Published in Chiangmai City Life Magazine – August 2002

CHIANG MAI, Thailand – 27 June 2002

Rebuilding Lan Na – Part 1

For many years, Thai governments have developed and promoted inbound tourism, to level the country’s balance of payments, and to sustainably generate employment. Notwithstanding seasonal pressures, this has generally been successful, and the announcement that over 10 million arrivals were recorded in 2001, boosted euphoria and confidence.  However, for the peoples of the North, there is uncertainty coming from that success.

During August 2001, the Thai Interior Minister initiated a clamp down to enforce old laws, and make night-entertainment places close variously between midnight and 2:00am.  This campaign has been largely successful, but has affected northern Thai citizens, and foreign investors, whose income opportunities are during the hours of darkness.

Initial reactions to the Social Order Policy came from entertainment venue owners and their staff.  Reduced opening times meant reduced earning opportunities, and there were some cases of severely curtailed incomes.  Yet by no means did only suffering come from this.  Many proprietors and staff, given time to witness the effects, began to partly agree with the measure – lower overheads helped profitability to improve for the majority of them.  The morale and effectiveness of staffs now having a semi-normal sleep regime also improved, after the initial protests.

An informal, late August 2001, survey of Chiang Mai’s European tourists, just after it began, revealed that 80% of the five-times, or greater, returnee-visitors thought the clampdown to be the last straw.  Stating disillusionment with The Land of Smiles due to double pricing, lack of sincerity, dirty cities, poor sanitation and other factors, their general declaration was, “Why waste two days travelling to Thailand, and then have to stop partying at midnight?  We can get to Spain in an hour and party until sunrise.  We won’t be back.”

Six months later at the height of the tourist season, a repeat survey showed diluted viewpoints, and a non-return declaration rate below 20%.  Whilst almost all were still disappointed by the new entertainment closing hours, and cited Thailand’s long held reputation as a nightlife destination, the types of tourist questioned were different – mainly older, or travelling with spouse and/or children.  There were fewer regular returnees in the sample.

However, one consideration is that August is the middle of the low season.  Many catering and hospitality businesses rely on the returnees for survival income at that time.  It is also the major annual holiday month in Europe and North America – where will they go this year?   Following the northern surveys, a pre-Songkran, April 2002, poll of 660 tourists in Bangkok, by Assumption Business Administration College (ABAC), showed that 87% wished to return to Thailand, and that 92.7% of those were happy with their visit.

Of the total surveyed, just less than half (49%) were first time visitors, 16.4% were on their second visit, and 8.4%, 3.4%, and 5.7% were on their 3rd, 4th, or 5th visits.  If they’re all so happy, why aren’t they returning?  The very low percentages of frequent returnees should be worrying, and appears to confirm the Chiang Mai tourist declarations of August 2001.   A TAT report in the Bangkok Post (June 2002) stated that year on year, during the first four months of 2002, an important arrivals sector was 7.45% down – the Japanese.  TAT blamed the World Cup, but that didn’t start until June.

In the same months, the report showed hotel occupancy was 6% down in Bangkok, 10% in Phuket, and a staggering 20% in Chiang Mai.   Although Thailand is distant from major affluent countries, long-haul airfares are relatively cheap, and were facilities and experiences meeting tourists’ expectations, they would be expected to return.  In the ABAC poll, reasons to not return were given as crime, (hot) weather, garbage / cleanliness, and unfriendliness from certain sectors of Thai people.   Significantly, 59.6% had used Thailand only as an extra stop whilst returning home from other destinations.  Thailand was not their primary destination and their visit was a convenient opportunity to break a long journey.

Such visitors are unlikely to stray far from their port of entry; they are therefore insignificant in calculating arrivals heading upcountry.  Such travellers may make up large portions of ABAC’s Bangkok returnees. Further confirming the North’s tourism deprivation problems, the poll showed tourist attraction popularity (from top down) as

1. beaches,
2. islands,
3. historical places,
4. shopping plazas,
5. cultural settings,
6. entertainment establishments,
7. forest parks.

The survey did not separate Thailand’s different regions and their individual merits.  That historical places are highly placed in third position is not surprising.  Places of historic interest or importance are big business throughout Europe and the “Old World” countries.

The former Lan Na Kingdom of northern Thailand has a huge supply of such locations not utilised efficiently as a means of attracting tourists.  Despite quantities of medieval city remains throughout the north, it is our southern neighbours, which receive world attention.  Sukhothai (a kingdom that collapsed before Lan Na did), Ayutthaya (which rose to power during the Lan Na period), and Phimai (Khmer, not Thai), all receive more tourist promotion and international recognition than northern cities. We are not alone; many significant Northeast city-sites are also ignored on the national and international tourism stage.  Now, Ayutthaya is to be cleaned up and further promoted with the addition of evening attractions to the old city.

The “stay-at-home” Millennium holiday of New Year 1999/2000, and the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks, compounded falling tourist numbers due to reduced air travel.   The Millennium was an arrivals disaster for northern Thailand and tourism generally in Asia, but then, so were non-existent celebrations to compete with western mega-parties.  “Why go to a boring Asian outpost when all this is happening in the West?”  A well thought out TAT policy that one was not, and lack of national preparation for the event contributed to the collapse of many smaller businesses.  Even remote, mid-Pacific islands near the International Dateline were better promoted with “See the first sunrise of the new millennium – First!” slogans.

Less obvious nationally, but crystal clear to northern venue operators, has been the effects of Tourism Authority promotions for southern destinations over the years.  “The beaches, the islands, the reefs” is the war cry of the white hordes emerging from Don Muang International Airport.

During Songkran 2000, in one twelve hour period, less than twenty foreigners took trains north from Bangkok, yet Thais could not buy tickets for the southbound trains.  An observation supported by the ABAC poll.

Murdered foreigners in the north during 2000/2001 had an additional impact on our arrivals, with western embassies issuing travel cautions.

Many Chiang Mai accommodation and entertainment proprietors say they believe that foreign tourist numbers are falling year on year.  Some individual major venues disagree, stating they see annually increasing bookings.

However, they fail to verify if the increases are Thai nationals responding to the Government’s “holiday at home” campaigns aimed at improving cross border cash flows. Nor do they use seasonal reasoning in their calculations; whilst many hotels and guesthouses trumpeted 90% or higher occupancy during Songkran 2002, where are their figures for the preceding and successive months?  How many of the guests were Bangkok residents running riot at the Thai New Year, rather than international arrivals?  Why did they not have the same 100% occupancy as in 2000 when Chiang Rai hospitals were renting out private beds as if they were hotels?

PM Thaksin’s plan to convert Ko Chang into a second Phuket will not help.  Where are the major northern developments to spread the national infrastructure’s load?   In May 2002 Chiang Mai’s Governor announced funds were planned for Chiang Mai’s own “Sukhothai / Ayutthaya” at Wieng Kum Kam, why was it not developed in the same way as other medieval cities, and promoted as a major tourist attraction, after Fine Arts Department excavations of the mid and late 1980’s?  Then it could have been proposed as a World Heritage Site.

Further, why has Chiang Mai’s own historic Lan Na architecture been demolished wholesale in favour of corridors of concrete, Chinese-style shop houses, and who is overseeing the new house constructions at Wieng Kum Kam this year?

Chiang Rai recently announced that it would remodel the city to reflect its Lan Na heritage.  Buildings such as their airport and shop-houses are being modified to display traditional, regional architectural features, including properties in private ownership.  Addressing dirty and untidy cities issues, shop-houses are being given parking lots and garbage bins.  Their local government is giving away pre-drawn plans for new houses, and tax breaks on the construction materials.  They are developing many extra inner city parks and green spaces.  Shopping areas are being tidied up and walking streets introduced.  Pattaya is also completing a three-year major clean up this year.

As Khun Santipab, editor of one Chiangmai magazine commented, “If you are a visitor here, what do you expect to see?  It should be temples, traditional houses, houses on stilts, floating houses, traditional architecture and costume, language, folk culture, all aspects of which used to impress many visitors … but here in Chiangmai we cannot find these things anymore.”

The lack of enforcement of zoning and planning regulations rests firmly at the doors of local government offices.  Accessible via links on http://www.thaigov.go.th/ is the Internet presence of the National Department of City Planning.  It shows that contrary to popular belief, the regulators and laws do exist, yet how many people obey them?

All of the above are suppressive pressures for “income streams” of Lan Na Thais, both Khon Muang and Khon Tai, involved in tourism.  For both groups, pickings are getting slim.  The once healthy feed of inbound cash now begins to look like leftovers from an under-provisioned banquet.  Some familiar urban faces have already returned to their thatched rural homes hoping for daily tourist minibuses.  Yet, the camera-toting trekkers are dwindling too.  At the 2001-2002 high season peak, some agents reported empty seats on village bound minibuses, something unheard of a few years ago.

Additional factors are affecting the trekking industry, including price differences for Thais and foreigners to enter attractions such as national parks, waterfalls, and temples.  Tour operators objected to US$5 entrance fees for Wat Phrathat Doi Suthep (free for Thais), and fought the 20% Thai Airways domestic fare rises; yet remained silent about the 200 Baht National Park entry charges (Thais 20 Baht), which was a mistake.

In March 2002, for two hours, the Doi Suthep waterfall entry post was monitored.  Seventeen foreigner visitors arrived by motorbike.  Sixteen rode away without entering after reading the entry charges sign.  No minibuses arrived.

At 20 Baht for all, would they and many others have entered?  Do fees now collected cover the cost of the gate guards?

During Songkran 2002, I carried out a similar thirty-minute exercise at Khao Yai National Park near Pak Chong, not Northern, but a useful indicator to the trend.  Eleven cars and seven motorbikes carrying foreigners turned away due to prejudicial entry charges.  They were not “khee nee-ow” tourists; they indicated foreigners’ feelings concerning official double pricing policies.

When Thai Airways introduced the 20% domestic fares hike last year, followed by “Thai-only” 10% – 20% discount packages (after local protests), did they impact northern province arrivals by making the service less attractive to nationality disadvantaged passengers?  I suspect so, but am unable to obtain passenger nationality stats to prove or disprove this.

An important question about the topic, mooted by a very few pundits, was, “When Thai Domestic increased their fares, was the timing designed to divert attention from the introduction of several new domestic-service budget airlines?  Those airlines owned by prominent military and political figures, which from launch undercut Thai’s new prices on the same routes whilst still being more expensive than Thai’s original fares?”  Surely not?  Yet, who are now the sole operators on those routes?

Either way, domestic air-passengers today pay substantially more than they did last year.  The chief of Bangkok Airways believes the government should pull out of controlling internal aviation prices and routes, leaving it to market forces.  He further states the government’s role should be restricted to facility and passenger security.   National tourism policy therefore, may be increasing international arrivals into the Kingdom, whilst at the same time diverting them away from the North.

A few brave souls are speaking out or attempting to redress this disparity, but we all have to promote the region and improve its attractions.  Whilst “Golden Triangle” has a certain attraction to tourists, I believe it would be better to reflect more correctly, the region’s older history.

Co-operating with China, Laos, and Myanmar, an international history trail could be created under the banner, “Lan Na – Four New Countries, One Old Kingdom”.  Together our attractions are historical, natural, and commercial.  We each have to draw attention to the benefit of visiting our neighbours and ourselves.   We have to show the world outside Thailand, that Lan Na is unique, unified, and welcoming.

Send the message, “We want to meet you – more than once”.

Think about it is all I ask.

—–

The Reuniting Lanna Series
Part 1 – A New Social Order
Part 2 – Voiceless in the Night
Part 3 – Missed Tourism Opportunities
Part 4 – Fair Shares?