Free Tourist Visa

[Guest Astrrro]

From the Phukey Gazette:

 

Friday, June 26, 2009

 

PHUKET CITY: The future of honorary Thai consulates around the world is in doubt following the Thai government’s move to waive tourist visa fees until March 2010.

 

The Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Wednesday announced that as of today all foreigners applying for single-entry tourist visas at Thai embassies, consulates and honorary consulates will be exempt from fees.

 

Some honorary Thai consulates fear the move will cost them millions of baht in lost visa revenue and could result in their closure.

 

Alan Taylor, Honorary Thai Consul in Hull, UK, said that unlike embassies and consulates, the 450 honorary consulates worldwide rely on the money they bring in selling visas.

 

“We won’t be closing, but some will certainly be closing their doors,” he said.

 

William Dunn, Honorary Thai Consul in Brisbane, Australia, said those offices that relied heavily on tourist visa revenue would be worst affected.

 

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Bangkok yesterday told the Gazette that the Thai government would reimburse the honorary consulates for any lost income.

 

However, this was news to Mr Taylor.

 

“We’ve had no contact whatsoever,” he said. “No money has been offered and we’ve been told nothing.”

 

Earlier this year visa fees were waived between March 5 and June 4.

 

Both Mr Dunn and Mr Taylor said they saw no money from the Thai government for lost income during that period.

 

Mr Dunn had doubts his office would be reimbursed.

 

“They have talked about it but they won’t do it,” he said. “For a start, I don’t think the money situation’s too good.”

 

Mr Taylor said the Hull office would have to look at ways of mitigating a “huge drop in visa income”.

 

“Numbers of applicants are unlikely to drop. If anything they will increase dramatically because people will get something for nothing,” he said.

 

Writing on the ThaiVisa.com web forum and the Phuket Gazette/ThaiVisa Phuket Form have been active. Among them, a spokesperson for the Honorary Thai Consulate in Calgary, Canada, writes, “This decision, as well as the previous decision waiving tourist visa fees for 90 days, has been a great disappointment to us here in Calgary. It seems as if Thailand is attempting to get rid of all honorary consulates around the world, no matter how helpful and successful they have been...”

 

“This is a very sad blow to all honorary consulates,” the spokesperson said.

[Guest fountainhall]

I am surprised. I always thought that 'Honorary' implied the holder of the office did NOT get paid anything. I know that Bhutan's Honorary Consul in Britain gets nothing.

[Guest joseph44]

Mr. Taylor should consider this:

If the number of tourists won't increase over the next couple of years, the Thai government may decide to close all Embassies and Consulates in Europe and only have one Thai Embassy in Europe (e.g. Brussels).

[Guest fountainhall]

Tongue in cheek apart, embassies of course are separate to consulates, and countries which have diplomatic relations have embassies in each other's countries. So one European Embassy in Brussels is a no-no. I have no idea of the rules for Honorary Consulates, but agree many will probably go the way of the dodo if tourism does not come out of its present tailspin.

[Gaybutton]

They keep coming up with everything to "fix" the tourist industry except what they really need to do to attract people. Obviously the Thai government can't help things that are beyond their control, such as the protest rallies every 14 seconds, but there is plenty they can do that is easily within their control. The first thing they can do is do away with these asinine bar operating hours. That's one of the most common complaints. They can also do away with unnecessary things that anger tourists, such as the 150 baht ATM fees.

 

They need to provide tourists with incentives to choose Thailand as their holiday destination. Telling adults it's beddy-bye time at 1:00am, ripping people off at ATMs, allowing police harassment instead of police protection, making things overly complex at immigration, arresting incoming families because they brought too many cigarettes with them, etc. is hardly the way to get people to come to Thailand.

 

What I think Thailand needs to do is have appropriate government officials sit down with foreign tourist representatives and interested individuals, and revamp this whole mess. I don't think the "tailspin" will stop without a complete paradigm change.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

One other thing that I can think of is the two tiered pricing. It pisses me off every time I encounter it.

[Guest shebavon]

Reading through this link, GB captures my thoughts precisely.

 

Every time I look, another way to rape tourist cash comes along. I'm not even going to ask if this covers retirement visas and single use re-entry visas.

 

Of course, let's not forget how welcoming the US is to Thai citizens.

[Guest Astrrro]

The most effective way to promote tourism is to subsidize airfares. $499 USD non-stop round trips if you stay in Thailand for at least a week.

[Guest thaiworthy]

The most effective way to promote tourism is to subsidize airfares. $499 USD non-stop round trips if you stay in Thailand for at least a week.

 

 

Astrrro I like the way you think.

 

[Gaybutton]

Of course, let's not forget how welcoming the US is to Thai citizens.

That's a good point, but the USA doesn't depend on foreign tourists for the tourism industry to survive anywhere near to the degree Thailand depends on it. Thailand certainly has a much greater incentive to attract foreign tourists than the USA does.

 

I think when comparing the USA tourism industry to the Thai tourism industry, it would be correct to say that a major downturn in foreign tourist numbers in the USA means less profit. In Thailand it means huge losses.

 

The most effective way to promote tourism is to subsidize airfares.

I agree that would certainly bring more tourists to Thailand, but I believe the main problem is getting tourists to spend a lot of money once they arrive. In the past few months many of the articles I've read are quite clear on the idea that in many instances the numbers of foreign tourists coming to Thailand is only part of the issue because the tourists that do come just are not spending money anywhere near to the extent to which they had been spending in the past.

 

That part of the problem can be solved if something can be done to decrease the strength of the baht against foreign currencies.

 

I also think part of the problem is all this crazy building that's going on in Pattaya and now extending to "The Dark Side" as well (with no major improvements to the infrastructure). If there is a square inch of land available anywhere in the Pattaya vicinity, someone is building on it. I don't know who they think is going to be buying all these units. Are they creating a de facto ghost town? That remains to be seen. But one thing is for sure: At the moment it's a buyer's market.

 

two tiered pricing. It pisses me off every time I encounter it.

That's another good point. While a debate constantly goes on as to whether the two tiered pricing is justified, very few foreign tourists like it whether it is justified or not. I don't know how much that pricing affects tourism, but to me the obvious question is: Is two tiered pricing truly necessary?

 

Does the two tiered pricing really bring in so much money that Thailand would significantly suffer without it? I wouldn't personally object if admission prices to both public and private venues were on the order of 50 baht or so above Thai prices, but sometimes it's two or even three times the price Thais pay. I find it very difficult to see the justification in that.

 

I also think the two tiered pricing is totally unjustifiable on public transportation, such as the baht buses. I fail to see any reason why a foreigner should pay anything more than a Thai person pays. I don't see any validity in the argument that farang have more money than most Thais have, therefore they should pay more. While I don't think the additional cost for farang is going to break anyone's bank account, I can certainly see the annoyance that a person feels if he is being penalized because he was fortunate enough in life to make more money than many Thais make. To my mind, even if Bill Gates was here and wanted to ride a baht bus, he shouldn't have to pay one baht more than Thai people pay.

 

If nothing else, I think the Thai tourism industry should take into consideration that enough foreigners dislike the two tiered pricing to make it a serious issue. If they ever take Astrrro's advice about subsidizing airfares, why not also subsidize public tourist attractions and public transportation in order to solve the two tiered pricing problem?

 

I also think Thailand needs to take a much closer and serious look at the way tourists are all too often treated by baht bus drivers, taxi drivers who refuse to turn on their meters, and, often enough, abuses on the part of the police. I think the Thai authorities need to understand that tourists don't come here to find themselves victims of intimidation, abuse, and rip-offs. If I had my way, baht bus drivers, taxi drivers, police officers, and anyone else who engages in that kind of behavior would lose their jobs the same day. If the Thai authorities would actually get serious about it, instead of just talking about it all the time, that would quickly put a stop to it.

 

All of this is what I'm talking about when I say that I think Thailand needs to take a serious look at changing the paradigm.

[Guest fountainhall]

I believe the main problem is getting tourists to spend a lot of money once they arrive

 

Totally agree. I once did a consultancy for a national tourism body and quickly realised that, whilst politicians love to boast about tourist numbers increasing, those actually in the industry are desperate to find ways of getting tourists to increase the daily spend once they arrive. That's why tourism chiefs in places like Singapore and Hong Kong concentrate as much on attracting international events (Rugby 7s, Formula 1 racing, long-running Broadway shows) and Conventions as they do on the more traditional shopping and food promotions. The former fill thousands of high- and medium-end hotel rooms at good rates and lead to an orgy of spending over concentrated periods. The latter is the daily bread and butter ( pardon the pun) of a much larger section of the industry.

 

I remember 15 or so years ago hearing about Phantom of the Opera playing in Hong Kong for a 4-month run. Over 5,000 tourists came on special high-end Phantom packages - and that was just from one tour agency in one city, Taipei. The total number of tourists arriving on similar packages from elsewhere must have been at least four or five times more. The total boost of that show to the Hong Kong economy was eventually estimated at well over US$100 million. Is it any wonder that Shanghai now has all the major Broadway shows playing for multi-week runs. Or that Shanghai, so far, is the only city outside Japan to have seen Disney's fabulous stage version of The Lion King?

 

Such high-profile events require investment. In Australia, most states have set up special 'Events' companies to allocate state funds specifically to attract such major tourism-generating events. Continuing the Broadway thread, when Phantom opened in Australia, there was a bidding war between Sydney and Melbourne to determine which city got the premiere. Melbourne won out, and for two years milked a huge tourism cow with thousands of package tours bringing hundreds of thousands of people from all over Australia and New Zealand.

 

Here in Thailand, I see the Tourism Authority doing precious little creative thinking to stimulate demand. They seem to regard sun, shopping and eating as the staple attractions, despite the fact that higher-end shopping is cheaper in neighbouring countries. Yet, as we have discussed on this site before, Thailand has so much to offer tourists. The Ubon Candle Fesitval which takes place later this month, for one, is never mentioned outside Thailand - yet it is an extraordinary, unique and wonderful event. The handful of Japanese I saw there when I visited 2 years ago adored it. Is it marketed in Japan? Nope.

 

And as posters have also pointed out, those in the tourism industry here often do their best to discourage spending. Last week I stayed at the excellent Le Meridien in Chiang Mai. I got a great nightly rate off the internet with a fabulous breakfast as part of the deal. But internet use for my laptop was extra at around Bt. 750 per 24 hours. US$22++? Why? This is just pure idiotic, the more so as there is a small internet shop only 50 yards from the front entrance where you pay Bt. 30 per hour. Was it mere coincidence that most of the people in that shop were hotel guests?

 

two tiered pricing

 

On this, I disagree with some posters - but only insofar as it puts off a potential tourist. It's just a stupid policy. Again last week, I went to Doi Inthanon to see some of the amazing waterfalls. I paid my farang price of Bt. 100 and thought it good value. If someone has only a few days to visit a place and is event-orientated, price usually matters little - however annoying it may be to see locals pay less. Yes, I know that some farang earn precious little and some Thais are so wealthy there is no reason why they should be subsidised. But I do not see this as a deterrent to tourism when someone is deciding which country to visit. Other countries also do it - e.g. Cambodia at Angkor Wat. Certainly others have done so in the past. 25 years ago I visited the Forbidden City in Beijing and paid about 10 times more than a Chinese. Yet, I gladly did so - (i) because I did not know when I would next have the chance to visit Beijing, and (ii) I knew that my 'overpayment' was subsidising the price for the 99.999% of the population in China who could otherwise not afford to visit one of their own national treasures. Now, with China's booming economy, that two-tier system has been abolished.

 

Telling adults it's beddy-bye time at 1:00am

 

This regulation to me is total idiocy. I understand why the legislation was enacted, but am certain no one in parliament even thought about the effect on the tourism industry. For years the Thailand Tourism people (I assume with government approval) have been desperately trying to yank the country away from its 'beach and sex' image, to appeal less to the backpacker and much more to families and bigger spenders. Families are not generally looking for after-midnight nightlife, and I reckon those in authority just reckoned the bigger spenders would be happy boozing in their hotels. Who knows? Maybe the hotel lobby helped push this idea through. But word gets around and I know this is now having a negative effect on inbound tourism. So, will parliament repeal the legislation? I doubt it. Too much loss of face - that constant thorn in the side of those trying to get Thailand to change its ways.

 

taxi drivers who refuse to turn on their meters

 

I'll end with a disagreement. If a taxi driver does not turn on his meter, or asks for a fixed exorbitant fee, the answer if quite simple: tell him to f--k off and wait for another one. In 8 years of living in Bangkok, I have rarely had a taxi driver not turn on the meter if asked. Once, when I had started on the journey to Suvarnabhumi, the driver asked for Bt. 500 for a trip normally costing half that. I told him to stop the taxi, started getting out, whereupon the meter was switched on. This practice is rampant in other countries - try visiting Turkey! Just do not give in. Tourism chiefs should not be nannies!

[Gaybutton]

Fountainhall, the one aspect of your post with which I disagree is that part in which you talk about the two tier policies in other countries. The fact that other countries do it does not, in my opinion, justify Thailand doing it in light of the current tourist industry troubles. I also don't see any reason why other countries do it. Again, how much could they really be making to justify the practice?

[Guest fountainhall]

The fact that other countries do it does not, in my opinion, justify Thailand doing it in light of the current tourist industry troubles

 

I fully respect the opinion of all those who are against a two-tiered pricing system. I made the point primarily in the context of the debate which seemed to suggest that the two-tier system is one of the negative points potential tourists take into account when deciding whether or not to visit the country. Personally, if I am going to spend US$1,000 or whatever to fly to Thailand and stay for a week or so, paying a bit more once I get here is not going to stop me coming. I really do doubt if there is any concrete evidence proving this puts off potential visitors.

 

Sure, it might piss me off a bit once I get here, but I doubt if it really affects tourism arrivals.

 

Other countries do it presumably for the same reason as Thailand. It's partly the need for these attractions to generate revenue to pay for management, restoration, maintenance etc. If the average income of a local citizen is so much lower than that of the average tourist - as in Cambodia - then how do you find the funds to undertake the huge amount of recovery and restoration work that is being done at Angkor Wat, say, unless you charge tourists more? If you treat everyone equally, then either you deny local citizens the opportunity of seeing their own national treasures, or you reduce your ability to raise revenues to make these treasures available.

 

One way would be to have a special tourism tax payable by all incoming visitors specifically for the restoration and maintenance of national treasures. I am not sure of the reason, but New York stings hotel guests for two special taxes in addition to state and city sales taxes - a hotel room occupancy tax of 5.875% PLUS and extra $1.50 per night for unspecified purposes. These taxes are not paid by local residents. Is there really any major difference between this tax payable only by tourists - and a tourist paying an increased tax for certain attractions?

[Gaybutton]

Personally, if I am going to spend US$1,000 or whatever to fly to Thailand and stay for a week or so, paying a bit more once I get here is not going to stop me coming.

Of course not. I doubt that, in and of itself, would stop anyone from coming. It's the combination of all the factors, including that one, that stop people from coming.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

I can accept the two tiered pricing for national parks where the upkeep comes from Thai taxes. I know we pay some taxes too, but it's not the same. I have no problem whatsoever with that. It's the private enterprises that do it that really gets me.

[Guest buckeroo2]

I also think the two tiered pricing is totally unjustifiable on public transportation, such as the baht buses. I fail to see any reason why a foreigner should pay anything more than a Thai person pays. I don't see any validity in the argument that farang have more money than most Thais have, therefore they should pay more. While I don't think the additional cost for farang is going to break anyone's bank account, I can certainly see the annoyance that a person feels if he is being penalized because he was fortunate enough in life to make more money than many Thais make. To my mind, even if Bill Gates was here and wanted to ride a baht bus, he shouldn't have to pay one baht more than Thai people pay.

I am not sure I understand why a 2 tier pricing system for public transportation is any more objectionable than it is to enter a public park or wherever else such a policy is in effect. It seems to me if the 2 tier pricing system is patently unfair as a public policy it is unfair across the board regardless how often you use the resource.

[Gaybutton]

I am not sure I understand why a 2 tier pricing system for public transportation is any more objectionable than it is to enter a public park or wherever else such a policy is in effect.

I didn't say it was more objectionable. I said it is also objectionable. I really don't see the necessity for two tiered pricing at all, anywhere.

[Guest fountainhall]

I am not sure I understand why a 2 tier pricing system for public transportation is any more objectionable than it is to enter a public park or wherever else such a policy is in effect

 

This may seem odd given my earlier comments, but whereas I have little objection to the two-tier system for national parks, state monuments etc., I do happen to think it is totally unfair on public transportation. In Bangkok, I have no car, so I take the Skytrain, the underground, occasionally buses and water boats. I also use several airlines. I am not aware that any of these are charging me extra as a non-Thai. Am I wrong? Does it operate on trains and long distance buses? Or is it just the baht buses?

 

I notice no-one has yet taken me up on my comments about the extra taxes imposed on hotel visitors in New York. There are other anomalies. For example, some European cities subsidise public transport for their residents, but not for visitors. Not surprising, I suppose, when a single ticket on the London underground now costs a minimum of around US$6.50 - for one ride!

[Gaybutton]

I notice no-one has yet taken me up on my comments about the extra taxes imposed on hotel visitors in New York.

I don't see how what other countries and other cities do would be relevant. Somehow, I can't picture Philadelphia, for example, imposing fees for certain venues and justifying it by saying, "Well, that's how they do it in Thailand."

[Guest fountainhall]

I don't see how what other countries and other cities do would be relevant. Somehow, I can't picture Philadelphia, for example, imposing fees for certain venues and justifying it by saying, "Well, that's how they do it in Thailand."

 

And I cannot see Thailand doing something just because it is done in other countries! Personally, I think the issue is relevant because the complaint by most on this thread is about unfair treatment of farang vs. Thais through a dual-pricing system. Yet, it is a fact that there are cities and countries around the world who have the same sort of charges imposed solely on visitors. Even if these are disguised more as a sort of general tourist tax, it amounts to the same thing. Sure I am pissed off at the fact that when I stay in a hotel in New York, my bill has four separate taxes slapped on to it, only two of which I really understand. Locals don't pay the later two. But I just pay them. I don't consider them a form of discrimination and they are never a factor in a decision whether or not to go to New York.

 

And sure, mixed in with other inconveniences and oddities, a dual pricing system will leave a rather sour taste in the mouth of some visitors - especially family groups, ironically the very people Thailand is trying to attract. But I just do not see it as a general disincentive to tourism. Since some people in power here do feel strongly that a dual-pricing system is justified, I'd much rather see them tackle other issues that are positive disincentives to tourism.

[Gaybutton]

And I cannot see Thailand doing something just because it is done in other countries!

When you compare the taxes imposed on your New York hotel bills, isn't that based on your place of residence? It seems to me that in Thailand the 2 tier pricing is based on your race. Even those of us who reside in Thailand and can prove it are still charged the farang price, although every once in a while we manage to get a reduced price or the Thai price.

 

Either way, I agree with you that the 2 tier pricing is unlikely to be the sole cause of people deciding not to come to Thailand. For most people it is a minor thing, but when you have enough minor things, eventually it all adds up to a major thing, and that's when people start deciding to have their holiday somewhere else, such as the Black Hole of Calcutta.

[Guest fountainhall]

When you compare the taxes imposed on your New York hotel bills, isn't that based on your place of residence?

 

I guess they are based on the fact that you do not live permanently in New York and are merely visiting. So, although not based on race, they are levied almost exclusively on non-New Yorkers, which kind-of is the same in my book as higher fees in Thailand being charged to non-Thais.

 

But we have more points of agreement re tourism than this irritating but relatively minor issue. I guess the Black Hole of Calcutta must be pretty full now with all those who decided not to come to Thailand