Some sights in Thailand have higher admission prices for foreigners than for citizens. In some other countries this is also the case, in some other countries it is illegal. Many people have opinions about this.
I'll say that on balance Thailand and it's people have been gracious hosts to us during our time here, and the money we've paid to see the sights that charge foreigners extra has not caused us an undue financial burden. I don't think these policies are meant to be taken as personally as some people chose to take them. And the sights we've paid extra to see have been worth the price. As far as I understand, the idea is not to try to exclude foreigners from the sights, it's rather an attempt to include the Thais that cannot afford to pay what for them can be a meaningful amount of money to see a national heritage site.
So - for what it's worth. It always surprises me to see such signs since the US is one of the places where it is very illegal to charge a foreigner, or someone of any different group (ethnic, religious, etc) a different price for anything. Sometimes the sign has Thai script with the Thai price (sometimes the Thai price uses Thai numerals as well - like on the Sukhothai historical park sign), so sometimes people who don't read Thai are unaware whether Thais are paying as well, and if they are, what price they are paying. This may lead foreigners to think that non-foreigners are not paying anything, when in fact they are.
Posts
5 comments:
seems perfectly reasonable to me. in the US out-of-staters have to pay more for hunting and fishing licenses, and state school tuition. although in Texas we spell it "ferinners."
This was something I saw in Thailand, and even more widely in India. While I never felt the fees for "foreigners" were exorbitant (i.e. the Taj Mahal was something less than $5), they were frequently several times the price for "non-foreigners".
Personally, while I am not unmoved by the argument that it is a poorer country and that they don't want to price their own citizens out of being able to see national treasures, I have to say that in the end I profoundly disagreed with the concept. There would be hell raised if we did something like that in the US, and for good reason. It ultimately ends up being racist in application. A huge example being that there were at least 3 Americans I talked to that were visiting family in India who still spoke enough Hindi to pass for a national when ordering tickets. They paid the lower rate.
I did not.
While, to me, it was not a cultural gap that was worth missing the Taj Mahal for on account of a protest over $3-4, I still think it ends up being unfair. Kind of like how taxis charge non-locals (keep in mind that many citizens of India may come from another state that speaks a different language) a different rate when settling on a fare, or the entire barter system in a public market. In many ways it is a system designed to cheat people, and oftentimes those people aren't even the targeted "foreign" group.
While it's easy to take for granted, I have come to appreciate the fact that stores in America may have different prices from other stores, but that over 99.9% of the time I still end up paying the same for an item at an individual store as someone else, regardless of their skin color or nationality.
good points both.
i'm going to avoid speaking about how it works outside the us, and just speak for the us. i find it very unamerican to single out groups of people for penalty pricing, and that includes that baloney 'out of state' tuition or hunting licenses or whatever. everyone in america is from somewhere else if you go back far enough, so the country was founded on the idea of equality. it took a while to include women and blacks in that ideal, and that's to the shame of the country, but eventually the country got it right in those regards.
i hope it would be safe to say that a sign on a lemonade stand that said 'americans - 5 cents, germans - 10 cents', or a person at 7-11 saying 'since you're canadian you'll need to pay double for your slurpee' would be seen as both unamerican and illegal.
there is a twist, though - america does (legally) favor the poor, or the sick, or the very young, or the old. think of tax rates or food stamps or kid's airplane prices or discount senior meals at denny's. this is based on ethical values of charity towards the weak and downtrodden and seems consistent to most americans with being american.
so how the us might handle park admission might be to give vouchers to poor people for free admission, or post a special discount for old people. the lemonade stand or the 7-11 might say 'half price for kids today'. in a way i think that's part of these signs pictured in this blog post - a sign saying free admission to citizens with an income below a reasonable amount would yield much the same result - few if any foreigners would qualify and most citizens would.
anyhow - you'd never see it phrased as 'group x must pay more' in the states - you'd see it as 'group y gets a discount', which doesn't get the same 'that's unamerican' reaction that the first phrase does. that's what struck me about these signs.
I can't believe nobody else is astonished that you can see Foreigner for 30 baht. 30 baht!
I mean, I know they haven't done much since the 80's, but IT'S FLIPPIN' FOREIGNER!
Out of curiosity, how much does a Foreigner Belt run in Bangkok?
Chris, you brought up even more perspectives that I didn't think of.
That said, I think Matt settled the discussion. I mean, if they have signs advertising Foreigner and you don't find yourself soon being serenaded by Mick Jones and company to the bouncy grooves of Urgent or Head Games, then I'd say it's time to file suit for false advertising.
And if you see any signs for Journey at 30 baht, I'll be there tomorrow!
Post a Comment