By Kyle Lawrence Mullin
Tourists in Thailand now pay almost 10 times more than local residents to visit national parks after a significant price hike earlier this month, sparking renewed debate on dual-pricing in Southeast Asia’s most-visited country
Local English-language daily the Bankok Post was quick to react, printing a scathing editorial saying that the government sees farang (a Thai term for foreigner) as “nothing more than walking ATMs.” Ticket prices jumped from 40 to 50 baht (US$1.53) for locals, while the tourist fee doubled from 200 to 400 baht (US$12.25).
The Post added that this increase “might not deter a tourist or a family from visiting Thailand, but it has already deterred visits to attractive sites, and it has brought the “government into disrepute as racist and greedy”. It went on to critique the government practice of printing the prices for locals in Thai script, which the author deemed to be a “sneaky… trick.”
Richard Barrow — a popular travel blogger who has written extensively about Thailand’s tourism industry — agrees with the Post on this point, telling Asian Correspondent: “They are welcome to charge foreigners a higher price if they wish. However, they should be honest about this and show the two prices in English script… whenever they want to hide the real price, they write it in the rarely used Thai script. This is dishonest and is done with the intention of deceiving foreigners.”
Richard Forsyth — a professor at the London School of Economics and Science who spent half a decade researching environmental and tourism issues in Thailand — also concurs, telling Asian Correspondent that“farang taxes” should be transparent by displaying “the purpose of the money… at the point of entry.” He adds that industry officials should further consider the overall ticket price: “The difference in cost between foreigner and Thai should not be excessive. Two hundred baht seems okay for a national treasure, but not 400… this would make a difference because the process would appear fairer and more reasonable.”
But Forsyth adds that other aspects of the Post editorial are “extreme”, because it fails to question the potential benefits, or necessities, of dual pricing at tourist sites. He says critics of the practice should consider “how would people feel if a national treasure were being damaged by millions of visitors and there was no plan to protect it?… A tourist tax is usually considered reasonable if allowing tourists free access to important sites puts pressure on them and degrades them… (But) if the site (appears to be) ripping off tourists, rather than using a reasonable charge, then I am not surprised that people get upset.”
Steeper tourist fees have long been a contentious issue among visitors to Thailand. In October The Nation ran an editorial titled, ‘Dual-pricing is scaring tourists away’. It noted that not only national parks but also famed temples, like Wat Phra Kaew (the Temple of the Emerald Buddha) and Wat Pho (Temple of the Reclining Buddha), charge foreigners while admitting locals for free. The author added that this dual pricing system is also utilised by market vendors and taxi drivers, creating a “two-tier” economy that tarnishes Thailand’s reputation as “the land of smiles” and contributed to its 10.7 percent drop in total visitors last year.
But Forsyth balks at that claim, before listing off several factors in the 2014 tourist decline that were far more pressing than dual pricing: “It is probably due to the coups, … and the damage done to Thailand’s reputation when two British tourists were murdered on Koh Tao. … Events like this seem more important. Ticket prices seem like a red herring.”
The Nation article did concede that Thailand’s 2014 tourism woes were mostly due to political turmoil, but it went on to add: “If we are serious about attracting more visitors to the Kingdom, we need to… curb the practices of overcharging and dual-pricing.”
Such gripes are not exclusive to newspaper columnists — travellers have also complained about the price increases. Khao Yai National Park’s TripAdvisor page features critical comments from users like ‘ottawaonthego’ who wrote in the comments section that “…when we got there we realized that the entry fee for Thai’s is 40 baht, and for foreigners it’s 400 baht…. I know it’s not a lot of money, but make it fair and you’ll attract a lot more tourists.”
Other expats dismiss such gripes. A post on the tourist site IntoPhuket points out that travellers can easily shoulder 400 baht tickets in order to provide “the necessary funds” to keep these attractions open. The author added “…foreigners most likely can afford the higher rate… How terrible would it be to be born a Thai citizen into this beautiful country, but be unable to visit many of the places here because admission is too high?” He went on to add that the average Thai citizen earns 6,000 baht per month, a total that is spent by most tourists within the first few days of their visit.
Forsyth adds that Thailand is not the only country that uses dual pricing. He says: “I don’t think it is ‘silly’ or unprecedented to charge more for tourists. Indeed, in the UK and France at the moment there is strong criticism where ‘foreigners’ are considered to be accessing domestic services without an extra charge… nationals feel abused while paying taxes to build something that ‘free-riding travellers’ can gain from.”
Barrow went on to tell Asian Correspondent that while big attractions like Wat Pho may make massive profits from farang visitors, other sites may actually lose money by overcharging expats. He adds: “Take the example of an average national park. Maybe only a 100 or so foreigners will visit in one year compared to thousands of Thais. A higher admission fee won’t result in much more profit. But it will contribute greatly to ill will against the park, and there will also be a number of people who will refuse to go out of principal.”
He added: “How far are they prepared to go with this? Two prices for cinemas because movies back home are more expensive? Higher fares on airplanes because foreigners on average are heavier? I would like to say it is unconstitutional to discriminate against people based on the colour of their skin. But then, Thailand no longer has a constitution. It was ripped up. I just hope that the new one will have a little paragraph that protects the rights of visitors to Thailand. After all, Thais are world-renowned to be kind and hospitable hosts. Charging a higher price to your guests is just greedy and creates ill-will.”
NOTE: Foreigners residing in Thailand pay the local rate at national parks and other attractions if they produce a work permit or a Thai driving license at point of entry.
The post Dual-Pricing In Thailand: Should Foreigners Really Pay More? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.