Dual-pricing in Thailand: Is it time to do away

with the farang tax?

A tourist walks past a street vendor in Bangkok, Thailand. Pic: AP.

Government must review two-tiered pricing policy, writes James Austin Farrell

By Oct 09, 2015 Saksith Saiyasombut & Siam Voices

It is, arguably, taken for granted by most Western visitors, and even expatriates in Thailand,
that they will be overcharged at various points of their trip or stay. Thailand has this reputation,
and this is why you might see some foreigners arguing over 10 baht (30 cents) for a tuk-tuk
journey, or shamefully bargaining at times on fixed-price goods such as eggs.
Theseasoned tourist fears hes being made a fool of, while the expat may feel he is already
contributing enough to the Thai economy and shouldnt be taken advantage of. Foreigners are
mostly all well aware of the skullduggery that sometimes exists in Thai pricing strategies.
Some people accept it, others resent it. It exists, arguably, because when Westerners started
visiting Thailand in droves they were seen as rich, and perhaps because of that were deemed
eligible for a little extra taxation.

A story this week brought the issue of dual pricing up again after an American-born, Thailand
raised (without citizenship) man was charged 200 baht to visit the Emerald Pool in Krabi, while
his Thai friends were charged 20 baht. The Bangkok Post followed up with an opinion piece
stating that two-tiered pricing is bad for the image of the country, which is probably true, if not
now a platitude we hear too frequently.
We often hear about the image of the country, relating to high profile criminal cases (the Koh
Tao murders for instance); when husbands get cheated out of their lifes savings (the BBCs
Jonathan Head recently covered this topic), or when nasty videos go viral such as the latest
beat-down of foreigners in Phuket. Thailands image, we are told numerous times, has taken
another beating itself. A beating shared and Liked thousands and thousands of times.Bad for the
image of Thailand seems like a lame apology, a kind of insincere schoolboy sorry by the
government, the press, and countless Thai apologizers using social media.
SEE ALSO: Veteran foreign journalists to leave Thailand following threats
Perhaps its time, given how Thailands image is now viral, that some of these outdated modes
of the darker side of hospitality are rigorously scrutinized by the government, the press, the
users of social media. As parents often tell their kids after a wrongdoing, Well, sorry is too
late now, isnt it? How many investigative stories have we seen in the Thai press about island
mafias or a rather delinquent police force? What about corrupt lawyers embedded in schemes to
take a foreign mans lifes savings? British journalist Andrew Drummond investigated such
things, and his life, as well as his childrens lives, was threatened. Drummond was forced to
leave Thailand after years of investigations, and his website has been blocked by the
government.

Passengers at Thailands Suvarnabhumi Airport. Pic: AP

A fair tax or discrimination?

National Parks in Thailand almost always charge foreigners (each park has its own method)
more than Thais for an entrance fee, as do many tourist attractions including the grander
temples in Bangkok, or places such as Chiang Mai zoo. The prices are often written in Thai
numerical script for Thai visitors, and also English for those who cant read Thai script. This
has been criticized as being devious. A counter assumption would be hard to defend.
In a story I wrote for Citylife magazine on this topic some years ago I interviewed a director
(she did not want us to publish her name) working for the National Park, Wildlife and Plant
Conservation Department. She explained that the high entrance fee for foreigners related to the
conservation of the park. We have to limit the amount of people visiting the park, she said.
She also said that at that time there were 1.5 million foreign tourists visiting the national parks
each year for every 15 million Thais. Conservation seems like a fairly sound reason to charge
extra. But it does mean that foreigners are paying, equally, in total, for a park that is being
degraded by many more Thai footsteps. Foreigners also pay VAT.
Another argument as to why foreigners should pay more is that they dont pay income tax.
Most working expats do, but if they can produce a work permit, or even explain in Thai that
they live and work here (not the case for the man in Krabi), they usually pay what Thais pay.
This is not the case sometimes with taxis, dual-language menus, condo rental costs, an hour
being massaged, or even a few minutes looking at a caged animal.
SEE ALSO: The kids will drink: Why Thailand booze ban could do more harm than good
Overcharging foreigners is not an anomaly; its widely accepted that adding some extra for
foreigners is okay more so the Caucasians as they are ostensibly the richest sort of visitor.
Not paying income tax is one thing, but theres also likely some amount of discrimination,
envy, survival instinct, as well as a nationally propagated myth that foreigners are all wealthy,
involved in the matter. If the government and tourist venues overcharge, and the Thai public
certainly knows this, that myth is secured. It emboldens the public to do the same.
Thais earning low wages (up to 150,000 baht a year) dont pay any income tax, and they pay
the same as a Thai billionaire would to visit a national park. We would hope the Thai on
meager wages pays a small price to see his countrys most spectacular man-made and natural
attractions, and that a Thai billionaire, after paying so much in income tax, also gets a fair deal.
Whether it should be exactly the same price is a question that is complex. Should even the big
spending foreigners from abroad pay the same as a year-out student, given the amount of
money one is spending in Thailand? To set prices using taxonomics, as is it putatively presently
done, makes fairness a very confusing matter.

Khao Yai National Park. Foreigners often pay 10 times more than locals for entry to national
parks. Pic: AP.
Consumer protection
When writing the story for Citylife a Chiang Mai lawyer, who also wished to remain
anonymous, told me, Its illegal according to Thai law; there is an act to protect the consumer
that states that prices have to be fair, adding, Where there are fixed prices it must be fair and
equal for all consumers.
The Consumer Protection Act (1979) of Thailand, section 4 states, The consumer has the
following rights of protection: the right to a fair contract.
The lawyer said that it depends how fair is interpreted. Section 10 of the act states, The
Board shall have the following powers and duties: to issue or publicise information concerning
goods or services which may cause damage to or be prejudicial to the rights of the consumers.
Dual pricing might be seen as prejudicial, and as the Bangkok Post stated, its causing damage
to Thailands reputation. The matter is also a hot potato. While writing the same story The
Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT), Chiang Mai, as well as the Chiang Mai mayor at the
time, declined an interview, saying this was a sensitive topic.
The now defunct 2007 constitution section 30 includes laws concerning the discrimination of
race, origin, personal status, economic or social standing, ect. Section 84 (Economic Policy)
encourages, entrepreneurs to use merit, ethics and corporate governance principle in carrying
out of their businesses. It also encourages, consumer protection. The 2014 interim
constitution is vague on the matter of consumer protection.
SEE ALSO: Thailands uneasy reliance on Chinese tourists just keeps getting bigger

Besides the fact that expatriate employees rarely get to keep hold of their work permits, or that
a face from many parts of Asia could stand near the back as a Thai friend pays for the group,
the question is, is dual-pricing discriminatory, and also if it happens at major tourist attractions
does that send a message to the man in the street, or even the owners of establishments selling
something to foreigners? Is discrimination of foreigners embedded in the zeitgeist?
Perhaps all national parks should be free, or have a set price, and the government should
allocate a budget from income tax or VAT for those parks. A price not based on nationality, or
ethnicity, or yearly earnings; a standard that doesnt discriminate at all. The country, inclusive
of the tourism economy, should have already paid for a fair price. This includes camping at
Thailands highest mountain Doi Inthanon, or laughing at penguins tripping over themselves in
a zoo (in an interview with Chiang Mai Zoo director, Tanaphat Phongphamorn, told Citylife,
We have to follow the rules of the country.)
The issue thats rarely invoked is the fact that Westerners are sometimes still seen as a viable
means of exploitation, a racket, which is now becoming antiquated. Its hard to blame the taxi
driver for taking a chance, but its easy to criticize government run operations for doing the
same. Some amount of guilt surely lies in the dual language pricing.
Image should be discussed, but what created the image should be the main topic of discussion;
which is arguably greed and/or discrimination, as well as impoverished people taking what they
think they rightly deserve. If the government reviews its two-tiered pricing strategy according
to fairness, you might see a shift in how foreigners are treated generally by the hoi polloi:
Viewed not as an exploitable source of money, but an asset to the country in economic terms
anyway.
Posted by Thavam