4 hours ago, MarcelV said:

 

blank post

On 10/2/2025 at 3:24 AM, kwilco said:

Here's my summary of dual pricing..... 

 

20 Things to Think About Dual Pricing in Thai Tourism:
Dual pricing is charging foreigners significantly more than locals to enter attractions and national parks. It has been a feature of Thai tourism for decades. Supporters say it’s about protecting citizens from high costs, but in reality it’s a system riddled with flaws.

Since the 1990s, academics and experts have warned it is outdated, unfair, and harmful to Thailand’s global image. Here are 20 things to think about before defending or dismissing it.

 

1. It’s not universal
Resident discounts exist worldwide, but the scale in Thailand (5–10x more for foreigners) is extreme.

 

2. The “foreigners are rich” argument is simplistic
Ability to pay and willingness to pay are not the same thing. Tourists can always choose not to go.

 

3. Costs matter
Ticket prices should reflect local wages, upkeep, and running costs — not arbitrary multipliers.

 

4. The “locals priced out” excuse is weak
Transport, food, and lost working time are bigger barriers than entry tickets. Someone is always “priced out.”

 

5. It hurts local economies
A 500 baht ticket is 500 baht not spent on restaurants, rickshaws, or hotels.

 

6. Misuse of funds
Claims that high foreigner fees fund conservation are rarely true. Maintenance remains poor.

 

7. Secrecy breeds corruption
Where the money goes is opaque. Scandals around the Department of National Parks stretch back decades.

 

8. Neglect of the parks
Despite high fees, most parks remain understaffed, poorly managed, and neglected.

 

9. Bad for tourism’s image
Visitors resent being treated differently. It damages Thailand’s reputation for fairness and hospitality.
 

10. Unequal enforcement
Rangers make snap judgements on looks, leading to embarrassing scenes for mixed-heritage families.
 

11. Exclusion of foreigners
High fees push families and groups away, reducing repeat visits and longer stays.
 

12. Lost opportunities inside the park
Once tourists have overspent at the gate, they have less to spend on camping, food, or souvenirs.
 

13. Ignores successful global models
Countries like Australia and Costa Rica charge fairer, transparent rates — and reinvest visibly in conservation.
 

14. Research has been ignored
From the 1995 Khao Yai “Green Finance” report to 2007 studies, experts have called for reform. Nothing has changed.
 

15. Locals are willing to pay more
Surveys show Thai citizens would accept higher entry fees if money was transparently used.
 

16. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) isn’t that different
Research shows Thai and foreign visitors’ WTP levels are closer than assumed. Dual pricing exaggerates the gap.
 

17. The wrong type of revenue
Sustainable income comes from added services — guides, camping, food — not inflated entrance tickets.
 

18. Missed chance for multi-day passes
Reasonably priced multi-day tickets would encourage longer stays and more local spending.
 

19. Political mismanagement
The Department of National Parks is a ministerial backwater plagued by corruption, hurting conservation.
 

20. Out of step with 21st-century tourism
Globally, tourists expect fairness and transparency. Dual pricing keeps Thailand stuck in the past.

 

The Solution
The way forward is not complicated. A fairer, more effective model would include:
1.   Uniform pricing with modest discounts – a single, transparent rate for all visitors, with reduced entry for children, students, and the elderly.
2.   Park-specific pricing – fees reflecting the true scale, quality, and costs of each park, rather than arbitrary categories.
3.   Multi-day passes – encouraging longer stays, benefiting local hotels, restaurants, and businesses.
4.   Revenue from added services – camping, guiding, food outlets, tours, equipment hire, and souvenirs – generates far more sustainable income than high entry fees.
5.   Transparency and accountability – clear reporting on how revenues are collected and spent, ensuring money actually supports conservation.
Surveys suggest Thai citizens would accept modest increases in entry fees, provided the money was transparently used. This aligns with global best practice: in countries like Australia or Costa Rica, fees are fair, tiered by services, and reinvested visibly in conservation and visitor experience.

 

Conclusion
Dual pricing is not just a bad look—it’s bad economics. It alienates tourists, discourages sustainable spending, and fails to fund conservation. Worse, it has been criticised for decades, with clear alternatives already proposed: fairer uniform prices, discounts for students and seniors, multi-day passes, and reinvestment in services that benefit both parks and communities.

 

Thailand doesn’t need excuses for dual pricing — it needs the courage to replace it.
 

 

The Death Railway in my opinion is the most disgusting of them all. Foreigners 100 baht Thais 15 baht. That entire area including the bridge should have been made a nation park instead out of control mass tourism and greed. Your summary is excellent !

 let's face it, the thumbs-down button reflects far worse on the person using it than on the post they’re reacting to. It basically advertises that they can’t—or won’t—formulate an argument of their own. If someone has a genuine point to make, they’ll write it. If all they can manage is a silent downvote, it tells you everything you need to know about the strength of their position.

9 minutes ago, Mitkof Island said:

The Death Railway in my opinion is the most disgusting of them all. Foreigners 100 baht Thais 15 baht. That entire area including the bridge should have been made a nation park instead out of control mass tourism and greed. Your summary is excellent !

 I think the whole presentation of the Death Railway and the surrounding areas is very poor – it really ignores the history and the issues – but as Thailand was on the "wrong side" in WW2, what do you expect?

If they managed it properly, then again, they would dispose of dual pricing.

Another thing that needs looking at is dual pricing in world heritage sites `s they offer international assistance for conservation, emergency response, and preparatory work. It seems wrong to then ask foreigners to pay extra.  Kanchanaburi has been pushing for this status since at least 2014 to get UNESCO recognition but they need to dramatically clen up their act first

error

 

3 hours ago, kwilco said:

 let's face it, the thumbs-down button reflects far worse on the person using it than on the post they’re reacting to. It basically advertises that they can’t—or won’t—formulate an argument of their own. If someone has a genuine point to make, they’ll write it. If all they can manage is a silent downvote, it tells you everything you need to know about the strength of their position.

QED!

 

7 hours ago, MarcelV said:

 

good point?

On 12/6/2024 at 12:18 AM, webfact said:

FILE photo for reference only

 

ANALYSIS

 

Thailand's dual pricing policy, where foreign tourists often pay more than locals at attractions, sparks ongoing conversation. This practice, grounded in economic rationale, sometimes stirs feelings of exclusion among visitors, leading to mixed reviews and accusations of inequity—although it's crucial to note the difference between nationality-based pricing and racial discrimination.

 

Visitors to popular destinations, such as temples and national parks, encounter this tiered pricing structure, which charges foreigners higher fees compared to local residents.

 

Supporters argue it boosts domestic tourism by offering locals affordable access to cultural sites and helps fund and sustain these attractions amidst the influx of foreign tourists. Defending this strategy, proponents assert it's necessary for the upkeep of the nation’s cultural heritage, ensuring its preservation for future generations.

 

Opinions diverge sharply on this issue. Critics label it as an unfavourable practice that creates a rift between locals and tourists. Many visitors feel targeted due to nationality-based pricing, viewing it as an implicit form of discrimination.

 

While not racially motivated, this differential treatment based on nationality can unintentionally harm Thailand’s reputation as a hospitable destination, provoking feelings of inequity among international travellers.

 

Furthermore, the higher costs could deter some tourists, potentially affecting Thailand's competitiveness compared to neighbouring nations without such policies. Charges for foreigners can be significantly steeper, leading tourists to question the fairness of paying more for identical experiences as locals.

 

Nevertheless, Thailand remains a magnetic tourist destination thanks to its diverse cultural offerings. Despite higher fees, many visitors continue to flock to its renowned sites, suggesting that the exotic appeal outweighs financial grievances, at least for now. Advocates for dual pricing insist that these funds are critical for sustaining the infrastructure and services that make the sites attractive and accessible to all visitors.

 

The challenge moving forward lies in balancing the financial needs of maintaining tourist attractions with maintaining Thailand's image as an open and inclusive environment for all travellers.

 

Exploring a more balanced pricing strategy that respects both local and global visitors might enhance Thailand's tourist appeal and mitigate feelings of exclusion. Transparent dialogue about the purpose and benefits could bridge divides, fostering a more understanding atmosphere among international guests and aligning economic strategies with Thailand’s longstanding tradition of warm hospitality, reported Pattaya Mail.

 

-- 2024-12-06

 

 

 

A sort of Apartheid, and we all know about that. Or does it not count when ethnicity is involved?

racism, all the same, no matter how you want to cut the cloth, the result is the same.

11 hours ago, Merrill said:

A sort of Apartheid, and we all know about that. Or does it not count when ethnicity is involved?

racism, all the same, no matter how you want to cut the cloth, the result is the same.

 

“Dual pricing is bad policy, not apartheid. One is a questionable tourism practice; the other was a brutal system of racial oppression. Let’s not trivialise real history.”