Entrance Charges To National Parks For Resident Farangs And Thais

[niva103]

consider sending your children to Leuven/Louvain, Belgium.

When I was a kid we had American students staying at our house studying for doctor (medical), my dad was medical professor at that university.

I understand it was cheaper for Americans to come to study at my home town than pay tuition at USA universities, they definitely came from lower social classes and benefited from financial help (bourse d'etudes) Not sure who granted the funds though (USA or Belgium) But since your family obviously makes a lot of money I doubt your children would qualify for financial help

My son came to Bangkok to attend MBA at Siam uni, he paid 400K baht tuition fee. Maybe you can tell us how much a Thai national would pay?

Not sure why an MBA at Siam University is that expensive. It is not even a well known institute. I think your son should have gotten his MBA from a better school in Thailand such as Chula, TU, ABAC. I know a MBA program at ABAC is around 200k so I don't see the reason why an MBA at less known university is more expensive. lol....by the way, i dont have children yet. I'm still only 19.

[hans1977]

I don't think there are any regulations (rather would there be a few examples on "good practice") about the prices to enter national parks in Thailand; you are going to pay whatever price you are offered unless you would rather prefer to turn around and leave, aren't you?

I suppose that all it would take to stop them using foreigner rates is that every foreigner who doesn't get the Thai rate turns around an leave for a year or so...

/Hans

Hi,

I know this topic has been posted several times but I can't find it and anywhere.

What I am looking for is the regulation that states the charges for entrance to National parks is the same for resident farangs as it is for Thais.

The reason I need it is that today I went to a park near the Laos border in eastern Esan and was told to pay 200 baht while my Thai friend only had to pay 40 baht. I showed my 5 year Thai driving licence as proof or residency. We were both issued tickets and mine was for 'Foreigners'. I queried this with the ticket supplier and also a park adminitsrator and they both said the cheaper rates are for Thai nationals only and a resident farang is not entitled to this cheaper rate. I have always thought that I was entitled to this lower rate but now realise I don't have any idea where I got that info from.

I need to get a copy of the regulations (preferably in English and Thai) so I can carry a copy in my car and show it to the ticket office every time I go to a national park.

[drdart]

Driving licence or not you are a foreigner. Accept that. You were sold the correct ticket, like it or not (not in your case).

Would that mean the same as to accept racism???

If I have to pay more than others because of my skin, I leave - always.

I'd like to see a park in Europe charging different (higher) prices for africans or asians.

As for the argument "remember you are a guest in this country!" , this has got to be one of the stupidest quotes i know, and it pops up constantly in all kinds of topics!

- Would you guys say the same thing if some nobrain-gov. started fiddling with say, nuclear weapons?

We all live on planet earth and all have a equal duty to point out stupid or dangerous bahavior!

Charging different price for different colour is STUPID!

[Tyke]

To compare US national parks with national parks in Thailand is like comparing apples with bananas.

Most parks in US probably have 99% US visitors so a dual scheme based on citizenship would make no sense at all, it would probably be more costly to administer than what they would gain on it. That is why they base their disguised discount schemes for local residents with discount coupons or yearly/life discount cards.

Parks in Thailand such as Koh Samet rely mainly on foreign visitors and the amount they take in from them make a big difference in the total revenue.

It may not be fair, there are Thai millionaires and farangs living on a shoestring, but it's a very easy to run system as all Thais have a Thai ID card.

I don't agree at all that the main punters for most National Parks in Thailand are foreign tourists. I've been to many around Thailand, and the main customers are Thai - especially in Thai holiday periods. Farangs are always in the tiny majority. The extra cash given by foreigner prices are relatively small compared to that from Thais. The park attendants also never seem to ask for proof of citizenship - so asians that look like Thais will get in at the Thai rate, like I've seen in India, for example.

If you read my post you will see that I said "Parks in Thailand such as Koh Samet". If you go to Koh Samet you will see that the vast majority of visitors are foreign, same for many of the island parks down south.

I doubt very much that Thais will get in at Thai rates in India

You obviously have not visited Koh Samet during a Thai public holiday period. I would not recommend it as it is difficult to get any accommodation at all because it is fully booked up by Thais. I know a Thai (my partner) who got into a tourist site in Nepal (sorry, not India) free of charge because they thought he was a local, whereas I was stopped and had to pay. You have also obviously not visited some of the inland national parks in Thailand - eg. Kaeng Tana, to which my original message refers (although I could name others if you wish) - the vast majority of visitors are Thai, with only a sprinkling of farangs.

[ZZZ]

You obviously have not visited Koh Samet during a Thai public holiday period. I would not recommend it as it is difficult to get any accommodation at all because it is fully booked up by Thais. I know a Thai (my partner) who got into a tourist site in Nepal (sorry, not India) free of charge because they thought he was a local, whereas I was stopped and had to pay. You have also obviously not visited some of the inland national parks in Thailand - eg. Kaeng Tana, to which my original message refers (although I could name others if you wish) - the vast majority of visitors are Thai, with only a sprinkling of farangs.

I've been to Koh Samet during public holidays and yes there are a lot of Thais there then for 1 or 2 days, there are still a lot of foreigners there and for the remaining 5-6 days of that week the vast majority are foreigners.

That someone illegally sneak in at a lower price is not really to be condoned but it happens.

If you read my earlier posts I said that the more remote parks could as well be same price for all as it will make no big difference. Then again as there are very few foreigners there it will only affect a few people and it's easier to have the same policy for all parks. The more remote parks also have a lower entrance fee compared to the island parks like Koh Samet.

[ZZZ]

Driving licence or not you are a foreigner. Accept that. You were sold the correct ticket, like it or not (not in your case).

Would that mean the same as to accept racism???

If I have to pay more than others because of my skin, I leave - always.

I'd like to see a park in Europe charging different (higher) prices for africans or asians.

As for the argument "remember you are a guest in this country!" , this has got to be one of the stupidest quotes i know, and it pops up constantly in all kinds of topics!

- Would you guys say the same thing if some nobrain-gov. started fiddling with say, nuclear weapons?

We all live on planet earth and all have a equal duty to point out stupid or dangerous bahavior!

Charging different price for different colour is STUPID!

Agree completely that "Charging different price for different colour is STUPID!"

It's also STUPID to not understand the difference between charging for citizenship and charging for skin color.

Thai citizens of ANY skin color pay the local price, foreigners of ANY skin color pay a different price.

[Tyke]

If you read my earlier posts I said that the more remote parks could as well be same price for all as it will make no big difference. Then again as there are very few foreigners there it will only affect a few people and it's easier to have the same policy for all parks. The more remote parks also have a lower entrance fee compared to the island parks like Koh Samet.

Well, I hope Thais ticket collectors can understand all this, coz, sure as 'ell I don't.

[drdart]

Driving licence or not you are a foreigner. Accept that. You were sold the correct ticket, like it or not (not in your case).

Would that mean the same as to accept racism???

If I have to pay more than others because of my skin, I leave - always.

I'd like to see a park in Europe charging different (higher) prices for africans or asians.

As for the argument "remember you are a guest in this country!" , this has got to be one of the stupidest quotes i know, and it pops up constantly in all kinds of topics!

- Would you guys say the same thing if some nobrain-gov. started fiddling with say, nuclear weapons?

We all live on planet earth and all have a equal duty to point out stupid or dangerous bahavior!

Charging different price for different colour is STUPID!

Agree completely that "Charging different price for different colour is STUPID!"

It's also STUPID to not understand the difference between charging for citizenship and charging for skin color.

Thai citizens of ANY skin color pay the local price, foreigners of ANY skin color pay a different price.

Wrong. I live next to Korat Zoo. Big sign: farang price an not farang price. Japanese pay "NOT farang" price!!! Last i checked Japanese and Thais did't have the same citizenship. Good friend with thai citizenship, white skin : farang price. Big argument (in thai), result : we went home.

[CWMcMurray]

Agree completely that "Charging different price for different colour is STUPID!"

It's also STUPID to not understand the difference between charging for citizenship and charging for skin color.

Thai citizens of ANY skin color pay the local price, foreigners of ANY skin color pay a different price.

I think you are arguing it was not meant to be racist, but in practice it actually is racist.

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

and I think you completely mis understand the systems in countries in the west... they are specifically designed to remove any and all requirements of citizenship/nationality/race from everything. All of the requirements are based on a generic set of requirements for residency.

Anyone can fulfill these requirements regardless of there nationality and US citizens can also be excluded if they do not meet the requirements:

Examples:

1. A Thai person goes to live in the US in the State he plans study. He lives there for one year and becomes resident (this does not have anything to do with visa status, it just means you can prove you lived there for a year)

He then applys for University showing proof that he has lived in the State for at least one year before applying for University - he will get charged the resident rate.

2. My daughter, a US citizen, finishes high school in Thailand and wishes to study in the US. She applys for Universty and is accepted. She would be declared an international student and pay the international rate because she is NOT A RESIDENT

You pay the exact same amount and have to meet the exact same residency requirements as my US Citizen daughter. The only reason you pay more than the average US citizen is because the average US citizen lives in the US.

You would also pay the same amount more compared to Thai citizens who have lived in the US for a year before they applied to University (even if they were living in the US illegally for one year on a 3 month tourist visa).

[ZZZ]

Driving licence or not you are a foreigner. Accept that. You were sold the correct ticket, like it or not (not in your case).

Would that mean the same as to accept racism???

If I have to pay more than others because of my skin, I leave - always.

I'd like to see a park in Europe charging different (higher) prices for africans or asians.

As for the argument "remember you are a guest in this country!" , this has got to be one of the stupidest quotes i know, and it pops up constantly in all kinds of topics!

- Would you guys say the same thing if some nobrain-gov. started fiddling with say, nuclear weapons?

We all live on planet earth and all have a equal duty to point out stupid or dangerous bahavior!

Charging different price for different colour is STUPID!

Agree completely that "Charging different price for different colour is STUPID!"

It's also STUPID to not understand the difference between charging for citizenship and charging for skin color.

Thai citizens of ANY skin color pay the local price, foreigners of ANY skin color pay a different price.

Wrong. I live next to Korat Zoo. Big sign: farang price an not farang price. Japanese pay "NOT farang" price!!! Last i checked Japanese and Thais did't have the same citizenship. Good friend with thai citizenship, white skin : farang price. Big argument (in thai), result : we went home.

So you base your argument on 1 or 2 anomalies. The vast majority of cases is citizen Thai price, foreigner foreign price. There is bound to be the odd case of misinterpretation of the rules by some staff at these places.

At some venues tour organizers have negotiated local price for their customers as they are bringing in a steady flow of visitors.

[drdart]

Driving licence or not you are a foreigner. Accept that. You were sold the correct ticket, like it or not (not in your case).

Would that mean the same as to accept racism???

If I have to pay more than others because of my skin, I leave - always.

I'd like to see a park in Europe charging different (higher) prices for africans or asians.

As for the argument "remember you are a guest in this country!" , this has got to be one of the stupidest quotes i know, and it pops up constantly in all kinds of topics!

- Would you guys say the same thing if some nobrain-gov. started fiddling with say, nuclear weapons?

We all live on planet earth and all have a equal duty to point out stupid or dangerous bahavior!

Charging different price for different colour is STUPID!

Agree completely that "Charging different price for different colour is STUPID!"

It's also STUPID to not understand the difference between charging for citizenship and charging for skin color.

Thai citizens of ANY skin color pay the local price, foreigners of ANY skin color pay a different price.

Wrong. I live next to Korat Zoo. Big sign: farang price an not farang price. Japanese pay "NOT farang" price!!! Last i checked Japanese and Thais did't have the same citizenship. Good friend with thai citizenship, white skin : farang price. Big argument (in thai), result : we went home.

So you base your argument on 1 or 2 anomalies. The vast majority of cases is citizen Thai price, foreigner foreign price. There is bound to be the odd case of misinterpretation of the rules by some staff at these places.

At some venues tour organizers have negotiated local price for their customers as they are bringing in a steady flow of visitors.

I don't base my opinions on 1 or 2 incidents. I've been here a few years, and I have experienced this on several occations...

I guess whats bothering me is the term FARANG. It does not only mean foreigner. It means foreigner with different colour.

A japanese, vietnamese or cambodian is NOT a farang! You have white farang and black farang. Thats it.

The term has strong rasistic taste to it.

I'm not saying that any sign actually spells farang (i don't read thai), but the term is beeing so widely used here that it's bound to cause

misunderstandings. The average uneducated thai in the ticked booth gets it wrong, the tourist gets pissed.

Who is looseing? Thai tourism!

Edited July 24, 2008 by drdart

[ZZZ]

Agree completely that "Charging different price for different colour is STUPID!"

It's also STUPID to not understand the difference between charging for citizenship and charging for skin color.

Thai citizens of ANY skin color pay the local price, foreigners of ANY skin color pay a different price.

I think you are arguing it was not meant to be racist, but in practice it actually is racist.

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

and I think you completely mis understand the systems in countries in the west... they are specifically designed to remove any and all requirements of citizenship/nationality/race from everything. All of the requirements are based on a generic set of requirements for residency.

Anyone can fulfill these requirements regardless of there nationality and US citizens can also be excluded if they do not meet the requirements:

Examples:

1. A Thai person goes to live in the US in the State he plans study. He lives there for one year and becomes resident (this does not have anything to do with visa status, it just means you can prove you lived there for a year)

He then applys for University showing proof that he has lived in the State for at least one year before applying for University - he will get charged the resident rate.

2. My daughter, a US citizen, finishes high school in Thailand and wishes to study in the US. She applys for Universty and is accepted. She would be declared an international student and pay the international rate because she is NOT A RESIDENT

You pay the exact same amount and have to meet the exact same residency requirements as my US Citizen daughter. The only reason you pay more than the average US citizen is because the average US citizen lives in the US.

You would also pay the same amount more compared to Thai citizens who have lived in the US for a year before they applied to University (even if they were living in the US illegally for one year on a 3 month tourist visa).

It's comparing apples with bananas again talking about school fees. There are private, state and government schools of all varieties with different rules and regulations.

Another problem with using US for comparison is that the different states are fairly autonomous. If you want to use US for comparison with Thailand you pretty much need to look at the different states as different countries where the people in each state is a citizen of that state. Then you will see that citizens of a state has benefits in that state that out of state people don't have, same as citizens of Thailand have benefits that non citizens don't have.

And for the racist thing the fact that Thai citizens of ANY skin color (race) pay the local price, foreigners of ANY skin color (race) pay a different price completely proves that this practice is not racist.

Just say that a national park in US had the policy of giving US citizens a discount and charge all foreigners a higher price. Would you consider that racist?? If you don't call this racist there is no way you can call the Thai practice racist as this is exactly what they are doing.

It may appear racist for the shortsighted as it seems like one race get in for a lower price while another race have to pay more, but this is just a coincidence, got nothing to do with racism.

[CWMcMurray]

It's comparing apples with bananas again talking about school fees. There are private, state and government schools of all varieties with different rules and regulations.

That is true, but I was answer the claims of other posters that US citizens pay less than foreigners. There are no universities in the US that could have this type policy, it would never stand up in the courts.

Another problem with using US for comparison is that the different states are fairly autonomous. If you want to use US for comparison with Thailand you pretty much need to look at the different states as different countries where the people in each state is a citizen of that state. Then you will see that citizens of a state has benefits in that state that out of state people don't have, same as citizens of Thailand have benefits that non citizens don't have.

But they are not citizens they are residents these two words are not synonyms. You do not need to be a citizen to be a resident and being a citizen does not automatically make you a resident. It is also a non race/nationality based system wich is fair for all.

And for the racist thing the fact that Thai citizens of ANY skin color (race) pay the local price, foreigners of ANY skin color (race) pay a different price completely proves that this practice is not racist.

Again this is not the case, in practice you get one price for Asians and another for those with white skin. I have an Asian American friend who has NEVER paid the foreigner price. He just stands quitly next to his Thai wife and as long as no one hears him speak he gets the Asian price. This is not the exception but rather the rule, at least in practice. But even if it was strictly enforced it would still not make it fair, it would just increase the number of people who were beeing treated unfairly. Also there was a report that a Thai citizen who was a westerner was not allowed to pay the Thai price, it is not hard to picture that conversation--You are Farang!! Even with PR or a Thai ID I am guessing it is still not definite thing that you would get the Thai price.

Just say that a national park in US had the policy of giving US citizens a discount and charge all foreigners a higher price. Would you consider that racist?? If you don't call this racist there is no way you can call the Thai practice racist as this is exactly what they are doing.

Yes I would believe that this was equally unfair because the reason for giving the discount is the fact that as a Resident your tax dollars go towards the upkeep of the park. That is why it is set up in a way that ALL RESIDENTS get reduced prices rather based on citizenship.

I would also be very surprised if it was not labled as racist and a lawsuit was not filed immediately claiming just that. I would also be surprised if that lawsuit was not successful.

It may appear racist for the shortsighted as it seems like one race get in for a lower price while another race have to pay more, but this is just a coincidence, got nothing to do with racism.

If a policy was written in a way that the drafters were not intending to be racist but in practice of that policy is enforced in a matter that is racist I would argue that it is in fact a racist policy.

So if it doesn't have anything to do with racism then what does it have to with?

I can understand the argument of the US parks saying that tax dollars are used for upkeep of the parks so residents should get lower prices.

What I don't understand, is the reason why you believe Thai citizens should receive a lower entrance fee than foreigners that live here fulltime and whose tax dollars go towards the upkeep of these facilities as well.

I want to understand the justification for this, it just seems to be the creation of an excusionary policy aimed at a minority group.

[Yamantaka]

Two-tiered pricing exists almost everywhere that the majority of tourists are significantly more affluent than locals, even in Hawaii. The problem in Thailand is that if everyone paid only the Thai rate, entrance fees would not produce enough revenue to maintain the park. If everyone had to pay the "farang" rate, most Thais would not be able to visit their own parks which would be worse. Maybe the best solution is what happens in many other countries where everything sold is taxed exorbitantly and that pays for national parks, etc.

[ZZZ]

It's comparing apples with bananas again talking about school fees. There are private, state and government schools of all varieties with different rules and regulations.

That is true, but I was answer the claims of other posters that US citizens pay less than foreigners. There are no universities in the US that could have this type policy, it would never stand up in the courts.

Another problem with using US for comparison is that the different states are fairly autonomous. If you want to use US for comparison with Thailand you pretty much need to look at the different states as different countries where the people in each state is a citizen of that state. Then you will see that citizens of a state has benefits in that state that out of state people don't have, same as citizens of Thailand have benefits that non citizens don't have.

But they are not citizens they are residents these two words are not synonyms. You do not need to be a citizen to be a resident and being a citizen does not automatically make you a resident. It is also a non race/nationality based system wich is fair for all.

And for the racist thing the fact that Thai citizens of ANY skin color (race) pay the local price, foreigners of ANY skin color (race) pay a different price completely proves that this practice is not racist.

Again this is not the case, in practice you get one price for Asians and another for those with white skin. I have an Asian American friend who has NEVER paid the foreigner price. He just stands quitly next to his Thai wife and as long as no one hears him speak he gets the Asian price. This is not the exception but rather the rule, at least in practice. But even if it was strictly enforced it would still not make it fair, it would just increase the number of people who were beeing treated unfairly. Also there was a report that a Thai citizen who was a westerner was not allowed to pay the Thai price, it is not hard to picture that conversation--You are Farang!! Even with PR or a Thai ID I am guessing it is still not definite thing that you would get the Thai price.

Just say that a national park in US had the policy of giving US citizens a discount and charge all foreigners a higher price. Would you consider that racist?? If you don't call this racist there is no way you can call the Thai practice racist as this is exactly what they are doing.

Yes I would believe that this was equally unfair because the reason for giving the discount is the fact that as a Resident your tax dollars go towards the upkeep of the park. That is why it is set up in a way that ALL RESIDENTS get reduced prices rather based on citizenship.

I would also be very surprised if it was not labled as racist and a lawsuit was not filed immediately claiming just that. I would also be surprised if that lawsuit was not successful.

It may appear racist for the shortsighted as it seems like one race get in for a lower price while another race have to pay more, but this is just a coincidence, got nothing to do with racism.

If a policy was written in a way that the drafters were not intending to be racist but in practice of that policy is enforced in a matter that is racist I would argue that it is in fact a racist policy.

So if it doesn't have anything to do with racism then what does it have to with?

I can understand the argument of the US parks saying that tax dollars are used for upkeep of the parks so residents should get lower prices.

What I don't understand, is the reason why you believe Thai citizens should receive a lower entrance fee than foreigners that live here fulltime and whose tax dollars go towards the upkeep of these facilities as well.

I want to understand the justification for this, it just seems to be the creation of an excusionary policy aimed at a minority group.

I understand your argument that foreigners living here full time should pay the Thai price.

The question is where do you set the limit??

What is full time? An expat here on a one year contract?? Should you get the privilege after have living here for a certain time?? Should retirees have the privilige as they support the local economy???Should it be for people with Thai residence visa??

And how should all this be controlled??

Do you see my point? Using citizenship all you need is to ask for the Thai ID card that all Thai citizen have to carry and you know what fee to pay.

Like I said before nothing is fair and you can not always please everyone.

[CWMcMurray]

Two-tiered pricing exists almost everywhere that the majority of tourists are significantly more affluent than locals

So you agree then that locals should all pay the the lower price? I think that is all everyone else is saying...

The problem is that currently all locals are not charged local prices some locals are charged tourist prices...

[CWMcMurray]

What is full time? An expat here on a one year contract?? Should you get the privilege after have living here for a certain time?? Should retirees have the privilige as they support the local economy???Should it be for people with Thai residence visa??

This depends, you may say that you need a non im visa or over 1 yr of unbroken visa in Thialand or PR or a work permit. The point is that these policies would also include the Local Foreigner group and this is what the real debate should be over.

And how should all this be controlled??

There may be documents needed ie pasport with unbroken visa or Work permit or something that can be applied for or a seperate desk created for foreigners wishing to pay the local price to check their residency. Or the additional monies could be refundable for local foreigners, they figured out a way for tourists to get VAT refunded it is not to hard to think that they would be able to find a way to check for residency or refund the difference.

Or I just had an even better idea - if we are to be treated as tourists let us local foreigner get a VAT refund for everything we buy as well, that sounds fair enough...

Do you see my point? Using citizenship all you need is to ask for the Thai ID card that all Thai citizen have to carry and you know what fee to pay.

Like I said before nothing is fair and you can not always please everyone.

These are all valid questions and I agree that the policy was most likely made becaus it was seen as an "easy" way to do it, but easy and fair are two different things. I honestly do not believe that it was designed to be unfair and had nothing but the best of intentions.IT was made with only two groups in mind Thais and Foreign Tourists.

The questions you ask in your above post are the ones that need to be dabated, but the first step is to agree that perphaps the Thai - non Thai pricing that mostly only gets enforced with non asian foreigners is not the fairest policy.

And as I earlier mentioned, I am sure we all realize that everything is not fair, but the first step is recognizing the difference between fair and not fair. After that comes the more difficult part, trying to fuigure out what would be fair and finding a way to change or implement it.

Edited July 24, 2008 by CWMcMurray

[ZZZ]

The questions you ask in your above post are the ones that need to be dabated, but the first step is to agree that perphaps the Thai - non Thai pricing that mostly only gets inforced with non asian foreigners is not the fairest policy.

Nothing to agree about here, I have never seen this happen. Whenever I have seen Chinese, Korean or Japanese tourist enter they have paid the foreign price. Sure the odd one will illegally slip trough but the vast majority don't.

At the moment a Thai ID card is the only way to do this, fair or not.

[CWMcMurray]

At the moment a Thai ID card is the only way to do this, fair or not.

I would argue that it is not the only way, it is simply the way it is currently done. Which is really just a restating of the problem.

But I do appreciate that you are no longer arguing that is the fair thing to do. That is a start and I appreciate your willingness to listen to my arguments.

[CWMcMurray]

The question is where do you set the limit??

What is full time? An expat here on a one year contract?? Should you get the privilege after have living here for a certain time?? Should retirees have the privilige as they support the local economy???Should it be for people with Thai residence visa??

And how should all this be controlled??

I have given serious though to your questions and have come up with a proposed solution. (This is your turn to criticize and tell me why this wouldn't work or how it is not fair, but please also feel free to offer solutions as well)

1. I believe that the Thai govenment has already set the limits of who they consider a tourist and who they consider a local. Those that qualify for VAT refund are tourists, those that don't must then be locals?

If this same standard is used then it would create a very fair and consistant position. If any other standard is used then you will face a problem with inconsistancy

- Some one may qualify as a tourist and a refund of VAT and Local prices for parks (this would be unfair)

-or-

- Someone may be considered a local for VAT puposes but not a local for admission to parks

2. This should not be hard to implement as the training program and trained individuals already exist, they may need to just expand the number of people. The requirements would be the same, the only difference will be what benefits you are eligible depending on which side of the line you fall.

[barky]

Wow is this thread still going? I'd have thought it would have run it's course by now.

In sum, I think if an individual is not prepared to pay the alien price, no matter what their status or circumstance, then don't go to these kinds of places. Boycott them. Go to alternative venues/locations or even overseas.

Yes, it's really that simple.

[sungsom]

Hi,

I know this topic has been posted several times but I can't find it and anywhere.

What I am looking for is the regulation that states the charges for entrance to National parks is the same for resident farangs as it is for Thais.

The reason I need it is that today I went to a park near the Laos border in eastern Esan and was told to pay 200 baht while my Thai friend only had to pay 40 baht. I showed my 5 year Thai driving licence as proof or residency. We were both issued tickets and mine was for 'Foreigners'. I queried this with the ticket supplier and also a park adminitsrator and they both said the cheaper rates are for Thai nationals only and a resident farang is not entitled to this cheaper rate. I have always thought that I was entitled to this lower rate but now realise I don't have any idea where I got that info from.

I need to get a copy of the regulations (preferably in English and Thai) so I can carry a copy in my car and show it to the ticket office every time I go to a national park.

[sungsom]

Hi

I too have had many frustrations with these 2 tier systems .

Where i used to live we had the most beautiful unspoilt beaches 40 minutes or so away from the (boring) town, i feel they are shooting themselves in the foot in many cases ,as the insistance of the 200baht for frang basically put people off from going there on any day off .

If we were to go there for the day we add dramatically to the local economy of the food and drink stalls and would probably out spend most Thais over the day.

If asking why the difference was so great between frang and thai they would say that this goes towards cleaning up the beach areas.

In my experience it was mainly the Thais that would leave their rubbish behind on the beach,whilst we would respect the habitat.

But in a few cases if lucky, with proof of residency you will occasionally meet a nice person who treat you the same and charge you the same as Thais.

[madjbs]

as the insistance of the 200baht for frang basically put people off from going there on any day off .

^ Ever considered that was the idea, they increase the park revenue while decreasing the number of visitors which in turn doesn't stress the natural habitat as much (erosion, litter etc..)

Edited July 25, 2008 by madjbs

[ZZZ]

The question is where do you set the limit??

What is full time? An expat here on a one year contract?? Should you get the privilege after have living here for a certain time?? Should retirees have the privilige as they support the local economy???Should it be for people with Thai residence visa??

And how should all this be controlled??

I have given serious though to your questions and have come up with a proposed solution. (This is your turn to criticize and tell me why this wouldn't work or how it is not fair, but please also feel free to offer solutions as well)

1. I believe that the Thai govenment has already set the limits of who they consider a tourist and who they consider a local. Those that qualify for VAT refund are tourists, those that don't must then be locals?

If this same standard is used then it would create a very fair and consistant position. If any other standard is used then you will face a problem with inconsistancy

- Some one may qualify as a tourist and a refund of VAT and Local prices for parks (this would be unfair)

-or-

- Someone may be considered a local for VAT puposes but not a local for admission to parks

2. This should not be hard to implement as the training program and trained individuals already exist, they may need to just expand the number of people. The requirements would be the same, the only difference will be what benefits you are eligible depending on which side of the line you fall.

Just because you don't qualify for VAT refund does not make you a "local" and a "local" is not the same as a citizen. By being a citizen of Thailand you are a part owner of the country's national parks and get access at a discounted price.

To not qualify for VAT you need to stay in Thailand for more than 180 days in a year, you could do that on tourist visas. I don't think it's fair that someone who only stay more than six month in the country should pay the same as the owners of the parks who also have to contribute a lifetime of taxes to the parks.

To implement your scheme you need to carry your passport around, you are supposed to anyway but most people don' t.

I doubt very much that the people working at the national parks could easily check someones passport and determine if that person had been in Thailand for less or more than 180 days, even trained immigration officers have problems doing this, you also need to be able to read english to do this and will be a problem.

The by far most simple and fair way of doing this is the way it's done now, Thai ID card discounted price, no Thai ID card foreigner price.

[sriracha john]

Part of the problem is that Thailand is one of the cheapest nice countries to stay in the world and consequently attracts some of the world's cheapest Westerners demanding to be housed and fed and entertained for the same price as a Thai labourer. There really is no solution but the realistic expectation that the Westerner's demands will occasionally be unmet and he will get frustrated and start crying like a small child.

I think that is an incredibly simplistic reply and one that I find a little offensive. It is often the case that people make this kind of remark without any sort of data to back it up. Personally I am fully employed and paid very well working outside of the kingdom 6 months a year, All of my Friends here are (or would be considered) fairly affluent by the standards of their mother country. Part of the problem is that people come here and see some westerners who obviously are not well off and also see that some westerners complain and then lump almost everyone into the "whining cheap Charlie" bracket.

Regardless of the dozens of posts stating "other countries practice dual pricing", the fact is that here it is done soley by your ethnicity and as such is a racist practice. This sort of blanket overcharging would not be allowed in many western countries, as the bleeding heart Politically correct crowd, would be taking people to court over racist policies.

regards

Freddie

I find it incredibly simplistic to label an entire nation as racist without backing it up with any sort of data.

Get your facts right. The dual prizing in Thailand is based on citizenship. Any Thai citizen, weather he is of Indian, Khmer, Burmese, Chinese, Malay, Thai or farang origin, will pay the Thai price. To try and twist this to being racist is just wrong

To a couple of issues raised in this latest version of an old-ish topic...

The racist angle... and the ability to pay the Thai rate when not a Thai National ID Card holder...

from Meadish's all-encompassing thread...

If you go in the parks with Thai's (family) and have Thai driving license, show it when you go in and 9 times out of ten you will get in at Thai prices, especially if you joke that you are farang Lao and not farang tourist.

Also at some parks the driver go's in free. That always upsets the person collecting the fees when the driver is a farang.

As with many things in Thailand... different experiences in similar situations abound.

I've experienced no greater than perhaps a 20% success rate with what you describe in approximately 30 different National Parks all around the country.

It involves many different factors which can sometimes be as trivial as which employee is manning the gate on any particular day (successful at the same park one day and unsuccessful on another day) or even the mood of the same employee on any given day (successful at the same park one time and unsuccessful on another day with the same employee both times).

Irregardless of whether or not it's successful, it contradicts the official rules on the National Park's own website which dictate simply that there is a rate for Thais and a rate for Foreigners.

The discrimination is not on race but nationality so its nationalist, not racist.

I fear you are wrong with your assessment here. I tried to enter a park with a group of friends from Malaysia and Hong Kong. They were all charged Thai rate despite not understanding or speaking a word of Thai. The man in the booth tried to charge myself and my (half) Thai children, who have Thai citizenship, the full Farang rate.

When asked about this, the guy in charge said they regarded Asians as Thai, Farangs were Farang even when they had Thai ID. We only succeeded in getting in, all of us paying Thai admission, after a long discussion and calling his boss.

The discrimination is based on appearance, (I don't like your face,) not nationality.

It's not in the rules per say, it's in the implementation of the rules at the entrance gate level.

The employees, who are the direct representatives of the government, apply the racist pricing policy on all-too-frequent basis to the point it's discrimination on a government institutional level.

[TheDon]

Im so sick of tight asses, if you dont have the money then dont go, stop complaining about it.

TIGHT ASSES

[CWMcMurray]

To implement your scheme you need to carry your passport around, you are supposed to anyway but most people don' t.

So those that don't bring their passport have to pay tourist prices. No problem here...

I doubt very much that the people working at the national parks could easily check someones passport and determine if that person had been in Thailand for less or more than 180 days, even trained immigration officers have problems doing this, you also need to be able to read english to do this and will be a problem.

They seem to be very effective in determining who qualifies for Vat refund. I think you underestimate the Thai people, I obviously don't think they are as incompetent as you do.

As long is there is at least one person qualified to do this, I don't see a problem. If a foreigner asks for the local price refer him to the the person who is in charge of checking this.

The by far most simple and fair way of doing this is the way it's done now, Thai ID card discounted price, no Thai ID card foreigner price.

I have an even simpler and fairer way... charge one price for everyone, nothing fairer or simpler than that.

[Milo]

I always have to chime into these discussions.

I get so sick and tired of hearing the farang apologists say that what Thailand is doing is equivalent to the rest of the world.

It is NOT! Thailand grants their discounts based on CITIZENSHIP! Not residency. That is VERY discriminatory, and all of who live here and are RESIDENTS have a right to complain. I work, pay my taxes, and in any western country would get the reduced resident's price.

The idea behind that law is that residents contribute to the tax base which funds the park or school, therefore they get the reduced price.

For private businesses, all of you are correct. They can discriminate all they want, and if you don't like it go somewhere else. However, for the national parks, what the government does is simply unacceptable, and complaining about it doesn't mean you are cheap or menial. It simply means you have an ingrained understanding of what is fair and acceptable.

Let me ask all you Thai government apologists this: if farang has permanent residency but not citizenship, are they considered a resident? Should they get the cheaper price? Justify your answer. Skin color is not an acceptable answer.

I've been refused on the Thai driving license before, but NEVER on my Braggan sangkom (sic?) social security card which shows I'm a tax/insurance payer, so I'll dispute that fact.

[Mario2008]

International Convention on Civil and Political Rights

Article 26

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

Article 5

In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:

..........

(f) The right of access to any place or service intended for use by the general public, such as transport hotels, restaurants, cafes, theatres and parks.

Thailand is a member to both treaties.