Figures from TAT-just released on to be found on about any newspapersite and thaivisa etc.

For 1st half year 2012 nr of tourist arrivals was just over 10 million. For about as long as these lists are made, the Malays top the bill. But now the Chinese (mainland) have overtaken them by a tiny marginboth are just over 1 million.

Russians well over 600.000-UK around 500.000 and DE=Germany 450.000-all rounded. I guess Japanese should be over the Russky, but have omitted to look at that.

As per head of population still Malays are the most frequent visitors, from Europe/western world probably the Ozzies (Ausstralian) but most likely the Swedes (this is the nr of visits per person).

compare that to the nationality of most posters here and realise how deformed it is as representation

These numbers should be corrected for days of stay. Someone who comes in by airplane from Europe or America or China or Japan is likely to stay for a week or two. Numbers from Malaysia probably include boarder traffic with people just staying days or only one day?

ChristianPFC makes a good point. Many Malaysian tourists will be visiting for just one or two days, and may make several trips a year.

 

Years ago I was a consultant to the Hong Kong Tourist Association. Their top guys were always very concerned that whilst Hong Kong then attracted more tourists than Thailand, the average stay was only around 3 days. The average stay of visitors to Thailand was nearly 10. Yet, the average daily spend of visitors to Hong Kong was far higher than those to Thailand.

 

Despite that, most tourist organisations' primary interest still seems to be total numbers, rather than total number of days spent within the country and the total average daily spend per visitor.

I've always been doubtful that TAT's figures have been accurate but, assuming they are, I wonder just exactly what they mean by "tourist arrivals?" I guess I always presumed they meant arrivals by foreigners at the three international airports only. I didn't think they included the day-pass crossings in the South, at Mae Sai, Nong Khai, etc. What do you all think?

Having seen the HKTA massage some figures it sent up to its civil servant masters and the spin it put on bad news, I don't put much faith in any national tourism organisation. However, there are certain facts that cannot be disguised - e.g. the number of arrival cards and photographs taken on arrival/departure.

 

I suspect the official arrivals figures here have to be based on those arrival documents, and I assume day visitors have to complete some sort of document - if only to ensure they depart as scheduled.

Thailand is certainly well located for Chinese tourists, so of course China would eventually become the biggest source of visitors to Thailand.

 

As for comparisons with Hong Kong, well no matter how good it is, I would have severe reservations about spending 2 weeks holiday in a densely populated city state. When I make my first visit, it's likely to be less than a week too.

That's why it is really impossible to compare cities/city states with countries having a diverse number of different attractions for tourists and where longer stays are the norm. If Hong Kong is to be compared with anywhere else, it should be Singapore - and there is intense rivalry between the two on the tourist front. Hong Kong was winning hands down up till around the late 1990s. Both heavily advertise shopping and eating, but Hong Kong's other attraction as the main gateway to China has long since gone and nothing has replaced it. Singapore government agencies (disguised in some cases as private sector entities), however, have added a mass of new attractions both to bring in more tourists and to keep those that come staying longer - Universal's Theme Park, Marina Bay's long-running Broadway shows and casino, the Formula 1 Grand Prix, etc. Hong Kong's only newish attraction is a tiny Disneyland!