National Park Experience

[SoiBiker]

Obviously you missed the post where I explained the logic behind differential pricing. Probably too busy getting all excited about your principles.

[rogeroc]

That one was already covered by another member interestingly before you posted about differential pricing

The issue is that, however you try to dress it up, it isn't about discounts based on status or age; it's about premium pricing based on nationality. That is racism. And it is aimed at foreign nationals, whether resident in Thailand, or visiting, so arguments about it being the Thais' country are irrelevant - if ever they were relevant - not to say disingenuous. And pricing at five times the Thai .rate is not just excessive, it's inane in a country where one of the main industries is tourism.

[TheSiemReaper]

I'd advise the whiners to stay out of Cambodia. You'll have a coronary when you find out you have to pay $20 for a day at Angkor Wat when all the Khmer get in for free. That's a policy that is well supported by expats and visitors alike strangely. Because it's not a thing of principle to make those living in relative poverty pay the same as a tourist; it's an obscenity. Thailand is a middle-income nation with lots of poor people (once again minimum wage of $250) and it's entitled to subsidize its citizenry in just the same way as your own countries could - the fact that they choose not to is their choice not a "moral issue".

[Beng]

I went to Khao Yai last week. I always enter from Prachinburi. I always speak in Thai to the officials. Previously they would always prod the conversation in a direction I liked. "Do you live in Thailand?" "Have you got a Thai driver's licence?" I would always get the Thai price (without asking).

This time I was immediately charged 400 Baht, the girlfriend 20 Baht. I didn't argue, try to negotiate or query the price. I knew there has been a new order. I just paid it.

I am just stating my witnessing of the policy change.

Well done Briggsy ! At least you showed them that this greed is unacceptable.

[FolkGuitar]

Of course i read the thread otherwise i would not comment. In view of your comment though i have read all of yours again! You must have been referring to someone else's Post then?

But i did see some insults. I though this one was the worst 'Still, you've got to laugh at someone who'll drive for an hour and a half then just turn round and go home rather than spend a couple of dollars'

If somebody did this it would clearly not be a matter of a few dollars but a matter of principle. And you would laugh at them for having principles !!

Principles... People throw this term around as if it's some sort of magical incantation that, once applied, converts any action, no matter how foolish, into rational behavior.

Warning: You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It just doesn't work.

[Nowisee]

and they are the ones that litter up the parks with their plastics and bottles, so effectively they cause the most drain on the park for employees to clean up.

This is not unique to Thailand, many countries outside the Western world have this policy. India, Costa Rica, the list goes on. Don't see it as a Thai problem.

I worked in Canada and we did a job in Jasper a national park. Prices were high and it amazed me that the locals had to pay the same price as the tourists. They were not making more money than there counterparts in big cities.

Here in Thailand if the Thais had to pay the same price as the tourists they would not be able to afford to go. The same foreigners that complain about it will go into the western super markets and pay much higher prices than the local markets.

Thais pay 40 baht, tourists pay 40 baht. Same price. Geddit?

When I visit the "western supermarkets" here, I'm outnumbered by local Thais. Shock, horror!!

Btw, most Thai visitors to National Parks here are tourists too.

[Nowisee]

Yesterday I went to one of the local big name grocery stores... and bought a bag of apples.

The cost was 115 baht, but to my amazement when I got to the register, they charged me 250 baht. I said the price on the stand was 115 baht, they said, "that's the thai price, you farang, you price is 250 baht" Apparently, the locals cannot afford to pay the price, so I subsidize their cost.

Oh and when I went to the movies last week, the price was 100 baht for thais, but I paid 180.

Of course this didn't really happen, but I'm making the point, as some on here would find (amazingly) this to be ok.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Nowisee

[ARISTIDE]

International Students in the west alway have to pay more than twice as much higher tuition fee than the local westerners. When coming over here as a tourist you only expect to pay 80 bath more to access national park which is next to nothing compare to your average wage you earn in the west! That amount is like 1/3 minimum wage in Thailand. Many sign were written in Thai number only because it is by law only Thai number can be used in all government official document and it's always been like this for 700 years! Certainly not every thing and everyone is out to rip you off!

I hate this kind of discrimination too. It's not about the 80 Baht more, its about the feeling to be cheated.

It's also funny that the authorities are aware of the fact that the foreigners feel bad. Therefore they write the Thai prices with Thai numbers and not with Arabic ones because they think that we cannot read it.

Edited November 2, 2015 by ARISTIDE

[TheSiemReaper]

Yesterday I went to one of the local big name grocery stores... and bought a bag of apples.

The cost was 115 baht, but to my amazement when I got to the register, they charged me 250 baht. I said the price on the stand was 115 baht, they said, "that's the thai price, you farang, you price is 250 baht" Apparently, the locals cannot afford to pay the price, so I subsidize their cost.

Oh and when I went to the movies last week, the price was 100 baht for thais, but I paid 180.

Of course this didn't really happen, but I'm making the point, as some on here would find (amazingly) this to be ok.

There are plenty of places where people can access food at any price. When you come to Thailand - it's fair for the Thai nation to be affordable to locals. Getting foreigners to subsidize the upkeep of areas of historical interest and natural beauty is an eminently sensible decision.

[Naroge]

There are so many treads, even recently, covering this topic so I believe all views are already in writing.

And why spending all that time trying to get the local staff to bend the rules? They know what the rules are and apparently they follow them more strictly now.

I also still try to get the "local" price when I visit the NP, but when they don't accept I pay the farang price and enjoy my day.

[Nowisee]

I agree, it is fair for the nation to be affordable to the locals, but why do your preface it with "when you come to thailand"? How is this my burden?

Also, I don't get is your statement that it's an "eminently" sensible decision for foreigners to subsidize their parks.

A few reasons for this. There are many wealthy thais entering at the same price as the poorer (I imagine there is little accountability of the money collected) and the thais are the ones that use it the most and trash it with litter. Afford me that.

Yesterday I went to one of the local big name grocery stores... and bought a bag of apples.

The cost was 115 baht, but to my amazement when I got to the register, they charged me 250 baht. I said the price on the stand was 115 baht, they said, "that's the thai price, you farang, you price is 250 baht" Apparently, the locals cannot afford to pay the price, so I subsidize their cost.

Oh and when I went to the movies last week, the price was 100 baht for thais, but I paid 180.

Of course this didn't really happen, but I'm making the point, as some on here would find (amazingly) this to be ok.

There are plenty of places where people can access food at any price. When you come to Thailand - it's fair for the Thai nation to be affordable to locals. Getting foreigners to subsidize the upkeep of areas of historical interest and natural beauty is an eminently sensible decision.

[TheSiemReaper]

I agree, it is fair for the nation to be affordable to the locals, but why do your preface it with "when you come to thailand"? How is this my burden?

Also, I don't get is your statement that it's an "eminently" sensible decision for foreigners to subsidize their parks.

A few reasons for this. There are many wealthy thais entering at the same price as the poorer (I imagine there is little accountability of the money collected) and the thais are the ones that use it the most and trash it with litter. Afford me that.

Yesterday I went to one of the local big name grocery stores... and bought a bag of apples.

The cost was 115 baht, but to my amazement when I got to the register, they charged me 250 baht. I said the price on the stand was 115 baht, they said, "that's the thai price, you farang, you price is 250 baht" Apparently, the locals cannot afford to pay the price, so I subsidize their cost.

Oh and when I went to the movies last week, the price was 100 baht for thais, but I paid 180.

Of course this didn't really happen, but I'm making the point, as some on here would find (amazingly) this to be ok.

There are plenty of places where people can access food at any price. When you come to Thailand - it's fair for the Thai nation to be affordable to locals. Getting foreigners to subsidize the upkeep of areas of historical interest and natural beauty is an eminently sensible decision.

1. Because we're in Thailand - if you didn't come here it wouldn't be an issue would it?

2. Because it's Thailand and they can run their country for Thai people as our own countries might benefit from running ours for us.

3. Because means testing minor benefits is cost-ineffective it's cheaper to let all Thais in cheap than to go through a process of deducing each Thai person's income at the point of entry to a place.

I think you know all this already. You can keep pushing "it's not fair" but nobody said life was fair. It's not fair that we can afford to leave our home countries to travel to Thailand - millions both at home and in Thailand will never be able to do so. It's not fair that we make more than the minimum wage or indeed the average Thai wage and have more income to dispose of because of that. It's not fair that some people are taller or smarter than others. Life's not fair. However, charging someone who has no citizenship a bit more to upkeep your national heritage? That's fair. It's not our heritage, it's the Thai's heritage - how they treat that heritage is none of your concern - want to take advantage of that heritage? Pay a premium or don't and stay at home. (Be that in or out of Thailand).

[Nowisee]

1. Makes no sense. If I go to New Zealand...what?

2. Not sure what your point is there

3. Huh?

Anyway, I was hoping for a reasonably sensible reply, but I'm not holding my breath anymore. Your ramblings about affluence, incorrectly quoting me and what ever else you're going on about has made that clear.
I'll check out of this thread as it's turned into a pointless debate somewhat void of reason and facts.

I agree, it is fair for the nation to be affordable to the locals, but why do your preface it with "when you come to thailand"? How is this my burden?

Also, I don't get is your statement that it's an "eminently" sensible decision for foreigners to subsidize their parks.

A few reasons for this. There are many wealthy thais entering at the same price as the poorer (I imagine there is little accountability of the money collected) and the thais are the ones that use it the most and trash it with litter. Afford me that.

Yesterday I went to one of the local big name grocery stores... and bought a bag of apples.

The cost was 115 baht, but to my amazement when I got to the register, they charged me 250 baht. I said the price on the stand was 115 baht, they said, "that's the thai price, you farang, you price is 250 baht" Apparently, the locals cannot afford to pay the price, so I subsidize their cost.

Oh and when I went to the movies last week, the price was 100 baht for thais, but I paid 180.

Of course this didn't really happen, but I'm making the point, as some on here would find (amazingly) this to be ok.

There are plenty of places where people can access food at any price. When you come to Thailand - it's fair for the Thai nation to be affordable to locals. Getting foreigners to subsidize the upkeep of areas of historical interest and natural beauty is an eminently sensible decision.

1. Because we're in Thailand - if you didn't come here it wouldn't be an issue would it?

2. Because it's Thailand and they can run their country for Thai people as our own countries might benefit from running ours for us.

3. Because means testing minor benefits is cost-ineffective it's cheaper to let all Thais in cheap than to go through a process of deducing each Thai person's income at the point of entry to a place.

I think you know all this already. You can keep pushing "it's not fair" but nobody said life was fair. It's not fair that we can afford to leave our home countries to travel to Thailand - millions both at home and in Thailand will never be able to do so. It's not fair that we make more than the minimum wage or indeed the average Thai wage and have more income to dispose of because of that. It's not fair that some people are taller or smarter than others. Life's not fair. However, charging someone who has no citizenship a bit more to upkeep your national heritage? That's fair. It's not our heritage, it's the Thai's heritage - how they treat that heritage is none of your concern - want to take advantage of that heritage? Pay a premium or don't and stay at home. (Be that in or out of Thailand).

Edited November 2, 2015 by Nowisee

[Briggsy]

I went to Khao Yai last week. I always enter from Prachinburi. I always speak in Thai to the officials. Previously they would always prod the conversation in a direction I liked. "Do you live in Thailand?" "Have you got a Thai driver's licence?" I would always get the Thai price (without asking).

This time I was immediately charged 400 Baht, the girlfriend 20 Baht. I didn't argue, try to negotiate or query the price. I knew there has been a new order. I just paid it.

I am just stating my witnessing of the policy change.

Well done Briggsy ! At least you showed them that this greed is unacceptable.

Beng

I made no statement at all. I think you have misread and / or misunderstood my post. I simply provided a factual "witness" report to assist others to make decisions.

The Siem Reaper

You have some arithmetical problems.

Khao Yai 400 Baht (foreigner price) - 20 Baht (Thai price) = 380 Baht (the difference) = 10.68 U.S. Dollars.

At some National Parks, e.g. Thung Salaeng Luang in Phitsanuloke, the difference is 480 Baht.

To avoid these errors in the future, I suggest you stick to using Baht as "We are not in Kansas any more" (or Siem Reap, for that matter).

[TheSiemReaper]

I went to Khao Yai last week. I always enter from Prachinburi. I always speak in Thai to the officials. Previously they would always prod the conversation in a direction I liked. "Do you live in Thailand?" "Have you got a Thai driver's licence?" I would always get the Thai price (without asking).

This time I was immediately charged 400 Baht, the girlfriend 20 Baht. I didn't argue, try to negotiate or query the price. I knew there has been a new order. I just paid it.

I am just stating my witnessing of the policy change.

Well done Briggsy ! At least you showed them that this greed is unacceptable.

Beng

I made no statement at all. I think you have misread and / or misunderstood my post. I simply provided a factual "witness" report to assist others to make decisions.

The Siem Reaper

You have some arithmetical problems.

Khao Yai 400 Baht (foreigner price) - 20 Baht (Thai price) = 380 Baht (the difference) = 10.68 U.S. Dollars.

At some National Parks, e.g. Thung Salaeng Luang in Phitsanuloke, the difference is 480 Baht.

To avoid these errors in the future, I suggest you stick to using Baht as "We are not in Kansas any more" (or Siem Reap, for that matter).

If you'd read the whole thread - you'd have noticed I've already said I wouldn't care if the difference was $100. I don't care about the difference - I think it's fine.

[nontabury]

I am surprised that anybody (although the minority) on this forum defends this dual pricing policy. Would be interesting to know what percentage of Thais would even defend it ! I think it is extremely hard to defend the policy in a logical and constructive way which is why (i suspect) some of those that are defending choose to do so either with arrogance or blatant insults (whinger, cheapo, only a few dollars etc, etc). I also suggest that the argument that if you do not like an element of a country you are visiting or living in then don't visit there / live there is archaic.

Good point. How many Thais would defend this discrimination? I honestly don't know, I can only go on my own personal knowledge.

Not only do my Thai family not like this policy, but also other Thai's I have discussed this with are in fact very embarrassed about it.

As for those TV members who say " if you don't like it go home " again I have mentioned this to Thai's and they laughed and said " stupid Farang's " or words to that affect.

[rogeroc]

I also had one experience of being charged (fortunately only 5 times the price) at a National Park. We were a group of 8 (2 Caucasians and 6 Thais). I also sensed (by their actions and mannerisms) that the Thais in the Group were very embarrassed but of course i cannot be 100 per cent sure that was the case or that they were representative. Others in the thread have already confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt (as my Thai friends did) that a Thai Driving licence held by a Foreigner will not allow entry at the Thai price.

I actually asked a question of them that has been posed here as well, ie how would they determine Nationality. One of their replies 'by the size of your nose' quite amused me

[rogeroc]

In response to Siem Reaper quoting 'Nowisee'.

'I think you know all this already. You can keep pushing "it's not fair" ''

I cannot find any Post where Nowisee even said this let alone 'keep pushing'. I apologise sincerely if you can demonstrate i am wrong. I have only made a handful of Posts on this forum but i keep getting misquoted. Fine to have a different opinion but wrong to misquote. Wrong and 'not fair' have different meanings.

[FolkGuitar]

Good point. How many Thais would defend this discrimination?

It 'would' be a good point it if 'were' discrimination. We are stating that it is not.

As for those TV members who say " if you don't like it go home " again I have mentioned this to Thai's and they laughed and said " stupid Farang's " or words to that affect.

I wish I had a dollar for every person who tried to use "I have mentioned this to Thai's and they....," It reminds me of and 'my cousin's friend said...,'' and 'The check is in the mail.'

[Robert24]

That one was already covered by another member interestingly before you posted about differential pricing

The issue is that, however you try to dress it up, it isn't about discounts based on status or age; it's about premium pricing based on nationality. That is racism. And it is aimed at foreign nationals, whether resident in Thailand, or visiting, so arguments about it being the Thais' country are irrelevant - if ever they were relevant - not to say disingenuous. And pricing at five times the Thai .rate is not just excessive, it's inane in a country where one of the main industries is tourism.

I can follow your points but what do you want to achieve here. You can't change it. For the government it will be success cause total revenues from National park entry fees will be up. It won't stop tourists come here, stop them from visiting national parks and it won't stop foreigners come live in Thailand.

Hence my previous post. If you don't like it, don't visit National parks and move on.

[Robert24]

I am surprised that anybody (although the minority) on this forum defends this dual pricing policy. Would be interesting to know what percentage of Thais would even defend it ! I think it is extremely hard to defend the policy in a logical and constructive way which is why (i suspect) some of those that are defending choose to do so either with arrogance or blatant insults (whinger, cheapo, only a few dollars etc, etc). I also suggest that the argument that if you do not like an element of a country you are visiting or living in then don't visit there / live there is archaic.

Good point. How many Thais would defend this discrimination? I honestly don't know, I can only go on my own personal knowledge.

Not only do my Thai family not like this policy, but also other Thai's I have discussed this with are in fact very embarrassed about it.

As for those TV members who say " if you don't like it go home " again I have mentioned this to Thai's and they laughed and said " stupid Farang's " or words to that affect.

unfortunately entry fees into NP won't be determined by whether Thais like them or not....

[Mousehound]

About time this thread was shut down!

[Rimmer]

Some off topic bickering posts have been removed along with assorted replies, please see the following rule that you agreed to when you signed up to Thai Visa:

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

[Singharh]

I've just been to a National Park in Loei and after showing my Thai drivers license paid the same as my Thai wife. Suppose it just depends where you go.

[Chiengmaijoe]

WhenI passed TAT office today I decided to pop in and confirm that my appointment to speak with the big boss at 11 am tomorrow was still on, and apparently it is! The main point I will make is what the original post here was about, namely, why are expats no longer exempt from paying the Non-Thai rate. It has already been stated here that it was a directive from the Ministry of Sports and Tourism so hopefully they are the ones that can provide an answer. If they say it is down to National Parks office, then I will go back to the National Parks office, almost directly opposite TAT on the other side of the river to see if they have the answer to the questions I left there last week.

I'm mostly doing it out of curiosity, but partly because I see the change of regulation as being disrespectful to those of us that have lived here for so long. It is nothing I will lose sleep over, and certainly nothing to raise my blood presure or convince me to get on a high horse.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Chiengmaijoe

[taotoo]

I used to live in a village adjoining a national park. As a local I would get waved in for free (shiny new car included). Queuing behind me would be poor non-local Thais on old 2 stroke motorbikes, all of whom had to pay. Nobody ever seemed to have a problem with it. If they could tolerate that obvious wrong, I'm sure we can tolerate this.

[uptheos]

I'd advise the whiners to stay out of Cambodia. You'll have a coronary when you find out you have to pay $20 for a day at Angkor Wat when all the Khmer get in for free. That's a policy that is well supported by expats and visitors alike strangely. Because it's not a thing of principle to make those living in relative poverty pay the same as a tourist; it's an obscenity. Thailand is a middle-income nation with lots of poor people (once again minimum wage of $250) and it's entitled to subsidize its citizenry in just the same way as your own countries could - the fact that they choose not to is their choice not a "moral issue".

Who cares if the Khmers get in for free?

To travel half way across the world to see one of the greatest treasures for $20 is damn cheap.

Having said that I'm sure you're right and some won't go in because of 'principle', but instead retreat to the nearest bar and chug down many beers, whilst moaning about it......sad.

[uptheos]

I'd advise the whiners to stay out of Cambodia. You'll have a coronary when you find out you have to pay $20 for a day at Angkor Wat when all the Khmer get in for free. That's a policy that is well supported by expats and visitors alike strangely. Because it's not a thing of principle to make those living in relative poverty pay the same as a tourist; it's an obscenity. Thailand is a middle-income nation with lots of poor people (once again minimum wage of $250) and it's entitled to subsidize its citizenry in just the same way as your own countries could - the fact that they choose not to is their choice not a "moral issue".

Who cares if the Khmers get in for free?

To travel half way across the world to see one of the greatest treasures for $20 is damn cheap.

Having said that I'm sure you're right and some won't go in because of 'principle', but instead retreat to the nearest bar and chug down many beers, whilst moaning about it......sad.

[TheSiemReaper]

I'd advise the whiners to stay out of Cambodia. You'll have a coronary when you find out you have to pay $20 for a day at Angkor Wat when all the Khmer get in for free. That's a policy that is well supported by expats and visitors alike strangely. Because it's not a thing of principle to make those living in relative poverty pay the same as a tourist; it's an obscenity. Thailand is a middle-income nation with lots of poor people (once again minimum wage of $250) and it's entitled to subsidize its citizenry in just the same way as your own countries could - the fact that they choose not to is their choice not a "moral issue".

Who cares if the Khmers get in for free?

To travel half way across the world to see one of the greatest treasures for $20 is damn cheap.

Having said that I'm sure you're right and some won't go in because of 'principle', but instead retreat to the nearest bar and chug down many beers, whilst moaning about it......sad.

I couldn't agree more. I've been more than 30 times and never complained about the price.

[Chiengmaijoe]

I'd advise the whiners to stay out of Cambodia. You'll have a coronary when you find out you have to pay $20 for a day at Angkor Wat when all the Khmer get in for free. That's a policy that is well supported by expats and visitors alike strangely. Because it's not a thing of principle to make those living in relative poverty pay the same as a tourist; it's an obscenity. Thailand is a middle-income nation with lots of poor people (once again minimum wage of $250) and it's entitled to subsidize its citizenry in just the same way as your own countries could - the fact that they choose not to is their choice not a "moral issue".

Who cares if the Khmers get in for free?

To travel half way across the world to see one of the greatest treasures for $20 is damn cheap.

Having said that I'm sure you're right and some won't go in because of 'principle', but instead retreat to the nearest bar and chug down many beers, whilst moaning about it......sad.

This topic is about what expats should pay, not tourists. As a tourist, I wouldn't mind paying the tourist fee, but if I lived in Siem Reap for 20 years I wouldn't want to pay 20 dollars every time a friend or family came to visit if I wanted to enjoy their company at the tourist attractions. I would certainly appreciate the gesture of giving me the local rate if I were a resident, and I'd be curious if they decided to remove that privilege.