somtam2000
admin
mahout
Posts: 2551

Located in:
Indonesia

#1 Posted: 24/3/2008 - 19:48


You arrive at the national park / bus or train station or other attraction and are greeted by a sign reading:

Locals: 100B
Foreigners: 200B

How does that make you feel?

Do you think it's fair that foreigners are forced to pay more than locals at certain attractions? To your mind should there be exceptions (eg Angkor Wat, Khmers don't pay at all). Or do you think that all people should pay the same -- regardless of their ability to pay?

Is it perhaps a way to redistribute wealth by making those who can better "afford to pay" subsidise those who can't?

What do you think?

pythagnz
longtail driver
Posts: 8

#2 Posted: 1/4/2008 - 14:00


I don't generally mind paying more than locals under certain conditions:
1. I know the money is going back into the local community or national park (hard to verify)
2. the difference isn't huge.

In New Zealand access to National Parks is free for all people. But 35% of search and rescue callouts are to attend to international visitors, most of whom are inadequately prepared and/or ignored local advice. Perhaps we should charge all international visitors to New Zealand an extra $50 to cover the costs of looking after the ones that drain our resources (search and rescue generally costing thousands of dollars per time but again, people aren't charged for this). How would international visitors to NZ feel about this?

I can goggle in amazement at the wealth I see in some of the so-called (developing) countries. I understand that a lot of people barely earn in a day what many of us spend on coffee and a muffin. But conversely some people have way more wealth than I do. So, distribution of wealth is skewed.

What is the purpose of charging international visitors more than locals (eg to recover more income)? Or of charging locals less than internation visitors (eg so national treasures are accesible by all)? Maybe a multi-tiered pricing scheme should account for one's wealth regardless of one's nationality (so wealthy Thais would pay the same as wealthy Germans for instance). But how would you determine this? It becomes difficult trying to implement a fair system.

Ultimately as prices for international visitors diverge further away than local prices I find myself more reluctant to go to those places. The main thing I am thinking about here is National Parks in Thailand. Now it costs 400B I am likely to go once per trip instead of to two or more national parks. Or I will seek out remote national parks where I might get waved through without paying.

This is just a jumble of thoughts. No clear decision for me.

Tilapia
tuk tuk driver
Posts: 197

#3 Posted: 16/4/2008 - 05:15


Well, about 70% of the Thai population earn a living through agriculture, with the average salary being around U$1500/year, or less. Now, they have to pay to put the crop in the ground, have to pay the help, have to buy fuel, buy clothes, and send the kids to school. Same goes with most of the country's taxi drivers, especially in Bangkok. In fact, many make less.

So, I don't mind paying more, even if it means that some Thais who are far wealthier than I am don't pay as much.

SBE
tuk tuk driver
Posts: 129

#4 Posted: 16/4/2008 - 17:05


I don't mind paying if it looks like the NP are actually using the money to help preserve the site...eg I don't mind paying 400B to stay in the Surins but I sure DO mind paying 200B to stay on Ko Samet.

CatBa
adventurer
Posts: 349

#5 Posted: 24/4/2008 - 10:43


Some services in poorer countries are subsidised so their citizens can still be able to afford an essential product or service.

Non-citizens are therefore asked to pay more, an amount that reflects the true price.

This happens in many countries including Canada, UK and the USA. So no complaints of 'racism' or 'prejudice' should be made - as was done in another branch of this forum.

somtam2000
admin
mahout
Posts: 2551

Located in:
Indonesia

#6 Posted: 24/4/2008 - 11:36


I think it depends on what is being paid for and what the difference is.

In Thailand, the National Parks, where a local may pay 20B (or less) and a foreigner 200B (or more), are the classic example.

While there's a couple of exceptions, in return for paying ten times the price a foreigner can expect:

a) a paucity of English speaking guides
b) poor (if any) literature in English (or any other non-Thai language for that matter)
c) poor (if any) sign-posting and trail-markings in English (or any other non-Thai language for that matter)

So I struggle to see the value adding here.

Of course if the difference in admission fees was going towards any of the above then I'd be more inclined to say fair enough -- but it's not happening!

As pythagnz says -- if NP's remained 20B for all, then chances are, foreigners would go to more national parks and everyone benefits -- instead people pick one -- or two and leave it at that.

Regarding Catba's point, is it racist? Well I know if I was to open an amusement park in the US and put a sign out the front reading "Americans $2, Other westerners $10, Asians $20" they'd be a few people about telling me it was most certainly racist. Nevertheless, there's no shortage of admission signs in Thailand that read "Thais 20B, Other Asians 50B, Foreigners 200B" -- in most cases you won't read about such businesses on Travelfish.

exacto
som tam seller
Posts: 662

#7 Posted: 25/4/2008 - 10:44


I can't say how this might be in Vietnam, where I'd happily defer to CatBa as the expert, but in Thailand, the double pricing most definitely IS a function of racism. The higher price is based on race, not anything else. That's racial profiling. That's racism.

Now, to put that in perspective, on our last trip to Samui, my wife was patiently waiting her turn at the post office, when she was escorted to the front of the line (ahead of half a dozen Thais) by one of the postal clerks. You know, that was a race-based thing too, but apart from my wife being a bit embarrased by the special treatment, nobody complained. Sometimes it bites both ways, and there are plenty of times when I've received special consideration only due to being a westerner as well.

I remember we had a similar discussion several months ago, and basically most of the posters agreed that this was just part of the cost of doing business in Thailand. Plus, at least most of those signs that Somtam mentions of the different tiered pricing are written only in Thai, so unless you can read Thai, the multi-tiered pricing isn't being shoved in your face.

I do think that the Thai Government exacting these significantly higher fares from western tourists is a mistake. It isn't just at national parks either. The special tourist train to Kanchanaburi is twice as expensive for western tourists as it is for locals too. Apart from national treasures, like Wat Prakaeo, I think it is hard to justify charging a different, much higher price to people based on their nationality/race. Having said that, when I compare this cost to the price of my airline ticket, I realize it probably isn't worth getting all that worked up about.

SBE
tuk tuk driver
Posts: 129

#8 Posted: 25/4/2008 - 16:45


I think it's just that we see things from our own cultural perspective.

We Westerners may think racial discrimination is totally abhorrent nowadays but fifty years ago we were doing just that ourselves and nobody batted an eyelid. What short memories we have. And we also have a rather arrogant tendency to assume that other cultures need to adapt to OUR way of thinking. Forcing Thais to accept topless sunbathing on their beaches just because it's OK where we come from springs to mind.

From what I've observed I get the impression that Thais just don't see anything wrong with discriminating according to race, age, sex etc. Look at the job advert section in the Bangkok Post and you'll see what I mean.

exacto
som tam seller
Posts: 662

#9 Posted: 26/4/2008 - 08:12


I completely agree with SBE that Thais don't necessarily see anything wrong with discrimination according to race, etc. The point I was hoping to make, if I didn't, is that the kind of racism I've experienced in Thailand is a fairly benign form. It is racism, by definition, but it isn't always a bad thing.

I do wonder how much the double pricing issue deters people from going to the national parks or even from visiting Thailand at all. In terms of revenue generation, I suspect the money raised from western tourists visiting national parks is only a drop compared to what is spent on rooms, food, etc. So, if the double pricing policy drives people away from Thailand, then the policy is short-sighted and actually counter-productive. Then again, I'm just guessing, and perhaps it has no such impact at all.

The more I think about the double pricing issue, the more I see it the way SBE described as just part of the broad tapestry that is Thailand. Somtam gave a great example of how an amusement park in the States couldn't possibly charge different prices based on race or nationality. But I contrast that with all the many wonderful bits of Thai culture and the types of adventures available there that aren't on offer for me back home, and it underscores why I've kept going back for the better part of 25 years. Perhaps the double pricing is just one of those bad things we need to put up with to get to the good.

somsai
tourist
Posts: 56

#10 Posted: 6/5/2008 - 05:52


Some aspects of different cultures I embrace, others I merely accept, others I reject. Racism is one of those I choose to reject. In the mid 1970’s I traveled to and lived in the extreme southern potion of the United States. No one can force you to be friends with someone you would rather not, but not serving someone, or charging them higher amounts simply on the basis of race is fundamentally wrong.

I have a choice. I choose not to patronise any business establishment that has a two tiered pricing based on race. If I overhear the price being charged is different from that of a local I don’t buy. I don’t get upset or angry I simply take my business elsewhere. Life is short and I have little time.

I even choose whom I associate with based on racism, in Louisiana as well as Thailand.

SBE
tuk tuk driver
Posts: 129

#11 Posted: 6/5/2008 - 14:35


That is your prerogative but you nevertheless visit Thailand which has STATE-IMPOSED double pricing based on race. Why are you choosing to spend your tourist $$$ there and aiding that country's economy rather than going somewhere where there is no official two-tier pricing?

It may be fundamentally wrong but discrimination is still deeply embedded everywhere and no one objects until it's PC to do so... name one country that doesn't discriminate between nationalities when it comes to issuing visas and residence permits for example. Nationality is just as much an arbitrary accident of birth as the colour of your skin.

As I said earlier, I don't mind paying more than Thais when I stay in NP like the Surins. There is a genuine effort to preserve the islands and the reefs there. More Thais than foreigners go to the Surins but they rarely stay more than a couple of nights max. They just don't have enough time off work to stay longer. Foreigners like me have the luxury of being able to stay for a week for our 400B fee if we want ...

How many Thais have an annual vacation that is as long as a week?

somtam2000
admin
mahout
Posts: 2551

Located in:
Indonesia

#12 Posted: 6/5/2008 - 16:31


Minor points perhaps, but:

Visa regulations are often (though not always) reciprocal -- and it's not always even handed even once you take that into account... for example it's easier for an Australian to get a tourist visa to Thailand than for a Thai to get a tourist visa to Oz, but it's actually easier (relatively speaking) for a Thai to get residency in Australia than it is for an Australian to get the same in Thailand ...

All the Thais I worked with in Thailand, in a number of businesses and indutries, got exactly the same leave benefits as I did. Sure I probably got more leave than the tea-lady, but Thais I was working alongside with got the same leave. yes I was paid more -- but hey I needed more to be able to afford my National Park entry fee!

No doubt there's many Thais that get a couple of days off a month -- if that, but there's absolutely no shortage of professional Thais who get the same leave as a westerner working at a similar level -- and they do travel a lot, and they do visit the national parks and they do pay a fraction of what I pay -- and that's the problem.

One park, one fee, one set of facilities -- for everybody.

IMO, that's how it should be, but sadly not how it is.

SBE
tuk tuk driver
Posts: 129

#13 Posted: 6/5/2008 - 20:02


Everyone has their own opinions on this one.

I worked in Thailand too, at Mahidol University and I earned more than twice as much as Thai colleagues with the same qualifications... that is also racial discrimination and I can understand why many Thais get pissed off about it.

Just out of interest how much annual vacation did you get Somtam? I got 10 days paid vacation a year plus public holidays...crap compared to what I got in Europe but WAY more time off than most Thais get.

On my last trip to the Surins I got chatting to a Thai businessman, CEO of a big company who was there for a couple of nights. He wasn't cash strapped by any means...paid the 2000B/night for a proper bed in a NP bungalow ... but he did say that the 3 days he was spending in the Surins was his ONLY vacation this year.

If Thais earned as much and had as much paid time off as Westerners then I doubt if I'd be able to afford to go on holiday to Thailand any more.

I may pay more for NP entry fees etc but I still think I'm getting a good deal.