From what I have seen on other online forum boards, the latest campaign, of which the sweep of Sunee was a part, is largely confined to the drug problem. KQuill and some others think that it is even less than that -- just a photo op for a bigwig who wants to score political points being seen doing his job.

It is both unnecessary, and contradicted by first-hand reports, to think that the police are on some sort of campaign to shut down the sex trade. So let's not go overboard with any alarm.

We must beware of two things:

1. Letting our own "guilty conscience" about buying sex (often a product of Judeo-Christian indoctrination) manifest itself in a kneejerk response where the moment someone speaks about police action, we automatically think it is action against sex;

2. Letting those whose interest is directed at partners of borderline or questionable age speak for us. To them, indeed, police action rounding up the underaged -- which happens from time to time -- would represent a "closing down of sex" and reason enough for shrill cries of "the end of all that is Pattaya". But the rest of us should not unthinkingly be sucked into this stream, lending our voices to it and thereby becoming guilty by association.

Quote |

Agree this campaign is ostensibly about drugs, but all the reports I've been reading over the past month show total failure to find anything other than a few low level pushers and some positive urine tests.

It is a in all likely-hood a PR campaign which is all about show not substance, with those controlling the trade tipped off well in advance.

There is however a strong PR message about cleaning up the sin city image of Pattaya and that does suggest the sex trade is being targetted by some-one, although I think we all agree they are doing the "King Kanute" thing with no chance of success.

I'm not sure where you are going with your item 2. re underage. I dont think any of the posters here are bemoaning that element of the clean up.

Quote |

We are on the same page regarding this. It's good that we share the same starting position in our analysis.


Where is that suggestion ("PR message about cleaning up the sin city image of Pattaya and that does suggest the sex trade is being targetted") coming from? From the authorities' mouths? From the evidence of their actions? It seems to me that it is mainly coming from some farangs who take an unduly broad reading of the facts.

I can concede that the authorities themselves have not taken the trouble to articulate clearly what their objectives are and how narrow those aims are (most probably because it is not politically possible to exclude adult prostitution so explicitly without incurring the ire of foreign NGOs driven by holier-than-thou agenda). In my view, the authorities' silence then allows space to some board posters' alarms that give the impression that adult sex is being targetted. As a result, there can be collateral damage in that potential visitors to Pattaya are then needlessly discouraged, thereby inflicting economic damage to adult sex venues.

All I am saying is: Let's not add to the collateral damage by mindlessly echoing the unfounded fear that adult sex is being targetted.

I'm not suggesting that anyone here is motivated by that element. The key phrase I used was "guilt by association". Echoing fears about a general clampdown on adult sex when there is no general clampdown (but only a clampdown on the underaged trade) risks further confusing the two. So please let's be very careful not to join the wrong protest march -- that was my point.

Quote |