Which Is Worse?

[Naam]

Not my experience. I (farang) was asked to go to the queue for Farangs. When the personnel noticed us talking in flawless Thai they waved us over to the Thai queue. We paid the same as Thais. Have been there several times with visitors of mine and it happened every time.

I am happy that learning the language is so much appreciated. In my country people just expect everyone to speak the native language. No recognition whatsoever... If foreigners have a slight accent they are ridiculed mercilessly.

:D

Edited March 30, 2008 by Naam

[MiG16]

not related to the OP, but in a bit of a response to the above:

rightly or wrongly...it is not only thailand that practices double pricing. the western (and other non-western) countries do too.

singapore and australia does it with their education fees, malaysia does it with their hotel rooms (not to mention the taxis in the most impolite aggressive way)

similar with taxes, there are countries that do charge non residents/non natives/expats a higher fee. what it comes down to is for the expats/businesses to do a trade off analysis and decide for themselves if the marked up cost of operating/living in a foreign country is viable/profitable. i think most expats are smart and financial savvy, so my guess is they know of the double fees, but despite that its still pays off for them...or else they wouldnt stay...would they

or would they :D

I really should stay locked up in the footie forum...vventuring into general today has been strange

[GuestHouse]

The basis of that argument is that no behaviour no matter how immoral, or indeed criminal, can be condemned if you can find the same behaviour being practiced elsewhere.

[Huey]

Exactly Guest House, Mig16 seems to think it's some how justified because it happens elsewhere. Weak argument.

[MiG16]

if u read carefully, i said rightly or wrongly, which means I cannot claim to condone or agree with it, but simply pointing out that the tone of 'thailand and thai people are totally outrageous with such practice' should perhaps be rethought.

and in some ways the fact that different forms of it exist in different countries would imply there may be certain logic to some of it at least? for instance with the taxes, a random guess could be the governments see that an expat who is temporary residence in a country has access to similar infrastructure that the residents have paid for over longer period of time (use of roads as an easy example...long term infrastructure that used taxpayers money from many years to produce the result /product that anyone on immediate landing in the country will have access to)

similar argument could be extended to the higher fees for national parks.

again, dont get me wrong...im not saying i support it, or in fact the very bigger issue of government power and control of production and delivery of goods and services. im much more in favour of a limited/small government. but what Id be interested to hear, is a more productive debate as to the why, rather than thailand is criminal and thai people are criminal for wanting to charge tourists and farangs the higher fees (in particular the post I was immediately replying to using words like racism and bigotry and the likes....I dont think this has anything to do with racism and needs to be looked at in its economic perspective rather than slurring everything under the broad/convenient banner of racism....)

by the limited reasoning i made a random guess at, it does highlight /bring into bigger question mark for double fees charged by private operators of services though.... higher entry fees to theme parks for example. their business/es are not subsidised by taxpayer, so everyone has equally paid zilch, so essentially should be charged the same price. with public goods, it is plausible for local residents to feel they have paid a certain amount through their tax contribution...and hence perhaps giving rise to the double tier pricing for non resident?

[pampal]

The examples are in truth both symptoms of the same problem - Though the OP twists the point of focus onto the Foreigner.

The issue is not hypocrisy on the part of the foreigner(s) but the fact that the actions of both the foreigner and the Thai in the example given are dishonest.

Those two dishonest acts exist independently of each other, neither is a justification of the other.

There are however some similarities in group behavior; Thais over charging foreigners and justifying that on the basis of (whatever their justification is) and other people (Thais included) breaking copyright on the basis of (whatever their justification is).

And it is in this justification of one's actions where those actions are harmful to others that is a commonality.

Dodgy ground really, morality and ethics being such a difficult subject for so many in Thailand.

--

And if I might add. All my software, music, movies and whatever media I have at home and/or on my computer is fully legal.

mines all illegal saved a fortune

Mine are quasi legal

[Huey]

if u read carefully, i said rightly or wrongly, which means I cannot claim to condone or agree with it, but simply pointing out that the tone of 'thailand and thai people are totally outrageous with such practice' should perhaps be rethought.

and in some ways the fact that different forms of it exist in different countries would imply there may be certain logic to some of it at least? for instance with the taxes, a random guess could be the governments see that an expat who is temporary residence in a country has access to similar infrastructure that the residents have paid for over longer period of time (use of roads as an easy example...long term infrastructure that used taxpayers money from many years to produce the result /product that anyone on immediate landing in the country will have access to)

similar argument could be extended to the higher fees for national parks.

again, dont get me wrong...im not saying i support it, or in fact the very bigger issue of government power and control of production and delivery of goods and services. im much more in favour of a limited/small government. but what Id be interested to hear, is a more productive debate as to the why, rather than thailand is criminal and thai people are criminal for wanting to charge tourists and farangs the higher fees (in particular the post I was immediately replying to using words like racism and bigotry and the likes....I dont think this has anything to do with racism and needs to be looked at in its economic perspective rather than slurring everything under the broad/convenient banner of racism....)

by the limited reasoning i made a random guess at, it does highlight /bring into bigger question mark for double fees charged by private operators of services though.... higher entry fees to theme parks for example. their business/es are not subsidised by taxpayer, so everyone has equally paid zilch, so essentially should be charged the same price. with public goods, it is plausible for local residents to feel they have paid a certain amount through their tax contribution...and hence perhaps giving rise to the double tier pricing for non resident?

Its a ugly word for a ugly practice. Its racism simply put, if you would like to dress it up a lil and call it Economic Racism, or mabey even Nationalism, fine. But at the end of the day the economic argument you pose is inherently flawed by the fact that even RICH Thais, that are better financialy prepaired to pay higher fees, do not pay more. As for govt financed projects like parks, I'm all for a higher fare to NON TAX paying residents. Thats fair and very understandable. But for private institutions it's just moraly and ethicaly wrong in my opinion. And I personaly will never patronize these places. AND I'm very vocal about it when I encounter it, I would love too meet the greedy bigot that owns Ancient City, I would tell him or her that to their face, I hope publicaly too, let em loose a lil face while I'm at it.

[MiG16]

either my english is that bad, or you totally ignore my points.

i thought my explanation above would read as: public goods, double tier pricing..somewhat justified (residents paid for it through tax -- including having paid tax for longer than the expats and none by tourists)

private services -- totally not justified.

and why should a rich thai have to pay more by any logic? they (the rich) will pay more on the basis of wanting better service (expensive brand names, 5 star resorts or such...but thats a question of choice..nothing wrong with that).

racsim usually implies someone is treated different because of their ethnic background /gender. double tier pricing applies across the board to all non-nationals. and if the argument for it is related to tax payment, then I dont know if you can still claim it as racism.

even when you look at double tier pricing by private firms, again i wouldnt use the term racsim. immoral business practice perhaps, racism? certainly wrong terminology. (what I would consider racist is the following scenario: vendors mentioning ridiculously high fee to arabs or indian tourists in order to deter them from using the service because said vendors feel the said races are not good enough to be seen in their establishment)

perhaps thats an issue the expat community should raise in the media and to the consumer protection whatever its called.....demand an explanation, ask them for their justification to charge the different fee/s (maybe they have some weird silly explanation, or they have none....digressing from the subject at hand a bit perhaps.....

but obviously to use 'racism' creates a much more sensationalised effect. headline:

Thai businesses adopt racist practice --grabs attention. big readership

Thai businesses adds unjustified surchange to non-nationals -- yawnnnnnnnnnn

[Eric1949]

Theft is theft, is theft! It's that simple. Whatever justification you offer, it's theft!

Not theft Sir, I paid 70 baht for my DVD/software, I'm not the thief.

[Huey]

either my english is that bad, or you totally ignore my points.

i thought my explanation above would read as: public goods, double tier pricing..somewhat justified (residents paid for it through tax -- including having paid tax for longer than the expats and none by tourists)

private services -- totally not justified.

and why should a rich thai have to pay more by any logic? they (the rich) will pay more on the basis of wanting better service (expensive brand names, 5 star resorts or such...but thats a question of choice..nothing wrong with that).

racsim usually implies someone is treated different because of their ethnic background /gender. double tier pricing applies across the board to all non-nationals. and if the argument for it is related to tax payment, then I dont know if you can still claim it as racism.

even when you look at double tier pricing by private firms, again i wouldnt use the term racsim. immoral business practice perhaps, racism? certainly wrong terminology. (what I would consider racist is the following scenario: vendors mentioning ridiculously high fee to arabs or indian tourists in order to deter them from using the service because said vendors feel the said races are not good enough to be seen in their establishment)

perhaps thats an issue the expat community should raise in the media and to the consumer protection whatever its called.....demand an explanation, ask them for their justification to charge the different fee/s (maybe they have some weird silly explanation, or they have none....digressing from the subject at hand a bit perhaps.....

but obviously to use 'racism' creates a much more sensationalised effect. headline:

Thai businesses adopt racist practice --grabs attention. big readership

Thai businesses adds unjustified surchange to non-nationals -- yawnnnnnnnnnn

Actualy I had to take a step back for a moment and rexamine the word racsim too see if I was as you claimed misusing the word in this instance. I had allot of personal experiance with the word so I figured I knew what I was talking about. As it turns out, I do.. Dictornary definitions vary slightly, however according to the UN, racsim is defined thusly :

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

They include nationality and economic discrimination as well. Which is what this is. Why not call it like it is? I mean they don't have to be making strange fruit out of toursits to adopt racist practices against them.

You know I think your actually doing some good when you make this practice such a out rage and speak against it. Allot of Thais I spoke too who originaly looked at it passivly as not a big deal, re thought that when I put them in the situation and forced them to examine it closely.

Expecialy my wife, who was upset that I refused to pay for ancient city. However when we went to Lausanne and Paris on our honeymoon she got all bent out of shape when the immigration officers in every country looked at her passport 10,000 times and held us up like she was some kind of criminal, just for being a pretty young Thai woman. That experianced opened up her eyes to how nobody likes to be treated unfairly based on things like race or nationality.

[jasreeve17]

not related to the OP, but in a bit of a response to the above:

rightly or wrongly...it is not only thailand that practices double pricing. the western (and other non-western) countries do too.

singapore and australia does it with their education fees, malaysia does it with their hotel rooms (not to mention the taxis in the most impolite aggressive way)

similar with taxes, there are countries that do charge non residents/non natives/expats a higher fee. what it comes down to is for the expats/businesses to do a trade off analysis and decide for themselves if the marked up cost of operating/living in a foreign country is viable/profitable. i think most expats are smart and financial savvy, so my guess is they know of the double fees, but despite that its still pays off for them...or else they wouldnt stay...would they

or would they

I really should stay locked up in the footie forum...vventuring into general today has been strange

You wouldn't want to be spending too much time in the football forum recently MiG (with the goners results.)

[jasreeve17]

either my english is that bad, or you totally ignore my points.

i thought my explanation above would read as: public goods, double tier pricing..somewhat justified (residents paid for it through tax -- including having paid tax for longer than the expats and none by tourists)

private services -- totally not justified.

and why should a rich thai have to pay more by any logic? they (the rich) will pay more on the basis of wanting better service (expensive brand names, 5 star resorts or such...but thats a question of choice..nothing wrong with that).

racsim usually implies someone is treated different because of their ethnic background /gender. double tier pricing applies across the board to all non-nationals. and if the argument for it is related to tax payment, then I dont know if you can still claim it as racism.

even when you look at double tier pricing by private firms, again i wouldnt use the term racsim. immoral business practice perhaps, racism? certainly wrong terminology. (what I would consider racist is the following scenario: vendors mentioning ridiculously high fee to arabs or indian tourists in order to deter them from using the service because said vendors feel the said races are not good enough to be seen in their establishment)

perhaps thats an issue the expat community should raise in the media and to the consumer protection whatever its called.....demand an explanation, ask them for their justification to charge the different fee/s (maybe they have some weird silly explanation, or they have none....digressing from the subject at hand a bit perhaps.....

but obviously to use 'racism' creates a much more sensationalised effect. headline:

Thai businesses adopt racist practice --grabs attention. big readership

Thai businesses adds unjustified surchange to non-nationals -- yawnnnnnnnnnn

Actualy I had to take a step back for a moment and rexamine the word racsim too see if I was as you claimed misusing the word in this instance. I had allot of personal experiance with the word so I figured I knew what I was talking about. As it turns out, I do.. Dictornary definitions vary slightly, however according to the UN, racsim is defined thusly :

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

They include nationality and economic discrimination as well. Which is what this is. Why not call it like it is? I mean they don't have to be making strange fruit out of toursits to adopt racist practices against them.

You know I think your actually doing some good when you make this practice such a out rage and speak against it. Allot of Thais I spoke too who originaly looked at it passivly as not a big deal, re thought that when I put them in the situation and forced them to examine it closely.

Expecialy my wife, who was upset that I refused to pay for ancient city. However when we went to Lausanne and Paris on our honeymoon she got all bent out of shape when the immigration officers in every country looked at her passport 10,000 times and held us up like she was some kind of criminal, just for being a pretty young Thai woman. That experianced opened up her eyes to how nobody likes to be treated unfairly based on things like race or nationality.

Solid point well made Huey. It will, however, never be accepted by the 'Thai do no wrong' brigade on this board...(not suggesting that MiG is in that group.)

I particularly hate the way that the trains charge me 400% the price of a Thai looking person even though I pay tax and have ID cards to prove it.... (Thonburi to Kanchanaburi. Checked with head office and it's policy; if you don't look like a Thai national then you're charged at 4 times the rate. No exceptions.) - Imagine British Rail or Eurostar or any European national railway charging four times the price if you look foreign. [it might be the only idea floated that would bring Eurostar out of the red ]

[jasreeve17]

The examples are in truth both symptoms of the same problem - Though the OP twists the point of focus onto the Foreigner.

The issue is not hypocrisy on the part of the foreigner(s) but the fact that the actions of both the foreigner and the Thai in the example given are dishonest.

Those two dishonest acts exist independently of each other, neither is a justification of the other.

There are however some similarities in group behavior; Thais over charging foreigners and justifying that on the basis of (whatever their justification is) and other people (Thais included) breaking copyright on the basis of (whatever their justification is).

And it is in this justification of one's actions where those actions are harmful to others that is a commonality.

Dodgy ground really, morality and ethics being such a difficult subject for so many in Thailand.

--

And if I might add. All my software, music, movies and whatever media I have at home and/or on my computer is fully legal.

A man to respect. I have to agree wholeheartedly (on this occassion.)

[jstumbo]

regarding "B", how can anyone argue that Microsoft has been charging a realistic market price....or a price which is somehow relative to the production cost of the item.

If Microsoft want to charge whatever the market will bear, then Microsoft must bear what the market does in response, including piracy.

Can piracy really be the problem some people say it is if Microsoft shareholders can still amass billions of dollars from their profits ?

I haven't heard of any company going bankrupt due to piracy. Not likely to either.

Hmmm, Microsoft share holders have been losing money for a long time. Their ticker is MSFT.

Following your logic, successful companies should be penalized for their success. We all should strive for mediocrity to make the world a better place.

I haven't heard of any banks going BK, because of bank heists. Should I go rob a bank?

And all those oil companies have been making a very big profit lately. We should just steal the gas from the stations because they do not deserve the profit.

I have to say in disclosure that I worked for Microsoft for 5 years. And I can tell you that I watched my stock options go from being worth almost a million dollars to being worth less than $50K before I could excersise them because of timing issues.

Also, it is a lot of work to develop the software and cost a lot of money. Sure producing a CD is cheap, but producing the product that goes on the CD is expensive.

I do download TV shows though. Since the networks make them freely available over the air in the US, and on their websites for free if you live in the US, I do not have much of a problem with that.

[Furbie]

As far as DVDs and software goes I don't think its much of a real problem even for the copy right holder. Most people who buy pirated software or DVDs would not buy the real one anyways. I rarely buy either but since I enjoy PC games I will not buy copies as I want the makers to keep developing them. As far as DVDs go if I find a movie I like enough to want to see again I do splash out for the real thing. The DVDs I have that are not originals I bought because they were cheap as an impulse purchase at the market and some are still in the plastic envelope. Where the real problem comes in as far as software piracy is on the corporate level. Companies use the software to make money and they need it for their businesses therefore should be paying for licenses.

What a fantastic argument. I have many DVDs I would have never have purchased if not for the fact they were cheap copies. However, there are a number of movies that I have original DVDs for, as I want them to be perfect, high quality copies.

I would add to that, however, that the Thai market (and many others) need to get real in terms of pricing. 800 baht for a DVD is crazy. Sure, some are less, but even 400 baht is still too much for this market. I actually lost any potential guilt when purchasing copy DVDs when I went into a store that had a movie I was interested in on sale for 250 baht, but was informed by staff that the soundtrack is only in Thai – if I wanted English, I had to spend 850 baht and buy an imported version. So, option three – 90 baht.

On software, trying to get licensed software is a bit of a problem and ridiculously overpriced here in Thailand. Even trying to purchase software on-line can be daunting. There was a particular program suite I downloaded and wanted to purchase once the trail period was up. In the US, it was $50. I was willing to pay this, though felt it was high for Thailand. However, because I was purchasing it with a Thai credit card and billing address, the on-line payment system insisted I purchase from the UK, where it was 60 pounds (this was 2 years ago). How stupid is that??? So, with regret, I went to option three – 100 baht. It still works.

As to someone intentionally overcharging me on a fixed price item, it is unacceptable, even for 10 baht. Though I may or may not decide to call attention to it at the moment, I would certainly never go there again.

[jstumbo]

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

They include nationality and economic discrimination as well. Which is what this is. Why not call it like it is? I mean they don't have to be making strange fruit out of toursits to adopt racist practices against them.

So countries that charge me more for a visa because I am a US passport holder are racist? I guess western countries are racist because they make it more difficult for a person from Thailand to enter their country than a person from another western country? Rules that charge more for foreign students are racist? Thai restaurants in the west that do not serve italian food are racist?

[bendix]

Here is an interesting theory.

Microsoft would not even have achieved half of the dominance it enjoys in the OS, browser etc fields if there wasn't a billion or so pirated versions of their software. On the surface it appears that MS couldn't care less about all the personal pirate copies, they make their real revenue from corporate division which is easily to regulate, much the same way most Western Govts. find it easy to use big business as tax collectors.

I would go as far to say, that MS actively encourages, behind the scenes disytibution of their OS platforms in areas where the bean counters predict weak sales, just to keep the competition out of the market place.

Soundman.

As always, Soundman is spot on. The firm I work for is the leading intellectual property law firm in Asia. Our clients include Microsoft, Warner Bros, Sony, LVMH etc etc. All of them take exactly the line that soundman is suggesting.

Personal piracy - while I could never condone it (ahem) - has zero impact on the copyright holder's revenue. If anything, it helps development by making the brands more prevalent and popular.

That does stop them hiring us and paying millions to protect the brands now and again, but we all know it's just going through the motions and game that noone - the copyright holders, the violaters, the consumers and particularly the law firms - wants to win.

[MeaMaximaCulpa]

Bendix, are you saying that it is basically free for all to aquire pirate software? This is not what I would expect from you, based on your posting history.

I have gone 100% legit software many years ago, especially since the price for the real stuff has been reduced to quite acceptable levels in Thailand. I thought that was to counter piracy, but from what I read, I do not know anymore...

You gurus, please educate me on this topic!

[Huey]

regarding "B", how can anyone argue that Microsoft has been charging a realistic market price....or a price which is somehow relative to the production cost of the item.

If Microsoft want to charge whatever the market will bear, then Microsoft must bear what the market does in response, including piracy.

Can piracy really be the problem some people say it is if Microsoft shareholders can still amass billions of dollars from their profits ?

I haven't heard of any company going bankrupt due to piracy. Not likely to either.

Hmmm, Microsoft share holders have been losing money for a long time. Their ticker is MSFT.

Following your logic, successful companies should be penalized for their success. We all should strive for mediocrity to make the world a better place.

I haven't heard of any banks going BK, because of bank heists. Should I go rob a bank?

And all those oil companies have been making a very big profit lately. We should just steal the gas from the stations because they do not deserve the profit.

I have to say in disclosure that I worked for Microsoft for 5 years. And I can tell you that I watched my stock options go from being worth almost a million dollars to being worth less than $50K before I could excersise them because of timing issues.

Also, it is a lot of work to develop the software and cost a lot of money. Sure producing a CD is cheap, but producing the product that goes on the CD is expensive.

I do download TV shows though. Since the networks make them freely available over the air in the US, and on their websites for free if you live in the US, I do not have much of a problem with that.

I don't buy it about microsoft really, they purposely engineer a flawed overly complicated product to promote its many certifaction courses. If it was so difficult and expensive then explain why Linux is much more stable and MUCH cheaper?

[bendix]

Bendix, are you saying that it is basically free for all to aquire pirate software? This is not what I would expect from you, based on your posting history.

I have gone 100% legit software many years ago, especially since the price for the real stuff has been reduced to quite acceptable levels in Thailand. I thought that was to counter piracy, but from what I read, I do not know anymore...

You gurus, please educate me on this topic!

No, not especially. I'm just saying how the big corporations see it. What individuals do is up to their individual consciences. It's a grey area. I'm sympathetic to the view that - under any definition - it is theft. I'm also mindful that those who buy fake gucci bags are not likely to be in the market for the real ones anyway.

For the record. I have fake software on my home laptop, and I buy fake dvds. It would be hypocritical of me to take too strong a line on the issue.

[Huey]

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

They include nationality and economic discrimination as well. Which is what this is. Why not call it like it is? I mean they don't have to be making strange fruit out of toursits to adopt racist practices against them.

So countries that charge me more for a visa because I am a US passport holder are racist? I guess western countries are racist because they make it more difficult for a person from Thailand to enter their country than a person from another western country? Rules that charge more for foreign students are racist? Thai restaurants in the west that do not serve italian food are racist?

Would you want Italian food in a Thai resturant? Anyway, such topics do require a lil Adult Supervison to work out properly as the post above illustraits. But just to crush it;

1) Laws regulate visa regulations, not the sum of the individuals of that nation. However they can be quite racist depending on the individual nation or visa law in question. Usualy they are based on long standing agreements or political issues they are having with the countries in question.

2) Rules that charge more for foreign studens would only be considered racist if their were no govt subsidies given to said institution for admitting locals. Otherwise it's just recouping the loss of said subsidy

3) And if the Thai resturant didn't serve ITALIANS themselves it would be racist, don't be a dumb azz how can every resturant serve every type of food?

Edited March 31, 2008 by Huey

[GuestHouse]

I'm curious, and I must remind myself to read up on the subject, but why would a foreigner wish to defend a practice of discrimination where he is so obviously among the group being discriminated against?

I say read up on the subject, I have a strong suspicion that the answer lies in the individual's psychological response to dealing with his own immigration - An eagerness to agree with the dominant group perhaps.

That its almost always the less articulate who jump to defend discrimination is perhaps another line of enquiry worth reading up on.

[MiG16]

dont get me wrong....anyone who has read my post properly should realise i certainly do not condone double tier pricing

ive ventured at a guess on why there could be some economic explanation for the public provider to charge non nationals more, but have said when it comes to the private providers, the practice is totally unjustified.

ive seen farangs write very eloquently to the opinion page at either the nation or bangkok post...and I wonder why someone on this board doesnt take it up in one of those medium, rather than only debate it here?

that might be some thing to consider....?

but coming back to Huey, and what you cited from the dictionary...I know what racism is thankyou for bringing that to my attention. but if I may be so pedantic to point out that....entering or not being able to enter a theme park (ancient city, safari world or the likes) is NOT a violation of human rights. huam rights is something thats fundamental to your well being....I would assume this is not one of them....

if you went to the supermarket to buy rice and they start to charge you more for it...then PERHAPS you may start to cry human rights violation...., or a more valid example..if the water authority charged you more because you are white....access to water is certainly amongst the crucial element of basic human rights...but again there are caveats within that...it doesnt and should not applied broadly...thats why it would not be considered racist that the water authority chooses to charge industrial/commercial users a higher rate than the household consumption.

by charging an unreasonable amount of entry fees the businesses are certainly being immoral, but they are NOT DEPRIVING ANYONE OF or VIOLATING HUMAN RIGHTS. at least thats how I read it.

jasreeve...... im actually starting to enjoy this discussion.

ohhh and ...

ARSENAL......the pride of London!! go the Gunners!!!

[MiG16]

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

the above highlighted words sure define racism, but should be read in relation to the "fundamental freedoms" aspect.

this is totally digressing from the subject at hand, but when you start to talk about subjects like human rights and economic freedom it stirs up emotions within me. Im a strong advocate of both. having said that, and I suppose because I AM an advocate, it becomes crucial to be able to distinguish when /what is considered fundamental freedoms, or basic needs. you can demand that governments are somewhat obligated to provide for basic needs of its people, (with the need/challenge to balance that against restrict government interference in people taking control of their own decision making process -- hence i support lower taxes, restricting govt role to funding basic needs and not necessarily being the 'provider' of the service -- but thats another separate discussion in itself...)

you can even demand (or rather appeal) to the good/philanthrophic nature of people to contribute to better welfare of fellow human beings,

but these would work only for the "fundamental human rights and freedoms" as quoted above.

i dont think it is appropriate to use words such as racism /human rights so lightly. especially given we are talking about use of what i consider to be relative luxury goods (leisure and entertainment), as opposed to groups of people struggling to gain the very fundamental essentials to life....or for some the right to life itself.

anyhow.....the other way i read this is:

if say there were certain regulated industries, where price are controlled. then a non-thai approaches to use the service, and the business owner charges you more than the controlled price. the said non-thai files a complaint, and the authority in charge ignores that complaint based on grounds that you are caucasian and not thai. THAT in my opinion would constitute a racist practice.

now shall we move the discussion back to unethical /immoral business practice?

Edited April 1, 2008 by MiG16

[balo]

Just go with the flo

In Thailand I buy what they sell, and if 99% of it is pirated then fine by me.

[Furbie]

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

They include nationality and economic discrimination as well. Which is what this is. Why not call it like it is? I mean they don't have to be making strange fruit out of toursits to adopt racist practices against them.

So countries that charge me more for a visa because I am a US passport holder are racist? I guess western countries are racist because they make it more difficult for a person from Thailand to enter their country than a person from another western country? Rules that charge more for foreign students are racist? Thai restaurants in the west that do not serve italian food are racist?

1) To your first point: Actually, visa pricing as you described is usually based on reciprocity, meaning they base the price on what is being charged by the other country. For example, Lao PDR follows this policy and charges more to the US because a US visa is more expensive. That being said, this formula is a pretty poor one, as a US visa can be 10 years, while you will only get a few months in Lao PDR.

2) Your second argument is correct; entry rule policies in relation to other countries in some cases are racist. However, many of them are borne out by statistical data. For example, it is highly likely that an El Salvadoran who enters the US will try to stay, even illegally, while it is far less likely someone from the UK will. It is indeed a form of profiling and is based on your country of origin.

3) For your third point, if it is a government institution supported by tax dollars, charging foreigners more is fine. If it is a private institution, this, while potentially not racist (as there may be a valid reason, such as an increased administrative charge due to visa processing), is wrong in my opinion.

4) As to your fourth point, it is foolish.

[MrEarl]

Well, if the Thai Government sets the example by effectively pirating patented drugs then who are we who live here to do any differently?

oops

I like it when I go into a national park and get charged 20 times more than a Thai person. (20 baht vs 400 baht)

Makes me feel like I'm worth 20 times a Thai person.

[buffcoat]

Well I may be a mug but it does not bother me that I pay farang price...I earned my money and it does not hurt me to part with a bit of it.

I do not buy pirate software or DVD's etc. because often in the supply chain of these items are some very organized,very dangerous criminal gangs and I do not want any of my money ending up in their pockets.

[Huey]

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

the above highlighted words sure define racism, but should be read in relation to the "fundamental freedoms" aspect.

this is totally digressing from the subject at hand, but when you start to talk about subjects like human rights and economic freedom it stirs up emotions within me. Im a strong advocate of both. having said that, and I suppose because I AM an advocate, it becomes crucial to be able to distinguish when /what is considered fundamental freedoms, or basic needs. you can demand that governments are somewhat obligated to provide for basic needs of its people, (with the need/challenge to balance that against restrict government interference in people taking control of their own decision making process -- hence i support lower taxes, restricting govt role to funding basic needs and not necessarily being the 'provider' of the service -- but thats another separate discussion in itself...)

you can even demand (or rather appeal) to the good/philanthrophic nature of people to contribute to better welfare of fellow human beings,

but these would work only for the "fundamental human rights and freedoms" as quoted above.

i dont think it is appropriate to use words such as racism /human rights so lightly. especially given we are talking about use of what i consider to be relative luxury goods (leisure and entertainment), as opposed to groups of people struggling to gain the very fundamental essentials to life....or for some the right to life itself.

anyhow.....the other way i read this is:

if say there were certain regulated industries, where price are controlled. then a non-thai approaches to use the service, and the business owner charges you more than the controlled price. the said non-thai files a complaint, and the authority in charge ignores that complaint based on grounds that you are caucasian and not thai. THAT in my opinion would constitute a racist practice.

now shall we move the discussion back to unethical /immoral business practice?

Ok, firstly let me start by saying the words that are underlined actualy had LINKS to them, I did not underline them as words that I thought particuarly relivant to this disscussion. If I were to have done so I would have underlined,

1) National or Ethnic origins

2) Impairing

3) Economic

4) Equal Footing

As because I am from another Nation, some racisit locals here in Thailand, refuse to recognize me as their equall, economic or otherwise, and attempt to burden me with a finaical imparement that they would not use against a member of their own Nationality irregaurdless of their financial standing. Thus by virtue of the color of my passport I am automaticaly considered on un equall footing with these co#@ sukahs.

Sadly I did not find the term co#@ sukahs in the definition of racism though some how I think it deserves a place there

[GuestHouse]

I do not buy pirate software or DVD's etc. because often in the supply chain of these items are some very organized,very dangerous criminal gangs and I do not want any of my money ending up in their pockets.

This is an interesting point, a choice made on the basis of the involvement of criminal gangs - It has its own set of compelling moral arguments and blatantly not restricted to Pirated goods, but also to drugs and prostitution.

I've often thought these moral arguments, in particular with respect to drug usage and the criminality that drug usage supports ought to be made use of in encouraging young people not to get involved in drugs.