I’m not sure his argument is the simple one that it’s not profitable, so not much money goes to the government. I think (and he says this somewhere in the middle) it’s that much more tourism will do a lot to open up the country and help private businessmen, but much more tourism will at best give the government a fraction of what it’s going to get anyway from oil and gas.
While there’s certainly an element of truth to what you’re saying, John, the notion that Burmese people need interaction with us in order to somehow be enlightened or spurred to action is patronizing. There is a lot of action, reaction, and dissent going on in Burma – much of it in areas that are closed even to the meager tourists flows that currently exist.
Sanctions and boycotts may not be helping, but it’s not because the Burmese people need exposure to us to show them the evils of their government or to save them from the fallacy of their own religious ideals. It’s perhaps just as likely that people take their children to the monk for treatment because they have no other option. Tourism won’t necessarily cause the government-run hospitals to become better funded or more welcoming of poor people.
I also don’t see that the next generation of activists is just perpetuating the sanctions/boycott/isolation stance. It seems many younger Burmese activists are actively debating and reconsidering these notions.
It would be nice to see groups like BCUK reach out more to people in Asia for awareness raising.
Several years ago I was talking to Burma activist in Thailand, and we decided the most effective solution was to set up a semi-parody tourism promotion. Basically fake a bunch of tourist literature and distribute it to tour agencies. It would encourge people to visit sites like the Sawbwa’s palace in Kengtung that the regime tore down.
Again, it is not primarily “the poor” who sell their votes. If one sticks to this cliche, one will never understand the phenomenon. Also, the candidates would be happy not to buy votes and save their campaign expenses. But many voters want money for their votes, even if the candidate is the one they actually want. If one asks voters why there is vote buying, they tell you things like “It is a custom,” “We have come to be used to it,” “Thais have hearts for hire” (this is a very profound statement), or they just find it funny that they got a few hundred baht without actually thinking much about it. I mean, if a canvasser turns up with the money in the village and starts distributing it, few villagers would probably not like to participate.
Vote buying is an inherent problem in all kind of government and in all level, not just in democracy. Well, except one that does not have voting.
The problem of vote buying is not that the poor sell their vote. It is that the vote buyer can check whether the poor did vote according to what they sell. If an election is to be held and vote counting/result is complete anonymous. The people would be free to vote who they want.
(From my understanding) It also base on fundamental concept that people would eventually increase their “demand level”.
What’s the different between a “promise” and a “bribe”? A promise can be broken, but a bribe is out right there. It’s just a game theory: if all politician make false promise and deliver only bribe; the people “demand level” never increase. But in order for democratic election system to result in efficient leader, a “promise” must be kept and successfully “deliver”. The next contestant, thus, have to “promise” and “deliver” even greater things.
The problem is elected senator usually does not “deliver” on their “promise”. If only there are to be a campagin on track record of each contestant “promise” and “delivering” rate.
Hence, “If these people need food, they will elect PM that promise food.” At the next election, once people are fed, they would increase their demand and the PM will have to promise that.
The only thing that has really changed in this debate that has been going on for 20 years, is that it has been going on for 20 years, and therefore should be deemed ineffective purely on these grounds.
Another 20 years and it will work?
Furthermore, tourism boycotts or economic sanctions turn off the spigot of interaction of people in Burma with the outside world so that they know even less of the outside world and retreat even further into a life of pure religion and religious outlook, so religious explanation dominates everything (for example, a parent brings their child to a prominent monk for medical treatment, or for every other kind of advice, which I’ve seen, IMHO religion is good but the current conservative government controlled religion just supports the regime)
Isolation from the outside world has been the reality in Burma since roughly 1962, although the groundwork was set before that with the “Burmese Way to Socialism” and BUrma’s non-aligning itself politically from everyone.
Tourism boycotts and economic sanctions just support this isolationism. The Burmese people in the end are who suffer from it.
Every generation spawns a new cadre of activists who perpetuate Burma’s isolation.
Re: Khun Aldrew
“It was good to see Ji Ungpakorn there and I appreciated his comments about the complexity of political patronage in rural areas. Supporters of Thailand’s coup have been quick to disparage patronage system without understanding the social and cultural complexity of patron client relations and their embeddedness in local systems of political evaluation.”
just for the record, may I repeat here what I said at the seminar regarding Jai’s comments.
It’s good to hear Jai criticizing those academics and ngos who refused to accept the decision of the rural people. Yet Jai was among those, I called “2 Nos” (2 р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓) activists, who AS SOON AS the majority of the people (largely in the rural areas) elected Thaksin, came out and shouted “Thaksin Get Out!” It made no sense then to say (as Jai and people like Nidhi, Thaongchai, etc did) that “I am for an Elected PM, againt a King-selected PM” but at the same supported the campaign to oust the newly elected Thaksin.
Re: Jon Fernquest
“but this topic isn’t really that interesting now that I have access. Reading it seems like a waste of time.”
well, sorry to hear that. you’re of course, entitled to say what in your view constitutes time-wasting. But I’d have thought the issue discussed is eminently interesting and also what I write has something to contribute to it.
Put simply, these military guys also abuse their positions, not just the politicians. What about the “secret funds” amounting 1 billion baht? Surayut is fair enough – he has halved the original request of 2 billion baht.
I used to be pro-boycott, but having heard Thant Myint-U has somewhat cemented my gradual change of my own paradigm. Any western boycott today is just a shadow of itself. I cannot believe that the BCUK is ignoring the fact that Asian tourists, however limited their spending power, visit Burma untouched from any boycott calls. I might be biased, but I am sure that it is them using government facilities without realising that they are financing the junta. However, to be fair, I believe that there are Burma Human Rights activists putting a big effort to make the public in the concerned countries aware of the issue.
Anyway, reading the article, I cannot get rid of the impression that the BCUK – Farmaner – is running out of arguments. It seems very much to me that they keep citing the same sermon as they have done ten years ago. Obviously, the boycott front seem to crumble – the Free Burma Coalition for example has reversed its pro-boycott stance.
It was possibly on purpose that Farmaner’s view was placed at the end. Otherwise it would be in an absolutely lost position.
[…] what is taking the MICT so long? A comment by Hew on New Mandala might offer some clues. In the report I read, Google had said that half the clips had […]
[…] what is taking the MICT so long? A comment by Hew on New Mandala might offer some clues. In the report I read, Google had said that half the clips had […]
I would have to say it doesn’t look like either of them really got the upper hand – although I imagine most people who might be considering a trip to Burma will be more swayed by Thant Myint-U’s side.
The main gist of his argument, though, seems to be that it’s ok to visit, because the industry isn’t profitable anyway, so there’s really not so much money getting to the junta’s hands. One would presume, however, that the lack of profit is a result of low tourist numbers. If tourists increase, revenue, and eventually profit, then taxes, increase – rendering that argument obsolete.
The junta and cronies might have limited involvment now, but given their penchant for monopolizing other industries in Burma, it seems reasonable to presume that their investments in tourism would increase along with the tourists. The junta has taken apparently deliberate steps to destroy local economies in some areas for no other logical reason than to make life difficult for people. I can’t imagine they would sit idly by while locals profit off a growing tourism industry without taking their unfair share.
And this is besides what they’ve already done to destroy cultural heritage sites through ‘restoration’ in a bid to lure tourists. They obviously do have an interest in increased tourism, whether they currently profit from it or not.
It seems more and more people are leaning towards the middle ground of small-scale educated tourism is ok, ‘holiday-making’ tourism is not. I also think there is room for some tourism. The only problem with this is that most independent low-budget backpackers would not consider they aren’t the type of tourists who should be going – and those that would consider it and stay away, are probably exactly the ones who should be going.
[…] The Times has an article that pits Thant Myint-U against Mark Farmaner, the acting director of the Burma Campaign UK, on the question of tourism to […]
“Only when people have enough to eat can we inculcate people with democratic culture”
After people have enough to eat, it would change to “Only when people have enough education…”. After that to “Only when people have enough experience…money, achievement, title…”, on and on until it end up with elitist group and totalitarian system where (supposedly) one best man rule.
Democracy was meant as a way to fulfil the need of the mass. If these people need food, they will elect PM that promise food. That simple. Democracy itself is patronage system. I think Bawornsak himself need to be inculcate with democratic culture.
Sawarin: You are right. It is amazing what kind of clichees are held by the Bangkok academic and technocratic elite. One could shrug one’s shoulders, but these people are influential and base part of their actions on such nonsense. They seem to know so little about their own country.
Patiwat rightly points to the low poverty rate Thailand has, although this has little to do with Thaksin but has been a broader trend starting in the mid 80ties. Simply speaking, if vote buying was a matter of sufficient food or poverty, there would be hardly any vote buying in Thailand.
Moreover, similar acts employed by the bureaucracy are never looked critically upon. Paying villagers to turn up to greet PM Surayud or granting a travel allowance of 100 baht plus snacks or lunch for people recruited by the bureaucracy to attend public hearings on the draft constitution are done matter-of-factly. No talk of “participation buying.”
I have written a short article in Thai based on your paper which we shall publish in the July edition of “Turn Left”. People need to read about your research.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Burma tourism debate
I’m not sure his argument is the simple one that it’s not profitable, so not much money goes to the government. I think (and he says this somewhere in the middle) it’s that much more tourism will do a lot to open up the country and help private businessmen, but much more tourism will at best give the government a fraction of what it’s going to get anyway from oil and gas.
Burma tourism debate
Also – I like your idea, Aiontay!
Burma tourism debate
While there’s certainly an element of truth to what you’re saying, John, the notion that Burmese people need interaction with us in order to somehow be enlightened or spurred to action is patronizing. There is a lot of action, reaction, and dissent going on in Burma – much of it in areas that are closed even to the meager tourists flows that currently exist.
Sanctions and boycotts may not be helping, but it’s not because the Burmese people need exposure to us to show them the evils of their government or to save them from the fallacy of their own religious ideals. It’s perhaps just as likely that people take their children to the monk for treatment because they have no other option. Tourism won’t necessarily cause the government-run hospitals to become better funded or more welcoming of poor people.
I also don’t see that the next generation of activists is just perpetuating the sanctions/boycott/isolation stance. It seems many younger Burmese activists are actively debating and reconsidering these notions.
It would be nice to see groups like BCUK reach out more to people in Asia for awareness raising.
Burma tourism debate
Several years ago I was talking to Burma activist in Thailand, and we decided the most effective solution was to set up a semi-parody tourism promotion. Basically fake a bunch of tourist literature and distribute it to tour agencies. It would encourge people to visit sites like the Sawbwa’s palace in Kengtung that the regime tore down.
A friendly reception
Again, it is not primarily “the poor” who sell their votes. If one sticks to this cliche, one will never understand the phenomenon. Also, the candidates would be happy not to buy votes and save their campaign expenses. But many voters want money for their votes, even if the candidate is the one they actually want. If one asks voters why there is vote buying, they tell you things like “It is a custom,” “We have come to be used to it,” “Thais have hearts for hire” (this is a very profound statement), or they just find it funny that they got a few hundred baht without actually thinking much about it. I mean, if a canvasser turns up with the money in the village and starts distributing it, few villagers would probably not like to participate.
A friendly reception
Vote buying is an inherent problem in all kind of government and in all level, not just in democracy. Well, except one that does not have voting.
The problem of vote buying is not that the poor sell their vote. It is that the vote buyer can check whether the poor did vote according to what they sell. If an election is to be held and vote counting/result is complete anonymous. The people would be free to vote who they want.
(From my understanding) It also base on fundamental concept that people would eventually increase their “demand level”.
What’s the different between a “promise” and a “bribe”? A promise can be broken, but a bribe is out right there. It’s just a game theory: if all politician make false promise and deliver only bribe; the people “demand level” never increase. But in order for democratic election system to result in efficient leader, a “promise” must be kept and successfully “deliver”. The next contestant, thus, have to “promise” and “deliver” even greater things.
The problem is elected senator usually does not “deliver” on their “promise”. If only there are to be a campagin on track record of each contestant “promise” and “delivering” rate.
Hence, “If these people need food, they will elect PM that promise food.” At the next election, once people are fed, they would increase their demand and the PM will have to promise that.
Burma tourism debate
The only thing that has really changed in this debate that has been going on for 20 years, is that it has been going on for 20 years, and therefore should be deemed ineffective purely on these grounds.
Another 20 years and it will work?
Furthermore, tourism boycotts or economic sanctions turn off the spigot of interaction of people in Burma with the outside world so that they know even less of the outside world and retreat even further into a life of pure religion and religious outlook, so religious explanation dominates everything (for example, a parent brings their child to a prominent monk for medical treatment, or for every other kind of advice, which I’ve seen, IMHO religion is good but the current conservative government controlled religion just supports the regime)
Isolation from the outside world has been the reality in Burma since roughly 1962, although the groundwork was set before that with the “Burmese Way to Socialism” and BUrma’s non-aligning itself politically from everyone.
Tourism boycotts and economic sanctions just support this isolationism. The Burmese people in the end are who suffer from it.
Every generation spawns a new cadre of activists who perpetuate Burma’s isolation.
A friendly reception
Re: Khun Aldrew
“It was good to see Ji Ungpakorn there and I appreciated his comments about the complexity of political patronage in rural areas. Supporters of Thailand’s coup have been quick to disparage patronage system without understanding the social and cultural complexity of patron client relations and their embeddedness in local systems of political evaluation.”
just for the record, may I repeat here what I said at the seminar regarding Jai’s comments.
It’s good to hear Jai criticizing those academics and ngos who refused to accept the decision of the rural people. Yet Jai was among those, I called “2 Nos” (2 р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓) activists, who AS SOON AS the majority of the people (largely in the rural areas) elected Thaksin, came out and shouted “Thaksin Get Out!” It made no sense then to say (as Jai and people like Nidhi, Thaongchai, etc did) that “I am for an Elected PM, againt a King-selected PM” but at the same supported the campaign to oust the newly elected Thaksin.
Somsak on Ananda Mahidol
Re: Jon Fernquest
“but this topic isn’t really that interesting now that I have access. Reading it seems like a waste of time.”
well, sorry to hear that. you’re of course, entitled to say what in your view constitutes time-wasting. But I’d have thought the issue discussed is eminently interesting and also what I write has something to contribute to it.
“Unrealistic expenses”?: the 5.5 million baht “sufficiency teow”
Put simply, these military guys also abuse their positions, not just the politicians. What about the “secret funds” amounting 1 billion baht? Surayut is fair enough – he has halved the original request of 2 billion baht.
A friendly reception
Has anyone ever mentioned how villagers fall into debts thanks to the village funding scheme introduced by Thaksin?
Burma tourism debate
I used to be pro-boycott, but having heard Thant Myint-U has somewhat cemented my gradual change of my own paradigm. Any western boycott today is just a shadow of itself. I cannot believe that the BCUK is ignoring the fact that Asian tourists, however limited their spending power, visit Burma untouched from any boycott calls. I might be biased, but I am sure that it is them using government facilities without realising that they are financing the junta. However, to be fair, I believe that there are Burma Human Rights activists putting a big effort to make the public in the concerned countries aware of the issue.
Anyway, reading the article, I cannot get rid of the impression that the BCUK – Farmaner – is running out of arguments. It seems very much to me that they keep citing the same sermon as they have done ten years ago. Obviously, the boycott front seem to crumble – the Free Burma Coalition for example has reversed its pro-boycott stance.
It was possibly on purpose that Farmaner’s view was placed at the end. Otherwise it would be in an absolutely lost position.
YouTube vs Thai dictatorship: A settlement?
[…] what is taking the MICT so long? A comment by Hew on New Mandala might offer some clues. In the report I read, Google had said that half the clips had […]
YouTube vs Thai dictatorship: A settlement?
[…] what is taking the MICT so long? A comment by Hew on New Mandala might offer some clues. In the report I read, Google had said that half the clips had […]
Burma tourism debate
I would have to say it doesn’t look like either of them really got the upper hand – although I imagine most people who might be considering a trip to Burma will be more swayed by Thant Myint-U’s side.
The main gist of his argument, though, seems to be that it’s ok to visit, because the industry isn’t profitable anyway, so there’s really not so much money getting to the junta’s hands. One would presume, however, that the lack of profit is a result of low tourist numbers. If tourists increase, revenue, and eventually profit, then taxes, increase – rendering that argument obsolete.
The junta and cronies might have limited involvment now, but given their penchant for monopolizing other industries in Burma, it seems reasonable to presume that their investments in tourism would increase along with the tourists. The junta has taken apparently deliberate steps to destroy local economies in some areas for no other logical reason than to make life difficult for people. I can’t imagine they would sit idly by while locals profit off a growing tourism industry without taking their unfair share.
And this is besides what they’ve already done to destroy cultural heritage sites through ‘restoration’ in a bid to lure tourists. They obviously do have an interest in increased tourism, whether they currently profit from it or not.
It seems more and more people are leaning towards the middle ground of small-scale educated tourism is ok, ‘holiday-making’ tourism is not. I also think there is room for some tourism. The only problem with this is that most independent low-budget backpackers would not consider they aren’t the type of tourists who should be going – and those that would consider it and stay away, are probably exactly the ones who should be going.
New book by Thant Myint-U
[…] The Times has an article that pits Thant Myint-U against Mark Farmaner, the acting director of the Burma Campaign UK, on the question of tourism to […]
A friendly reception
“If these people need food, they will elect PM that promise food.” – Fall
Politicians are allowed to PROMISE in a democracy Fall, but NOT bribe or buy votes.
A friendly reception
“Only when people have enough to eat can we inculcate people with democratic culture”
After people have enough to eat, it would change to “Only when people have enough education…”. After that to “Only when people have enough experience…money, achievement, title…”, on and on until it end up with elitist group and totalitarian system where (supposedly) one best man rule.
Democracy was meant as a way to fulfil the need of the mass. If these people need food, they will elect PM that promise food. That simple. Democracy itself is patronage system. I think Bawornsak himself need to be inculcate with democratic culture.
A friendly reception
Sawarin: You are right. It is amazing what kind of clichees are held by the Bangkok academic and technocratic elite. One could shrug one’s shoulders, but these people are influential and base part of their actions on such nonsense. They seem to know so little about their own country.
Patiwat rightly points to the low poverty rate Thailand has, although this has little to do with Thaksin but has been a broader trend starting in the mid 80ties. Simply speaking, if vote buying was a matter of sufficient food or poverty, there would be hardly any vote buying in Thailand.
Moreover, similar acts employed by the bureaucracy are never looked critically upon. Paying villagers to turn up to greet PM Surayud or granting a travel allowance of 100 baht plus snacks or lunch for people recruited by the bureaucracy to attend public hearings on the draft constitution are done matter-of-factly. No talk of “participation buying.”
A friendly reception
I have written a short article in Thai based on your paper which we shall publish in the July edition of “Turn Left”. People need to read about your research.