I'm going to Nagpali Beach, Myanmar this February. Is there much to do (diving, snorkeling, pubs etc.) or the only thing I can do is lying on the beach? There are lots of rumors about Myanmar. Is it much different to other countries such as Thailand?

Rumors? Are you referring to the abysmal political situation in Burma? Certainly the political situation is much differernt than any of the other countries in SE Asia. You might want to read a bit about the situation before you decide whether to go. The Lonely Planet has a pretty balanced essay on whether or not to visit Burma. You should know before you go that Ang San Suu Kyi, the legally elected leader of Burma has been under house arrest by the military junta, essentially since her election in the early 1990s. She has asked that travelers not visit Burma, as so much of the money goes straight into the pockets of the junta. Others argue that people should visit Burma because it gives the Burmese people support and contact with people outside the country. You have to decide for yourself, but do inform yourself about the situation.

Burma is much less developed for tourism than other SE Asian countries, especially Thailand. The infrastructure is not as good. Burma also has a different culture than the surrounding countries.

i cannot assume that the beach area would have all the "normal" beach attractions that we have come to expect from a beach side location based on my visit to other parts of myanmar....as kathie says their tourist structure is very limited...i would go there with the idea that i could enjoy a beach area without all the ammenities....not sure either how lux any accomodations might be...??

I'm listening to an interesting interview with U Thant's grandson, author of "The River of Lost Footsteps: Histories of Burma". He is in favor of tourism, as he wants to see Myanmar less isolated. You might want to take a look at his book.

Is it much different to other countries,such as Thailand? Well it seems that you have done very little research before considering this trip. I have made small comments on this forum previously about travelling to Burma, and of course we must all make our own decisions but please take the time to learn as much as you can about current events in Burma. Nearly every day I read about the suffering that is going on in Burma........well this is not the place to air my views but, Yes Burma is VERY different to Thailand and has many attractions for me .....but not at this moment in time.

The Thorntree/Lonely Planet forum site has acres of stuff on this topic. In my humble opinion it might be useful for ALL parties to do some further reading: the debate on this topic has moved considerably over the last couple of years.

Having been to Myanmar twice in the last 12 months and heading back there again next month I'm of the opinion that going there does more to bring down that hateful government than staying away.

Isolation breeds ignorance.

That said, I get the feeling that poor dreamreader doesn't actually know - or care - that much about matters political. That's O.K. This trip will be the beginning of his/her political education. We all gotta start somewhere - Myanmar is a very good place to begin.

To answer the question: Ngapali Beach is a beach. You can either get in the water or stay out of the water. Then you eat, then you sleep. That's about it.

We will be visiting Myanmar in about four weeks or so. What I've read on the country and its leadership has been disturbing. However, I agree with Dogster that "isolation breeds ignorance" and thus, my decision is to go. It seems that in certain countries, the press may be breeding ignorance, thus LeighTravelClub's "small comments" about reading "every day" about the suffering that is going on in Burma. No offense intended, I am sure there has been suffering but I am curious - where are you getting your information? Please do not refer me to anti-Myanmar web sites as I have seen most of them.

Hi,
I was in Ngapali Beach for 4 days this past November and it was wonderful! It is very quiet and peaceful. Not much in the way of pubs or nightlife. Also no diving. I did go snorkelling and it was nice. Not as spectacular as other places I've snorkelled such as Thailand and the Caribbean, but the fantastic thing was NO PEOPLE!! I was the only one on the boat that day!
There are some very nice resorts in Ngapali and the beach is big and uncrowded. I loved it. Food and drinks were really inexpensive and the service was wonderful. I had just spent 11 busy days in Yangon, Inle Lake, Mandalay and Bagan seeing tons of temples and amazing things, so I was ready to relax and do not much for 4 days. If you are looking for lots of activities and nightlife, this is not the place. It depends what you want. The following week I was in Railay Beach in Thailand and there was tons to do there, great snorkelling and diving and lots of bars and nightlife. But you can't beat the peace and quiet of Ngapali!

Craig, no offence taken, and no criticism of travellers to Burma intended. Just airing another opinion. But as you ask where do I get my information. Well here is a link to an example published on Jan 16th this year.(2 days ago) I could list many such examples but don't feel I should post them on this forum, but am quite happy to e'mail you loads of such examples.
Really, it was the last couple of sentences in the original post on this thread that prompted me to reply and after reading it again,I still feel that my comments are valid. But like I said , no criticism intended. Here is the link
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2157351.ece

A thought provoking post. Personally, I would not visit Burma whilst the current regime is in power. Why? Because the country's democratically elected leader Ang San Suu Kyi(with 90% of the vote) asks that we do not! Who could possibly be better placed than her to make that judgement.

Another source for interesting articles on Asia is www.atimes.com. The first time I went to SE Asia I chose not to go to Myanmar because of the horrors perpetrated by the government. But a woman I met in Vietnam went, and wound up virtually adopting her driver, and volunteering as a teacher at one of the monasteries. Next time I was in SE Asia I did go to Myanmar, but I traveled with her and her driver - no planes, trains or ferry - and stayed in small guesthouses. This way I tried limit the money that went to the government - you can't avoid the gas tax. It was a truly fascinating trip, but if I were only going to sit on a beach, I'd go somewhere else.

Actually, Crellston you are wrong. Aung San Suu Kyi has changed her stance on visitors. Please see the following quote from a post last June by glorialf who has been a regular on this forum for many years and actually met with "the lady" on one of her trips to Myanmar:

"I highly respect and admire "the lady" and, in fact, had a meeting with her for two hours when I went to Burma the first time -- arranged for me by a friend living here who aggressively works for the democracy movement. When I first met her and started working to effect change in Burma she urged me to stay out of the country. But her position as well as those of various democracy movement groups have changed over the years. Reason -- the embargo and people staying away have not worked. The junta is getting stronger and the people are getting poorer. They are now looking at countries like China where the worst period for the people was during the cultural revolution when they were isolated. When people started coming, the people benefited and while the country is still repressive, it is less. The burmese I met all said -- tell people about us. Please tell them to come."

Craig, there is some contraversy about whether ASSK has changed her position. I know Gloria believes that she has, but I read an interview with ASSK in which she said she still asks that trvalers not come to Burma. She acknowledged that some of her follwers have changed their stance, but she said that she has not.

My point here (as you know, since we've talked about this before) is that people should make an informed decision. Faced with the same facts, different people may come to different conclusions. I read a recent review of UThant's grandson's book in the New Yorker. It was an interesting analysis of how people come to different conclusions about what will help the awful situation in Burma.

I object to people who know nothing about Burma going there, oblivious to the implication of their actions. SO when someone asks a question liker the one that started this thread, I do feel compelled to offer some info about the problem.

By the way, even in our local paper (not well-known for international coverage) I'd say we see at least one article a week about the situation in Burma, reports of Burmese refugees, the deliberations of ASEAN about what to do about Burma, etc. There is increasing international coverage of the situation in Burma, and I believe this has to be for the better.

Kathie, we probably scared the OP away...
It seems to me that a lot of the stuff that is published regarding ASSK could be dated. After all, journalists can't exactly line up on her doorstep for interviews if they are not even allowed into the country. I don't know if you checked out that link posted by LTC but if that journalist is based in the Shan state, he's risking his life being there (and how does he transmit copy to the UK - via messenger?) Your Seattle paper must be a lot more "in touch" than the Hartford Courant. The Courant did not even report on the recent UN resolution calling on Myanmar to release all political prisoners and speed up progress toward democracy (and the Chinese/Russian vetoes). A paragraph on the resolution did appear on the front page of the Wall Street Journal however. Other than the WSJ blurb I have seen relatively little. Many of the people on this forum (other than you) that have been vocal in their opposition to visiting Myanmar are from the UK and I was wondering if their press was more active regarding the issue. That is why I asked the question.

Craig, I'm sure that the British press does more and better coverage than the US. Most of the stories I see in the US press have a Reuters byline.

Craig,journalists all over the world risk their lives 'being there'.What is your point.I hope you are not doubting the integrity of Pete Pattison. The Independent is a reputable U.K. newspaper, that reports ALL the news in an unbiased manner.....in my opinion.
The current junta in Burma is completely un-democratic and and very much like many of the awfully, cruel, despicable regimes that history over the last century has produced.
Frivolous posts like this will of course raise feathers in some quarters(like mine), and equally, frivolous replies(like yours),will invoke a similar response.

All I ask is.......Before you visit Burma, PLEASE, take the time and effort to make yourself aware of where you are going. After all, surely, you do that anyway before going anywhere abroad!!

Oh and Craig,why don't you just e'mail him and ask how he sends his copy,he is very accessible through the independent,but then, he might give you more info that you don't want to hear.
Face up to it,the current regime in Burma is at best...VERY QUESTIONABLE and I for one will not support it in any way!

LTC - your tone is angry and personal - not sure why - until now it's been a civil debate. I am certainly not doubting the integrity of Pete Pattison. The timing of the article is curious however with the recent UN referendum having just occurred. I don't trust the press in general so now you know where I'm coming from - I'm sure PP has no control over when his editors decide to run his reports. I don't think "awfully, cruel, despicable regimes" have been limited to the last century. Who invaded Burma in the late 1800's? I don't suppose any atrocities occurred then. Please don't take this the wrong way - after all the European settlers of North and South America weren't exactly kind to its natives either. I don't think I'd like to put PP at risk by e-mailing him - every e-mail that is sent to and from Burma is read by someone in the regime - which was my original point. Unlike you I do see both sides of the debate.

Craig,I didn't intend to convey an angry tone, and I had worked out that you are somewhat distrustful of the press. I am too. It is clear that you have much more first-hand experience of this country than I do and I am working through your comments in my head, trying to see both sides.
We do get quite a lot of coverage about the Burma situation here in the UK,maybe more than you see in the US.
If visiting this country DOES help the Burmese people, then of course, we should go. I just need to be convinced that it does.

Craig - I may well be wrong regarding my comments regarding Aung San Suu Kyi's current stance but until such time as I see credible reporting of a change in her stance I stand by my comments and would not visit such a regime unless it was for some humanitarian purpose as opposed to commercial tourism.
We are of course each entitled to our own view on this on an issues such as this which, unfortunately, is not the case for the people of Burma.