc) due to inadequate laws or non-enforcement of existing laws

2. Law and order issues ... jetski scams, airport hustlers, gem scams, theft of luggage/belongings in airports, buses, hotels and sundry other cheating by tourist service

3. Lack of coordination by government agencies concerning planning and management of tourism. You can't even get staff of the one gov't agency here to read from the same page .... quality tourism demands a coordinated whole-of-government approach

4. Better (more accessible, more accurate, etc) tourist information ... more staff with advanced English-language skills

5. A more customer-service focussed approach by the entire industry ... web sites that work, emails that get answered, customer feedback that is sought and responded to

6. and on it goes

Tourists reports these problems week in and week out but are lucky to even get a response to their letter/email. What demonstrable progress has the Thai government made with any of these issues? What is proposed? When?

Some good points there.

The first one you made really struck a chord with me. In December I and my family went to the Bridge Festival in Kanchanaburi. They set up a pretty large fair with sideshows, stalls etc. The day after the fair finished and the vendors had moved on you can imagine the piles of rubbish strewn everywhere. Rubbish that was still there nigh on a week later. All of it. There's a large open area next to Kanchanaburi stadium and to say it looked like those images of an African refugee camp would not be exaggerating too much. You physically couldn't have walked from one side to the other without stepping on a piece of trash. The road leading down to the bridge were just overflowing with rubbish too.

Even with the rosiest of spectacles on you couldn't view it as anything other than an absolutely disgusting shithole. Considering the amount of tourist buses bombing through there on what for a lot will be there one and only time visiting Kan I guess the word " embarrassed " doesn't even feature in the lexicon of the local TAT boss. Fuc_k it. I'm merely a foreigner living in Thailand who doesn't even live near there and I felt a sense of shame.

Edited March 3, 2011 by mca

[farangx]

"Last year Thailand received 15.8 million international tourists, generating income of Bt585 million, he said."

That averages out at a tad over 37 Baht per international visitor. Is the quoted line a typo, or are the PM's advisors/scriptwriters slacking a bit?

Anyway, sad to say that Thailand (in common with just about every other country trying to entice tourists) can't be too picky at the moment.

you're right, that doesn't make sense. I think it's more like 58.5 billion or 585 billion. at the end, he was talking about 7 % of GDP, right?

if the average is raised to 50 baht, you then get quality and quantity is no longer important.

[yeeowww]

...or hijack & strangle the capitol city for months before burning it to the ground.

If they want tourists of any description it might be a good idea not to shut the country's major international airport down in the middle of the high season

[KKK]

This type of announcement seems to be almost an annual event here

I agree with LivinLOS, it's a two way street. If the Thai government wants a better class of tourist then they need to come to the party to ensure a better class of tourist experience ... not just approving a few more 5 star hotels, not just more money spent on promotion in glossy mags, but addressing the well-known and long-running problems in the tourist industry here .... including but not limited to:

1. Environmental problems (litter, air pollution, or just plain ugliness, etc) due to inadequate laws or non-enforcement of existing laws

2. Law and order issues ... jetski scams, airport hustlers, gem scams, theft of luggage/belongings in airports, buses, hotels and sundry other cheating by tourist service

3. Lack of coordination by government agencies concerning planning and management of tourism. You can't even get staff of the one gov't agency here to read from the same page .... quality tourism demands a coordinated whole-of-government approach

4. Better (more accessible, more accurate, etc) tourist information ... more staff with advanced English-language skills

5. A more customer-service focussed approach by the entire industry ... web sites that work, emails that get answered, customer feedback that is sought and responded to

6. and on it goes

Tourists reports these problems week in and week out but are lucky to even get a response to their letter/email. What demonstrable progress has the Thai government made with any of these issues? What is proposed? When?

Some good points there.

The first one you made really struck a chord with me. In December I and my family went to the Bridge Festival in Kanchanaburi. They set up a pretty large fair with sideshows, stalls etc. The day after the fair finished and the vendors had moved on you can imagine the piles of rubbish strewn everywhere. Rubbish that was still there nigh on a week later. All of it. There's a large open area next to Kanchanaburi stadium and to say it looked like those images of an African refugee camp would not be exaggerating too much. You physically couldn't have walked from one side to the other without stepping on a piece of trash. The road leading down to the bridge were just overflowing with rubbish too.

Even with the rosiest of spectacles on you couldn't view it as anything other than an absolutely disgusting shithole. Considering the amount of tourist buses bombing through there on what for a lot will be there one and only time visiting Kan I guess the word " embarrassed " doesn't even feature in the lexicon of the local TAT boss. Fuc_k it. I'm merely a foreigner living in Thailand who doesn't even live near there and I felt a sense of shame.

All the vendors were Thai and I'd bet the majority of the visitors were Thai also and the local authorities are Thai. So the rubbish tip was not the result of international tourism. It was the result of the Thai "out of sight out of mind" syndrome. Blame somebody else it is never our fault.

[Arkady]

Better quality tourists? It won't take them long to move on to better quality retirees. Get ready for the 5 million baht bank balance with of course choice 90 day seasoning. No more old grizzlies living in Pattaya and Patong with bar girls on UK state pensions.

King Power has already been working hard on the "Amazing Stopover" campaign to encourage guests passing through Swampy to stay longer. By slipping an unpaid for item into tourists' plastic bags and calling the police, they are very effective at getting tourists to change their minds about leaving the country at the last minute.

[Jayroo]

A good start might be taking a bulldozer through places like Pattaya. Round up all the bargirls on the streets. Quality tourists don't flock to Thailand for ladyboys and the sex industry.

WELL SAID

Someone's got a chip on their shoulder.

[mtc]

The Pattaya Mayor is at least trying with an open forum on suggestions.http://www.facebook.com/PattayaFuture

[Jayroo]

Most "quality" tourists are above average as far as intelligence. I'm sure they research their destinations and have a good idea what they will find. They will know that certain areas of Pattaya are designed to attract sex tourists. The bottom line is if you don't like the sex tourists areas, don't go.

How do you determine who is a quality tourist? Is it the amount of money they spend? In my opinion, sex tourists spend more money than the so called quality tourists. Are you so naive to think that bar girls and even many bars report the amount of money that they make from sex tourists?

A difficult thing to understand is why there are so many better than thou board members who hate Pattaya. Bulldoze Pattaya? Drop an atom bomb on it? The only logical reason I can think of for this hate (?) is that the members wives read their posts so they have to condemn Pattaya to make their wives happy. The wives obviously forbid the husbands to visit fun city.

no mate not everyone is sick f... like you the very type thailand wants to get rid off

Craig I really hope that your obnoxious abhorrent self does not reside in the los? Please say that you don't...

[HunkeyDorey]

A good start might be taking a bulldozer through places like Pattaya. Round up all the bargirls on the streets. Quality tourists don't flock to Thailand for ladyboys and the sex industry.

.

Soft George!............. a we bit soft in the head

[gotlost]

I see that TAT is listening. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/447889-drunk-russian-couple-caught-in-the-act%3B-sex-on-the-beach-in-pattaya/

[jimbeam1]

A good start might be taking a bulldozer through places like Pattaya. Round up all the bargirls on the streets. Quality tourists don't flock to Thailand for ladyboys and the sex industry.

In these straightened times, that'd be a huge mistake though it makes sense as a long-term target. Fact is: 'Upmarket' Western tourists aren't travelling much at the mo; Sextourists always travel. It's not an ideal situation or long-term fix, I know. But tourist money is tourist money, and Thailand (like everywhere else) is desperate for said money right now.

The first thing to do might be to define what a quality tourist is. I would assume that one of the key factors is how much is spent and, according to a poll on another site catering specifically for pattaya more than 50% of members are spending more than 5k baht a day and this figure rises to over 75% if you look at spends of over 4k baht a day.

I am not sure how this would compare to how much other types of tourist are spending and in other areas but it this income is not something that can be ignored.

Define quality tourists. I think he intends to send fliers around his old school?

jb1

[TimeBandit2]

Most ex-pats who live in Thailand live behind those gates that keep them away from those great unwashed masses of Thai's, just as do those Thai's with means. Every time the TAT or government official makes a statement about tourism the world collapses around Thailand ex-pat community and all those nay sayers come out in droves. Such a waste of time and childish statements come to bear such as bulldozing down Pattaya or don't bulldoze my house or the math does not add up or this or that crazy statement. Thailand is what it is. Like it or not that's the facts. quality tourists are those who stay in luxury resorts and depart Thailand having never really visited Thailand. Backpackers are a completely different type of tourist, tout, deadbeat all in one. Sex is part of the Thailand package even for the Thai's. There are more sex venues geared for the Thai male than for the visitor or tourist. What are you going to purchase here? Silk is the main item of value and quality. How many of you tourists purchase it? There is so much more to Thailand than its beaches, and its bars, but I dare say 99% of visitors and 89% of those ex-pats living in Thailand never see anything but some stinky bar and the types that cluster there to watch English football and complain about Thailand going to hell. Such a waste of energy you all are. You can put lipstick on a pig but its still a pig.

Did anyone else notice that none of the sentences in this post relate to the ones next to it? It's as if each is a completely self-contained, disconnected from the rest, like little islands of words. I like the part where he castigates the posters at large for criticizing the PMs numbers, but then says "That's the facts!" Hah!

But after several re-reads I think I can gather that this poster is offended by the willful scrutiny of the PMs comments. How dare we?

After all, numbers don't need to add up in Thailand do they? The absurdity of compelling wealthy people in far away countries to show up in Thailand and spend lots of money is irrelevant! And being "farang" and not "Super-Thai," like this cheesedick, how unbelievably insensitive is it for us to notice!

....and what the hell does the lipstick-on-a pig thing mean and how does it relate to "Such a waste of energy you all are."?

[HOOD Robin]

15.8M tourists or arrivals?

i agree for 1000% with this remark ! Those TAT incompetents (and others) really think that every arriving person is a tourist ! Probably they never heard about business people, sports people, transit persons for connecting flight, etc...).

Education ?? is a non-understandable farang word for most Thai people...

[toenail]

I think the prime minister has it wrong - but I imagine he is a 5 star traveler. Once I saw a documentary on TV showing how backpackers and the "thrifty" tourist actuallly help the local economy out more than the 4-5 star traveler. This was because the frugal trourist would get a room at a B&B or a small locally runned hotel than staying at a place that would be owned by some big corporation or international company., Next, the food would also be purchased from some "ma and pa" runned restaurant than at some chain hotel or restaurant. Also, the program I watched brought out how the young traveler is usually into learning about the culture more than the older traveler. So I always thought Thailand had it correct - to attract both kinds of tourists... (and when there were political problems in Thailand, who were the first establishments to suffer? - the international hotel chains.

[Awohalitsiktoli]

PS. Could you may be point out countries who welcome backpackers and openly say so, a link would be great! Thanks in advance once again

The United States, Australia and virtually all European countries welcome low-income travelers. They do not go out of their way to offend any income group because that is an extraordinarily stupid economic policy.

Many of these "low-life scum of the earth" (not my view but apparently the view of others) stay a long time. Because of that, they end up spending a considerable amount of money.

Rich people often stay a short time and spend good money. Do the numbers: One "low life scum of the earth packpacker" spends, perhaps, 400B/d on a budget hotel and another 400B/d on food. Lets make it easy: 1000B/day. They often stay a month (some much longer). 30 d x 1000 = 30,000 B. And that does not include RT airfaire often paid for by their not-so-poor parents back home, so lets throw in another 35000B and we get 65000B being spend by the scum over a period of 30 days.

One rich person spends, maybe, 5000B/day on a fancy hotel and 500B/mean (1500B/day minimum) and stay maybe one week and leaves. 5000 x 7 = 35000 (hotel) + 10500 (food) + RT air (35000) = 80500B. So the poor ("non-quality" person who is not wanted) scum spends 65000B and the rich ("quality person" who is wanted) person spends 80500B. Is the money spent by the poor scum backpacker insignificant?

Yes, I probably underestimated what the rich person spends. But by how much? I do not know. I think the point is valid. Poor people who stay a long time do spend a significant amount of money. The govt. should welcome them to Thailand because there is a huge tourism industry that is in place that caters to them.

Why not promote Thailand as a tourist destination for all income categories? That is what most developed countries do.

[Thai at Heart]

"Read my lips: No more Cheap Charlies!"

Somehow I didn't think that the PM actually said this. So the perception that the only qualification of quality is "cash" remains.

I still don't quite grasp how building a fancy hotel in and of itself is supposed to convince a "quality" tourist to get on a plane and come here. Any more than perhaps going to any other part of the world. Step two feet outside the front door, and you are in , yes, let's remember, Thailand with it's character, but hardly 7 star service and facilities, ubiquitous pink lighted area in nearly all the major resorts, and a distinct lack of fine dining, and high end shopping outside Bangkok.

There are some stunning hotels in this country, but that is hardly unique to Thailand. The rest of the resorts need a bit of an upgrade if they really want to focus on doing business with the higher end.

http://www.fivestaralliance.com/best-hotels/list/worlds-best-beach-resorts

http://www.grandluxuryhotels.com/collection/beach-hotels/

Nice to see Amanpuri in there.

If these are the tourists they are talking about trying to attract, you can't even get a half decent bottle of wine for a reasonable price in this country because of the tax. If they are talking 4 star family tourists, do you really think that Thailand's reputation for the sex industry is that appealing to families who think to come here on holiday?

[ding]

I used to think this guy was smart and would turn Thailand around. Well it was getting better and he's about to turn THAT around!

The only way to focus on whales is to eliminate all that makes Thailand unique. Turn it into the rest of the world... brilliant differentiation

[jimbeam1]

15.8M tourists or arrivals?

Bingo!

The Thai tourist industry has been in decline here since 2008, and the 15.8 million number includes pass-thoughs to other country destinations. Hotel occupancy rates are abysmal (ask any of them) and this latest 'focus on quality' is lip service, plain and simple. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

What can one say but spot on.

Anyone want to buy a cheap Guest house, or maybe 2-3 star hotel.

jb1

[KKK]

A good start might be taking a bulldozer through places like Pattaya. Round up all the bargirls on the streets. Quality tourists don't flock to Thailand for ladyboys and the sex industry.

.

Soft George!............. a we bit soft in the head

Or always soft in another place that would make visiting Pattaya a waste of time. Try Viagra..it might help

[KKK]

A good start might be taking a bulldozer through places like Pattaya. Round up all the bargirls on the streets. Quality tourists don't flock to Thailand for ladyboys and the sex industry.

WELL SAID

Someone's got a chip on their shoulder.

And that's more than he's got in his pants

[Jayroo]

"A smattering of Russians and no one else" was how the tourist numbers on Koh Samet were described to me yesterday. "Even the staff are getting worried", said the restaurateur of eleven years in a prime location on the island.

"Low season hasn't even begun and I've never seen it this bad, even the Scandinavians have vanished."

This is the reality and these business owners are not expecting any growth in trade for the foreseeable future, particularly now with very high oil prices on the horizon with the revolutions across the Middle East, continuing global economic turmoil and the resilient strength of the Thai Baht.

So I think they need to be concentrating on quantity. Not quite sure how you control quality unless consulate interviews are conducted to get a 30 day holiday visa.

Does Abhisit think that we back packers don't spend money?? As a matter of fact we may spend more than some of the rich and famous.

We may stay in cheaper accommodations, but that doesn't mean we don't spend money. That's OK we can spread the word very quick that we are not wanted in Thailand,

there are many countries that welcome as Backpackers with open arms.

Go ahead and welcome the Russian Mafia and the Drug peddling Africans, good luck to you Thailand.

The thing with backpackers is they act like smug little tw@ts whilst on holiday in Thailand, I do not think they spend the most money, I've been to Khao San Road a few times and see how they are so money conscious day and night haggling vendors left right and center for a few measly baht it is actually embarrassing to watch. They also think because they stay in Khao San and eat Pad Thai from a street vendor they have discovered the "real Thailand"

I hardly ever see them out in the main night clubs, and if I do they sit on one or two drink the entire night then head back to Khao San Road when they're done.

But this isn't my point, my point is good on them for being so strict with their money, it's theirs/yours in the end, this doesn't mean they are not welcome in Thailand, everyone should be welcome, working class, rich and poor, as long as they're not obnoxious a**holes like the majority of expats that live here, or scammers etc, then it's fine, every baht spent adds up at the end of the day.

[PingManDan]

"Last year Thailand received 15.8 million international tourists, generating income of Bt585 million, he said."

That averages out at a tad over 37 Baht per international visitor. Is the quoted line a typo, or are the PM's advisors/scriptwriters slacking a bit?

Anyway, sad to say that Thailand (in common with just about every other country trying to entice tourists) can't be too picky at the moment.

So true, it makes you wonder if they know what the fuc_k they're actually talking about.

If you mean the Government, then the answer is "NO"they do not know what the fuc_k they are talking about, a better question might be, do they ever know anything?

Edited March 3, 2011 by PingManDan

[al007]

Many countries have legalised sex industries, so why should there be outrage over Thailands wonderful girls and for that matter boys, only last week I saw a thai boy with his farang boyfriend driving an open top Mercedes, surely this is producing maney for thailand, think of the import tax on the car alone, that is probably well in excess of 1 million batt!!!

Backpackers many are well educated many from Eton the school where Abhisit was educated go backpacking, many from places like Oxford University again go backpacking, another British Educational Establishment that Abhisit attended

I believe today Abhisit is considered in the elite as are many of his university and old school friends, so surely backpackers are the SEED elite travellers of tomorrow, and should be loved not hated or branded as being not wanted, they may spend carefully but surely that is sound commercial sense

Thailand needs tourism, a topic on which the general consensous is yes, so get the quality resorts and facilities priced corectly and the people will come, do not just say we want them and their money; make what is available attractive

Remember many people in Thailand live on less than 5000 batt per month, so someone who spends only a small amout is making a difference

Thailand and its immigration officials are making it harder and harder for the long stay person to remain in the country, everyone yes everyone, who is here long stay is contributing some amount; even if small to the economy, there is no social security for them to take in this country, so why not encourge rather than chase away, relative to the average earner in places like Issan they make a big difference.

In the north even a modestly well off man is seen by families as a prize possesion and catch, but the government and immigration does not want many of them, but itself offers no alternative support

Then do not forget the many who have ties to Thailand who send money each month to friends and girlfriends here, many first came as backpackers

Thailand needs tourists, many families need help, there is little or no social security, do not cut off the hand that feeds you by negative attitudes to the long stay visitor, the backpacker of today maybe the wealthy of tomorrow, and do not get greedy by just saying you want the elite fast spending. GREED kills and destroys.

When hungry be grateful for even half a plate of rice, do not demand a five star resteraunt that even if offered will probably even kill the half starved person

Be positive, love Thailand and its people, stay away from negatitivy

AL007

[ding]

Thailand will do what it see as right to do, and it should. Until they find a way to get people over there at reduced air fares they won't get tourists to leap that chasm.

My .02: backpackers spread money around to Thais who really need it. Wealthy tourists would just dump cash on the hi-so's who own the big hotels - or foreign corporations. But TIT

Edited March 3, 2011 by ding

[Jayroo]

"A smattering of Russians and no one else" was how the tourist numbers on Koh Samet were described to me yesterday. "Even the staff are getting worried", said the restaurateur of eleven years in a prime location on the island.

"Low season hasn't even begun and I've never seen it this bad, even the Scandinavians have vanished."

This is the reality and these business owners are not expecting any growth in trade for the foreseeable future, particularly now with very high oil prices on the horizon with the revolutions across the Middle East, continuing global economic turmoil and the resilient strength of the Thai Baht.

So I think they need to be concentrating on quantity. Not quite sure how you control quality unless consulate interviews are conducted to get a 30 day holiday visa.

Does Abhisit think that we back packers don't spend money?? As a matter of fact we may spend more than some of the rich and famous.

We may stay in cheaper accommodations, but that doesn't mean we don't spend money. That's OK we can spread the word very quick that we are not wanted in Thailand,

there are many countries that welcome as Backpackers with open arms.

Go ahead and welcome the Russian Mafia and the Drug peddling Africans, good luck to you Thailand.

Is there s secret backpacker society who communicate with each other? and i really doubt any country is dying to have the backpackers, while countries tolerate it they certainly do not wish for it.

@kuffki

Secret society? Yes. It's called social networking!

Many countries welcome backpackers.

You're invited to my next lecture of tourism devolpment...

I am sorry but i would have to pass on a lecture of tourism development from a backpacker, much prefer to listen to lectures from educated, successful people who have travelled in class, not on the back of the horse with 1 backpack. But thank you for the offer anyhow.

PS. Could you may be point out countries who welcome backpackers and openly say so, a link would be great! Thanks in advance once again

hahahaha

[yllorco]

The article says:

"However, tourist spending per head is decreasing. Therefore, the prime minister urged all relevant organisations to focus on quality visitors, as they would bring in more income"

How does the article define "quality visitors"? Right. Quality tourists = tourists with more income. How do we know them? Is there some kind of a questionnaire asking sorts of questions such as (1) What kind of income do you have, is it passive or active? (2) Do you work for others or others work for you? (3) Which bracket do you belong, to the 90% poor or to 10% rich?

I just wonder if the article is really serious on quality rather than on quantity. I would rather redefine "quality" in tourism in terms of spending, such as "quality spenders", than quality visitors.

[KKK]

PS. Could you may be point out countries who welcome backpackers and openly say so, a link would be great! Thanks in advance once again

The United States, Australia and virtually all European countries welcome low-income travelers. They do not go out of their way to offend any income group because that is an extraordinarily stupid economic policy.

Many of these "low-life scum of the earth" (not my view but apparently the view of others) stay a long time. Because of that, they end up spending a considerable amount of money.

Rich people often stay a short time and spend good money. Do the numbers: One "low life scum of the earth packpacker" spends, perhaps, 400B/d on a budget hotel and another 400B/d on food. Lets make it easy: 1000B/day. They often stay a month (some much longer). 30 d x 1000 = 30,000 B. And that does not include RT airfaire often paid for by their not-so-poor parents back home, so lets throw in another 35000B and we get 65000B being spend by the scum over a period of 30 days.

One rich person spends, maybe, 5000B/day on a fancy hotel and 500B/mean (1500B/day minimum) and stay maybe one week and leaves. 5000 x 7 = 35000 (hotel) + 10500 (food) + RT air (35000) = 80500B. So the poor ("non-quality" person who is not wanted) scum spends 65000B and the rich ("quality person" who is wanted) person spends 80500B. Is the money spent by the poor scum backpacker insignificant?

Yes, I probably underestimated what the rich person spends. But by how much? I do not know. I think the point is valid. Poor people who stay a long time do spend a significant amount of money. The govt. should welcome them to Thailand because there is a huge tourism industry that is in place that caters to them.

Why not promote Thailand as a tourist destination for all income categories? That is what most developed countries do.

It is not just how much you spend but where you spend it and on what. Spend 5000 baht at an expensive foreign owned hotel restaurant. The steak you ate probably came from Australia or the US so had to be imported. Any profit on the meal would probably be sent out to the hotels owning country. What gets left for Thailand.....very little...a bit to pay for the staff etc. Say 10% 500 baht. Now spend 500 baht in a local restaurant on local food and beer...how much does Thailand get? 100% 500 baht. More is sometimes less.