31.12.2006
.
.
Tourism to Burma
_ By Derek Tonkin
After reading Ms. Raluca’s article "Not Going" in last week’s BURMA DIGEST, a few points need to made here: _
I would point out that much of what you say relates to events which happened over 10 years ago. That does not make them any less true historically, but life moves on. As regards the Burma Action Group's "Burma: An Alternative Guide" first published in 1995, I have myself commended this publication. In a commentary (full text attached) dated 18 August 2003 I wrote:
"Accounts of forced labour in Burma make depressing reading. A sober account of these appalling practices in relation to the tourist industry is contained in 'Burma: An Alternative Guide' published in 1995 by the Burma Action Group/Tourism Concern, revised in 1996. It provides evidence, generally beyond dispute, not only of forced labour practices, but also of forced relocations of population designed to 'beautify' tourist areas and to provide land for tourist facilities."
Since the early 1990s, the incidence of forced labour at least in Central Burma is generally agreed to have declined. As the then ILO Liaison Officer in Rangoon Mme Hong Trang Perret-Nguyen commented in "The Irrawaddy" of March 2003:
"I have very good contact with the authorities. They have an open-door policy for me and I have been able to travel also.......My impression is that there is less use of forced labour in the central part of Myanmar. But the situation in the border area is still serious....The authorities tend to pay the people they request to work. So they give them some wages, which generally are still much below the market rate.......What I have noted from the civil administration is a tendency to use less forced labour. So the roads, for instance, the big roads are mainly constructed using contractors or companies. So that is quite clear, you can see it and you can hear it. While in the regions where the army has a heavy presence, the situation continues to be serious. And it is the army which enforces mainly forced labour. And it is the Army which is the problem, in terms of action too."
Subsequent ILO reports have confirmed this assessment. When you say that: "A massive programme of development is being carried out to make the country ready for tourists. An estimated two million people including children have been forced into slave labour alongside prison chain gangs", with all respect I do not think you will find a single report from the ILO Liaison Officer in Burma made this century which in any way supports such allegations. Even Daw Aung San Suu Kyi agreed in May 2002 - see page 37 of the International Labour Conference Special Sitting record at: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc91/pdf/pr-24p3.pdf that "the problem has improved somewhat since the early 1990s and the ILO had definitely played a role in this". The concerns which the ILO have expressed over the last five years relate to the continuance of forced labour in areas under military control, notably forced portering and compulsory farm labour, and also to the repressive acts taken against individuals who have dared to complain of forced labour which still occurs elsewhere. There is ample reason for the ILO to feel that they may have no alternative but to approach the International Court of Justice, but this is not related to supposed abuses of forced labour on tourist infrastructure since 1 January 2000.
You allege that tourists visiting Burma "will still be staying in hotels constructed with the use of forced labour built in areas people have been evacuated from". I would be very surprised if you could name a single international class hotel in Burma which has been constructed with the use of forced labour. I know of none. The Report of the Committee of Enquiry set up by the International Labour Organization into Forced Labour in Myanmar published in July 1998 reported a deposition by the Government of Myanmar recorded in paragraph 116 of the Report, that:
"The Government [of Myanmar] stated that, upon its invitation, foreign investors had built hotels in Yangon, Mandalay and Bagan etc. under a system known as Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT). These foreign companies with 100 per cent investment had their own contractors who in turn appointed local subcontractors, who recruited local skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled workers. The competition or demand for local workers was very keen, inducement in the form of high wages was offered by the foreign companies and the question of forced labour did not arise [my emphasis – DT]. In addition, local labour law and procedures saw to it that equitable wages and proper conditions of work were observed by the companies. In most cases these subcontractors went through the labour exchanges run by the Department of Labour. Although the Ministry of Hotels and Tourism was responsible for the promotion of building hotels in Myanmar, the Ministry played no part in the employment of the construction workers.”
There is nothing in the ILO report which contested this deposition.The report, including Annexes, covered many hundreds of pages. Not an aspect of forced labour in Burma was left unexamined. However, throughout these voluminous documents, the only specific references I have found to forced labour at any hotel site of any kind were uncorroborated reports from the Karen Human Rights Group of alleged forced labour (a) at a hotel at Ngapali in 1994 and (b) at another hotel at Sittwe in 1995, both local hotels reportedly owned by members of the junta. You might be as surprised as I am that a Karen group should report on events which supposedly happened at resorts, probably not built for foreign tourists, on the western coast of the Indian Ocean in Arakan State, which is a long way from where the Karens are mostly to be found in the eastern region of Burma.
Might I add that, as Chairman from 1994 to 2000 of the Dublin-listed Beta Mekong Fund Limited, whose investments in Burma either directly, or indirectly through the Hong Kong Myanmar Fund, included stakes in Rangoon hotels such as Hotel Nikko, Shangri-la Traders, Kandawgyi Palace, Inya Lake and Sakura Residence (among other tourist projects), on no occasion was the Board made aware, or in any sense given reason to suspect that forced labour was used on any of the international class hotel projects with which the Fund was involved, or indeed on any international class hotel projects in Rangoon or anywhere else. Nor has any such allegation been made subsequently in respect of any international class hotel.
You mention relocations connected with the "Myanmar Golf Club". Your information is presumably taken from “Burma: An Alternative Guide” which makes it clear that this affair took place over ten years ago. It reportedly involved the relocation of a number of families whose land was required for the expansion of a golf course first opened in 1947. The source of the report is a single ABC Dateline documentary. It is as well to quote sources and to provide corroboration, if possible. Burma has only during the last few years come to be regarded as an emerging golfing destination and the number of visitors who have so far actually brought their golf clubs with them to Burma to play golf must still be very few and far between. Forced relocations of many tens of thousands of people from Rangoon after 1988 were made reportedly for security reasons in politically hostile areas and also to provide land for commercial purposes. I am not aware that the redevelopment of land for international hotel construction in Rangoon involved forcible evictions, though if you have any specific cases in mind, please let me know. In principle, all land in Burma is owned by the State and land usage rights are allocated by the State for development purposes. Persuading existing tenants to move through compulsory purchase orders can often be traumatic, and not only in Burma. There have been serious riots and assaults in Vietnam connected with property development.
As regards Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's reservations about tourism in general, might I quote to you below an extract from the record of a three hour working lunch in the Traders Hotel Rangoon on 28 August 2002 at which Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was invited by an expatriate Business Club to be their guest of honour?
“Daw Aung San Suu Kyi arrived at the Traders around 12.40 local time and was welcomed at the entrance by her hosts.We walked up to Suite 2114 where lunch had been set as well as a seating area for discussions arranged by the hotel. After having been seated, refreshments were served, all hotel staff left the room and we commenced with introductions.
“We made clear that we are not politicians and that we were private businessmen who had been quite a time in Myanmar and simply wanted to hear her views on investment and doing business in Myanmar.......
“During the whole conversation, she hardly commenced a sentence with ‘I’ but used the word ‘We’ (possibly meaning her party or simply as a collective). Further, she never used the word Myanmar or Yangon but referred to Burma or Rangoon.
“She spoke about the Traders being a beautiful hotel with an excellent location except that they [an NLD administration] would never have permitted such a building in close proximity to a famous religious edifice as the Sule Pagoda.
“She said that the damage has been done - even worse, are the twin buildings next to the Sule which had stood for many years without completion, and that there were many other localities to site such buildings in downtown Rangoon. She concluded this remark by displaying a sense of humour by stating the Traders would not be demolished.
“She continued to explain that Tourism should not be pushed into a direction where this sector becomes the prime foreign currency earner, as had been done with nearby countries.
“She cited an example of Nepal being simply overrun by the influx of tourists upon its opening up to foreign visitors, whereas neighbouring Bhutan had controlled the number of tourists and thereby preserved its culture and identity in an admirable fashion. This remark can be construed as her having a conservation viewpoint, although she mentioned that it was inevitable that young people would align themselves with the international norms in the years to come, since this was part of the globalization process.
“From our side, we explained to her that we did not share her worries of a huge tourism explosion in Myanmar simply due to the fact that besides Yangon where there is an over-capacity of hotel rooms, where as the remaining popular destinations were growing and developing at a gradual and healthy pace only, in regard to construction and infrastructure.
“She voiced concern that Myanmars would only become the servant class and be therefore exploited as cheap labour…… which then gets stuck with the stigma that Myanmars are second-class people, and which is not the objective at all.
“We again explained to her that, looking around in developing countries, mentioning Singapore and Malaysia, they also had started at the bottom, by being counties lucrative for investment for labour-intensive production etc , but slowly acquiring know how and technology to themselves, moved up into the production of hi-tech and finally made it to become strong investors in other countries.
“We cited the recent visit of more than 200-strong Malaysia business delegation keen to invest in Myanmar as a labour-intensive country.
“She envisioned that Myanmar had the potential to arrive at a situation where the country could pick and select its choice of investor countries, although this was a futuristic vision. In regard to the recent visit of Dr. M and the huge business delegation accompanying him, she felt disappointed that the meeting with her was cancelled on short notice since she felt that her moderate views would have been positively received by that delegation.
“Foreign investors in Myanmar: Her party would ensure that there would be a SYSTEM, fully transparent and which safeguarded the interests of investor and Myanmar alike to conduct investment-based business and enterprises., including guarantee that repatriation of foreign capital, properly structured business procedures would enhance and improve the investment climate, since business investors would not come to any country simply to practice social services.
“She mentioned that:
- Politics and business could not be separated, that one meets the other and that only a secure and safe environment in any country would attract business to come.
- On the other hand, the government should make it easier for investors by doing away with outdated procedures and protocols which made it so complicated to do business that investors ended up feeling cheated and confused.
- That for the Myanmar people itself, business opportunities should be more evenly distributed and made available to the general public and not confined to the current select elite of business people who could conduct business profitably in accordance with the system.
- Corruption was becoming ingrained and a way of life but which is not typical of the Myanmar people and which trend could still be reversed.
“We then spoke to her that, on the topic of corruption, in academic terms, Myanmar was still in its high-school level whereas other countries had already achieved PhDs in that arena.
“She laughingly acknowledged this fact.
“Regarding coming to terms with the government, she said that she is waiting eagerly that the political dialogue would continue, that the present speed was far too slow and that now was the right time to move ahead together and time should not be wasted with both sides finding a solution for the country and its young citizenry.
“She and the party would support all ways and means and attempts to lead eventually to a democratic system in the country and that she is very aware that the democratic system could only succeed if the economic parameters were right for the country.
“Regarding our question of how we, as foreign business and therefore guests of the country could be of assistance, her reply was that “some of you businessmen are more accomplished diplomats that those actually in the service and very often, in many parts of the world, the word of the businessmen would be more considered than the word of politicians.”
“She said that as a politician, she would be accused of wanting to succeed in her own political agenda, and which would be considered a legitimate accusation in the political norm whereas we as businessmen voicing our economic concerns to the right people or persons might receive an open ear.
“After exchanging a few niceties, she said she hoped to meet more foreign as well as Myanmar business people, to obtain a better in-depth understanding of the economy and after which the meeting ended.”
I can assure you that the record is genuine. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, I have excluded the names of the participants, who were all expatriates.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's reservations about tourism have been corroborated by other visitors, including one leading UK travel operator who said that members of their delegation were astonished during a meeting with her that she was so opposed to the whole concept of tourism as a service industry.
You ask for evidence of the general lack of support among ordinary Burmese for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's discouragement of tourism. My evidence is necessarily anecdotal, as no opinion polls are possible in Burma, but here nonetheless is a selection of what I believe to be genuine comment - you will appreciate in particular what Steven Dave had to say:
· Richard McManus, “The Times” 23 February 2002 - “While everyone I met was a supporter of Suu Kyi, all of them also welcomed tourists and said that on the issue of the tourist boycott, they did not agree with her.”
· “Time” 19 March 2001- “Since when was isolation good for human rights? Think of North Korea. When did any leader, even such a beacon of resistance as Aung San Suu Kyi, speak for an entire party or people?”
· James Mawdsley, British human rights activist - “The Times” 16 February 2002 - “Those who would learn more, those who are sensitive to the suffering, they should definitely come……If they spend their money wisely, the junta need not see any of it; it can go directly to the people.”
· U Lu Maw, a member of the Moustache Troupe quoted in a report on tourism by Institute of Integrative Tourism and Development March 2003 - “We want tourists to come and spread the word. Take our photograph and put it on the Internet. Foreigners are our protection.”
· Stefan Loose, Travel Writer - Newssheet 1/2001 -“Many Members of the NLD consider a travel boycott ridiculous……Many long concerned with Burma - including NLD Members and currently imprisoned political dissidents - are of the view that tourism not only promotes the economy, but through bilateral information exchange so facilitated also brings benefit to the democracy movement.”
· Joe Cummings, Travel Writer - “Third World Traveller” February 2001 - “I haven’t met a single person inside Burma who supported a tourism boycott, including many people I have met in the pro-democracy movement”
· Steven Dave, UK travel photographer and writer in a comment in February 2001 on travel to Burma to the Australian travel company Intrepid Travel - "I travelled to Romania before and after the revolution and was struck by the number of the Romanians who said that even though they were prevented from speaking to tourists before the revolution they got hope from seeing them there. That seeing the freedoms foreigners enjoyed made them see that such freedoms were possible and weren't in the natural way of things like their government claimed…….All of the revolutions in Eastern Europe and the demonstrations in Tiananmen Square carried signs in English. To them it was important that they weren't cut off and that the world was there, watching".
· Japan Times 3 May 2004 - A close supporter of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to Philip Cunningham of Chulalongkorn University -“She is extremely popular, she is the best hope for this country and she’s wrong about sanctions.”
Might I also comment on your report about Ngwe Saung in your article in "Burma Digest"? The article in "The Observer" was very probably based on briefing given by the Political Adviser to Mike O'Brien, the FCO Minister of State, who in 2003 conducted a virtual vendetta against UK travel operators over Burma. Several articles appeared in "The Observer"/"The Guardian" around this time on the same theme. The information about Ngwe Saung was probably based on a diplomatic report from the British Embassy in Rangoon. The article is, in my view, much exaggerated. Ngwe Saung is still well off the beaten track, though those who have been there say that it is quite a paradise. Quite who is supposed to be on the list of site-owners we shall never know. There are in 2006 only four modest beach hotels there providing a total of 171 rooms, as well as numerous other bungalows and beach cottages under private ownership. None of the four hotels (Aureum Palace, Treasure Beach, Palm Beach, Sunny Paradise) has - to the best of my knowledge - any foreign investment from recognised hotel chains, though no doubt some foreign management and kitchen expertise have been recruited. Ngwe Saung would be ideal - like Ngapali - for private foreign investment outside the Foreign Investment Law 1988 which some find too bureaucratic and cumbersome, despite tax benefits. In sum, not what I would call a significant element in tourism and travel to Burma, though as the years go by no doubt the 15 kms of wonderful beaches there will attract increasing numbers of visitors and international hotel operators. What the cronies who may have been allocated plots there make of their good fortune will depend on their ability to attract investment, bank loans, management expertise and the tourists themselves. Plots of land are no good unless you have the entrepreneurial skills and the necessary funds.
You mention the 12% which you say the State earns even from private tourism agencies. I have no doubt that the State puts the squeeze on these agencies, even though the service tax is technically on net, not gross income. I would however point out that I suggested a State benefit of from US$ 25 to 30 million from annual gross receipts of US$ 153 million, which is about 16.3 to 19.6%. But you need to compare this with, say, gross income from natural gas exports of US$ 1,100 million or fish exports of US$ 400 million. There is no doubt in my mind what is really significant, and the emphasis sometimes placed on the "millions" earned by the State from tourism is misplaced. Tourism would need to increase by a factor of 5 to be significant and by a factor of 10 to rival natural gas exports, and this is not a remote possibility for years to come.
My point about the irony of Daw Suu telling us in 1985 "Let's visit Burma" and ten years later "No you mustn't" would not, I think, be lost on her.
Might I stress yet again that I am not in favour of (but would not actively seek to discourage) would-be holiday-makers going to Burma, because I think it would be wrong for them to visit at the present time, but that as regards those would-be travellers who may be seriously or only moderately interested in Burma for all sorts of reasons and are willing to read up about the country before deciding, I would fully support their decision to travel as individuals, not as package tourists.
In general, I regard the pros and cons of travel to Burma as pretty evenly balanced. I think it important that people should have access to good information and be encouraged to make up their own minds. Some of my friends believe that we should flood Burma with tourists and that the international financial institutions should re-engage with Burma, even if this brings some temporary relief to the junta. What the current set of generals sorely lack is any understanding of the outside world. They positively welcome sanctions and isolation, and some of the hard-liners would like nothing better than a Security Council Resolution holding them to account for their internal policies.
Your Comments here_ please do not use symbols "(:/\<>!|{]@~#$)"
Request: If you can kindly volunteer to translate BURMA DIGEST English articles into Burmese, please let us know burmadigest@tayzathuria.org.uk .
.
Last week's English article