Ministry Of Tourism Considering Yingluck's ' Thai Maldives' Proposal

[Sing_Sling]

The beach in Hua HIn is an embarrassment. I remember when it was clean, but I wouldn't swim there now. There's garbage all over the place. They need to put in garbage cans and washrooms, and clean the beach regularly. That would do more for tourism than the next mega fun park.

Thailand should create a new visa class for English teachers so they can tutor independently or work part-time without being thrown in jail. If Thailand did this, non-English-speaking falangs could come here to study cheaply, as well as Thais. More foreigners here spending money, more high-quality, low-cost English education. Two birds, one stone.

I won't hold my breath, though.

How about having stricter entry and work standards for these so-called 'teachers', like a BA in the appropriate field as the minimum requirement?

What exactly is Yingluck's Maldives proposal. Clean up the beaches, clear away all the jet ski, time share and other scamsters, increase prices by 500% and them scuttle Thailand, so it sinks to the bottom of the ocean but she will take away 1 billion baht in cash, gold and shares and run away to Dubai.

At least you're sticking with facts and not ranting

[Sing_Sling]

These clowns live in a dream world. If you want beautiful pristine beaches with rolling surf you will have to pay for it and go to Australia.

If Australian quarantine officials came to Thailand they would immediately rope off the gulf from Chumpon in the South all the way up and around the gulf to Rayong as bio hazard area.

Here is something that may be of interest to you . . . from today's SMH (not sure if it is permissible to post a link:

There are more than five pieces of rubbish per person littering Australia's coastline, according to a national survey of the country's beaches, islands and coastal plateaus.

The 18-month project by CSIRO, which surveyed Australia's 35,000-kilometre coastline to measure marine debris and its impact on sea life, calculated 5.2 pieces of rubbish per person in Australia.

Seventy-four per cent of marine debris was plastic. Cigarette butts, plastic bags and drink containers were common, and about two per cent of litter was fishing line used by recreational anglers.

Of course I'm not suggesting that we are on the same level as Thailand but we shouldn't wear rose-coloured glasses when looking at ourselves either . . . and if you take into account that we are a very sparsely populated country with a massive shoreline the news looks even less pretty for us

Edited June 6, 2013 by Sing_Sling

[gerrythepoet]

High end tourists do not mind getting ripped off, they pay the tuk tuks, the police whoever or whatever and then without it getting into the papers they never return. The assumption seems to be there will always be another "high end" to supplement the loss. Greed begets greed and this Govt sure are greedy.

[Tomtomtom69]

Why is it that Thailand never seems to get enough tourists according to the TAT and government? I thought 21 million would be more enough. Or maybe they need 500 million a year before they're satisfied? I'd like to see how the average Thai would react to this many tourists, which would mean you'd be seeing Russian and Chinese tours staying overnight in Nakorn nowhere to see some boring Buddha statue, only because all the mainstream sights are so full of tourists all the hotels are booked out.<br /><br />When it comes to eco-tourism on Andaman islands, that's something for the unspoilt islands of Myanmar and the government there to consider I would think.<br /><br />When it comes to tourism, Thailand clearly doesn't know it's limits.

[thaibeachlovers]

They are already trying to attract the high spending tourist to Pattaya by removing as many bars from sight as possible and building expensive trendy hotels.

However, I have never seen so few tourists here. Most bars and shops are empty of tourists. The only increase in tourists that I have seen are package tour Asians and they stay in a few hotels, shop at Mike and never hang out in the bars.

Lots of Russians, but they stay in their South Pattaya ghetto for the main part, and also, do not hang out in bars much.

IMO, this is down to the broken infrastructure, filthy beach and the dangerous traffic, plus the usual problems.

Attracting the monied tourist in significant numbers will require a massive investment in infrastructure and law enforcement that I for one doubt Thai businessmen and politicians are willing to make.

[thaibeachlovers]

The beach in Hua HIn is an embarrassment. I remember when it was clean, but I wouldn't swim there now. There's garbage all over the place. They need to put in garbage cans and washrooms, and clean the beach regularly. That would do more for tourism than the next mega fun park.

Thailand should create a new visa class for English teachers so they can tutor independently or work part-time without being thrown in jail. If Thailand did this, non-English-speaking falangs could come here to study cheaply, as well as Thais. More foreigners here spending money, more high-quality, low-cost English education. Two birds, one stone.

I won't hold my breath, though.

I'll never go back to Hua Hin, and will tell anyone not to go there.

Completely encroached beach south of the town, filthy beach north of the town, dangerous traffic on narrow streets and that monstrous big hotel ruining the view. A good example of how NOT to do it .

[itchybum]

Thailand will introduce eco-tourism

&lt;deleted&gt;...you do not 'introduce' eco tourism, you either have it, or you do not.

What a larf this place is, just gets better day by day.;

[Sing_Sling]

Thailand will introduce eco-tourism

&lt;deleted&gt;...you do not 'introduce' eco tourism, you either have it, or you do not.

What a larf this place is, just gets better day by day.;

Well, for eco-tourism to start the right conditions must be set, so to be fair eco-tourism MUST be introduced or you'll just have the usual free-for-all trampling of be-sandaled feet doing their thing.

[thaibeachlovers]

Studies have shown that backpackers contribute more to a local economy than high end tourists. Why? Because high end tourists spend their money at high end resorts which are usually controlled by a foreign company and profits are repatriated. In Thailand, the elite are usually partnered with the Mariotts, Sheratons and so on ... I can see how they would like to use tax money to promote high end tourism. I wish they would be as innovative with the education system.

I've seen one study from Israel that backs this assertion and it is adopted by Australia without researching its own numbers . . . I'm in the tourism industry and have heard this assertion a few times here now but just can't find any studies to back it up for Thailand.

If you have any, as you claim, then I'd be thankful for some links - seems others I have asked have not responded.

It's true that backpackers tend to stay longer . . . but they also spend much, much less . . . if you extrapolate the information then you need to add the factor of tourists (as distinct to backpackers for this discussion) coming and going (replacement/continuous income) while the backpacker stays . . . it's not a one-on-one comparison.

I don't think anyone is saying that the backpacker will be turned away at the border, so why the angst about wishing to address more affluent tourists?

The angst is because the more investment in high end accomodation, the more the push to drive out low end places. This is seen clearly in Pattaya where dozens of trendy hotels have been and are being built and it is now hard to find places under 600 baht.

Backpackers and low end tourists stay in hundreds of cheap hotels that employ thousands of staff, while the lesser number of high end tourists results in a reduced amount of local employment, as cheap Charlies and backpackers no longer come. This is plainly seen in Pattaya, where farang visitors are down more than I have ever seen before.

You can have your affluent tourist, but if the cheap accomodation goes, the backpacker goes as well. This is very evident on Samui, where I doubt many backpackers stay any more.

[thaibeachlovers]

Plod's on the job - so look out for some really out of the box thinking!

Seriously, Thialand is a fanatastic country, with a wonderful culture, amazing cuisine and varied geography. Successive governments have allowed all this to be screwed up - corruption, mismanagement, crime etc. Yet, even with all the ills, 90% of the people I know who've holidayed here loved it! Just imagine, if a government addressed the real problems .............. but this government certainly won't.

Fully agree. Thailand could be a hub for so many things but it just can't because of corruption on an industrial scale. Burma is about to go nuts (business wise) and Thailand is in the prime position to jog on with it, will they? No.

If Burma gets it right, Thailand will be left with hundreds of thousands of empty hotel rooms, and wondering why ( probably blame the farang! ).

[itchybum]

Thailand will introduce eco-tourism

&lt;deleted&gt;...you do not 'introduce' eco tourism, you either have it, or you do not.

What a larf this place is, just gets better day by day.;

Well, for eco-tourism to start the right conditions must be set, so to be fair eco-tourism MUST be introduced or you'll just have the usual free-for-all trampling of be-sandaled feet doing their thing.

The Thai model is to decide, yes we will have eco tourism, no lets start it on all the islands and turn them into eco resorts and parks n stuff.

Not how it works.

You have a pristine area, you preserve it.

No such monster in this country.

[thaibeachlovers]

Oh my lord......

30 years too late on this one I fear.

Spot on.

Thailand is a paradise lost I'm afraid.

Now Burma is another matter...........

Same thing will happen there.

Remember what Agent Smith from The Matrix said about humans.

I certainly do, and looking at the news any day of the week, he could be right!

[Sing_Sling]

Thailand will introduce eco-tourism

&lt;deleted&gt;...you do not 'introduce' eco tourism, you either have it, or you do not.

What a larf this place is, just gets better day by day.;

Well, for eco-tourism to start the right conditions must be set, so to be fair eco-tourism MUST be introduced or you'll just have the usual free-for-all trampling of be-sandaled feet doing their thing.

The Thai model is to decide, yes we will have eco tourism, no lets start it on all the islands and turn them into eco resorts and parks n stuff.

Not how it works.

You have a pristine area, you preserve it.

No such monster in this country.

I am reserving the benefit of the doubt that there was rational thinking behind this announcement! (Yes, yes - call me a fool)

You're quite right, though, if there are still pristine areas in Thailand they need to be preserved and managed correctly before being unleashed on Steve, Joaquin, Igor, Franz, Abdul and Chong Fing

[Sing_Sling]

Studies have shown that backpackers contribute more to a local economy than high end tourists. Why? Because high end tourists spend their money at high end resorts which are usually controlled by a foreign company and profits are repatriated. In Thailand, the elite are usually partnered with the Mariotts, Sheratons and so on ... I can see how they would like to use tax money to promote high end tourism. I wish they would be as innovative with the education system.

I've seen one study from Israel that backs this assertion and it is adopted by Australia without researching its own numbers . . . I'm in the tourism industry and have heard this assertion a few times here now but just can't find any studies to back it up for Thailand.

If you have any, as you claim, then I'd be thankful for some links - seems others I have asked have not responded.

It's true that backpackers tend to stay longer . . . but they also spend much, much less . . . if you extrapolate the information then you need to add the factor of tourists (as distinct to backpackers for this discussion) coming and going (replacement/continuous income) while the backpacker stays . . . it's not a one-on-one comparison.

I don't think anyone is saying that the backpacker will be turned away at the border, so why the angst about wishing to address more affluent tourists?

The angst is because the more investment in high end accomodation, the more the push to drive out low end places. This is seen clearly in Pattaya where dozens of trendy hotels have been and are being built and it is now hard to find places under 600 baht.

Backpackers and low end tourists stay in hundreds of cheap hotels that employ thousands of staff, while the lesser number of high end tourists results in a reduced amount of local employment, as cheap Charlies and backpackers no longer come. This is plainly seen in Pattaya, where farang visitors are down more than I have ever seen before.

You can have your affluent tourist, but if the cheap accomodation goes, the backpacker goes as well. This is very evident on Samui, where I doubt many backpackers stay any more.

It's the way of the world, though - backpackers generally 'find' places of interest, which leads to development as their popularity grows - happened everywhere from Europe to Asia.

I'd disagree that there will be less employment, however, as cheap places will simply move up or down a block and set up shop and larger hotels and resorts employ an inordinate number of people . . . but your example of Samui is a very valid one to prove the contrary to my points. Let's hope it stays an anomaly because I was a backpacker during my Uni days as well . . .

(Pattaya? Ugh . . . )

[thaibeachlovers]

Studies have shown that backpackers contribute more to a local economy than high end tourists. Why? Because high end tourists spend their money at high end resorts which are usually controlled by a foreign company and profits are repatriated. In Thailand, the elite are usually partnered with the Mariotts, Sheratons and so on ... I can see how they would like to use tax money to promote high end tourism. I wish they would be as innovative with the education system.

I've seen one study from Israel that backs this assertion and it is adopted by Australia without researching its own numbers . . . I'm in the tourism industry and have heard this assertion a few times here now but just can't find any studies to back it up for Thailand.

If you have any, as you claim, then I'd be thankful for some links - seems others I have asked have not responded.

It's true that backpackers tend to stay longer . . . but they also spend much, much less . . . if you extrapolate the information then you need to add the factor of tourists (as distinct to backpackers for this discussion) coming and going (replacement/continuous income) while the backpacker stays . . . it's not a one-on-one comparison.

I don't think anyone is saying that the backpacker will be turned away at the border, so why the angst about wishing to address more affluent tourists?

The angst is because the more investment in high end accomodation, the more the push to drive out low end places. This is seen clearly in Pattaya where dozens of trendy hotels have been and are being built and it is now hard to find places under 600 baht.

Backpackers and low end tourists stay in hundreds of cheap hotels that employ thousands of staff, while the lesser number of high end tourists results in a reduced amount of local employment, as cheap Charlies and backpackers no longer come. This is plainly seen in Pattaya, where farang visitors are down more than I have ever seen before.

You can have your affluent tourist, but if the cheap accomodation goes, the backpacker goes as well. This is very evident on Samui, where I doubt many backpackers stay any more.

It's the way of the world, though - backpackers generally 'find' places of interest, which leads to development as their popularity grows - happened everywhere from Europe to Asia.

I'd disagree that there will be less employment, however, as cheap places will simply move up or down a block and set up shop and larger hotels and resorts employ an inordinate number of people . . . but your example of Samui is a very valid one to prove the contrary to my points. Let's hope it stays an anomaly because I was a backpacker during my Uni days as well . . .

(Pattaya? Ugh . . . )

You are wrong about cheap hotels moving a block or so away. When high end places move in, it drives up land prices, which means it is uneconomic to set up a cheap hotel.

In Pattaya it would also be impossible, as it has been overdeveloped all the way to Sukhumvit and there is nowhere to set up more hotels unless knocking something else down, which is not going to happen for a 300 baht a night place.

You may not like Pattaya, but hundreds of thousands of Thais do. Are they wrong?

[jreidy]

The best way to get high end tourists is to provide a high speed rail link to RUSSIA, INDIA and CHINA.

That'll do it ...don't forget to add lots of third class carriages..

Cost Saving: Don't waste your time cleaning up the mess these tourists will feel right at home.

[ratcatcher]

trash1.jpgtrash2.jpgtrash3.jpg

Forget High Speed trains, get a high speed clean up and maybe in a couple of years Thai beaches will look like this.

More rubbish from the dreamers in parliament.

Maldives World Best Island.jpg

Thanks for posting this video. It should be required viewing for all Thais and particularly the politicians.

The travel brochure photos of Maldivian resorts look gorgeous. The reality is that all their trash has to end up on another island and this is the result. So sad. Scary too.

This is the "garbage dump on Thilafushi island.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2162653/Maldives-island-paradise-Thilafushi-trashed-reduced-pile-rubbish.html

Edited June 6, 2013 by ratcatcher

[itchybum]

[lostmebike]

Wasn't this a so-called 'plan' a little while back, last year some time?

Seems like some government offices are scratching their a*ses looking for something to do .

[thaibeachlovers]

Wasn't this a so-called 'plan' a little while back, last year some time?

Seems like some government offices are scratching their a*ses looking for something to do .

Taksin tried it with Koh Chang. I haven't been back since, on principle, so I don't know if it worked.

[spidermike007]

Protect tourists?

Let me give you a first hand account of a recent incident with the Police in Phuket town.

My pal was making a police report into fraud after winning (surprise, surprise) his case hands down in a Phuket Court. The female judge was appalled by the level of corruption in Phuket by policemen, land office, lawyers and bank managers. All of whom were in on the theft of his properties.

The police man called my pals lawyer in Bangkok and said "Why are you helping foreigners. Why are you going against Thai people" This punk, bent, rat eyed policeman then turned to his imterperter and asked her the same question. " Why are you helping this foreigner against us Thais? Why do you not get the money and give it to us?"

This happened this week and is real.

Thailand the same as the Maldives???...Maybe in another world or planet. But not in this real world.

The stench of corruption from racist Thailand reaches far around the world.

Starting with Phibun in 1932, Thailand began engaging in a policy of nationalization, and began teaching the Thai people many forms of ignorance, in order to increase the level of national pride. When you are told you are the brightest, and the greatest for a few generations, I guess you begin to believe it. For this fabulously ignorant policeman to engage in that kind of behavior, it has to stem from somewhere. Unfortunately, the country does not feel like it is growing, evolving, progressing, and becoming a better place. Proper education, and the dispensation of truth would be a good place to start, but many Thai people do not seem to want to hear truth. The police are a drag on thai society, and provide little service to its people.

Mike Macarelli

Chaiyaphum, Thailand

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app