Double Pricing - The Law

[7by7]

But only until 28 Feb, from 1 March all users will pay what were the tourist prices.

[somchaismith]

^

'Richard Barrow

December 24, 2012 at 4:51 pm

The price is 200 Baht until end of February for everyone. I cannot see them increasing it. Anyway, it isn’t a permanent big wheel. Anyone who wants to go and ride the wheel should go over the new year.'

http://www.richardbarrow.com/2012/12/asiatique-backs-down-on-two-price-policy-after-barrage-of-criticism-on-social-media/

[7by7]

See my reply to the above in the other topic.

This cross posting is getting confusing; maybe a mod will close one or other of these duplicate topics.

[somchaismith]

Yes, would be nice.

[bigbamboo]

Yu'p thai price and falang price, it here and in many other countries, is it fair ?

but it would be concidered aracist thing in OZ.

Personally I don't mind...I don't go to these places much anyway. Besides, I'm paid 5-10 times more for being a white teacher compared to the local teachers, or even other non-native speakers? Is that fair? Should I insist they pay me the Thai salary in return for cheap entry to a lousy National park?

Personally I don't have a problem with Thai nationals paying less than foreigners to see their own parks, etc. After all they pay for them with taxes..... well apart from the very poor..... and the very rich.

But when they apply a ten fold increase that's really taking the p***.

[NewlyMintedThai]

Yu'p thai price and falang price, it here and in many other countries, is it fair ?

but it would be concidered aracist thing in OZ.

Personally I don't mind...I don't go to these places much anyway. Besides, I'm paid 5-10 times more for being a white teacher compared to the local teachers, or even other non-native speakers? Is that fair? Should I insist they pay me the Thai salary in return for cheap entry to a lousy National park?

Personally I don't have a problem with Thai nationals paying less than foreigners to see their own parks, etc. After all they pay for them with taxes..... well apart from the very poor..... and the very rich.

But when they apply a ten fold increase that's really taking the p***.

What if they were free for Thais and 400 baht for foreigners?

[mogandave]

Yu'p thai price and falang price, it here and in many other countries, is it fair ?

but it would be concidered aracist thing in OZ.

Personally I don't mind...I don't go to these places much anyway. Besides, I'm paid 5-10 times more for being a white teacher compared to the local teachers, or even other non-native speakers? Is that fair? Should I insist they pay me the Thai salary in return for cheap entry to a lousy National park?

Personally I don't have a problem with Thai nationals paying less than foreigners to see their own parks, etc. After all they pay for them with taxes..... well apart from the very poor..... and the very rich.

But when they apply a ten fold increase that's really taking the p***.

Don't pay it.

[simple1]

@somchaismith: As an example, the Thai Constitution specifically bans foreign ownership of any media outlet and excepting the Treaty of Amity and the Australian FTA, majority shareholding of companies by foreigners is not permitted.. So please tell me why you insist foreigners have equal rights to Thais.

Rupert Murdoch renounced his Australian citizenship and naturalised as American so he could buy shares in Fox becuase only American citizens can own American TV stations.

Because foreigners are not permitted to be majority owners of broadcast media. but can be majority owner of print media, not sure regards web based media outlets. FYI If the foreign entity has a controlling interest in the licensee, but the FCC finds that the foreign ownership is consistent with public interest, then the foreign entity can own as much as 100% interest in the licensee. Source

http://broadbandandsocialjustice.org/2010/12/foreign-ownership-in-u-s-media-and-telecommunications-companies-and-why-the-fcc-is-reluctant-to-allow-it-to-happen/

[ThailandInvestmentGuide]

In the preamble it specifically states "Rights of the Thai People", therefore not relevant to this topic.

Nice try. Can you link to that please? "Rights of the Thai People"

In detail of the PDF at CHAPTER III - Rights and Liberties of the Thai People

Exactly, CHAPTER III - Rights and Liberties of the Thai People to have all persons equal before the law and

shall enjoy equal protection under the law.

Legal jargon is always hard to interpret.

Somchai, much as I admire your tenacity, I think you might be wrong here. Refer this paper by a respected constitutional lawyer and academic:

Conceptually, the current text, as with previous Constitutions, also limits the section on rights to the "rights of the Thai people", thus differing from human rights in international law which pertain to all persons irrespective of nationality and other origins.

Edited January 2, 2013 by ThailandInvestmentGuide

[bermondburi]

I thought it was quite simple. If you don't like or can't afford the price then don't go. Many Thais can't afford the price of a MacDonalds hamburger or frlies, so they don't go there. Some can't afford the price to see a zoo. Live with it. Most Thais I know work a 9 hour day for 6 days a week, just to survive.

Sorry i dont believe that!!!!! most thais woudlnt do a 9hr day in a fit....Yep they work 6 days (some)...but in that day they will only do maybe 3 hrs max actual work.

Stop trying to fix Thailand....and like others have posted.....dont spend the money if it's not value.....Simple hey?. Then they will learn about respect earning a dollar .It's a good place, but you have to bring all into perspective.....you dont spend money they learn why!!!!!!

I'll stick with what I wrote. I said the Thais that I know. I didn't say all Thais. And, if you really want to discuss work ethics, then I could safely say that many people working in North America, Australia and Great Britain don't work much more than 3 out of every 8 hours on the job.

And, who is trying to "fix" Thailand? Just accept it as it is. There are good points and bad points.

I will agree with GrahamF that Thais will do a better job at negotiating a deal with other Thais than they will if a farang is tagging along. It just goes with the territory. I don't have much use for Cheap Charlies and tightwad farangs who will dicker over a few baht with Thais. Most of them need it a whole lot more than we do.

When I lived in Bangkok my wife would try to avoid going shopping with me because the price would be bad . This suited me as I hated going shopping . Different story upcountry though as she would know everyone and they wouldn't dare !

[7by7]

@somchaismith: As an example, the Thai Constitution specifically bans foreign ownership of any media outlet and excepting the Treaty of Amity and the Australian FTA, majority shareholding of companies by foreigners is not permitted.. So please tell me why you insist foreigners have equal rights to Thais.

Rupert Murdoch renounced his Australian citizenship and naturalised as American so he could buy shares in Fox becuase only American citizens can own American TV stations.

Because foreigners are not permitted to be majority owners of broadcast media. but can be majority owner of print media, not sure regards web based media outlets. FYI If the foreign entity has a controlling interest in the licensee, but the FCC finds that the foreign ownership is consistent with public interest, then the foreign entity can own as much as 100% interest in the licensee. Source

http://broadbandands...w-it-to-happen/

So is your view:-

Thai law banning foriegn ownership of the media = bad;

Similar American law, because it has exceptions, = good?

[simple1]

@somchaismith: As an example, the Thai Constitution specifically bans foreign ownership of any media outlet and excepting the Treaty of Amity and the Australian FTA, majority shareholding of companies by foreigners is not permitted.. So please tell me why you insist foreigners have equal rights to Thais.

Rupert Murdoch renounced his Australian citizenship and naturalised as American so he could buy shares in Fox becuase only American citizens can own American TV stations.

Because foreigners are not permitted to be majority owners of broadcast media. but can be majority owner of print media, not sure regards web based media outlets. FYI If the foreign entity has a controlling interest in the licensee, but the FCC finds that the foreign ownership is consistent with public interest, then the foreign entity can own as much as 100% interest in the licensee. Source

http://broadbandands...w-it-to-happen/

So is your view:-

Thai law banning foriegn ownership of the media = bad;

Similar American law, because it has exceptions, = good?

Got to admit foreign ownership of some media outlets in Thailand would be OK, subject to national security considerations, if they tightened up the professionalism of editorials & reporting. As we know number of constrains in place due to libel/defamation laws and a topic we cannot mention.

For Western countries yes good, subject to national security considerations. The public and advertising customers will quickly let them know if the new owners are not doing a good job for the target demographic; same as Thailand

[NewlyMintedThai]

Gotta point out that the foreign-managed/run media outlets in Thailand are just as piss-poor as the Thai ones.

[barky]

Why should this be illegal? It is not a scam, it is business.

Correct. Thailand is not a PC nanny state. A business has the freedom to ask more from whiteys, blacks or whatever. They can even refuse you if they don't like your nose.

Shocked? You have the freedom to avoid them too.

Exactly!!! Thats why I never go to any natioal park or monument or similar in Thailand. I won't allow anyone to charge me more than they do others.

I take 2 to 3 overseas holidays per year and spend my hard-earned in other countries....not Thailand, so I guess in the end, they can charge what they like. They just won't get my money!!!

[somchaismith]

Somchai, much as I admire your tenacity, I think you might be wrong here. Refer this paper by a respected constitutional lawyer and academic:

Conceptually, the current text, as with previous Constitutions, also limits the section on rights to the "rights of the Thai people", thus differing from human rights in international law which pertain to all persons irrespective of nationality and other origins.

As a respected scholar and I would hope gentleman, I point out to you that your 4-year old article is a lesson in sarcasm.

[NewlyMintedThai]

Why should this be illegal? It is not a scam, it is business.

Correct. Thailand is not a PC nanny state. A business has the freedom to ask more from whiteys, blacks or whatever. They can even refuse you if they don't like your nose.

Shocked? You have the freedom to avoid them too.

Exactly!!! Thats why I never go to any natioal park or monument or similar in Thailand. I won't allow anyone to charge me more than they do others.

I take 2 to 3 overseas holidays per year and spend my hard-earned in other countries....not Thailand, so I guess in the end, they can charge what they like. They just won't get my money!!!

So, where do you go?

[Hedghog]

The law as I understand it.

(Sods law 101 ) take it or leave it/2