Thai National Parks ordered to charge foreigners tenfold

[Keesters]

.....and here are the fees as published on the NP web site!!!!!

http://www.dnp.go.th/parkreserve/entrance_fee.asp?lg=2

Entrance fee of National Park of Thailand

Entrance Fee Rate (Baht/people)

National Park, Province, Adult Child, Remark

North

1. Doi Inthanon National Park Chiang Mai 200 100

2. Doi Phahompok National Park Chiang Mai 200 100

3. Doi Suthep-Pui National Park Chiang Mai 100 50

4. Doi Wiang Pha National Park Chiang Mai No entrance fee

5. Huai Nam Dang National Park Chiang Mai 200 100

6. Khun Khan National Park Chiang Mai

7. Mae Takhrai National Park Chiang Mai No entrance fee

8. Mae Tho National Park Chiang Mai No entrance fee

9. Mae Wang National Park Chiang Mai 100 50 for entrance fee start 1 august 2010

10. Ob Luang National Park Chiang Mai 200 100

11. Op Khan National Park Chiang Mai No entrance fee

12. Pha Daeng National Park Chiang Mai 100 50

13. Si Lanna National Park Chiang Mai 100 50

14. Doi Luang National Park Chiang Rai 100 50

15. Khun Chae National Park Chiang Rai 100 50

16. Lam Nam Kok National Park Chiang Rai No entrance fee

17. Khlong Lan National Park Kamphaeng Phet 200 100

18. Khlong Wang Chao National Park Kamphaeng Phet 200 100

19. Mae Wong National Park Kamphaeng Phet 200 100

20. Chae Son National Park Lampang 200 100

21. Doi Chong National Park Lampang No entrance fee

22. Mae Wa National Park Lampang 100 50

23. Tham Pha Thai National Park Lampang No entrance fee

24. Doi Khun Tan National Park Lamphun 100 50

25. Maeping National Park Lamphun 100 50

26. Mae Ngao National Park Mae Hong Son No entrance fee

27. Namtok Mae Surin National Park Mae Hong Son 200 100

28. Salawin National Park Mae Hong Son 100 50

29. Tham Pla - Namtok Pha Suea National Park Mae Hong Son 100 50 for entrance fee start 1 august 2010

30. Doi Phu Kha National Park Nan 200 100

31. Khun Nan National Park Nan 100 50 for entrance fee start 1 june 2010

32. Khun Sathan National Park Nan No entrance fee

33. Mae Charim National Park Nan 200 100

34. Nunthaburi National Park Nan No entrance fee

35. Si Nan National Park Nan 100 50

36. Tham Sakoen National Park Nan No entrance fee

37. Doi Phu Nang National Park Phayao 100 50

38. Mae Puem National Park Phayao 100 50 for entrance fee start 1 august 2010

39. Phu Sang National Park Phayao 100 50

40. Khao Kho National Park Phetchabun

41. Nam Nao National Park Phetchabun 200 100

42. Tat Mok National Park Phetchabun 100 50

43. Kaeng Chet Khwae National Park Phitsanulok No entrance fee

44. Namtok Chat Trakan National Park Phitsanulok 200 100

45. Phu Hin Rong Kla National Park Phitsanulok 200 100

46. Thung Salaeng Luang National Park Phitsanulok 400 200 This's rate for Thung Nang Paya and Thung Noul Son area, Other area adult 200 baht chlid 100 baht

47. Doi Pha Klong National Park Phrae 100 50

48. Mae Yom National Park Phrae 100 50

49. Wiang Kosai National Park Phrae 200 100

50. Ramkhamhaeng National Park Sukhothai 100 50

51. Si Satchanalai National Park Sukhothai 200 100

52. Khun Phra Wo National Park Tak 200 100 for entrance fee start 1 august 2010

53. Lan Sang National Park Tak 200 100

54. Mae Moei National Park Tak 100 50

55. Namtok Pha Charoen National Park Tak No entrance fee

56. Taksin Maharat National Park Tak 200 100

57. Khlong Tron National Park Uttaradit 100 50

58. Lam Nam Nan National Park Uttaradit 100 50

59. Phu Soi Dao National Park Uttaradit 200 100 This's rate for the field of three - leaf pines on Phu Soi Dao area, Other area adult 100 baht chlid 50 baht.

Central/East/west

1. Khao Khitchakut National Park Chanthaburi 200 100

2. Khao Sip Ha Chan National Park Chanthaburi 100 50 for entrance fee start 1 august 2010

3. Namtok Phlio National Park Chanthaburi 200 100

4. Chaloem Rattanakosin National Park Kanchanaburi 200 100

5. Erawan National Park Kanchanaburi 200 100

6. Khao Laem National Park Kanchanaburi 200 100

7. Khuean Srinagarindra National Park Kanchanaburi 300 200

8. Lam Khlong Ngu National Park Kanchanaburi 200 100 for entrance fee start 1 august 2010

9. Sai Yok National Park Kanchanaburi 200 100

10. Thong Pha Phum National Park Kanchanaburi 200 100 for entrance fee start 1 august 2010

11. Kaeng Krachan National Park Phetchaburi 200 100

12. Thap Lan National Park Prachinburi 100 50

13. Hat Wanakon National Park Prachuap Khiri Khan 100 50

14. Khao Sam Roi Yot National Park Prachuap Khiri Khan 200 100

15. Kui Buri National Park Prachuap Khiri Khan 200 100

16. Namtok Huai Yang National Park Prachuap Khiri Khan 100 50

17. Chaloem Phrakiat Thai Prachan National Park Ratchaburi

18. Khao Chamao - Khao Wong National Park Rayong 200 100

19. Khao Laem Ya - Mu Ko Samet National Park Rayong 200 100

20. Pang Sida National Park Sakaeo 200 100

21. Namtok Chet Sao Noi National Park Saraburi No entrance fee

22. Namtok Samlan National Park Saraburi 100 50

23. Pu Toei National Park Suphanburi 100 50

24. Mu Ko Chang National Park Trat 200 100

25. Namtok Khlong Kaeo National Park Trat 100 50 for entrance fee start 1 august 2010

Northeast 1. Ta Phraya National Park Buriram 100 50

2. Pa Hin Ngam National Park Chaiyaphum 100 50

3. Phu Laenkha National Park Chaiyaphum 100 50

4. Sai Thong National Park Chaiyaphum 200 100

5. Tat Ton National Park Chaiyaphum 200 100

6. Nam Phong National Park Khorn Kaen 100 50

7. Phu Kao - Phu Phan Kham National Park Khorn Kaen 100 50

8. Phu Pha Man National Park Khorn Kaen 100 50

9. Phu Wiang National Park Khorn Kaen 200 100

10. Phu Kradueng National Park Loei 400 200 This''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

11. Phu Ruea National Park Loei 200 100

12. Phu Suan Sai National Park Loei 100 50

13. Phu Pha Turm National Park Mukdaharn 100 50

14. Phu Sa Dok Bua National Park Mukdaharn 100 50

15. Phu Langka National Park Nakhon Phanom 100 50 for entrance fee start 1 august 2010

16. Khao Yai National Park Nakhorn Ratchasima 400 200 This''s rate for area between Noen Hom barrier and San Chao Pho barrier, Other area adult 200 baht chlid 100 baht

17. Phu Pha Lek National Park Sakhon Nakhorn 100 50 for entrance fee start 1 august 2010

18. Phu Pha Yon National Park Sakhon Nakhorn 100 50

19. Phu Phan National Park Sakhon Nakhorn 100 50

20. Khao Phra Wihan National Park Sisaket 200 100

21. Kaeng Tana National Park Ubon Ratchathani 100 50

22. Pha Taem National Park Ubon Ratchathani 200 100

23. Phu Chong Na Yoi National Park Ubon Ratchathani 200 100

24. Na Yung - Nam Som National Park Udon Thani No entrance fee

South 1. Mu Ko Chumphon National Park Chumphon 200 100

2. Hat Noppharat Thara - Mu Ko Phi Phi National Park Krabi 400 200 This''s rate for every Island in National Park, Other area adult 200 baht chlid 100 baht

3. Khao Phanom Bencha National Park Krabi 100 50

4. Mu Ko Lanta National Park Krabi 400 200 This's rate for every Island in National Park, Other area adult 200 baht chlid 100 baht

5. Than Bok Khorani National Park Krabi 200 100

6. Hat Khanom - Mu Ko Thale Tai Nation Park Nakhon Si Thammarat No entrance fee

7. Khao Luang Naional Park Nakhon Si Thammarat 200 100

8. Khao Nan National Park Nakhon Si Thammarat 200 100 for entrance fee start 1 august 2010

9. Nam Tok Yong National Park Nakhon Si Thammarat 100 50 for Khao Mhen area, adult 200 baht chlid 100 baht

10. Namtok Si Khit National Park Nakhon Si Thammarat 100 50

11. Ao Manao - Khao Tanyong National Park Narathiwat No entrance fee

12. Budo - Su-ngai Padi National Park Narathiwat 100 50

13. Namtok Sipo National Park Narathiwat No entrance fee

14. Namtok Sai Khao National Park Pattani 100 50 for entrance fee start 1 november 2009

15. Ao Phang-nga National Park Phangnga 200 100

16. Khao Lak-Lam Ru National Park Phangnga 100 50

17. Khao Lampi - Hat Thai Mueang National Park Phangnga 100 50

18. Mu Ko Ra - Ko Phra Thong National Park Phangnga No entrance fee

19. Mu Ko Similan National Park. Phangnga 500 300

20. Mu Ko Surin National Park Phangnga 400 200

21. Si Phang-nga National Park Phangnga 100 50

22. Khao Pu - Khao Ya National Park Phatthalung 100 50

23. Sirinat National Park Phuket 200 100 24. Laemson National Park Ranong 200 100

25. Lam Nam Kraburi National Park Ranong 100 50

26. Mu Ko Ranong National Park Ranong 200 100 for entrance fee start 1 august 2010

27. Namtok Ngao National Park Ranong 100 50

28. Mu Ko Phetra National Park Satun 100 50

29. Tarutao National Park Satun 200 100 30. Thale Ban National Park Satun 200 100

31. Khao Nam Khang National Park Songkhla 100 50

32. San Kala Khiri National Park Songkhla No entrance fee

33. Kaeng Krung National Park Surat Thani 100 50

34. Khao Sok National Park Surat Thani 300 150

35. Khlong Phanom National Park Surat Thani 100 50

36. Mu Ko Ang Thong National Park Surat Thani 200 100

37. Tai Romyen National Park Surat Thani 200 100

38. Than Sadet - Ko Pha-ngan National Park Surat Thani No entrance fee

39. Hat Chao Mai National Park Trang 200 100

40. Bang Lang National Park Yala 100 50

One price fits all. I doubt it. Might visit a free park one day. 10 times free is still free isn't it?

Just like to see if I get my money's worth.

Thanks for the list. Printing......

[cumgranosalum]

THe National parks are one of the few parts of Thailand that make me think I'm still in Thailand......... it's such a pity that they cling to this irrational pricing that has been shown to be pointless - all it does is create antagonism.

[cumgranosalum]

Watch out for that price list - it looks to me as if it isn't properly updated

[tomacht8]

WOW, 35 Pages.

Another thought.

As in any organization, there are good and evil.

The National Park organization is not only good,

like to protect the forest and the endangered species.

They also hunt for money and power.

4 Examples

- A good friend of mine (Thai) who lives with his family for 4 generations on a piece of beautiful country land.
The National Park Organisation wants his land, because it is very attractive for tourists.
Since 8 Years he fight in the courts for his land, lose a lot of money and is nearly bankrupt by the court and legal costs.

- In my family environment is another case. The land is farmed for 70 years as a coconut plantation.
The old people have kept the old trees standing and never felled the old trees.

When surveying the land for a paper upgrade one guy from the National Park Organisation said:

“Oh here are 100 years old trees, that is National Park here.”

The only solution is: Cut and down the old trees.

That is the reversal of nature protection, initialized by the National Park Organisation!

- Another organization is well with the National Park people.

They allowed to open an adventure park in the National Park.

Sure against some Kick back money.

- Many local VIP´s are allowed to open resorts and to build houses in National Park Areas.

The ex boss of the DSI is a prominent example.

So please stop to think National Park Organisation is only good.

[JohnnyJazz]

WOW, 35 Pages.

Another thought.

As in any organization, there are good and evil.

The National Park organization is not only good,

like to protect the forest and the endangered species.

They also hunt for money and power.

So please stop to think National Park Organisation is only good.

I've been told a number of similar stories where the forest department grabbed lands from long term villagers for some very dubious reason. I'm sure most of you heard about this very popular Thai folklore character, Somchai Hood, who steals from the poor to give to the rich ... ;-)

[metisdead]

A post containing a racist slur comment has been removed.

[Keesters]

Well I'll not be visiting and neither will any part of my Thai family while they operate this discriminatory two price system. Even if I could get in at Thai price, many can't. Good heavens can't the parks just raise the Thai price a bit and call it for everyone. Bet the revenue would the same or more without the bad press.

Good point! Let's say the ratio is 100 Thais to 1 falang and Thai price 20 baht, falang 200:

100 * 20 = 2000

1 * 200 = 200

That totals 2200. Divide this by 101 persons => 21.78 Baht. Let's round that off to 22 Baht.

So if they just charge everybody 22 Baht the revenue will be the same! Wow a 2 baht increase!

No need to ask for passport, drivers licence, proof of residence, etc. etc. Just charge evrybody 1 price! No angry falangs or ashamed Thais.

Logical thinking, making things simple and workable, so won't happen here I guess, sigh...

And not seeing the logic of doing it this way positively reinforces the argument that the double pricing system in place is positively racist / discriminatory.

Let's also remember that they were advised not to do so by an independent NGO which even further reinforces the argument.

It would seem therefore that someone in the national parks service doesn't want farang to visit.

Many of the national parks have FB pages. I urge all those that agree with me to post your feelings there.

[dragonfly94]

THe National parks are one of the few parts of Thailand that make me think I'm still in Thailand......... it's such a pity that they cling to this irrational pricing that has been shown to be pointless - all it does is create antagonism.

If you mean undeveloped, plauged with insects and strewn with rubbish and overpriced then I agree.

[96tehtarp]

NEWS FLASH: Foreign visitors to Thailand's national parks falls by 2000%.

[nevets]

WHY did this topic get to 879 i bailed out at under half the posts same over and over again.

[Keesters]

THe National parks are one of the few parts of Thailand that make me think I'm still in Thailand......... it's such a pity that they cling to this irrational pricing that has been shown to be pointless - all it does is create antagonism.

If you mean undeveloped, plauged with insects and strewn with rubbish and overpriced then I agree.

Not so sure you can complain too much about the insects. They are part of nature. But they might be multiplying more rapidly from feeding on all the garbage.

[Jeremy50]

Isn't this post from months ago? Whats the point. Like a newsagent selling 2 month old news papers.

[petermik]

Isn't this post from months ago? Whats the point. Like a newsagent selling 2 month old news papers.

Because you keep giving updates/comments

[Keesters]

WHY did this topic get to 879 i bailed out at under half the posts same over and over again.

Lots of new info since #865.

[cumgranosalum]

THe National parks are one of the few parts of Thailand that make me think I'm still in Thailand......... it's such a pity that they cling to this irrational pricing that has been shown to be pointless - all it does is create antagonism.

If you mean undeveloped, plauged with insects and strewn with rubbish and overpriced then I agree.

I suspect you haven't really visited any national parks.

Litter? outside the campsites, no - in fact even in the sites they take serious measures...

As for plagued (that is what you meant?) with insects - IT"S TROPICAL RAIN FOREST for the most part....what do you expect?

"Undeveloped" - well of course that's why they are National Parks!!!!! - The whole point of a national park is to protect an ecosystem - of course I can argue that it isn't done that well but your arguments seem just petty and ignorant.

Thailand has always attracted tourists because of their natural resources - sadly most of the coast that originally attracted people is now under concrete leaving only the second and third ranked coastline in some sort of original condition.....the parks however have managed to avoid most of that and that is why they still represent a lot of what is still good about the country

[cumgranosalum]

Isn't this post from months ago? Whats the point. Like a newsagent selling 2 month old news papers.

Certainly would class your comment under that - in fact there has been quite a lot of more information posted, but again judging by your comment you weren't interested in the first place.....Why DID you post anyway?

[cumgranosalum]

deleted going off topic

Well it's a shame you deleted that as it looked like we were actually making some progress...

For the benefit of the discussion allow me to paste your response regarding the UK Universities charging International students more than UK students as I think it is important and not actually going off topic as it relates directly as to whether the 2 tier pricing structure in Thailand is actually 'discriminatory'

All EU citizens qualify for the lower university fees. Turkish and Swiss nationals whose parents are resident in UK can also qualify as can a number of overseas territories. As can refugees who may not have been granted refugee status but have been granted leave to stay in the UK.

However I do agree fees should be the same for all.

It is wrong to charge different fees for the same education, based solely on nationality.

Ability to pay, well that's a different thing, but that also should not be conditioned by nationality.

Now that is rather interesting, as you (and others) have repeatedly claimed before that the UK does not engage in 2 tier pricing because you 'believed' it to be illegal and discriminatory.

However I see you have now conveniently dropped the words 'illegal' and 'discriminatory' regarding this significantly important 2 tier price structure in the UK affecting the 500,000 international students who are able to afford the fees - let alone the possible millions more who cant afford them, and simply say it is 'wrong' and everyone should pay the same. In other words this is simply just your belief...

I assume you agree that the UK Government would not be condoning such treatment of a large number of foreign people by UK Universities if it were either illegal or discriminatory in law. I'm sure also you would also agree that the UK are champions of anti-discrimination legislation, and as as such it must therefore be perfectly legal and non-discriminatory for UK Universities to set these higher fees for International students.

All of which leaves the question of why you have consistently claimed that the Thai system of charging foreigners more than Thai residents is discrimination, when a similar large scale practice in the notoriously 'politically correct' UK is clearly not discrimination.

For the benefit of those who missed it earlier. And to get back on topic.

Pricing on the basis of nationality is discrimination.

...and if it is...so what? wht do you do now?

Whatever the semantic assessment - and what you call it is irrelevant - the discussion should really be on the ramifications rather than giving it a name.

[cumgranosalum]

deleted going off topic

Well it's a shame you deleted that as it looked like we were actually making some progress...

For the benefit of the discussion allow me to paste your response regarding the UK Universities charging International students more than UK students as I think it is important and not actually going off topic as it relates directly as to whether the 2 tier pricing structure in Thailand is actually 'discriminatory'

All EU citizens qualify for the lower university fees. Turkish and Swiss nationals whose parents are resident in UK can also qualify as can a number of overseas territories. As can refugees who may not have been granted refugee status but have been granted leave to stay in the UK.

However I do agree fees should be the same for all.

It is wrong to charge different fees for the same education, based solely on nationality.

Ability to pay, well that's a different thing, but that also should not be conditioned by nationality.

Now that is rather interesting, as you (and others) have repeatedly claimed before that the UK does not engage in 2 tier pricing because you 'believed' it to be illegal and discriminatory.

However I see you have now conveniently dropped the words 'illegal' and 'discriminatory' regarding this significantly important 2 tier price structure in the UK affecting the 500,000 international students who are able to afford the fees - let alone the possible millions more who cant afford them, and simply say it is 'wrong' and everyone should pay the same. In other words this is simply just your belief...

I assume you agree that the UK Government would not be condoning such treatment of a large number of foreign people by UK Universities if it were either illegal or discriminatory in law. I'm sure also you would also agree that the UK are champions of anti-discrimination legislation, and as as such it must therefore be perfectly legal and non-discriminatory for UK Universities to set these higher fees for International students.

All of which leaves the question of why you have consistently claimed that the Thai system of charging foreigners more than Thai residents is discrimination, when a similar large scale practice in the notoriously 'politically correct' UK is clearly not discrimination.

So because English Universities charge foreign students extra fees, a habit that is actually severely criticised in the UK, this justifies Thailand charging ten times the entrance fees for National Parks?

Not sure I follow the logic here. erhaps you should compare Thai university fees? at least that would be like with like, but even that doesn't relate to tourism and National Parks. I think you're losing the plot here as to what the issues really are. 10 out of 10 for tenacity though

UK students don't pay fees - the government - local authorities foot th bill - some now charge a surcharge directly to the student ....

[cumgranosalum]

In 1998 this report was released by the ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM FOR SOUTHEAST ASIA entitled

“Environmental Valuation: An Entrance Fee System for National Parks in Thailand”

In their conclusion was the following paragrtaph.........

"Lastly, the concept of adopting a discriminatory pricing scheme where local and foreign visitors are charged different entrance fees can help increase the total revenue for national parks. The rationale for charging foreigners higher entrance fees are: 1) foreigners do not pay income tax or business tax to the local government; and 2) foreigners tend to have a higher WTP for park visits. However, imposing higher entrance fees on foreigners could unnecessarily create silent resentment among foreign tourists and consequently affect the image of the tourism industry of the host country negatively. For this reason, this study suggests that foreign and local visitors be charged the same entrance fees. National parks should instead adopt other strategies in transferring surpluses from foreigners, such as offering special package tours inside the park or operating souvenir shops."

Looks like as with so much advice proffered to Thai governments - nobody listened.

Or never got past the first sentence of 28 words.

More money hey we'll do that. What's this dis-crimmmminashun thing anyway.

Sorry if your reading ability doesn't stretch to full participation in the discussion.

[Bluespunk]

For the benefit of those who missed it earlier. And to get back on topic.

Pricing on the basis of nationality is discrimination.

...and if it is...so what? wht do you do now?

Whatever the semantic assessment - and what you call it is irrelevant - the discussion should really be on the ramifications rather than giving it a name.

I disagree that I am playing at semantics.

This policy is discriminatory and there are those who deny it is so.

That may be irrelevant to you but it isn't to me.

[cumgranosalum]

WOW, 35 Pages.

Another thought.

As in any organization, there are good and evil.

The National Park organization is not only good,

like to protect the forest and the endangered species.

They also hunt for money and power.

4 Examples

- A good friend of mine (Thai) who lives with his family for 4 generations on a piece of beautiful country land.

The National Park Organisation wants his land, because it is very attractive for tourists.

Since 8 Years he fight in the courts for his land, lose a lot of money and is nearly bankrupt by the court and legal costs.

- In my family environment is another case. The land is farmed for 70 years as a coconut plantation.

The old people have kept the old trees standing and never felled the old trees.

When surveying the land for a paper upgrade one guy from the National Park Organisation said:

“Oh here are 100 years old trees, that is National Park here.”

The only solution is: Cut and down the old trees.

That is the reversal of nature protection, initialized by the National Park Organisation!

- Another organization is well with the National Park people.

They allowed to open an adventure park in the National Park.

Sure against some Kick back money.

- Many local VIP´s are allowed to open resorts and to build houses in National Park Areas.

The ex boss of the DSI is a prominent example.

So please stop to think National Park Organisation is only good.

"The National Park Organisation wants his land, because it is very attractive for tourists.The National Park Organisation wants his land, because it is very attractive for tourists"

.Sorry let me stop you there....this is not true - national parks are neither set up or operated in this way. - your story is based on a false premise....

as far as the other anecdotal stories are concerned - yes - the parks are under threat of encroachment by unscrupulous "powerful and rich" people but I fail to see what this has to do with dual pricing.

[Keesters]

In 1998 this report was released by the ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM FOR SOUTHEAST ASIA entitled

“Environmental Valuation: An Entrance Fee System for National Parks in Thailand”

In their conclusion was the following paragrtaph.........

"Lastly, the concept of adopting a discriminatory pricing scheme where local and foreign visitors are charged different entrance fees can help increase the total revenue for national parks. The rationale for charging foreigners higher entrance fees are: 1) foreigners do not pay income tax or business tax to the local government; and 2) foreigners tend to have a higher WTP for park visits. However, imposing higher entrance fees on foreigners could unnecessarily create silent resentment among foreign tourists and consequently affect the image of the tourism industry of the host country negatively. For this reason, this study suggests that foreign and local visitors be charged the same entrance fees. National parks should instead adopt other strategies in transferring surpluses from foreigners, such as offering special package tours inside the park or operating souvenir shops."

Looks like as with so much advice proffered to Thai governments - nobody listened.

Or never got past the first sentence of 28 words.

More money hey we'll do that. What's this dis-crimmmminashun thing anyway.

Sorry if your reading ability doesn't stretch to full participation in the discussion.

I read the full article. I was being sarcastic in saying perhaps the Thais didn't.

Sorry if your reading ability and comprehension doesn't stretch to full participation in the discussion.

[Keesters]

For the benefit of those who missed it earlier. And to get back on topic.

Pricing on the basis of nationality is discrimination.

...and if it is...so what? wht do you do now?

Whatever the semantic assessment - and what you call it is irrelevant - the discussion should really be on the ramifications rather than giving it a name.

I disagree that I am playing at semantics.

This policy is discriminatory and there are those who deny it is so.

That may be irrelevant to you but it isn't to me.

You'll never get them on board. Their heads are in the sand. Ignore them and perhaps they'll go away.

[cumgranosalum]

In 1998 this report was released by the ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM FOR SOUTHEAST ASIA entitled

“Environmental Valuation: An Entrance Fee System for National Parks in Thailand”

In their conclusion was the following paragrtaph.........

"Lastly, the concept of adopting a discriminatory pricing scheme where local and foreign visitors are charged different entrance fees can help increase the total revenue for national parks. The rationale for charging foreigners higher entrance fees are: 1) foreigners do not pay income tax or business tax to the local government; and 2) foreigners tend to have a higher WTP for park visits. However, imposing higher entrance fees on foreigners could unnecessarily create silent resentment among foreign tourists and consequently affect the image of the tourism industry of the host country negatively. For this reason, this study suggests that foreign and local visitors be charged the same entrance fees. National parks should instead adopt other strategies in transferring surpluses from foreigners, such as offering special package tours inside the park or operating souvenir shops."

Looks like as with so much advice proffered to Thai governments - nobody listened.

Or never got past the first sentence of 28 words.

More money hey we'll do that. What's this dis-crimmmminashun thing anyway.

Sorry if your reading ability doesn't stretch to full participation in the discussion.

I read the full article. I was being sarcastic in saying perhaps the Thais didn't.

Sorry if your reading ability and comprehension doesn't stretch to full participation in the discussion.

Yes - sorry - misread your post...

[cumgranosalum]

Giving discounts to "locals" is not the same as charging foreigners by a factor of 10.

locals are in the catchment area of an attraction and their lives are often intrinsically involved with it....so giving them discounted or in some cases free entry is quite acceptable or even logical.

however deliberately overcharging people who have travellled halfway round the world to get there is downright RUDE!

[Shadychris]

So because English Universities charge foreign students extra fees, a habit that is actually severely criticised in the UK, this justifies Thailand charging ten times the entrance fees for National Parks?

Now that is rather interesting, as you (and others) have repeatedly claimed before that the UK does not engage in 2 tier pricing because you 'believed' it to be illegal and discriminatory.

However I see you have now conveniently dropped the words 'illegal' and 'discriminatory' regarding this significantly important 2 tier price structure in the UK affecting the 500,000 international students who are able to afford the fees - let alone the possible millions more who cant afford them, and simply say it is 'wrong' and everyone should pay the same. In other words this is simply just your belief...

I assume you agree that the UK Government would not be condoning such treatment of a large number of foreign people by UK Universities if it were either illegal or discriminatory in law. I'm sure also you would also agree that the UK are champions of anti-discrimination legislation, and as as such it must therefore be perfectly legal and non-discriminatory for UK Universities to set these higher fees for International students.

All of which leaves the question of why you have consistently claimed that the Thai system of charging foreigners more than Thai residents is discrimination, when a similar large scale practice in the notoriously 'politically correct' UK is clearly not discrimination.

Not sure I follow the logic here. erhaps you should compare Thai university fees? at least that would be like with like, but even that doesn't relate to tourism and National Parks. I think you're losing the plot here as to what the issues really are. 10 out of 10 for tenacity though

UK students don't pay fees - the government - local authorities foot th bill - some now charge a surcharge directly to the student ....

"UK students don't pay fees"

I think you need a reality check! UK students most certainly do pay fees. Students from richer families may pay the fees 'up front', but the majority pay fees by means of the student loan program. These loans are repayable after graduation as soon as the student is in employment and earning more than £17k p/a.

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/73-of-todays-students-will-still-be-paying-off-their-tuition-fees-in-their-50s-9249258.html

[Mr Somtam]

Well I'll not be visiting and neither will any part of my Thai family while they operate this discriminatory two price system. Even if I could get in at Thai price, many can't. Good heavens can't the parks just raise the Thai price a bit and call it for everyone. Bet the revenue would the same or more without the bad press.

Good point! Let's say the ratio is 100 Thais to 1 falang and Thai price 20 baht, falang 200:

100 * 20 = 2000

1 * 200 = 200

That totals 2200. Divide this by 101 persons => 21.78 Baht. Let's round that off to 22 Baht.

So if they just charge everybody 22 Baht the revenue will be the same! Wow a 2 baht increase!

No need to ask for passport, drivers licence, proof of residence, etc. etc. Just charge evrybody 1 price! No angry falangs or ashamed Thais.

Logical thinking, making things simple and workable, so won't happen here I guess, sigh...

And not seeing the logic of doing it this way positively reinforces the argument that the double pricing system in place is positively racist / discriminatory.

Let's also remember that they were advised not to do so by an independent NGO which even further reinforces the argument.

It would seem therefore that someone in the national parks service doesn't want farang to visit.

Many of the national parks have FB pages. I urge all those that agree with me to post your feelings there.

I would, if I had a Facebook account. I have not and will never... Too bad.

[Keesters]

Well I'll not be visiting and neither will any part of my Thai family while they operate this discriminatory two price system. Even if I could get in at Thai price, many can't. Good heavens can't the parks just raise the Thai price a bit and call it for everyone. Bet the revenue would the same or more without the bad press.

Good point! Let's say the ratio is 100 Thais to 1 falang and Thai price 20 baht, falang 200:

100 * 20 = 2000

1 * 200 = 200

That totals 2200. Divide this by 101 persons => 21.78 Baht. Let's round that off to 22 Baht.

So if they just charge everybody 22 Baht the revenue will be the same! Wow a 2 baht increase!

No need to ask for passport, drivers licence, proof of residence, etc. etc. Just charge evrybody 1 price! No angry falangs or ashamed Thais.

Logical thinking, making things simple and workable, so won't happen here I guess, sigh...

And not seeing the logic of doing it this way positively reinforces the argument that the double pricing system in place is positively racist / discriminatory.

Let's also remember that they were advised not to do so by an independent NGO which even further reinforces the argument.

It would seem therefore that someone in the national parks service doesn't want farang to visit.

Many of the national parks have FB pages. I urge all those that agree with me to post your feelings there.

I would, if I had a Facebook account. I have not and will never... Too bad.

I'm no fan of it either but I do see one use of it. What I'm asking here. Thais love FB. Maybe one influential person will one day read a post about discrimination and be able to do something about it. Far more likely than them coming here.

So again if you are really serious about this issue put your money where your mouth is and fire up FB.

I managed to rattle KFC for littering. Thai companies/government do read it.

Thailand is all about face and image. They don't like bad publicity.

[cumgranosalum]

So because English Universities charge foreign students extra fees, a habit that is actually severely criticised in the UK, this justifies Thailand charging ten times the entrance fees for National Parks?

Now that is rather interesting, as you (and others) have repeatedly claimed before that the UK does not engage in 2 tier pricing because you 'believed' it to be illegal and discriminatory.

However I see you have now conveniently dropped the words 'illegal' and 'discriminatory' regarding this significantly important 2 tier price structure in the UK affecting the 500,000 international students who are able to afford the fees - let alone the possible millions more who cant afford them, and simply say it is 'wrong' and everyone should pay the same. In other words this is simply just your belief...

I assume you agree that the UK Government would not be condoning such treatment of a large number of foreign people by UK Universities if it were either illegal or discriminatory in law. I'm sure also you would also agree that the UK are champions of anti-discrimination legislation, and as as such it must therefore be perfectly legal and non-discriminatory for UK Universities to set these higher fees for International students.

All of which leaves the question of why you have consistently claimed that the Thai system of charging foreigners more than Thai residents is discrimination, when a similar large scale practice in the notoriously 'politically correct' UK is clearly not discrimination.

Not sure I follow the logic here. erhaps you should compare Thai university fees? at least that would be like with like, but even that doesn't relate to tourism and National Parks. I think you're losing the plot here as to what the issues really are. 10 out of 10 for tenacity though

UK students don't pay fees - the government - local authorities foot th bill - some now charge a surcharge directly to the student ....

"UK students don't pay fees"

I think you need a reality check! UK students most certainly do pay fees. Students from richer families may pay the fees 'up front', but the majority pay fees by means of the student loan program. These loans are repayable after graduation as soon as the student is in employment and earning more than £17k p/a.

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/73-of-todays-students-will-still-be-paying-off-their-tuition-fees-in-their-50s-9249258.html

it appears now they do.....

"Student don't have to pay university fees upfront. They can get a tuition fee loan to cover the full cost, which is paid directly to the university or college. The loan does not have to be repaid until the course is finished and the borrower is earning more than £21,000 a year. If they never earn more than that, they won't have to repay a penny."

now show me again how that relates to thai NP fees of ten times the standard price?

...Are you suggesting we should get a loan and then a means-tested repayment scheme?

[Shadychris]

So because English Universities charge foreign students extra fees, a habit that is actually severely criticised in the UK, this justifies Thailand charging ten times the entrance fees for National Parks?

Now that is rather interesting, as you (and others) have repeatedly claimed before that the UK does not engage in 2 tier pricing because you 'believed' it to be illegal and discriminatory.

However I see you have now conveniently dropped the words 'illegal' and 'discriminatory' regarding this significantly important 2 tier price structure in the UK affecting the 500,000 international students who are able to afford the fees - let alone the possible millions more who cant afford them, and simply say it is 'wrong' and everyone should pay the same. In other words this is simply just your belief...

I assume you agree that the UK Government would not be condoning such treatment of a large number of foreign people by UK Universities if it were either illegal or discriminatory in law. I'm sure also you would also agree that the UK are champions of anti-discrimination legislation, and as as such it must therefore be perfectly legal and non-discriminatory for UK Universities to set these higher fees for International students.

All of which leaves the question of why you have consistently claimed that the Thai system of charging foreigners more than Thai residents is discrimination, when a similar large scale practice in the notoriously 'politically correct' UK is clearly not discrimination.

Not sure I follow the logic here. erhaps you should compare Thai university fees? at least that would be like with like, but even that doesn't relate to tourism and National Parks. I think you're losing the plot here as to what the issues really are. 10 out of 10 for tenacity though

UK students don't pay fees - the government - local authorities foot th bill - some now charge a surcharge directly to the student ....

"UK students don't pay fees"

I think you need a reality check! UK students most certainly do pay fees. Students from richer families may pay the fees 'up front', but the majority pay fees by means of the student loan program. These loans are repayable after graduation as soon as the student is in employment and earning more than £17k p/a.

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/73-of-todays-students-will-still-be-paying-off-their-tuition-fees-in-their-50s-9249258.html

it appears now they do.....

"Student don't have to pay university fees upfront. They can get a tuition fee loan to cover the full cost, which is paid directly to the university or college. The loan does not have to be repaid until the course is finished and the borrower is earning more than £21,000 a year. If they never earn more than that, they won't have to repay a penny."

Exactly - and its not 'now they do' either,,, The student loan system in the UK has been in place for a number of years, at least since 1999 when I was employed in HE - it's nothing new.

Try and keep up - or at least check your facts before making seemingly authoritative statements like "UK students don't have to pay fees -local authorities foot the bill"... Would save you making yourself look quite so foolish.