Unscrupulous Thailand

justfortherecor

Just in Bangkok at the moment and needed to get some stuff off my chest.

Finished doing some sightseeing today and have returned, not enthralled with the history and sights, but rather disgusted with the attitude shown towards farang or foreigners. Now, I know all about the "walking ATM" views of foreigners and I was exposed to this quite a lot in S. Thailand where tourism generates quite a high proportion of local earnings and is understandable, to an extent. I'm not adverse to a bit of bargaining with locals, its part and parcel of travelling here.

But today really pissed me off. First of all, got the canal boat today to visit the revered Grand Palace and surrounding temples. Noticed there seemed to be two prices on display for the boat; one in English for 13baht and then one in thai for 10baht. I enquired what was the 10baht price referring to and the sales person said, with a somewhat proud gait, that this was the price for thais. Nothing too serious, I'm not going to develop an ulcer over 3b, but this theme then continued during the day.

Upon arriving at the Grand Palace I tried to enter through one of the smaller side entrances but was directed to the large front entrance instead. I observed some thais go in unimpeded and for free, so when I was asked to pay 400baht at the main entrance, I was severely pissed off. I flatly refused to pay and walked to the more moderately priced Wat Pho nearby.

The same "double pricing" system is enforced in many national parks where foreigners are expected to pay multiples of the price charged to locals. I plan to visit a famous waterfall near Kanchanaburi tomorrow and will have to pay 400b for the luxury of doing so while thais walk in for c50b beside me.

Added to this, the government has recently decided to impose a flat rate of 150baht for all withdrawals from ATMs using foreign cards. Do they not realise that these practices, coupled with trouble in the south and remaining threats of coups/airport blockades are turning many people away from the once great tourist destination (almost forgot about the 15day land visa farce as well)?

This grates me particularly because I started my travels in Malaysia and encountered no such double standards and a general greater respect shown to foreigners. Although I still enjoy Thailand and its many attractions, this certainly leaves a sour taste in the mouth. I would love to return to Malaysia in the future and spend more time there as an older/non backpacker tourist but I feel this will more than likely be the last time I visit the great land of smiles/scams.

Ahh, feel a bit better now.

sworderer

What is the "15 day land visa farce"?

g5fd6ow0hseima

But thais are generally very poor, 400 bhat to you might be the equivalent of 50 bhat to them....

justfortherecor

Laylah Careful Vial wrote: »

But thais are generally very poor, 400 bhat to you might be the equivalent of 50 bhat to them....

That argument has been put forward to me by a couple of people. Doesn't work for me: I see it as discrimination, pure and simple. Just because I have a white face means I have to pay a multiple of some amount as opposed to a local?
Phillipines and Malaysia (not so much) are still relatively poor countries compared to Ireland yet this practice is not prevalent to the same degree as in Thailand.

S.M.B.

You're paying a tourist fee and not a farang fee. I don't have any major problem with it but others like yourself do.

If you were to show a working visa at any of these places you'd get charged the local rate.

kraggy

Would you be willing to pay several days wages to enter the National Gallery in Dublin?

Because that's what 400 baht equates to for many Thais.

breadmonkey

kraggy wrote: »

Would you be willing to pay several days wages to enter the National Gallery in Dublin?

Because that's what 400 baht equates to for many Thais.

Eh, I think you have it arseways tbh.

jank

I see your point but whats the point in giving out about it. Would be nice to have everything cheap but we arent talking big money here at all.

breadmonkey

jank wrote: »

I see your point but whats the point in giving out about it. Would be nice to have everything cheap but we arent talking big money here at all.

No but I think the main points are:

a) One of the major factors of going to places like Thailand is the fact the the cost of living is so low.
b) Nobody enjoys feeling as if they are openly being ripped off.

Neamhshuntasach

If you can't tell the difference between being ripped off and paying what you should be able to afford, then you should not be traveling. I don't look Irish and have to pay the foreigner rate still because i don't look Thai. But in Latin America i sometimes get charged local rates. Seriously i don't get why people don't understand the different prices. Do you think any Thai would get to see the sights in their own country if they were the same prices as foreigners pay?

breadmonkey

If you can't tell the difference between being ripped off and paying what you should be able to afford, then you should not be traveling.

As I previously stated, a big reason for a lot of people visiting these places is the fact that the cost of living is so cheap. And some stuff in Thailand is a rip off imo. Specifically, I'm thinking of Thai Boxing in Bangkok.

I don't look Irish and have to pay the foreigner rate still because i don't look Thai. But in Latin America i sometimes get charged local rates

But I presume you then interject and insist on paying the foreigner rate because it's what you can afford, right?

Seriously i don't get why people don't understand the different prices. Do you think any Thai would get to see the sights in their own country if they were the same prices as foreigners pay?

Like I said to kraggy above, nobody is arguing that Thais should have to pay the foreigner rate but rather that tourists shouldn't be scalped at every possible opportunity.

Honestly I don't understand how anyone can feel perfectly fine with being treated as a walking ATM.

Neamhshuntasach

breadmonkey wrote: »

As I previously stated, a big reason for a lot of people visiting these places is the fact that the cost of living is so cheap. And some stuff in Thailand is a rip off imo. Specifically, I'm thinking of Thai Boxing in Bangkok.


But I presume you then interject and insist on paying the foreigner rate because it's what you can afford, right?


Like I said to kraggy above, nobody is arguing that Thais should have to pay the foreigner rate but rather that tourists shouldn't be scalped at every possible opportunity.

Honestly I don't understand how anyone can feel perfectly fine with being treated as a walking ATM.

If you can afford to pay for a trip half way across the world then i too would assume that you should be able to afford a little bit more than locals. It's still less than anything you would pay to see in Ireland on the same touristic level. It's the same when you go to Spainish resort type places or whatever. Prices are more expensive than other places in Spain and people pay them regardless without complaint. The only difference is that Spain is close enough on par with earnings to us and we both pay the same prices.

I don't need to interject and say that i shouldn't pay more most of the time. They tell by my accent. For some reason my Spanish sounds Venezuelan. Probably because Castellano is similar to it. So most of the time they correct themselves. I am generous when traveling in terms of tipping and giving directly to locals so if i can get something cheaper from a government that isn't giving what i gave back to the community i don't feel guilty.

When there is a set price and it is displayed i don't feel like i am a walking ATM machine. I only feel that way when someone makes up a price on the spot because i am different from how they look. how do you know they don't set the price for the entrance first and then deduct a percentage off if you are a local. You just assume it's the other way around. I don't know how they do it and because i don't i won't complain about it. I'm lucky i can afford to travel. No matter where i come back from i always feel more ripped off when i get on Dublin bus.

S.M.B.

I hate being treated as a walking ATM in Thailand as much as anyone but I don't object to dual pricing in some places although I don't remember paying 400 THB into the Grand Palace myself.

As I said earlier, if it's mostly a tourist fee and not a farang fee then that is fine by me.

enda1

Typical bloody attitude of Irish people, "shut up and pay up"!
As the OP says he wont be going back. Hopefully these tinpot dumps learn a bit of economics the hard way and tourists go to Malaysia and the like instead where they are greaful for your custom, not demanding of it!

who what when

I was in thailand this time last year. One day just walking down the street i realised i required a top of funds and made my way over to an atm where twenty something thai lady was using the atm.

Now she was very small so i could see that her balance was 3500 baht (70 euroish at the time) and that she requested a withdrawal of 50 baht (1 euro).

Now when talking to the lads later on i explained what i saw and we all agreed that the level of poverty was just terrible. Then after a small silence one of the lads remarked that the lady in question had more in her bank account than he did!!! Then when we thought about it we realised that (being just out of college) none of us were greatly richer than her!

I suppose my point is that while we in the west have easier access to making large amounts of money, once cost of living etc is taken into consideration a lot of us arent as wealthy as we think.

So this is really just a long way of saying i agree with the op!

Neamhshuntasach

Well i doubt your mate came away with 70 euro. While she has 70 euro in her account to pay for bills, food, etc. You mate has that because he paid for flights, accommodation, food, drink or whatever and can go back and earn more in a day in even a crap job than she had in her bank account. So that basis is a bit of a reach.

And it's not the typical Irish attitude of shutting up and paying up. Guess other nationalities do that too since i've met more than just Irish people at these so called expensive tourist traps.

enda1

Neamhshuntasach wrote: »

Well i doubt your mate came away with 70 euro. While she has 70 euro in her account to pay for bills, food, etc. You mate has that because he paid for flights, accommodation, food, drink or whatever and can go back and earn more in a day in even a crap job than she had in her bank account. So that basis is a bit of a reach.

And it's not the typical Irish attitude of shutting up and paying up. Guess other nationalities do that too since i've met more than just Irish people at these so called expensive tourist traps.

She withdrew one seventieth of her account. When's the last time you did that? His point is that relatively she is not that poor in her country.

mickoneill30

Return flight to Thailand - €600 (guessing here)
Hotels for the trip - €300 (again guessing).
Grand Palace visit - 400THB or €8.50 or about the price of a box of smokes.
Travelling all that way then not seeing something because it costs €8.50 - Priceless.

You know the money you're paying is what is helping pay for the upkeep of some of these temples, parks and monuments. Should they decrease the price for tourists to the locals price (then who pays for the upkeep) or should they increase the price to the locals (so only tourists can visit their national treasures)? The official minimum wage in Bangkok is 203THB a day. Grand. They'd only have to work 2 days to visit that palace.

breadmonkey

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Return flight to Thailand - €600 (guessing here)
Hotels for the trip - €300 (again guessing).
Grand Palace visit - 400THB or €8.50 or about the price of a box of smokes.
Travelling all that way then not seeing something because it costs €8.50 - Priceless.

Multiplying that €8.50 by the number of days of trip and realising that's a sizeable chunk of change......?

Neamh,

I'm not totally against the dual pricing especially when, as you pointed out, prices are displayed. However, I don't agree with tourists being fleeced when you consider the huge amount of dough they're dropping in the country through flights, visas and spending etc.

breadmonkey

mickoneill30 wrote: »

You know the money you're paying is what is helping pay for the upkeep of some of these temples, parks and monuments. Should they decrease the price for tourists to the locals price (then who pays for the upkeep) or should they increase the price to the locals (so only tourists can visit their national treasures)?

The point





Your head

54kroc

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Return flight to Thailand - €600 (guessing here)
Hotels for the trip - €300 (again guessing).
Grand Palace visit - 400THB or €8.50 or about the price of a box of smokes.
Travelling all that way then not seeing something because it costs €8.50 - Priceless.

LoL

jank

enda1 wrote: »

Typical bloody attitude of Irish people, "shut up and pay up"!
As the OP says he wont be going back. Hopefully these tinpot dumps learn a bit of economics the hard way and tourists go to Malaysia and the like instead where they are greaful for your custom, not demanding of it!

LOL Have you actually ever been to Malaysia and I mean proper Malaysia the villages, towns etc not some "resort" by the beach! If you have been you know that it costs a hell of a lot more to do every day things there than Thailand or any other country in South East Asia. You make it out to be some low cost paradise.

So you want these "tinpot" dumps to learn economics but not learn the one fundamental of economics itself. Price something according to its perceived value.

I can’t remember what I paid to see the grand palace but if it were 400 baht I would consider that a bargain. If the OP came away from that experience thinking about how "expensive" it is then he/she needs to get a life. IMO the OP has been ripped off by some local scam artist one too many times and wants to blame the culture rather their own naivety and gullibility. Yea sometimes we tourists pay a bit more now and again but if you cant handle that then stop travelling. Simple!

I got a 3 day pass for Angkor wat for about $40 I think. Now the locals probably don’t pay anything if they want to see it. Am I going to crib about that to see the one of the wonders of the world. It was worth every cent and if one came away grumbling over the "prices" then you either better stop travelling or get yourself a new attitude.

I don’t see the point of flying half way around the world to see these sights but complain that it costs a few euros extra to see stuff. We are not talking hundreds of Euros here. We are talking about the price of a beer to see some of the most fantastic manmade structures and natural landscapes on this earth.

jank

breadmonkey wrote: »

No but I think the main points are:

a) One of the major factors of going to places like Thailand is the fact the the cost of living is so low.

Yes one of them. Are you saying that Thailand is now expensive. Compared to OECD countries these places are still dirt cheap. If said palace was in an OECD country than it would cost alot more than 400 baht so all round good value.Non argument really.

breadmonkey wrote: »

b) Nobody enjoys feeling as if they are openly being ripped off.

If you say that this is a rip off then god help you if you ever go/move back to Ireland as this board would explode and crash with your angry rants!!!

kraggy

breadmonkey wrote: »

Eh, I think you have it arseways tbh.

Eh, how so?

If Thais were quoted Western prices to get into the Wats in Bangkok, few of them would be able to afford it.

The Western prices equate to a lot of money for many Thais. Hence the comparison with us having to pay a couple of days wages to get into the National Gallery here. It wouldn't be fair.

RATM

For me this whole issue is about equality. I, like the OP, also get irked at tourists having to pay a higher price than the locals for the same thing.

Ask yourself- if a rich Thai person comes to Ireland- do we charge them more than Irish people? No we don't everyone pays the same and that is how you run an equitable society.
This argument that foreigners should pay more 'because they can afford to' doesnt settle well. You either treat people equally or you dont.

To the OP- Id advise never to go to Vietnam- they regularlly charge tourists there more than 10 times the going rate and they make no secret of it on their signs.

jank

Of course in an ideal world this practise would enver happen. TBH i only saw this a few times in thailand and other places around South East Asia. I think the OP would have a heart attack if they went to the 'Nam...:pac:

waraf

Wow I don't think I spent a single second of my time in Thailand posting stuff on the net.

Forget about the double pricing OP and just enjoy your surroundings. It's only a pittance in the difference to be fair and you wouldn't even get a pint in Dublin for some of the prices you mentioned. Leave your indignation and your principles aside for a while and just try and have fun. If you're anything like the rest of us you have 30 years behind a desk to look forward to so enjoy yourself while you can :)

geecee

Thai attitude to the dual pricing issue has always been that their Taxes pay for the upkeep of the monuments or the transport subsidies...

You don't pay them taxes - therefore you pay more to access the facilities...

With regard to the 150B ATM fee - that has been imposed by the banks and not the Govt....

By the way OP - thered shirts are on the move again - I suggest you get out of dodge before you get stuck there permanently!

S.M.B.

Entrance into Kinabalu Park, Sabah, Borneo, Malaysia:

Malaysians: 3 MYR
Non-Malaysian: 15 MYR

Mountain Climbing Permit Fee

Malaysians: 30 MYR
Non-Malaysian: 100 MYR

Your beloved Malaysia is also known for dual-pricing.

If you contribute taxes then you shouldn't have to pay the 'tourist' price and rightly so.

geecee, what's going on with the red shirts? I hadn't heard anything?

mickoneill30

S.M.B. wrote: »

Your beloved Malaysia is also known for dual-pricing.

It's everywhere. I was on a ferry in Egypt a couple of years ago. The locals were all paying with a tiny coin. The price in English was 1 Egypt Pound which is a note (it's about 10 times what they were paying but is shag all anyway) and everything else was dual prices. Myself and my missus were the only two westerners on the boat. We weren't sitting there thinking about getting ripped off

Basically if you think this kind of practice is ripping you off then vote with your feet. Same as Ireland. I've caught myself in Thailand haggling over 50c. That's when I took a step back and said it's nothing to me and a lot to them, what am I doing here?

jank

Actually forgot about Borneo. They have dual prices as well and is a hell of a lot more than anything you will find in thailand. There you will feel out of pocket. Was still class though!:pac:

breadmonkey

jank wrote: »

I don’t see the point of flying half way around the world to see these sights but complain that it costs a few euros extra to see stuff. We are not talking hundreds of Euros here. We are talking about the price of a beer to see some of the most fantastic manmade structures and natural landscapes on this earth.

Yes we in fact talking about 100s of Euro when you add it up over the course of your trip.

jank wrote: »

Yes one of them. Are you saying that Thailand is now expensive. Compared to OECD countries these places are still dirt cheap. If said palace was in an OECD country than it would cost alot more than 400 baht so all round good value.Non argument really.

If you say that this is a rip off then god help you if you ever go/move back to Ireland as this board would explode and crash with your angry rants!!!

1) I didn't say that Thailand was now expensive. In fact, I mentioned a few times that it was cheap.
2) Your weird comparison with OECD countries is the non argument tbh.
3) I have been back in Ireland for months.
Really, I don't know what the hell you were trying to prove there.

kraggy wrote: »

Eh, how so?

If Thais were quoted Western prices to get into the Wats in Bangkok, few of them would be able to afford it.

The Western prices equate to a lot of money for many Thais. Hence the comparison with us having to pay a couple of days wages to get into the National Gallery here. It wouldn't be fair.

You still don't get it and neither does jank. People want to pay the local prices. They don't want the locals to pay inflated tourist prices.

Thai attitude to the dual pricing issue has always been that their Taxes pay for the upkeep of the monuments or the transport subsidies...

You don't pay them taxes - therefore you pay more to access the facilities...

You are ploughing absolutely enormous amounts of money into their economy. Tourism is a massive source of income that allows these guys to make a living and subseqently pay taxes on their earnings.

kraggy

breadmonkey wrote: »

You still don't get it and neither does jank. People want to pay the local prices. They don't want the locals to pay inflated tourist prices

I do get it.

My comparison still applies. Try putting Ireland in the Developing World category i.e. we're poor and live from day to day which not all, but many Thais have to do.

Why should we pay as much as the rich tourists who come to visit Dublin when they can easily afford it but for us would mean a few days upkeep?

Bear in mind, and this is the crucial thing to remember, is that the farangs are not charged more just because they can afford it. This money is income for the temple/monument/attraction that you are seeing but also for the country as a whole.

When Thailand's main industry is described as being Tourism, it's not just the money we put in families' pockets when we eat in their restaurant or the money we pay the guy to take us out in his boat. It's also tax and other monies to the government. Thus, the government is able to pay for hospitals, schools etc.

I don't agree with being fleeced, but I don't disagree with paying more than the locals.

breadmonkey

Kraggy your comparison doesn't apply because you have it arseways. At this point, I can't offer anything else to further explain it.

When Thailand's main industry is described as being Tourism, it's not just the money we put in families' pockets when we eat in their restaurant or the money we pay the guy to take us out in his boat. It's also tax and other monies to the government. Thus, the government is able to pay for hospitals, schools etc.

You mean such things as flight taxes, visas, departure tax etc?

Bear in mind, and this is the crucial thing to remember, is that the farangs are not charged more just because they can afford it.

That is actually the fundamental reason why foreigners are charged more.

mac123

breadmonkey wrote: »

Yes we in fact talking about 100s of Euro when you add it up over the course of your trip.


1) I didn't say that Thailand was now expensive. In fact, I mentioned a few times that it was cheap.
2) Your weird comparison with OECD countries is the non argument tbh.
3) I have been back in Ireland for months.
Really, I don't know what the hell you were trying to prove there.


You still don't get it and neither does jank. People want to pay the local prices. They don't want the locals to pay inflated tourist prices.


You are ploughing absolutely enormous amounts of money into their economy. Tourism is a massive source of income that allows these guys to make a living and subseqently pay taxes on their earnings.

His point is that your being a petty fcuker!! You live pretty comfortably on about €800/month in Thailand, so how can you complain?
Your a tourist, your on holidays and your going to pay to do touristy things.
Why shouldnt you pay more?? Its tourism that drives the prices up so if you dont like it then dont visit!
Seriously if people are complaining about spending the price of a pint to visit some tourist attraction they need to seriously get a life!

breadmonkey

mac123 wrote: »

His point is that your being a petty fcuker!! You live pretty comfortably on about €800/month in Thailand, so how can you complain?
Your a tourist, your on holidays and your going to pay to do touristy things.
Why shouldnt you pay more?? Its tourism that drives the prices up so if you dont like it then dont visit!
Seriously if people are complaining about spending the price of a pint to visit some tourist attraction they need to seriously get a life!

See rest of thread.

RATM

There seems to be a couple of arguments in justifying charging tourists more but I still cant buy them.
The first is that tourists should pay more because they are not paying taxes in the country. Id tend to disagree. Firstly there is the BKK departure tax, Nepal has a steep one too as do many other Asian nations. Then there is visa fees and VAT on any goods/services you purchase whilst there. But perhaps where this argument falls down the most is that it is a known fact that a majority of transactions in Asian economies are dealt with in the black economy. That is half the problem why their social/health services are rudimentary-there is nowhere near the amount of tax revenue to pay for them as there should be. So if the locals aren´t paying tax then how can they then say that because the tourists aren´t then they should be subject to higher entrance fees. A touch of hiprocrisy?

Secondly, as I said in a previous post this topic is all about treating people equally and when a government/tourist attractions don´t treat people on an equitable level then it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Like I can walk straight into the British Muesum (one of the best in the world imo) for free despite the fact that Ive never paid a penny of income tax there. And a British resident can walk into the National Gallery FOC despite them never paying income tax here. A Thai person can do likewise yet it is not reciprcocated for any non-Thais who are visiting attractions in Thailand. To say that Thais cant afford to come to Europe is rubbish-there are more Thai billionaires than Irish ones and there are many multi millionairres there too.

What is happening at the end of the day is greed, pure greed, nothing more or less. The old ´because you can afford to pay more´argument really doesn´t cut the mustard. Its like saying that someone with a address in Blackrock should pay more for a ticket to see U2 than someone with an address in Ballymun. At the end of the day it is discrimination on the basis of where you are from, plain and simple.

Now I wouldnt ever let it stop me going to a country but I think its important for people at least to call a spade a spade and accept that it is an unfair system that only serves to alienate people from returning to countries that engage in such practices.

mac123

breadmonkey wrote: »

See rest of thread.

yep i read it all mate!

breadmonkey

mac123 wrote: »

yep i read it all mate!

Then why did you just rehash all the same points that had been previously rebuffed?

mac123

trying to get the point home...

kraggy

breadmonkey wrote: »

Kraggy your comparison doesn't apply because you have it arseways. At this point, I can't offer anything else to further explain it.


You mean such things as flight taxes, visas, departure tax etc?


That is actually the fundamental reason why foreigners are charged more.

I don't have it arseways. You're the one who obviously doesn't get it.

breadmonkey

kraggy wrote: »

I don't have it arseways. You're the one who obviously doesn't get it.

I'll use caps to try to illustrate:

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT THAI PEOPLE SHOULD PAY THE INFLATED TOURIST RATE!

Now I suggest you read that 10 times and then go and meditate on it.

kraggy

breadmonkey wrote: »

I'll use caps to try to illustrate:

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT THAI PEOPLE SHOULD PAY THE INFLATED TOURIST RATE!

Now I suggest you read that 10 times and then go and meditate on it.

And I suggest that you don't talk down to people who happen to disagree with what you are saying.

I wasn't saying that you were saying that Thai people should pay the inflated rate.

My example of accessing a tourist attraction was not suggesting that we, as a poor people in the hypothesis I provided, would be screwed by having to pay the as high a price as, say American tourists visiting Dublin, but that there should be in that case also, different rates for us and them. i.e. we pay a lower rate than our wealthier visiting friends. not we pay the same as them.

Think of it this way. If everyone, both the Irish and the American tourists visiting Dublin, paid the same rate (i.e. the lower rate), it may not be enough to sustain the tourist attraction. So, in simple terms, the Americans, by paying more as they can afford it, would be subsidising us so that we could enjoy the tourist attraction also.

That makes sense to me. Especially since they could afford it.

TheBigLebowski

Balls to this whole argument. Dual pricing is a rip off, end of story. It's a way of squeezing money out of tourists for no other reason than greed. It's not for upkeep. It's a rip off. Should we start charging Swiss tourists more to visit the National Gallery because they're richer than us?

By the way, I was in the grand palace and it is sh1te. Angkor Wat is 1 million times more impressive.

breadmonkey

kraggy wrote: »

Think of it this way. If everyone, both the Irish and the American tourists visiting Dublin, paid the same rate (i.e. the lower rate), it may not be enough to sustain the tourist attraction. So, in simple terms, the Americans, by paying more as they can afford it, would be subsidising us so that we could enjoy the tourist attraction also.

I disagree. What you're saying is pure conjecture.

Quint

OP, if you were bothered by the 3baht extra they had to pay on a boat trip, I suggest you give up travelling.
As mentioned before, if you're being ripped off, don't buy. Simple.
I'm slightly embaressessed that "you're "severly pissed off" at €8 for the grand palace and you tried to sneak in for free.
If the more Irish are like you soon guesthouses will have "no irish" signs up like some do for Isralies

Doc

Don’t forget that the grand palace is also a place of worship. A lot of the people entering and paying the reduced fee / no fee are going to worship not sightsee.

To be honest I got really pissed of with everyone trying to con me the first time I went to Bangkok and started to really hate the place but the second time I was there I knew what to expect and what I should be paying for things and just laughed at the guys trying to con me. In the end you have to pay more if you can’t speak the language its true but you still end up paying a hell of a lot less for most things then you would do at home.

I understand what you are saying about it being stupid to do this to people when tourism is so bad there but their mentality is if less people are coming charge them more to make up for it. Its short sighted but that’s the way they do it.

I think you should just go to Laos you’ll be happier there! Best place in SE Asia!

I encountered it in Argentina and didn't have a problem with it.

I wouldn't have a problem with it in Thailand but if someone tried pulling the wool over my eyes blatantly and rudely, i'd be pretty annoyed and would probably end up mocking the person who is trying to rip me off or else stand up to him asking him to explain himself - but with the examples you gave, I don't see that as being ripped off, I see it as part of travelling.

S.M.B.

Was in a position a week or so ago where I had to go to a Muay Thai fight in Lumpini. I was not one bit happy to pay 4 times the amount as a local but still did in the end.

I've no problems with temples/state run sites charging a tourist fee but it's a different story when it comes to privately run facilities.

youcancallmeal

If you think thats bad then you obviously havent been to Vietnam. The Thai people seem like heaven compared to the Vietnamese. Pretty much every country in SEA has double pricing systems and the likes, it didn't bother me all that much unless it was ridiculous (i.e. Vietnam!)