Yes—and in the Thai context, “crackdown on prostitution” can sound considerably more dramatic than what is actually being done.
Thailand's 1996 Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act makes a number of activities illegal: public solicitation, advertising sexual services, operating or managing a prostitution establishment, procuring people, and coercing people into prostitution. Interestingly, the adult customer buying sex is generally not criminalized by that Act; the law is principally aimed at the people selling, arranging, or profiting from it.
So in Pattaya, a “crackdown” can amount to things such as:
Police walking the Beach Road and Walking Street areas, arresting or detaining people who openly solicit customers. In one February operation, undercover police reportedly posed as tourists, approached women on Pattaya Beach, and used the negotiation of a price and evidence such as condoms/lubricant as grounds for action. Twenty people were detained.
Raiding particular bars, massage establishments or other venues where police believe prostitution is being openly arranged, particularly if there are additional offenses such as trafficking, underage workers, drugs or immigration violations.
And making the visible street trade disappear temporarily is probably the biggest practical effect. That's rather different from eliminating Pattaya's enormous underlying sex industry. The recent reports say dozens of people have been detained ahead of the Lincoln's arrival, but there is no indication that Thailand suddenly intends to abolish Pattaya's sex industry.
There is an amusing—and very Thai—legal contradiction here. The activity is illegal, but the industry has operated openly for decades. Thailand's law is sufficiently broad that an aggressive application could shut down a substantial portion of Pattaya nightlife. Yet ordinary enforcement has generally been selective. Indeed, a bill submitted to Parliament this year proposes repealing the 1996 law and decriminalizing consensual adult sex work, precisely because the existing arrangement is considered outdated and leaves workers vulnerable.
So I would interpret the Newsweek wording as “police are temporarily making the prostitution that is normally tolerated less conspicuous,” rather than “Thailand is conducting a serious campaign to eradicate prostitution.”
And given that 5,000 extremely pent-up American sailors have just been deposited next door, the timing is hardly mysterious. 😄 Reuters explicitly reports that Pattaya authorities were concerned about increased sex tourism and had already conducted weekend raids in preparation for the visit.
In other words: “Please don't make us look like Pattaya while the Americans are here.”
Exactly. That distinction matters. Bangkok's problem historically hasn't been so much “people are secretly engaging in prostitution” as the conspicuous street ecosystem around it: touts, hustlers, drug sellers, scam artists, aggressive bar promoters, taxi/tuk-tuk schemes, and people trying to extract money from tourists.
For an ordinary visitor, most of it really is more irritating than dangerous. You learn the routine: say no, keep walking, don't get drawn into an argument, and don't accept unsolicited “special deals.” The reputation issue is almost a separate matter—someone can be doing something perfectly innocuous while being approached by somebody who assumes otherwise.
And that helps explain what a Thai “crackdown” can accomplish. Police don't necessarily have to eliminate the underlying activity. They can make the public face of it disappear for a while. Fewer people openly soliciting, fewer touts hanging around, more inspections of bars and massage shops, and suddenly the area looks respectable to visiting dignitaries and naval officers.
It's rather like sweeping the sidewalk before the mayor arrives. The dirt hasn't necessarily gone anywhere; it has simply become less visible.
😂 That's actually a perfect illustration of the ambiguity of street solicitation.
She approached you with one transaction in mind, you explained you wanted something completely different, and she immediately switched roles from “saleswoman of questionable services” to “helpful local grandmother.” She knew where the post office was, took you there, and you paid her for the useful service she actually provided.
And frankly, that's a pretty good outcome. You got to the post office, she got a little money, and nobody needed to pretend that the original misunderstanding hadn't happened.
That sort of interaction is also why I think calling all of Bangkok's street solicitation dangerous rather misses the point. A lot of it was opportunistic rather than predatory. The nuisance was having to sort the legitimate/helpful people from the hustlers.
Oh yes—that one is particularly obnoxious because the elephant is real, which makes the pitch much more effective.
The usual setup was an elephant handler taking a young elephant around tourist areas, asking people to buy bananas or sugarcane—or simply contributing money “to feed the baby.” The tourist sees this enormous, undeniably hungry-looking animal standing right there, so the emotional appeal is immediate.
But the depressing part is that the elephant itself is often the victim of the scam rather than evidence that the money is needed for it. Young elephants being taken into urban tourist environments has long been criticized on animal-welfare grounds. They don't belong wandering Bangkok streets in the first place, and exposure to traffic, pollution, heat and unsuitable food is bad for them.
So it was a scam with an unusually effective prop: you couldn't simply say, “There is no elephant.” There bloody well was.
And I imagine that made it considerably more irritating than the ordinary tout who merely wanted to sell you something.
No comments:
Post a Comment