Samak To Relocate 1,700 Slums Out Of Bangkok

[TAWP]

Meerkat, what you fail to grasp is that money cannot be printed to make people richer. You cannot over night make poor people rich (by giving each and everyone a big check) and proclaim the problem gone. The reality is that there will always be poor people and rich people. And the middle class - the segment of society that pays all the taxes - would suffer if the poor was removed from the equation. The rich always survives, they eat of the middle class more than anything.

[Meerkat]

TAWP, of course you can't make poor people rich or solve the nation's poverty problems overnight. Where did I say you could? It's a ridiculous notion and I'm a bit taken aback that you've read so much (wrongly) into my two modest posts on this thread.

That does not mean that society shouldn't try and improve the living standards of the poorest; those that live in the slums in rickety shacks, with poor water, poor sanitation and poor prospects. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the middle classes would suffer if the poor were better off though - surely increasing the wealth of the nation as a whole would be a good thing. That the middle classes might have to pay their maids and drivers more as we now do in our home countries, well tough - it's still not a proper justification to try and keep them down, as I saw implied in the quoted article. Jeez, I'm a Tory - a Thatcherite if I'm to be pigeonholed - but even I believe that there are certain levels of poverty below which nobody should have to exist and that the state (read taxpayers) should help prevent.

As to Samak's plan, there seems precious little in the way of detail to comment upon it, at least as to what I've found in the English language press, although it's funny (though not surprising given the quality of the press here) that there's more space given to opinion against it than there is to elaborating as to exactly what it is! If it means literally tearing up the shacks and simply rebuilding them out of sight somewhere, which seems to be the view of some here, then obviously I'd be against it. If it was meant as part of a proper long-term rehousing/social welfare initiative, similar let's say to what Hong Kong did in the 50s and 60s after the awful slum fires there, then - broadly speaking and still subject to the minutiae - I'd be for it. The proposed new property taxes would be a fitting way of funding such an exercise, although I'd be amazed if they ever actually get passed.

[TAWP]

I think it was you that read too much into the original article you commented about. He might not have sugar-coated it, but fact remains that it's better for middle class people to _know_ that shoveling poor people away and keeping noses high while complaining about slums isn't even in their own interest. What would be in their own interest is helping poor people to alleviate them selfs out of their situation. Since it would reduce drug use and crime, both which are affecting - again - middle class.

In a world of real politik one has to anchor implementations that help others by pointing out that we all benefit from them.

[Heng]

Nah, I think an improved bussing system to get them in and out of town would be better. It's no different than having a construction worker camp site... you don't always have to have it right next to the construction site. You can have it an hour away if you want. It just means your workers get up a little earlier and get home later, and you have to spend a bit more on transport costs (not much your trucks are LPG/CNG).

[majorpacman]

pig face(samak) and cronies are still the corrupt government like Thaksin. Sooner are later, i hope the thai people will demand a better government for themselves or systems that works.

btw, thai people called samak, pig face.

[sriracha john]

That's why he's the Leader of the PPP...

[jitagon]

I think it was you that read too much into the original article you commented about. He might not have sugar-coated it, but fact remains that it's better for middle class people to _know_ that shoveling poor people away and keeping noses high while complaining about slums isn't even in their own interest. What would be in their own interest is helping poor people to alleviate them selfs out of their situation. Since it would reduce drug use and crime, both which are affecting - again - middle class.

In a world of real politik one has to anchor implementations that help others by pointing out that we all benefit from them.

Nah, I think an improved bussing system to get them in and out of town would be better. It's no different than having a construction worker camp site... you don't always have to have it right next to the construction site. You can have it an hour away if you want. It just means your workers get up a little earlier and get home later, and you have to spend a bit more on transport costs (not much your trucks are LPG/CNG).

I can't believe some of the posts on this issue. The 'poor' are not another species you know! The poor suffer just as much, if not more from the effects of their own poverty through drug related and simply not having enough to eat, theft amidst themselves. And what is this, just bus them in? Where are we? Apartheid South Africa?!

As someone said on another thread, those in the West forget how poverty shapes thinking. And no one, but no one, suffers like the poor.

I hope none of you find yourselves below the breadline in such an uncaring country, with no welfare support, amongst the kinds of attitudes shown in both the Thai government and the expat community. For shame.

[TAWP]

Try to read the whole post before going off on a rant.

The point is that the message was aimed at middle class and hence the wording will be towards how the middle class are affected. Unless you claim that crime and drug abuse [amongst poor] has no effect at all on the middle class, then you really have no point...

[Plus]

Samak's idea is like saying that the poor are unfit to live in the city. He should think about improving their lives as they are, and where they are.

He's dealing with them as if they are not citizens with any rights and can be uprooted and sent anywhere at whim.

[Los78]

Samak's idea is like saying that the poor are unfit to live in the city. He should think about improving their lives as they are, and where they are.

He's dealing with them as if they are not citizens with any rights and can be uprooted and sent anywhere at whim.

I have seen a lot of these free buses driving around.... hmmm I dont think you can name many countries that offer free public transport. In defence of the government it is helping the poorer classes more then any other country in this region. In regards to the slums well again if you look at modern cities any where in the world they have no slums in their down town. Singapore had them about 20 years ago I dont see why Bangkok should continue having them in the down town area. I am all for relocating the slums and making down town a better and more vibrant place.

[plachon]

Samak's idea is like saying that the poor are unfit to live in the city. He should think about improving their lives as they are, and where they are.

He's dealing with them as if they are not citizens with any rights and can be uprooted and sent anywhere at whim.

I have seen a lot of these free buses driving around.... hmmm I dont think you can name many countries that offer free public transport. In defence of the government it is helping the poorer classes more then any other country in this region. In regards to the slums well again if you look at modern cities any where in the world they have no slums in their down town. Singapore had them about 20 years ago I dont see why Bangkok should continue having them in the down town area. I am all for relocating the slums and making down town a better and more vibrant place.

Would you like to succinctly explain and justify the incredible statement that the present (lame-duck) Samak govt is "helping the poorer classes more than any other country in the region".

I've seen some amazing claims in the past from you pro-Toxin boys, but this is the pinnacle of amazingness, and definitely warrants further analysis into the logic behind your ideology.

[jfchandler]

I'll have a little more faith in the government's ability to deal with BKK's slums problem when they first can manage to maintain a sidewalk that's fit for walking anywhere in the metropolis.... Until then, I've got my doubts!!!

And, if anyone seriously believes the announced plan really intends to convert all that BKK land (wherever it is) into new park space, I've also got some development plans I'd be more than happy to discuss with you...

[Tony Clifton]

Samak's idea is like saying that the poor are unfit to live in the city. He should think about improving their lives as they are, and where they are.

He's dealing with them as if they are not citizens with any rights and can be uprooted and sent anywhere at whim.

I have seen a lot of these free buses driving around.... hmmm I dont think you can name many countries that offer free public transport. In defence of the government it is helping the poorer classes more then any other country in this region. In regards to the slums well again if you look at modern cities any where in the world they have no slums in their down town. Singapore had them about 20 years ago I dont see why Bangkok should continue having them in the down town area. I am all for relocating the slums and making down town a better and more vibrant place.

Do you remember Thaksin's 10 baht noodle stalls 3 years ago? They disappeared as fast as they came. Their only purpose was for PR and fool the masses, mostly the poor were his favourite targets.

Now, replace noodles with free buses. Won't last any longer than the 10 baht noodles.

[TAWP]

Samak's idea is like saying that the poor are unfit to live in the city. He should think about improving their lives as they are, and where they are.

He's dealing with them as if they are not citizens with any rights and can be uprooted and sent anywhere at whim.

I have seen a lot of these free buses driving around.... hmmm I dont think you can name many countries that offer free public transport. In defence of the government it is helping the poorer classes more then any other country in this region.

Free transportation for 6 months is better help of the poor better than any other country in the region? And when it goes back to costing money and nothing else has changed, what has it helped? Delayed the inevitable? Just wait for an election to pass and it will be long gone...

In regards to the slums well again if you look at modern cities any where in the world they have no slums in their down town. Singapore had them about 20 years ago I dont see why Bangkok should continue having them in the down town area. I am all for relocating the slums and making down town a better and more vibrant place.

I would prefer actually improving the situation of the poor than just relocating then so you don't have to see them.

Right now they are 'in the way' of valuable land, that is why they want to relocate them. It's not out of charity. If being forcefully moved to a place with no jobs or far away from your current job is considered 'charity'...

[sriracha john]

The plan to replace slums with parks

PM Samak Sundaravej's plan to remove all city slums, replacing them with public parks is appalling, but not surprising. It's no surprise either that his controversial plan (or ultimate dream?) has triggered an outcry from the urban poor and housing activists, who say it will affect hundreds of thousands of slum dwellers. The plan does reflect one fact about our food-loving PM: he is a veteran politician who represents people of the old world. Samak will make no change and it is not realistic, by any means, to expect him to change. Doubtless, his current status as head of a party known for its super populist policies, will not help in this case, either. Perhaps the sight of the poor may be an eyesore for the old man who, during the APEC summit in 2003, made news headlines by ordering city officials to sweep the homeless - as well as stray dogs - from the streets so that foreign dignitaries and guests would not have to see them. It is evident Samak is simply being true to his own self-asserting personality, expressing

Commentary continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/200808_News/20Aug2008_news23.php

================================================================

Mustn't forget Samak's affinity for the poor...

Gigantic banner unfurled to hide slum - The Nation, October 17, 2003

Arguably the world's largest banner, stretching over half a kilometre long and standing at about the height of a four-storey building, was unfurled in Bangkok to hide an unsightly slum from delegates attending the APEC summit.

[sriracha john]

EDITORIAL

Eviction move will backfire

No one can accuse PM Samak of lacking a flair for the dramatic. His approach to problem-solving while serving as Bangkok Governor was to exile the problem to the provinces, a tactic not always appreciated by those living in rural communities. Homeless people, stray dogs, and noisy, polluting two-stroke motorcycles all received their orders to move out, normally just ahead of an image-building international event. Now he has brought his moving and shaking to the office of PM. This time, though, the target is 1,700 slum communities, which, he told a week ago, will have to relocate themselves outside the capital in the near future so he can create some more parks. If this was a policy statement it was sorely lacking in detail. But if it was designed to provide a talking point and get a reaction, it succeeded. Representatives from poor communities descended on Government House to point out that this flew in the face of everything they had been promised. The claim is a valid one because the Ban Mankong and Ban Ua-arthorn homebuilding and land-sharing projects were intended to replace the slums and avoid any more forced relocations of the type now contemplated. Their launch was backed by a vow from then-PM Thaksin in 2003 to eradicate slums from Bangkok within five years, or by the end of 2008. He also promised to eliminate poverty, but that did not happen either, as the nation's six million people currently living below the poverty line know well. The Ban Mankong and Ban Ua-Arthorn housing projects were touted as the solution to the shortage of affordable accommodation and, while there were some successes, Ban Ua-Arthorn schemes gained notoriety as showpieces of corruption. This took the form of ill-fitting doors, roofs prone to blow away in the wind, holes and cracks in foundations, walls and ceilings, dangerous electrical outlets and all-round sub-standard construction. It can only be a matter of time before such low-quality, but not inexpensive, public housing projects begin to revert to slums again, completing a vicious circle. And whose fault will that be? This appalling quality control was a disappointment because the housing projects had been seen as providing opportunities at the lower end of the market, during a time of soaring land prices fuelled by industrialisation and commercial development. Now Samak is proposing to order many who work at construction sites, factories, and in the service industry to move out of their rickety homes and then keep going until they are out of the city altogether. Presumably their choice would then be to endure a long, arduous and expensive commute, or swell the ranks of the unemployed. Could he have failed to realise that much of the problem stems from populist government schemes to help the rural poor, which have had the side-effect of shifting the burden of poverty from the countryside to the slums of the capital? That rural-urban drift must be discouraged, and the defective low-cost housing developments fixed and upgraded. Of course, new parks would be nice, but these have been promised before, only to suddenly turn into condos, shopping centres, and office blocks because the locations are prime real estate. That is

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.net/230808_News/23Aug2008_news16.php

[dumball]

EDITORIAL

Eviction move will backfire

No one can accuse PM Samak of lacking a flair for the dramatic. His approach to problem-solving while serving as Bangkok Governor was to exile the problem to the provinces, a tactic not always appreciated by those living in rural communities. Homeless people, stray dogs, and noisy, polluting two-stroke motorcycles all received their orders to move out, normally just ahead of an image-building international event. Now he has brought his moving and shaking to the office of PM. This time, though, the target is 1,700 slum communities, which, he told a week ago, will have to relocate themselves outside the capital in the near future so he can create some more parks. If this was a policy statement it was sorely lacking in detail. But if it was designed to provide a talking point and get a reaction, it succeeded. Representatives from poor communities descended on Government House to point out that this flew in the face of everything they had been promised. The claim is a valid one because the Ban Mankong and Ban Ua-arthorn homebuilding and land-sharing projects were intended to replace the slums and avoid any more forced relocations of the type now contemplated. Their launch was backed by a vow from then-PM Thaksin in 2003 to eradicate slums from Bangkok within five years, or by the end of 2008. He also promised to eliminate poverty, but that did not happen either, as the nation's six million people currently living below the poverty line know well. The Ban Mankong and Ban Ua-Arthorn housing projects were touted as the solution to the shortage of affordable accommodation and, while there were some successes, Ban Ua-Arthorn schemes gained notoriety as showpieces of corruption. This took the form of ill-fitting doors, roofs prone to blow away in the wind, holes and cracks in foundations, walls and ceilings, dangerous electrical outlets and all-round sub-standard construction. It can only be a matter of time before such low-quality, but not inexpensive, public housing projects begin to revert to slums again, completing a vicious circle. And whose fault will that be? This appalling quality control was a disappointment because the housing projects had been seen as providing opportunities at the lower end of the market, during a time of soaring land prices fuelled by industrialisation and commercial development. Now Samak is proposing to order many who work at construction sites, factories, and in the service industry to move out of their rickety homes and then keep going until they are out of the city altogether. Presumably their choice would then be to endure a long, arduous and expensive commute, or swell the ranks of the unemployed. Could he have failed to realise that much of the problem stems from populist government schemes to help the rural poor, which have had the side-effect of shifting the burden of poverty from the countryside to the slums of the capital? That rural-urban drift must be discouraged, and the defective low-cost housing developments fixed and upgraded. Of course, new parks would be nice, but these have been promised before, only to suddenly turn into condos, shopping centres, and office blocks because the locations are prime real estate. That is

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.net/230808_News/23Aug2008_news16.php

The majority of posts here seem to reflect the suggestion to 'Relocate the poor ' as a good idea , we will not need to walk through that kind of S##t or even look at it any more , good for BKK , good for us , and the poor will be re-located in a place with better sanitation etc giving us beatiful parks we will be able to go jogging in .Look at Cambodia , same , same thinking by the government (or so it was proffessed) , they drove the poor off of thier sites where they had lived and eked out an existance for many years , some even had deeds of ownership , police , troops , bull-dozers solved that minor problem . Billions of dollars payed for the cleared lands by foreign developers with no sign of where the money went , for that matter , in most cases even where the original habitants had been 'Re-located '.As has been noted by some humanitarians , the poor people are human beings also , not chaff to be blown away indiscriminatly at some rich persons whim , shame on you for being in agreance with popular 'Pig-face '.

Developers should be made responsible for the relocation of these poor individuals into low-cost housing at a location they will still be able to make a living , helping to SOLVE the problem as apposed to just brushing it under the carpet , maepenrai bullshit .

[sriracha john]

the poor people are human beings also , not chaff to be blown away indiscriminately at some rich persons whim , shame on you for being in agreeance with popular 'Pig-face '.

yes... I agree.

and on another point:

EDITORIAL

this flew in the face of everything they had been promised. The claim is a valid one because the Ban Mankong and Ban Ua-arthorn homebuilding and land-sharing projects were intended to replace the slums and avoid any more forced relocations of the type now contemplated. Their launch was backed by a vow from then-PM Thaksin in 2003 to eradicate slums from Bangkok within five years, or by the end of 2008. He also promised to eliminate poverty, but that did not happen either, as the nation's six million people currently living below the poverty line know well. The Ban Mankong and Ban Ua-Arthorn housing projects were touted as the solution to the shortage of affordable accommodation and, while there were some successes, Ban Ua-Arthorn schemes gained notoriety as showpieces of corruption. This took the form of ill-fitting doors, roofs prone to blow away in the wind, holes and cracks in foundations, walls and ceilings, dangerous electrical outlets and all-round sub-standard construction. It can only be a matter of time before such low-quality, but not inexpensive, public housing projects begin to revert to slums again, completing a vicious circle. And whose fault will that be?

It's the CEO's fault... it was his baby.... and they're preparing a special board meeting for him should he ever return to corporate headquarters...

Attorney-General Likely to Launch Further Indictments against Thaksin

It seems that deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his close aides will be facing more lawsuits after the Attorney-General's Office and the graft-fighting panel reached an agreement over four corruption charges.

The spokesperson for the Office of the Attorney-General, or OAG, Thanapij Mulpruek has revealed that his agency has already reached an agreement with the National Counter Corruption Commission over their conflicting issue of the investigation reports for charges against Thaksin Shinawatra's administration.

The charges include the controversial purchase of baggage conveyors and the CTX bomb scanners at Suvarnabhumi Airport, the electricity cable laying project at the same airport, the Ua-Arthorn Housing Project, and the abuse of power.

- Thailand Outlook / 21-08-08

Edited August 23, 2008 by sriracha john

[bluesmith]

Would I be right in saying so we are talking about moving 500,000 people here may be more or are the slums going to be turned into parks and the people sleep there. Thailand has a lot problems that should delt with before they think about moving slums.

[Heng]

Developers should be made responsible for the relocation of these poor individuals into low-cost housing at a location they will still be able to make a living , helping to SOLVE the problem as apposed to just brushing it under the carpet , maepenrai bullshit .

It's no different than if you buy a foreclosed upon house with squatters (in the US, the police and some private companies often provide the eviction services). Do you purchase or build a new place for the squatters to live somewhere else? Of course not.

[Plus]

You are talking about private land while Samak was talking about slums on public land that he wanted to convert to parks. Or rent out to private developers to build whatever they want, as some cynics among us expect.

Evicting squatters is an entirely different matter.

[Journalist]

^Thats right. This would state-owned land containing squatters.

Not much he can do with private land.

Thailand lacks efficient 'compulsory purchase' laws. (If they did have them, then Sukhumvit Rd would be a couple of lanes wider probably.

[dumball]

Developers should be made responsible for the relocation of these poor individuals into low-cost housing at a location they will still be able to make a living , helping to SOLVE the problem as apposed to just brushing it under the carpet , maepenrai bullshit .

It's no different than if you buy a foreclosed upon house with squatters (in the US, the police and some private companies often provide the eviction services). Do you purchase or build a new place for the squatters to live somewhere else? Of course not.

There is no social network for the evicted people to fall back on in Thailand as there is in the USofA , i think , correct me if i am wrong , you are talking apples and oranges , unless you bring in the monk-hood who are to some extent a welfare group for young people who cannot be cared for by the parent(s) .

[soundman]

Thailand lacks efficient 'compulsory purchase' laws. (If they did have them, then Sukhumvit Rd would be a couple of lanes wider probably.

Not really, compulsory purchases are common place in Thailand. Valuation of the property concerned is usually the property departments valuation of a particular area, which BTW,is usually inflated for the purpose of collecting more tax on sales of property. (If you buy a property for 20,000B per rai, and the property department values it at 80,000B per rai, you will have to pay tax on the larger amount)

Apply that to the value of Sukhumvit road (at 100kB per wah ) and to buy out a 10 kilometre section would bankrupt the government!

Cheers,

Soundman.

[Heng]

You are talking about private land while Samak was talking about slums on public land that he wanted to convert to parks. Or rent out to private developers to build whatever they want, as some cynics among us expect.

Evicting squatters is an entirely different matter.

There's no difference between squatting on private or public land. That public land is the 'private' property of 65 million people, not a few thousand people (who act as if they are private owners).

[Heng]

Developers should be made responsible for the relocation of these poor individuals into low-cost housing at a location they will still be able to make a living , helping to SOLVE the problem as apposed to just brushing it under the carpet , maepenrai bullshit .

It's no different than if you buy a foreclosed upon house with squatters (in the US, the police and some private companies often provide the eviction services). Do you purchase or build a new place for the squatters to live somewhere else? Of course not.

There is no social network for the evicted people to fall back on in Thailand as there is in the USofA , i think , correct me if i am wrong , you are talking apples and oranges , unless you bring in the monk-hood who are to some extent a welfare group for young people who cannot be cared for by the parent(s) .

Apples and apples actually. I'm not talking about the financial status of these folks, I'm talking about the fact that they are trespassing. Trespassing is trespassing.

[soundman]

Apples and apples actually. I'm not talking about the financial status of these folks, I'm talking about the fact that they are trespassing. Trespassing is trespassing.

Reminds of a funny situation a couple of years ago.

I'm in Lumpini police station filling out some paperwork on a traffic accident & the local boys march four poor looking fishermen, along with a few plastic containers full of fish, in through the door & tell the desk clerk to "book em danno".

"What with?" asks the clerk.

"Trespassing on government property."

"What evidence do you have?"

"There - in the buckets."

"What the h$ll do you want me to do with that?"

"Put it in the evidence room of course!" replied the arresting detective.

[TAWP]

Image that fits, from Wizard of Id: http://www.starduck.net/comics/wizardofid/20080823/

[Plus]

You are talking about private land while Samak was talking about slums on public land that he wanted to convert to parks. Or rent out to private developers to build whatever they want, as some cynics among us expect.

Evicting squatters is an entirely different matter.

There's no difference between squatting on private or public land. That public land is the 'private' property of 65 million people, not a few thousand people (who act as if they are private owners).

Slum dwellers are not exactly squatters and tresspassers, at least state agencies that own the land don't treat them like that, and they show no intention of relocating them at this point. It's Samak's own idea, and he hasn't called them squatters either.

You also can't evict them from the country just because they don't own any land that is private property of 65 million people.

[Heng]

You are talking about private land while Samak was talking about slums on public land that he wanted to convert to parks. Or rent out to private developers to build whatever they want, as some cynics among us expect.

Evicting squatters is an entirely different matter.

There's no difference between squatting on private or public land. That public land is the 'private' property of 65 million people, not a few thousand people (who act as if they are private owners).

Slum dwellers are not exactly squatters and tresspassers, at least state agencies that own the land don't treat them like that, and they show no intention of relocating them at this point. It's Samak's own idea, and he hasn't called them squatters either.

You also can't evict them from the country just because they don't own any land that is private property of 65 million people.

It doesn't matter how they are treated. Just because someone sets up a shack in front of your house -say blocking your driveway- and no one has yet to label them anything doesn't mean they aren't squatting on public property. These folks attempt to take over unoccupied (but not unowned) land and use and protect it as if it were there own.