Thai National Parks ordered to charge foreigners tenfold

[Langsuan Man]

OK,

33 pages of righteous anger about dual pricing but has anyone here had to pay the "ordered" ten fold price at any Thai National Park ?

I live and work here and the response has been different all over. However I've not been in a park since the new dictum - which came after the new year holiday. I will visit about 3 or 4 parks (or more) over Song Khran and then will be able to form some kind of opinion on this.

I very much doubt if anyone has yet visited enough NPs to get a realistic impression so far.

If it is enforced it shows a lack of respect for visitors to the country

If it isn't enforced it shows how ridiculous the whole system of government is that allows some jumped up nabob to make these dictums with no ability to follow them up - again it displays a very high-handed attitude to visitors.

So your short answer is " I don't know " !

[cumgranosalum]

OK,

33 pages of righteous anger about dual pricing but has anyone here had to pay the "ordered" ten fold price at any Thai National Park ?

I live and work here and the response has been different all over. However I've not been in a park since the new dictum - which came after the new year holiday. I will visit about 3 or 4 parks (or more) over Song Khran and then will be able to form some kind of opinion on this.

I very much doubt if anyone has yet visited enough NPs to get a realistic impression so far.

If it is enforced it shows a lack of respect for visitors to the country

If it isn't enforced it shows how ridiculous the whole system of government is that allows some jumped up nabob to make these dictums with no ability to follow them up - again it displays a very high-handed attitude to visitors.

So your short answer is " I don't know " !

Oh dear! how silly can you get?

The short answer in your terms is that "we" don't know...it hasn't been established.

But it also seems that the entire content of this particularly long thread has gone sailing over your head....the debate that has emerged is the justification or not or dual pricing for foreigners to the factor of ten.

So, perhaps you might go away and ponder that before your next post....don't just count the pages, read some of the content.

Edited February 22, 2015 by cumgranosalum

[outboard]

Most racists like to cry "racist" at the drop of a hat. No this measure is not racist, it IS discriminatory, it IS xenophobic even (at least in motivation) and it is possibly the most public example on view of Thai bigotry and poor international relations......but I wouldn't say it's racist.

It is a common feature of racists to claim racism against themselves in a feeble effort to justify their own ignorance and bigotry.

no, this policy is exactly the opposite of discrimination. to charge Thais full price would exclude the majority of them from using the National parks, that would be discrimination!

The increase there and at other parks was made in response to an announcement from the National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department that admission fees for foreigners should be made consistent throughout the country as of Sunday.. should read as.. admission fees for people should be made consistent throughout the country. Seriously is there any other country in the world where foreigners are required to pay more to visit an attraction than residents ??

I don't think this would EVER fly in The US. It seems like blatant discrimination, and perhaps bigotry.

try Disney World Florida, their website clearly shows discounts for locals

as for you calling it discrimination refer to my earlier posts or click here to read the

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

Edited February 22, 2015 by outboard

[Bluespunk]

Yeah, right.

[nontabury]

Most racists like to cry "racist" at the drop of a hat. No this measure is not racist, it IS discriminatory, it IS xenophobic even (at least in motivation) and it is possibly the most public example on view of Thai bigotry and poor international relations......but I wouldn't say it's racist.

It is a common feature of racists to claim racism against themselves in a feeble effort to justify their own ignorance and bigotry.

Visited a national park last year with my wife's family and a Chinese friend, everybody was charged the Thai entrance fee, except for me, from whom they wanted the higher amount.So I politely refused to enter and patiently waited outside with my two young Thai children. Of course it was't racialist that they demanded a higher entrance fee, I believe the reason was because I was wearing a hat.

[MartinL]

... try Disney World Florida, their website clearly shows discounts for locals ...

But in the context of Disney World Florida, LOCALS = somebody who lives in the vicinity & can prove that status. I'm not from US but I'd bet they need no other qualification or characteristic to obtain a discount - no nationality specified, no race specified, no immigration status specified. JUST the need to reside locally.

Contrast that with Thailand where 'local' would mean 'having the correct nationality or appearing to have the correct nationality. Otherwise, if we really feel exceptionally generous that day, we'll let you in at a reduced rate if you can produce whatever requirement we can think up (e.g. DL, WP, Yellow Book etc.) but you won't get the reduced rate as a right however long you live in Thailand, whether or not you have a Thai spouse, however many Thai kids you might have or how close you live to the NP'.

Edited February 23, 2015 by MartinL

[cumgranosalum]

discounts for locals is a nod to those who live near the business... the Thai policy is not "discounts for locals" it is charging 10 times more for foreigners.

if the fee for a park was 400 baht for EVERYONE except locals got a discount then I think no-one would object. Especially if they saw that money was actually going to help the National Parks.

[cumgranosalum]

I have noticed over the years that foreigners do protest about these entrance fees.

Many of course don't realise they are paying as they enter as part of a tour and the fee is included in the tour price.

However I did once witness a party of foreigners who one would assume were collectively being charged 2000 baht, decline to pay. they then proceeded to turn their vehicle around - the ensuing chaos was a pleasure to watch - the Rangers trying to direst them as the driver held up the traffic to the tune of about 20 cars finally backing into the kiosk before driving off with a finger raised out of both driver and passenger windows.

Although damage to property is not to be encouraged, I think it is reasonable to expect foreigners to protest about these fees. i also think it is quite a common event as the last time this measure was introduced in was clearly a hassle that those on the gates did not want and that is part of the reason it was discontinue or modified.

So lets hope that people will make their displeasure known and maybe it will have some effect.....again

Edited February 23, 2015 by cumgranosalum

[tomacht8]

Interesting how this issue: Dual price system

is controversial and diverges.

Another negative aspect of dual price systems is the possibility of abuse.

For example:

Two white caucasian first time tourists come to a NP.

Thais working in the tourist industry are quite good in spotting newbies.

The two tourists pay 800 Baht and get entrance.

For the staff is there the opportunity to put 720 baht into their own pockets and the

two visitors were officially booked for 80 Baht as Thais.

Maybe that could be also a reason why the official numbers of tourists are so low in the parks?

Edited February 23, 2015 by tomacht8

[cumgranosalum]

Interesting how this issue: Dual price system

is controversial and diverges.

Another negative aspect of dual price systems is the possibility of abuse.

For example:

Two white Caucasian first time tourist come to a NP.

Thais working in the tourist industry are quite good in spotting newbies.

The two tourists pay 800 Baht and get entrance.

For the staff is there the opportunity to put 720 baht into their own pockets and the

two visitors were officially booked for 80 Baht as Thais.

Maybe that could be also a reason why the official numbers of tourists are so low in the parks?

i think this has been covered before.

i know of one case at Khaeng Krachan where they USED to have a sign at the main office telling foreigners that they would get the "Thai" price on production of D/L or similar proof of living in Thailand. at the same time the guy on the entrance further up was insisting that foreigners pay the full amount. He clearly had the opportunity here to pocket the difference.

BTW - you didn't have to say "white" - all Asian people may look the same to you, but Thai people can tell the difference.

Edited February 23, 2015 by cumgranosalum

[tomacht8]

Interesting how this issue: Dual price system

is controversial and diverges.

Another negative aspect of dual price systems is the possibility of abuse.

For example:

Two white Caucasian first time tourist come to a NP.

Thais working in the tourist industry are quite good in spotting newbies.

The two tourists pay 800 Baht and get entrance.

For the staff is there the opportunity to put 720 baht into their own pockets and the

two visitors were officially booked for 80 Baht as Thais.

Maybe that could be also a reason why the official numbers of tourists are so low in the parks?

i think this has been covered before.

i know of one case at Khaeng Krachan where they USED to have a sign at the main office telling foreigners that they would get the "Thai" price on production of D/L or similar proof of living in Thailand. at the same time the guy on the entrance further up was insisting that foreigners pay the full amount. He clearly had the opportunity here to pocket the difference.

BTW - you didn't have to say "white" - all Asian people may look the same to you, but Thai people can tell the difference.

HaHa

No worry, 100% all asian people look not the same for me.

The possibility of abuse is given here.

And the temptation is quite large for a single employee (who earns officialy a salary between 300-400 baht a day).

10 tourists booked as thais/residents brings 3.600 Baht a day.

Edited February 23, 2015 by tomacht8

[Bluespunk]

Hmm, if only there was some way to avoid all this pricing discrimination.

It's on the tip of my tongue.

What could be a way of doing this?

[outboard]

discounts for locals is a nod to those who live near the business... the Thai policy is not "discounts for locals" it is charging 10 times more for foreigners.

if the fee for a park was 400 baht for EVERYONE except locals got a discount then I think no-one would object. Especially if they saw that money was actually going to help the National Parks.

that is exactly what the policy is

Thais pay 40 , everyone else pays 400

All the discrimination conversation has already been had , most of it has been removed from the thread because to accuse the government of racial discrimination is slander

here again is the link to International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

basically if you think this is discrimination based on race or nationality you are wrong, the above link explains why , if that is not clear enough for you search back through the thread where it is explained in simpler terms in some of my previous posts

Edited February 23, 2015 by outboard

[nontabury]

discounts for locals is a nod to those who live near the business... the Thai policy is not "discounts for locals" it is charging 10 times more for foreigners.

if the fee for a park was 400 baht for EVERYONE except locals got a discount then I think no-one would object. Especially if they saw that money was actually going to help the National Parks.

that is exactly what the policy is

Thais pay 40 , everyone else pays 400

All the discrimination conversation has already been had , most of it has been removed from the thread because to accuse the government of racial discrimination is slander

here again is the link to International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

basically if you think this is discrimination based on race or nationality you are wrong, the above link explains why , if that is not clear enough for you search back through the thread where it is explained in simpler terms in some of my previous posts

I can only assume that you are a visitor to Thailand or a fairly recent ex-pat, to post this link. This is Thailand, where many of the international laws are simple ignored. It's the Thai way. I've been in Thailand for over 25yrs, other ex-pats longer, please see my earlier post 815, and let me assure you this was not an isolated occarence.

[MartinL]

... if the fee for a park was 400 baht for EVERYONE except locals (my emphasis) got a discount ...

that is exactly what the policy is

Thais (my emphasis) pay 40 , everyone else pays 400

"Locals" are people who live in a particular area, not just Thais (in this case).

So cumgranosalum's suggestion doesn't reflect the current pricing policy, he's suggesting a slightly different policy.

He suggests a discount for all those living in a location (the 'locals') - whether that location is a town, district, province or country could be decided in due course. But once a definition of 'location' is decided, it should apply to ALL living within it and therefore meeting the definition of a 'local'. Such a policy would certainly raise fewer objections, I think.

The word 'local' can also be synonymous with 'resident' if you like since someone (was it you?) earlier raised the distinction between those who can achieve PR & those living here on an annual extension who, often through not having been INCOME-tax payers because of their age when first coming here, cannot achieve PR. To my mind, both are 'locals' or 'residents' if their home is in Thailand. Just as the term 'resident' is used in my UK home town to mean ALL people living there; black, white, brown, British, alien, foreign - if they live there, they're residents.

[joesanunu]

Can't possibly be true they are not that stupid here are they!

"Additionally, Suwan predicted the increase would not affect the number of tourists who visit the park as fewer than 100 foreigners visited the park last year."

He only REPORTED 100 paying tourists for the year......

[arunsakda]

That proves it. They could charge small number or willing foreigners one hundredfold. (4000 baht), and it will still have the effect of increasing revenue. Even if 99 out of 100 fair minded farang are discouraged or turned away, that is less that the NP has to deal with in other areas like toilets, traffic control, trash collection, etc..

Just to visit a dirty waterfall, with a dusty carpark overrun with wild dogs, minging from their foetid droppings and waystes.

Edited February 23, 2015 by arunsakda

[outboard]

discounts for locals is a nod to those who live near the business... the Thai policy is not "discounts for locals" it is charging 10 times more for foreigners.

if the fee for a park was 400 baht for EVERYONE except locals got a discount then I think no-one would object. Especially if they saw that money was actually going to help the National Parks.

that is exactly what the policy is

Thais pay 40 , everyone else pays 400

All the discrimination conversation has already been had , most of it has been removed from the thread because to accuse the government of racial discrimination is slander

here again is the link to International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

basically if you think this is discrimination based on race or nationality you are wrong, the above link explains why , if that is not clear enough for you search back through the thread where it is explained in simpler terms in some of my previous posts

I can only assume that you are a visitor to Thailand or a fairly recent ex-pat, to post this link. This is Thailand, where many of the international laws are simple ignored. It's the Thai way. I've been in Thailand for over 25yrs, other ex-pats longer, please see my earlier post 815, and let me assure you this was not an isolated occarence.

and there you go spending too much time assuming and too little time reading , if you read something you would have learnt something you did not know, if you assume something you can only draw on knowledge you already have so learn nothing.

In this case you would have learnt what racism is rather then assuming it was what you thought it was.

This policy does follow international law.

As for the reference of your Chinese friend getting in for the discounted price, this announcement serves to remind the employee that he should be charging them the full price.

The fact that you sat outside the park and did not take part in the social experience with your wife and friends is an interesting lesson to your children. "money ($15) is more important then spending time with family and friends"

"Locals" are people who live in a particular area, not just Thais (in this case).

So cumgranosalum's suggestion doesn't reflect the current pricing policy, he's suggesting a slightly different policy.

He suggests a discount for all those living in a location (the 'locals') - whether that location is a town, district, province or country could be decided in due course. But once a definition of 'location' is decided, it should apply to ALL living within it and therefore meeting the definition of a 'local'. Such a policy would certainly raise fewer objections, I think.

The word 'local' can also be synonymous with 'resident' if you like since someone (was it you?) earlier raised the distinction between those who can achieve PR & those living here on an annual extension who, often through not having been INCOME-tax payers because of their age when first coming here, cannot achieve PR. To my mind, both are 'locals' or 'residents' if their home is in Thailand. Just as the term 'resident' is used in my UK home town to mean ALL people living there; black, white, brown, British, alien, foreign - if they live there, they're residents.

So the distinction of "local" is "permanent residents of Thailand" as opposed to "person on a visa that has a requirement to maintain certain levels of funds"

despite your "belief" that local includes everyone in your home town you may want to investigate that further, for example the UK healthcare does not see your definition as you do, refer this document -: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/254530/ovs_visitors_guidance_oct13a.pdf

Edited February 23, 2015 by outboard

[chooka]

the only issue here is that white people want to cry hard done by and discriminated against, in actual fact it is disgusting that anyone from a first world country suggests they are in any way disadvantage paying more then residents of a third world country

do Thais pay more in your home country ? well of course they do they pay more for a visa to start with

get off your high horses and either pay the fee or don't but don't go insulting the intelligence of readers by suggesting you are in some way going to be hard done by paying it .

well actually my Thai wife pays exactly the same as me in Australia. Never seen a sign posted anywhere in Aust stating Thais $xx xx all others $xx. I have taken her to numerous parks and locations and she was never charged more so your comment of course they are is silly.

[outboard]

the only issue here is that white people want to cry hard done by and discriminated against, in actual fact it is disgusting that anyone from a first world country suggests they are in any way disadvantage paying more then residents of a third world country

do Thais pay more in your home country ? well of course they do they pay more for a visa to start with

get off your high horses and either pay the fee or don't but don't go insulting the intelligence of readers by suggesting you are in some way going to be hard done by paying it .

well actually my Thai wife pays exactly the same as me in Australia. Never seen a sign posted anywhere in Aust stating Thais $xx xx all others $xx. I have taken her to numerous parks and locations and she was never charged more so your comment of course they are is silly.

no she does not. there are several places that locals get a discount and your wife will not.

additionally your wife on coming to Australia becomes part of the group " foreign visitors in Australia" as such her availability of funds is regulated by Australian immigration and she is not part of a group the majority of which have a very low disposable income.

Your wife, if she becomes an Australian resident will be eligible for Austudy, and will be paid a fortnightly Centrelink payment (assuming other financial criteria are met) she will however not be eligible for Abstudy, and not get the extra $100 a fortnight, nor will she eligible for the estimated $20,000 per annum other benefits an Aborigine can get.

So my comment is not only not silly ,it is well researched and backed by fact.

oh and by the way, your wife while still a resident of Thailand would be considered Koori by many Aboriginal tribes, only on moving to Australia would she become gubbar.

Edited February 23, 2015 by outboard

[englishoak]

Off topic much ?

[chooka]

the only issue here is that white people want to cry hard done by and discriminated against, in actual fact it is disgusting that anyone from a first world country suggests they are in any way disadvantage paying more then residents of a third world country

do Thais pay more in your home country ? well of course they do they pay more for a visa to start with

get off your high horses and either pay the fee or don't but don't go insulting the intelligence of readers by suggesting you are in some way going to be hard done by paying it .

well actually my Thai wife pays exactly the same as me in Australia. Never seen a sign posted anywhere in Aust stating Thais $xx xx all others $xx. I have taken her to numerous parks and locations and she was never charged more so your comment of course they are is silly.

no she does not. there are several places that locals get a discount and your wife will not.

additionally your wife on coming to Australia becomes part of the group " foreign visitors in Australia" as such her availability of funds is regulated by Australian immigration and she is not part of a group the majority of which have a very low disposable income.

Your wife, if she becomes an Australian resident will be eligible for Austudy, and will be paid a fortnightly Centrelink payment (assuming other financial criteria are met) she will however not be eligible for Abstudy, and not get the extra $100 a fortnight, nor will she eligible for the estimated $20,000 per annum other benefits an Aborigine can get.

So my comment is not only not silly ,it is well researched and backed by fact.

oh and by the way, your wife while still a resident of Thailand would be considered Koori by many Aboriginal tribes, only on moving to Australia would she become gubbar.

well I guess we have been lucky where ever we have gone and she has paid the same prices as me.

P.s our son is Koori decent and she is legally married to me so yes she is now also Koori.

[cumgranosalum]

discounts for locals is a nod to those who live near the business... the Thai policy is not "discounts for locals" it is charging 10 times more for foreigners.

if the fee for a park was 400 baht for EVERYONE except locals got a discount then I think no-one would object. Especially if they saw that money was actually going to help the National Parks.

that is exactly what the policy is

Thais pay 40 , everyone else pays 400

All the discrimination conversation has already been had , most of it has been removed from the thread because to accuse the government of racial discrimination is slander

here again is the link to International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

basically if you think this is discrimination based on race or nationality you are wrong, the above link explains why , if that is not clear enough for you search back through the thread where it is explained in simpler terms in some of my previous posts

again you seem to miss even the most basic concepts.......

[joesanunu]

discounts for locals is a nod to those who live near the business... the Thai policy is not "discounts for locals" it is charging 10 times more for foreigners.

if the fee for a park was 400 baht for EVERYONE except locals got a discount then I think no-one would object. Especially if they saw that money was actually going to help the National Parks.

that is exactly what the policy is

Thais pay 40 , everyone else pays 400

All the discrimination conversation has already been had , most of it has been removed from the thread because to accuse the government of racial discrimination is slander

here again is the link to International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

basically if you think this is discrimination based on race or nationality you are wrong, the above link explains why , if that is not clear enough for you search back through the thread where it is explained in simpler terms in some of my previous posts

again you seem to miss even the most basic concepts.......

Dumbest thing I ever heard....."It's not overcharging farangs...it's giving discounts to locals"

Ripping off foreigners is a national sport in case you didn't notice.

[MartinL]

... despite your "belief" that local includes everyone in your home town you may want to investigate that further, for example the UK healthcare does not see your definition as you do, refer this document -: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/254530/ovs_visitors_guidance_oct13a.pdf .

If you think I'm going to read the whole of a 90-page document to find a specific sentence that I might guess you're referring to, you can think again.

But I did find this as a result of a few seconds scanning the Contents Page:-

3.8 Ordinary residence must not be confused with exemption under the Charging Regulations, and in particular Regulation 7, which provides that an overseas visitor who has lived lawfully in the UK for the previous twelve months is exempt from charge, even if they have spent up to 182 days of that twelve-month period outside the UK.

Regulation 7 – Twelve months’ lawful residence in the UK

3.28 A person (subject to exceptions – see below) who has been living lawfully in the UK for twelve months immediately before treatment was provided is exempt from charges. This exemption does not apply where the patient was originally granted leave to enter the UK for the purpose of undergoing private medical treatment or has been given special leave to enter on humanitarian grounds by provision of regulation 13.

3.29 A person who has spent up to 182 days of the previous twelve months outside the UK can still benefit from this exemption, but only if they were lawfully entitled to be in the UK during the whole of the 12 months. See “Calculating the period of residence” in regulation 2(2). A person who has spent 182 days or more outside the UK in the last twelve months cannot benefit from this exemption. They may benefit from others or, depending on their circumstances, still be considered ordinarily resident in the UK.

3.30 Where an overseas visitor living lawfully in the UK has been paying for treatment being received, those charges should cease once they have completed 12 months of lawful residence.

3.31 The spouse/civil partner and children of such an overseas visitor will also be exempt from charge when they are lawfully present on a permanent basis with the overseas visitor whilst the overseas visitor is residing in the UK.

Examples of evidence:

- (i) proof lawfully in UK – e.g. UK/EEA national, or has valid leave to enter documents issued by HO, or visitor/work/student visa etc is still valid; and

- (ii) period of residence – e.g. visa stamps (where applicable), utility bills paid, regular attendance at clubs and classes, housing contracts, (but note that the patient does not need to have been resident at the same address for the whole 12 months).

Let's apply Clause 3.28 to my own circumstances in Thailand. Note that there's only reference in the document to "living lawfully", not to PR, citizenship etc.

I've been "living lawfully" in Thailand for 12+ months and was not admitted to have medical treatment nor on special humanitarian grounds. If the UK's NHS policy applied in Thailand, I'd be entitled to free hospital treatment. End of story, no discussion or argument, I'd be entitled & that's an end to it. But we know that's not the case here in Thailand. Fine, no problem with that as far as medical care is concerned - medical diagnosis & treatment can be an open-ended commodity which can often have implications not immediately obvious at first consultation.

Something similar could also be said about expensive Uni. fees, which are often brought into this type of discussion too.

If a "living lawfully for xx months" requirement applied to all foreigners in Thailand, it'd be a good basis for charging for so many things here, NPs included. It's a black & white definition and could be so easy to implement.

But it's really disingenuous to compare potentially very expensive medical treatment to a well-defined NP entrance fee - no grounds for comparison at all.

[cumgranosalum]

like the Thai government it looks like Outboard is trying to defend the indefensible.

[Jai Dee]

One post containing flaming has been removed from this thread.

[Shadychris]

... despite your "belief" that local includes everyone in your home town you may want to investigate that further, for example the UK healthcare does not see your definition as you do, refer this document -: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/254530/ovs_visitors_guidance_oct13a.pdf .

If you think I'm going to read the whole of a 90-page document to find a specific sentence that I might guess you're referring to, you can think again.

But I did find this as a result of a few seconds scanning the Contents Page:-

3.8 Ordinary residence must not be confused with exemption under the Charging Regulations, and in particular Regulation 7, which provides that an overseas visitor who has lived lawfully in the UK for the previous twelve months is exempt from charge, even if they have spent up to 182 days of that twelve-month period outside the UK.

Regulation 7 – Twelve months’ lawful residence in the UK

3.28 A person (subject to exceptions – see below) who has been living lawfully in the UK for twelve months immediately before treatment was provided is exempt from charges. This exemption does not apply where the patient was originally granted leave to enter the UK for the purpose of undergoing private medical treatment or has been given special leave to enter on humanitarian grounds by provision of regulation 13.

3.29 A person who has spent up to 182 days of the previous twelve months outside the UK can still benefit from this exemption, but only if they were lawfully entitled to be in the UK during the whole of the 12 months. See “Calculating the period of residence” in regulation 2(2). A person who has spent 182 days or more outside the UK in the last twelve months cannot benefit from this exemption. They may benefit from others or, depending on their circumstances, still be considered ordinarily resident in the UK.

3.30 Where an overseas visitor living lawfully in the UK has been paying for treatment being received, those charges should cease once they have completed 12 months of lawful residence.

3.31 The spouse/civil partner and children of such an overseas visitor will also be exempt from charge when they are lawfully present on a permanent basis with the overseas visitor whilst the overseas visitor is residing in the UK.

Examples of evidence:

- (i) proof lawfully in UK – e.g. UK/EEA national, or has valid leave to enter documents issued by HO, or visitor/work/student visa etc is still valid; and

- (ii) period of residence – e.g. visa stamps (where applicable), utility bills paid, regular attendance at clubs and classes, housing contracts, (but note that the patient does not need to have been resident at the same address for the whole 12 months).

Let's apply Clause 3.28 to my own circumstances in Thailand. Note that there's only reference in the document to "living lawfully", not to PR, citizenship etc.

I've been "living lawfully" in Thailand for 12+ months and was not admitted to have medical treatment nor on special humanitarian grounds. If the UK's NHS policy applied in Thailand, I'd be entitled to free hospital treatment. End of story, no discussion or argument, I'd be entitled & that's an end to it. But we know that's not the case here in Thailand. Fine, no problem with that as far as medical care is concerned - medical diagnosis & treatment can be an open-ended commodity which can often have implications not immediately obvious at first consultation.

Something similar could also be said about expensive Uni. fees, which are often brought into this type of discussion too.

If a "living lawfully for xx months" requirement applied to all foreigners in Thailand, it'd be a good basis for charging for so many things here, NPs included. It's a black & white definition and could be so easy to implement.

But it's really disingenuous to compare potentially very expensive medical treatment to a well-defined NP entrance fee - no grounds for comparison at all.

I agree with your last statement that comparing what could be open ended access to expensive medical care is not comparable to a fixed price entrance fee.

However it's my impression that the posting of the link to the NHS doc referencing the UK Gov's definition of residency was in response to your earlier statement:-

"Just as the term 'resident' is used in my UK home town to mean ALL people living there; black, white, brown, British, alien, foreign - if they live there, they're residents."

Quite clearly the document shows that you are incorrect to make such a simplistic statement. In fact Thailand is actually the softer option as once you have PR granted there is no requirement on the number of days you have to stay in Thailand annually to retain that status.

However moving away form the issue of residency and back to main theme of this thread which is dual pricing, it was interesting to see that you mention Universities.

Perhaps those here repeatedly saying that charging different rates for foreigners is illegal in the UK, and does not happen because it would be discriminatory, would like to comment on why it is the case that UK students fees are capped at £9k a year whilst foreign students will be charged £12k on average. Note that is 'average' - the costliest degrees in medicine at a top Uni can be as much as £38.5k per annum. No two tier pricing in the UK? Hmmmmmnn.....

http://www.topuniversities.com/student-info/student-finance/uk-tuition-fees-how-much-does-it-cost-study-uk

[petercool]

A flame post and reply quoting it were removed

[Bluespunk]

deleted going off topic

Edited February 24, 2015 by Bluespunk