Bangkok Forum’s Dreams

It should be acknowledged that early on activities were organized on a trail and error basis. Public responses were monitored to provide direction to the group. After six months, we felt that we have enough information to help guide us in formulating a more solid set of goals and objectives and other assessment tools.

Consequently, the core members decided to hold a “strategic planning” session on January 14-15 this year. The meeting was an attempt to clearly define Bangkok Forum’s objectives and role, identify strengths and weaknesses, and plan activities to achieve defined objectives (see Appendix 1). It was probably the most important meeting by forum members.

The meeting gave us a sense of direction and purpose. It focused clearly on issues of importance and identified activities needed to achieve the set goals.

To achieve the main aim, Bangkok Forum focuses on three major issues: decentralization of political and administrative power; public participation in the government’s decision-making process; and restoration of “the sense of community” in Bangkok.

1. Decentralization of political and administrative power: The Thai history has been one in which all political and administrative power is controlled by the central government in the capital city of Bangkok. This form of governing system might have been appropriate 100 years ago when Thailand was an agricultural country with a small population.

But as the country entered the modern age beginning with its modernization program in 1960, industrialization intensified and population rapidly increased. The country also began to encounter problems associated with an industrial society: rural migration to the cities, mainly Bangkok; rising serious and violent crime, especially drugs-related and sexual crimes; widening income gap; pollution of all kinds. The list goes on.

Three and a half decades later, Thailand has been striving to be an industrial powerhouse in Asia on the same rank as the other four Asian “tigers”, namely Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Korea. Some would claim that the country has achieved that coveted status of a newly industrialized country or NIC.

Yet, while the economic system has change, the political system remains essentially unchanged. Political power still centers in Bangkok; economic power is in the control of a handful of people, mainly Bangkok-based businessmen.

Meanwhile, social, economic, political and environmental problems multiply and intensify. Local governments lack real power to solve local problems and must defer to the central government.

Crisis after crisis develops. The central government is forced by circumstances and by its own short-sightedness to administer the nation on a crisis-management basis. It’s entire efforts are spent in trying to get over the immediate crisis and survive. Often, no time or strength is left to address the issues at the root cause.

Despite repeated calls for decentralization, the central government hangs on to its power, giving only lip service to the idea.

Even the Bangkok government which has been granted a certain degree of autonomy is still under the rein of the Interior Ministry. In many instances, it could not implement measures to solve problems itself without explicit approval and support from the ministry. That is why many of the problems have become chronic.

But while the BMA has suffered the humiliation and frustration of centralization, it, too,

are guilty of the same sin. It has essentially duplicated the central government’s power structure and is unwilling to decentralize or destructure despite the continuous assault of almost unsurmountable problems in many areas. Many of these problems could have been alleviated, if not solved, had the city authorities allowed local people to have more say in the development of their own localities.

Decentralization, then, lies at the heart of the nation’s illness.

2. Public participation in public affairs: But decentralization cannot be meaningful if citizens are not willing to play an active part in the development of localities and the society as a whole.

For better or for worse, public participation is a new concept in the Thai society, and the Thai people have to learn how to play the role. The nation had been under authoritarian control for much of its history. Even after the country has developed democratically over the last few decades, the centralized power structure remains in place.

Thai people have been conditioned to look up to the central authorities as a father figure to deliver goods and services and solve their problems. They have yet to truly realize that they have the potential and power to achieve many of the things themselves to improve their lives. The archaic patronage system is still alive and well in the late 20th century Thailand.

Now pressing problems have bombarded them from all sides. They are only beginning to realize that the central authorities are incapable of solving all the problems for them, or, worse, unwilling to let them solve the problems themselves.

If they are to lead a decent life, conserve the fast deteriorating environment, and improve the quality of life, they must wake up from their apathetic slumber and initiate action that will achieve those objectives. They cannot wait for the government alone to do it for them.

That means they have to become active citizens. They must understand that the word “public” does not refer to the government only, buy to themselves. They must get involved in the public affairs and take part in the decision-making process on matters that affect their own lives.

3. Restoration of the sense of community: Bangkok residents have for too long been used to being spoonfed by the government. Being the nation’s capital, Bangkok has benefited more than any other province the fruits of development and industrialization in all areas-economic prosperity, education, communications, health care, social services, and so forth.

Yet, at the same time, because the growth is one of uncontrolled-and practically unregulate-development, the city has also suffered, perhaps also more than any other province, the ills of maldevelopment. High crime rate, dirty air, polluted water, migraine-inducing noise, proliferation of sexually-oriented establishments, and world-famous traffic congestion-all combine to make life in Bangkok extremely unpleasant.

Communities with distinct characteristics and flavors used to dot Bangkok of old, making the city full of life and color. Now that greed-driven developers have been given a free rein in an over-heated economy, these communities have been rapidly replaced by high-rise buildings, expressways, and multi-million-baht commercial complexes.

With indeliberate speed, neighborhoods of people are dislocated, old neighbors parted, families seperated, and Bangkok turns into an impersonal metropolis that is void of life and warmth – a necropolis, as coined by Kraisak Chunhavan, the son of a former prime minister.

Bangkok would sooner or later crumble and rot if it is left to proceed in its current path. But who would be able to bring it back from the brink of disaster and pump it back to life? Not the central government nor the Bangkok government alone. Neither would succeed, even if they try, without the active participation and cooperation of the Bangkok people.

But if the Bangkok people are to be convinced to lead their hearts and hands in breathing life into Bangkok, they need to feel a part of the city. They need to feel belonged, that they have a stake in the well-being of the city, that their lives are here in the “City of the Angels”.

In other words, they need to feel a “sense of community” – a communion with Bangkok itself.

Since the beginning of this year, our activities have focused on these three issues, particularly the restoration of the sense of community to lay the ground work that will lead to the other fundamental changes.

A good example was an activity we co-organized with the people of Ban Krua community. This 200-year-old community has been threatened by the planned construction of a segment of the elevated expressway.

For several years, community residents have banded together to fight the authorities’ attempt to evict them. Unity is their strongest defense backed up by well-researched argument and supported by a large number of academicians and community activists.

The have won several battles so far but have yet won the war.

But their spirited fight and unity have given hope to other equally threatened communities and social activists that there is still some life left in Bangkok.