TheSiemReaper

I married a wonderful woman from Mainland China. Our marriage disintegrated because I couldn't live on the Mainland for the rest of my life. China's a great place to be a tourist and not so great to live. Not all Chinese people are rude and obnoxious but sadly, there are enough who behave like that that China is a deeply unpleasant place to be in the long-term. And English speaking Chinese are the exception not the rule.

Who cares what they think about men who play video games? It's not like they care about what you think about their emotional immaturity is it? Turn and turn about.

Urinating on the floor so that some poor sap who has nothing to do with dual pricing could clean it up? Nice. Not.

It just goes to show - it really is all about the money. People only behave that badly when money or sex are involved.

We are extremely happy with Sutat (owner) at http://www.777designz.com/

He designed/manages/hosts our Thai/Eng website originally done over 3 years ago http://www.noichiangmai.com/ - http://www.thai-herbs-chiangmai.com/ and also does our business cards, stickers, and signs. We normally do updates/changes annually on the renewal date.

He does get busy and may not always get right back to us, but we do love his work and attention to design quality. Would rather wait for top quality. Doubt he is into rush jobs, not the cheapest.

Passable English language skills, not fully bilingual tho.

Doug

No offence but those sites are awful. I'd shoot a web designer that tried to foist that off on me. You can do better from a template and WordPress... for much less money. Anybody paying that guy to do their site - has no idea what a website is supposed to be like.

it's not that simple.

the best websites aren't those which look fresh and modern, or those who have great design, or those who use a responsive template nor those who don't have any HTML errors....

the best websites are those which best fulfill their objectives, which can be getting views, selling products, etc.

personally, I feel that well-done "old style HTML design" is well suited for most businesses in Thailand, provided the page is responsive and correctly coded.

777designz has a number of good looking websites in their portfolio.

@OP: decent webdesigners won't be interested in doing a 5-10 page site for cheap. I make full websites for about 30k, unless it is really very simple and small, in which case 15k can be enough.

Hosting has to be with me, and costs 500 baht a month which includes 1 hour of work per month for whatever maintenance or change requests there might be, 1000 baht/hour after that.

Here's the thing, the best websites offer the best user experience - that's what gets views, sells products, etc. Those "old style HTML" sites? The user experience is "take one look, go somewhere else". 30K is less than I'd charge for a 10 page website - and I don't even make websites as a general rule... there are more profitable uses of my time. But, if I did make websites - I'd have a long talk with the client about SEO, SEM, and sales funnels before wasting their money and my time. ROI is the name of the game not websites. Those HTML websites? They're killing your ROI.

We are extremely happy with Sutat (owner) at http://www.777designz.com/

He designed/manages/hosts our Thai/Eng website originally done over 3 years ago http://www.noichiangmai.com/ - http://www.thai-herbs-chiangmai.com/ and also does our business cards, stickers, and signs. We normally do updates/changes annually on the renewal date.

He does get busy and may not always get right back to us, but we do love his work and attention to design quality. Would rather wait for top quality. Doubt he is into rush jobs, not the cheapest.

Passable English language skills, not fully bilingual tho.

Doug

No offence but those sites are awful. I'd shoot a web designer that tried to foist that off on me. You can do better from a template and WordPress... for much less money. Anybody paying that guy to do their site - has no idea what a website is supposed to be like.

Nicely done. The assume your way of living is better than others' way of living - class act that.

Thanks. I am a class act.

But you assume that you think that I think that my way of living is better than your way of living, which is true only if you prefer condo life to living in a house, which is what I was assuming.

Yes, some condos you can "cook" if by that you mean heat something with a hotplate. There are some condos with more than that, but none that I saw in Hillside (the units on the floors are from a cookie cutout of about 3 styles. I think there were a couple on the upper corners that had more space and some expanded cooking facilities). At Hillside (and I assume many other condos -- "Next" being one I have also toured) do not have room for (as I do in a house) a microwave and an oven and a bread machine and a decent coffee machine and a prep area and a cutting board area and a 2-ring stove and refrigerator and the sink and the drying rack and the 4 storage areas and cabinets and two windows looking out over the star fruit and mango trees and the giant lipstick palm amid the green Malaysia grass lawn.

But I understand, as I posted before, that some people don't want that sort of arrangement.

Spiders? Security? Well, you got me there. No spiders have ever been found above the first floor in a condo in CM, even the local ones. And no condo or apartment has ever been burgled (er...except mine, but that wasn't in CM -- it was in another Thai city -- so that doesn't really count). By the way, believe it or not, you can actually hire someone to clean your house too. Pay them extra and they might even polish your brass doorknobs.

Live as you like, it's a free country (haha....). If you want to live in a small box above the ground, great! And yes, I do think given the cost and the comparisons, living in a house here is the way to go, but maybe that's because I grew up and was raised in houses, with yards and trees and grass under my feet and room to spare. If you grew up in flats and apartments all your life you would most likely have a different perspective.

Umm... I have a microwave, and an oven and a coffee machine. Though no bread maker - there are lots of lovely bakeries within walking distance. I have more storage space than you do though. I grew up in a house too. A very big house, one that might be described by many people in my country as a "mansion". I don't need a house. I don't want a house. I don't even like them very much. I like my view over the city and the mountains (something which you might have to attach a ladder to your house to get). I like the staff who handle all the awkward things I don't really want to handle. I like the fact that the cleaners are on the payroll and less likely to steal from me. If you want to burgle my apartment - you'll need to go full James Bond to get close to it. Whilst I appreciate that spiders can indeed climb walls... I am yet to meet a **** off great big tarantula in my apartment unlike the one that greeted me on my 2nd day in the first (and last) house I rented in this region. I'm not fussed about gardens and grass - though both are in plentiful supply in the vicinity. Though I am fussed about swimming pools and gyms something that most 8,000 Baht houses are absent. The only time "cost" comes into play is if you can't afford what you need - fortunately this doesn't apply to me. I'm happy that you're happy. (Sincerely too). It's just what makes you happy would make me unhappy. I don't think I'm in the minority either... houses are so 20th century, the condo with facilties and community is the future.

Good luck with that. I've not seen one decent website for a Chiang Mai based business yet... including the multi-million/billion dollar brands in town. It might be easiest just to buy a nice WordPress theme and install it yourself (can be learned in less than 10 minutes and carried out in less than 1 minute).

As tourism evolves, people are more and more drawn to establishments that are clean, well-thought out and have more sophisticated and clever designs. Lighting, atmosphere and comfort all play a key role.

Given that beverages available are primarily the same anywhere you go, the establishment itself and the service and staff are crucial.

Perhaps the reason behind the decline in (hooker) bars, pubs and various spins on this theme is not so much any government regulations or spotty harassment by police, but the fact that these establishments on Loy Khroh are generally grotty and by most people's standards, sleazy. Of course, some are better than others, but also many (most?) are "microbars" with little space or interest in being anything other than a stopping point for alcohol and (rental) women.

Backpackers, Chinese tourists and the like walking down Loy Khroh at night look at the bars along the way and are either frightened (this looks like a clip-joint or something untoward goes on here), repulsed (God, what a dump!), or dissuaded from stopping (a couple of expats nursing beers with middle-aged bargirls, uh, not my scene).

You've obviously never been to China if you think the Loy Kroh bars are off putting... they're all a significant step up on what's available in most Chinese cities. And most Chinese bars are filled with dice playing hookers too - at least the hookers in Chiang Mai don't make you play dice. There's a time and a place for everything. Little dive bars full of over the hill chicks are alwyas going to be popular with a certain market. Well lit and expensive (Beerlab - I'm looking at you) places also have their target audience. My issue with all of them is that the music in this city is uniformly awful. Give me a place with a half-decent playlist and I'll drink there whatever the hell it looks like.

Bars in the UK close at 11 PM .

The UK also has noise restrictions, music venues in some areas have to stop the music by 10 PM .

CM is not really a party place .

Also , there are many temples in CM , temples where Monks live and sleep .

Drinking foreigners in CM do not tend to have a quiet drink with their friends , they tend to get completely drunk and walk around the streets in a drunken obnoxious state until sunrise .

There are many bars down Loi Kroh closing down and the premises for sale , everyone seems to be selling, but no one wants to buy ,

It must be heart breaking for bar owners : I was out and about in CM at 1 AM the other night and there were hundreds of foreigners walking about around Zoe , Spicy etc all looking for somewhere to have a drink, yet all the bars that desperately need and want their custom had to close down an hour beforehand .

Since when was this a law concerning foreigners? This law was introduced, like practically every law in Thailand, with only Thai people in mind. "Drinking foreigners in CM do not tend to have a quiet drink"? Most of my foreign customers are out for a quiet drink, are finished by 11pm, and I very rarely have a drunk in the place. The young foreigners out in Chiang Mai after midnight are the exception, not the rule. Are you implying that Thais are out for a couple of drinks and don't get rotten drunk? Try standing outside any late-night Thai bar at closing time. Thailand does not revolve around tourists. This law affects Thai businesses way more than the few bars on Loi Kroh rd,

Laws in all Countries are made for everyone in that Country .

It would be unfair on Thais if foreigners could get a drink in a bar, yet Thais couldnt .

Thailand doesnt have a drinking culture , like we do in the West .

The Thai Government doesnt want persons in Thailand drinking all night , whether they be Thai or Foreign

There are lots of places in the world where tourists and foreigners can drink and locals cannot. Try UAE, Qatar, Pakistan, etc.

Hillside Condos Number 7, 8 and 9 in the Chiang Mai Business Park can be had for about 7,000 baht for the smallest, cheapest unit. Expect to pay 8,500 to 9,000 baht for slightly better and slightly larger ones.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have lived in both condos and houses in Thailand and unless I was under the gun for some reason, I would never live in a condo again, ever. For 8,000 to 15,000 baht (max) you can rent a house with a yard and a carport, a nice working kitchen (the Hillside condos I mentioned do not have cooking other than a hotplate and a sink), space for a den or study and storage. There is room for gardening and you can have pets (and room for them to run around).

I understand that if you want no responsibility for upkeep of a yard, don't care about plants or flowers or growing your own herbs, don't like to cook and want to take all your meals outside (except what you can fashion from the fridge, such as sandwiches), do not want a pet (Hillside forbids pets), do not want extra space (including for example a washing machine and a place to hang-dry clothes), and do not like the feeling of openness (as opposed to the condo feel of being in a stalag, walking past rows of doors to other cells of others -- put your hand on the wall and know there is another person just feet away, perhaps listening to you too), then living in a house is not for you.

Nicely done. The assume your way of living is better than others' way of living - class act that.

I don't want to live in a house. I like the security of a condo. I like the maid service of my condo. I like the fact that it's nowhere near a ground floor and keeps the local spiders a long way from my bedroom. I certainly don't want a pet. I can cook - you do know that there's nothing stopping people from having cooking facilities in a condo, right? It's not like there's a law against cooking in an apartment. If someone's listening to me - they're likely very bored. The sound of a keyboard tapping doesn't make for a great deal of interest.

Now, having said all that. I have no issue with your choice to live in a house - you go right ahead and do what makes you happy but don't assume it would make everyone else happy. The joy of being human is that we're all different and there's nothing about where you choose to live that makes you superior to anyone else. No matter what you have come to believe.

100K a month for a penthouse in the tallest building in the city? It's pretty cheap to be fair. The facilities look excellent there - though the decor's not my cup of tea.

I'd advise the whiners to stay out of Cambodia. You'll have a coronary when you find out you have to pay $20 for a day at Angkor Wat when all the Khmer get in for free. That's a policy that is well supported by expats and visitors alike strangely. Because it's not a thing of principle to make those living in relative poverty pay the same as a tourist; it's an obscenity. Thailand is a middle-income nation with lots of poor people (once again minimum wage of $250) and it's entitled to subsidize its citizenry in just the same way as your own countries could - the fact that they choose not to is their choice not a "moral issue".

Who cares if the Khmers get in for free?

To travel half way across the world to see one of the greatest treasures for $20 is damn cheap.

Having said that I'm sure you're right and some won't go in because of 'principle', but instead retreat to the nearest bar and chug down many beers, whilst moaning about it......sad.

This topic is about what expats should pay, not tourists. As a tourist, I wouldn't mind paying the tourist fee, but if I lived in Siem Reap for 20 years I wouldn't want to pay 20 dollars every time a friend or family came to visit if I wanted to enjoy their company at the tourist attractions. I would certainly appreciate the gesture of giving me the local rate if I were a resident, and I'd be curious if they decided to remove that privilege.

Then all I can say, is don't become an expat in Cambodia. Which I was for nearly 5 years. The average Khmer makes $80 a month. I'd be happy to support free entry for any expat surviving long-term on that amount of money in Cambodia. Heck, I'd be happy to pay their entry fee myself.

If you want to enjoy someone's company at an attraction - that's your choice; no-one's forcing you to go. And if you do go, you pay - just like everyone else who isn't local does. It's really pretty simple.

I'd advise the whiners to stay out of Cambodia. You'll have a coronary when you find out you have to pay $20 for a day at Angkor Wat when all the Khmer get in for free. That's a policy that is well supported by expats and visitors alike strangely. Because it's not a thing of principle to make those living in relative poverty pay the same as a tourist; it's an obscenity. Thailand is a middle-income nation with lots of poor people (once again minimum wage of $250) and it's entitled to subsidize its citizenry in just the same way as your own countries could - the fact that they choose not to is their choice not a "moral issue".

Who cares if the Khmers get in for free?

To travel half way across the world to see one of the greatest treasures for $20 is damn cheap.

Having said that I'm sure you're right and some won't go in because of 'principle', but instead retreat to the nearest bar and chug down many beers, whilst moaning about it......sad.

I couldn't agree more. I've been more than 30 times and never complained about the price.

Your timing's pretty bad... it's the middle of high-season and you may well struggle to get any of the serviced condos for a straight 3 months. Try ChiangMaiBuddy online to get an idea of where's available.

I pay 20,000 a month for a one bed serviced condo. I'm not really bothered whether my place is popular or not - it has what I need at a price I'm willing to pay.

I went to Khao Yai last week. I always enter from Prachinburi. I always speak in Thai to the officials. Previously they would always prod the conversation in a direction I liked. "Do you live in Thailand?" "Have you got a Thai driver's licence?" I would always get the Thai price (without asking).

This time I was immediately charged 400 Baht, the girlfriend 20 Baht. I didn't argue, try to negotiate or query the price. I knew there has been a new order. I just paid it.

I am just stating my witnessing of the policy change.

Well done Briggsy ! At least you showed them that this greed is unacceptable.

Beng

I made no statement at all. I think you have misread and / or misunderstood my post. I simply provided a factual "witness" report to assist others to make decisions.

The Siem Reaper

You have some arithmetical problems.

Khao Yai 400 Baht (foreigner price) - 20 Baht (Thai price) = 380 Baht (the difference) = 10.68 U.S. Dollars.

At some National Parks, e.g. Thung Salaeng Luang in Phitsanuloke, the difference is 480 Baht.

To avoid these errors in the future, I suggest you stick to using Baht as "We are not in Kansas any more" (or Siem Reap, for that matter).

If you'd read the whole thread - you'd have noticed I've already said I wouldn't care if the difference was $100. I don't care about the difference - I think it's fine.

I agree, it is fair for the nation to be affordable to the locals, but why do your preface it with "when you come to thailand"? How is this my burden?

Also, I don't get is your statement that it's an "eminently" sensible decision for foreigners to subsidize their parks.

A few reasons for this. There are many wealthy thais entering at the same price as the poorer (I imagine there is little accountability of the money collected) and the thais are the ones that use it the most and trash it with litter. Afford me that.

Yesterday I went to one of the local big name grocery stores... and bought a bag of apples.

The cost was 115 baht, but to my amazement when I got to the register, they charged me 250 baht. I said the price on the stand was 115 baht, they said, "that's the thai price, you farang, you price is 250 baht" Apparently, the locals cannot afford to pay the price, so I subsidize their cost.

Oh and when I went to the movies last week, the price was 100 baht for thais, but I paid 180.

Of course this didn't really happen, but I'm making the point, as some on here would find (amazingly) this to be ok.

There are plenty of places where people can access food at any price. When you come to Thailand - it's fair for the Thai nation to be affordable to locals. Getting foreigners to subsidize the upkeep of areas of historical interest and natural beauty is an eminently sensible decision.

1. Because we're in Thailand - if you didn't come here it wouldn't be an issue would it?

2. Because it's Thailand and they can run their country for Thai people as our own countries might benefit from running ours for us.

3. Because means testing minor benefits is cost-ineffective it's cheaper to let all Thais in cheap than to go through a process of deducing each Thai person's income at the point of entry to a place.

I think you know all this already. You can keep pushing "it's not fair" but nobody said life was fair. It's not fair that we can afford to leave our home countries to travel to Thailand - millions both at home and in Thailand will never be able to do so. It's not fair that we make more than the minimum wage or indeed the average Thai wage and have more income to dispose of because of that. It's not fair that some people are taller or smarter than others. Life's not fair. However, charging someone who has no citizenship a bit more to upkeep your national heritage? That's fair. It's not our heritage, it's the Thai's heritage - how they treat that heritage is none of your concern - want to take advantage of that heritage? Pay a premium or don't and stay at home. (Be that in or out of Thailand).

Yesterday I went to one of the local big name grocery stores... and bought a bag of apples.

The cost was 115 baht, but to my amazement when I got to the register, they charged me 250 baht. I said the price on the stand was 115 baht, they said, "that's the thai price, you farang, you price is 250 baht" Apparently, the locals cannot afford to pay the price, so I subsidize their cost.

Oh and when I went to the movies last week, the price was 100 baht for thais, but I paid 180.

Of course this didn't really happen, but I'm making the point, as some on here would find (amazingly) this to be ok.

There are plenty of places where people can access food at any price. When you come to Thailand - it's fair for the Thai nation to be affordable to locals. Getting foreigners to subsidize the upkeep of areas of historical interest and natural beauty is an eminently sensible decision.

I'd advise the whiners to stay out of Cambodia. You'll have a coronary when you find out you have to pay $20 for a day at Angkor Wat when all the Khmer get in for free. That's a policy that is well supported by expats and visitors alike strangely. Because it's not a thing of principle to make those living in relative poverty pay the same as a tourist; it's an obscenity. Thailand is a middle-income nation with lots of poor people (once again minimum wage of $250) and it's entitled to subsidize its citizenry in just the same way as your own countries could - the fact that they choose not to is their choice not a "moral issue".

From the Posts it is clear that the primary concerns over dual pricing relate to discrimination / principle. I guess the continuing whinger / pauper insults are a wind up.

No they don't. They relate to cost dressed up as "principle" including the laughable attempt to suggest that a couple of bucks is an infringement of human rights. This thread has made it very clear that principle has very little to do with this. It's purely a tightwad thing. And again, that's fine - you don't have to spend money in these places, it's your choice not to do so.

But... whining in expat forums? It's not going to change the government's mind about this policy one iota.

I am surprised that anybody (although the minority) on this forum defends this dual pricing policy. Would be interesting to know what percentage of Thais would even defend it ! I think it is extremely hard to defend the policy in a logical and constructive way which is why (i suspect) some of those that are defending choose to do so either with arrogance or blatant insults (whinger, cheapo, only a few dollars etc, etc). I also suggest that the argument that if you do not like an element of a country you are visiting or living in then don't visit there / live there is archaic.

I'm surprised that anyone cares enough to go on and on and on about this, over and over and over again but they do. The only reasonable explanation for this is that the individuals doing the whining have so little cash that $2-$10 is a huge amount of money for them. If this was not the case, they'd work on the system that capitalism is and decide whether or not to pay for something based on their perception of the value they will recieve for their money.

The minimum wage here is about $250 a month. Of course Thais should get a discount when compared to foreigners - even if some Thais have money. But that's too much to comprehend for the Western pauper clinging on to any reason at all to complain about a minor inconvenience.

There is probably a factory just outside of Bangkok where you can buy Hugo Boss labels and have them sewed on Thai made T-shirts for a small fee.

Seriously.

With illegal Burmese workers doing the sewing on of the labels.

And the actual owner of that factory is a Chinese man born on the Mainland, but he has a Hong Kong passport and an "investor"s" visa to Thailand.

So in reality, not much different from the factory in which most designer brands will be manufactured in anyway?

I don't think I've ever heard quite so much rubbish in one post before. It's a human rights issue? Sure, you're so concerned about that - yet, you're living in a country where the Rohingya, for example, are treated more than abysmally. Entry fees to parks are not in the same league. Why embarass yourself? You're cheap. That's it. That's OK too. If you don't find value in the price on the door - you're free not to go. But to try and pretend this a high moral issue? That's really sad.

First "pathetic skinflint" and now "You're cheap" & "sad", you know TV used to have rules about flaming other members, and it is possible to disagree without being insulting like that.

Luckily there's the Ignore-button.

They do say that the truth hurts. Those aren't insults, unless you percieve them to be. Cheap is cheap. Bleating about $2-$10 on an internet forum? That's the definition of cheap. As for sad, it really is sad, when you take a serious issue like human rights and pretend it applies to your own minor fiscal problems. It's not just sad, it's shameful.

Duplicate post. Deleted.