Integrating the use of CCTV to solve Bangkok’s problems

Integrating the use of CCTV to solve Bangkok’s problems

Prof Dr Kriengsak Chareonwongsak

Senior Fellow, Harvard Univerisity’s Center for Business and Government

          One of Bangkok Governor, Mr Apirak  Kosayodhin’s policies, arising from security issues in the past three years is the installation of Closed-Circuit Television or CCTV in some areas of Bangkok. However, the use of CCTV technology as part of Bangkok’s security plan raises questions as to the infallibility of this technology. It is a well known fact that CCTV technology may be integrated for use beyond the mere protection of life and property.

           The main objective of a CCTV system is its use as a support tool ensuring the security of life and property. It also supports the work of municipal officers, and the police department, a department directly responsible for the maintenance of peace in Bangkok communities. A CCTV system reduces tasks and the number of officers needed to penetrate each specific area. In London, for example, using CCTV could reduce the number of security officers and simultaneously increase the effectiveness of criminal arrests.

           In Bangkok, more than three hundred cameras have been installed in the inner city area, with another 1,023 cameras installed in thirty seven districts, including traffic light junctions, flyovers, BTS parking lots, Sanam Luang, dangerous alleys, the Chao Phraya Pier, Sansab Canal, bus terminals, and other locations.

           However, installing a large quantity of CCTV sets may not be of direct benefit to Bangkok residents if the use of CCTV is still limited to only state departments and those guarding life and property. CCTV technology hasn’t yet been fully integrated to solve other problems, such as traffic jams, the lack of emergency rescue services, and so on.

           In London, there is cooperation between business owners and state departments to link CCTV systems together, which increases the potential of CCTV to protect and take care of people. What happened at London’s Marks & Spenser’s store on one occasion provides a good example of such cooperation. When a robbery took place in the store, the criminal fled the scene. However, after contacting the CCTV control centre, the store could launch a search for this person and finally apprehend him. If Bangkok business enterprises and state departments could be linked together on an entire CCTV system, keeping all information together under a confidentiality agreement, greater security would result for human life and property.

           In addition, a CCTV system may be integrated into the traffic and transportation system. In Britain, CCTV will be installed on underground train stations, not only to guard these train stations, but also to examine the number of people using the underground trains, in order to establish better service provision. Moreover, CCTV is linked to city traffic management, whereby traffic police can use database information to control road traffic, examine the occurrence of road accidents, and manage the system to avoid traffic jam areas, for just a few examples. It will increase the effectiveness of traffic management, and provide assistance for road accident victims. In addition, the CCTV system will be used to catch drivers exceeding the speed limit, and will enable number plate detection for cars that infringe the law.

           In conclusion, a CCTV system will have the potential to reduce numerous city problems if the plan is integrated with other systems appropriately. It will be good for Bangkok to install CCTV cameras in many areas. Though requiring camera set up in a number of necessary places, what will be more important is to integrate this system with other systems in order to ensure the highest benefit. This will also imply the high professional management of Bangkok’s City Governor.

Bangkok, a World Heritage City

Bangkok, a World Heritage City

Prof Dr Kriengsak Chareonwongsak

Senior Fellow, Harvard Univerisity’s Center for Business and Government

              According to Thailand’s Minister of Tourism and Sport, his proposal to develop the old cities of Chiengsan, Naan, and Lumpoon to be World Heritage sites is good policy. To me, it is also a very interesting idea. Currently, only five places in Thailand are registered as World Heritage Sites by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, (UNESCO), which are, Ayutthaya’s historical garden, Sukhothai, Ban Chiang, Thungyai Naresuan – the Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, and Dong Phayayen – the Khao Yai Forest Complex. This is, however, far fewer in number than the many architectural, cultural, and national resource sites found altogether in Thailand.

              It can be noted from statistics of the World Tourism Organization that countries that are home to many World Heritage sites seem to be in the top ten tourist destinations (except for India). These countries welcome tourists from all over the world. For example, 41 World Heritage spots have been named in Italy, where the annual number of tourists is 37.1 million. Spain has 40 World Heritage locations, and the country welcomes 52.4 million tourists annually, and so on. For Thailand, (as Table 1 shows), five World Heritage sites have been named, and thus we welcome only 11.7 million tourists annually.

Table 1: Tourist statistics for ten countries having the most World Heritage sites 

Countries	World Heritage Sites		Tourists		Countries	World Heritage Sites		Tourists
	Ranking	No.	Ranking	Millions		Ranking	No.	Ranking	Millions
Italy	1	41	5	37.1	India	7	27	n.a.	3.5
Spain	2	40	2	52.4	Mexico	8	27	7	18.7
China	3	35	4	41.8	Russia	9	23	10	19.9
Germany	4	32	9	20.1	USA	10	20	3	46.1
France	5	31	1	75.1	Turkey	n.a.	n.a.	8	16.8
Great Britain	6	27	6	24.7	Thailand	n.a.	5	19	11.7

Note: Turkey is a country ranking eighth worldwide for tourist figures, though its number of World Heritage sites is not ranked within the top ten countries.

Source: UNESCO and the World Tourism Organization, (2005).

              Besides spots that the Minister of Tourism and Sport has tried to push for inclusion as World Heritage sites, there are many other temples and architectural sites that could be World Heritage locations, especially in the old city area, on Rattanakosin Island and in the surrounding area where there are many ancient historical places that would be worth naming as World Heritage areas. For example, such as Wat Benjamabopit, Wat Rachabophit, Wat Ratchanadaram, Wat Suthat, the Giant Swing, Golden Mountain, and other places.

              Thailand may earn more revenue from pushing these places as World Heritage sites. According to one academic analysis, statistics show that being named a World Heritage area could increase tourist income by about four times what it would usually earn. If this is true, then registering as a World Heritage would enhance Bangkok tourism to the tune of about 1.35 trillion a year; whereas currently it brings in an annual income of 336,621.89 million baht. Conversely, even if the tourist dollar does not rise, Bangkok’s enhanced World Heritage status would still bring other benefits to Thailand. Once any place is announced as a World Heritage site, not only does this indirectly advertise the site to  tourists the world over, but the country will also gain an educational fund and UNESCO support as a means of World Heritage site maintenance.

              However, should the government intend to push for Bangkok’s inclusion as a World Heritage location, we must not focus only on the total spending of tourists, but we must ensure that each tourist spends more money.  In addition, we must also be concerned for the fact that with an increase to the number of tourists, more problems will occur, for example, with increased city crowding, tourist attraction decadence, a lack of basic city infrastructure and facilities, with crime problems, and other problems.

              Thus, along with pushing Bangkok to be a World Heritage city, the government should also simultaneously develop businesses involved in World Heritage development. For example, businesses that sell souvenir products or that develop old city areas for high-end tourists with the provision of hotels and restaurants. Community culture should see a come back, as should old market life, and the re-creation of fun festivals or activities for tourists. We must also not forget to develop all transportation facilities, as well as providing tourist information, security services, tour guides, and whatever else may be needed for visitors.

              In addition, the government should create a campaign enabling people to cooperate in maintaining Thailand’s national pride where traditions are highly valued. We need to be serious about conserving Siamese architectural features, as well as improving Thai sightseeing as green and clean. We will need to cooperate with one another toward environmental maintenance in certain areas, including the restoration of old buildings and houses. We will probably need to place our city’s electrical wiring underground so as not to damage beautiful sightseeing effects. We will need to give a new splash of colour to city buildings, as well as changing city street signs, and modifying bus stop facilities, and public telephone boxes, with everything following the same theme to match the surrounding area.

              In my point of view, the authority concerned  must at this time push Bangkok to be a World Heritage centre. Besides earning far greater financial benefits through government policy tourism, this collective development of tourism will also serve to conserve the cultural and traditional heritage of Bangkok, to be with Thai people forever.