You’re not Mongolian!
With the family overseas visiting relatives, I took the opportunity to do a tourist thing last Sunday and drive myself to the colossal steel structure that is himself; Chinggis Khaan.
Inviting four friends along; one a French citizen, the other American, German and last but by no means least an Indian, this international jaunt sufficed a pleasant trip over humps and bumps to the thought of clambering up the back backside of the great man and scaling his horse’s main.
Upon approaching the entrance kiosk, a delightful teller informed that we are all required to pay MNT10,000 entrance. My right eye brow extended upward with a grimace as if on a puppet string, why so expensive I mused, and once enquiring my concern we were subsequently told that being foreign required us to pay 5,000 extra. To further retort us she finger pointed at a blazon sign to justify her accuracy; “Mongolian Citizens 5,000, Foreigners 10,000”.
Here we go again I held, a repetitive and common situation found in other tourist areas where entering protected parks stipulate that non-Mongolians must pay extortionately inflated fees because, for some reason I presume, we aliens don’t wipe our feet and tread on the wrong blades of grass.
It doesn’t stop at parks; museums have tourist charges predominantly differing from locals, thus suggesting people like me are a threat to the contamination of Mongolians iconic history by breathing to hard on the display case for example. Hotels even flaunt this prejudice thinking that every foreigner resigning or visiting is loaded to the hilt in green paper money.
To be discriminated not by ones colour, ethnic connotation or religious preference, but by the mere fact you are a foreigner is to say somewhat unnerving and slightly annoying.
I see absolutely no differences between the above discriminatory concerns, and beggar the reasoning for this price discrimination.
We are all aware it is not confined just to Mongolia, why even Europe and the sates have problematic anomalies when it comes to differing prices structures based on nationality; yet with European legislation forbidding its practice within the union, there must be openness as to why certain governments refute its practice and others turn a blind eye.
The pricing policy and guidelines for tourism attractions, both public and private around Mongolia are all based in law.
There are specific legal guidelines that apply for natural and cultural attractions under the supervision of the various state agencies belonging to the Government versus those applicable for tourism attractions that are wholly-owned, funded and operated by private sector operators.
Any changes to these laws are a matter for parliamentary deliberation, and not for the state agencies charged with their correct application.
The pricing for natural and cultural attractions supervised by the various state agencies belonging to the Government, and funded by the national budget, are governed by ministerial orders and announcements issued by the respective ministries based on various acts of parliament that have already been promulgated.
The spirit of the law assumes that natural and cultural attractions, including sacred and historic sites nationwide, are part of the national heritage belonging to all Mongolians equally.
The provisions set out in the ministerial orders are designed to ensure fair and equal opportunity for each and every individual Mongolian to have access to national treasures, and the natural and cultural heritage inherited from their forefathers.
The rationale underpinning existing legislation argues that each and every individual of Mongolian nationality is an equal stakeholder within the community. Fair and equal access must be granted to all Mongolian nationals, regardless of their social and economic status. Entrance fees to such attractions must therefore be made affordable for Mongolian citizens from all walks of life.
If it is thought appropriate to require from the public any payment for services of facilities given by the competent official in the national park, or to require any person to pay a fee or remuneration for permission to carry on any activity or to sojourn therein, the government is empowered to fix the rates and lay down rules concerning the collection of the said service charge, fee or remuneration, with the approval of the Minister.
Money collected under the preceding, funds donated for maintenance of the national park, fines accruing from settlement of the case conducted by the competent official and other kinds of income are usually infused as the expenditure for maintenance of the national park.
In the case of temples and shrines, Mongolians generally do not regard these sites as tourist attractions. They are sacred places of worship they visit to practice their faith.
Places of worship in Mongolia of all denominations are generally open to the public at various times of day and welcoming. Most happen to be Buddhist. Buddhist practice embraces all individuals and does not exclude the participation of individuals who are non-Mongolian or non-Buddhist.
All visitors to Mongolia who wish to learn more about the country and its culture, Mongol customs, tradition and Mongol ways are welcome to witness and experience all aspects of Mongolian life up close and personal. It is hoped that their experiences are positive and memorable, and that they will be happy to make a small donation to help keep alive Mongolian customs and traditions, and generally support the country’s cultural heritage.
Fees charged and voluntary donations go towards the maintenance, conservation and care of the sites. In the case of Mongolian citizens, their share of the contribution to the state budget is made through the payment of income tax and regular payment of other forms of indirect taxation.
The payment of entrance fees, where applicable, is therefore in addition to the payments they have already made as taxpayers.
“I am not thrilled to pay extra, but such fees allow for locals to enjoy those places more often, while for me… it was just part of the cost for my holiday”, says Svetlana, a Ukrainian tourist I bumped into whilst enquiring as to her take on this matter.
To think of it, from the perspective of offer and demand, a local, even if able to pay for such a fee, probably went there more than once. So a higher price would probably end up discouraging future visits, while the tourist will pay it only once.
I could agree that the amount difference feels out of proportion, yet should we call it “Discrimination”?
One colleague muttered to me yesterday, “This is just stupid – as an NGO who has lived, worked and contributed to Mongolia for over 3 years, I have had to pay multiple times for taxes, visas, fees, checks etc at similar rates. Additionally, without respect to what I have paid here, the “system” of charging foreigners more makes Mongolia and all other places that do this seem money grabbing and leaves a bad taste in the mouths of those who visit”.
Discrimination is defined as ‘the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things’. It does I concur, occasionally leave a bad taste in the mouths of those who travel.
Even though there are many foreigners living, working and contributing to the country, some feel they are perceived as tourists even if they have residency permits. Many foreigners argument is it “feels” like extortion, especially if there is not a rational reason, and ultimately damages the perception of a country– even if it is for a one time visitor.
Being from a western country where such a distinction would not only be illegal but also considered by many to be morally wrong, I can imagine how many foreigners would be offended by this on a matter of principle.
The money is not the issue here. A better approach would be to have a price for local Residents and a price for non-residents. This is actually accepted even in western countries based on the idea that local residents are already contributing to the upkeep of the tourist sites via local taxes and should be entitled to a subsidy. One doesn’t need to be too diligent in enforcing the local resident rule but it does remove something I know many foreign visitors would find offensive.
Inviting four friends along; one a French citizen, the other American, German and last but by no means least an Indian, this international jaunt sufficed a pleasant trip over humps and bumps to the thought of clambering up the back backside of the great man and scaling his horse’s main.
Upon approaching the entrance kiosk, a delightful teller informed that we are all required to pay MNT10,000 entrance. My right eye brow extended upward with a grimace as if on a puppet string, why so expensive I mused, and once enquiring my concern we were subsequently told that being foreign required us to pay 5,000 extra. To further retort us she finger pointed at a blazon sign to justify her accuracy; “Mongolian Citizens 5,000, Foreigners 10,000”.
Here we go again I held, a repetitive and common situation found in other tourist areas where entering protected parks stipulate that non-Mongolians must pay extortionately inflated fees because, for some reason I presume, we aliens don’t wipe our feet and tread on the wrong blades of grass.
It doesn’t stop at parks; museums have tourist charges predominantly differing from locals, thus suggesting people like me are a threat to the contamination of Mongolians iconic history by breathing to hard on the display case for example. Hotels even flaunt this prejudice thinking that every foreigner resigning or visiting is loaded to the hilt in green paper money.
To be discriminated not by ones colour, ethnic connotation or religious preference, but by the mere fact you are a foreigner is to say somewhat unnerving and slightly annoying.
I see absolutely no differences between the above discriminatory concerns, and beggar the reasoning for this price discrimination.
We are all aware it is not confined just to Mongolia, why even Europe and the sates have problematic anomalies when it comes to differing prices structures based on nationality; yet with European legislation forbidding its practice within the union, there must be openness as to why certain governments refute its practice and others turn a blind eye.
The pricing policy and guidelines for tourism attractions, both public and private around Mongolia are all based in law.
There are specific legal guidelines that apply for natural and cultural attractions under the supervision of the various state agencies belonging to the Government versus those applicable for tourism attractions that are wholly-owned, funded and operated by private sector operators.
Any changes to these laws are a matter for parliamentary deliberation, and not for the state agencies charged with their correct application.
The pricing for natural and cultural attractions supervised by the various state agencies belonging to the Government, and funded by the national budget, are governed by ministerial orders and announcements issued by the respective ministries based on various acts of parliament that have already been promulgated.
The spirit of the law assumes that natural and cultural attractions, including sacred and historic sites nationwide, are part of the national heritage belonging to all Mongolians equally.
The provisions set out in the ministerial orders are designed to ensure fair and equal opportunity for each and every individual Mongolian to have access to national treasures, and the natural and cultural heritage inherited from their forefathers.
The rationale underpinning existing legislation argues that each and every individual of Mongolian nationality is an equal stakeholder within the community. Fair and equal access must be granted to all Mongolian nationals, regardless of their social and economic status. Entrance fees to such attractions must therefore be made affordable for Mongolian citizens from all walks of life.
If it is thought appropriate to require from the public any payment for services of facilities given by the competent official in the national park, or to require any person to pay a fee or remuneration for permission to carry on any activity or to sojourn therein, the government is empowered to fix the rates and lay down rules concerning the collection of the said service charge, fee or remuneration, with the approval of the Minister.
Money collected under the preceding, funds donated for maintenance of the national park, fines accruing from settlement of the case conducted by the competent official and other kinds of income are usually infused as the expenditure for maintenance of the national park.
In the case of temples and shrines, Mongolians generally do not regard these sites as tourist attractions. They are sacred places of worship they visit to practice their faith.
Places of worship in Mongolia of all denominations are generally open to the public at various times of day and welcoming. Most happen to be Buddhist. Buddhist practice embraces all individuals and does not exclude the participation of individuals who are non-Mongolian or non-Buddhist.
All visitors to Mongolia who wish to learn more about the country and its culture, Mongol customs, tradition and Mongol ways are welcome to witness and experience all aspects of Mongolian life up close and personal. It is hoped that their experiences are positive and memorable, and that they will be happy to make a small donation to help keep alive Mongolian customs and traditions, and generally support the country’s cultural heritage.
Fees charged and voluntary donations go towards the maintenance, conservation and care of the sites. In the case of Mongolian citizens, their share of the contribution to the state budget is made through the payment of income tax and regular payment of other forms of indirect taxation.
The payment of entrance fees, where applicable, is therefore in addition to the payments they have already made as taxpayers.
“I am not thrilled to pay extra, but such fees allow for locals to enjoy those places more often, while for me… it was just part of the cost for my holiday”, says Svetlana, a Ukrainian tourist I bumped into whilst enquiring as to her take on this matter.
To think of it, from the perspective of offer and demand, a local, even if able to pay for such a fee, probably went there more than once. So a higher price would probably end up discouraging future visits, while the tourist will pay it only once.
I could agree that the amount difference feels out of proportion, yet should we call it “Discrimination”?
One colleague muttered to me yesterday, “This is just stupid – as an NGO who has lived, worked and contributed to Mongolia for over 3 years, I have had to pay multiple times for taxes, visas, fees, checks etc at similar rates. Additionally, without respect to what I have paid here, the “system” of charging foreigners more makes Mongolia and all other places that do this seem money grabbing and leaves a bad taste in the mouths of those who visit”.
Discrimination is defined as ‘the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things’. It does I concur, occasionally leave a bad taste in the mouths of those who travel.
Even though there are many foreigners living, working and contributing to the country, some feel they are perceived as tourists even if they have residency permits. Many foreigners argument is it “feels” like extortion, especially if there is not a rational reason, and ultimately damages the perception of a country– even if it is for a one time visitor.
Being from a western country where such a distinction would not only be illegal but also considered by many to be morally wrong, I can imagine how many foreigners would be offended by this on a matter of principle.
The money is not the issue here. A better approach would be to have a price for local Residents and a price for non-residents. This is actually accepted even in western countries based on the idea that local residents are already contributing to the upkeep of the tourist sites via local taxes and should be entitled to a subsidy. One doesn’t need to be too diligent in enforcing the local resident rule but it does remove something I know many foreign visitors would find offensive.
Comments
Post a Comment