Residential areas … A big-city problem

Residential areas … A big-city problem

            Dr Kriengsak Chareonwongsak

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

              Shelter is one of the four basic requirements for living, an important necessity especially in a big city such as Bangkok. Having a secure place to live ensures human life security. It would be very difficult if we had to live with the uncertainty of different accommodation arrangements day by day.

              In Bangkok’s urban area, full of skyscrapers and thousands of village communities, people still face the problem of insecure accommodation. Whenever their rental contracts expire, they are evicted; or else they squat illegally having no ownership permission. This is happening, for example, in the Klong Toey, Sathorn and Yannawa areas. Most people living in these areas exist hand to mouth and cannot afford to buy their own homes.

              In some areas, people are forced to move from their homes at the whim of the owner who may seek other benefits from the area. The owner may thus fail to renew rental contracts with these poor people, as has occurred for example, in the Klong Sarn community of Yannawa district. Other communities are also in line for a close down in the near future as well, such as one community behind the Esso gas station in the Klong Toey district, slated to close at some stage between August and October, 2008.

              On the other hand, some areas are not considered slum areas, but areas of historic value, going back in time more than eighty years. Very old houses and ancient architecture is highly valued for tradition’s sake. For example, the Wang-Lhi community in Bangrak district is such a place, which the Fine Arts Department has agreed to preserve, due to its high value and historical importance. However, as the owner wanted to use this area in order to gain some other benefits, no matter how hard the people in that community tried to fight by legal means, finally, they had to move out in deference to a legal judicial sentencing. This brought the community to an end, last May, 2008.

              This situation is very challenging to the Bangkok Governor. However, the restoration of such problem areas requires delicate resolution in many ways, resulting both in gains and losses. Thus, it is difficult to find a solution. Short term measures are immediately necessary, as are long term measures taken for permanent problem solution. In addition, policies are necessary to ensure that people can continue to live in their motherland. Such policies include the decentralization of income and civilization to other parts of Thailand. Such measures can thus prevent migration into the big city, which is the main cause of this problem. 

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.