National Park Experience

[Beng]

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.

Exactly right.

[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.

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.

Exactly right.

Oh give it up, we're talking one of the modern wonders of the world $20 is cheap!

[rogeroc]

Uptheos said

'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 fail to see what drinking has to do with this. I would think an individuals views on dual pricing on the basis of Nationality have nothing to do with their propensity to drink or for that matter moan (whatever the topic). When i first read this Post it sounded like it was intended as an insult to those who may not share the Posters view. I hope that was not the case.

[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.

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.

Then all I can say, is don't become an expat in Cambodia. Which I was for nearly 5 years. The average Khmer makes $80 a month. I'd be happy to support free entry for any expat surviving long-term on that amount of money in Cambodia. Heck, I'd be happy to pay their entry fee myself.

If you want to enjoy someone's company at an attraction - that's your choice; no-one's forcing you to go. And if you do go, you pay - just like everyone else who isn't local does. It's really pretty simple.

[uptheos]

Wherever I live, currently Thailand. If someone is decent enough tovisit me from half way across the world and wants to see a certain attraction. I'm not going to tell them they have to go in by themselves, because waving my yellow book, driving licence, marriage certificate or showing them 25 years of renewal stamps or shouting in Thai doesn't get me the local price! What a miserable sod I would be not to go with the person(s) and share what I know about the place, but instead sit and sleep outside wherever and let them find out things for themselves. Oh it's the principle, well stuff the principle it is what it is, not just in Thailand but around the world. I would guess most of the miserable sods who would sit outside on principle haven't done much travelling at all or they would know it is what it is, get over it!

[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.

Then all I can say, is don't become an expat in Cambodia. Which I was for nearly 5 years. The average Khmer makes $80 a month. I'd be happy to support free entry for any expat surviving long-term on that amount of money in Cambodia. Heck, I'd be happy to pay their entry fee myself.

If you want to enjoy someone's company at an attraction - that's your choice; no-one's forcing you to go. And if you do go, you pay - just like everyone else who isn't local does. It's really pretty simple.

Yes it is simple. Simple curiosity. I sometimes get 2 or 3 visitors almost one after the other and I enjoy their company as well as taking them to places that the average tourist might not find. Under those circumstances I may find myself back at a place that I have been to quite recently, and although it may not hold much fascination for me anymore I would still enjoy showing it to friends or family. In the past a quick flash of my work permit entitled me to the locals rate, and as a local for 26 years myself, I appreciated it. I almost took at as a small gesture of thanks for me taking my guests to places they might otherwise not have found.

I have just one interest in this topic and it is very simple, but seemingly difficult for some people to grasp - someone, somewhere had the sense to appreciate the fact that long term residents aren't tourists and for whatever reason, they decided to allow them to enter National parks at a locals rate. However, quite recently, someone somewhere decided that the rule was going to change and all non-Thais, irrespective of how long they might have lived here, would be charged the higher rate. I would almost certainly still pay the higher rate if my visitors wanted to visit a park, but nonetheless I am still intrigued to know who decided to change the rules, and why. As I said, simple curiosity.

Second thoughts ... I do sometimes find it irritating to be singled out of the crowd when I am with my family, relatives and friends and I am the only foreigner, to be told that I have to join another line. It seems disrespectful to me, but maybe that is because I have been here too long and have got too used to being treated respectfully.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Chiengmaijoe

[rogeroc]

uptheos / chiengmaijoe

Thanks for that, i appreciate both these reasoned viewpoints. I am personally not as principled about this as it may appear and would in the same situation as CMJ 'bite the bullet'. If the differential came across as as a discount for the less privileged as opposed to a price hike for other nationalities and if the differential were not so vast, 5 to 20 times more according to these threads it would be easier to swallow and i would find much more acceptable.The way it is now is however in my view wrong and i have regard for those who would not visit a National Park out of principle; they should not be the subject to ridicule and insult.

[uptheos]

Yes it is simple. Simple curiosity. I sometimes get 2 or 3 visitors almost one after the other and I enjoy their company as well as taking them to places that the average tourist might not find. Under those circumstances I may find myself back at a place that I have been to quite recently, and although it may not hold much fascination for me anymore I would still enjoy showing it to friends or family. In the past a quick flash of my work permit entitled me to the locals rate, and as a local for 26 years myself, I appreciated it. I almost took at as a small gesture of thanks for me taking my guests to places they might otherwise not have found.

I have just one interest in this topic and it is very simple, but seemingly difficult for some people to grasp - someone, somewhere had the sense to appreciate the fact that long term residents aren't tourists and for whatever reason, they decided to allow them to enter National parks at a locals rate. However, quite recently, someone somewhere decided that the rule was going to change and all non-Thais, irrespective of how long they might have lived here, would be charged the higher rate. I would almost certainly still pay the higher rate if my visitors wanted to visit a park, but nonetheless I am still intrigued to know who decided to change the rules, and why. As I said, simple curiosity.

Second thoughts ... I do sometimes find it irritating to be singled out of the crowd when I am with my family, relatives and friends and I am the only foreigner, to be told that I have to join another line. It seems disrespectful to me, but maybe that is because I have been here too long and have got too used to being treated respectfully.

Oh come on Joe, you must see that things are changing gradually in many areas since you know when.

And they're only in their infancy

[uptheos]

Double Post - Sorry

Edited November 3, 2015 by uptheos

[Robert24]

uptheos / chiengmaijoe

Thanks for that, i appreciate both these reasoned viewpoints. I am personally not as principled about this as it may appear and would in the same situation as CMJ 'bite the bullet'. If the differential came across as as a discount for the less privileged as opposed to a price hike for other nationalities and if the differential were not so vast, 5 to 20 times more according to these threads it would be easier to swallow and i would find much more acceptable.The way it is now is however in my view wrong and i have regard for those who would not visit a National Park out of principle; they should not be the subject to ridicule and insult.

bottom line is dual pricing won't change. As I said before, either accept it or don't visit the NPs. Complaining only makes you miserable. There are many pros and cons about living in Thailand, for me this is a very little con, one that doesn't me much to be honest. Came across such dual pricing in other parts of the world as well (i.e. Singapore). I really don't care so much about it.

[MadMac]

LOL, where is dual pricing in Singapore? I'd like if they charge Thais 10x more than the rest of the world but they wont.

Edited November 5, 2015 by MadMac

[hml367]

Apparently Malaysian tourists do not agree with dual pricing http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/868162-some-50-malaysian-tourists-refuse-to-pay-park-fee-at-lipe-island/

[MadMac]

Koh Lipe still belongs to Thailand. And Singapore gave the "si" to MalaySIa in the 60ths. That was it.

[Robert24]

LOL, where is dual pricing in Singapore? I'd like if they charge Thais 10x more than the rest of the world but they wont.

gardens by the bay for instance.

[HampiK]

Just a couple of simple points. Firstly I resent the suggestion that retired persons here pay no tax. I pay 15% on the interest on my bank deposits, part of which I am required to keep for immigration purposes.

Secondly. Just as a matter of window dressing, the Thai attitude would be easier to accept if it was presented as giving discounts. Hence local residents, monks, students, the elderly etc could be given favourable rates rather than simply stinging foreigners or persons with the wrong coloured skin.

You can get that 15% back you know,one of the few benefits for being old.

I did not know. Thank you. I thought it was either pay here or in UK.

I am not living in thailand yet.. but still can ask my homecountry for at least 10% payback instead of 15% tax. the 5% lost they compensate that i only have to put the interst as 90% as income. But soon it will be over and i can request the tax back in thailand.

Something else.. the double pricing is for sure not nice.. But as some already wrote if you not like it and if this is soo bad.. why you are in Thailand. There are other advantages in Thailand. No country is perfect 100%.

[MadMac]

gardens by the bay for instance.

There is dual pricing?

[wellred]

Well there's 30 seconds I won't be getting back. All over 80 beat? You should have done your research before going.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Robert24]

gardens by the bay for instance.

There is dual pricing?

yep. With Singapore IC it is about half of what a foreigner has to pay if I recall it correctly.

[1happykamper]

Each time a pay the farang tax I am usual with a Thai that has much much more money than I do... Come on Thailand... Stop assuming so much about farang financial abilities.

[Beng]

Each time a pay the farang tax I am usual with a Thai that has much much more money than I do... Come on Thailand... Stop assuming so much about farang financial abilities.

Well said !!

[MadMac]

gardens by the bay for instance.

There is dual pricing?

yep. With Singapore IC it is about half of what a foreigner has to pay if I recall it correctly.

No, it isn't.

[Robert24]

gardens by the bay for instance.

There is dual pricing?

yep. With Singapore IC it is about half of what a foreigner has to pay if I recall it correctly.

No, it isn't.

555. you seem to be quite strong headed.... Singapore IC fee is 20 SGD, foreigner 28 SGD.

hope this stops further conversations on this. I really don't care so much about dual pricing. When I was in Singapore, I paid the 28 SGD, definitely worth it. Do I like to pay more, no. But frankly better enjoy the experience than being grumpy about dual pricing.

[MAJIC]

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.

Windsor castle in the U.K. is about £15.....Thais and other foreigners should therefor pay a whopping £150 each by your thinking its not a problem.

Or alternatively charge the locals 10% = £1-50 and Thais £15.

[Dante99]

As a non resident I pay more than residents for entry to State Parks, hunting licenses, fishing licenses and State schools in the USA. In Singapore Gardens By the Bay is more expensive for non residents, correctly noted above, as are the Zoo and other attractions for Senior Citizens who do not get the resident discounted rate. I expect that this type of thing is fairly common in other countries too. Why not, the residents previously paid to create the infrastructure so it makes sense that they should be able to use it at a lower price.

The problem is not the problem, the problem is your attitude about the problem.

[SoiBiker]

Each time a pay the farang tax I am usual with a Thai that has much much more money than I do... Come on Thailand... Stop assuming so much about farang financial abilities.

There are some pretty wealthy students back home that still get a student discount. It's never going to be an ideal fit for everyone. That's not the point.

[MadMac]

Singapore IC fee is 20 SGD, foreigner 28 SGD.

You are right. Interesting. But' it's not 10x the price.

[DaamNaam]

As a non resident I pay more than residents for entry to State Parks, hunting licenses, fishing licenses and State schools in the USA. In Singapore Gardens By the Bay is more expensive for non residents, correctly noted above, as are the Zoo and other attractions for Senior Citizens who do not get the resident discounted rate. I expect that this type of thing is fairly common in other countries too. Why not, the residents previously paid to create the infrastructure so it makes sense that they should be able to use it at a lower price.

The problem is not the problem, the problem is your attitude about the problem.

Sorry Jack Sparrow but the problem is the 1000% difference. A few baht here and there so be it, not this much a difference.

[lemonjelly]

"After trying with them in Thai language for about 20 minutes without success,"

.... to save 80 baht ???

[nontabury]

Just spoken with my Chinese neighbour. He told me he and his Chinese family have always payed the Thai price,adding that he has always visited the NP with Thai friends, who would make the actual payment. Therefor it cannot be racial discrimination, according to some posters on here.

Edited November 6, 2015 by nontabury

[Bill97]

If you do not like the price, do not go, nobody is forcing you.