Is Writing Negative Things About Pattaya Acceptable?

I still think that it should be possible to write negatively about Pattaya if that is the way you feel, and negative criticism should be taken for what it is.

Thai law seems to make it difficult to single out an institution,  individual or business for criticism because of an underlying assumption that you will do damage to the thing or person you single out. This is, of course, far from the case. Some criticism does a fair bit of good.

However, of more worrying concern is a feeling that has been germinating since last year when I criticised a cold Christmas lunch I got served. My comments got me banned from two sites and I was reported to immigration by one stalwart.

Recently, I have been told that I sometimes write negative blogs and should shove off home if I don’t like Pattaya. I get the feeling (maybe I am very, very wrong) that there’s a vested interest out there that wants Pattaya to be painted in glowing colours. If we don’t pat Pattaya on the head, the little boy, Pattaya, may be seen to be naughty, or worse. The vested interest I refer to is of a business nature. (For example, if you are in the entertainment industry here in Pattaya, you want the tourists to think everything is great fun. You don’t want a guy writing that the fun is superficial because it’s the mere froth beneath which a whirlpool of social ills contorts!)

Depicting Pattaya, as it seems to me to be, is something I want to continue to do, but I am now wary, and here, it should be noted, I have written without naming anyone or anything. For some, that may be great but if I have a friend who tells me there’s a problem without telling me how to recognise the problem, or where to locate the problem, well, that friend is being too guarded.

pattaya.sanctuary of truth 3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_of_Truth

Related Posts