Thai National Parks ordered to charge foreigners tenfold

[Bluespunk]

Just discussed this issue with my good female, educated Thai friend (not gf). Her spontaneous/initial remark/comment: "It's like that all over the world right ?" (file under brainwashing). My reply: No, it's not. Not at all. Where I come from it's forbidden by law. Everyone pays the same price except for students and retired folks, no matter what country they come from. Yes, 60+ Thai will pay less than non-60 native folks, aha!

My point being: Thai people don't know, period. They have not been abroad and if they did, they did it in some organised Thai tour ripping THEM off (as they don't know). Ripping off is endemic here. Charging people too much is how this country survives. Ripping off its own people, 24/7.

But, one cannot say this loudly. Nooooooooo. One should be grengjai, smile [deny the ignorance] and keep one's friends stupid and uninformed.

SAD feudal state

several people have said, including myself, that there are discounts for locals in other countries, refer to post #521 for a closer definition of anti-discrimination laws, they are not what you think they are.

As for "They have not been abroad" are you now going to call the Australian government racist because a Thai needs to apply for a visa, prove they can support themselves, and prove they have reason to leave Australia before it will be granted, where as an Australian, just needs to jump on a plane and is granted a 30 day visa on arrival in Thailand ?

Locals in those cases includes anyone living in the local area, irregardless of nationality.

All and sundry can and do receive the discount.

Nationality does not come into it.

[Bluespunk]

mate you have missed every point and I was directly responding to your post

the fact you don't agree with it only exacerbates your lack of understanding of real world issues and what discrimination is.

change they way you are thinking about the park issue to the "normal price" is 400 Baht and locals get a 90% discount

Now would it be fair to charge the locals full price(400 Baht)?

could they afford it ?

would they be excluded from the parks through pricing policy?

that is discrimination, charging different prices is not discrimination, there is no farang in Thailand being excluded from the parks by a $15 entry fee but the majority of Thais would be excluded if they had to pay 400 Baht

Indirect discrimination occurs when an unreasonable requirement, condition or practice is imposed that disadvantages a person or group because of a personal characteristic.

change they way you are thinking about the park issue to the "normal price" is 400 Baht and locals get a 90% discount

Don't hold your breath on that one Outboard, unless you are fond of the colour purple... ;-)

You can lead a horse to the water.... but you cant always make it drink.

Define local.

[Shadychris]

mate you have missed every point and I was directly responding to your post

the fact you don't agree with it only exacerbates your lack of understanding of real world issues and what discrimination is.

change they way you are thinking about the park issue to the "normal price" is 400 Baht and locals get a 90% discount

Now would it be fair to charge the locals full price(400 Baht)?

could they afford it ?

would they be excluded from the parks through pricing policy?

that is discrimination, charging different prices is not discrimination, there is no farang in Thailand being excluded from the parks by a $15 entry fee but the majority of Thais would be excluded if they had to pay 400 Baht

Indirect discrimination occurs when an unreasonable requirement, condition or practice is imposed that disadvantages a person or group because of a personal characteristic.

change they way you are thinking about the park issue to the "normal price" is 400 Baht and locals get a 90% discount

Don't hold your breath on that one Outboard, unless you are fond of the colour purple... ;-)

You can lead a horse to the water.... but you cant always make it drink.

Define local.

Residents. Those who hold a red book.

[Bluespunk]

No, and nothing in my post indicates that...nothing at all.

Charge one price for all is what I said.

There is no reason that anyone should pay more because of their nationality.

None at all.

Actually everything in your post does , however you are so focused on racism that you are not reading what my post said , which was charge them the farang price which would mean everyone was paying the same, no discrimination according to you , except then Thais would be excluded from national parks through a pricing policy.

sometimes charging everyone the same price, or treating everyone the same is actually discrimination because it disadvantages a certain group of people.

can the majority of foreigners in Thailand afford to regularly visit a national park and pay 400 Baht ?

can the majority of Thai's in Thailand afford to regularly visit a national park and pay 400 Baht ?

Human Rights Commission Victoria website says-:

Indirect discrimination occurs when an unreasonable requirement, condition or practice is imposed that disadvantages a person or group because of a personal characteristic.

At no point did I use the word racism. I said discrimination.

Nothing in my post justifies discrimination and I fail to see how anyone could think it does. Bewildered in actuality.

To discriminate on the basis of nationality is wrong.

No ifs, buts or whys, it's wrong.

What does make me laugh is your UN quote backs up my position and proves yours false.

Personal characteristic....Not Thai.

Disadvantages......charges more because you are the wrong nationality. If I am charged more for the same thing on the basis of nationality then I am being disadvantaged and discriminated against.

[Bluespunk]

change they way you are thinking about the park issue to the "normal price" is 400 Baht and locals get a 90% discount

Don't hold your breath on that one Outboard, unless you are fond of the colour purple... ;-)

You can lead a horse to the water.... but you cant always make it drink.

Define local.

Residents. Those who hold a red book.

That's me in that I am resident.

Have work Permit.

Pay my taxes.

Yet I do not receive the discount, because of.............my nationality.

That is discrimination.

That is wrong.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Bluespunk

[White Christmas13]

Any body on here knows the entrance fees at Erawan National park in Kanchanaburi ?

100 baht with Thai drivers licence, 300 baht without, Thai national 100 baht, i was there early this week got a ferry across a stretch of water

Thank you very much for your info

[Shadychris]

change they way you are thinking about the park issue to the "normal price" is 400 Baht and locals get a 90% discount

Don't hold your breath on that one Outboard, unless you are fond of the colour purple... ;-)

You can lead a horse to the water.... but you cant always make it drink.

Define local.

Residents. Those who hold a red book.

That's me in that I am resident.

Have work Permit.

Pay my taxes.

Yet I do not receive the discount, because of.............my nationality.

That is discrimination.

That is wrong.

Permanent resident? You have a red book obtained through the Thai residency permit route??

If so then you should be charged the lower rate.

[DM07]

The point is not if a tourist can AFFORD 10x the price that a Thai can.

Going by that logic, a tourist also can afford THB 350 instead of 35 for a Khao Pad Gai or THB 1.300 for THB 130 taxi- ride.

Why not take that further: a Thai pays 7 Baht for a bottle of drinking water at the 7eleven, so charge a tourist 70!

Get your heads out of you behinds for a second, will ya'?!

You confusing the financing of a governmental department which has very little chance to make any money with privately owned businesses which have every chance to make a profit , so actually you are not going by that logic at all as they are completely different cases. Dual pricing of a privately owned attraction would offend me and would fit with the logic you imagined.

Nope, I am not confusing that!

I named a private enterprise, that is doing exactly that: Siam Ocean World!

Go and check it out!

I am critizing the LOGIC: farang = more money = higher price!

If you follow that kind of logic, all kinds of ridiculous concepts may pop up.

This is not a question of have's vs have not's - it is also not an issue of taxpayer vs non-taxpayer.

I have lived here for 8 years and in that time, paid more taxes than many, many Thais.

And -true- I might get a price reduction, if I wave my work-permit in the face of a Nationalpark"ranger"...or I might not!

And tourists?

They pay taxes in Thailand as well!

Guess what it is, that you pay on top of a bill in a restaurant!

Guess what you pay with every beer, every bottle of water, every sandwich you buy, every hotel room you rent!

IF this would be no issue...why are Nationalparks have signs for the Thai- price in Thai- language and farang- prices in English?

Just because Somchai Watchingporn is not able to figure out the entrance price for himself, if written in English?

Get real, please!

[Bluespunk]

Residents. Those who hold a red book.

That's me in that I am resident.

Have work Permit.

Pay my taxes.

Yet I do not receive the discount, because of.............my nationality.

That is discrimination.

That is wrong.

Permanent resident? You have a red book obtained through the Thai residency permit route??

If so then you should be charged the lower rate.

No and I did not say I did.

I do however reside here and have done so for 13 years now.

I live here. Own my own condo here. Work here. Pay taxes.

Yet because of this ridiculous, chauvinistic discrimination I am not entitled to the Thai price.

It's wrong to charge more on the basis of nationality.

It should be one charge for all.

Additionally your definition of local is wrong as far as I am concerned.

If you live locally then you are local.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Bluespunk

[kieran2698]

The point is not if a tourist can AFFORD 10x the price that a Thai can.

Going by that logic, a tourist also can afford THB 350 instead of 35 for a Khao Pad Gai or THB 1.300 for THB 130 taxi- ride.

Why not take that further: a Thai pays 7 Baht for a bottle of drinking water at the 7eleven, so charge a tourist 70!

Get your heads out of you behinds for a second, will ya'?!

You confusing the financing of a governmental department which has very little chance to make any money with privately owned businesses which have every chance to make a profit , so actually you are not going by that logic at all as they are completely different cases. Dual pricing of a privately owned attraction would offend me and would fit with the logic you imagined.

Nope, I am not confusing that!

I named a private enterprise, that is doing exactly that: Siam Ocean World!

Go and check it out!

I am critizing the LOGIC: farang = more money = higher price!

If you follow that kind of logic, all kinds of ridiculous concepts may pop up.

This is not a question of have's vs have not's - it is also not an issue of taxpayer vs non-taxpayer.

I have lived here for 8 years and in that time, paid more taxes than many, many Thais.

And -true- I might get a price reduction, if I wave my work-permit in the face of a Nationalpark"ranger"...or I might not!

And tourists?

They pay taxes in Thailand as well!

Guess what it is, that you pay on top of a bill in a restaurant!

Guess what you pay with every beer, every bottle of water, every sandwich you buy, every hotel room you rent!

IF this would be no issue...why are Nationalparks have signs for the Thai- price in Thai- language and farang- prices in English?

Just because Somchai Watchingporn is not able to figure out the entrance price for himself, if written in English?

Get real, please!

But your examples don't prove your point, Siam Ocean World does not discriminate based on nationality but residency, expats get the local rate, so it is quite a different case and clearly nothing to do with what you claim, farangs = more money, or they would also charge the expats more.

[DM07]

The point is not if a tourist can AFFORD 10x the price that a Thai can.

Going by that logic, a tourist also can afford THB 350 instead of 35 for a Khao Pad Gai or THB 1.300 for THB 130 taxi- ride.

Why not take that further: a Thai pays 7 Baht for a bottle of drinking water at the 7eleven, so charge a tourist 70!

Get your heads out of you behinds for a second, will ya'?!

You confusing the financing of a governmental department which has very little chance to make any money with privately owned businesses which have every chance to make a profit , so actually you are not going by that logic at all as they are completely different cases. Dual pricing of a privately owned attraction would offend me and would fit with the logic you imagined.

Nope, I am not confusing that!

I named a private enterprise, that is doing exactly that: Siam Ocean World!

Go and check it out!

I am critizing the LOGIC: farang = more money = higher price!

If you follow that kind of logic, all kinds of ridiculous concepts may pop up.

This is not a question of have's vs have not's - it is also not an issue of taxpayer vs non-taxpayer.

I have lived here for 8 years and in that time, paid more taxes than many, many Thais.

And -true- I might get a price reduction, if I wave my work-permit in the face of a Nationalpark"ranger"...or I might not!

And tourists?

They pay taxes in Thailand as well!

Guess what it is, that you pay on top of a bill in a restaurant!

Guess what you pay with every beer, every bottle of water, every sandwich you buy, every hotel room you rent!

IF this would be no issue...why are Nationalparks have signs for the Thai- price in Thai- language and farang- prices in English?

Just because Somchai Watchingporn is not able to figure out the entrance price for himself, if written in English?

Get real, please!

But your examples don't prove your point, Siam Ocean World does not discriminate based on nationality but residency, expats get the local rate, so it is quite a different case and clearly nothing to do with what you claim, farangs = more money, or they would also charge the expats more.

Okay, I'll bite: define Expat, please.

And while you are on it: what am I and why did I pay the farang price- 5 times by now?

And friends, who I have and who live here for even longer than me.

Farang= money= higher price, is not what I claim!

It is people like you, saying "oh clearly...the Thais live here it is their heritage (nature is not anyone's heritage exclusively, might I ad!) so of course, it is okay to charge visitors from abroad more...because they are richer and they are...well...from abroad!"

[outboard]

change they way you are thinking about the park issue to the "normal price" is 400 Baht and locals get a 90% discount

Now would it be fair to charge the locals full price(400 Baht)?

could they afford it ?

would they be excluded from the parks through pricing policy?

that is discrimination, charging different prices is not discrimination, there is no farang in Thailand being excluded from the parks by a $15 entry fee but the majority of Thais would be excluded if they had to pay 400 Baht

Indirect discrimination occurs when an unreasonable requirement, condition or practice is imposed that disadvantages a person or group because of a personal characteristic.

outboard - I thought you were joking when saying this is not discrimination but obviously you really think charging non foreigners, no matter how well off they are, 10 times is not discrimination. In the UK if I charged a foreigner anything more than what I charge a British person I would be prosecuted. It would not make any difference how much money they have - it is discrimination!!! Soon after my Thai wife came to the UK we went to a tourist attraction that costs about £10, I told her foreigners have to pay £20 (obviously joking) and she bluntly refused to go anywhere near it.

Not all Thais are poor and not all non Thais are wealthy.

"Now would it be fair to charge the locals full price(400 Baht)?" of course it is.

How many times the Thais price should we pay? Why not 100 times, 4000 Baht - is that fair? or would that be discrimination? As there is no way to set the multiplier fairly it should be made illegal.

"Indirect discrimination occurs when an unreasonable requirement, condition or practice is imposed that disadvantages a person or group because of a personal characteristic."

Obviously we have discounts for disabled and elderly as they are looked on as a disadvantaged MINORITY and given positive discrimination. In Thailand we are the minority and so we are being discriminated AGAINST.

Sure I can afford more than most Thais could pay but as it is discrimination It would have to be something special before I do that.

I feel better now!

UK Equality act 2010

sec 149 subsection (1) paragraph (b.)

you are wrong and don't know your own laws

thanks for coming , next

Edited February 6, 2015 by outboard

[kieran2698]

But your examples don't prove your point, Siam Ocean World does not discriminate based on nationality but residency, expats get the local rate, so it is quite a different case and clearly nothing to do with what you claim, farangs = more money, or they would also charge the expats more.

Okay, I'll bite: define Expat, please.

And while you are on it: what am I and why did I pay the farang price- 5 times by now?

And friends, who I have and who live here for even longer than me.

Farang= money= higher price, is not what I claim!

It is people like you, saying "oh clearly...the Thais live here it is their heritage (nature is not anyone's heritage exclusively, might I ad!) so of course, it is okay to charge visitors from abroad more...because they are richer and they are...well...from abroad!"

An expat is an immigrant who does not intend to stay permanently. I use the term loosely in this case as that is the term that Siam Ocean World also use.

I guess the reason you paid more is because you have not visited so recently to benefit from the new expat discount.

And that is not my quote. I have never given that reasoning and I have never referred to heritage in any of my arguments. My opinion is that locals are given a further discount from an already heavily subsidized fee, that tourists can pay more without any real inconvenience to them and that residents here, regardless of nationality, should pay the same as Thai's. Why are you putting words into my mouth and even having the audacity to put them in quotation marks?

[outboard]

Actually everything in your post does , however you are so focused on racism that you are not reading what my post said , which was charge them the farang price which would mean everyone was paying the same, no discrimination according to you , except then Thais would be excluded from national parks through a pricing policy.

sometimes charging everyone the same price, or treating everyone the same is actually discrimination because it disadvantages a certain group of people.

can the majority of foreigners in Thailand afford to regularly visit a national park and pay 400 Baht ?

can the majority of Thai's in Thailand afford to regularly visit a national park and pay 400 Baht ?

Human Rights Commission Victoria website says-:

Indirect discrimination occurs when an unreasonable requirement, condition or practice is imposed that disadvantages a person or group because of a personal characteristic.

At no point did I use the word racism. I said discrimination.

Nothing in my post justifies discrimination and I fail to see how anyone could think it does. Bewildered in actuality.

To discriminate on the basis of nationality is wrong.

No ifs, buts or whys, it's wrong.

What does make me laugh is your UN quote backs up my position and proves yours false.

Personal characteristic....Not Thai.

Disadvantages......charges more because you are the wrong nationality. If I am charged more for the same thing on the basis of nationality then I am being disadvantaged and discriminated against.

you can stamp your feet all you want it still will not change the fact that you can afford full price and Thais can not.

most western countries have the same clauses that basically come out to mean if a majority of an identifiable group would be disadvantaged then corrective measures must be taken,

under Thai law tourists and expats can afford the 400 baht because if they can't they are in the country illegally (not enough income or not enough in the bank or not enough cash in hand) how ever 400 baht would be 10% or more of the majority of Thai's weekly income and not affordable

disadvantages - cost so much that you would starve if you paid that price

if $15 is going to make you starve you are already in Thailand illegally

BUT as it has been said in this thread many times you as an expat living in Thailand with proof of residency or a driving licence can get the discount anyway, and if you are not it is not at the legislative level but quite possibly at the payment level.

[Shadychris]

No and I did not say I did.

Permanent resident? You have a red book obtained through the Thai residency permit route??

If so then you should be charged the lower rate.

I do however reside here and have done so for 13 years now.

I live here. Own my own condo here. Work here. Pay taxes.

Yet because of this ridiculous, chauvinistic discrimination I am not entitled to the Thai price.

It's wrong to charge more on the basis of nationality.

It should be one charge for all.

Additionally your definition of local is wrong as far as I am concerned.

If you live locally then you are local.

Perhaps I should have made it clearer:- Resident = holder of Red Book

If you have been here for 13 years then you might want to consider going for permanent residence status, instead of just playing the visa system . Surprised you didn't do that many years ago already As far as your 'official' status stands now, you are in effect just a long term visitor, and not really a permanent resident.

I appreciate that is not the reality, and you are actually residing and working in Thailand, but the way things are it doesn't matter if you have a whole string of 1yr visas, a work permit, a Thai DL, A Thai wife and kids and even a tattoo of Buddha on your forehead, you are not 'officially' a permanent resident.without that red book!

Armed with that, plus presumably after 13 years a pretty fluent ability to speak Thai and a decent attitude, you should not have any problems gaining admittance at the lower prices, just as many others already posting here have claimed they do.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Shadychris

[DM07]

But your examples don't prove your point, Siam Ocean World does not discriminate based on nationality but residency, expats get the local rate, so it is quite a different case and clearly nothing to do with what you claim, farangs = more money, or they would also charge the expats more.

Okay, I'll bite: define Expat, please.

And while you are on it: what am I and why did I pay the farang price- 5 times by now?

And friends, who I have and who live here for even longer than me.

Farang= money= higher price, is not what I claim!

It is people like you, saying "oh clearly...the Thais live here it is their heritage (nature is not anyone's heritage exclusively, might I ad!) so of course, it is okay to charge visitors from abroad more...because they are richer and they are...well...from abroad!"

An expat is an immigrant who does not intend to stay permanently. I use the term loosely in this case as that is the term that Siam Ocean World also use.

I guess the reason you paid more is because you have not visited so recently to benefit from the new expat discount.

And that is not my quote. I have never given that reasoning and I have never referred to heritage in any of my arguments. My opinion is that locals are given a further discount from an already heavily subsidized fee, that tourists can pay more without any real inconvenience to them and that residents here, regardless of nationality, should pay the same as Thai's. Why are you putting words into my mouth and even having the audacity to put them in quotation marks?

"It is people like you"...not "it is you, who I exactly quote..."

Audacity? Overreacting, much?!

And by the way: when you argue, it is okay for tourists to pay more, without any real inconvenience (quote!)...how is that different, from saying "it is okay to charge more, because they are rich"?

The almost non- existing "inconvenience" (as you call it) is ...what exactly?

I lived in Germany some time.

If one case would be known, where anything in Germany would state: "Entrance for Germans 5 Euro/ Entrance for non- Germans 20 Euro", the internet would explode with comments like "Ah...there you have it! Germans! They never liked foreigners", followed by some WW2 (+1) references and some Nazi- comparison.

No one would give a digestive end-product about "inconvenience" or anything.

People would simply call it, what it is!

Starts with an R...ends with an ism!

[Shadychris]

But your examples don't prove your point, Siam Ocean World does not discriminate based on nationality but residency, expats get the local rate, so it is quite a different case and clearly nothing to do with what you claim, farangs = more money, or they would also charge the expats more.

Okay, I'll bite: define Expat, please.

And while you are on it: what am I and why did I pay the farang price- 5 times by now?

And friends, who I have and who live here for even longer than me.

Farang= money= higher price, is not what I claim!

It is people like you, saying "oh clearly...the Thais live here it is their heritage (nature is not anyone's heritage exclusively, might I ad!) so of course, it is okay to charge visitors from abroad more...because they are richer and they are...well...from abroad!"

An expat is an immigrant who does not intend to stay permanently. I use the term loosely in this case as that is the term that Siam Ocean World also use.

I guess the reason you paid more is because you have not visited so recently to benefit from the new expat discount.

And that is not my quote. I have never given that reasoning and I have never referred to heritage in any of my arguments. My opinion is that locals are given a further discount from an already heavily subsidized fee, that tourists can pay more without any real inconvenience to them and that residents here, regardless of nationality, should pay the same as Thai's. Why are you putting words into my mouth and even having the audacity to put them in quotation marks?

"It is people like you"...not "it is you, who I exactly quote..."

Audacity? Overreacting, much?!

And by the way: when you argue, it is okay for tourists to pay more, without any real inconvenience (quote!)...how is that different, from saying "it is okay to charge more, because they are rich"?

The almost non- existing "inconvenience" (as you call it) is ...what exactly?

I lived in Germany some time.

If one case would be known, where anything in Germany would state: "Entrance for Germans 5 Euro/ Entrance for non- Germans 20 Euro", the internet would explode with comments like "Ah...there you have it! Germans! They never liked foreigners", followed by some WW2 (+1) references and some Nazi- comparison.

No one would give a digestive end-product about "inconvenience" or anything.

People would simply call it, what it is!

Starts with an R...ends with an ism!

how is that different, from saying "it is okay to charge more, because they are rich"?

But surely it is OK to charge more if they are rich - that is the basis of most countries tax systems - the rich pay more than the less well off.

How about for example if you were selling a bike and a guy turned up on foot, not too well dressed and said he needed the bike to get to a new job he was starting, but couldn't afford what you were initially asking and offered you a lower amount. Quite likely if you are a decent natured person you would take what he could afford. However if a guy turns up in a big expensive car and tells you he wants the bike for his kid to drive around his country estate and then starts trying to beat you down on price I rather suspect you will tell him where to go - because he is rich and can afford to pay.

[Bluespunk]

No and I did not say I did.

Permanent resident? You have a red book obtained through the Thai residency permit route??

If so then you should be charged the lower rate.

I do however reside here and have done so for 13 years now.

I live here. Own my own condo here. Work here. Pay taxes.

Yet because of this ridiculous, chauvinistic discrimination I am not entitled to the Thai price.

It's wrong to charge more on the basis of nationality.

It should be one charge for all.

Additionally your definition of local is wrong as far as I am concerned.

If you live locally then you are local.

Perhaps I should have made it clearer:- Resident = holder of Red Book

If you have been here for 13 years then you might want to consider going for permanent residence status, instead of just playing the visa system . Surprised you didn't do that many years ago already As far as your 'official' status stands now, you are in effect just a long term visitor, and not really a permanent resident.

I appreciate that is not the reality, and you are actually residing and working in Thailand, but the way things are it doesn't matter if you have a whole string of 1yr visas, a work permit, a Thai DL, A Thai wife and kids and even a tattoo of Buddha on your forehead, you are not 'officially' a permanent resident.without that red book!

Armed with that, plus presumably after 13 years a pretty fluent ability to speak Thai and a decent attitude, you should not have any problems gaining admittance at the lower prices, just as many others already posting here have claimed they do.

Playing the visa system? I work here. Legally with a Thai company. I do not play any games with the rules and regulations.

My point is, was and will continue to be, is that it is wrong to have a two tier pricing system that discriminates on the basis of nationality.

For me it's just wrong.

Not just here, but anywhere.

[Bluespunk]

Actually everything in your post does , however you are so focused on racism that you are not reading what my post said , which was charge them the farang price which would mean everyone was paying the same, no discrimination according to you , except then Thais would be excluded from national parks through a pricing policy.

sometimes charging everyone the same price, or treating everyone the same is actually discrimination because it disadvantages a certain group of people.

can the majority of foreigners in Thailand afford to regularly visit a national park and pay 400 Baht ?

can the majority of Thai's in Thailand afford to regularly visit a national park and pay 400 Baht ?

Human Rights Commission Victoria website says-:

Indirect discrimination occurs when an unreasonable requirement, condition or practice is imposed that disadvantages a person or group because of a personal characteristic.

At no point did I use the word racism. I said discrimination.

Nothing in my post justifies discrimination and I fail to see how anyone could think it does. Bewildered in actuality.

To discriminate on the basis of nationality is wrong.

No ifs, buts or whys, it's wrong.

What does make me laugh is your UN quote backs up my position and proves yours false.

Personal characteristic....Not Thai.

Disadvantages......charges more because you are the wrong nationality. If I am charged more for the same thing on the basis of nationality then I am being disadvantaged and discriminated against.

you can stamp your feet all you want it still will not change the fact that you can afford full price and Thais can not.

most western countries have the same clauses that basically come out to mean if a majority of an identifiable group would be disadvantaged then corrective measures must be taken,

under Thai law tourists and expats can afford the 400 baht because if they can't they are in the country illegally (not enough income or not enough in the bank or not enough cash in hand) how ever 400 baht would be 10% or more of the majority of Thai's weekly income and not affordable

disadvantages - cost so much that you would starve if you paid that price

if $15 is going to make you starve you are already in Thailand illegally

BUT as it has been said in this thread many times you as an expat living in Thailand with proof of residency or a driving licence can get the discount anyway, and if you are not it is not at the legislative level but quite possibly at the payment level.

A} I'm not stamping anything.

B} Most western countries do not discriminate on the basis of nationality when pricing entrance fees. I'd be surprised if any do.

C} Most of the Thais I meet through work, and I meet a lot, earn way more than me and can afford the fees.

D} I earn plenty and won't ever starve.

E} You're wrong. Personal experiences tells me this. Also the ministry has made clear this is not the case.

F} I don't care what the price is, I don't care if there are ways of getting round it if you live here.

The fact is that pricing on the basis of nationality is wrong.

Always will be wrong.

Can not be justified or explained away.

If it's wrong it's wrong and it is.

[Nickymaster]

It had cost me a few hundred pounds to visit a few tourist attractions when I was in the UK last summer. Now THAT is a rip of!

[MartinL]

Chang1 said " ... In the UK if I charged a foreigner anything more than what I charge a British person I would be prosecuted ... discrimination!!!

He got this reply:-

UK Equality act 2010

sec 149 subsection (1) paragraph (b.)


you are wrong and don't know your own laws

thanks for coming , next

If you can't be bothered to look that up, the section quoted says something along the lines of ' ... there will be equal opportunity (& presumably rights?) for those who share a protected characteristic & those who do not ... ' . One of the protected characteristics is RACE, which includes colour, nationality & ethnic origin.

If you're interested, link is this -- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/149 . I have nothing better to do right now.

I other words, you'll have the same opportunities in UK whether you're British (since it's UK legislation) or non-British.

Clearly in UK, discrimination on the basis of nationality - which is what is under discussion here - IS DEFINITELY ILLEGAL.

UK law is, of course, irrelevant here and ....... oh, bu99er it, I'm bored!!

Why somebody like Chang1 should know the letter of that sort of law I don't know - no offence Chang1.

[Nickymaster]

I see it this way. The price they now want to charge is reasonable and Thais get a discount.

[Shadychris]

No and I did not say I did.

Permanent resident? You have a red book obtained through the Thai residency permit route??

If so then you should be charged the lower rate.

I do however reside here and have done so for 13 years now.

I live here. Own my own condo here. Work here. Pay taxes.

Yet because of this ridiculous, chauvinistic discrimination I am not entitled to the Thai price.

It's wrong to charge more on the basis of nationality.

It should be one charge for all.

Additionally your definition of local is wrong as far as I am concerned.

If you live locally then you are local.

Perhaps I should have made it clearer:- Resident = holder of Red Book

If you have been here for 13 years then you might want to consider going for permanent residence status, instead of just playing the visa system . Surprised you didn't do that many years ago already As far as your 'official' status stands now, you are in effect just a long term visitor, and not really a permanent resident.

I appreciate that is not the reality, and you are actually residing and working in Thailand, but the way things are it doesn't matter if you have a whole string of 1yr visas, a work permit, a Thai DL, A Thai wife and kids and even a tattoo of Buddha on your forehead, you are not 'officially' a permanent resident.without that red book!

Armed with that, plus presumably after 13 years a pretty fluent ability to speak Thai and a decent attitude, you should not have any problems gaining admittance at the lower prices, just as many others already posting here have claimed they do.

Playing the visa system? I work here. Legally with a Thai company. I do not play any games with the rules and regulations.

My point is, was and will continue to be, is that it is wrong to have a two tier pricing system that discriminates on the basis of nationality.

For me it's just wrong.

Not just here, but anywhere.

So there we have it, finally. In the eyes of the law you are an immigrant worker and not a permanent Thai resident. So you are not entitled to the lower price.

[cumgranosalum]

I'd rather donate 4.000b to an elephant rescue camp then wasting 400b on those totally uninteresting nature parks without nature or buddhist temples without buddhism. For tourist traps are enough alternatives that are better and free.

So what about the wild elephants that live in the NPs - not interesting enough?

[Bluespunk]

No and I did not say I did.

Permanent resident? You have a red book obtained through the Thai residency permit route??

If so then you should be charged the lower rate.

I do however reside here and have done so for 13 years now.

I live here. Own my own condo here. Work here. Pay taxes.

Yet because of this ridiculous, chauvinistic discrimination I am not entitled to the Thai price.

It's wrong to charge more on the basis of nationality.

It should be one charge for all.

Additionally your definition of local is wrong as far as I am concerned.

If you live locally then you are local.

Perhaps I should have made it clearer:- Resident = holder of Red Book

If you have been here for 13 years then you might want to consider going for permanent residence status, instead of just playing the visa system . Surprised you didn't do that many years ago already As far as your 'official' status stands now, you are in effect just a long term visitor, and not really a permanent resident.

I appreciate that is not the reality, and you are actually residing and working in Thailand, but the way things are it doesn't matter if you have a whole string of 1yr visas, a work permit, a Thai DL, A Thai wife and kids and even a tattoo of Buddha on your forehead, you are not 'officially' a permanent resident.without that red book!

Armed with that, plus presumably after 13 years a pretty fluent ability to speak Thai and a decent attitude, you should not have any problems gaining admittance at the lower prices, just as many others already posting here have claimed they do.

Playing the visa system? I work here. Legally with a Thai company. I do not play any games with the rules and regulations.

My point is, was and will continue to be, is that it is wrong to have a two tier pricing system that discriminates on the basis of nationality.

For me it's just wrong.

Not just here, but anywhere.

So there we have it, finally. In the eyes of the law you are an immigrant worker and not a permanent Thai resident. So you are not entitled to the lower price.

So you have what? I'm not entitled to a discount?

That was never my point.

I don't care what my status is.

I have from the start said it is wrong to charge more on the basis of nationality.

Nothing you have said changes that in anyway.

Nothing you say can.

Because it's wrong.

[Shadychris]

I'd rather donate 4.000b to an elephant rescue camp then wasting 400b on those totally uninteresting nature parks without nature or buddhist temples without buddhism. For tourist traps are enough alternatives that are better and free.

I'd rather donate 4.000b to an elephant rescue camp

But will you though? Somehow I doubt it...... but I don't doubt you would not think twice about paying the equivalent of just 400 BHT for a couple of pints of beer or a packet of cigs 'back home'

[draftvader]

Quite a lot of posts have been edited in an attempt to clear up the messed quotes. Other posts have been edited to remove all bold formatting.

Finally a flaming post and replies have been removed. Keep it clean or lose your posting rights for a short time.

Thank you

[outboard]

But your examples don't prove your point, Siam Ocean World does not discriminate based on nationality but residency, expats get the local rate, so it is quite a different case and clearly nothing to do with what you claim, farangs = more money, or they would also charge the expats more.

Okay, I'll bite: define Expat, please.

And while you are on it: what am I and why did I pay the farang price- 5 times by now?

And friends, who I have and who live here for even longer than me.

Farang= money= higher price, is not what I claim!

It is people like you, saying "oh clearly...the Thais live here it is their heritage (nature is not anyone's heritage exclusively, might I ad!) so of course, it is okay to charge visitors from abroad more...because they are richer and they are...well...from abroad!"

An expat is an immigrant who does not intend to stay permanently. I use the term loosely in this case as that is the term that Siam Ocean World also use.

I guess the reason you paid more is because you have not visited so recently to benefit from the new expat discount.

And that is not my quote. I have never given that reasoning and I have never referred to heritage in any of my arguments. My opinion is that locals are given a further discount from an already heavily subsidized fee, that tourists can pay more without any real inconvenience to them and that residents here, regardless of nationality, should pay the same as Thai's. Why are you putting words into my mouth and even having the audacity to put them in quotation marks?

"It is people like you"...not "it is you, who I exactly quote..."

Audacity? Overreacting, much?!

And by the way: when you argue, it is okay for tourists to pay more, without any real inconvenience (quote!)...how is that different, from saying "it is okay to charge more, because they are rich"?

The almost non- existing "inconvenience" (as you call it) is ...what exactly?

I lived in Germany some time.

If one case would be known, where anything in Germany would state: "Entrance for Germans 5 Euro/ Entrance for non- Germans 20 Euro", the internet would explode with comments like "Ah...there you have it! Germans! They never liked foreigners", followed by some WW2 (+1) references and some Nazi- comparison.

No one would give a digestive end-product about "inconvenience" or anything.

People would simply call it, what it is!

Starts with an R...ends with an ism!

Germany = first world country

Thailand = third world country

Germany's anti discrimination laws are not really something you want to bring up if you want to win an argument, they are considered by the international community to be ineffective or to quote Jürgen Gehb, legal affairs’ spokesman of the CDU, before the bill was even passed into law. Speaking to a group of parliamentarians, he likened the law to “stinky hand cheese that has lain out in the sun for too long.”

the majority of .... oh i give up , you people think treating everyone the same is not discrimination , so gay men have sex with men, you are a man so you should have sex with men because if you did not that would be discrimination

and yes I know it is a bad example , for good examples go back and read what I have already posted, if you think differently to what I have posted previously you are wrong so go do some research to figure out why you are wrong instead of arguing your wrongness

PS: this does not mean I particularly like paying extra, or that I believe that the people at the gate are doing a good job or even that they are totally legit in the way they are charging, and I am not suggesting that I am not in any way racist or act in totally non-discriminatory ways, I will always barter harder with a non Thai then a Thai, and that probably is racist or something.

Edited February 6, 2015 by outboard

[DM07]

@shadychris

Yeah, Slim- Shady

....now you are just making up excrement.

By that measure, a backpacker in flip- flops will pay an intermediate price?

Because he clearly is not rich...but a tourist!

And you know, that this is not the fact, this decission is based on!

He is WHITE, he is farang!

And that is the only reason he pays more!

It is NOT about who is rich and who is not...and you know that quiet well!

Edit: By the way....wouldn't that bike- deal be a private enterprise?

Edited February 6, 2015 by DM07

[outboard]

@shadychris

Yeah, Slim- Shady

....now you are just making up excrement.

By that measure, a backpacker in flip- flops will pay an intermediate price?

Because he clearly is not rich...but a tourist!

And you know, that this is not the fact, this decission is based on!

He is WHITE, he is farang!

And that is the only reason he pays more!

It is NOT about who is rich and who is not...and you know that quiet well!

as a tourist in Thailand it is a visa condition that you have enough funds for your stay, if the backpacker does not he is breaking the law already.

the backpacker is part of a group that can be defined simply as "foreign tourist in Thailand" and as such is measured on the majority of that group.