As you may well know, myself and a friend are planning a trip to South East Asia for the end of the year. What I didn't mention in my previous post however, were our plans for the second half. We are starting in Hanoi, travelling the length of Vietnam, before passing through Cambodia, Laos and Thailand. After this we plan to travel through mainland Malaysia and Malaysian Borneo, before visiting Indonesia, and then finally bringing our journey to a close on the Indian Subcontinent. What I want to ask here is whether the differences between Borneo and Sumatra are significant enough to warrant a visit to both?
Initially we planned to visit Borneo to experience the rainforests, see some snakes and spiders, and of course, the ubiquitous Orang-utans. We also planned for some diving possibly at Sipadan. Neither of us have been to these parts before and so naturally we don't have a clue as to whether Sumatra will be worth our time, or whether it will just be more of the same.
Perhaps you've visited these countries and could advise us on the best course of action? Maybe Sumatra would be a better choice altogether? Or perhaps, as we suspect, we should just skip it and head for different parts of Indonesia. We both like to travel off the beaten track, and neither of us are particularly fond of anything too 'touristy' but at the same time we need a place that is accessible on a bit of a budget.
Thank you for taking the time to read,
Any advice would be much appreciated.