The BBC is at loggerheads with Britain’s union movement over Burma tourism. But from Phuket, you can still catch a dive boat and supplement general’s business empire.
THE RICH are still different. They can afford to go diving off Burma and not feel embarrassed that they are supporting a regime that tramples on democracy and kills and beats protesting monks.
Dive boat companies operating out of Phuket into waters off Burma report that it has been business as usual this high season, with calls for a boycott falling on the deaf ears of divers from around the world.
Burma’s ruling generals are actually making more out of the Phuket and regional dive businesses than ever before, having increased the fee this high season for travel in Burma waters to $US200 per person per day.
The result is that an eight-day live-aboard ”experience” that will carry divers to Burma for four days will cost each passenger about $2200.
I won’t name the dive companies or individuals involved because the personal opinions of the people who spoke to me are not necessarily going to be shared by their employers.
Essentially, the clash of principles for the dive industry is the same as the clash between the BBC and Britain’s Trade Union Council.
Does tourism actually help to break the general’s hold on the country, or does it simply shore up their evil empire?
The TUC now wants the ‘Lonely Planet Guide to Burma’ banned and has called for a boycott of all 288 Lonely Planet guides unless that happens.
BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm of the broadcaster, bought Lonerly Planet last year and insists the guide simply ”provides information and lets readers decide for themselves.”
Putting aside principle, divers want to go to Burma waters simply to explore the pristine sites that can be found in the 800-island Mergui Archipelago and beyond.
Whether it is morally right or wrong, these well-heeled divers focus on the experience, regardless of the high cost or how their money is ultimately used.
According to dive industry insiders, the marine world in Burma waters is ”fabulous . . . among the best anywhere.”
It may even be that some of the divers who undertake trips to Burma waters are not even aware of the important issue of principle involved.
Or perhaps they have simply chosen to forget the images of protesting monks and the bloody crackdown that were beamed out on the BBC and elsewhere in September 2007.
Certainly, descriptions of the Mergui Archipelago make it sound a wonderful place to visit.
Because the protected Similan Islands off Thailand now attract so many boats each high season, there are plenty of takers for sites that offer so much more.
As well as the Mergui Archipelago, where some islands are said to have probably never been dived, the Burma Banks offers up a rocky outcrop in the middle of the ocean that attracts prolific marine life.
For people who are hooked on the highs of the underwater sport, the fact that they are supporting a corrupt regime seems incidental or of no consequence.
Dive companies say there were a few cancellations after the monks’ protest was brutally suppressed, especially among Americans.
But people from all countries now go diving with the generals, with Britons, Japanese, Germans and Hungarians taking spots of the 12-berth live-aboards of one company in particular.
Magazines aimed at promoting tourism for the advertising income simply overlook right and wrong while enthusing breathlessly about the chances of encountering a whale shark or a manta ray.
Dive company employees actually say that larger species of marine life are only just beginning to return in numbers now that Burmese authorities have finally managed to control local dynamite fishing.
Business continues to flourish off Burma, with the sole resort in the entire Mergui Archipelago recently being bought by German interests.
One person who visited that island for a few days described it as ”a really lovely diving resort” where all transactions of necessity took place in US dollars.
When divers talk about the merits of Burma waters, the superlatives flow thick and fast.
Although there is still high demand for trips to Burma waters despite the increasing cost, apparently there are fewer companies involved this high season in making the trips.
This is more likely to be because of basic industry economics than closures on principle.
One dive company employee told me he remembered back six years ago to the days of a corrupt and obese middleman known as the ”Fat Controller.”
At the time, the ”Fat Controller” liaised between the dive companies and the Burmese immigration officials. His gold necklets and rings jangled as he collected the bribes.
Passports were handed in, but never stamped. Today, the employee said, even late arrival at a docking point warrants an additional fee for the authorities.
At least one company still involved in Burma diving also does adventure travel on land inside Burma.
A spokesperson said that for tourists, it was relatively simple to make sure that money spent goes to the poverty-stricken Burmese rather than their wealthy and unprincipled masters.
Tourism on land within Burma seems to be a different issue to what goes on in the water.
I know travellers who were in Burma at the time of the monks’ uprising.
They were close enough to the action to be able to tell protesters first-hand that the rest of their world supported their stand.
The protesters asked the tourists what the world thought, because inside Burma they don’t get to see the BBC, only the general’s one-eyed media.
Another tourist was able to report directly how the families of protesters were rounded up in chains and carried under guard on a riverboat ferry to an uncertain fate. He just happened to catch the same ferry.
I wonder if Britain’s TUC would prefer to have workers in Burma simply accept the unadulterated diet of propaganda and lies from the regime?
There are plenty of businesses in the West and Asia still dealing with the generals. This is where the efforts of the union movement should probably be concentrated.
Considering all the circumstances, tourism in Burma can be a powerful force for good, although it’s strictly for the adventurous and travellers need to be careful where they spend their money.
However, when it comes to diving off Burma, the issue seems to be clearcut. More and more, it is the rich who fail to take the trouble to separate right from wrong.
Private charters to Burma waters are increasing, industry insiders say. Boats making those trips are becoming more luxurious.
It sounds like the diving adventure of a lifetime. Yet the fact remains that every passenger has to pay $US200 a day.
And that money goes straight to the black-hearted generals.
Readers who have been following this Burma travel boycott conversation will want to read the update to the original post that I have just made. It should give everyone interested in the Lonely Planet issue more food for thought.
Land of Snarls, any comparison to Shakespeare is the unkindest cut of all, to Shakespeare at least.
Awhile back a friend of mine was all outraged because some Canadian was refusing to visit the US in protest of Dubya and his policies and the fact that the US electorate re-elected the yahoo; I wasn’t upset. But I think your slightly missing my point. When I traveled in Burma I knew my money in part went to the regime, no doubt about it, and that any money that goes to them does in fact support them. It certainly isn’t being spent on health care. I just got back from New Orleans. It isn’t loopy to suggest that my hotel tax went to the government coffers. Several posters have basically said that tourism doesn’t support the regime; sure it does. Is it enough to prevent someone from going? I don’t know, but I certainly wouldn’t be dismissive of the fact that the regime hopes for tourism to be a money maker for them like it is in Thailand, and people might want to factor that in to their decision making.
Before I went to Burma for research (and later worked on a regime-sanctioned project briefly!) I did ask several Kachin friends, some of whom have pretty strong KIO connections, what they thought of my going. None of them seemed too thrill and certainly did encourage me to go, although they supported me going. However, my use of the term empowering came from a post that seemed to suggest the sight of wealthy foreign tourists might somehow strengthen the Burmese people’s desire for democracy and lead to an overthrow of the regime. Maybe I read it wrong, but I find that opinion a bit hard to believe.
To return to the issue of Lonely Planet, I would point out that the whole rationale of Lonely Planet was (and boy I’m probably dating myself here) “travelers” were somehow different that “tourists” and that there was an implicit moral superiority in that distinction, one that I never bought. So there’s a certain irony in seeing them taking a position in line with rest of the tourism industry position and being shocked that people might be holding them different standard.
Maybe I’m self righteous, but I wonder if everybody thinks that a tourist trip just of the sake of enjoyment to say, Pinochet’s Chile, would be perfectly fine, or if it might be useful to consider the political dynamics of the situations?
Oh, and you went across Sumatra and you think Burma is an adventure? Sounds like you had one.
Teth: I can understand that viewpoint, but I take a different view based on the relative ages of the tyrants.
Nature will take care of one in the foreseeable future, and then change will be inevitable.
I am not so sure of how to get rid of the other tyrant.
I wish we could believe him when he says things like this:
Meanwhile, Thaksin yesterday vowed to steer clear of politics. He said he would “never, ever again” enter politics.
“I’ve had enough,” he told Thai Public Broadcasting Service television while at a Hong Kong shopping mall.
Looks like the ‘invisible hand’ will be around for a few more decades yat.
Michael,
“tell me if I am wrong…That means no one has a right to raise any question of human rights, corruption and so on, unless they also present a list of grievances against the monarchy.”
I thought Somsak asks why are people not raising the issue of the monarchy when this issue raises far greater questions of human rights, corruption and so on than Thaksin and is STILL going on. The answer to that question is probably a fear of a backlash from the vast majority who revere the king. It’s much easier to criticise other injustices.
Nich, Dog bless you for the pix! You must do more of this sort of thing. It puts the more serious stuff of, in your case, reporting on the menau, into perspective. It tells us more about the reporter & the journey, so IMHO it is relevant.
I’ve always liked the additional stuff that social scientists sometimes produce, talking about the experience of fieldwork. When I was young I used to read stuff like Margaret Meade’s ‘Letters from the Field, and ‘ Elenor Smith Bowen’s ‘Return to Laughter,’ for example. ESB is better known as Laura Bohannon, whose field was the Tiv of Nigeria. Her essay ‘Shakespeare in the Bush’ ( http://www.cc.gatech.edu/home/idris/Essays/Shakes_in_Bush.htm) , in which she sets out to demonstrate that Shakespeare is universally intelligible by telling a group of Tiv men the story of Hamlet, is a classic. It ranks with Clifford Geertz’s ‘Deep Play: Notes on a Balinese cockfight’ (www.si.umich.edu/~rfrost/courses/MatCult/content/Geertz.pdf ).
(I’d no idea these 2 were available on the web. I googled them to get publication details, and came up with the complete pieces.)
The photos of punting across the river remind me of a trip I had in 1979 from the mountains in Sth Sumatra to Padang in W.Sumatra. It was the rainy season, & the highway was unsurfaced most of the way, so we spent a lot of time digging the small bus out of bogs, and waiting at 2 major river crossings for a makeshift punt (similar to yours, but much bigger) to take us across, because the bridges had been swept away. The journey took 4 days, instead of the expected 22 hours, but there was still lots of real jungle then, & some Minangkabau guys led me into it one morning with exaggerated ‘hush’ gestures, & I saw my first Orang Hutans in the wild. Magic!
Tourism is not going to make or break the regime. Over the long term engagement with the regime is more likely to bring about a moderating influence on the generals’ behavior.
Yep, I’m sure those waivers would do the trick. Watch the Thais crack down on the activities of westerners along the border area if this civil war tourism notion is pursued. Bleming is just one in a long line of western misfits who has become enamoured with the Karen and is pondering how he can make a buck out of their plight.
“Also, is anyone going to deny that the military regime is corrupt, and that business people don’t have to pay them off? Tourism is no different than timber; the regime gets its cut, so yes you do support the regime on some level by going there. ” Well spoken, Aiontay,and with good accent, even if in jest! (Shakesp.) (I feel it’s ok to employ the word ‘jest’ in relation to trivia. )
Allow me to suggest a boycott on travel guides and travel to the U.S., for much the same loopy reasons.
I don’t think there’s any evidence that boycotts and trade sanctions do much more than increase the misery of people who are already living in unbearable conditions, as well as giving a boost to the self-righteous.
“Finally, I find the idea that foreigners visiting Burma some how empowers the Burmese people incredible.” Not what they’ve told me, but then I don’t “know” them, I’ve just met them & spent a little time with them. And I’ve only met them in Thailand, Malaysia & Singapore – Monks, torture victims, refugees. I haven’t been to Burma yet.
I have addresses from some Burmese refugees I met in KL, & verbal messages to deliver to their families who they are not expecting to see or be able to communicate with in the foreseeable future. They were insistent: Westerners should go there.
BTW, on the subject of LP guides: I got a first edition of ‘Istanbul to Katmandu, a classic overland route,’ by Paul Harding & Simon Richmond, publ. June 2001, as soon as it came out. Impossible since shortly after its publication, of course, but wonderful as fantasy-fodder. When I was in London in 1975 I got a fantastic big map for that route (but extended to Burma)from an organisation called BIT Travel, & I’ve dreamed of it ever since. What an adventure!
You echo my own sentiments precisely. Two questions:
1. What main differences in ideology can you discriminate between the intelligentsia cum anarchists and the rural poor?
2. Power is clearly shifting to the rural population and there to stay for a while now. Can you see a time when the intelligentsia accept this and get on with reforming their own political platform (i.e. the Democrat party)?
Thanks for the clarification Land of Snarls.
As I’ve said patience is the virtue here – and I don’t expect to live to see it! Based on the life expectancy of a Thai male living in Australia, I think that’s another 40 years!
But who knows, it all comes down to the actions/popularity of the next generation of royals…
Cheers.
Just to clarify: I am not pro-Thaksin. I consider myself a neutral with regards to the Thaksin debate. The third paragraph in the comment above is just simply my thoughts about what might be going on in the head of someone like AW.
nganadeeleg, you are quite right in criticizing them for that. A simple comment and it becomes “Democrat-except-when-we-cannot-win-an-election-and-then-a-coup-is-ok Party”. Such criticism is perfectly warranted, but why is the threshold for the Dems so much lower than for Samak, who had to blatantly lie?
We should at least come up with a scathing, original nickname for Samak.
A part of me, though, understands AW’s stance somewhat. Thai politics is not polarized in the pro-Thaksin/anti-Thaksin axis, but also on the royalist/Republican axis and sometimes choosing to be one nudges you to choose being pro-Thaksin because you hope in the back of your mind that we’ll get rid of one entrenched tyrant first, then we’ll get rid of the other less entrenched one. Sort of the side effect of the silence around monarchy, really. Things in Thai politics are (have to be?) done in a roundabout, obtuse, and ends-justify-the-means way and those cheering on the sidelines will hope along the same ends-justify-the-means lines.
Somsak’s questions are important, and that is why I am attempting to answer them. They are also important in the Thai context, against which this exchange is a side issue. Also, Somsak was part of the events of 1976 and he rightly demands that those responsible be held accountable.
Again, I state, I have no problem in declaring the monarchy illegitimate from a political perspective based on equality. Few could disagree with that argument (only an oxy moron) , but few will agree with me when the idea is applied to Thailand. Such an argument can only be carried by social forces, not a one person revolutionary band who uses this argument and his willingness to make it to shield political forces, which he currently supports, from criticism. He knows very well that few people in Thailand are ready to make such a public declaration, even if they agree with it.
From the comfort of living in a country where my civil liberties are protected, I can with no danger or discomfort to myself, support inquiries into all the horrible events that scatter Thailand’s modern political history, including those listed by Somsak, and for such inquiries to cover all relevant actors, including the monarchy. The Committee that wrote the important book on 1976 Crimes of State has, I am thinking from memory, made such a recommendation and I can not imagine anyone on this weblog not agreeing with that specific suggestion. That brave report was issued during Thaksin’s rule. However, as we know, no such inquiries are going to be held in the immediate future, neither pro-Thaksin forces nor pro CNS forces are going to work towards any meaningful ones: all have fingers in the pie. Same with 1992. Same with Tak Bai, and on it goes.
It is important to put Somsak’s insistence in proper context. His questions to me and his name calling are quite irrelevant in a Thai context as I am an outsider, not a political actor, and I don’t much care what I get called for holding my political views. But Somsak is also putting the same arguments to people in Thailand who rightly find Samak’s comments about Tak Bai and 1976 offensive and who operate in more difficult circumstances (see http://www.sameskybooks.org/board/index.php?s=d2aece1a4fcd2b153817bd528e6cbc2a&showtopic=6258).
What Somsak is really saying, and tell me if I am wrong, is that in the current Thai context no one, and that means no one, has a right to say anything about an elected politician who might be acting in a manner that they find objectionable unless they also criticise the monarchy and simultaneously address every major injustice in modern Thai history. That means no one has a right to raise any question of human rights, corruption and so on, unless they also present a list of grievances against the monarchy. Quite sensibly, Somsak’s position is viewed as untenable by people in Thailand because to take such a position would mean none of the current issues to be addressed would get a hearing among the public.
His absolutism on this point (and I have to say I admire his courage as much as he despises my cowardice) serves the interests of political immobilism on issues that people feel are achievable (human rights and the war on drugs, disappearances in the South). Achievement on current issues can alter greatly the way the Thai state works in the future, it can establish standards of accountability, rule of law, witness protection. It can save lifes. For instance, had the recent War on Drugs Committee recommended some judicial action against the state crimes committed during that “war on drugs” it is hard to imagine Chalerm and Samak now pushing the issue again and talking about future body counts. This is a current issue and the possibility is real of making gains. Of course the Committee made no such suggestion nor was it ever likely too, after all Saruyud was on the 2003 Committee that oversaw the war on drugs. Human rights and people’s lives lost during 2003 were possibly (I am speculating) a bargaining chip used in discussions between the CNS and pro-Thaksin forces.
Despite my reluctance to be drawn into battle of false bravado, I think I have now called Somsak’s bluff. It is now time to hear his criticisms of elected politicians and whether they should be accountable, or does that only become possible in some utopian future when Thailand is a republic? I would also like to see all those with non-deplumes who have been making similar sounds to Somsak and pushing the Thaksin-PPP line to come out of their protective name-shell and criticise the highest institutions in the land and then earn for themselves the Somsak-sanctioned right to care about other state crimes (but about which they feel they can not raise just in case they undermine the democratic legitimacy of an elected regime). Perhaps we should allow that pro-Thaksin forces, out of political necessity of course, can not make such critical sounds, so that the TRT-PPP government can consolidate its position (and do it all again); democracy after all, is a gradual process.
The more I try and answer Somsak the more abuse I get, so this is my last post on this topic.
Thats a really beautiful setting, now. Being in a urbanized country I just realized how much I yearn for the quiet, rural atmosphere of places without a mobile phone signal like the one you’re in.
Thanks for sharing.
P.S. I assume there are no mobile phone signals where you are…
The Rhodesian army used to place ads in Soldier of Fortune magazine right next to the wife killer for hire ads. Maybe that’ll target the right market segment.
Seriously, helping Karens out with their economic livelihood as Sub Moei Arts has been doing in the jungle near Kawthoolei since 1977 may be a better model for tourism than toting a gun around in the jungle killing people. http://www.sopmoeiarts.com/html/historyofsma.html
Father Joseph with his Catholic mission at a village in the jungle is another good model, helping people without participating in the eternally futile tit-for-tat killing of warfare. Is the malaria incidence rate 90% or 95% in Kawthoolei? Does that really make it a viable state?
A warm “welcome back home, Dear Leader Thaksin!” (or: another variation of the meaning of legitimacy…)
Poll: People remember Thaksin in good ways
(BangkokPost.com) – More than half the people reponding to an Abac Poll said they think about all the good things ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra has done for the country.
Some 64.7% of the youth interviewed by the Assumption University polling arm think about all the good things he has done more than charges against him. About 66.5% of respondents who are adult think the same way.
The survey assessed opinions of 3,553 people of at least 12 years of age, who live in 27 provinces. The survey was conducted between February 20 to 26.
Some 45.8% of the respondents said they miss Mr Thaksin a lot while 41.6% said they do not quite miss him. About 12.6% said they miss him moderately.
About 80% of the respondents follow political news every week.
BP 27 February 2008
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Would you like Tsa Pi with that?
Tsa pi? Is that the same word as would be used in Burma? What word do the Singpho use for drinking water?
Call for Lonely Planet boycott
The BBC is at loggerheads with Britain’s union movement over Burma tourism. But from Phuket, you can still catch a dive boat and supplement general’s business empire.
THE RICH are still different. They can afford to go diving off Burma and not feel embarrassed that they are supporting a regime that tramples on democracy and kills and beats protesting monks.
Dive boat companies operating out of Phuket into waters off Burma report that it has been business as usual this high season, with calls for a boycott falling on the deaf ears of divers from around the world.
Burma’s ruling generals are actually making more out of the Phuket and regional dive businesses than ever before, having increased the fee this high season for travel in Burma waters to $US200 per person per day.
The result is that an eight-day live-aboard ”experience” that will carry divers to Burma for four days will cost each passenger about $2200.
I won’t name the dive companies or individuals involved because the personal opinions of the people who spoke to me are not necessarily going to be shared by their employers.
Essentially, the clash of principles for the dive industry is the same as the clash between the BBC and Britain’s Trade Union Council.
Does tourism actually help to break the general’s hold on the country, or does it simply shore up their evil empire?
The TUC now wants the ‘Lonely Planet Guide to Burma’ banned and has called for a boycott of all 288 Lonely Planet guides unless that happens.
BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm of the broadcaster, bought Lonerly Planet last year and insists the guide simply ”provides information and lets readers decide for themselves.”
Putting aside principle, divers want to go to Burma waters simply to explore the pristine sites that can be found in the 800-island Mergui Archipelago and beyond.
Whether it is morally right or wrong, these well-heeled divers focus on the experience, regardless of the high cost or how their money is ultimately used.
According to dive industry insiders, the marine world in Burma waters is ”fabulous . . . among the best anywhere.”
It may even be that some of the divers who undertake trips to Burma waters are not even aware of the important issue of principle involved.
Or perhaps they have simply chosen to forget the images of protesting monks and the bloody crackdown that were beamed out on the BBC and elsewhere in September 2007.
Certainly, descriptions of the Mergui Archipelago make it sound a wonderful place to visit.
Because the protected Similan Islands off Thailand now attract so many boats each high season, there are plenty of takers for sites that offer so much more.
As well as the Mergui Archipelago, where some islands are said to have probably never been dived, the Burma Banks offers up a rocky outcrop in the middle of the ocean that attracts prolific marine life.
For people who are hooked on the highs of the underwater sport, the fact that they are supporting a corrupt regime seems incidental or of no consequence.
Dive companies say there were a few cancellations after the monks’ protest was brutally suppressed, especially among Americans.
But people from all countries now go diving with the generals, with Britons, Japanese, Germans and Hungarians taking spots of the 12-berth live-aboards of one company in particular.
Magazines aimed at promoting tourism for the advertising income simply overlook right and wrong while enthusing breathlessly about the chances of encountering a whale shark or a manta ray.
Dive company employees actually say that larger species of marine life are only just beginning to return in numbers now that Burmese authorities have finally managed to control local dynamite fishing.
Business continues to flourish off Burma, with the sole resort in the entire Mergui Archipelago recently being bought by German interests.
One person who visited that island for a few days described it as ”a really lovely diving resort” where all transactions of necessity took place in US dollars.
When divers talk about the merits of Burma waters, the superlatives flow thick and fast.
Although there is still high demand for trips to Burma waters despite the increasing cost, apparently there are fewer companies involved this high season in making the trips.
This is more likely to be because of basic industry economics than closures on principle.
One dive company employee told me he remembered back six years ago to the days of a corrupt and obese middleman known as the ”Fat Controller.”
At the time, the ”Fat Controller” liaised between the dive companies and the Burmese immigration officials. His gold necklets and rings jangled as he collected the bribes.
Passports were handed in, but never stamped. Today, the employee said, even late arrival at a docking point warrants an additional fee for the authorities.
At least one company still involved in Burma diving also does adventure travel on land inside Burma.
A spokesperson said that for tourists, it was relatively simple to make sure that money spent goes to the poverty-stricken Burmese rather than their wealthy and unprincipled masters.
Tourism on land within Burma seems to be a different issue to what goes on in the water.
I know travellers who were in Burma at the time of the monks’ uprising.
They were close enough to the action to be able to tell protesters first-hand that the rest of their world supported their stand.
The protesters asked the tourists what the world thought, because inside Burma they don’t get to see the BBC, only the general’s one-eyed media.
Another tourist was able to report directly how the families of protesters were rounded up in chains and carried under guard on a riverboat ferry to an uncertain fate. He just happened to catch the same ferry.
I wonder if Britain’s TUC would prefer to have workers in Burma simply accept the unadulterated diet of propaganda and lies from the regime?
There are plenty of businesses in the West and Asia still dealing with the generals. This is where the efforts of the union movement should probably be concentrated.
Considering all the circumstances, tourism in Burma can be a powerful force for good, although it’s strictly for the adventurous and travellers need to be careful where they spend their money.
However, when it comes to diving off Burma, the issue seems to be clearcut. More and more, it is the rich who fail to take the trouble to separate right from wrong.
Private charters to Burma waters are increasing, industry insiders say. Boats making those trips are becoming more luxurious.
It sounds like the diving adventure of a lifetime. Yet the fact remains that every passenger has to pay $US200 a day.
And that money goes straight to the black-hearted generals.
Call for Lonely Planet boycott
Readers who have been following this Burma travel boycott conversation will want to read the update to the original post that I have just made. It should give everyone interested in the Lonely Planet issue more food for thought.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Call for Lonely Planet boycott
Land of Snarls, any comparison to Shakespeare is the unkindest cut of all, to Shakespeare at least.
Awhile back a friend of mine was all outraged because some Canadian was refusing to visit the US in protest of Dubya and his policies and the fact that the US electorate re-elected the yahoo; I wasn’t upset. But I think your slightly missing my point. When I traveled in Burma I knew my money in part went to the regime, no doubt about it, and that any money that goes to them does in fact support them. It certainly isn’t being spent on health care. I just got back from New Orleans. It isn’t loopy to suggest that my hotel tax went to the government coffers. Several posters have basically said that tourism doesn’t support the regime; sure it does. Is it enough to prevent someone from going? I don’t know, but I certainly wouldn’t be dismissive of the fact that the regime hopes for tourism to be a money maker for them like it is in Thailand, and people might want to factor that in to their decision making.
Before I went to Burma for research (and later worked on a regime-sanctioned project briefly!) I did ask several Kachin friends, some of whom have pretty strong KIO connections, what they thought of my going. None of them seemed too thrill and certainly did encourage me to go, although they supported me going. However, my use of the term empowering came from a post that seemed to suggest the sight of wealthy foreign tourists might somehow strengthen the Burmese people’s desire for democracy and lead to an overthrow of the regime. Maybe I read it wrong, but I find that opinion a bit hard to believe.
To return to the issue of Lonely Planet, I would point out that the whole rationale of Lonely Planet was (and boy I’m probably dating myself here) “travelers” were somehow different that “tourists” and that there was an implicit moral superiority in that distinction, one that I never bought. So there’s a certain irony in seeing them taking a position in line with rest of the tourism industry position and being shocked that people might be holding them different standard.
Maybe I’m self righteous, but I wonder if everybody thinks that a tourist trip just of the sake of enjoyment to say, Pinochet’s Chile, would be perfectly fine, or if it might be useful to consider the political dynamics of the situations?
Oh, and you went across Sumatra and you think Burma is an adventure? Sounds like you had one.
A new look at “populist” policies
Teth: I can understand that viewpoint, but I take a different view based on the relative ages of the tyrants.
Nature will take care of one in the foreseeable future, and then change will be inevitable.
I am not so sure of how to get rid of the other tyrant.
I wish we could believe him when he says things like this:
Meanwhile, Thaksin yesterday vowed to steer clear of politics. He said he would “never, ever again” enter politics.
“I’ve had enough,” he told Thai Public Broadcasting Service television while at a Hong Kong shopping mall.
Looks like the ‘invisible hand’ will be around for a few more decades yat.
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
Michael,
“tell me if I am wrong…That means no one has a right to raise any question of human rights, corruption and so on, unless they also present a list of grievances against the monarchy.”
I thought Somsak asks why are people not raising the issue of the monarchy when this issue raises far greater questions of human rights, corruption and so on than Thaksin and is STILL going on. The answer to that question is probably a fear of a backlash from the vast majority who revere the king. It’s much easier to criticise other injustices.
Crossing a river in Arunachal Pradesh
Nich, Dog bless you for the pix! You must do more of this sort of thing. It puts the more serious stuff of, in your case, reporting on the menau, into perspective. It tells us more about the reporter & the journey, so IMHO it is relevant.
I’ve always liked the additional stuff that social scientists sometimes produce, talking about the experience of fieldwork. When I was young I used to read stuff like Margaret Meade’s ‘Letters from the Field, and ‘ Elenor Smith Bowen’s ‘Return to Laughter,’ for example. ESB is better known as Laura Bohannon, whose field was the Tiv of Nigeria. Her essay ‘Shakespeare in the Bush’ ( http://www.cc.gatech.edu/home/idris/Essays/Shakes_in_Bush.htm) , in which she sets out to demonstrate that Shakespeare is universally intelligible by telling a group of Tiv men the story of Hamlet, is a classic. It ranks with Clifford Geertz’s ‘Deep Play: Notes on a Balinese cockfight’ (www.si.umich.edu/~rfrost/courses/MatCult/content/Geertz.pdf ).
(I’d no idea these 2 were available on the web. I googled them to get publication details, and came up with the complete pieces.)
The photos of punting across the river remind me of a trip I had in 1979 from the mountains in Sth Sumatra to Padang in W.Sumatra. It was the rainy season, & the highway was unsurfaced most of the way, so we spent a lot of time digging the small bus out of bogs, and waiting at 2 major river crossings for a makeshift punt (similar to yours, but much bigger) to take us across, because the bridges had been swept away. The journey took 4 days, instead of the expected 22 hours, but there was still lots of real jungle then, & some Minangkabau guys led me into it one morning with exaggerated ‘hush’ gestures, & I saw my first Orang Hutans in the wild. Magic!
Call for Lonely Planet boycott
Tourism is not going to make or break the regime. Over the long term engagement with the regime is more likely to bring about a moderating influence on the generals’ behavior.
Tourism to the Republic of Kawthoolei?
Yep, I’m sure those waivers would do the trick. Watch the Thais crack down on the activities of westerners along the border area if this civil war tourism notion is pursued. Bleming is just one in a long line of western misfits who has become enamoured with the Karen and is pondering how he can make a buck out of their plight.
Call for Lonely Planet boycott
“Also, is anyone going to deny that the military regime is corrupt, and that business people don’t have to pay them off? Tourism is no different than timber; the regime gets its cut, so yes you do support the regime on some level by going there. ” Well spoken, Aiontay,and with good accent, even if in jest! (Shakesp.) (I feel it’s ok to employ the word ‘jest’ in relation to trivia. )
Allow me to suggest a boycott on travel guides and travel to the U.S., for much the same loopy reasons.
I don’t think there’s any evidence that boycotts and trade sanctions do much more than increase the misery of people who are already living in unbearable conditions, as well as giving a boost to the self-righteous.
“Finally, I find the idea that foreigners visiting Burma some how empowers the Burmese people incredible.” Not what they’ve told me, but then I don’t “know” them, I’ve just met them & spent a little time with them. And I’ve only met them in Thailand, Malaysia & Singapore – Monks, torture victims, refugees. I haven’t been to Burma yet.
I have addresses from some Burmese refugees I met in KL, & verbal messages to deliver to their families who they are not expecting to see or be able to communicate with in the foreseeable future. They were insistent: Westerners should go there.
BTW, on the subject of LP guides: I got a first edition of ‘Istanbul to Katmandu, a classic overland route,’ by Paul Harding & Simon Richmond, publ. June 2001, as soon as it came out. Impossible since shortly after its publication, of course, but wonderful as fantasy-fodder. When I was in London in 1975 I got a fantastic big map for that route (but extended to Burma)from an organisation called BIT Travel, & I’ve dreamed of it ever since. What an adventure!
A wake-up call
Dr. Viroj,
You echo my own sentiments precisely. Two questions:
1. What main differences in ideology can you discriminate between the intelligentsia cum anarchists and the rural poor?
2. Power is clearly shifting to the rural population and there to stay for a while now. Can you see a time when the intelligentsia accept this and get on with reforming their own political platform (i.e. the Democrat party)?
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
Thanks for the clarification Land of Snarls.
As I’ve said patience is the virtue here – and I don’t expect to live to see it! Based on the life expectancy of a Thai male living in Australia, I think that’s another 40 years!
But who knows, it all comes down to the actions/popularity of the next generation of royals…
Cheers.
Crossing a river in Arunachal Pradesh
– Stating the obvious (phrase): Quality entry Nicholas, thanks.
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
The most interesting thing about this poll for me is that it states that all the respondents think.
A new look at “populist” policies
Just to clarify: I am not pro-Thaksin. I consider myself a neutral with regards to the Thaksin debate. The third paragraph in the comment above is just simply my thoughts about what might be going on in the head of someone like AW.
A new look at “populist” policies
nganadeeleg, you are quite right in criticizing them for that. A simple comment and it becomes “Democrat-except-when-we-cannot-win-an-election-and-then-a-coup-is-ok Party”. Such criticism is perfectly warranted, but why is the threshold for the Dems so much lower than for Samak, who had to blatantly lie?
We should at least come up with a scathing, original nickname for Samak.
A part of me, though, understands AW’s stance somewhat. Thai politics is not polarized in the pro-Thaksin/anti-Thaksin axis, but also on the royalist/Republican axis and sometimes choosing to be one nudges you to choose being pro-Thaksin because you hope in the back of your mind that we’ll get rid of one entrenched tyrant first, then we’ll get rid of the other less entrenched one. Sort of the side effect of the silence around monarchy, really. Things in Thai politics are (have to be?) done in a roundabout, obtuse, and ends-justify-the-means way and those cheering on the sidelines will hope along the same ends-justify-the-means lines.
Just thinking out loud.
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
Somsak’s questions are important, and that is why I am attempting to answer them. They are also important in the Thai context, against which this exchange is a side issue. Also, Somsak was part of the events of 1976 and he rightly demands that those responsible be held accountable.
Again, I state, I have no problem in declaring the monarchy illegitimate from a political perspective based on equality. Few could disagree with that argument (only an oxy moron) , but few will agree with me when the idea is applied to Thailand. Such an argument can only be carried by social forces, not a one person revolutionary band who uses this argument and his willingness to make it to shield political forces, which he currently supports, from criticism. He knows very well that few people in Thailand are ready to make such a public declaration, even if they agree with it.
From the comfort of living in a country where my civil liberties are protected, I can with no danger or discomfort to myself, support inquiries into all the horrible events that scatter Thailand’s modern political history, including those listed by Somsak, and for such inquiries to cover all relevant actors, including the monarchy. The Committee that wrote the important book on 1976 Crimes of State has, I am thinking from memory, made such a recommendation and I can not imagine anyone on this weblog not agreeing with that specific suggestion. That brave report was issued during Thaksin’s rule. However, as we know, no such inquiries are going to be held in the immediate future, neither pro-Thaksin forces nor pro CNS forces are going to work towards any meaningful ones: all have fingers in the pie. Same with 1992. Same with Tak Bai, and on it goes.
It is important to put Somsak’s insistence in proper context. His questions to me and his name calling are quite irrelevant in a Thai context as I am an outsider, not a political actor, and I don’t much care what I get called for holding my political views. But Somsak is also putting the same arguments to people in Thailand who rightly find Samak’s comments about Tak Bai and 1976 offensive and who operate in more difficult circumstances (see http://www.sameskybooks.org/board/index.php?s=d2aece1a4fcd2b153817bd528e6cbc2a&showtopic=6258).
What Somsak is really saying, and tell me if I am wrong, is that in the current Thai context no one, and that means no one, has a right to say anything about an elected politician who might be acting in a manner that they find objectionable unless they also criticise the monarchy and simultaneously address every major injustice in modern Thai history. That means no one has a right to raise any question of human rights, corruption and so on, unless they also present a list of grievances against the monarchy. Quite sensibly, Somsak’s position is viewed as untenable by people in Thailand because to take such a position would mean none of the current issues to be addressed would get a hearing among the public.
His absolutism on this point (and I have to say I admire his courage as much as he despises my cowardice) serves the interests of political immobilism on issues that people feel are achievable (human rights and the war on drugs, disappearances in the South). Achievement on current issues can alter greatly the way the Thai state works in the future, it can establish standards of accountability, rule of law, witness protection. It can save lifes. For instance, had the recent War on Drugs Committee recommended some judicial action against the state crimes committed during that “war on drugs” it is hard to imagine Chalerm and Samak now pushing the issue again and talking about future body counts. This is a current issue and the possibility is real of making gains. Of course the Committee made no such suggestion nor was it ever likely too, after all Saruyud was on the 2003 Committee that oversaw the war on drugs. Human rights and people’s lives lost during 2003 were possibly (I am speculating) a bargaining chip used in discussions between the CNS and pro-Thaksin forces.
Despite my reluctance to be drawn into battle of false bravado, I think I have now called Somsak’s bluff. It is now time to hear his criticisms of elected politicians and whether they should be accountable, or does that only become possible in some utopian future when Thailand is a republic? I would also like to see all those with non-deplumes who have been making similar sounds to Somsak and pushing the Thaksin-PPP line to come out of their protective name-shell and criticise the highest institutions in the land and then earn for themselves the Somsak-sanctioned right to care about other state crimes (but about which they feel they can not raise just in case they undermine the democratic legitimacy of an elected regime). Perhaps we should allow that pro-Thaksin forces, out of political necessity of course, can not make such critical sounds, so that the TRT-PPP government can consolidate its position (and do it all again); democracy after all, is a gradual process.
The more I try and answer Somsak the more abuse I get, so this is my last post on this topic.
Crossing a river in Arunachal Pradesh
Thats a really beautiful setting, now. Being in a urbanized country I just realized how much I yearn for the quiet, rural atmosphere of places without a mobile phone signal like the one you’re in.
Thanks for sharing.
P.S. I assume there are no mobile phone signals where you are…
Tourism to the Republic of Kawthoolei?
The Rhodesian army used to place ads in Soldier of Fortune magazine right next to the wife killer for hire ads. Maybe that’ll target the right market segment.
Seriously, helping Karens out with their economic livelihood as Sub Moei Arts has been doing in the jungle near Kawthoolei since 1977 may be a better model for tourism than toting a gun around in the jungle killing people.
http://www.sopmoeiarts.com/html/historyofsma.html
Father Joseph with his Catholic mission at a village in the jungle is another good model, helping people without participating in the eternally futile tit-for-tat killing of warfare. Is the malaria incidence rate 90% or 95% in Kawthoolei? Does that really make it a viable state?
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
A warm “welcome back home, Dear Leader Thaksin!” (or: another variation of the meaning of legitimacy…)
Poll: People remember Thaksin in good ways
(BangkokPost.com) – More than half the people reponding to an Abac Poll said they think about all the good things ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra has done for the country.
Some 64.7% of the youth interviewed by the Assumption University polling arm think about all the good things he has done more than charges against him. About 66.5% of respondents who are adult think the same way.
The survey assessed opinions of 3,553 people of at least 12 years of age, who live in 27 provinces. The survey was conducted between February 20 to 26.
Some 45.8% of the respondents said they miss Mr Thaksin a lot while 41.6% said they do not quite miss him. About 12.6% said they miss him moderately.
About 80% of the respondents follow political news every week.
BP 27 February 2008