Published in Chiangmai City Life Magazine – October 2002

Chedi of Wat Ku Khao at Wieng Kum Kam, before and after restoration

CHIANG MAI, Thailand – 20 August 2002

Re-uniting Lan Na – Part 3

When modern tourism policies and ancient cultures meet, who wins and who loses? This month I look at the actions of local government and businesses, which may have contributed to poor performance in the North’s tourism industry. I ask readers to remember that hindsight is always clearer than foresight, and it is easy to be wise after the mistake. As such, any criticisms in this feature are tendered as tutorial examples in the hope they will be recognised and rectified in the future. (Sometimes it’s hard to not be a teacher).

During my lectures to Business Administration students at Chiang Mai University (CMU), I often give exercises in identifying trends and making predictions based on current affairs within the domestic business environments. In Chiang Mai, it is very easy to find examples from the tourism industry, and by each semester end, most students can demonstrate trend, problem analysis, and prediction skills. As this month’s introduction, here a few tasters to test your own skills.

This year, the Chiang Mai 700 Year Stadium hosted the “Chiang Mai Games”. A huge billboard was erected beside the moat’s southeast corner, and similar banners were spread around the city gates. Local knowledge identified the venue from the English lettering “700”, the year from the “2002”, and the event name, as that was in English. Yet, everything else was in Thai. A perfect teaser for tourists!

Every year, there is a Chiangmai Northern Food Festival in December (height of tourist season), but unless you know which magazine to read, you cannot find anything in English about the event, as all the overhead banners are in Thai, except for the event name and the year number. Even tourist magazine editors complain  the local TAT office does not send them details in time to meet their printing deadlines.

Every year, there are major computer and book fairs held in the CMU exhibition centre on Nimmenhaemin Road. Again, all of the on-street advertising is in Thai, and expatriates as well as visitors are left scratching their heads.

This year, I examined all the giant billboards and overhead banners for Songkram (well it is now, isn’t it?). Maybe I missed one, but the only English explanation I could find was on the billboard outside City Hall on the Mae Rim Road – 7 kilometres from the town centre, and well off the tourist routes. What effect does all this “local-language-only” advertising have on the opinions of foreign residents and visitors? Playing agent provocateur, I placed these examples in front of both Thai undergraduate classes, and gatherings of foreign expatriates and visitors.

The foreign reactions were predictable, amidst mutterings of xenophobia, foreigner-unfriendliness, etc. they simply stated that if the local organisers didn’t want their money, that was fine by them as they’d go to where they were wanted. The undergraduates reactions were not as predicted, but were encouraging to watch. It was one of the most heated debates of semester with two clear “camps” emerging.

On one hand were local students stating that it was stupidity, to not encourage foreign visitors to attend such events, as it would boost Chiang Mai’s revenues and reputation for foreigner friendliness. On the other hand was the non-local students’ attitude that these events were for Thais only, and visitors should “learn to read Thai”, or stay away and go to the “approved” tourist activities instead. As I wrote in this August’s CityLife, the ABAC poll in Bangkok, of pre-Songkran 2002, quoted the latter attitude as one reason for foreign visitors to not return.

So, what about those billboards and banners? Well even a single line of English across the bottom, giving venue, date, and cost, would be a major leap forward in encouraging foreign attendances, increasing revenues for the organisers, and activity options for visitors.

However, please check the English. As one hotel advertised recently, “Independent Daze Concert on July 4th with buffeting and champagne”, maybe their imperfect grammar and spelling was a more accurate description?

Recently, Chiang Mai has received the excellent new Arts & Culture Hall, located behind the Three Kings Memorial on Phrapokklao Road (Picture left). At the time of its inauguration, there was much fanfare in all forms of media available locally, including national TV and TAT’s website. Since then, nothing has been heard. Any partly intelligent businessman will tell you that ongoing promotion of the product is essential to build up an identity and relationship with customers. Chiang Mai now has three major, state-sponsored museums; the Arts & Culture Centre, the Hill Tribes Museum on Chotana Road, and the Chiang Mai National Museum near Wat Jed Yod.

However, were it not for the good will and generosity of tourist magazine editors including them on their guide maps, how many visitors would know about them? Such venues should be integrated into the Municipality’s promotion systems, as well as into the regional promotions of TAT and others. They should not just be left to tour companies profit-maximisation by including them as convenient stops on local motorised treks. Where are the “stand here for shuttle buses to the museums” signs that dot a number of European and Chinese cities?

Other local government venues are also being under utilised. Near Chang Puak bus terminus is the old ASEAN Games stadium. A large open air sports field with more than enough space to house regular “non-rainy season” music and culture events. It could host the Northern Fair venue in January each year, that massive, tourist high season event is currently held near the 700 Year Stadium, and is unknown to almost everyone who cannot read Thai script. Then there is the whole concept of  “Walking Street”. A weekly event named for the speed to which traffic is restricted when travelling west across the River Ping. That event could be relocated to the ASEAN Games stadium.

An “authorised shuttle bus” system could travel to and from the stadium, organised between the municipality and the Songthaew Owners Association, benefiting all concerned. The event could be more publicised by giving the authorised songthaews promotional banners to drape along their vehicles. Scheduled routes with recognised passenger stops could even be organised.

Although in the wrong location (in not just my opinion), this potentially is a major attraction for both domestic and international tourists. However, to be effective in drawing domestic tourists from outside Amphoe Muang, it should be on Saturday, not on Sunday – how long does it take to travel from Chiang Rai, Lampang or Sukhothai, let alone Phitsanulok or Bangkok? Placing it mid-weekend could encourage tourists nationwide to “weekend” in Chiang Mai, thus easing the effect of both the low season accommodation bookings slump, and the “Saturday night tourist turnaround” – when incoming and outgoing visitors are at Don Muang airport in Bangkok.

I have previously discussed Wieng Kum Kam, King Mengrai’s city built from 1286 and engulfed by floodwaters sometime in the 16th century. I am very pleased with what I have witnessed there during August 2002. Not only is the central government’s budget allocation being used to repair, restore, and expand the historical sites, but also I have encountered increasing numbers of independent and guided tourists around the ancient city. I have also noticed increasing numbers of tour-guides exploring the locations with a view to offering tours of the ruins. This is true eco-tourism – ecologically friendly & educational.

Khun Yaowapa Wongsawat’s plans for a light & sound show, exhibition centre, and “tourist infrastructure” is to be applauded, however such development of the site should be subjected to public and customer consultation. In this case, the main customers are foreign visitors, and residents, with worldwide experience of what makes history-tourism good. Using their experience and knowledge, could create a world-class attraction.

It may not be long before Wieng Kum Kam is not the quiet idyll it was at the start of this year. PLEASE do not overdevelop the site. Keep its charm as the quiet, peaceful location that it is now. Don’t repeat the “steps of Wat Phrathat Doi Suthep” and “hot springs of Mae Kachan” by adding souvenir stalls along every road. Please show understanding of the historical importance of “Chiang Mai’s Atlantis”.

The Governor and Mayor both have direct roles to play here, by ensuring the planning and zoning laws in existence are strictly enforced. In the medium and long term, it will yield far higher tourism revenues for the city and province. Please keep the handicrafts in the night bazaar and villages, where tourists want them to be, not at every place that a minibus stops to let the driver answer nature’s call. Additionally, please do not make the “Visitor’s Centre” into just another shopping stop.

Staying with the topic of medieval ruins, here is a quiz night question for readers …

Q: Before Chiang Mai and Wieng Kum Kam, how many cities existed inside the current Amphoe Muang, what were they called, and where were they?

A: There were five of them -

• Wieng Chetaburi (or Jet Lin),
• Wieng Suan Dok,
• Wieng Nopburi,
• Wieng or Chiang Ruak,
• and Wieng Doi Kham.

They were all Lawa cities and received the prefix “Wieng” because they were protected behind earth-embankment walls with dry moats.

The oldest pair, Doi Kham and Chetaburi, is believed to have existed as early as 2,500 years ago. The walls of Chetaburi can be seen in front of CMU to the west of the main gate. Part of the walls of Suan Dok can be seen beside and opposite the Bangkok Bank on Suthep Road; the current temple of that name is inside the old perimeter of this Wieng.

Nopburi was the site of Mengrai’s original Royal Compartment of Chiangmai, with Wat Chang Man at its centre. Ruak was a significant market place during Mengrai’s life, and in the 14th century, but is now buried beneath tarmac and concrete between the current Thapae Gate and the bridge over the Khlong Mae Kha on Thapae Road.
Doi Kham was at Doi Kham. They represent significant stories in Chiangmai’s history and are unrecognised by local people as well as tourists.

Over to the Fine Arts Department to redress this issue?

Although, according to their archaeologists, they have enough problems stopping locals from destroying the medieval walls around the moat, on Kamphaengdin Road, and at Wieng Kum Kam, without adding extra tasks to their workload.  This indicates that agencies at all levels, including educationalists, need to begin a comprehensive program of delivering knowledge about the importance of historic places to the local economy.

This garden-restaurant (photo at left) has been created by illegally demolishing the medieval earth and brick walls of the “Kampaengdin”. The bricks “robbed” from the national monument have been used to create the restaurant’s walls and pillars. Yet, conservation-conscious CityLife magazine later published a major “review” of “The Gallery” as a worthwhile dining choice.

Remember that ABAC poll? Historic places are the third most popular destination for foreign tourists. How much revenue is Chiang Mai losing through not taking advantage of this fact?

In closing this month’s look at tourism policies and effects, I’d like to preview a future article’s data analysis of figures from the Immigration Bureau of the Royal Thai Police.

Of the 10,061,950 tourist arrivals in 2001 ….
- East Asia supplied 58% (5,786,403), and Europe 25% (2,508,566).
- These regions’ average lengths of stay were 5.37 days, and 14.28 days respectively.

From the total number of “tourist days” in Thailand (84,047,369) ….
- East Asians accounted for 37% (31,072,984 days) and Europeans 43% (35,822,322).

Therefore, East Asia supplies 58% of the arrivals occupying 37% of bedroom nights, and history loving Europe supplies 25% of arrivals but occupies 43% of bedroom nights.  Hoteliers and guesthouse operators, factor this into your menus, staffs’ language training etc. Everyone else, factor it into your marketing.

Furthermore, when considering that ABAC poll … the most popular destinations (1, 2, 3) are islands, beaches, and historical places. Unless City Hall is going to copy Chiang Rai’s “Pattaya Noi” (maybe at Huay Tung Taew?), and develop the “Islands of the Nam Mae Ping”, then our number one sellable attraction is the history within the region. Don’t lose sight of the fact that shopping places were rated above cultural settings, and entertainment establishments above forest parks. With that in mind ski slopes and night safari parks are priority number seven to foreign visitors.

Should we develop the historical sites of Lan Na as tourist attractions to rival Ayutthaya, Bangkok, and Sukhothai? Should we be protecting and restoring the traditional architecture and open spaces within the city, as well as those outside it?

Can we lose the “Roads of the North” nickname, and return to the “Rose of the North”?

As always, it’s “up to you”.

—–

Notes for non-residents

Songkram = Thai word for “War”, the correct name of the festival is “Songkran” = wordplay to make the point.
Songthaew = the converted pick-up trucks that serve as combination buses and taxis in most Thai cities
Pattaya Noi = a riverside area in Chiang Rai City, created as a leisure area with sandy beach
Huay Tung Taew = a man-made reservoir 5 km north of Central Chiang Mai managed by the Thai Army as a weekend leisure area open to the public. It includes floating dining huts (Salas) and live music in the open air.
Ski Slopes & Night Safaris = controversial and (locally) largely unwanted major capital developments, initiated and authorised by Central Government, that encroach on the Doi Suthep / Doi Pui National Park immediately west of Chiang Mai City.

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?