News Forum - Tourists unsure about new 300-baht fee, question how money will be spent

[Benroon]

3 hours ago, Buttaxe said:

Benroon here is your typical FUT: Farang Uncle Tom. For Ben no discriminatory price is too high and no secondary status is too low. Thais love Ben.

But my life is not riddled with paranoia - sleep well

[Vince]

5 hours ago, Stonker said:

Correct @Vince - a complete myth.  I've taken the liberty of reversing the 'bold' in your comment which may make it clearer to some.

I think the double pricing is mostly objected to by the people not getting the (often minor) benefit. 

As someone once said, when people say "it's not about the money it's the principle" it really is about the money :-)

 

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, Benroon said:

Check out the requirement from the UK for foreigners now wishing to make their lives in the UK. An absurd catalogue of questions and demands no ordinary UK citizen would have a hope of answering. What's the difference? All over the world governments will look after their own - stop feeling entitled.

Many Brits can also not afford to marry anyone but a fellow Brit - at least if they want to live with them in the UK.

[Thommo]

3 hours ago, Vince said:

I think the double pricing is mostly objected to by the people not getting the (often minor) benefit. 

As someone once said, when people say "it's not about the money it's the principle" it really is about the money :-)

I would have to disagree,  for me it is the principal (but i still pay it when I have too) I have a work permit and pay tax monthly to the Thai goverment. But the benifits i get in Thailand far outweigh the small negatives.

Just to name a few

1. Decent hotels in Thailand for when I travel about a 3rd or less of what it cost in Oz for a simailar standard

2. My Motor bike,  I would guess cost of ownership about 10% of what it is in Melbourne

3. Road speed limits  (is there really any)  i had one speeding ticket 500baht (my thai colleauges told me you dont have to pay, but i did) melbourne,  hate to think guess,7000baht + (pay or you are F**ked)

I will still complain to my GF when she pays ( well I pay) 20baht to my 100baht to get into a waterfall etc.

Cheers

[Vince]

15 minutes ago, Thommo said:

I would have to disagree,  for me it is the principal (but i still pay it when I have too) I have a work permit and pay tax monthly to the Thai goverment. But the benifits i get in Thailand far outweigh the small negatives.

Just to name a few

1. Decent hotels in Thailand for when I travel about a 3rd or less of what it cost in Oz for a simailar standard

2. My Motor bike,  I would guess cost of ownership about 10% of what it is in Melbourne

3. Road speed limits  (is there really any)  i had one speeding ticket 500baht (my thai colleauges told me you dont have to pay, but i did) melbourne,  hate to think guess,7000baht + (pay or you are F**ked)

I will still complain to my GF when she pays ( well I pay) 20baht to my 100baht to get into a waterfall etc.

Cheers

Yes, I believe you. It's not the THB80, it's the principle ;-) 

And you are filled with rage at all the thousands of other injustices of the world, the orphans, the flood victims, the working poor? 

Or is 'principle' at play only when your THB80 is at stake? :-D 

[AussieBob]

10 hours ago, Vince said:

My point is not rebutted from casual or even "racist" implementation. A non-racist rationale may exist behind a unfair implementation. 

For example:

If lazy or even racist ticket collectors at the city botanical gardens don't bother to check licenses or passports (the current method to check residents who are free) but instead glanced at Tourists who were mostly Thai, and charged the tourist rate (high), and most residents were white, and charged white foreign tourists the "local"(low) rate assuming they were residents (or being racists wanted to encourage whites) it would be the same reason for dual pricing - locals pay taxes, tourists don't. It's not to oppress Thais, make them feel unwelcome, or discourage them from looking at flowers. Someone just doesn't want to check ID. Or a single person could have "racist" intent (who knows? I'm not going to claim it doesn't exist) - but the policy is not proven racist merely by structure or uneven implementation.

A sloppy or even racist(!) ticketer doesn't change the reason or function for dual pricing which may be reasonable or arbitrary (and not racist). 

My point is that the rationale for dual pricing - it's function - my be quite reasonable (or wholly arbitrary business decisions, or sloppy communication about pricing in the case of seafood, or haggling). 

You are focused solely on the structure. This is wrong. A reasonable (or unreasonable non-racist) reason for local discount (or inconsistent) pricing may exist, and careless or arbitrary or uneven implementation of who is defined as "local" doesn't change that fact. 

Looking at a sign and coming to a conclusion about intent is simply not correct. 

There are valid reasons - even if you don't agree with them - for dual pricing. 

If you get a free donut on your birthday, but it's only for town residents, and you forget your driver's license, and the low paid cashier thinks you "seem like a local" and gives you a free donut,  the decision to give out free donuts to locals on their birthday isn't "racist" even if locals like you are all Thai and non-locals mostly aren't. 

I hear your points, but they are not really valid IMO.  You are excusing racism and discrimination due to poor implementation - that is not an excuse in 'the real world'. 

This is the official definition of racism:

 

'prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.'

This is the official definition of discrimination:

'the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability.'

Here are a couple of other points that myself and Richard and many others are saying:  

It is not about Tourists - I agree with charging differently for a specific group (Tourists) and Tourist locations and events. We are talking about Expats - long term residents and citizens - like Tim Newton and Richard and others - who have lived in Thailand for many years and call Thailand home. 

Most locals do not pay income taxes - same as most Expats - unless they are working in a salaried position. But all Thais and Expats pay the VAT taxes and others. 

And it is not just in a few places - it is endemic.  Example:  "Dual-pricing isn’t just for tourist attractions anymore. Thai public hospitals can now legally charge foreign nationals higher rates for services under new regulations published Friday. https://coconuts.co/bangkok/news/dual-pricing-foreigners-legal-thai-public-hospitals/.   A bloke challenged that law based on the fact that he was not a Tourist and had lived in Thailand full-time for many years and was married to a Thai. The Court ruled that it was discrimination, but because it was 'beneficial to Thailand', the Court allowed the additional charges. Discrimination is Endemic and Institutionalised against Foreigners all over Thailand - against 'western' Foreigners - Tourists and Expats.  And it is wrong - but it is legal for the Hospitals to do it.

Foreigners take aim at dual pricing (bangkokpost.com)

Tourism officials look to end dual pricing for expats | Thaiger (thethaiger.com)

 

 

[Rain]

48 minutes ago, AussieBob said:

I hear your points, but they are not really valid IMO.  You are excusing racism and discrimination due to poor implementation - that is not an excuse in 'the real world'. 

This is the official definition of racism:

'prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.'

This is the official definition of discrimination:

'the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability.'

Here are a couple of other points that myself and Richard and many others are saying:  

It is not about Tourists - I agree with charging differently for a specific group (Tourists) and Tourist locations and events. We are talking about Expats - long term residents and citizens - like Tim Newton and Richard and others - who have lived in Thailand for many years and call Thailand home. 

Most locals do not pay income taxes - same as most Expats - unless they are working in a salaried position. But all Thais and Expats pay the VAT taxes and others. 

And it is not just in a few places - it is endemic.  Example:  "Dual-pricing isn’t just for tourist attractions anymore. Thai public hospitals can now legally charge foreign nationals higher rates for services under new regulations published Friday. https://coconuts.co/bangkok/news/dual-pricing-foreigners-legal-thai-public-hospitals/.   A bloke challenged that law based on the fact that he was not a Tourist and had lived in Thailand full-time for many years and was married to a Thai. The Court ruled that it was discrimination, but because it was 'beneficial to Thailand', the Court allowed the additional charges. Discrimination is Endemic and Institutionalised against Foreigners all over Thailand - against 'western' Foreigners - Tourists and Expats.  And it is wrong - but it is legal for the Hospitals to do it.

Foreigners take aim at dual pricing (bangkokpost.com)

Tourism officials look to end dual pricing for expats | Thaiger (thethaiger.com)

Ok. Lovely word salad.

Is there a point you're attempting to make, outside of the uptight trivial side of all this?

[TheDirtyDurian]

7 hours ago, Benroon said:

Could it be that the government wish to take care of their people on a meagre average salary whilst charging a little extra to people from countries far richer ? Where's the problem, with the amounts involved I just don't get it.

Check out the requirement from the UK for foreigners now wishing to make their lives in the UK. An absurd catalogue of questions and demands no ordinary UK citizen would have a hope of answering. What's the difference? All over the world governments will look after their own - stop feeling entitled.

Err... Did you not read the part where I said I'm okay with paying more at national parks. 

What I actually said was that I resent private businesses charging foreigners more, hence my happiness at the market I mentioned having closed down. 

Pay more attention next time. 6/10

[Vince]

2 hours ago, AussieBob said:

I hear your points, but they are not really valid IMO.  You are excusing racism and discrimination due to poor implementation - that is not an excuse in 'the real world'. 

Thank you for your well thought out rebuttal. If there is no racism, as I feel I am pointing out, then I am not excusing it. 

But I think I am right and will gladly argue your points :-) 

 

2 hours ago, AussieBob said:

This is the official definition of racism:

'prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.'

This is the official definition of discrimination:

'the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability.'

I have added bold for emphasis. 

1. You emphasize discrimination by defining it, so I'm assuming you are not claiming "prejudice" or "antagonism"? 

2.since prejudicial or unjust occurs in 'discrimination', I'm assuming your claiming "unjust" but not prejudicial, treatment as the core of your argument. 

Let me know if I'm wrong. 

 

2 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Here are a couple of other points that myself and Richard and many others are saying:  

It is not about Tourists - I agree with charging differently for a specific group (Tourists) and Tourist locations and events.

Excellent! You agree my argument or examples on tourist are valid! 

Tourists can and do deserve double pricing.its not unfair or unjust treatment. 

2 hours ago, AussieBob said:

 

We are talking about Expats - long term residents and citizens - like Tim Newton and Richard and others - who have lived in Thailand for many years and call Thailand home. 

Ok, so unjust treatment - let's go back to definition: 

"typically one that is a minority or marginalized.'"

Expats are a numerical minority but not marginalized, per se. Double pricing isn't marginalized.

And minority in this sense implies "real" discrimination - are you saying wealthy European or other expats are equivalent to the Karen or Rohingya or other oppressed or marginalized groups? 

2 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Most locals do not pay income taxes - same as most Expats - unless they are working in a salaried position. But all Thais and Expats pay the VAT taxes and others. 

I have repeatedly agreed that double pricing is unfair and even unpleasant. It may even be illogical or burdensome.

It's not comparable to "unfair discrimination" as is typified by, say, ethnic minority, religious, or racial groups. 

It's kind of racist in a way to equate wealthy expats with truly oppressed groups, but I digress.

To your point, the offended, double taxed, unfairly treated expats. 

2 hours ago, AussieBob said:

And it is not just in a few places - it is endemic. 

Endemic might serve to demonstrate the magnitude of this injustice? A kind of "death by a thousand cuts" or "nibbled to death by goldfish"?

Or is it a way to falsely magnify minor irritating events into an illusion of a general problem? 

2 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Example:  "Dual-pricing isn’t just for tourist attractions anymore. Thai public hospitals can now legally charge foreign nationals higher rates for services under new regulations published Friday. https://coconuts.co/bangkok/news/dual-pricing-foreigners-legal-thai-public-hospitals/. 

I am familiar with this case. Some of my word choices were, in fact, references to it. I made my arguments knowing about it. 

2 hours ago, AussieBob said:

 

 A bloke challenged that law based on the fact that he was not a Tourist and had lived in Thailand full-time for many years and was married to a Thai. The Court ruled that it was discrimination, but because it was 'beneficial to Thailand', the Court allowed the additional charges.

 

Meeting the legal definition of discrimination doesn't mean expats are an unjustly treated group of people subject to racism. 

Any dual pricing could be seen as literal discrimination - treating one group differently is literally "to discriminate" and a better price is favoritism.

I said that's not enough and the courts agreed with me :-)

There are good reasons and you may not like them. They aren't racist reasons.

Objectionable, significant, problematic discrimination that indicates "real" racism hasn't been demonstrated.

Tim and Richard and you are not South Africans under Apartheid, or Uighers under Chinese rule. Not even close. Not even a little.

2 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Discrimination is Endemic and Institutionalised against Foreigners all over Thailand - against 'western' Foreigners - Tourists and Expats.  And it is wrong - but it is legal for the Hospitals to do it.

Foreigners take aim at dual pricing (bangkokpost.com)

Tourism officials look to end dual pricing for expats | Thaiger (thethaiger.com)

The courts agreed that the benefits to Thailand outweigh the bad feelings the policy breeds. I'd say thats agreat point! 

Why do you disagree with the courts? 

I can continue if you're not convinced. 

:-D 

[Vince]

23 minutes ago, Vince said:

Thank you for your well thought out rebuttal. If there is no racism, as I feel I am pointing out, then I am not excusing it. 

But I think I am right and will gladly argue your points :-) 

 

I have added bold for emphasis. 

1. You emphasize discrimination by defining it, so I'm assuming you are not claiming "prejudice" or "antagonism"? 

2.since prejudicial or unjust occurs in 'discrimination', I'm assuming your claiming "unjust" but not prejudicial, treatment as the core of your argument. 

Let me know if I'm wrong. 

 

Excellent! You agree my argument or examples on tourist are valid! 

Tourists can and do deserve double pricing.its not unfair or unjust treatment. 

Ok, so unjust treatment - let's go back to definition: 

"typically one that is a minority or marginalized.'"

Expats are a numerical minority but not marginalized, per se. Double pricing isn't marginalized.

And minority in this sense implies "real" discrimination - are you saying wealthy European or other expats are equivalent to the Karen or Rohingya or other oppressed or marginalized groups? 

I have repeatedly agreed that double pricing is unfair and even unpleasant. It may even be illogical or burdensome.

It's not comparable to "unfair discrimination" as is typified by, say, ethnic minority, religious, or racial groups. 

It's kind of racist in a way to equate wealthy expats with truly oppressed groups, but I digress.

To your point, the offended, double taxed, unfairly treated expats. 

Endemic might serve to demonstrate the magnitude of this injustice? A kind of "death by a thousand cuts" or "nibbled to death by goldfish"?

Or is it a way to falsely magnify minor irritating events into an illusion of a general problem? 

I am familiar with this case. Some of my word choices were, in fact, references to it. I made my arguments knowing about it. 

Meeting the legal definition of discrimination doesn't mean expats are an unjustly treated group of people subject to racism. 

Any dual pricing could be seen as literal discrimination - treating one group differently is literally "to discriminate" and a better price is favoritism.

I said that's not enough and the courts agreed with me :-)

There are good reasons and you may not like them. They aren't racist reasons.

Objectionable, significant, problematic discrimination that indicates "real" racism hasn't been demonstrated.

Tim and Richard and you are not South Africans under Apartheid, or Uighers under Chinese rule. Not even close. Not even a little.

The courts agreed that the benefits to Thailand outweigh the bad feelings the policy breeds. I'd say thats agreat point! 

Why do you disagree with the courts? 

I can continue if you're not convinced. 

:-D 

Here's one of the real problems here, from the Thai side both public and private, I think. And this is all guesswork I cant prove this, but hear me out, I think it's true.

Pricing policy can change behavior and create barriers.

Locals - and expats! - are price sensitive. Tourists are price insensitive - they have a budget and spending it all is OK. 

If I own a Thai restaurant and I want to make more money off tourists to pay for my new oven or pay my staff more or just have a nice holiday I need higher prices. 

So I look online and see Farang pay $60AUD/THB1400 for seafood in their own country, the same seafood as I sell. So I raise my prices to $40AUD/THB950 and tourists pay it. Great! 

But all my regular customers whom I love and who love me stop coming. I've become a Farang restaurant with visitors I never see again. 

So bring back my old prices and - in Thai - scribble it on a wall. I have a dual price system - my Thai customers are happy and my farang customers pay a bit more and I am happy. 

Am I a racist? Have I oppressed non-Thais? 

I sold my business and got a job managing a hospital as the head administrator. I set pricing policy and remember my success as a seafood restaurant owner. I set two prices for the same reason - farang get a good deal and the hospital can afford to provide services for poor Thais, pay staff better, and maybe I get a raise for a nice vacation.

I don't check if the non-Thais have been there a long time, have Thai wives, or pay VAT or other taxes.

They would be a fairly small group anyway and the extra effort isnt worth it to me. 

Am I racist? 

 

[Vince]

9 hours ago, Benroon said:

Your paranoia is getting the better of you - so name a place that you have personally experienced that has charged you DOUBLE what the locals have paid. Please don't be tempted to google a gnarled old expat experience but something you have suffered.

Oh and possibly to add context the average income of the thai family wishing to enter compared to what you earnt before getting here ......

I agree, double pricing (as some racist conspiracy) is a myth.

When Brits in the UK get 50% off beer on Tuesdays for "locals night" (show ID please!) at the pub no one says it's a racist double pricing policy. 

They drink the beer. 

 

[AussieBob]

9 hours ago, Vince said:

Thank you for your well thought out rebuttal. If there is no racism, as I feel I am pointing out, then I am not excusing it. 

But I think I am right and will gladly argue your points :-) 

I have added bold for emphasis. 

1. You emphasize discrimination by defining it, so I'm assuming you are not claiming "prejudice" or "antagonism"? 

2.since prejudicial or unjust occurs in 'discrimination', I'm assuming your claiming "unjust" but not prejudicial, treatment as the core of your argument. 

Let me know if I'm wrong. 

Excellent! You agree my argument or examples on tourist are valid! 

Tourists can and do deserve double pricing.its not unfair or unjust treatment. 

Ok, so unjust treatment - let's go back to definition: 

"typically one that is a minority or marginalized.'"

Expats are a numerical minority but not marginalized, per se. Double pricing isn't marginalized.

And minority in this sense implies "real" discrimination - are you saying wealthy European or other expats are equivalent to the Karen or Rohingya or other oppressed or marginalized groups? 

I have repeatedly agreed that double pricing is unfair and even unpleasant. It may even be illogical or burdensome.

It's not comparable to "unfair discrimination" as is typified by, say, ethnic minority, religious, or racial groups. 

It's kind of racist in a way to equate wealthy expats with truly oppressed groups, but I digress.

To your point, the offended, double taxed, unfairly treated expats. 

Endemic might serve to demonstrate the magnitude of this injustice? A kind of "death by a thousand cuts" or "nibbled to death by goldfish"?

Or is it a way to falsely magnify minor irritating events into an illusion of a general problem? 

I am familiar with this case. Some of my word choices were, in fact, references to it. I made my arguments knowing about it. 

Meeting the legal definition of discrimination doesn't mean expats are an unjustly treated group of people subject to racism. 

Any dual pricing could be seen as literal discrimination - treating one group differently is literally "to discriminate" and a better price is favoritism.

I said that's not enough and the courts agreed with me :-)

There are good reasons and you may not like them. They aren't racist reasons.

Objectionable, significant, problematic discrimination that indicates "real" racism hasn't been demonstrated.

Tim and Richard and you are not South Africans under Apartheid, or Uighers under Chinese rule. Not even close. Not even a little.

The courts agreed that the benefits to Thailand outweigh the bad feelings the policy breeds. I'd say thats agreat point! 

Why do you disagree with the courts? 

I can continue if you're not convinced. 

:-D 

I think your logic is lacking in many areas - and seems you think mine is too. IMO it is clear to anyone that has lived full-time in Thailand that it exists,  Probably best that we just agree to disagree and move on. 

[LoongFred]

Personally, I don't like counting the change. I look at the price and I have a choice of going or buying or not. I'm less concerned what Thais pay. I have more money so paying more is no big deal. 

I do avoid touristy area because people tend to be rude and the hustlers. They often talk about you, in front of you. Since I speak Thai, I usually tell them nicely that saying *** in front of me isn't nice. They usually are apologetic and  change their tune, but I usually don't give them my business. I never lose my temper and stay pleasant. 

In short no one is forcing you to buy. So if it's worth it don't worry about others.

[Vince]

1 hour ago, AussieBob said:

I think your logic is lacking in many areas - and seems you think mine is too. IMO it is clear to anyone that has lived full-time in Thailand that it exists,  Probably best that we just agree to disagree and move on. 

I'm happy to resume our discussion if you change your mind.