Myanmar 'No Threat To Thai Tourism'

[Kalbo]

There really does seem to be a lot of people who would like to see Thailand get it's comeuppance, myself included.

I'm personally of the opinion that the type of people who travel to Burma will of a different set to those that Thailand tends to attract.

My prediction is that it will initially be the offspring of those that had previous colonial ties to the country that will start having holidays there, and from then on, the tourist set will expand to cover the wealthier classes. For example,I can't imagine Burma appealing to the drunk Aussie/Brit/German revellers etc in the same way that Phuket does. However, it is exactly this richer class of tourist that Thailand was hoping to attract more of, but it seems that the only thing they attracted was hordes of Indians, Russians and Chinese.

[theblether]

@simon43,

I agree re the oasis hotels, these hotels are likely to be 4 and 5 star quality, and likely to be pricey, and I say no harm in that. There is a long established pattern of how tourist areas develop, and they tend to develop around a key resort in an area of natural beauty.

I say tend, because you certainly can't say that about Las Vegas, they just dug a hole in the desert and used gambling as the draw there. I don't know if they will allow gambling and casinos in Burma?

I'll happily sit in a 5 star resort at the Burma Banks, however I think more imperative for the majority of us is the establishment of mid level guest houses and hotels in places like Rangoon. The majority of us that are interested in visiting Burma are probably quite happy to endure the chaos on the streets, as long as we know we have a clean, safe, room to put our heads down in at night.

Many of us, certainly myself, envy the Thai old hands when they tell stories of yesteryear in Thailand, dirt track roads, poor communications etc etc. Well, we have a window of opportunity to see it in Burma, and we better be quick, because in 10 years time it'll be mostly gone, and in 20 years time, all gone.

Lets go!!!!!

ps Simon, good luck with your new venture.

Edited June 25, 2012 by theblether

[simon43]

I don't know if they will allow gambling and casinos in Burma?

They exist already!

The Andaman Club

Regina Entertainment

Allure Resort

Of course, casinos tend to be owned by corrupt/mafia organisations (all over the world). But unlike Thailand, gambling is not illegal in Myanmar, and I'm sure certain types of tourist would love to gamble a million kyats....

[bangkokheat]

I would find it difficult to believe that burma or vietnam for that matter would surpass thailand for tourism without the sex industry. Recent visit to vietnam talking to a local, he tells me he believes within a few years vietnam will have a more exposed sex industry, its already there now. There is a lot of infrastructure already in place near haiphong just out from hanoi, dont know whats going on in HCMC

A more exposed sex industry than Thailand? Strewth, does that mean it will be visible from the moon?

you mean they have gogo bars etc same as pattaya? I have led a sheltered life

[bigbamboo]

So much will depend on how Burma's tourist industry develops and how it is regulated of course but Thailand should not be complacent. Burma will offer something new and exciting compared to old hat Thailand, offering unseen places to explore and pristine beaches in the 'Land of Aung Sung Suu Kyi'.... the region's own interntationally admired heroine and whose smile is real.

Of course it will take time and Thailand will retain it's number one position because Burma will primarily aim for the genuine travellers and high end market not the sex tourists.

Edited June 25, 2012 by bigbamboo

[theblether]

I don't know if they will allow gambling and casinos in Burma?

They exist already!

The Andaman Club

Regina Entertainment

Allure Resort

Of course, casinos tend to be owned by corrupt/mafia organisations (all over the world). But unlike Thailand, gambling is not illegal in Myanmar, and I'm sure certain types of tourist would love to gamble a million kyats....

There you go then, although they do tend to be owned by shady characters, so was Las Vegas. If they have the wits to create a Las Vegas in Burma they will clean up.

[Theyreallrubbish]

I don't understand how so many people can confidently proclaim that Burma will take a higher road than Thailand in its development. "They won't allow a Pattaya"

Unless I'm hideously misinformed on the political and economic situation in Burma, I don't see it.

There is no shortage of Burmese prostitutes in Thailand, so we know the supply of willing sex workers is there.

I know first hand that the wealthy in Thailand have been preparing for the opening of Burma for years and this has involved cosying up to the powerful there, so the corruption of local officials has already started and the people who profit from the sin industries in Thailand are going to take the same moral outlook with them.

Poor countries put morality behind necessity, and Burma is desperately poor. The idea that desperately poor Burmese families and young women won't make the same calculation that many in Thailand have that $30 for a few hours sex in an air-conditioned hotel room is a better deal than $3 for 12 hours labor in a field or factory, doesn't seem likely.

The central government doesn't have complete control of much of the country. We're not talking about China or even Vietnam here. The government in Bangkok has enough trouble controlling its provinces, yet people think Rangoon can impose total control on local elites throughout the country? Doesn't seem likely to me.

So although it would be nice if Burma adopted a well developed, well thought out, sustainable and morally uplifting development of its tourist industry, I don't see it happening. I see the same chaotic mishmash as in Thailand with the same mix of target tourists, back packers, sex tourists, families and wealthy, with the easiest and cheapest and first to have facilities constructed for them being the backpackers and sex tourists.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Burmese government will somehow become like the SIngaporean government and be able to administer and control its large country the same way the government of SIngapore can its city state, but I doubt it.

[Gimbo]

In addition you have the Burmese diaspora that will start to return home. A lot of them educated people, with kids who has by now recieved a western education, and will speak not only

English, but also the language of their host country. There are thousands of them in Norway allone. And they are well liked and respected as hard working people. The Norwegians will come there for sure, but we are not as many to make an impact....

[theblether]

I don't understand how so many people can confidently proclaim that Burma will take a higher road than Thailand in its development. "They won't allow a Pattaya"

Unless I'm hideously misinformed on the political and economic situation in Burma, I don't see it.

There is no shortage of Burmese prostitutes in Thailand, so we know the supply of willing sex workers is there.

I know first hand that the wealthy in Thailand have been preparing for the opening of Burma for years and this has involved cosying up to the powerful there, so the corruption of local officials has already started and the people who profit from the sin industries in Thailand are going to take the same moral outlook with them.

Poor countries put morality behind necessity, and Burma is desperately poor. The idea that desperately poor Burmese families and young women won't make the same calculation that many in Thailand have that $30 for a few hours sex in an air-conditioned hotel room is a better deal than $3 for 12 hours labor in a field or factory, doesn't seem likely.

The central government doesn't have complete control of much of the country. We're not talking about China or even Vietnam here. The government in Bangkok has enough trouble controlling its provinces, yet people think Rangoon can impose total control on local elites throughout the country? Doesn't seem likely to me.

So although it would be nice if Burma adopted a well developed, well thought out, sustainable and morally uplifting development of its tourist industry, I don't see it happening. I see the same chaotic mishmash as in Thailand with the same mix of target tourists, back packers, sex tourists, families and wealthy, with the easiest and cheapest and first to have facilities constructed for them being the backpackers and sex tourists.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Burmese government will somehow become like the SIngaporean government and be able to administer and control its large country the same way the government of SIngapore can its city state, but I doubt it.

No one is pretending their won't be any prostitution, of course there will. But the Burmese are not blind or stupid. They know the negative effect Pattaya has had on Thailand. So yes you'll get street girls, karaoke bars, knocking shops etc, but you won't get an entire coastal town built on it.

You can gaurantee that.

[Tanaka]

Quote// Myanmar is still far behind Thailand in development. Its infrastructure, such as road network, electricity and sanitation, is still poor. Hotel standards are not good. People working in the industry from chef to tour guide lack professionalism. Also, the hospitality of the local people leaves much to be desired, especially concerning unfair service//Unquote

I thought he was talking about Thailand here.

[swillowbee]

... a key issue cited above is lack of Burmese infrastructure:

1. The authentic Indochina travel experience is far more appealing to an increasing percentage of travellers, than in the past. That roughness of travel in Burma will in itself pull a measureable number of tourists, and serve to actually increase their resident time in country.
   
2. Times have changed. The international capital market's and construction companies' ability to mobilize into emerging markets is far, far improved over even the 1990's. If the Burmese government is prepared to receive tourist infrastructure improvements, this will happen faster in Burma than any place in history. Watch for it.
   
3. When Yangon's air travel system is upgraded to accept long-haul flights, Bangkok will no longer have the Gateway to Indochina monopoly they covet. Bangkok might then be reduced to a notional tourist stop, amongst other standard fare.
   

... separate from the tourist infrastructure adequacy, Burma's tourist offer will bury Thailand ... most of what Thailand offered in decades past has sadly fallen into decay due to Thai failures to marshall their resources, natural, cultural and social ... while there remains quality tourist venues here, you now have to search them out ... very high quality tourist sites are ubiquitous in Burma ... no competition.

Edited June 25, 2012 by swillowbee

[theblether]

I do have to agree you will never see a Pattaya in Burma, at least not called Pattaya. More likely be "New Blackpool" or "New Littlehampton" or some-such.

To say that this will never happen in a country like Burma is, IMO, pretty naive or tends towards wishful thinking. When the Junta is dissolved (and this will happen if Burma wants to seriously compete in the tourism game) what makes you think that the "elected" government will not be party to "handouts" and under the table dealings? Because it was once a British interest? Don't think so.

I can foresee the backpackers seeking the opium pipes, making a rut in the landscape. A couple of islands dedicated to full moon parties. As soon as the locals see the money to be gained from the tourists (there are enough of them working legally & illegally in Thailand at the moment to make this short term) then the tourists will be exploited.

Burma is a beautiful country, rich in both natural resources and tourist attractions. Beaches and mountain retreats which are out of this world. With an entire population that has been kept in poverty and ignorance for decades.

Any of the above sound familiar? Hope I'm wrong, but wait and see!

To paraphrase Chris, the junta when it "dissolves", it may not be in government, but it will still be in power.

The future of Burma ( at least in the medium term ) will be a fine balance between nominal democracy and military oversight. There is no possibility of a free democracy with a subservient military in the near future. No chance.

If and when there is a democratic government in place, they will have to manoeuvre around in the space allocated to them by the military. That should sound familiar to you.

Genuine question for all of you, I haven't visited Laos, Cambodia, or Vietnam, do they have anything comparable to Pattaya? I won't comment on things I don't know about however I believe I've read that the respective governments have tried hard to prevent a spread of the sex tourist contagion?

Genuine questions, I don't know the answers, no doubt some of you will.

[edwinclapham]

I do have to agree you will never see a Pattaya in Burma, at least not called Pattaya. More likely be "New Blackpool" or "New Littlehampton" or some-such.

To say that this will never happen in a country like Burma is, IMO, pretty naive or tends towards wishful thinking. When the Junta is dissolved (and this will happen if Burma wants to seriously compete in the tourism game) what makes you think that the "elected" government will not be party to "handouts" and under the table dealings? Because it was once a British interest? Don't think so.

I can foresee the backpackers seeking the opium pipes, making a rut in the landscape. A couple of islands dedicated to full moon parties. As soon as the locals see the money to be gained from the tourists (there are enough of them working legally & illegally in Thailand at the moment to make this short term) then the tourists will be exploited.

Burma is a beautiful country, rich in both natural resources and tourist attractions. Beaches and mountain retreats which are out of this world. With an entire population that has been kept in poverty and ignorance for decades.

Any of the above sound familiar? Hope I'm wrong, but wait and see!

To paraphrase Chris, the junta when it "dissolves", it may not be in government, but it will still be in power.

The future of Burma ( at least in the medium term ) will be a fine balance between nominal democracy and military oversight. There is no possibility of a free democracy with a subservient military in the near future. No chance.

If and when there is a democratic government in place, they will have to manoeuvre around in the space allocated to them by the military. That should sound familiar to you.

Genuine question for all of you, I haven't visited Laos, Cambodia, or Vietnam, do they have anything comparable to Pattaya? I won't comment on things I don't know about however I believe I've read that the respective governments have tried hard to prevent a spread of the sex tourist contagion?

Genuine questions, I don't know the answers, no doubt some of you will.

Knowing all three countries, I would say No. Yes they all have their seedy parts but there isnt anything like Pattaya.

Edited to add.. There are some wonderful areas of Pattaya, therefore it appears very unfair to blag it. Being a resident there would be another ball game altogether I would imagine.

Edited June 25, 2012 by edwinclapham

[Reasonableman]

I don't understand how so many people can confidently proclaim that Burma will take a higher road than Thailand in its development. "They won't allow a Pattaya"

Unless I'm hideously misinformed on the political and economic situation in Burma, I don't see it.

There is no shortage of Burmese prostitutes in Thailand, so we know the supply of willing sex workers is there.

I know first hand that the wealthy in Thailand have been preparing for the opening of Burma for years and this has involved cosying up to the powerful there, so the corruption of local officials has already started and the people who profit from the sin industries in Thailand are going to take the same moral outlook with them.

Poor countries put morality behind necessity, and Burma is desperately poor. The idea that desperately poor Burmese families and young women won't make the same calculation that many in Thailand have that $30 for a few hours sex in an air-conditioned hotel room is a better deal than $3 for 12 hours labor in a field or factory, doesn't seem likely.

The central government doesn't have complete control of much of the country. We're not talking about China or even Vietnam here. The government in Bangkok has enough trouble controlling its provinces, yet people think Rangoon can impose total control on local elites throughout the country? Doesn't seem likely to me.

So although it would be nice if Burma adopted a well developed, well thought out, sustainable and morally uplifting development of its tourist industry, I don't see it happening. I see the same chaotic mishmash as in Thailand with the same mix of target tourists, back packers, sex tourists, families and wealthy, with the easiest and cheapest and first to have facilities constructed for them being the backpackers and sex tourists.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Burmese government will somehow become like the SIngaporean government and be able to administer and control its large country the same way the government of SIngapore can its city state, but I doubt it.

No one is pretending their won't be any prostitution, of course there will. But the Burmese are not blind or stupid. They know the negative effect Pattaya has had on Thailand. So yes you'll get street girls, karaoke bars, knocking shops etc, but you won't get an entire coastal town built on it.

You can gaurantee that.

Especially if its built around a modern cathedral, a Las Vegas-style casino.

[kerryk]

I do have to agree you will never see a Pattaya in Burma, at least not called Pattaya. More likely be "New Blackpool" or "New Littlehampton" or some-such.

To say that this will never happen in a country like Burma is, IMO, pretty naive or tends towards wishful thinking. When the Junta is dissolved (and this will happen if Burma wants to seriously compete in the tourism game) what makes you think that the "elected" government will not be party to "handouts" and under the table dealings? Because it was once a British interest? Don't think so.

I can foresee the backpackers seeking the opium pipes, making a rut in the landscape. A couple of islands dedicated to full moon parties. As soon as the locals see the money to be gained from the tourists (there are enough of them working legally & illegally in Thailand at the moment to make this short term) then the tourists will be exploited.

Burma is a beautiful country, rich in both natural resources and tourist attractions. Beaches and mountain retreats which are out of this world. With an entire population that has been kept in poverty and ignorance for decades.

Any of the above sound familiar? Hope I'm wrong, but wait and see!

To paraphrase Chris, the junta when it "dissolves", it may not be in government, but it will still be in power.

The future of Burma ( at least in the medium term ) will be a fine balance between nominal democracy and military oversight. There is no possibility of a free democracy with a subservient military in the near future. No chance.

If and when there is a democratic government in place, they will have to manoeuvre around in the space allocated to them by the military. That should sound familiar to you.

Genuine question for all of you, I haven't visited Laos, Cambodia, or Vietnam, do they have anything comparable to Pattaya? I won't comment on things I don't know about however I believe I've read that the respective governments have tried hard to prevent a spread of the sex tourist contagion?

Genuine questions, I don't know the answers, no doubt some of you will.

Saigon used to be worse than Pattaya. Or better depending on your point of view. But then the Americans got there and there was operation Moosehead or something like that and cleaned up the place. The hookers even marched in large numbers downtown but to no avail.

I do remember one of the first women I met a while back in Bangkok was from Burma. And if you read about the British army stories a hundred years ago Burma was the place for a soldier. Kipling for one wrote about it.

40 years ago it was a tossup between Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Bangkok. Toyko had been in the running but soon got too expensive and weird. My guess would be that Thailand will serve as the conduit for South East Asian women upwardly adjusting their incomes in the future.

[kerryk]

I don't understand how so many people can confidently proclaim that Burma will take a higher road than Thailand in its development. "They won't allow a Pattaya"

Unless I'm hideously misinformed on the political and economic situation in Burma, I don't see it.

There is no shortage of Burmese prostitutes in Thailand, so we know the supply of willing sex workers is there.

I know first hand that the wealthy in Thailand have been preparing for the opening of Burma for years and this has involved cosying up to the powerful there, so the corruption of local officials has already started and the people who profit from the sin industries in Thailand are going to take the same moral outlook with them.

Poor countries put morality behind necessity, and Burma is desperately poor. The idea that desperately poor Burmese families and young women won't make the same calculation that many in Thailand have that $30 for a few hours sex in an air-conditioned hotel room is a better deal than $3 for 12 hours labor in a field or factory, doesn't seem likely.

The central government doesn't have complete control of much of the country. We're not talking about China or even Vietnam here. The government in Bangkok has enough trouble controlling its provinces, yet people think Rangoon can impose total control on local elites throughout the country? Doesn't seem likely to me.

So although it would be nice if Burma adopted a well developed, well thought out, sustainable and morally uplifting development of its tourist industry, I don't see it happening. I see the same chaotic mishmash as in Thailand with the same mix of target tourists, back packers, sex tourists, families and wealthy, with the easiest and cheapest and first to have facilities constructed for them being the backpackers and sex tourists.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Burmese government will somehow become like the SIngaporean government and be able to administer and control its large country the same way the government of SIngapore can its city state, but I doubt it.

No one is pretending their won't be any prostitution, of course there will. But the Burmese are not blind or stupid. They know the negative effect Pattaya has had on Thailand. So yes you'll get street girls, karaoke bars, knocking shops etc, but you won't get an entire coastal town built on it.

You can gaurantee that.

Especially if its built around a modern cathedral, a Las Vegas-style casino.

Might want to check out "The Hall of Mirrors" They had 1200 employees. Some things were better way back when.

[Docno]

All I see here is a lot of naivete combined with the typical Thailand bashing. I think it will be a miracle if Myanmar turns out the way some people seem to be envisioning it, best of intentions there may be. It's an incredibly poor country that's been largely cut off from outside exposure. The Cambodians suffered this (in more of an extreme) for 5-15 years, depending on your evaluation of the Vietnamese occupation, so maybe it's the better comparison that no-one seems to be making.

We see, over and over again, that when a country emerges from iron-fist military rule it is often like taking the lid off an over-heated pot of water ... things boil over, and we see dynamics and nastiness we were previous blind too (ethnic conflict etc). When this is combined with the introduction of free-market reforms, and when the country is very poor, we often see a spike in crime and corruption. Some people--and there exist these people in all nations--see the opportunities to make a quick buck, and they'll do anything and everything to make it rich while the 'going is good'. Again, think of Cambodia... and think of what a horrible mess Siem Reap has become in the past 10 years.

Oh, and like many of you, I've done some travelling in Myanmar previously. Yes, the average person was very nice, and the level of English surpasses that of the Thais, but there is also corruption and crime and a thriving black-market (who hasn't done a money exchange in a side aisle of Bogyoke Market. In fact, a good friend was scammed out of some money shortly after arriving there, which didn't leave a good taste in the mouth.

Also, there has always been a flourishing sex industry there (or in Yangon at least). Bars full of working girls can be found, though fortunately no Patpongs, and when you have "rich" foreigners going into a country mired in poverty, there's a good chance that the sex industry will explode (as it did in Cambodia). This is especially likely when you combine the tolerance of Theravadan Buddhism with the introduction of Western capitalism and the simple temptation of the money that can be earned (by both the girls and the people who sometimes exploit them).

I really hope I'm overly cynical and the people here (and there) are not being naive. But I'm not going to place any money with the 'rosey future' contingent....

[malee81]

As someone who works in the travel and tourism industry, Thailand certainly does need to take notice and they must work at improving their image. Whilst there are lots of great tour operators and hotels in Thailand who provide a great service, there is an undeniably large number of rogue operators who rip tourists off and get away with it. TAT needs to work on their communications and reporting and accountability. They must admit there is a problem, as it's blindingly obvious to anyone working in this industry.

As for Myanmar, I only hope that the recent visits regarding establishing a Responsible Tourism policy come to fruition.

Anyone interested in the progress being made in Myanmar can keep up to date here:

http://haroldgoodwin.info/blog/?p=2332

[Theyreallrubbish]

I don't understand how so many people can confidently proclaim that Burma will take a higher road than Thailand in its development. "They won't allow a Pattaya"

Unless I'm hideously misinformed on the political and economic situation in Burma, I don't see it.

There is no shortage of Burmese prostitutes in Thailand, so we know the supply of willing sex workers is there.

I know first hand that the wealthy in Thailand have been preparing for the opening of Burma for years and this has involved cosying up to the powerful there, so the corruption of local officials has already started and the people who profit from the sin industries in Thailand are going to take the same moral outlook with them.

Poor countries put morality behind necessity, and Burma is desperately poor. The idea that desperately poor Burmese families and young women won't make the same calculation that many in Thailand have that $30 for a few hours sex in an air-conditioned hotel room is a better deal than $3 for 12 hours labor in a field or factory, doesn't seem likely.

The central government doesn't have complete control of much of the country. We're not talking about China or even Vietnam here. The government in Bangkok has enough trouble controlling its provinces, yet people think Rangoon can impose total control on local elites throughout the country? Doesn't seem likely to me.

So although it would be nice if Burma adopted a well developed, well thought out, sustainable and morally uplifting development of its tourist industry, I don't see it happening. I see the same chaotic mishmash as in Thailand with the same mix of target tourists, back packers, sex tourists, families and wealthy, with the easiest and cheapest and first to have facilities constructed for them being the backpackers and sex tourists.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Burmese government will somehow become like the SIngaporean government and be able to administer and control its large country the same way the government of SIngapore can its city state, but I doubt it.

No one is pretending their won't be any prostitution, of course there will. But the Burmese are not blind or stupid. They know the negative effect Pattaya has had on Thailand. So yes you'll get street girls, karaoke bars, knocking shops etc, but you won't get an entire coastal town built on it.

You can gaurantee that.

How can you guarantee it? What evidence do you have that the government is able to prevent it, or even really wants to?

Ever gone to Techileck? One of the main entry points to Burma and the first thing you encounter are crowds of men offering you women. And its getting worse than it used to be.

I imagine that what has been happening there is a microcosm of what will be happening everywhere in Burma when there are large numbers of wallets walking around

[theblether]

How can you guarantee it? What evidence do you have that the government is able to prevent it, or even really wants to?

Ever gone to Techileck? One of the main entry points to Burma and the first thing you encounter are crowds of men offering you women. And its getting worse than it used to be.

I imagine that what has been happening there is a microcosm of what will be happening everywhere in Burma when there are large numbers of wallets walking around

Listen boss, Techilek is just about the worst example you could have come up with

Techilek is nothing more than a "dry land port"..............I've never seen a port anywhere that wasn't swarming with hookers, and I've already stated that prostitution will exist in Burma, of course it will.

It doesn't follow though that the government or military will sanction an industrial scale copy of Pattaya, that town is regarded as an example of what not to do, and I will lay you odds that the idea of creating a new Pattaya on the Andaman is way down in the list of Aung San Suu Kyi's priorities.

There's a big difference between a tail swinging a leg and a government sanctioned Sodom and Gommorrah.

[Payboy]

Well, at least one thing's for certain - Bamrung Amnartcharoenrit has nevery been to Myanmar.

[Tomtomtom69]

@Bagwan, the US doesn't invest in infrastructure overseas anymore, except for the occasional NGO or aid support project; the US can barely upgrade its own infrastructure - China has the money and China is the country that has and will continue to change Myanmar, for better or for worse. Incidentally, China is poised to do the same in Thailand with its proposed Kunming-Singapore high-speed rail link. Only Thailand's political troubles are standing in the way, for now.

As for that thoughtless comment in the article about Myanmar's service standards "leaving much to be desired" couldn't be further from the truth and frankly, is quite insulting to Myanmar. For starters, when I went to Myanmar (I've been there 5 times, although only twice did I fly in to Yangon; my other three "trips" were border runs from Thailand), the people were incredibly friendly and would converse with me freely in a way no Thai would ever do unless they wanted money from you - Myanmar was thus a refreshing break from Thailand, a country which has been done to death on the tourist trail. Myanmar, on the other hand, had relatively few tourists and it was possible to visit Shwedagon, the Burmese equivalent of the Grand Palace, and only see one other westerner! Imagine the Grand Palace with no foreign tourists - the place would be practically empty!

Given the number of scandals in Thailand recently that have affected tourists and just the huge number of visitors in general, naturally quite a few Thais working in the tourism industry and dealing on a daily basis with the nuisances of tourists have become jaded. The so-called "Thai smile" is really just a marketing gimmick - whenever I receive a "Thai smile" I usually respond with a frown; Thai smiles these days are so fake, and besides, how special can the 20 millionth foreigner that will visit Thailand this year really be? There is nothing really special about visiting Thailand anymore. Gone are the days when kids would run up to you and say "hello", those kind of experiences can still be had in China, but in Thailand, the Asian home of the sex industry, full moon parties and Khao San Road? Hardly...even off the beaten track, you will never be the first or only foreigner in the area.

Myanmar has a lot to gain from opening up and with increased connectivity to the rest of the world (Qatar Airways will start service to Yangon soon), it can gain an understanding of what to do/what not to do regarding this increased openness. All it needs to do is look at Thailand and other nearby countries for guidance.

As many other commentors have mentioned, I believe Myanmar can regain its crown and potentially unseat Thailand as the jewel in the crown of tourism and with its many other advantages including proximity to both China and India, a well educated workforce, many English speakers and very low wages - it doesn't necessarily have to take very long for all these changes to happen.

[Tomtomtom69]

@theblether, if you haven't been to Laos, Cambodia or Vietnam, go!! They are absolutely awesome countries to travel in, and refreshingly different to Thailand, or perhaps not, depending on your viewpoint.

To answer your question, there is absolutely nothing like Pattaya, or Patpong or Patong etc. in Laos or Vietnam - in Cambodia there are some smaller versions in Phnom Penh and Siem Reap though. Pattaya (and other bar districts in Thailand) have such a reputation amongst the Vietnamese, Chinese etc. that they make an immediate connection whenever they hear the word "Thailand" and associate it with sex and huge throngs of tourists, sleeze etc. and use this as a reason to either travel to those parts of Thailand, or avoid them altogether, because there is absolutely nothing even remotely similar to the open Thai sex industry in Vietnam or Laos and in China it looks quite different to Thailand too.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Tomtomtom69

[waza]

Tourism in Thailand has peaked. But dont worry Thailand will still get the scraps from Myanmar's future tourist industry, Bank Guy says.

[IsaanUSA]

Personally, if I was younger and unmarried, I would be beating a path over there as I think that the sleeping tiger is just awakening and will, in a few years, give Thailand a real shock. They may even make their visas more attractive to retirees and others?

What does this mean? What benefit does a younger and unmarried person (like myself) gain over an older or a married person?

[Asiantravel]

Tourism in Thailand has peaked. But dont worry Thailand will still get the scraps from Myanmar's future tourist industry, Bank Guy says.

and as the tourist numbers start to slowly fall the prices in Thailand will increase

even more due the application of the unique " Thaieconomics "

[theblether]

@theblether, if you haven't been to Laos, Cambodia or Vietnam, go!! They are absolutely awesome countries to travel in, and refreshingly different to Thailand, or perhaps not, depending on your viewpoint.

To answer your question, there is absolutely nothing like Pattaya, or Patpong or Patong etc. in Laos or Vietnam - in Cambodia there are some smaller versions in Phnom Penh and Siem Reap though. Pattaya (and other bar districts in Thailand) have such a reputation amongst the Vietnamese, Chinese etc. that they make an immediate connection whenever they hear the word "Thailand" and associate it with sex and huge throngs of tourists, sleeze etc. and use this as a reason to either travel to those parts of Thailand, or avoid them altogether, because there is absolutely nothing even remotely similar to the open Thai sex industry in Vietnam or Laos and in China it looks quite different to Thailand too.

Thanks very much, yes I've spent some time in China, I keep trying to get to the three countries mentioned but something always crops up. The good news for me is that the airline I fly with, Emirates, now do a daily flight into Vietnam, and that's where I'll be flying into at Christmas, and working my way back.

You have confirmed what I had understood to be the case, the word Pattaya has spread across all SE Asia, and no other country wants a resort of that sort. I do remember reading a report about the Burmese attitude over a year ago, however unless I can provide a link, it's useless, so forget I said that.

[theblether]

Personally, if I was younger and unmarried, I would be beating a path over there as I think that the sleeping tiger is just awakening and will, in a few years, give Thailand a real shock. They may even make their visas more attractive to retirees and others?

What does this mean? What benefit does a younger and unmarried person (like myself) gain over an older or a married person?

If you can't work that out for yourself, maybe you shouldn't go

Edited June 25, 2012 by theblether

[hellodolly]

Controversially!!!!!..............I agree for now.................however!!!!.................complacency will undo Thailand.

In the medium to long term Burma will build the infrastructure required to damage Thai tourism, that will take time though. Thailand should be using that time to ensure that they are giving better customer service and a better product to tourists, in preparation for certain competition.

We know that's what they should be doing, we also know there is no chance of Thailand doing that. There will be trouble ahead.

Also the service that is available in Thailand will become harder to find as The Burmese return to their homeland. There will be a large shortage of workers. For every two Burmese that leave the work force they will need three to replace them. Maybe 4

Yes it will take time for the Burmese to get set up but in the mean time Thailand will do nothing to prepare for it.

Edited June 25, 2012 by hellodolly

[ManInSurat]

Controversially!!!!!..............I agree for now.................however!!!!.................complacency will undo Thailand.

In the medium to long term Burma will build the infrastructure required to damage Thai tourism, that will take time though. Thailand should be using that time to ensure that they are giving better customer service and a better product to tourists, in preparation for certain competition.

We know that's what they should be doing, we also know there is no chance of Thailand doing that. There will be trouble ahead.

Also the service that is available in Thailand will become harder to find as The Burmese return to their homeland. There will be a large shortage of workers. For every two Burmese that leave the work force they will need three to replace them. Maybe 4

Yes it will take time for the Burmese to get set up but in the mean time Thailand will do nothing to prepare for it.

Not to mention the cost of having to pay a Thai the legal minimum wage, compared to what the Burmese get.

That's quite a good point mate. It's not like they can draw on migrant workers from other places in the region either. The Burmese are their last "modern day slave labourers" to use some artistic lisence.

Also when you start to have all the menial jobs in your country taken over by underpaid migrant workers, your own population starts to become disinterested in that job and views it as "beneath" them.

It's going to be analogous to the Mexicans flooding back over the border from Arizona, New Mexico and the southern states, leaving crops unpicked and large corporations out of pocket.

I can see that happening, maybe not for a while, but it's a definite possibility.

Edited June 25, 2012 by ManInSurat