Journal of the Siam Society; 100

Table of contents :
JSS_100_0a_Cover
JSS_100_0a_Front
JSS_100_0b_Stent_Introduction
JSS_100_0c_PiriyaKrairiksh_ABriefHistoryOfHeritageProtectionInThailand
JSS_100_0d_SumetJumsai_ARecordOfHistoricalConservation1964_2012
JSS_100_0e_EuaypornKerdchouay_TheSiamSocietysRoleInHeritageProtection
JSS_100_0f_PhuthornBhumadhon_LongTermStrategiesForThaiHeritagePreservationCivilRolesInLopburiProvince
JSS_100_0g_RewadeeSakulpanich_TheDevelopmentOfLawOnTangibleCulturalHeritage
JSS_100_0h_SurinPitsuwan_TourismAndHeritageATenseRelationship
JSS_100_0i_YongtanitPimonsathean_TheCrownPropertyBureauAndHeritageConservation
JSS_100_0j_ChatriPrakitnonthakan_RattanakosinCharterTheThaiCulturalCharterForConservation
JSS_100_0k_TiamsoonAkagawa_CulturalRightsAndConservationOfOldBangkok
JSS_100_0l_WorrasitTantinipankul_RevivingTheNeglectedHeritageOfTheRattanakosinEraTheCaseOfTheOldChaoPhrayaRiverOxbow
JSS_100_0m_MontiraHorayanguraUnakul_ReconnectingBangkoksHeritageLandscapeUrbanWaterwaysAndTheModernCity
JSS_100_0n_Herzfeld_TheCryptoColonialDilemmasOfRattanakosinIsland
JSS_100_0o_Denes_MappingLivingHeritageAtThePhanomRungHistoricalPark
JSS_100_0p_ApinyaBaggelaarArrunnapaporn_AtrocityHeritageTourismAtTheDeathRailway
JSS_100_0q_WoraphatVanRoy_HeritageAcrossBordersTheFuneraryMonumentOfKingUthumphon
JSS_100_0r_Kammeier_HeritageConservationInAsiaShiftsAndDevelopments1972_2012
JSS_100_0s_Khoo_ExploringSharedHistoryPreservingSharedHeritagePenangsLinksToASiamesePast
JSS_100_0t_Helfrich_YangonsHeritageStepsTowardsPreservation
JSS_100_0u_EngelhardtMontiraDavies_LessonsFromTheUnescoAsiaPacificAwardsForCulturalHeritageConservation
JSS_100_0v_Contributors
JSS_100_0w_Back

Citation preview

Piriya Krairiksh • A Brief History of Heritage Protection in Thailand Sumet Jumsai • A Record of Historical Conservation, 1964–2012 Euayporn Kerdchouay • The Siam Society’s Role in Heritage Protection Phuthorn Bhumadhon • Long-term Strategies for Thai Heritage Preservation: Civil Roles in Lopburi Province Rewadee Sakulpanich • The Development of Law on Tangible Cultural Heritage: Case of the Law on Ancient Monuments, Antiques, Objects of Art and National Museums Surin Pitsuwan • Tourism and Heritage: A Tense Relationship Yongtanit Pimonsathean • The Crown Property Bureau and Heritage Conservation Chatri Prakitnonthakan • Rattanakosin Charter: The Thai Cultural Charter for Conservation Tiamsoon Sirisrisak and Natsuko Akagawa • Cultural Rights and Conservation of Old Bangkok

Journal of the Siam Society

James Stent • Introduction: Siam’s Threatened Cultural Heritage

Worrasit Tantinipankul • Reviving the Neglected Heritage of the Rattanakosin Era: The Case of the Old Chao Phraya River Oxbow Montira Horayangura Unakul • Reconnecting Bangkok’s Heritage Landscape: Urban Waterways and the Modern City Alexandra Denes • Mapping Living Heritage at the Phanom Rung Historical Park: Identifying and Safeguarding the Local Meanings of a National Heritage Site Apinya Baggelaar Arrunnapaporn • Atrocity Heritage Tourism at the “Death Railway” Woraphat Arthayukti and Edward Van Roy • Heritage Across Borders: The Funerary Monument of King Uthumphon H. Detlef Kammeier • Heritage Conservation in Asia: Shifts and Developments, 1972–2012 Khoo Salma Nasution • Exploring Shared Histories, Preserving Shared Heritage: Penang’s Links to a Siamese Past Paula Z. Helfrich • Yangon’s Heritage: Steps Towards Preservation Richard Engelhardt, Montira Horayangura Unakul and Julia Davies • Lessons from the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation: International Best Practices in Thailand ISSN 0857-7099

Volume 100 • 2012

Michael Herzfeld • The Crypto-Colonial Dilemmas of Rattanakosin Island

JSS

Volume 100 • 2012

The Journal of the Siam Society

Patrons of the Siam Society Patron His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej Vice-Patrons Her Majesty Queen Sirikit His Royal Highness Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn Vice-Patron and Honorary President Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Honorary Vice-Presidents Her Majesty Ashi Kesang Choeden Wangchuck, The Royal Grandmother of Bhutan His Imperial Highness Prince Akishino of Japan His Royal Highness Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark

Council of the Siam Society, 2012–2014 President

Mrs Bilaibhan Sampatisiri

1st Vice-President 2nd Vice-President 3rd Vice-President

Dr Weerachai Nanakorn Mr Suraya Supanwanich Ms Beatrix Dayde Latham

Leader, Natural History Section Honorary Secretary Assistant Honorary Secretary Honorary Treasurer Honorary Librarian Honorary Editor, JSS Honorary Editor, NHB

Dr Weerachai Nanakorn Mr Jumbhot Chuasai Mr Peter Laverick Mr James Lehman Mr Suraya Supanwanich Mrs Beatrix Dayde Latham Dr Christopher Baker Dr Prachya Musikasinthorn

Members of Council Mrs Pimpraphai Bisalputra Mrs Fumiko Boughey Mrs Somlak Charoenpot Dr Wisoot Karnchanapunyapong

Mrs Pongkwan Lassus Mr Chulakorn Singhakowin Mrs Montira Unakul Mr William Waung

The Journal of the

Siam Society Volume 100 2012

Protecting Siam’s Heritage

Honorary editor: Chris Baker Editor: Paul Bromberg Advisors: Tej Bunnag, Michael Smithies, Kim W. Atkinson © The Siam Society, 2012 ISSN 0857-7099 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electrical or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system without prior permission from the Siam Society. The Journal of the Siam Society is a forum for original research and analysis. Opinions expressed in the Journal are those of the authors. They do not represent the views or policies of the Siam Society. Printed by Amarin Printing and Publishing Public Company Limited 376 Chaiyapruk Road, Taling Chan, Bangkok 10170, Thailand Tel. (662) 422-9000 • Fax (662) 433-2742, 434-1385 E-mail: [email protected] • http://www.amarin.com

Preface to the Centenary Volume

The number 108 is auspicious or magical in many cultures but especially in Thailand. The number 100 is an inevitable cause for celebration in our decimal cultures. Here we combine both. The first issue of the Journal of the Siam Society is dated 1904, yet the Journal only now reaches its hundredth volume after 108 years because of issues missed, mostly during the two world wars. To mark this centenary, the Council of the Siam Society decided to have a special volume, dedicated for the first time to a single theme. As the Society was in the process of launching a project on Siamese Heritage Protection, the choice of theme required little thought and provoked no dissension. I owe thanks first and foremost to James Stent who identified many of the authors, cajoled them to agree, and contributed the introduction. We both are greatly indebted to the authors who responded with such enthusiasm and skill to our invitation to participate in this volume. We are especially grateful to Piriya Krairiksh, Sumet Jumsai, and Phuthorn Bhumadhon who jointly anchor this collection. All of the chapters appear here in their current form for the first time. Only one has appeared earlier in Thai. We are grateful to the President of the Society, Khun Bilaibhan Sampatisiri, and two successive Councils, for unfailing support. Khun Kanitha Kasina-Ubol, Khun Euayporn Kerdchouay and other members of the Society’s staff have helped throughout in various ways. Paul Bromberg was responsible for the technical editing. Thanks also to San San May, Steve Van Beek, Bonnie Brereton, and Trasvin Jittidecharak. This volume of the Journal appears in parallel as a book, entitled Protecting Siam’s Heritage, co-published with Silkworm Books. The chosen theme of the volume is a battlefield. The concept of heritage itself is fiercely contested. The definition of what constitutes heritage (and what does not) provokes debate. The protection of heritage is at the mercy of political priorities and conflicts. These tensions are reflected in this collection. Chris Baker Honorary Editor

v

BLANK

Journal of the Siam Society Volume 100

2012 Contents

Introduction: Siam’s Threatened Cultural Heritage James Stent......................................................................................................... 1

Section 1: History A Brief History of Heritage Protection in Thailand Piriya Krairiksh................................................................................................. 15 A Record of Historical Conservation, 1964–2012 Sumet Jumsai ................................................................................................... 41 The Siam Society’s Role in Heritage Protection Euayporn Kerdchouay...................................................................................... 55 Long-term Strategies for Thai Heritage Preservation: Civil Roles in Lopburi Province Phuthorn Bhumadhon....................................................................................... 69 The Development of Law on Tangible Cultural Heritage: Case of the Law on Ancient Monuments, Antiques, Objects of Art and National Museums Rewadee Sakulpanich....................................................................................... 83

Section 2: Issues Tourism and Heritage: A Tense Relationship Surin Pitsuwan.................................................................................................. 93 The Crown Property Bureau and Heritage Conservation Yongtanit Pimonsathean................................................................................. 103 Rattanakosin Charter: The Thai Cultural Charter for Conservation Chatri Prakitnonthakan................................................................................... 123 Cultural Rights and Conservation of Old Bangkok Tiamsoon Sirisrisak and Natsuko Akagawa.................................................. 149 Reviving the Neglected Heritage of the Rattanakosin Era: The Case of the Old Chao Phraya River Oxbow Worrasit Tantinipankul................................................................................... 167 vii

Reconnecting Bangkok’s Heritage Landscape: Urban Waterways and the Modern City Montira Horayangura Unakul........................................................................ 183 The Crypto-Colonial Dilemmas of Rattanakosin Island Michael Herzfeld............................................................................................ 209 Mapping Living Heritage at the Phanom Rung Historical Park: Identifying and Safeguarding the Local Meanings of a National Heritage Site Alexandra Denes............................................................................................ 225 Atrocity Heritage Tourism at the “Death Railway” Apinya Baggelaar Arrunnapaporn................................................................. 257 Heritage Across Borders: The Funerary Monument of King Uthumphon Woraphat Arthayukti and Edward Van Roy................................................... 269

Section 3: International Perspectives Heritage Conservation in Asia: Shifts and Developments, 1972–2012 H. Detlef Kammeier....................................................................................... 281 Exploring Shared Histories, Preserving Shared Heritage: Penang’s Links to a Siamese Past Khoo Salma Nasution..................................................................................... 295 Yangon’s Heritage: Steps Towards Preservation Paula Z. Helfrich............................................................................................. 323 Lessons from the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation: International Best Practices in Thailand Richard Engelhardt, Montira Horayangura Unakul and Julia Davies........... 335 Contributors to this Volume............................................................................... 351 Notes for Contributors........................................................................................ 356

viii

Introduction: Siam’s Threatened Cultural Heritage James Stent

The Thai heritage conservation community has been stunned by the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Thailand to demolish the venerable buildings on Sanam Luang, in which the Court has been housed for several decades. The resultant uproar, widely reported in the press and social media, has highlighted the cause of cultural heritage conservation in the public eye. What has particularly inflamed passions on the issue is that the Court, which should be an ultimate source of redress against illegal destruction of heritage, is flagrantly flouting zoning restrictions and the attempt by the Fine Arts Department (FAD) to protect heritage sites from destruction. The attendant outcry has galvanized the FAD into bringing a legal complaint against the Supreme Court, and mobilized civil society to protest vocally. It is not as though this desecration of heritage is occurring in an isolated corner of the Kingdom, as the buildings sit in close proximity to the Grand Palace and Temple of the Emerald Buddha. Legal ambiguities, official intransigence, insensitivity to modern architectural heritage, and possibly a desire on the part of the authorities to consign to the rubbish heap a building that was conceived as a celebration of democratic values in an earlier period of Thai history—all play a role in this highly emotional case that is playing out in the media. The Supreme Court case is but one of many examples of the difficulties that progressive forces in Thailand face in safeguarding Thailand’s rich and diverse cultural heritage against unsympathetic bureaucratic bodies, ambitious commercial interests, and well-meaning but illadvised agents of “development”. These are the themes that are examined in this volume. Concerned with the destruction and neglect of many aspects of cultural heritage, in 2010, the Council of the Siam Society established a program to give the Society a public advocacy role in spurring greater public awareness and action concerning heritage protection issues. In 2012, the Council formally established this program as the Siamese Heritage Trust, a permanent section of the Society. In the first year of work on cultural heritage, a series of six bi-monthly panel discussions was held Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

2

James Stent

in Thai language, open to the public, on major issues of heritage protection. The seminars attracted large and varied audiences. In support of the work of the Siamese Heritage Trust, the Society is devoting the entire content of this centennial issue of the Journal to essays examining aspects of cultural heritage protection in Thailand. The contributions to this volume elucidate many of the issues with which the Siamese Heritage Trust is concerned, some from a macro perspective, and some through insightful case studies. This introductory essay assesses the state of cultural heritage protection, based on what the Siamese Heritage Trust learned in those panel discussions, and on other work the Trust has undertaken during its first two years of operation. In the latter half of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, Thai and foreign scholars and archaeologists identified, documented, and researched Thai sites and materials, leading to a deeper understanding of the history of Thai culture and art, and making Thai culture more accessible to the rest of the world. The importance that Thailand gave to this effort was evidenced by the establishment in 1904 of the Siam Society, Thailand’s oldest independent cultural organization, and by the founding of the FAD in 1911 to coordinate the government’s role in matters relating to art and culture. During subsequent decades, the FAD focused on the research, excavation, conservation, and, sometimes with regrettable results, reconstruction of the ancient monuments of Ayutthaya, Sukhothai, Chiang Saen and elsewhere, and also on the conservation of palaces and Buddhist temples of a certain antiquity. This was in keeping with the international consensus on the approach to heritage protection that prevailed until the 1960s and even later. In following this approach, Thai conservationists were influenced by the excellent work that French scholars had conducted in neighboring Indochina under colonial administration. In Thailand, scholarly work undertaken to investigate Thai history and heritage was part of the broader effort to establish for both local and international audiences a modern national identity with civilized roots stretching back centuries earlier to a glorious past. Later, the scholarship was put to work in the service of a nationalistic agenda that created an imagined Thai past, which defined “Thainess” (khwam pen thai), as described in Piriya Krairiksh’s “A Brief History of Heritage Protection in Thailand”, Michael Herzfeld’s “Crypto-Colonial Dilemmas of Rattanakosin Island”, and others (all references are to essays in this volume). In the past half century, international best practice of heritage conservation has greatly expanded the definition of heritage to include vernacular culture, community culture, intangible culture, ethnic culture, and even industrial culture, as related by H. Detlef Kammeier in “Heritage Conservation in Asia: Shifts and Developments, 1972–2012”. At the same time, cultural heritage is no longer the exclusive domain of the elite. Cultural heritage now is seen to have broad social relevance, and “cultural rights” have become an important part of the heritage conservation discourse, as Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Introduction: Siam’s Threatened Cultural Heritage

3

set forth by Tiamsoon Sirisisak and Akagawa Natsuko in “Cultural Rights and Conservation of Old Bangkok.” Over the past two decades, various interested parties have engaged with increasing vehemence in debates about the nature of Thai cultural heritage, about what properly constitutes cultural heritage, and about who “owns” cultural heritage. Critics attack Thai official heritage conservation policy for remaining focused narrowly on ancient sites of archaeological interest, on sites connected with the royal institution, and on significant temples. They charge that Thailand’s record in keeping pace with international development of heritage practice, and in compliance with UNESCO treaties to which it is a signatory, is spotty at best. This criticism of Thai heritage practice is argued in the articles by Piriya, and by Tiamsoon and Akagawa. In “The Crown Property Bureau and Heritage Conservation”, Yongtanit Pimonsathean succinctly explains the core of the problem: The authorized conservation of cultural heritage in Thailand still focuses on the protection of ancient monuments and archaeological sites under the sole responsibility of a national organization, the Fine Arts Department (FAD) under the Ministry of Culture. The power to register anything as heritage rests with the FAD, and has not been devolved to local authorities.

In part, this problem arises from bureaucratic constraints and inertia within the FAD; in part, as discussed by Rewadee Sakunphanit in “The Development of Law on the Protection of Tangible Cultural Heritage in Thailand”, it is due to national laws governing official protection and promotion of cultural heritage being highly restrictive in the mandate they give to the FAD to look after culture. According to the Act on Ancient Monuments, Objects of Art, Antiques, and National Museums and National Museums, B.E. 2504 (1961), the FAD is authorized to register as heritage only ancient monuments, antiques, and objects of art. Moreover, in purely technical matters of conservation, Thailand has not kept up with international best practice either. All too often, conservation of monuments aims to increase their touristic value, or supports a mythologized official version of the past. Monuments are sometimes reconstructed with dubious historical authenticity. The presentation and interpretation of sites is often weak.. Community involvement and local context in site conservation are overlooked. This state of affairs has persisted because at the political level, regardless of the government in power, scant attention has been paid to cultural heritage issues, unless they are related to the royal institution or Buddhist religion. Some hope was raised that change was coming when the Ministry of Culture was recreated in 2002—it had briefly existed earlier from 1952 to 1958—and the FAD was placed within this new ministry. Afterwards, however, nothing substantive changed. Cultural heritage issues are low on the national agenda, the Ministry attracts little attention from political Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

4

James Stent

leaders, and cultural heritage is low priority when it comes to budget allocation. As a result, Thailand lags behind most other Asian nations in the quality and scope of its cultural heritage management. Korea promotes all aspects of Korean culture as an important part of the national agenda, with extraordinary success. As a result, not only are Korean pop singers well known abroad, and Korean historical TV dramas popular in many Asian nations, but also traveling exhibitions of traditional Korean culture are a staple on the international museum circuit, and Korea is seen as an Asian leader in the field of museology. China devotes significant resources and political attention to its major heritage sites and museums, upgrading them to international standards, while the National Palace Museum is a major symbol of Taiwan’s identity and claim to be a true transmitter of Chinese culture. Singapore, for many years guilty of wholesale demolition of traditional architecture and traditional community culture, is now attempting to make up for past mistakes through rehabilitation of historical neighborhoods. Tiny Macao diverts a portion of its enormous gambling revenues into preservation of historic neighborhood architecture and into construction of museums highlighting its unique SinoPortuguese heritage. As Paula Helfrich describes in her article, “Yangon’s Heritage: Steps Towards Preservation”, in neighboring Myanmar a significant movement to preserve the colonial architecture of Yangon has emerged, and is receiving a hearing at the top levels of both the municipal and national government. But there are hopeful signs of change in Thailand, beginning with the efforts to block the most egregious heritage destruction in the 1960s and 1970s, as described by Sumet Jumsai in “A Record of Historical Conservation, 1964–2012”. As noted by Piriya, Sumet also initiated the Fine Arts Commission of the Association of Siamese Architects under Royal Patronage (ASA), which was unveiled in 1968 “with the aim of conserving urban and rural features and buildings of architectural or historical interest”. Thereafter, as described in the articles in this volume by Euayporn, Phuthorn, and Sumet, private individuals and organizations have seized the initiative to preserve valuable heritage overlooked by the government. In recent years, grassroots communities have increasingly become conscious of their local cultural roots and have organized themselves to ensure that their traditions, ways of life, and built heritage are preserved for future generations, notably including work coordinated by Phuthorn Bhumadhon in Lopburi and by Yongtanit Pimonsathean in Phuket. Starting only twelve years ago, as described in the essay by Yongtanit, the prestigious Crown Property Bureau (CPB) has developed a strong interest in the responsible management and conservation of the many heritage properties over which it has stewardship. As described by Euayporn Kerdchouay in his essay on “The Siam Society’s Role in Heritage Protection”, the Society in the 1960s and 1970s expanded the scope of its work beyond strictly scholarly concerns to take a leadership position in heritage conservation. Subsequently, after several years of reduced activity in this Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Introduction: Siam’s Threatened Cultural Heritage

5

area, the Society has again become active in the heritage conservation field with the establishment of the Siamese Heritage Trust. Unlike earlier Society programs in heritage conservation, the focus of the Siamese Heritage Trust is not principally the preservation or conservation of individual buildings, but a broader program of knowledge building, advocacy and raising awareness in society at large of the importance of cultural heritage protection. This approach recognizes that without broad social awareness of and support for cultural heritage, saving a small number of individual buildings will be of little avail. The Trust’s focus is also consistent with modern, broader understanding of what constitutes cultural heritage, including community culture, intangible culture, minority culture, and so on. From the discourse of the six panel discussions that the Siamese Heritage Trust has conducted, and from other activities and investigations that the Trust has undertaken, a few issues and challenges have emerged that appear to be the principal obstacles standing in the way of effective heritage protection in Thailand. They can be roughly grouped into the following ten areas. 1. Inadequacy of legal framework. In case after case, heritage conservation efforts are confounded by the inadequacy of the governing legislation, principally the 1961 Act on Ancient Monuments, Objects of Art, Antiques, and National Museums, which is much in need of updating, as set forth in Rewadee’s article. That law sets forth a restrictive and outmoded definition of cultural heritage, namely ancient monuments, antiques and objects of art. The law provides insufficient power, scope for action, and flexibility to the FAD to effectively conserve the nation’s heritage, and does not adequately protect the FAD from litigation of propertied interests suing to obtain maximum economic value from properties declared to be of heritage value. The law centralizes all heritage protection power with the FAD in Bangkok, does not devolve power to local governments, and does not empower communities to protect their heritage. It also does not recognize intangible culture, vernacular culture, community culture, cultural landscapes and other aspects of cultural heritage set forth in UNESCO charters to which Thailand is a signatory. These inadequacies in the legal structure are recurring themes in several of the essays in this collection. 2. Deficiencies of governance. The problem of legal structure is compounded by the fact that government agencies do not effectively use what limited powers they do have under the heritage legal structure, do not enforce compliance with heritage laws, and are plagued with bureaucratic rigidity and timidity. The FAD has identified 8,000 buildings for registration as monuments, but processes only a hundred or so a year, meaning its backlog will already require several decades. As pointed out in the essay by Tiamsoon and Akagawa, the FAD is reluctant to list many worthy heritage sites on the register of protected sites, particularly sites of vernacular and community heritage. It is also apparent in the criticisms that are made of management of the Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

6

James Stent

Ayutthaya World Heritage Site, which some consider an endangered heritage site that is not being conserved properly. As Piriya notes, in 1967 O. P. Agrawal, head of the Indian Conservation Department “remarked that if the trend of reconstruction was allowed to continue, and the directives for conservation, as spelled out at the Venice Meeting of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) in 1964, were not taken into account, then many of Thailand’s architectural masterpieces would be turned eventually into fakes.” In her interesting case study, “Atrocity Heritage Tourism at the ‘Death Railway’,” Apinya Baggelaar Arrunnapaporn demonstrates how the Kanchanaburi Death Railway illustrates both the inadequacy of the legal framework and the lack of initiative and responsibility in governance at several levels. The Supreme Court’s impending demolition of its existing building is an extreme example of these weak standards of governance. As mentioned above, to its credit, the FAD has attempted to initiate legal action to demand compliance with its designation of the Supreme Court building as a heritage site, but it is being thwarted by other parts of the government, while the Rattanakosin Committee, established to oversee heritage planning for the entire district, has been silent on this and other issues. With the Supreme Court showing such scant regard for the laws of the land when they apply to itself, one realizes the depth of the governance problem in the area of heritage protection. 3. Failure to recognize intangible and vernacular culture. The Thai official approach to cultural heritage protection focuses almost exclusively on the protection of ancient buildings, and does not recognize that traditional ways of life, traditional livelihoods, oral traditions, folk customs, and other inheritances from the past all form part of the fabric of national cultural heritage, as valid and meaningful as palaces, temples, and archaeological sites. This issue is dealt with clearly in the essay by Tiamsoon and Akagawa, and also in Worrasit Tantinipankul’s “Reviving the Neglected Heritage of the Rattanakosin Era: The Case of the Old Chao Phraya River Oxbow.” What Worrasit describes with reference to an area in Thonburi across the river from the Rattanakosin District could apply equally well to any number of historical communities around the country: the Thai state’s official heritage discourse neglects not only the vernacular architecture, but also the histories of farmers, merchants and bureaucrats who established these river-based urban settlements on the periphery of the royal capital. I will argue that restoration and planning efforts must focus not only on conserving the physical fabric of vernacular architecture, but also on documenting and revitalizing the intangible culture and local histories of its residents.

More broadly, in developing Bangkok into a modern city, the planning authorities Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Introduction: Siam’s Threatened Cultural Heritage

7

failed to consider how Thai cultural adaptation provided Thai people in earlier years with the tools that were needed to live in harmony with the particular conditions of settlement on a flood plain. Montira Horayangura Unakul describes the devastating consequences of this failure of urban planning to build on the traditional wisdom embodied in Thai culture in her “Reconnecting Bangkok’s Heritage Landscape: Urban Waterways and the Modern City”. 4. Official narratives. Officially sanctioned historical and cultural narratives that reinforce the power of the state and support established descriptions of national identity skew the formulation and implementation of cultural heritage conservation policy, not only at the national level, as described by Chatri Prakitnonthakan in his essay “Rattanakosin Charter: The Thai Cultural Charter for Conservation”, but also at local levels, as explored by Alexandra Denes in “Mapping Living Heritage at the Phnom Rung Historical Park: Identifying and Safeguarding the Local Meanings of a National Heritage Site.” The practical implications of these official narratives are not solely of academic interest, as will be clear in the discussion below on the threats that have arisen to the traditional cultural landscape of the Yaowarat district of Bangkok. An early example of this threat appeared with the attempt by the Bangkok city government to demolish the small but vibrant community of Pom Mahakan, composed of early to mid-nineteenth century wooden houses in vernacular architecture. The government saw no cultural heritage value in this traditional community, and wished to level the space into a public park in order to open up a view of the old city wall and fortifications. Against improving the view of a historical site, the traditional way of life, early nineteenth century wooden vernacular architecture, and community heritage of Pom Mahakan did not count for much in the reckoning of city officials. Other examples of this sort of problem include reconstructions of ancient sites that have been done with scant attention to historical authenticity, but which serve to support an official narrative of Thai history. 5. Suppression of diversity. A related problem of equal magnitude is the official downplaying of cultural diversity in favor of the mainstream “Thai” culture, resting on the triptych of “nation, religion (Buddhism), and king”. As part of Thailand’s successful program of nation-building over the past century, regional cultural variants, ethnic roots, minority groups, religions other than Buddhism, and nonindigenous cultural influences have all been de-emphasized. Much official effort goes into defining “Thai identity”, setting a standard of what is properly Thai, based on the cultural norms of official Bangkok aesthetics and practices. Witness the imposition of standard designs by the Department of Religious Affairs on new temple construction throughout the nation; the design templates are based on Bangkok’s Rattanakosin aesthetics, often totally out of keeping with Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

8

James Stent

the traditions and styles of Thailand’s different regions. Local communities in the provinces have been conditioned to believe that, if they build temples in their communities in the styles that their ancestors developed, then they will be looked down on by officials—they will be seen to be “provincial”, so better to adopt accepted Bangkok styles. The results are not only culturally insensitive, but can occasionally result in local heritage being threatened by destruction, as described in Euayporn’s essay in this volume. One of the tasks confronting those engaged in heritage preservation is to suggest to the official arbitrators of Thai culture that they should not define standard norms of “Thainess,” but instead encourage full expression of the country’s glorious cultural diversity. Cultural homogenization was promoted in the service of nationbuilding in the latter part of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century, but it is quite counter-productive in the present age, leading to monotonous building styles that lack spirit, and to traditions that lack soul. Another aspect of the diversity question concerns borders. It makes no sense to delimit cultural heritage by modern nation-state boundaries. This became clear in the Trust’s panel discussion on the Muslim contribution to Thai cultural heritage. Thailand contains one of the world’s most interesting and diverse Muslim cultures, deriving from many different national origins—Persian, Malay, Indian, Cham, Chinese, and others—over a long period of centuries. The same point is made in a different context by Woraphat Athayukti and Edward Van Roy in their interesting study, “Protecting Heritage Across Borders: The Funerary Monument of King Uthumphon”, on the fate of what might be a Thai king’s tomb located in the heart of Myanmar. 6. Lack of community consultation and participation. Just as community heritage is not properly valued in Thailand, so communities are rarely consulted or involved in decisions regarding their own heritage, or involving historical sites that are located within their communities, nor are they encouraged to become involved in a meaningful way in conservation and protection of heritage. Phuthorn Bhumadhon, in his essay “Long-term Strategies for Thai Heritage Preservation: Civil Roles in Lopburi Province” makes clear that the preservation of living cultural heritage in a traditional architectural setting or cultural landscape can only succeed when it has meaning to the resident community and has local support and participation. The relatively high standard of heritage preservation in the town of Lopburi is a rare example in Thailand of successful involvement by the local community and of constructive dialog between the authorities and the citizens on heritage issues. So also is the revival of traditional Peranakan culture and preservation of Straits Settlement style of architecture in old Phuket, as described by Khoo Salma Khoo Nasution in “Exploring Shared Histories, Preserving Shared Heritage: Penang’s Links to a Siamese Past.” Unfortunately, the Pom Mahakan Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Introduction: Siam’s Threatened Cultural Heritage

9

confrontation and the threats presently posed to the old Sino-Thai communities of the Yaowarat area have been the more common situations in Thailand. 7. Professional deficiencies in heritage conservation. Compounding the legal, governance, and conceptual problems, and the overbearing approach of officialdom in support of official narratives, are deficiencies in the professional quality of the work of those charged with stewardship of the nation’s heritage. Foremost among these is the failure to create an accurate, accessible data base of the nation’s heritage. This was a major problem after the 2011 floods that severely damaged many monuments of the Ayutthaya World Heritage Site. Those charged with repairing the damage and undertaking measures to protect against future floods, and major international donors prepared to assist in the effort, found that there was no reliable database to use as a reference for developing plans. Inauthentic reconstruction of ancient monuments, as described by Piriya, is another important area of technical deficiency in the practice of heritage conservation in Thailand. 8. Quest for tourist revenues leading to inferior heritage conservation. All over the world, “heritage tourism” is big business, and how to balance the conflict between tourism promotion and responsible heritage conservation is the subject of public policy debate and academic investigation everywhere. For the most part, over the years, countries on the European and American continents have developed means of providing broad tourist access to heritage sites without compromising the heritage value of those sites. Asian countries have worked out reasonable solutions in some of their sites—Bhaktapur in Nepal, various archaeological sites in India, Angkor in Cambodia, and Hoi Anh in Vietnam come to mind. But China is replete with heritage sites where tourism promotion has overwhelmed responsible heritage protection, with tacky commercialization for the benefit of vendors and tourist operators, and visitor numbers greatly exceeding carrying capacity. Likewise, in Thailand, where tourism is the single largest earner of foreign exchange, and the power of tourism interests in the government and in the private sector greatly exceeds the financial power and political influence of conservation advocates in government and in civil society, heritage conservation generally loses out to the commercial interests of the purveyors of tourism services. The essays by Apinya and Denes in this collection are excellent case studies of this problem. In addition, the Tourism Authority of Thailand, which has plenty of financial resources and political support, but seems to be obsessed with promoting Thailand as a land of smiles, beaches, night life, and good food, has shown surprisingly little imagination or initiative in advocating an upgrade in the quality of heritage management, particularly with respect to museums, which are discussed below. The tourism authorities seem to underestimate the lure that well-presented cultural heritage can have for tourists. They do not learn from the examples of Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

10

James Stent

Cambodia’s ability to attract large numbers of Chinese tourists to visit Angkor, Penang’s historic World Heritage Site neighborhoods, Taipei’s National Palace Museum, or Singapore’s excellent and much visited museums. Surin Pitsuwan’s essay “Tourism and Heritage: A Tense Relationship” discusses this issue with accuracy and passion. 9. Poor condition of Thailand’s state museums: The low importance that Thailand gives to the presentation of cultural heritage to its citizens and to visitors to the country is apparent in the condition of the state museums, including both the National Museum and provincial museums. Most of these contain outstanding examples of Thai art along with historical and cultural artifacts from the locality, but these collections are often (with some commendable exceptions) poorly housed, displayed, and interpreted. Thai school children are herded through the dusty and poorly arranged displays of the National Museum. Instead of exciting visitors about their nation’s cultural history, these dry museum visits kill potential interest in cultural heritage, making it seem irrelevant to their lives. Fortunately, as in other areas of cultural heritage protection, the private sector is leaping into the breach, and a large number of local level private museums of considerable interest have been established, plus a few of nationwide heritage scope. 10. Power of development interests. In Thailand as in many other countries, commercial interests in league with government officials and political leaders have the power to pursue private goals, overwhelming the public interest. Recently, real estate developers have begun to eye areas of Bangkok that were previously defended as heritage protection zones. The Department of City Planning of the Bangkok Metropolitan Authority has responded to this development interest in the draft Bangkok Five Year Masterplan, released for comment in 2012. In this document, height and other restrictions on development are lifted for areas of exceptional heritage value in the historic parts of the city stretching between the Chao Phraya River and the Krung Kasem canal. This draft plan suggests that planning officials of the city have scant understanding of the role of architectural and community heritage in a well-planned city. In China, the power of real estate developers and the weak heritage consciousness of the government have resulted in the destruction of the heritage buildings and communities of entire cities such as Kunming, Chengdu, and Nanjing. It appeared that the city of Bangkok would be spared the fate of Chinese cities. Over several generations the historic portions of the city of Bangkok, including major public landmarks such as the Grand Palace, and historic neighborhoods such as Yaowarat and Charoen Krung that developed in the latter part of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century, largely retained their authenticity and vitality. But now, with the debacle of the Supreme Court building, the contextual landscape of the Grand Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Introduction: Siam’s Threatened Cultural Heritage

11

Palace is threatened, and with the proposed new Masterplan, the thriving Yaowarat and Charoen Krung areas may soon fall under the wrecker’s ball. If this comes about, one of the last areas of Bangkok to retain a distinctive identity, character, and appearance will be transformed into yet another concentration of the non-descript shopping malls that dominate the landscape of much of contemporary Bangkok. Despite the excellent reporting of journalists such as Ploenpote Atthakor and Sirinya Wattanasukchai of the Bangkok Post, despite the resistance of local communities, and despite the protests of civil society groups working together under the banner of the Cultural Heritage Conservation Alliance, these threats to the city’s heritage are materializing because the general public remains unaware, government bureaucrats lack vision and flexibility, and leaders at the political level are not interested. Until the general public is made more aware of the important role that cultural heritage should play in a nation, and is aroused to take action, we cannot expect the authorities and the political leaders to be more responsive to heritage values in the formulation of development policy. This is a formidable and somewhat discouraging rendition of problems and challenges that confront those who care about the future of Thai cultural heritage. But there are also several positive factors that provide grounds for hope in the cause of heritage conservation in Thailand, and that encourage the Siamese Heritage Trust in its advocacy work. Foremost among these is the pride and love of Thai people in their heritage—and not just the formal aspects that are the focus of official heritage protection efforts, but heritage in its glorious entirety, including vernacular architecture, minority group heritages, and local customs and ways of life and livelihood—in short, all the things, large and small, that make up the magnificent richness and diversity of Thailand’s cultural mosaic, with its regional, ethnic, and community variants. Another encouraging sign is the increasing assertiveness in both Bangkok and the provinces of community-based civil society groups that are standing up to the destruction of historic buildings and neighborhoods, and are asserting their rights to cultural identity. An excellent example of this is the success of the old Peranakan Sino-Thai community of Phuket, which has rediscovered its cultural roots and its relationship with Peranakan communities in the Malacca Straits to the south, as described here in the essay by Salma Khoo. Another example is the success of Chiang Mai residents in saving the historic Wat Kate community. And as Richard Engelhardt, Montira Horayangura Unakul and Julia Davies show in their essay on “Lessons from the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation: International Best Practices in Thailand”, there are several communities and institutions in Thailand that have undertaken conservation projects that meet the highest international standards for best practice.’ Finally, in the first two years of its work, the Siamese Heritage Trust has found Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

12

James Stent

that there is no lack of knowledgeable and committed heritage conservation advocates in Thailand, including both academic experts in universities and community leaders and volunteers, who care deeply about Thailand’s cultural heritage, understand what should be done to protect it, and are willing to work together for the cause. The Siamese Heritage Trust works to provide channels for conservation voices to be heard against official apathy and misguided forces of development, to increase public awareness of heritage conservation, to advocate heritage causes, and to provide networking opportunities for all those interested in protecting Thailand’s official heritage. Until the governance and legal structure of heritage is strengthened, it must be primarily in the court of public opinion, and through advocacy and education, that the campaign for heritage protection and improved heritage management must be fought. The Siamese Heritage Trust, in its first two years, has been finding its way, identifying the issues, and enlisting support. Gratified by the positive public reaction to its initial efforts, encouraged by the emergence of a broad based, albeit still embryonic, social movement for cultural heritage preservation, and motivated by the immediacy and magnitude of the threats, the Trust will intensify its heritage conservation efforts in future years. The Trust hopes that the essays in this volume will contribute to increasing public awareness and interest in the conservation cause.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Section 1

History

A Brief History of Heritage Protection in Thailand Piriya Krairiksh

Thailand has a long history of heritage protection. From the mid seventh to the mid nineteenth century, the aim of protecting man-made monuments as well as the manner of conserving them were different from those of today. For over a millennium, personal piety was the rationale behind conservation. From the mid nineteenth century onwards, as the state took over the responsibility for protecting cultural heritage, so did the aim of conservation change from religious piety to national pride. The 1960s saw development as a threat to conservation. But twenty years later, the state used conservation as a means to further economic development through tourism. Thus, the change in the history of heritage protection parallels those of the Thai nation as it advanced from a traditional Buddhist kingdom to a modern materialist state. The aim of Buddhists of all sects during the seventh century was to acquire merit through the making of Buddha images and building stupas, the rewards for which were immeasurable (Beal 1969, 146–147; Takakusu 1966, 150–151). Merit could be gained by restoring and beautifying existing stupas, as exemplified by the three phases of the Chula Pathon Cetiya (Dupont 1959, 90–92; Krairiksh 2012, 54–57, 86–88, 270) and the three phases of Vihāra of Wat Phra Men (Dupont Ibid.; Krairiksh Ibid., 260), both at Nakhon Pathom. Enlarging and modifying existing structures to suit sectarian specifications and prevalent tastes were accepted practices, as witnessed by the evolution of such hallowed monuments as the Great Stupa-1 at Butkara in the Swat Valley, Pakistan, and the Vihāra at site No. 3, Nālan d a, India. While the former underwent six phases (Khan 1993, 23; see Figure 1), the latter can boast of seven phases (Mitra 1971, 88; see Figure 2). Further incentives for constructing and restoring stupas came with the acceptance of the beliefs of the Mahāvihāra sect from Sri Lanka in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Ever since the fifth century, this sect believed that the Buddhist religion had a life span of five thousand years, and that merit would accrue to those who strived to perpetuate the religion by consecrating Buddha images and founding Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

16

Piriya Krairiksh

Figure 1. The Great Stupa-I at Butkara, Swat Valley, Pakistan, 3rd BC–10th CE

Figure 2. The Vihāra at Site No.3, Nālanda, Bihar, India, 3rd BC–12th CE

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

A Brief History of Heritage Protection in Thailand

17

monasteries (Skilling 2007, 78). When the teaching of the Buddha Gotama came to an end, they could hope to enter nibāna and to meet the Future Buddha Metteya as rewards for their good deeds. So from the fourteenth century to the nineteenth century dedicatory inscriptions on Buddha images and stupas attested to the wishes of the donors to enter nibāna and meet the Future Buddha Metteya as reward for their making merit. Among the earliest examples of the Mahāvihāra tradition of pious heritage preservation was the restoration of the Maha That Luang at Sukhothai by Somdet Phra Mahathera Śrī Śradhārājūlāmānī Pen Chao in the 1340s. He had the height of the Great Relic Stupa increased from 95 wa (1 Sukhothai wa = 1.86 metre) of the original to 102 wa, and had it stuccoed (Griswold and Prasert 1972, 121). He also had fragmentary stone images, collected from far and wide, brought together and joined with mortar to make them new, durable and “exceedingly beautiful” (Ibid., 123). In 1447, King Tilokarat of Lan Na had the Maha That at Lamphun rebuilt. He had a trench dug all around the ancient monument at a distance of ten cubits (5 metres) from the monument and to the depth of a man’s height. This trench served as the foundation for the new building which was constructed of stone slabs. The new Maha That was 92 cubits (46 metres) in height and had a single spire (Jayawickrama 1968, 134–135). In keeping with Buddhist tradition, the new building was constructed over the old one. To welcome the new millennium of the Cula Sakarat Buddhist era, which fell in the year 1638, King Prasat Thong of Ayutthaya made an explanation on the prophecy of a thousand years, saying that he would be the renewer of everything, and that the people by building and repairing many new temples, had to serve the gods, so that everybody might receive rewards for his good deeds from the gods. In such a way the king sought to change everything spiritually. In view of this the king had all the principal temples in the entire country and even in uninhabited places, repaired (Van Vliet 1910, 74–75).

Probably in preparation for the Cula Sakarat millennium, King Prasat Thong had built, “renewed and repaired more temples, towers, and pyramids than any of his predecessors” (Baker et al. 2005, 243). Among the structures restored at this time was the prang (tower) of the Great Relic Stupa at Wat Mahāthat, Ayutthaya, which had collapsed earlier. Originally, the prang was nineteen wa high and the trident finial three wa. As the king thought that the original form was extremely squat, he had the height of the tower increased to one sen (40 metres) and two wa, but retained the original finial (Royal Chronicles of Ayutthaya 2000, 217). Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

18

Piriya Krairiksh

After having built a palace at Lop Buri, King Narai (r. 1656–1688) commanded that the “holy recitation halls, preaching halls, grand reliquaries, funeral monuments, dormitories and assembly halls, which were damaged and dilapidated in the various temples throughout the Province of the Municipality of Lop Buri, be restored to their original unaltered condition” (Ibid., 303). In 1742, King Borommakot had the whole of the Temple Royal of Wat Phra Si Sanphet renovated with the instruction that the image house not be given a spire roof, but be built with a roof similar to all image houses (Ibid., 435). During the heyday of Ayutthaya in the seventeenth century the kingdom had “above fourteen thousand Pagods,” the “magnificence” of which “are Arguments of their Piety,” as reported by the Jesuit priest, Tachard in 1685 (Tachard 1981, 272). To protect them from vandals, laws were promulgated to punish offenders. Whatever is within those Temples is looked upon as Sacred, and to steal anything from thence is death; about five years ago five Robbers were surprised in a Pagod, and they were Roasted alive by a gentle fire. They fastened every one of them to a great pole, and then having kindled a fire, all around them, they were turned there till they expired (Ibid.).

Such cruel punishment was, indeed, legal. Article 48 of the Law on Theft stated that if thieves removed gold from images of Buddha, let the thieves be put into fire just as they had done with the image. Similarly, Article 49 stipulated that, whoever removed gold from images of Buddha would be taken to the place of execution and, just as they did with the Buddha images, have a red hot iron impressed on them (Roeng Kot Mai Tra Sam Duang 2521, 445). Article 52 stated that whoever dug up images, stupas, or vihāras would either be put to death, have his fingers cut off, or be whipped 60 times (Ibid., 446). These laws continued to be enacted to the Bangkok period, when King Rama I promulgated them again in 1805. Having founded Bangkok as his new capital in 1782, King Rama I in 1808 commanded that the large seated bronze Buddha at Sukhothai, which was in danger due to wild fires since no one was looking after it, be brought to Bangkok for safe keeping and installed at the newly built Wihan Luang of Wat Suthat. However, since he noticed that the face and the hands were not in accordance with the Pāli texts and commentaries, he had them corrected according to contemporary interpretations (Prachum Mai Rap Sang II, 2525, 128). Anniversary celebrations are auspicious occasions for restoring monuments, as is evident from the restoration of Wat Phra Si Rattana Sassadaram (the Temple of the Emerald Buddha) on the 50th, 100th, 150th, and 200th anniversaries of the founding of Bangkok. The 50th anniversary came in 1832 in the reign of King Rama III (r. 1824–1851), at which time it was felt that the temple had undergone much wear and tear. As Wat Arun (the Temple of Dawn) and Wat Rakhang had already Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

A Brief History of Heritage Protection in Thailand

Figure 3. The Ubosot of Wat Phra Si Rattana Sassadaram, Bangkok, 1832

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

19

20

Piriya Krairiksh

Figure 4. The Wihan Yot, Wat Phra Si Rattana Sassadaram, Bangkok, 1832

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

A Brief History of Heritage Protection in Thailand

21

been restored, it was the turn of the Temple of the Emerald Buddha, the crown jewel of the capital. The focus of the restoration was the beautification of the Ubosot (convocation hall), which was transformed from a subdued structure in red and gold into the riot of colours and forms we see today (Chotmaihet 2516, 23–29; see Figure 3). He also had a building which had been constructed by King Rama I to house the image of the Divine Ancestor torn down and replaced with the present building, called Wiharn Yot, since the superstructure is in the form of a crown decorated with ceramics (Ibid., 37; see Figure 4). The centenary celebration of Bangkok came in 1882 in the reign of King Chulalongkorn (r. 1868–1910). Since some construction projects begun by King Mongkut (r. 1851–1868), such as the Phra Sri Ratana Chedi and the Phra Phuttha Prang Prasat, had not been completed, their completion became a priority for the centenary celebration. At this time all stupas, big and small, including the Suwanna Cetiya built by King Rama I, were entirely reconstructed (Ibid., 40). The mural paintings depicting the Ramakien in the covered gallery, which were painted in the reign of King Rama III and had not been repaired before, had to be repainted in their entirety (Saengsun 1973, 88). It can be seen from the above examples that traditional methods of conservation do not mean consolidation or preservation of the original state of the monument. Reconstruction and rebuilding were the accepted norms. However draconian the laws on theft were, they did not deter would-be treasure hunters from excavating monastic monuments. So King Mongkut, with his usual far-sightedness and pragmatism, introduced a novel and surprisingly modern way of protecting religious heritage by having everyone living within four sen of a monastery be responsible for its safekeeping. According to a Royal Proclamation of 1854, people living within 80 metres of a monastery must report to the authority within one month if they noticed that thieves had broken into the ubosot, vihāra or stupa, or had damaged Buddha images. If outsiders reported the vandalism first, the residents would have to pay for the renovations themselves. King Mongkut reasoned that however big or small and in however ruinous a state, these buildings did not cease to be ornaments of the kingdom (Prachum Prakat 2527, 71–72). The aim of heritage protection entered a new phase in the reign of King Mongkut and his successors for the aim of conservation became to preserve historical remains for the glory of the nation. As Siam joined the “civilised” nations, nationalism took root as a state religion (Phra Phaisan Visalo 2552, 118–131). The elevation of cultural sites and artifacts from local to national relevance is indeed a basic move for promoting a shared vision of the past among the citizens of modern nations (Peleggi 2002, 31).

Siam in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was no exception. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

22

Piriya Krairiksh

As a sign of “civilisation”, King Chulalongkorn had a museum opened to the public in the Grand Palace as early as 1874. In 1887, the museum became a governmental department under the Ministry of Education and was housed in the former palace of the Heir Apparent (Wang Na), where it remains today (Krom Silpakorn 2547, 34–35). In 1902. the first provincial museum was opened at the Chantharakasem Palace in Ayutthaya. In order to commemorate that King Chulalongkorn’s forty year reign was equal in length to that of King Ramathibodi II (r. 1448–1488), a three-day celebration was held at Ayutthaya in 1907. This occasion caused the old royal palace to be excavated and restored for the first time, as the ancient monuments, together with the Royal Chronicles, bore witness to the Thai nation’s long development (Ratchakitchanubeksa RS 126, 921). On the same occasion, the King inaugurated the Antiquarian Society, perhaps in response to the Siam Society, which had been founded three years earlier, to research Thai history. The King also took this occasion to decree that the land within the city’s walls was to be reserved for the crown. No one was permitted to own it (Kuakun 2529, 51–52). King Chulalongkorn’s views on conservation, as known from his undated memorandum on the restoration of the Phra Prang of the Temple of Dawn, show that he shared the same point of view as the contemporary Italian restorer Camillo Boito, whose “Prima Carta del Restauro”, or the “Charter of Restoration” of 1883, sought to maintain the integrity of the original materials. Since ancient monuments represent the history of the nation, they should be respected (Nikom ed. 2533, 89). King Chulalongkorn commanded that the restoration of the Phra Prang and its vicinity must rely on the original materials as much as possible, that old parts should not be made to look new, that the original designs must be followed, and that the restorers must seek the King’s approval before making any improvement anywhere on the building (Roeng Kan Burana 2516, 1). Towards the end of King Chulalongkorn’s reign some people made their living from treasure hunting. They knew exactly where deposits had been placed in different types of stupa, so they could hunt directly for them. When caught, they were imprisoned for three years. Crown Prince Maha Vajiravudh attributed the destruction of “national monuments” to avarice and delusion, for amulets fetched a high price and people were deluded into thinking that these artefacts could protect them from dangers, so they forgot “both nation and religion” (Maha Vajiravudh, RS 127, 31–33). However, he was the first Thai to equate progress with destruction of antiquities. He realised that “sometimes progress is an enemy of antiquities, which is quite normal, not only in our country, but in other countries as well” (Ibid., 240). If we are forced to choose between progress or preservation of antiquities, it is normal to think of progress first. So that we have to sacrifice antiquities for Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

A Brief History of Heritage Protection in Thailand

23

the sake of progress. In our country how many bricks from the buildings of Ayutthaya went into the making of railway embankments? My only hope is that there will not be too many occasions when we will have to barter antiquities for progress (Ibid. 241).

In March 1911, one year after his ascension to the throne, King Vajiravudh moved the responsibility for monastic restoration and casting of Buddha images from the Ministry of Public Works and merged it with the Museum Department to form the Department of Art and Crafts, which he named Krom Silpakorn or the Fine Arts Department. This came under the Ministry of the Royal Household and was supervised by the King (Krom Silpakorn 2532, 60). However, no action was taken by the King to organise an Archaeology Department, until a French minister complained to the Foreign Minister, Prince Devawongse, that the “lack of progress, moral as well as material” had deterred Siam from establishing an archaeological department (Vella 1978, 312–313). This remark prompted the King to found an archaeological service in 1926, with the aim of surveying and protecting antiquities. He reasoned that the National Library, which King Chulalongkorn had founded in 1904, already had the expertise in archaeological research, and hence should be given the additional responsibility of looking after antiquities. In his proclamation on the Survey and Preservation of Antiquities of 1923, he stated, as the antiquities in Siam, such as stupas and other artifacts, which were made by past kings and expert artisans, represent evidence for the Royal Chronicles and are sources for archaeological research, they are useful and bring honor to the nation. Thus all civilized countries take it as their duty to survey and restore their own antiquities (Ratchakitchanubeksa 2466, 244–245).

Thence the protection of national heritage became the duty of the state. However, no actual conservation took place in his reign. Like his elder brother, King Vajiravudh, King Prajadhipok (r. 1925–1934) saw works of art and antiquities as part and parcel of national myths and history which bore witness to the development of civilisation of the nation. Also, these works embodied the spirit and character of the people. In his speech on the opening of the Bangkok National Museum in 1926, he said, As for Siam there is a national art, born and bred in our own country. Being different from that of other lands, it belongs only to the Thai nation (Krom Silpakorn 2536, 47).

In the same year, he established the Royal Institute to oversee the Fine Arts Department, the Museum Department, and the Archaeological Department. In 1930, Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

24

Piriya Krairiksh

the president of the Royal Institute, Prince Damrong Rajanubhab, delivered a speech at the Bangkok National Museum giving directions to the conservation of antiquities, as follows: 1. If anyone wishes to make a restoration, tell him to keep to the original. Do not change the forms, nor the decorations, as he wishes. 2. Do not demolish or damage a monument so as to replace it with a new building. 3. Any new addition must be built at some distance from the ancient monument, so as to preserve the dignity of the old building (Damrong 2516, 12–13).

Prince Damrong’s directions may have been a response to Khru Ba Sriwichai’s programme of renovating ancient monuments in Lan Na. Prince Damrong feared that the popular monk’s pious restorations might have changed the original forms of buildings and forever wiped out any chance of relying on antiquities to supplement the study of history (Somchart 2555, 96). The Royal Institute’s task then was to preserve the monuments not to restore them to their original state. It did so by using buttresses to support the structure and by utilising the anastylosis method, disassembling and then reassembling the dismembered parts, favoured by the French archaeologists (Nikom ed. 2533, 94). Three years after the absolute monarchy was overthrown in 1932, the Royal Institute was shorn of its responsibilities, but survived as a research centre for higher learning. The Fine Arts Department, which came under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, took charge of archaeology, conservation, and museums. During Field Marshal Phibun Songkhram’s first administration (1938–1944), the government’s attention was geared toward “nation building”. Accordingly, the name of the country was changed to Thailand in 1939. Among the programmes of national development was a scheme to rehabilitate the island of Ayutthaya, which for 417 years had been the capital of the kingdom, but which since 1767 had been depopulated. The government transferred the ownership of the land inside the city walls, which King Chulalongkorn had proclaimed protected property, to the Ministry of Finance to be developed. In 1940, Luang Pradit Manutham, who was then Minister of Finance, had the Provincial Hall constructed in the middle of the island so as to bring people back into the former capital. In the same year, the government built the Pridi-Thamrong Bridge, then the longest concrete bridge in the kingdom, to link the island with the mainland. On the island itself, roads were built to facilitate communication and land was parcelled out for sale (Kuakun 2529, 60–63). As a result of government sponsored development, twenty-three ancient monasteries, which appeared on Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

A Brief History of Heritage Protection in Thailand

25

Phraya Boran Ratchathanin’s map of the ancient city, disappeared (Ibid., 91). King Vajiravudh could not have been more astute to predict that, given a choice, the government would choose progress over conservation. As for conservation, the government did provide Wat Nakhon Kosa at Lop Buri with a barbed wire fence in 1935 and did some restoration to other monuments there (Fine Arts Department 2508, 30). Although Field Marshal Phibun had founded the Division of Culture within the Fine Arts Department in 1938 to enforce the Cultural Mandates of State announced by the Office of the Prime Minister and to promulgate a law on culture from 1940– 1942, it was not until 1952 that the Division was elevated to become a ministry. Its writ was to oversee the Departments of Publicity, Fine Arts, Religious Affairs and Culture (Krasuang Watthanatham 2546, 19–21). The new Ministry of Culture “was also charged with promoting patriotism” and every ministry was ordered to promote the spirit of nationalism among government officials, so they could “spread the patriotic feeling to the Thai public” (Grossman ed. 2009, 61). Whereas the former Division of Culture had been in charge of a modernisation programme, the Ministry of Culture now supervised the promotion of nationalism along King Vajiravudh’s line, namely “nation, religion and king,” but with the constitution added to the trinity. Field Marshal Phibun’s second administration (1948–1957) was more constructive in the area of conservation, spurred, no doubt, by the country becoming a member of UNESCO in 1949. In that year alone, the Fine Arts Department made restorations of ancient monuments in Nakhon Ratchasima, Phitsanulok, Chiang Mai, Chiang Saen, Lop Buri, Phetchaburi and Kanchanaburi as well as enclosing the Kroe Sae Mosque in Pattani with a fence (Ibid., 31). This was the most the Fine Arts Department had accomplished in one year since its founding. Patriotism must have led Field Marshal Phibun to visit Sukhothai in 1952. Since 1940, Luang Wichit Wathakan, the director of the Fine Arts Department, had launched his promotion of Sukhothai-period culture on the grounds that it “represented the apogee of Thai cultural achievement” (Barmé 1993, 162). As a result of the prime minister’s visit, the Fine Arts Department began the survey and restoration of the Sukhothai monuments which continued every year until 1962 (Fine Arts Department 2508, 31–33). Field Marshal Phibun next turned his attention to Ayutthaya in 1956, as the following year would be the 2,500th anniversary of the Buddhist era, in preparation for which he had 1,239 monasteries restored (Thak 1979, 717). Also one year earlier, U Nu, the prime minister of Burma, had donated funds for the restoration of the vihāra of Phra Mongkhon Bophit in Ayutthaya, and had stated a wish to see the result as well as to make an official apology for the Burmese destruction of Ayutthaya. More importantly, Phibun wanted to make Ayutthaya a tourist destination. He had parking lots laid out, souvenir shops opened, public space landscaped, and roads Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

26

Piriya Krairiksh

improved (Kuakun 2529, 67). Thus, Phibun ushered in the era of cultural tourism. Unfortunately, the announcement of impending restorations by the Fine Arts Department prompted thieves to break into stupas before official excavations could begin. In 1957, they broke into the deposit chamber of the prang of Wat Ratchaburana and stole gold artefacts before official excavation commenced sixteen months later (Krom Silpakorn 2502, 11–14). Patriotism continued to be the goal of state conservation after Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat ousted the Phibun government in 1957 and had the Ministry of Culture abolished the following year. The Fine Arts Department reverted to the Ministry of Education. In the same year it began its restoration of Chiang Saen in Chiang Rai Province where the work continued to 1962 (Fine Arts Department 2508, 32–33). In 1959, at Don Chedi in Suphan Buri Province, a statue of King Naresuan was unveiled in front of a newly built Chedi constructed over the remains of an anonymous stupa that Prince Damrong thought had been erected by the great king himself to commemorate his victory over the Crown Prince of Burma. The image was unveiled on the anniversary of the victory which was then declared “Army Day” (Wong 2006, 91). In 1961, the Act on Ancient Monuments, Objects of Art, Antiques, and National Museums was promulgated with a clause stating that “no person shall repair, modify, alter, or excavate in the compound of an ancient monument, except by order of the director general or with a permit obtained from him” (Phraratcha Banyat 2513, 6). This Act clearly gave the Fine Arts Department freedom to do whatever it thought best with impunity. The Department discarded the concept of consolidating monuments with buttresses as favoured by the Royal Institute, for it reasoned that after four to five years the elements would wash away the ancient bricks, leaving the cement supports standing, as had happened at Lop Buri. Similarly, the Department decided that the anastylosis method, while suitable for stone and laterite structures, was unsuitable for brick buildings. So, for the brick monuments at Sukhothai and Chiang Saen it opted for excavation and restoration instead (Nikom ed. 2533, 95). However, between 1964 and 1969, the sandstone Prasat Phimai in Nakhon Ratchasima Province was restored by the anastylosis method with French assistance under the auspices of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) (Pichard 1976, 4). Concern over the Fine Arts Department’s heavy-handed restorations prompted O. P. Agrawal, head of the Indian Conservation Department, to advise in 1967 that the immediate priority was to draw up a clear plan for the restoration of ancient monuments. Agrawal remarked that if the trend of reconstruction was allowed to continue, and the directives for conservation, as spelled out at the Venice Meeting of Council on International of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) in 1964, were not taken into account, then many of Thailand’s architectural masterpieces would be turned eventually into fakes (“Thasana Khong Tang Prathet” 2516, 119). He Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

A Brief History of Heritage Protection in Thailand

27

suggested that for the restoration of brick buildings, Thailand could learn from the work on the ancient forum in Rome. He also warned that it would be too risky to permit anyone who was not properly trained in conservation to take sole charge of restoration (Ibid., 123). In 1964, the Office of the Prime Minister took charge of conservation work at Sukhothai and the prime minister, Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn, headed the committee in charge of the restoration of the monuments. He attributed Thailand’s independence to the Thai “national characteristic of building and accumulating legacies for children and grandchildren, such special traits enable us Thai to be free till now” (Khana Kammakan 2512, ก). In recognition of the contribution of the Siam Society under Royal Patronage to the knowledge of the nation over sixty years, he generously allocated two million baht from the national budget to establish an endowment fund to meet the operational expenses of the Siam Society under Royal Patronage as well as for the upkeep of the Kamthieng House. This ancestral home of the Nimmanahaeminda family of Chiang Mai was donated to the Siam Society in 1963 to be rebuilt in Bangkok as Thailand’s first ethnological museum (Siam Society 1966, 1–4). The 1960s was a period of economic development that saw many of Thailand’s ancient heritage buildings destroyed for the sake of progress. Individuals such as Sumet Jumsai “launched himself into what was initially almost a one-man crusade” to stop the destruction (Taylor and Hoskin 1996, 248). Sumet battled with the governors of Chiang Mai and Nakhon Si Thammarat to halt demolition of their city walls and in 1967 won an injunction from the Ministry of Interior to stop provincial governors destroying historical monuments (Ibid.). As officers in the Department of Town and Country Planning of the Interior Ministry, Sumet and his supervisor, Nid H. Shiranan, were instrumental in setting up the Ayutthaya Historical Park project which was approved by the government in 1967. The following year they began the restoration of the former residence of King Rama I at Wat Rakhang Kositaram in Thonburi (Ibid., 250–251). Sumet also initiated the Fine Arts Commission of the Association of Siamese Architects under Royal Patronage (ASA), which was unveiled in 1968, with the aim of conserving urban and rural features and buildings of architectural or historical interest as well as publicising the importance of preservation (Lassus 2006, 396). To meet the requirements of the Venice Charter, the Division of Archaeology in the Fine Arts Department was reorganised in 1974 and took to heart the following articles of the Charter: Article 1: The concept of a historic monument embraces not only the single architectural work but also the urban or rural setting in which is found the evidence of a particular civilization, a significant development or a historic event. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

28

Piriya Krairiksh

This article gave sanction to the Fine Arts Department not only to restore but also to develop a historical site. So from this time onward, the Department always referred to conservation and development together. Article 2: The conservation and restoration of monuments must have recourse to all the sciences and techniques which can contribute to the study and safeguarding of the architectural heritage.

Under this article the Fine Arts Department introduced the manicured lawns and flower beds that have since become a fixture of Thai historical sites. Thus, conservation projects, which hitherto had involved only archaeologists and artisans, now involved historians, architectural conservators, engineers, scientists, and landscape architects. While archaeologists and historians took care of excavation, the rest worked on restoration. Article 14: The sites of monuments must be the object of special care in order to safeguard their integrity and ensure that they are cleared and presented in a seemly manner (ICOMOS 2012).

Such was the system that the Fine Arts Department used for conservation of historical monuments from 1974 to 1986 (Nikom ed. 2533, 96). However, it was less scrupulous on the following articles: Article 9: The process of restoration is a highly specialized operation. Its aim is to preserve and reveal the aesthetic and historic value of the monument and is based on respect for original material and authentic documents. It must stop at the point where conjecture begins...

The restoration of the Chedi of Wat Sorasak at Sukhothai showed how the Department had relied on pure conjecture to create the stupa in its present form (see Figure 5). Article 11: The valid contributions of all periods to the building of a monument must be respected, since unity of style is not the aim of a restoration.

Prince Narisranuwattiwonge, who visited Wat Si Chum at Sukhothai in 1901, noticed that the different levels of the eyes of the Phra Acana image indicated that at least four restorations had been undertaken in the past (Narisranuwattiwonge 2506, 98; see Figure 6, left). But to preserve the vestiges of all periods has never been the intention of the Department, for its aim was to show the unity of the Sukhothai style (Figure 7). Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

A Brief History of Heritage Protection in Thailand

29

Figure 5. The process of restoring the Chedi of Wat Sorasak, Sukhothai: (top left) before restoration in 1965; (top right) during restoration in 1965; (bottom left) during restoration in 1965; (bottom right) after reconstruction in 1983

Article 15: All reconstruction work should however be ruled out “a priori”.

Despite this “a priori” outlawing, the Fine Arts Department seems to have thrived on reconstruction work. Most of the mouldings on the base of an excavated monument are usually damaged to the extent that there is no way to figure out what the original looked like. So the restorers reasoned that they must have resembled those that have withstood the vicissitudes of time. Hence the mouldings at the base of Wat Si Pichit Kirti Kalyaram, Sukhothai (Fig. 7) and those of other monuments throughout the kingdom now all look the same.. In 1977, the Fine Arts Department drew up a masterplan to conserve and develop Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

30

Piriya Krairiksh

Figure 6. The Phra Acana Image, Wat Si Chum, Sukhothai, before and after restoration: (left) photograph taken c. 1892; (right) after restoration in 1953

Figure 7. The Chedi of Wat Si Pichit Kirti Kalyaram, Sukhothai, before restoration in 1965 and after reconstruction in 1983

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

A Brief History of Heritage Protection in Thailand

31

the environment of the historic monuments at Sukhothai as well as to “recreate the atmosphere of the historic city.” Its intention was to restore the historical monuments and to revive the abandoned city. Thus was born the Sukhothai Historical Park Development Project, a 10-year endeavour with a total budget of 202.6 million baht. It involved conservation and archaeological research, land use planning, community development, resettlement of people to make way for the historical park and associated infrastructure, and landscape improvement. It also included revival of festivities that were mentioned in the Ram Khamhaeng inscription for the benefit of tourist promotion (Ishizawa ed. 1988, 104; Nikom ed. 2533, 101). This project was included in the Fourth National Economic and Social Development Plan (1977–1981) and Sukhothai was declared an historical park. The Fifth Plan (1982–1986) saw the same designation extended to Ayutthaya, Phimai, Phanom Rung, Muang Singh, Si Satchanalai, Kamphaeng Phet, Si Thep, and Phra Nakhon Khiri (Nikom, Ibid). Thus conservation was broadened to include development of vast areas and numerous monuments, such as the 70 square kilometres and approximately 200 monuments at Sukhothai Historical Park; the 45.14 square kilometres and 140 monuments at Si Satchanalai Historical Park; and the 3.83 square kilometres and 60 monuments at Kamphaeng Phet Historical Park (Thailand’s World Heritage n.d., 13). Thus, the Fine Arts Department used conservation as a rationale to develop entire cities. In preparation for the Bangkok Bicentennial celebrations due in 1982 the government of General Prem Tinsulanonda in 1978 appointed a committee to draw up a plan for the conservation and development of Bangkok’s inner city (Krung Rattanakosin). In 1981, the cabinet approved the committee’s proposals as follows: to forbid the construction of new housing by the state as well as the private sector within the inner city (Article 3); to restore any building built in the reign of King Chulalongkorn or earlier to its former state, or to demolish the building and reconstruct it following the same design as the original (Article 4); to create open space and shady areas along the Chao Phraya River (Article 9); and to allot land for traditional and cultural activities (Article 11) (“Karn Damnoen-Ngan Anurak”, 1–4). The Committee for the Conservation and Development of Krung Rattanakosin probably had in mind the Fine Arts Department’s masterplan for the Sukhothai Historical Park. But whereas Sukhothai was a sparsely populated place, Bangkok’s inner city was a thriving, living business centre. The first casualty was the Sunday Market at Sanam Luang, which was moved to Chatuchak Park in 1982 so that people could enjoy an uncluttered view of the Grand Palace from a wide expanse of green lawn. In 1985, the Fine Arts Department made amendments to the 1961 Act on Ancient Monuments so that it could have a freer hand to restore and develop. The so-called “Bangkok Charter” defines restoration as “the act of putting back to a former state” (Article 1 b) (Nikom ed. 2533, 98). Thus, its interpretation of restoration Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

32

Piriya Krairiksh

Figure 8. The Chedi of Wat Son Khao, Sukhothai, before and after restoration: (top left) before restoration in 1965; (top right) after restoration in 1965; (bottom left) the reconstruction of the “lotus bud” in 1983; (bottom right) after the removal of the “lotus bud” in 1984

is the opposite of Article 9 in the Venice Charter. Article 4 (3) stipulates that, in the case of a monument that has been restored and the restoration has spoiled the value of the original, the restoration work should be undone and the original building put back in place (Ibid., 99). The Fine Arts Department has practiced what it preached. Since its own reconstruction of the lotus-bud Chedi at Wat Son Khao, Sukhothai resulted in something that looked like an onion dome, it had this offending dome removed (Figure 8). Article 16 states that “If the ancient monument is still in use, it is permitted to enlarge and to make additions. There is no need to adhere to the original as long as it blends with the original and does not destroy its value.” Given the scope of work that the Fine Arts Department has undertaken, it was not unexpected that it had to hire Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

A Brief History of Heritage Protection in Thailand

33

outside constructors to do restoration work, theoretically, under the supervision of a trained architectural conservator. Thus, in the name of conservation, the Fine Arts Department could do whatever it wished with historical monuments. On the grounds that social developments over the past hundred years brought great suffering to the nation through economic decline, depletion of natural resources, loss of national spirit, broken homes, fractious communities, and lack of responsibility by local communities to take care of their own cultural heritage, such as ancient monuments and ancient artifacts, which required the Fine Arts Department to work beyond its capacity, the Minister of Education asked the Fine Arts Department to promote Thai cultural heritage awareness among the people so that they would help to protect the cultural heritage within their own localities. Thus, the Department came up with the Thai Heritage Conservation Day to be celebrated on 2 April, the birthday of Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, beginning in 1985 (Phaen Mae Bot 2541, 12). Spurning international conventions, the Fine Arts Department turned to popular support. It declared that the aim of conservation was not to serve scholarship, but to make historical monuments part of local communities. The Department reasoned that even though a restored monument could not be considered an original work of art, it would have a longer life span than one that had not been preserved and would best show how the original might have looked. Besides, over time wind and rain would erode the reconstructed parts so that they would blend with the cityscape or with the rural landscape. Hence, the Department preferred to reconstruct rather than to preserve, especially in the case of religious monuments (Ibid., 102–104). Given such blatant disregard for the Venice Charter and internationally accepted conservation practice, it was a remarkable achievement of the Fine Arts Department that the Sukhothai, Si Satchanalai, Kamphaeng Phet, and Ayutthaya Historical Parks were declared World Heritage Sites in 1991. By accepting these sites, the World Heritage Committee has authenticated “national historical narrative for which the kingdom of Sukhothai and Ayutthaya were precursors of the modern Thai nation” (Peleggi 2002, 24). In the following year, the Ban Chiang Archaeological Site was added to the list. Inclusion of these places on the list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites not only boosted Thailand’s national pride and promoted international awareness of Thailand’s cultural heritage, but also bestowed legitimacy on the Fine Arts Department’s reconstruction of historical monuments. Also in 1991, the Committee for the Conservation and Development of Krung Rattanakosin successfully created the Rama III Plaza and Park by pulling down the Sala Chalermthai Theatre in order to give a vista of the Loha Prasat at Wat Ratchanadda, which was built in 1846. The destruction of the Sala Chalermthai Theatre was a travesty of conservation. The theatre should have been conserved to retain the integrity of Khun Chitrasen (Mew) Apaiwongs’ grand Art Deco design of Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

34

Piriya Krairiksh

Figure 9. Ratchadamnoen Avenue in 1941

1941 for Ratchadamnoen Avenue (see Figure 9). However, because of ideological differences there were some who advocated demolishing all Phibun-era buildings in the inner city (Chatri 2552, 203). The success of the project to develop historical parks must have inspired the Masterplan for the Conservation and Development of Krung Rattanakosin, which received approval from the cabinet in 1997. This plan sought to open up views of Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

A Brief History of Heritage Protection in Thailand

35

historical monuments, to create more parks, to restore monuments, to create an identity for the inner city, and to develop the environment (“Karn Damnoen-Ngan Anurak”, 2). Just as with the Rama III Plaza and Park, “the Government wanted to convert the nearby site of the Mahakan Fort to be a public park, which involved the removal of the community, whereas the local people wanted to continue living there” (Chatri 2550, 458). The committee wanted to recreate the atmosphere of inner Bangkok during the reign of King Chulalongkorn, including providing vistas for important historical monuments and public parks. It saw people as incompatible with monuments (Ibid., 461). Fortunately, the people of the Mahakan Fort community might have the Constitution of 1997 on their side. Article 66 states, “a community, local community or traditional local community shall have the right to conserve or restore their customs, local wisdom, arts or good culture of their community” (Phaen Mae Bot 2541, 14). As Bangkok’s oldest and only surviving community of people living between the moat and wall of the city, the Mahakan Fort community deserved protection on the grounds of its continuity. Today heritage no longer refers only to ancient monuments, but living culture as well (Ibid.) Not so fortunate may be the row of Art Deco-style shop houses lining Ratchadamnoen Avenue that were built during Field Marshal Phibun Songkhram’s “nation-building” programme (see Figure 9). They are under threat from the 2003 conservation and development project, known as the “Thai Champs Élysées” (Chatri 2553, 81). As one of Thailand’s best known landmarks, this avenue, on which many Thais have fought and died for their beliefs, should be conserved the way it is in respect for the dead and for the nation’s history. To commemorate HM the King’s 80th Birthday, in 2006 the president of the Supreme Court declared that the modernist Supreme Court building facing Sanam Luang would be demolished and replaced by a Thai-style construction at the cost of 3,700 million baht (Chatri 2551, 133). The president argued that the building was dilapidated and could no longer be used even though it was only 23 years old. Work on the new building was scheduled to begin in 2008. The Committee for the Conservation and Development of Krung Rattanakosin should have rallied to save the old Supreme Court building as it has great historical value. Begun in 1939 and completed in 1963, it was built to celebrate Thailand’s recovery of full judicial sovereignty after the last extraterritorial treaty with France was rescinded in 1938. Not only should it be saved because of its historical value, but also on the grounds of art history as it is the most imposing example of modernist architecture in Thailand and represents the “nation-building” period of Thai history. The Committee for the Conservation and Development of Krung Rattanakosin probably will rush to endorse the project, launched by the Tourism Authority of Thailand in 2008, entitled “Bright Chao Phraya Project in Honor of the King”. The Committee proposed developing the bank of the Chao Phraya River from Tha Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

36

Piriya Krairiksh

Phrachan to Pak Khlong Talat by demolishing the Tha Tian Market, transforming its site into a park, and reconstructing a clock tower, a palace at Tha Ratcha Woradit, a residence for ambassadors, a model junk, a covered walkway at the Wat Po Landing, new city gates, and houseboats to be moored along the river bank to house souvenir shops (Chatri 2553, 87). By destroying the present, it hopes to recreate the past. But that past never existed as a part of Thai culture. Having forsaken Buddhist piety and succumbed to anger, greed or delusion, those who should protect Thailand’s national heritage mistake fakes for authenticity and choose substitution over conservation. So will there be a future for heritage protection in Thailand?

References Baker, Chris et al. 2005. Van Vliet’s Siam. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books. Barmé, Scot. 1993. Luang Wichit Wathakan and the Creation of a Thai Identity. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Beal, Samuel, tr. 1969. Buddhist Records of the Western World (translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang, AD 629). Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Chatri Prakitnonthakan. 2550 [2007]. “The Masterplan for Conservation and Development: The Community of Ancient Wooden Houses, Pom Mahakan.” Karn Anurak Lae Phattana Moradok Watthanatham Thongthin Yang Yang Yun Nai Naew Thang Buranakarn Khamsas. Proceedings of International Conference on, “Sustainable Local Heritage Conservation: The Trandisciplinary Appoach.” and ICOMOS Thailand Annual Meeting 2006. Bangkok: Amarin Printing and Publishing, pp. 458–473. Chatri Prakitnonthakan. 2551 [2008]. “Bang Hetpol Tee Sangkom Mai Kwuan Yom Hai Rue-Sang Sal Deeka Mai” (Some reasons for not demolishing and building a new Supreme Court). Art & Culture Magazine, 29: 5 (March), pp. 132–146. Chatri Prakitnonthakan. 2552 [2009]. Silpa-Sathaphattayakam Khanarat Sanyalak Thang Karn Muang Nai Chong Udom Karn. Bangkok: Matichon. Chatri Prakitnonthakan. 2553 [2010]. “Rattanakosin Charter.” Aan (Read Journal), 3: 1 (October-December), pp. 77–89. Chotmaihet Rueng Patisangkon Wat Phra Sri Rattana Sassadaram Krang Ratchakarn Tee Saam. 2516 [1973], 4th ed. (first published 2465 [1922]). Published for the cremation of Nai Lek Na Songkhla at Wat Makhut Kasat Triyaram, 29 April. Bangkok: Krom Silpakorn. Damrong Rajanubhab, Somdet Phrachao Boromwong Thoe Krom Phraya. 2516 Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

A Brief History of Heritage Protection in Thailand

37

[1973]. Pathakata Roeng Sa-nguan Raksa Kong Boran. Published for the cremation of Nai Lek Na Songkhla at Wat Mongkut Kasat Triyaram, 27 April. Bangkok: Krom Silpakorn. Dupont, Pierre. 1959. L’Archéologie Mône de Dvāravatī. Volume XLI. Paris: École Française D’Extrême-Orient. Fine Arts Department. 2508 [1965]. The Development of Museums and Archaeological Activities in Thailand [Museums in Thailand Volume I]. Bangkok: Fine Arts Department. Griswold, A.B. and Prasert na Nagara, 1972. “Epigraphic and Historical Studies, No. 10: King Lödaiya of Sukhodaya and his Contemporaries.” Journal of the Siam Society, 60: 1 (January). Grossman, Nicholas, editor-in-chief. 2009. Chronicle of Thailand: Headline News since 1946. Bangkok: Bangkok Post. ICOMOS. International charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites (The Venice Charter 1964), “2nd International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, Venice, 1964.” p. 2–5, (accessed 26 October 2012). Ishizawa, Yoshiaki et al. 1988. Study on Sukhothai. Tokyo: Sophia University, Institute of Asian Cultures. Jayawickrama, N.A. 1968. Jinakālamālīpakaranam, Pali Text Society translation series No. 36, (original of Ratanapañña Thera of Thailand). London: Luzac & Company. “Karn Damnoen-Ngan Anurak Lae Phattana Krung Rattanakosin.” Bangkok: Natural and Cultural Environmental Conservation Division, p. 1–4. (accessed 30 October 2012). Khan, Muhammad Ashraf. 1993. Buddhist Shrines in Swat. Lahore: Saidu Sharif. Khana Kammakan Phap Phrung Burana Boransathan Chang-wad Sukhothai Lae Chang-wad Kamphaeng Phet. 2512 [1969]. Ray Ngan Karn Sam-roaj Lae Khud Tang Burana Boranwattu Sathan Muangkhao Sukhothai B.E. 2508 – 2512/ 1965 –1969. Pra Nagara: Rong Pim Guru Sapha Ladprao. Krairiksh, Piriya. 2012. The Roots of Thai Art. Bangkok: River Books. Krasuang Watthanatham. 2546 [2003]. Bangkok: Rungsil Karn Pim. Krom Silpakorn. 2502 [1959]. Phra Phuttha Rup Lae Phra Phim Nai Kru Phra Prang Wat Ratchaburana Changwat Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya. Bangkok: Krom Silpakorn. Krom Silpakorn. 2532 [1989]. 78 Pee Kong Karn Raksa Silpawattanatam. Bangkok: Rongpim Karn Sassana. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

38

Piriya Krairiksh

Krom Silpakorn. 2536 [1993]. Phrabat Somdet Phra Pok Klao Chaoyuhua Kab Karn Phiphittapan Thai. Bangkok: Rungsil Karn Pim. Krom Silpakorn. 2547 [2004]. Phrabat Somdet Phra Chulachomklao Chaoyuhua Kab Karn Phiphitapan Thai (King Chulalongkorn and his patronage of museums). Bangkok: Amarin. Kuakun Yuenyong-Anan. 2529 [1986]. Kwam Plean Plang Pay Nai Koh Muang Phranakorn Si Ayutthaya. Bangkok: Thai Khadi Research Institute, Thammasat University, pp. 60–63. Lassus, Pongkwan (Sukwattana). 2006. “ASA’s Fine Art Commission: 38 years of Activities for Architectural Heritage Conservation in Thailand.” Proceedings of International Conference on ‘Sustainable Local Heritage Conservation: The Trandisciplinary Appoach’ and ICOMOS Thailand Annual Meeting 2006. Bangkok: ICOMOS. Maha Vajiravudh, HRH Crown Prince. Tieo Muang Phra Ruang Rattanakosin Sok 126. (RS 127/BE 2451 [1908]). Bangkok: Rongpim Bamrung Nukulkit. Mitra, Debala. 1971. Buddhist Monuments. Calcutta: Sahitya Samsad. Narisranuwattiwonge, Somdej Chao Fa Kromphraya. 2506 [1963]. Chotmai Rayathang Pai Phitsanulok. Published on the occasion of the centenary of the author’s birth, 28 April. Phra Nagara: Rong Pim Phra Chan. Nikom Musigakama ed. 2533 [1990]. Tidsadee Lae Naew Thang Patibat Karn Anurak Anusorn-satan Lae Laeng Borankadee. Bangkok: Kong Borankhadi, Document No.1/2532 [1989]. Peleggi, Maurizio. 2002. The Politics of Ruins and the Business of Nostalgia. Bangkok: White Lotus. Phaen Mae Bot Wan Anurak Moradok Thai 2541–2544. 2541 [1998]. Bangkok: Khana Anu Kamma Karn Damnoen Ngan Lae Pra Sarn Ngan Wan Anurak Moradok Thai. Phra Phaisan Visalo. 2552 [2009]. Buddha Sassana Thai Nai Arnakot Naeo Nom Lae Thang-ok Jak Wi-krit. Bangkok: Komol Keem Thong Foundation. Phraratcha Banyat Boransathan Boranwattu Silpawattu Lae Phipittaphantasathan Haeng Chart B.E. 2504. 2513 [1970]. Pra Nagara: Rong Pim Guru Sapha Pra Sumeru. Pichard, Pierre. 1976. PIMAY: Etude Architecturale du Temple. Paris: École Française D’Extrême-Orient. Prachum Mai Rap Sang Samai Krung Rattanakosin II. 2525 [1982]. Krungthep: Khana Kammakarn Phicharana Lae Chad Pim Akekasarn Tang Pawattisas Samnak Nayok Rattamontri. Prachum Prakat Ratchakarn Tee 4 B.E. 2394–2400, Volume 1. 2527 [1984]. (First Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

A Brief History of Heritage Protection in Thailand

39

published 2503 [1960]). Bangkok: Rongpim Guru Sapha Ladprao. Ratchakitchanubeksa, Volume 24. RS. 126/BE 2450 [1907]. Ratchakitchanubeksa, Volume 40. 2466 [1923]. Roeng Kan Burana Pra Prank Wat Arun Racha Wararam. 2516 [1973]. Published for the cremation of Nai Lek Na Songkhla at Wat Makhut Kasat Triyaram 29 April. Bangkok: Krom Silpakorn, Roeng Kot Mai Tra Sam Duang. 2521 [1978]. Bangkok: Krom Silpakorn, Kong Wannakadee Lae Pawattisas. Saengsun Ladawan. 2516 [1973]. Karn Chom Phap Phanang Rueng Ramakien Tee Wat Phra Sri Rattana Sassadaram Nai Karn Somphot Pranakorn Krob Roy Pee B.E. 2425. Published for the cremation of Nai Lek Na Songkhla at Wat Makhut Kasat Triyaram, 29 April. Bangkok: Krom Silpakorn. Siam Society. 2509 [1966]. The Kamthieng House. Bangkok: The Siam Society under Royal Patronage. Skilling, Peter. 2007. “For Merit and Nirvana: The Production of Art in the Bangkok Period.” Art Asiatiques, tome 62. Somchart Chungsiri-arak. 2555 [2012]. “Kwam Chue Lae Naew Kwam Kid Nai Karn Anurak Boran Satan Kong Thai Chak Ardīt su Patcuban.” Muang Boran Journal, 78: 2 (April–June), p. 96. “Thasana Khong Tang Prathet Wa Duai Kan Sa-Nguan Raksa Sombat Watthanatham Nai Prathet Thai Lae Prathet Phak Phun Asia Tai Lae Asia Archaney” Kannikar Lae Arphorn Na Songkhla Plae Lae Sanoe Khor Khit Hen Chak, Mission to South and South East Asia of Dr. Paul Philippot and O. P. Agrawal, February 21–March 18, BE 2515 [1972]. 2516 [1973]. p. 119. Published for the cremation of Nai Lek Na Songkhla at Wat Makhut Kasat Triyaram, 29 April. Bangkok: Krom Silpakorn. Tachard, Guy. 1981. Voyage to Siam. (First published 1688). Bangkok: White Orchid. Takakusu, J. trans. 1966. A Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practised in India and the Malay Archipelago. (Originally by ‘I-Tsing’, first published 1896). Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Taylor, Brian Brace and John Hoskin. 1996. Sumet Jumsai: Design Excellence. Volume III. Thailand: The Key Publisher. Thailand’s World Heritage, n. d. Bangkok: Department of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Ministry of Natural Resource and Department of Fine Arts, Ministry of Culture, The Thai National Commission for UNESCO, Ministry of Education. Thak Chaloemtiarana. 1979. Thailand: The Politics of Despotic Paternalism. Bangkok: Social Sciences Association of Thailand and Thai Khadi Institute, Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

40

Piriya Krairiksh

Thammasat University. The Royal Chronicles of Ayutthaya. 2006. Bangkok: The Siam Society under Royal Patronage. Van Vliet, Jeremias. 1910. “Description of the Kingdom of Siam.” Journal of the Siam Society, 7. Vella, Walter Francis. 1978. Chaiyo! King Vajiravudh and the Development of Thai Nationalism. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Wong, Ka F. 2006. Visions of a Nation: Public Monuments in Twentieth-Century Thailand. Bangkok: White Lotus.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

A Record of Historical Conservation, 1964–2012 Sumet Jumsai

This article presents a record of historical conservation activities that I have kept since 1964. It covers projects undertaken with a group of architects and likeminded colleagues from other disciplines. Initially, most of the programmes were part of the work at the Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) where I was attached. However, the need to work outside officialdom became pressing. In 1968, the Fine Arts Commission was established within the Association of Siamese Architects (ASA) with Pinit Sampatisiri as chairman. Nai Lert Park then became the venue for the group’s gatherings. The Society for the Conservation of National Treasure and Environment (SCONTE) followed in 1971, and the Siam Society’s Arts Committee soon after in 1974. These organisations were the early, if not the earliest, conservation NGOs in this country. In retrospect, the heritage conservation movement can be classified into three distinct phases: Phase 1 ran from the mid 1960s to 1982. It began when the group campaigned against the destruction of old buildings and historical sites which was then rampant. The group functioned like an action brigade for the Fine Arts Department (FAD) whose work was hampered by red tape and insufficient funds. In this period, the desperate fight to preserve old buildings and sites afforded little time for those involved to think about the question of adaptive re-use, social issues and sustainability. Phase 2 was from 1982 to about 2000. The year 1982 was significant in that HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn took charge of the restoration of the Grand Palace and the Royal Chapel in conjunction with the Bangkok Bicentenary. It was a turning point for Thai society, which had come to appreciate the idea of heritage preservation. Phase 3, starting from around the year 2000, was marked by a social agenda that stressed the importance of community participation. It led to campaigns to preserve communities often on academic grounds without involving any buildings of architectural or historical merit. But these campaigns broadened the cultural horizon. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

42

Sumet Jumsai

It certainly helped when the Thonburi canal communities backed me with over a thousand signatures in a landmark court case against the Bangkok Metropolitan Authority (BMA). The verdict put a stop to the authorities building flood walls and locks. These had caused canal water to stagnate, thus destroying fruit orchards and the traditional way of life on the canal, not to mention boat traffic, canal tourism and the fact that the Wat Sai floating market was completely wiped out. There were moments of desperation, danger even. Two former FAD directorgenerals almost lost their lives in the line of duty. I myself went through several harrowing experiences: in the campaign for Ayudhya Historical Park in 1967 when I was threatened by a local leader; over the relocation of the Weekend Market from Sanam Luang in 1968, which caused huge protests; in organising a protest march in 1970 to besiege the Bank of Thailand, which planned to demolish Bang Khun Phrom Palace located on its grounds under the watchful eyes of the military government of the time; and in instigating the demolition of Chalermthai Theatre in 1989 to open up the view of Loha Prasat and Wat Ratchanadda, and, in the process, make way for a monument to King Rama III, a public plaza and a garden. The latter project was like eating one’s own hat as protests were launched against the project’s perpetrator, who was an advisor to the prime minister General Chatchai Choonhavan. To stop the theatre’s demolition, the protesters marched to Soi Rajkhru and sealed off the residence of the prime minister who remained unperturbed throughout. In fact, at the advisor’s suggestion, he went on to order the removal of the Tobacco Monopoly’s warehouses in order to make way for a public park, now christened Queen Sirikit Park, and, at his own initiative, directed the creation of Benjasiri Park in place of a mooted commercial development on the old premises of the Meteorological Department. Every prime minister should follow such examples and make the greening of the city a priority!

Early days: Eyeing destruction of historical sites In 1964, I took leave from university to carry out doctoral research on water towns while working at DTPC. I started to collect old town plans and materials on Ayudhya which, among other things, led to the publication of the “Reconstructed Plan of Ayudhya” (Figure 1) in the volume, In Memoriam Phya Anuman Rajdhon, published by the Siam Society in 1970. The Reconstructed Plan became the basis for subsequent zoning of Ayudhya Historical Park and was freely copied or used by other authorities. As part of the campaign to turn Ayudhya into an historical park, I took the issue to UNESCO in Paris, and with the help of the Courier editor wrote a lead article “Ayutya-Venice of South Asia” in the UNESCO Courier of October 1966 (Figure 2). The park project might be seen as a forerunner to the creation of World Heritage Sites and historical parks in Thailand. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

A Record of Historical Conservation, 1964–2012

43

Figure 1. Reconstructed plan of Ayudhya (1967) based on seventeenth century maps and other materials, in particular Phya Boranrajthanin’s sketch plan of 1926, the Public Works Department’s survey map of 1965 and the aerial photograph taken in 1953. The city and its environ seen in this plan show a 12-kilometer long city wall with 17 forts and 100 city gates, including 20 canal gates; a canal network of over 140 kilometers; and approximately 550 monasteries and historical sites.

Figure 2. Cover of UNESCO Courier, October 1966.

Plans for the Ayudhya Historical Park were actually presented to the Cabinet on 31 March 1966, but only adopted on 2 July 1967. In a parallel programme, Sulak Sivaraksa initiated (and I and others participated in) “Ayudhya Commemoration”, an event on 28 December 1967 in the old capital to commemorate the bicentenary of its fall and to campaign for its conservation (Figure 3). Elsewhere a campaign to preserve city walls and moats resulted in the Ministry of Interior issuing an order, dated 3 June 1965, to all provincial governors to stop destroying historical sites. Darrell Berrigan, editor of Bangkok World, helped me with the campaign. In Chiang Mai, the governor ordered

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

44

Sumet Jumsai

Figure 3. Ayudhya Action Group at the National Library, Bangkok 1967. Seated, left to right: Phya Anuman Rajdhon; HH Prince Krom Muen Bhidhyalap. Standing: Uab Sanasen; Sirichai Naruemit-rekhakarn; Sawaeng Sudprasert; Pipop Thongchai; Vichai Chokvivat; William Klausner; Sulak Sivaraksa; Chalerm Thongsripongs; Patya Saihu; Paitoon Sinlaratna; Warin Sinsoongsud; Denduang Pumsiri; Saner Nildej; Sumet Jumsai.

the removal of the old city walls. An urgent ministerial order was sent to stop him razing the town walls and filling in the moats. Perhaps fearing punishment, the governor erected some fake city gates, which over time have become regarded as genuine and “ancient”. In 1966, I drew up plans to preserve the old governor’s residence in Songkhla. Two years earlier, A. B. Griswold had urged the FAD to preserve the old residence. Eventually, in 1979, restoration work was undertaken. Also in 1966, I proposed protecting Songkhla’s forts and city walls, as well as the town’s famed Laem Son (pine peninsular.) Meanwhile in Nakhorn Srithammarat the authorities were razing the city walls and fortifications. All I could do was take photographs of the main fort being dismantled. These were published in the book Seen (1970). Campaigns to stop the destruction of walls and moats at Roi-et and Surin met with similar failure. One of the last conservation projects that I undertook at DTCP was to initiate the masterplan for the Sukhothai historical park. Nikhom Musikakhama, who was to become the park’s warden, was almost killed by a bomb thrown at him as he tried to implement the plan. He later became director general of the FAD.

Gathering momentum: plans, projects and campaigns In 1968, numerous historic conservation programmes were launched while the Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

A Record of Historical Conservation, 1964–2012

45

Ayudhya project was being pursued. These included a campaign to stop the Minister of Foreign Affairs razing the Saranrom Palace to make way for a 7-storey office building. After the press took up the issue, only the east wing of the palace was demolished to build a 4-storey office building. The latter was in turn demolished in 2007 to make way for a complete historic reconstruction of the palace. Also in 1968, I initiated plans to preserve the house, otherwise known as the Scripture House of Wat Rakhang, of Phra Rajvarindr, or King Rama I, before his accession to the throne. His Majesty the King graciously gave me a sum of money to kick-start the house’s preservation. Key persons involved in the house’s restoration were Princess Louisa Diskul, Prince Yachai Chitrabongse, Fua Hariphithak, Nid H. Shiranan, Sulak Sivaraksa, Vatanyu na Thalang, and M.R. Sarisdiguna Kitiyakara who funded the final phase of the work. The project was completed in 1982 in time for the Bangkok Bicentenary. Around this time, I drew up a plan to preserve the gateway to the palace of Prince Krom Luang Sanphasatsuphakij. The restoration was undertaken by the Bangkok Metropolitan Authority (BMA) in 1973. In the same vicinity on Bamrung Muang Road the palace of Prince Krom Muen Rajasaksamosorn, a magnificent Palladian style building, was threatened. I tried to get the authorities to preserve it, but in the end it was demolished to make way for a police station. I thought that the image of law and order would have been better enhanced under a Roman pediment. That same year at DTCP I started a programme to relocate the Weekend Market from Sanam Luang. It proved to be a lengthy affair but ended well. I left the Department at the end of 1968. All the foregoing projects and many thereafter had the constant support of Preeya Chimchom and Nid H. Shiranan, former directorgenerals of the DTCP. The Association of Siamese Architect’s Fine Arts Commission (FAC) was established on 6 June 1968. The inspiration for this body came from the Royal Fine Arts Commission in the UK. I became its secretary until assuming the chair in 1978. The FAC took over most of the ongoing conservation programmes including: a conservation plan for Lumpini Park, removing Kinaree Nava Restaurant and other commercial concessions and eyesores from the park; instituting a “Tree Planting Day for Bangkok” with Princess Ubolrat planting the first tree on Rama I Road on 12 August 1969; proposals for Klong Prem Park, Saranrom Park, and other parks; a campaign to save the last tram line on Phra Athit Road in October 1968; and drafting a Cultural Map of Bangkok in association with Sirichai Naruemit. The map led to a number of historical landmarks being listed. The publication of the Association of Siamese Architects’ (ASA) Cultural Maps followed in 1981, which in turn contributed much to the Rattanakosin Island Project. In 1969, I accompanied Sompop Piromya, director general of the FAD, to Wat Samphanthawong to beg the temple authorities not to destroy an ordination hall. The building dated to the reign of Rama III and had well preserved murals. Within Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

46

Sumet Jumsai

a few days the building was bulldozed to rubble. In an attempt to stop Wat Saket building shophouses at the foot of the Golden Mount, Sirichai Naruemit and I took issue directly with the prime minister, Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn. Oddly enough in this campaign, my life was threatened over the phone by someone with a vested interest. On 5 February 1969, an important memorandum was despatched to the FAD on the need to list more historical landmarks and to put a stop to the sale of stolen antiques. About this time, Sirichai and I obtained funds from the Asia Foundation to hire draftsmen to work at the FAD under our supervision. The purpose was to draw plans of historical buildings to be published in the Royal Gazette for official listing. As a result, some 30 historical monuments were listed within a short time. With the assistance of Vichit Chinalai and Nit Rattanasanya as subeditors, I edited the first report of the FAC in April 1969, and the second in April 1970 (Figure 4). About that time, the FAC held an “Exhibition to Commemorate the Centenary of the Change from the Reign of King Rama IV to King Rama V”, with the aim of promoting public awareness of historical conservation. In 1970, I organized the first ever protest march against cultural heritage destruction. The Bank of Thailand planned to pull down Bang Khun Phrom Palace located on its grounds. University students were recruited to besiege the Bank which has subsequently preserved Figure 4. Cover of ASA Report of the Fine Arts Commission and meticulously restored the old palace. 2, 1970, reprinted 2007. The picture shows shophouses being The year ended with the publication built at the base of the Golden Mount and Mahanak Canal. of Seen–Architectural Form of Northern Siam and Old Siamese Fortifications, a book of photographs taken from historical sites all over the country. It became a source book for the good and the bad in the architectural profession, from the design sensitivity of Metha Bunnag’s works to the plagiarism and profanity found in a 5-star hotel in Chiang Mai. In 1971, I was among the co-founders of the Society for the Conservation of National Treasure and Environment (SCONTE), an offshoot of the FAC. Mayura Visetkul was a key person besides the FAC members. A year later, SCONTE formulated its first project: “Rattanakosin Island”. This entailed establishing conservation rules and strict building codes for the historical core of Bangkok at Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

A Record of Historical Conservation, 1964–2012

47

Rattanakosin Island and the adjacent areas. The shortfall of SCONTE’s creation, the Rattanakosin Committee, is that it has become merely a “cultural police” that stops short of being pro-active and creative. During the Thanom-Praphas military regime in 1972, my associates and I attempted to revive the Ministry of Culture. As advisors to the Revolutionary Council on cultural and religious affairs, we proposed numerous plans, including: relocation of the Weekend Market (continued from 1968); a tourist cultural map, which was a continuation of the as yet unrealized cultural map project; a programme to create new parks in Bangkok, including the Bang Kachao wetland project; conservation of Phra Sumen Fort, Mahakan Fort and Mahanak Canal, the latter under the aegis of the ASA; an attempt to set up a Royal Commission on Parks, Recreation Areas and Environment which was announced in a decree of the Revolutionary Council on 22 March 1972; an attempt to set up a National Cultural Institute in lieu of the Royal Fine Arts Commission, or the Ministry of Culture, neither of which materialized; and an action plan to thwart illegal excavation and sales of Ban Chiang pottery. While I drew up a masterplan for Ban Chiang village, the director-general of FAD, Sompop Piromya, was on the warpath to clamp down on the pillage of Ban Chiang pottery. The resulting conflict of interest led to his car being ambushed. Bullets were sprayed on the car and his chauffeur died on the spot while he made good his escape in the most dramatic way. Figure 5. Demountable geodesic dome prototype, devised by A few years later, I arranged for R. Buckminster Fuller and Shoji Sadao in 1981, for covering R. Buckminster Fuller and Shoji Sadao Ban Chiang and other sites. to visit Ban Chiang. They designed a demountable geodesic dome to cover the excavation site without any columns that would have interfered with the digs. A bamboo prototype was built (Figure 5) so that it could be replicated for use on other similar sites and for site museums. But the project was never followed up to advantage. In 1973, a campaign to preserve the White Elephant Pavilion in front of Parliament House succeeded with the intercession of Princess Viphavadi Rangsit. This was followed by a campaign to preserve the old Mint Building, which was scheduled for demolition. The director general of the FAD, Sompop Bhirom, Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

48

Sumet Jumsai

interceded, and the building is now used as the National Gallery. With the FAC’s backing, the director general then went on to list the old town hall of Chachoengsao, a charming old building in an area of some commercial value. In the FAC’s name, the “Bangkok Urban Renewal Study” was then proposed with the aim of conserving old parts of the city. Sadly it was not followed up at the time. Today there are a number of similar studies and reports which are academic in nature. In 1972, the Arts Committee of the Siam Society was established in association with the ASA. Sirichai was chairman in 1974 and I took over in 1975, with Nit Rattanasanya as secretary. The Committee organised numerous lecture programmes; raised funds for folk art and various performing arts including a shadow play; issued several publications, including reprints of rare books and Sirichai’s Old Bridges of Bangkok; recorded performances of folk music; initiated conservation work on old Lanna manuscripts, and on temple murals, in particular at Wat Khongkharam; and funded a classical music and dance troupe to go to the Oriental Music Festival in Durham, UK with Dacre Raikes as organizer and chaperon. Working together with Kris Inthakosai and Ura Sunthornsarathoon, I formulated a project to reconstruct the city walls, forts and gates of Chiang Mai in accordance with archaeological evidence. A report was made on 8 April 1974, but no action ensued. In 1977, I was active on various Rattanakosin Island committees, and the following year with the FAC when I became the chairman and when Vichit Chinalai produced four heart-rending posters depicting decapitated Buddha images. It was a desperate campaign to put an end to the sale of Buddha heads. Between 1978 and 1980, as a member of the National Environment Board’s Committee on Conservation of Nature and Art, chaired by Vatanyu na Thalang, I participated in agendas such as instituting customs regulations to stop the export of religious artefacts, principally Buddha statues. However, the proposals to establish a National Cultural Institute and to conserve Phuket’s old town centre, in particular the Thai Airways building, came to nothing. On the other hand, a proposal to reconstruct the façade of the old Post Office Building was approved although no immediate action was taken. In 1980, Ban Phitsanulok came under threat from a project to build a new Ministry of Justice on the same site. The project, proposed at the end of the Kriangsak government, would have destroyed the old house. After General Prem Tinsulanonda came to power, M.L. Tri Devakul helped by talking personally to General Prem, who then approved the conservation of the old house. My proposal that the building should also be used as the official residence of the prime minister was given up after a night’s trial due to the premises being haunted. In 1981, the ASA finally published through DD Books four cultural maps on Bangkok, the Grand Palace, Thonburi Canals and Ayudhya. Vichit Chinalai was in charge of the artwork and production while I wrote or edited the texts. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

A Record of Historical Conservation, 1964–2012

49

From Bangkok Bicentenary to Anand I government In the run-up to the Bangkok Bicentenary in 1982, reconstruction of two urban landmarks was undertaken: the clock tower or Phrathinang Phuvadolthasnai, originally built by King Rama IV, in the Grand Palace but subsequently demolished (Figure 6), and the Drum Tower. With the help of deputy prime minister Pramarn Adireksarn, the plans which I asked architect Sawan Im-Arrom to draft were duly implemented. However, another proposal to revive the tramway around Rattanakosin Island, already acknowledged by the Cabinet, ground to a halt at the Ministry of Environment. Throughout 1981–2, Sumet Jumsai Associates (SJA) and Asian Engineering Consultants Company (AEC) worked together under a BMA contract on the conservation and landscaping of the inner moat and canals of the Rattanakosin Island area. The purpose of the project was actually to install a sewage treatment system under the canals, but the terms of reference were extended to include environmental improvement. For this work, Sirichai was the project manager. While working with Sirichai, Chaiya Poonsiriwong, governor of Chiang Mai, and Thaveesak Senanarong, the director general of the FAD, I pushed for the reconstruction of Tha Phae Gate in Chiang Mai based on historical evidence. This resulted in a fierce attack from people who had become used to other gates which were incorrectly reconstructed, but had become regarded Figure 6. Clock Tower, or Phra Thinang Phuvadolthasnai, as genuine and ancient. originally built by King Rama 4 in the Grand Palace, here In 1982, inspired by awards made on reconstructed on a site nearby but outside the Palace. the occasion of the Bangkok Centenary in 1882, I managed to have the ASA institute the Royal Gold Medal awards for architectural design and architectural conservation (Figure 7). These were bestowed every other year by HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn. For the Bangkok Bicentenary, Sirichai and I co-hosted a series of TV programmes to highlight the occasion and the need to revive the royal barges procession. At that time, the royal barges had long been in disuse and all but forgotten. The final restoration work on King Rama I’s house was also completed in time for the Bangkok Bicentenary with Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

50

Sumet Jumsai

funding from the Shell Group of Companies under M.R. Sarisdiguna Kitiyakara. It was a busy time for drawing up conservation plans. SJA, under contract to the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT), undertook a Chiang Mai Tourism Masterplan in which historical conservation was an important component. In this contract, Weeraphan Shinawatra was the project planner. It was followed by the Regional Cities Development Programme under contract to the Public Works Department and UNDP. This programme included plans to restore Chiang Mai’s outer wall, or the so-called “earthen wall” (which is actually a brick construction). More plans were drawn up to restore this outer wall under other contracts, but nothing has ever been done. “Water–Origin of Thai Culture” was published as a chapter in the book Laksana Thai, edited by M.R. Kukrit Pramoj. The chapter was originally written in English and translated into Thai by Ni-on Snidwongse. The English text was separately published by Oxford University Press in a book entitled Naga–Cultural Origins in Siam and the West Pacific, with a contribution by R. Buckminster Fuller. The work has become a source book for the conservation and propagation of waterbased architecture and planning. In 1985, the Dutch government wanted to redevelop the site of its Bangkok Embassy to capitalize on the high land price. I conspired with the ambassador, Peter van Walsum, to save the residence from demolition by having it awarded the Royal Gold Medal for architectural conservation, the effective equivalent of having the building Figure 7. Certificate of the Siamese International listed. The old house, the former palace Exhibition 1882 for Gold and Silver Medals in painting and sculpture of Prince Boworadej, has since been beautifully renovated. The ambassador then came to open the drawbridge near Wat Rajborphit which I had reconstructed using the FAD’s budget. Sawan Im-Arrom, again, was the project architect. In 1989, a project, conceived in 1981, to open up the view of Loha Prasat and Wat Ratchanadda by demolishing Chalermthai Theatre was finally implemented. Key help came from HRH Prince Bhanubhandhuwongvordej while deputy prime minister Bhichai Rattakul took charge of the ground work. I produced the overall plan while Avuth Ngernchuklin designed the royal pavilion used for receiving state visitors. Around this time, I was made a recipient of the “Conservationist of Thai Heritage Award 1990” under the aegis of the FAD. In 1991, as advisor to prime minister General Chatchai Choonhavan I proposed creating a park on a 500 rai plot, including a lake, owned by the Tobacco Monopoly. The prime minister approved the idea which was then passed on to his successor, Anand Panyarachun, in 1992. It is now known as Queen Sirikit Park. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

A Record of Historical Conservation, 1964–2012

51

In 1992–3, as an advisor at Government House during the Anand I government, I was able to push through the Bang Kachao wetland project. The idea began with Nid H. Shiranan in 1964, was submitted to the Revolutionary Council in 1972, and again to the National Environment Board in 1979–80 before any action was taken. Meanwhile, in 1993, I was made a recipient of the ASA’s “Royal Award for Architectural Conservation”. Plans to create Santiphorn Park on the site of the State Lottery were submitted and approved by the Anand I Cabinet at its last meeting. The project has since gone through many design versions but is still not implemented. I also worked in the Anand government with minister Paichit Uathavikul on the final review of the draft legislation to protect the nation’s environment. I took the opportunity to stretch the definition of environment to include the cultural and urban environment besides the purely industrial usage of the term.

Schemata ad infinitum In 1994, the revised masterplan for the historical park of Ayudhya was undertaken for the FAD. Somkiat Yuwavittayapanich was the project planner. Some parts of the scheme were implemented in 1996, namely the Suan Somdet Park, restoration of a sample of the city wall, and conservation of Wat Khun Saen, all funded by the Thailand Business Council for Sustainable Development. When communications minister Colonel Vinai Kongsompong proposed building expressways on the Bangkok river front, we at the ASA campaigned against the proposal which was subsequently dropped. In 2000, I was involved in more campaigns, including one for canal conservation on both the Bangkok and Thonburi sides of the city. The campaign against the BMA building a mass transit line over Phasi Charoen Canal was effective with the help of Khunying Chodchoi Sophonpanich. Yet another plan to revive the old trams on Rattanakosin Island was tried and failed. Proposals for the TAT to conserve and promote the floating houses at Phitsanulok and the singular amphibious village of Tha Khanon in Surat Thani Province as tourist destinations also failed. The year 2001 was full of excitement. I urged prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to set up a Ministry of Culture without giving in to monks who were demonstrating for the establishment of a Ministry of Buddhism or Ministry of Culture and Buddhism. I also put forward the idea of “cultural export” by exposing Thai artists and musicians to full international exposure, and suggested that the ministry should be at the forefront with the task of name-branding the country. The ministry was duly set up, but has become the refuge of junior cabinet ministers waiting in the wings with little interest in culture. That year, I also launched a desperate campaign to preserve the former Russian embassy on Sathorn Road which had been the home of the grandmother of HM the Queen. The developer very nearly demolished it and the FAD took two years to list it. Also saved was the old Chinese Chamber of Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

52

Sumet Jumsai

Commerce premises, now rented out as the Blue Elephant Restaurant. Meanwhile, a campaign to preserve an old traditional Thai house at Si Phaya failed when BMA governor Samak Sundaravej built a road over it. In 2002, I worked on a project to create a new public park on the grounds of the Army Survey Map Department after the department had expressed a wish to move to a larger plot of land. The plan reflects Place des Vosges in Paris but is laced with canals. The proposal might yet be revived. In 2003–4, the proposal to reconstruct the façade of the old Post and Telegraph Office building came to fruition after 30 years of perseverance, with the help of Ura Sunthorsarathoon. Once more, architect Sawan Im-Arrom helped with the construction drawings (Figure 8). In 2006, with the support of Thonburi canal communities, I took the BMA to the Administrative Court. The aim was to stop the building of locks and flood walls on the canals. Besides being eyesores, these structures caused pollution in the canals and untold damage to the surroundings. The BMA lost the case in 2009. As a result, such civil works must now undergo environmental impact assessment (EIA) and take into account social and cultural implications. However, the scar on Thonburi is irreversible.

Figure 8. Drawing of the façade of the old Post and Telegraph Office Building, Bangkok.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

A Record of Historical Conservation, 1964–2012

53

In 2007, Weeraphan Shinawatra, Pongkwan Lassus and I proposed to the Chai Pattana Foundation to make use of traditional floating houses and floating farms in flood retention zones around Bangkok. The proposal is still going through gestation. In 2009, I proposed a conservation-cum-tourism plan for Rattanakosin Island to the minister of tourism and sports, Suvit Yodmanee. Besides the usual report, it resulted in the publication of Rattanakosin and Chao Phraya River Front, with Weeraphan Shinawatra as editor. It summarises all the essential points in the conservation of the historical core of Bangkok. With my appointment as chairman of the senior advisors to BMA governor M.R. Sukhumbhand Paribatra in 2010, several conservation projects were formulated. They are all going through a long period of gestation. In 2012, I drew up plans for Chinatown Community Park; for Phraeng Sunthorn Phu at Tha Chang, an area full of historical anecdotes; and for the reconstruction of Samyod city gate at Wang Burapha (Figure 9). The proposal for the latter was in a letter to the BMA jointly signed by Nid H. Shiranan. These projects might yet survive through the detractors.

Figure 9. Samyod City Gate (Pratu Samyod) at night.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

54

Sumet Jumsai

Conclusion: Overview of history and the use of the past for the future Shiva destroys in order to recreate. Every culture or civilization goes through this unending Shivaite cycle with its memory and heritage. The British and French forces ransacked and burnt down the Summer Palace and more recently the communist government of China destroyed the city walls of Beijing, yet China is now beginning to show awareness of the need for historical preservation, though unevenly as both conservation and destruction continue in parallel. Europe has also erased numerous historical monuments. In the Shivaite spirit, Napoleon III and Baron Hausmann destroyed half of Paris in order to create the jewel of the city that it has become. The planned transformation of Venice, however, would have been unimaginable. As late as 1950, an autostrada was projected to run from Mestre into Venice over the Grand Canal to a parking lot in St Mark’s Square. (Compare this to the Chao Phraya riverfront motorway scheme of 1994!) This plan led to protests from the whole of Europe and to the foundation of European Heritage with the Duke of Edinburgh as patron. As everyone knows, modern civilization began in the early fifteenth century when the West started to overtake China by recalling Greek philosophy, science, mathematics and architecture, for the large part via the Romans. Until that point, China had been the world leader in science, navigation and exploration, but then relapsed into introversion and retrogression until the “Chinese Renaissance” in the second half of the twentieth century. In comparison, Thai culture and memory or history are but minor. However, they have traits going back to prehistory that remain relevant in today’s world (see Naga, 1988). I refer to the latent Thai instinct of living with the water element. In the Chao Phraya delta, the cradle of Thai culture, human settlements consisted of amphibious homes or houses on stilts, and aquatic or floating habitats. The message, or philosophy, was to live with the forces of nature, i.e., flooding, and not try to oppose them. Equipped with modern materials, utility systems, alternative energy and other modern technologies, these living units, indeed whole villages, together with floating farms, can be deployed in flood retention areas (“monkey cheeks”) in the Chao Phraya delta, or indeed in other flood-prone or watery regions of the world like the Ganges delta in Bangladesh and the Mekong delta in South Vietnam. The proposal for conserving the village of Tha Khanon (see year 2000 above) and for building modern amphibious house prototypes (see 2007) would contribute to the above end. The underlying message here is that cultural heritage and history have a crucial role in human survival into the future.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

The Siam Society’s Role in Heritage Protection Euayporn Kerdchouay

Preservation has been a concern of the Siam Society from its beginnings. In its early years, the emphasis was on the preservation of knowledge about Siam from oral and written sources. In his speech at the first general meeting on 7 April 1904, Dr. Oskar Frankfurter outlined the areas which deserved attention: history, peoples, languages, literature, archaeology, coinage, influences from India and China, economy and industry, arms, music, and drama.1 These concerns occupied the Society for its first half-century. Around the start of its second half-century, the Society gradually began to focus on the preservation of both the natural heritage and man-made heritage in Thailand. Under the presidency of Prince Dhani Nivat, the Society launched a project to study Khmer art and monuments in Siam. Eleven site visits were undertaken, and a nine-day seminar was held at Sukhothai, Kamphaeng Phet, and Si Satchanalai The Journal of the Siam Society (JSS) carried several articles from the project, including the first studies of “Khao Práh Vihār” by John Black. At its fiftieth anniversary in 1954, the Society resolved to found a Research Centre which came into being in 1960. Among the donors were His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the Princess Mother, Prince Dhani, Danish firms, and the Ford Foundation. J. J. Boeles was appointed the director. Over the following years the Research Centre pursued several projects of both investigation and preservation: • a joint project with Denmark on the prehistory era around the Khwae Noi River in Kanchanaburi, including various caves around Sai Yok waterfall, Wang Pho and Ban Kao, also the creation of a research library; • research on maps of Siam made in western countries, including collection of photo reproductions of many from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; • research and study trips on the hill peoples of northern Thailand, led by 1

O. Frankfurter, “The aims of the Society,” JSS, 1, 1 (1904). Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

56

Euayporn Kerdchouay

Kraisri Nimmanahaeminda; • research on a critical Pali dictionary in cooperation with Copenhagen Institute of Science and Arts, with support from UNESCO, the, Religious Affairs Department, and various Buddhist universities in Thailand; • research to catalog bailan manuscripts and old books in monasteries of Lamphun Province. Many of the articles in the JSS during the 1960s stem from these projects. The excavations in Kanchanaburi are a landmark in identifying the Neolithic era in Southeast Asia.

Kamthieng House In 1963, Nang Kim Ho Nimmanahaeminda donated to the Society the Kamthieng House, a 150-year-old traditional Lanna-style dwelling, originally built on the bank of the Ping River. With support from the Asia Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, the house was moved to Bangkok and re-erected in the Society’s grounds. A traditional Lanna rice barn was also purchased to complement the house. This complex was opened by His Majesty the King in 1966 as Thailand’s first ethnological museum.

Figure 1. The Kamthieng House: (above) in situ, Chiang Mai, 1963; (opposite, from top left) the rice barn in situ, Chiang Mai, 1963; the donor, Nang Kim Ho Nimmanahaeminda; the house and barn in the grounds of the Society; invitation to the opening in 1966; display inside the house.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

The Siam Society’s Role in Heritage Protection

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

57

58

Euayporn Kerdchouay

Woodcarving, parks, bridges, locality In 1965, the Society had the opportunity to purchase a collection of eighteenthand nineteenth-century wood carvings from Chiang Mai and Lampang. These now form the core of the Society’s collection of historic wood carvings.

Figure 2. Wood carvings from the Society’s collection

In the 1970s, as the Thai economy began to accelerate, the clash between “development” and “preservation” became more obvious. The Society pioneered many preservation issues which subsequently developed an independent institutional form. For example, in 1971, in response to a proposal to build a dam in the Khao Yai region, the Society undertook research on the impact of the dam and the need Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

The Siam Society’s Role in Heritage Protection

59

for conservation in the Khao Yai national park. When a Friends of Khao Yai was formed, the Society provided support. Subsequently the dam project was cancelled. In the same year, the Society hosted a series of lectures on urbanism, city planning, and urban conservation. This eventually led to the publication in 1977 of Old Bridges of Bangkok by Sirichai Naruemit, concentrating on bridges built in the Fifth and Sixth Reigns. In 1974, the Society launched a project with assistance from the Ford Foundation to support conservation of local culture in peripheral areas of Thailand by encouraging local interest and participation. Under this project, the Society helped to organise performances and exhibitions in various provinces of the north, provided support for student study trips to cultural sites, made recording of local music, provided funding for copying of murals and collecting local literature, and provided help and expert assistance for local efforts to repair and restore monuments.

Murals and ordination halls At this time, the Society became actively involved in projects to preserve historic monuments threatened with destruction or deterioration. In 1974, the Society heard of proposals to demolish the ordination hall in Wat Nong Bua in Nan Province which contains some historic and exceptionally beautiful murals. The Society sent a letter to the Religious Affairs Department protesting against the demolition. With help from the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs Department, the monastery authorities were persuaded to abandon their plan to build a new ordination hall in place of the old one, and instead devote funds to conserving the old ordination hall and its murals. In 1978, the Society organised a kathin trip to the monastery to raise funds towards the preservation of the murals which are now widely recognised as a major example of Lanna art and have become a significant tourist attraction. Over the next few years, the Society’s involvement in the preservation of murals expanded in cooperation with several other institutions. The Society cooperated in the Fine Arts Department’s project for preservation of the historic First Reign library at Wat Rakhang Kositaram in Figure 3. Restored mural in Wat Nong Bua, Nan

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

60

Euayporn Kerdchouay

Thonburi under the leadership of the distinguished artist and expert in restoration, Dr Fua Haripitak; cooperated with the Society for Cultural Conservation of Lampang to preserve several sites; and cooperated in the preservation of the exceptional Ayutthaya-era murals in Wat Khongkharam, Ratchaburi.

Figure 4. Restored murals at Wat Rakhang Kositaram, Thonburi Figure 5. Restored murals at Wat Khonkharam, Ratchaburi

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

The Siam Society’s Role in Heritage Protection

61

In 1980, a Committee for the Preservation of Thai Murals was formed within the Society. In 1982, the Society supported a restoration of the Third Reign murals in Wat Bangyikhan in Thonburi, again in cooperation with the Fine Arts Department. This led to a similar project to restore the murals in Wat Bang Khanun in Nonthaburi.

Figure 6. Restoration work at Wat Bangyikhan, Thonburi

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

62

Euayporn Kerdchouay

To ensure preservation of some exceptionally fine murals from the Fifth Reign in Wat Buak Khrok Luang, Chiang Mai, the Society arranged for Dr Fua’s son Thamnu to execute life-size copies.

Figure 7. Copy of mural from Wat Buak Khrok Luamg, Chiang Mai, by Thamnu Haripitak. The blank area at centre bottom is the position of a window frame.

In March 1979, the Society organised an exhibition of photos of wat murals from all regions to raise awareness of the art form and the need for preservation. As part of the same project, the Society hosted several talks on conservation techniques in Thai, English, and Japanese. This project inspired publications on Thai wat murals by several printing houses.

Figure 8. Photo exhibition on murals at the Society, March 79; (left) HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn talks with Prince Subhradradis Diskul; (right) Professor Chitti Tingsabadh

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

The Siam Society’s Role in Heritage Protection

Textiles In 1980, the Society received the donation of a large phra bot, a form of textile banner or hanging with a religious motif usually displayed in a wat. The Society arranged for the item to be restored successfully, as a result of which several other phra bot were donated in subsequent years. A Textile Preservation Group was formed within the Society that gradually amassed a collection of over 900 pieces that are periodically exhibited.

Figure 9. Restored phra bot Figure 10. Exhibition from the Society’s textile collection

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

63

64

Euayporn Kerdchouay

Figure 11. Wat Sra Bua Kaew, Khon Kaen: (this page) the original roof; the problematic replacement; (opposite) the old roof removed and the hall wrapped during consruction; the replacement roof with eaves wider even than the old roof

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

The Siam Society’s Role in Heritage Protection

65

The restoration of Wat Sra Bua Kaew In 1999, the Society launched a project to conserve the ordination hall at Wat Sra Bua Kaew in Nong Song Hong District, Khon Kaen that contains rare and beautiful examples of the local tradition of painting. With the best possible intentions, the local people had raised funds to replace the badly deteriorated roof. Unfortunately, the replacement followed the Rattanakosin style with a higher peak and much shorter eaves, resulting in the paintings on the exterior of the hall being exposed to the rain during storms. The Society raised funds from various individuals and institutions to construct a new roof, designed in old style but constructed with modern materials, and made other repairs to ensure the survival of the paintings. HRH Princes Galyani Vadhana presided over the dedication of the renovated building in February 2001.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

66

Euayporn Kerdchouay

In 2007, the Society cooperated with the Department of Archaeology to print a booklet on the conservation of monuments for monks and wat authorities.

The Society auditorium At its 75th anniversary in 1979, the Society renovated its auditorium, including installing air conditioning and other innovations, but took special care to preserve the original architecture. The renovation received an award for conservation of Thai architecture from the Fine Arts Department, and another from the Association of Siamese Architects.

Figure 12. The Siam Society auditorium: as opened in 1935; after renovation in 1975; Conservation Award from the Association of Siamese Architects, 2001

Intangible heritage While much of the Society’s conservation work in this era focused on physical fabric, the area of intangible was not neglected. Since 1971, the Society paid attention to the preservation of old forms of Thai music, dance, drama, and puppetry by staging regular performances. In 1978–79, the Society launched a project to conserve music from the Sixth Reign by recording performances on film and distributing the results to various musical and educational institutes. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

The Siam Society’s Role in Heritage Protection

67

In 1972, the Society gave support to the conservation of old Thai films, and arranged screening of some rare classics including some made by King Rama VII. In 1980, the Society screened The King of the White Elephant, the first Thai film with an English-language script. In 1980–81, the Society was donated a collection of 200 reels of private films by Queen Rambhai Bharni. When the Thai National Film Archive was created within the National Museum in 1984, this collection was donated to the Archive which had the requisite expertise in conservation. Beginning in the 1970s, a committee within the Society had begun collecting and restoring old manuscripts. The Society’s collection now amounts to 900 bundles. The texts are photographed for preservation, and many have been transcribed in preparation for publication.

From practice to advocacy By the 1980s, as the Thai economy accelerated and government began to promote tourism very aggressively, the threats to cultural heritage quickly multiplied in number and complexity. At the same time, however, more individuals and organisations became sensitive to the issues surrounding the protection of heritage. The role of the Society began to shift from practitioner to advocate and coordinator. In 1987, the Society hosted an international symposium in Chiang Mai on “Culture and Environment in Thailand” with 20 speakers and over 300 attendees. The proceedings were published in 1989 as a book recognised as a landmark in debate on the protection of Thailand’s natural heritage.

Figure 13. Attendees of the conference on “Culture and Environment in Thailand: Dynamics of a Complex Relationship”, Chiang Mai, August 1987

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

68

Euayporn Kerdchouay

This led to a second international symposium in 1992, also in Chiang Mai, on “Environment and Culture with Emphasis on Urban Issues”, which foreshadowed the growing concerns over the urban environment later in that decade. In 1995, the Society helped to bring together architects, historians, property developers, government officials, and representatives of UNESCO and the World Monuments Fund to discuss the problems and challenges of preserving monuments across Asia. The participants discussed sites such as Luang Prabang, Nara, Angkor, Pagan, and Ayutthaya. A summary of the conference concluded, “On the whole the identified sites did not suffer from willful neglect, but over-exposure.... The age of mass tourism was arriving in Asia.... All delegates spoke of the importance of education: for teaching future generations about their cultural past, to instill a sense of pride in the ancestral and national physical heritage, to preserve for future generations the monuments which represent singular achievements and are important not just for the nation but for the world.” The launch of the Siamese Heritage Protection Program in 2011 represents a natural extension of the Society’s long-standing commitment to preservation, but also a new focus and urgency in response to the many threats to Siam’s extraordinarily rich heritage.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Long-term Strategies for Thai Heritage Preservation: Civil Roles in Lopburi Province Phuthorn Bhumadhon

I strongly believe that, at present, the preservation of Thai heritage (by which I particularly mean physical sites such as religious monuments, communal buildings, historical sites and ancient artifacts, which should be taken care of by everyone including the responsible governmental agencies) is in a critical and problematic state. Thai people fail to preserve the value of cultural heritage to hand down to future generations. Instead, they allow it to be encroached upon and damaged for the sake of infrastructure development such as roads, irrigation canals and dams. The problems are many: expansion of settlements; lack of appreciation of the value of heritage; failure to implement laws; officials in charge of heritage who neglect their ethical and creative duty; renovation by improper methods; and vote-seeking politicians who allow historical sites to be encroached. Everywhere, public good is sacrificed for personal benefit, and ignorance and corruption prevail. With more than three decades of experience in active participation in Thai cultural heritage preservation in Lopburi Province, I am able to state that this is an era when the attempts at preservation of Thai cultural heritage are hopelessly ineffective. The efforts of those who are intent on preserving Thai heritage will probably do no more than delay the destruction a little, because the process of destruction proceeds at a rate one hundred times faster than the efforts of preservation. Thai society today is focused on a limited number of concerns. Capitalism flourishes much more than spiritual values. Political factions fight for power to run the country. The market and economic development take center stage, and image is everything. There is, however, a possibility – even a likelihood – that this situation will not last forever, and cultural heritage will become better appreciated. There are still many people who are concerned about the destruction of cultural heritage, and even more who could be mobilized to take an interest in preservation. In this essay, I recount my experience with campaigns to preserve cultural heritage in Lopburi, a province on the eastern side of the Central Region. Lopburi City is well-known as a very ancient political Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

70

Phuthorn Phumadhon

Long-Term Strategies for Thai Heritage Preservation

71

center, and as a “second capital” in the reign of King Narai (1656–1688). But the surrounding province also has many prehistoric archaeological sites, caves, forests, mountains and unique ethnic communities –in short, a very rich cultural heritage. In this essay, I offer two main principles which, in my experience, are key to success in conservation work; and review the outstanding problems in Lopburi City.

The people’s role in Thai cultural heritage preservation: the case of Lopburi In 1974, a group of Lopburi citizens formed the Club for Conservation of the Antiquities, Ancient Monuments and Environment of Lopburi Province (hereafter called the “Lopburi Conservation Club”). The group included businessmen, teachers, military personnel and news reporters. These people had lost faith in the officials responsible for historic objects and sites because these officials had allowed the sites to be encroached upon by housing developments and damaged by fortune hunters digging for amulets, and because the officials had no strategy to conserve these sites by educating the general public about their value. The Club was formed to help conserve the heritage of Lopburi more effectively. To ensure that the Club’s activities had some continuity, it drew up a charter (Figure 1) which defined the objectives of the Club and established an executive board. The Club has now been in existence for almost forty years and has many accomplishments to its credit, principally projects which government was incapable of achieving, as will be detailed below. The Lopburi Conservation Club has been raising funds to improve the environment of historic sites, particularly in cases where historic sites were obscured or surrounded by housing or commercial buildings. At Wat Bandai Hin, the Club purchased both the land and the buildings which were blocking the frontage of the stupa and donated them to the Fine Arts Department so that the obstructions could be removed and the monastery extended to the roadside. In another case, the San Paolo Church, Figure 1. Charter of the Club for Conservation of the which had been used as an astronomical Antiquities, Ancient Monuments and Environment of Lopburi observatory in the reign of King Narai Province, 1974 Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Figure 2. A performance organized by the Lopburi Club at Prathinang Yen, a 17th century monument and first site for astronomy study in Siam

Figure 3. Annual ceremony to reinforce spiritual value at Wat Phra Sri Ratanamahathat, Lopburi.

the Great, was becoming obscured behind commercial buildings under construction. With funding from the General Hom Holumyong Foundation, the Club helped to coordinate the purchase of this land, its donation to the Fine Arts Department and demolition of the commercial buildings under construction. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

72

Phuthorn Phumadhon

Long-Term Strategies for Thai Heritage Preservation

The Club negotiated with the owners of houses surrounding the ordination hall of Wat Puen to move it elsewhere so that the Fine Arts Department could improve the landscaping of the wat to its current beautiful state. The Club organizes annual training programs for teachers in Lopburi to make them aware of the value of historical sites and objects. The Club organizes annual campaigns to make the public aware of the value of historic sites and objects as well as encouraging people to participate in such activities as Lopburi Conservation Day and Lopburi Merit-Making Day. The Club prints and distributes academic information about historical sites and objects in Lopburi.

opposition to such actions by formal process – such as presenting letters or petitions to the officials responsible or by feeding information to the media, in the hope that the officials will think again and revise their decisions – is totally ineffective. Government agencies will either sit on the matter or answer ambiguously. The officials involved know that such matters are thorny problems that began long before they came to office and that taking any action might affect the electoral chances of some local politicians and thus have unexpected repercussions on themselves. Besides, the general public may feel bored by such issues and think that their everyday cost of living is a more important issue. My experience teaches me that, besides submitting letters of protest to the responsible government officials and feeding information to the mass media, the revelation of solid and detailed information based on study by the academic profession is enough to make responsible officials and consumers of the news sit up and take some interest in matters concerning protection of heritage or the environment. Obtaining such academic information requires cooperation between local people such as schoolteachers and interested laymen along with external academics. Once such information is made public, it gets discussed and debated over and over again in seminars and events as well as being repeated in the media. Once a matter concerning destruction of heritage at official hands receives wide exposure in the media and public domain, officials are forced to give the matter new consideration. There are many successful instances. For example, concessions granted for detonating explosives in several mountain areas of Lopburi had to be cancelled after the significance of the mountains had been academically proved. However, conservationists have to be constantly aware that their opponents may also have their own academic information. The law requires an Environmental Impact Assessment before approval of any potentially harmful project. To make the report credible, the project owner will commission researchers from a university or wellknown consultancy company. From experience, such reports are invariably favorable towards these projects. Businessmen supported by officials will refer to these reports to gain legitimacy. Conservationists, then, have to be careful that their studies have equal or superior academic merit than those commissioned by their opponents. In my experience, securing academic information of equal or better merit than those in such commissioned reports is not too difficult. There are still many officials and academicians both outside and inside universities, who are willing to contribute their expertise without any compensation. To support this point on the use of academic information to block projects destructive to cultural heritage and environment, I will cite two cases as examples.

Manpower and funding The formation and continued work of the Lopburi Conservation Club has depended on support from both government agencies and the general public in terms of manpower and funding. Manpower is provided by volunteers from the Club itself or other associations in its network, with occasional participation by soldiers, monks and schoolchildren. Soldiers and schoolchildren are involved mostly in campaigns to raise support, such as processions to publicize the Club’s projects. The Lopburi Conservation Club has a policy that each project must raise funds to cover all its expenses, which usually are not very large. Each project has a fundraising committee which uses various methods. The main source of funds is donations from government agencies, private companies, various foundations and the general public. However, the Club also raises funds through such activities as selling books, selling shirts or organizing study trips. Projects must be self-supporting and work within their own resources so that the Club has no problem with budget deficits. A recent example was a project to create a permanent exhibition display about King Narai the Great and donate it to the Fine Arts Department for the King Narai National Museum (the branch of the National Museum in Lopburi) in 2004. The budget was estimated at one million baht, and the fund-raising committee raised this total using various methods such as holding a charity bowling competition. As a participant in the activities organized by the Club since 1977 and as president of the Club for four two-year terms, I had the opportunity to lead the Club into many campaigns and struggles over a period of eight years. On the basis of this experience, I would like to share some ideas on what I believe are useful considerations for preserving Thai cultural heritage.

Lesson 1: Academic information is a vital element in campaigns to preserve cultural heritage and the environment

73

The construction of the Pasak Chonlasit Dam

Government projects to create infrastructure and develop the economy are often one cause of deterioration in both cultural heritage and the environment. Mounting

Between 1994 and 1999, a small dam was constructed across the Pasak River at the border between the provinces of Lopburi and Saraburi. The dam was named Pasak Chonlasit by His Majesty the King. As a result, a reservoir of about 100,000

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

74

Phuthorn Phumadhon

rai was created and about 7,700 households were forced to move from their homes. There was little opposition to the project because the area inundated above the dam was mostly agricultural land and village sites rather than watershed forest or other rare and valuable natural resources. The only issue of concern was that displaced villagers should be fairly compensated in terms of both money and adequate facilities for health, education and public utilities at their new location. But another tricky matter emerged. The impact assessment report commissioned by the government concluded that this project had only minimal cultural impact as only four archaeological sites would be flooded, all of which would be restored, while the village communities were of recent settlement. In essence, the dam construction posed no problems related to archaeological evidence or culture. When government made this impact assessment public, the Club did not believe its findings. In the area along both sides of the Pasak River where the dam was being constructed and where the reservoir above the dam would be, there were numerous prehistoric archaeological sites. In addition, the communities on both sides were longsettled with their own identity evident in lifestyle, fabric weaving, dress, sculpture and entertainment. These communities belonged to an ethnicity known as Thai Beung. The Club then campaigned for excavation work, studies on the Thai Beung, and construction of a museum so that the archaeological and cultural heritage of the area could be rescued and displayed before it was all inundated under the reservoir. The Club made use of academic information to oppose the government and officialdom over this matter. It organized seminars; held exhibitions Of archaeological finds such as pottery, iron tools and stone axes; held exhibitions on Thai Beung ethnology; had articles published in leading national newspapers; and escorted reporters to visit the site and see the evidence with their own eyes. These activities convinced the public that the dam construction would certainly impact on cultural heritage. Eventually, the government ordered the Fine Arts Department to investigate and excavate archaeological sites in the area as a matter of urgency because the dam was already under construction and the water already rising. Government also commissioned a study of Thai Beung culture and built a museum in the grounds of the Pasak Chonlasit Dam to exhibit everything of value rescued from the inundation. A key factor in this campaign was the contribution of community intellectuals from the locality, students from the Faculty of Archaeology at Silpakorn University, and media professionals interested in archaeology, history and culture. Publicizing knowledge about the value of Thai Beung cultural heritage at the time the dam was under construction had another long-lasting impact. The displaced Thai Beung communities established their own conservation club and cultural center at Khok Salung in Phattana Nikhom district, Lopburi. This has become a new center for ethnological study.

Long-Term Strategies for Thai Heritage Preservation

Erawan Mountain In 2004, when a concession was to be granted for a limestone quarry and cement factory at Erawan Mountain, the people of Chong Salika village near the area started a protest, fearing that the industry would harm the environment and the serenity of the village. They came to consult the Club in the hope of finding support for their protest. The Club went to survey Erawan Mountain and found it was a beautiful place with at least ten caves, some containing prehistoric remains, and many rare birds. The limestone quarry project was, therefore, not only a threat to peace and quiet, but also to the valuable natural environment and to archaeological sites. The Club agreed to join the opposition, and campaign to have the whole mountain area of about 1,500 rai declared a conservation area under government protection for the study of natural sciences. As usual, a company applying for such a concession has to provide an environmental impact assessment for the government to scrutinize and evaluate. And as usual, of course, the research team, no matter whether it was commissioned from a university or private consultancy company, produced a report supporting the company’s project and aiding government approval. For example, it reasoned that once the limestone had all been blasted away, trees could be replanted in the whole area. And once the cement factory had been built, a green zone could be designated

Figure 4. Members of the Lopburi Conservation Club talking at Erawan Mountain

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

75

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

76

Phuthorn Phumadhon

Long-Term Strategies for Thai Heritage Preservation

77

and planted with trees as a refuge for the animals and birds of the area. The strategy adopted to oppose this project was to collect academic information on various aspects of the value of the Erawan Mountain. Cooperation was sought from several government agencies and foundations to assemble information on the natural and historical value of the area. The Lopburi regional office of the Fine Arts Department, Ministry of Culture made a survey of archaeological sites on the mountain. The findings, which included pottery sherds dating to the late prehistoric era, and indications that the caves had been used as burial sites, proved that the area was an Figure 5. Prehistoric artifacts found at Erawan Mountain important archaeological source. The Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation surveyed the botany and wildlife of the mountain. They found many rare plants such as Mok rachini (Wrightia sirikitiae Midd.& Santisuk), a species discovered in Thailand and named after the queen, Mok lueang (Wrightia viridiflora Kerr), Jan pha (Dracaena loureiri Gagnep), and Jan daeng (Adenium obesum), as well as various protected species of wildlife including macaque, fox, civet, porcupine, bats and various birds, especially the limestone dancer (Napothera crispifrons), a rare species indigenous to this area. The Seub Nakasathian Foundation sent a specialist to explore eight caves on the mountain. His report found the mountain was a rare example of an area where several caves of outstanding value could still be found in their natural condition. Preservation of these caves in their natural condition would be of benefit for the study of the geology, environment and archeology of the Central Region of Thailand, since most mountains in the region had been altered by religious institutions, tourist facilities, or mines and quarries. All this information was assembled to prove the true value of Erawan Mountain, and to contradict the impact assessment report commissioned by the company behind the project. The officials involved in the decision making at different levels were of different minds. However, eventually neither the limestone quarry on the mountain nor the cement factory at its foot gained approval. Instead, Erawan Mountain was designated by the government as a non-hunting area under the protection of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, which established

an office there. The people of Chong Salika village then got together to establish the Erawan Resource Center, a sort of mini museum providing public information.

Outsiders who fear that projects initiated by either the government or private sector will impact cultural heritage conservation, and who want to protest against their implementation, will find it difficult to succeed because they are not close to the problem and cannot grasp the issues involved in great detail; and hence will not be able to convince other members of the public. Only those close to and directly affected have the legitimacy to come out in opposition at the first stage. When a damaging project is halted or cancelled, that is not the end of the affair. There are government officials willing to cooperate with predatory businessmen for corrupt gain. They may reverse an earlier decision and bring a project back to life at any moment, especially after a lapse of time when the protest has died down. Therefore, only local conservationists who are close to the problem can sustain opposition over the long term. There are outsiders who are knowledgeable in a well-rounded way, who can consider a local issue in a larger context, and who can network with other groups in similar situations. Cooperation between insiders and such outsiders is thus crucial to the success of any preservation campaign. In any locality there are certainly some local people who have a sincere interest in conservation. In any threatened area, forming a local conservation club under the leadership of local insiders is vital. This will prove a powerful strategy for preservation of local cultural heritage. At the same time local clubs should be affiliated with a provincial body to gain access to knowledge exchange as well as for socialization. There are several examples of cultural heritage conservation clubs founded by local people. Sab Champa Ancient City and Jampi Sirindhorn Forest Conservation Club was established to conserve the site of a Dvaravati city which has remains of religious monuments enclosed by a moat and dyke. To highlight the spiritual value of this ancient site, the club initiated a city merit making ceremony which became an annual event. The club also induced the Fine Arts Department and Silpakorn University to excavate the monuments in the ancient city of Sab Champa and to conserve a small nearby forest. Wat Lai Conservation Club was founded in late 2011 to campaign for cleanliness and tidiness around a late-Ayutthaya monastery renowned for its stucco work depicting the life of the Lord Buddha on the wall of the assembly hall. The club also upgraded the monastery’s museum to a proper standard. The Local Boat Conservation Club at Wat Yang Na Rangsi was founded by

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Lesson 2: Insiders with a direct stake in the cultural heritage must participate in its preservation

78

Phuthorn Phumadhon

Long-Term Strategies for Thai Heritage Preservation

79

Problems in preservation work in Lopburi

Figure 6. Information Center established by the local conservation club at the Dvaravati site of Sap Champa.

Figure 7. The Lopburi Club succeeded in preventing quarrying at Samor Khon Mountain

Figure 8. Wat Pun in the heart of Lopburi city before and after a clean-up by the local conservation club.

people residing near Wat Yang Na Rangsi where there is a museum of local boats. The museum was established by the Lopburi Club with the aim of both preserving the monastery’s old pavilion and displaying in that pavilion a collection of boats commonly used in the area. The club members participate in keeping the museum clean and solving any problems at the museum such as flooding, roof leakage and deterioration of the displays. They also welcome and guide visitors to the museum. Erawan Mountain Conservation Club was founded by the people living around the Erawan Mountain. The club focuses on study and eco-tourism at the mountain, and protecting the natural environment from damage caused by man and forest fires. The club has also established a center for the study of the mountain’s natural science and archaeology. Samor Khon Mountain Conservation Club was founded by people who live at the foot of Samor Khon Mountain with the objective of educating their fellow local residents about the value of the mountain in terms of its history, archaeology and natural science. The club has also established a local museum. The Museum and Local Learning Resource Club of Lopburi Province brings together the founders and managers of thirty-one museums and resource centers in the province. These museums have collected and exhibited material related to ethnology, natural science, art and culture. This club serves as a center for academic exchange and mutual assistance. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

In Lopburi Province, monuments fall into two categories, each of which has its own specific problems in terms of conservation. First, there are areas which have a cluster of several historical sites, such as city walls, moats, tanks and religious monuments. Good examples include the ancient Dvaravati-era settlements in Lopburi itself, Sab Champa (Tha Luang District), and Dong Marum (Khok Samrong District). Some, such as Sab Champa and Dong Marum, are still virtually undisturbed and should be prime sites to become conservation areas. However, there are no regulations defining who should take the responsibility. At other places which should become conservation zones, such as Lopburi City and Wang Phai (Ban Mi District), the remains have already been so damaged that rescuing them will be very difficult. Second, there are individual sites such as Wat Phra Sri Rattana Mahathat, Wat Lai, Phra Prang Sam Yot, Phaulkon’s House, Wat Sao Thong Thong and Wat Tongpu. The problems facing conservation for each of these categories is different. In the case of the clustered sites, any conservation work has to appreciate the site as a whole, and needs considerable skill because of the scale and complexity. In Thailand, there is no single example of a large-scale historical zone where the conservation work has been successful. Even at locations listed as World Heritage sites, such as Sukhothai and Ayutthaya, conservation work has been very sporadic. Individual monuments should be easier to conserve, especially when the Fine Arts Department is engaged on the task. Yet the media regularly reports problems such as negligence or conservation work that lacks any academic principle and hence sometimes damages valuable historical remains. An example is the restoration work on the Narai Rachaniwet Palace where designs on the walls were painted over, the peak of a gate was modified, and new cement ornamentation was added. Both types of problem stem from a single overriding cause – the failure to establish a clear policy on conservation. This needs to be set out in detail. 1. There is no policy to decide which sites of cultural heritage are prime targets for conservation and to prioritize sites in order. The national resources for conservation, in terms of both personnel and budget, are limited so there needs to be clear priorities for how they are used. Whether in Lopburi or elsewhere in the country, conservation is carried out on a case-by-case basis. A specific site is chosen because it has support from powerful people, such as politicians. In Lopburi, a site that should be given priority for conservation is the city wall and moat because it is an example of a defensive system constructed for a whole settlement, as well as a large-scale and ancient system of water control. Yet today, the site has already been badly encroached upon and damaged, and there are no government measures to deal with this problem. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

80

Phuthorn Phumadhon

2. In the case of large-scale, clustered sites, there is no clear policy on which government agency should take ownership of conservation. The working style of the Fine Arts Department is to proceed monument by monument. As a result, the value of the site as a whole is neglected. In Lopburi, this has already resulted in considerable damage to its value as a historical city. This is major example of the destruction of Thailand’s cultural heritage. 3. Conservation work that is effective and sustained needs participation from many stakeholders including local government agencies and the general public. My concern, based on my experience in Lopburi, is that such work still lacks coordination between the various people and agencies involved. After conservation work at any particular site is completed, the site is then neglected and, as times passes, it deteriorates again until the Fine Arts Department has to undertake another restoration. A good example is an old ubosot (ordination hall) in Wat Bot Kong Thanu, Lopburi. After the Fine Arts Department had restored this example of late-Ayutthaya architecture, the management of the wat thought that the Fine Arts Department would be responsible for maintenance. They let this beautiful ubosot become a home to pigeons and did not even keep it clean, so it deteriorated rapidly and soon required another restoration. The Fine Arts Department needs to make it understood that it is not the owner of such monuments, but is responsible only for planning and executing conservation projects in cooperation with other people. 4. Good monitoring and evaluation is a necessary condition to make the work of government agencies both efficient and honest. The fact that government has no system of using academics and the general public to monitor and evaluate the work of government agencies on the preservation of cultural heritage means that such work lacks direction and constantly results in mistakes. 5. The Fine Arts Department’s conservation work on some sites departs from proper principles, such as by bad design, use of poor quality materials and employment of craftsmen without the right skills. These problems led to criticism of the Fine Arts Department’s work in Lopburi, resulting in bad feelings. 6. There is not enough academic study into the story behind historical monuments, nor enough activities to build awareness among those involved with any historical site about its importance and the need for conservation.

Long-Term Strategies for Thai Heritage Preservation

a proper value on preserving cultural heritage. It is possible that, in the future, the values and worldview of the Thai people in this respect will shift again, and spiritual values will matter as much as development. Preservation of the Thai cultural heritage would then become important again. This trend is possible. In my experience, there are two key strategies to make the public concerned about the value of cultural heritage and ready to participate in projects of preservation, and to induce officials to agree with campaigns for preservation whether for reasons of necessity or true commitment. These two key strategies are: first, to use academic information to convince people of the value of cultural heritage; and second to establish conservation clubs in localities where heritage is endangered. By these means, insiders, i.e., those who have a direct stake in the preservation of cultural heritage, become those who take care of their own cultural heritage in a sustainable way.

Conclusion At this point, I would like to make clear one more time that the current efforts at preservation of Thai cultural heritage are mostly designed to prolong the death throes rather than to preserve forever. Nevertheless, I also believe that these efforts are not a waste of time. In the second half of the twentieth century, Thailand placed Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

81

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

The Development of Law on Tangible Cultural Heritage: Case of the Law on Ancient Monuments, Antiques, Objects of Art and National Museums Rewadee Sakulpanich

Historical research depends in part on antiques, objects of art, and ancient monuments. Without them, it will be difficult to trace the history of the nation and its people. Hence, the preservation of such articles is imperative for all. On the occasion of the official opening of the Sam Phraya National Museum in Ayutthaya on 26 December 1961, His Majesty King Bhumibol spoke on the importance of conserving national heritage as follows: Antiques, objects of art and monuments are all things of value and necessary for study and research in history, art, and archaeology. They are evidence of the flourishing of the nation in its passage from the past, and should be preserved as the common property of the nation forever. It is said that there are now many people interested in buying antiques and art objects for export to foreign countries. If in future we have to go to study or view our own Thai antiques and objects of art in foreign countries, it would be pitiful and very shameful. Hence, it would be best to make every effort and work together to find ways to collect our antiques and objects of art and create national museums to preserve them.

In the same year, His Majesty said: Constructing a building these days is a matter of pride for the builder alone but monuments are the pride of the country. A single ancient brick has a value that deserves preservation. If we had no Sukhothai, Ayutthaya, or Bangkok, Thailand would have no meaning.

Ancient monuments, antiques, and objects of art are cultural property or cultural heritage that attests to the creativity and wisdom of our ancestors. They are historical sources that both show and shape the national identity with implications Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

84

Rewadee Sakulpanich

The Development of Law on Tangible Cultural Heritage

for national security, as shown in the statements “Preserving culture is preserving the nation” and “Culture is the security of the nation”.

glory of the country. For this reason, civilised countries consider it a duty of government to investigate and conserve ancient articles within their country. In the Kingdom of Siam, there are such ancient articles that are adequately taken care of by officials, but others that are abandoned with nobody looking after them, and others that deserve to be investigated but have not yet been given attention because there are no officials in government to monitor and conserve ancient things systematically.

Early history There are written sources from ancient times that show interest in preservation, particularly of religious monuments. In the Three Seals Law, a collection of laws from the Ayutthaya period (1350–1767) assembled in the Bangkok First Reign, two relevant clauses of the law on theft state as follows: Clause 47. Anyone who dishonestly and sinfully steals a Buddha image or articles of gold, nãk [pink gold], silver, crystal, bronze, copper or tin, or any other religious image, and either takes it for sale or damages it or intends to do so, and is arrested anywhere, detain and interrogate to discover associates in the sale, and if the thief’s testimony is true, punish the associates with 60 lashes, severing of the hand, and fine of 700,000 cowrie shells, and for the merit of the Buddha image execute the thief to cleanse the sin. Clause 52. Any criminal who loots a monks’ quarters or sala shall be detained, punished with 30 or 60 lashes, and returned to the master. Anyone who digs under a Buddha image, stupa, or preaching hall for loot shall be punished in three ways, 1. execution; 2. severing of fingers; or 3. sixty lashes.

As can be seen, the law concentrated on protecting religious sites and objects by threatening severe punishments. But the Three Seals Law has no provisions on the protection and conservation of ancient monuments and antiques. A law dating from the reign of King Mongkut (Rama IV, r. 1851–1868) states that in the case of looting or damage at a preaching hall, stupa, ordination hall, or Buddha image in the capital, those living in a radius of 4 sen (160 metres) must report the matter to the district officer within a month, or be liable to pay for the repairs when the damage is discovered. The preamble explains that the law aims to make people take an interest in preserving their local wat (temple) as, however big or small, and however dilapidated, it was built by their ancestors and is an ornament of the city. Following this law early in the Bangkok period (1782 to present), there is no trace of other legislation in this area until a royal decree issued by King Rama VI (Vajiravudh, r. 1910 – 1925) on 17 January 1923, as follows: In Siam there are many ancient things such as stupas and various artefacts created by kings and expert artists in the past. Such things are evidence for the chronicles and tools for investigating knowledge of the past for the benefit and Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

85

This decree placed the Committee of the Vajirayana Library of the Capital1 in charge of conservation, with responsibilities to: 1. inspect and identify monuments; 2. devise methods for monitoring and conservation; 3. provide advice to implementing officials, and make proposals to government agencies and others; and 4. report to the king at least once a year. This decree was the first step in establishing a system for managing national heritage.

First legislation on museums and export Three years after the above decree on 5 March 1926, King Prajadhipok commanded the drafting of legislation to establish a National Museum in the capital, with provision for extension to further national museums in the provinces under the same legislation. However, two months later the government faced a financial crisis because government revenue was insufficient to cover its expenses, and the Fine Arts Department was abolished. As the Committee of the Vajirayana Library of the Capital had taken on new duties, its name was no longer considered appropriate. Hence, a decree of 25 April 1926 changed its name into the Ratchabanditsapha, known in English as the Royal Institute of Art, Literature, and Archaeology. The Thai name came from an old department (Krom Ratchabandit) which had originally had responsibility for military lore but whose duties had shrunk with the passage of time to looking after Buddhist texts and ceremonies. This new Royal Institute had three departments: a department of literature, which looked after the Vajirayana Library; a department of history, which oversaw museums and ancient monuments; and a department of arts which took care of arts and crafts. Later in 1926, the army vacated the premises of the old Front Palace which was then occupied by the new National Museum. On 25 October 1926, in the reign of King Rama VII, the first law on the export of antiques and objects of art came into force. The preamble stated that in advanced countries government had responsibility to conserve antiques and objects of art for Originally a library founded within the Royal Palace that gradually evolved into the National Library.

1

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

86

Rewadee Sakulpanich

The Development of Law on Tangible Cultural Heritage

the benefit and education of the people. While the Government of Siam had now started a museum, people were exporting valuable articles. This was the first law to define terms for antiques and objects of art, as follows:

monuments was introduced for inscribing them on a register. Those with no owner were deemed property of the realm and the director-general was authorised to place them in national museums located around the country. Articles which were dug up or otherwise found on private land during archaeological work at public expense were also deemed property of the realm. The export of antiques and objects of art, whether registered or not, was forbidden, and the director-general was authorised to purchase or forcibly purchase articles in cases where there was reason to suspect the articles might be lost through sale or export. Owners could apply for permission to export articles on a temporary basis on payment of a surety. With respect to museums, the Act classified articles in museums into three types: property of the realm, loans, and articles placed in the care of the museum. Sale of articles in museums was forbidden except in cases where the museum had many similar articles or the article was considered of low value. Such sales required approval by the minister. The director-general was authorised to transfer articles between national museums, to purchase objects within an approved budget, to accept objects as gifts or legacies, and to accept monetary gifts to be placed in a central fund for the development of national museums, disbursed at the director-general’s discretion with the approval of the minister. The Act also allowed the director-general to grant monetary rewards from the central fund to people who provided information on monuments or antiques which appeared to be ownerless. As to penalties, those who damaged, destroyed, or modified monuments, antiques, or art objects were liable to imprisonment up to six months or fine up to 1,000 baht, or both. Those who exported objects or had them exported, or exported in breach of conditions imposed, were liable to imprisonment up to three months or fine up to 1,000 baht, or both. An amending Act was passed in 1943. Primarily, this removed the requirement for the director-general to gain approval from the minister for the movement of objects between national museums, for disbursements from the central fund, and for the payment of rewards.

Antique means any ancient moveable article, whether originating in this country or elsewhere, which has value for knowledge or for studying the chronicles and archaeology.. Object of art means a rare article created by craftsmen of special skill.

The Act banned export of antiques and objects of art without permission from the Royal Institute, and imposed penalties of imprisonment up to three months or a fine up to 3,000 baht, or both. The Act set out procedures for applying for permission to export, including presenting the article for inspection, authorised the search of vehicles, and empowered the court to seize articles without compensation

The Act of 1934

87

In 1933, the Royal Institute of Art, Literature, and Archaeology was divided into two bodies, the Royal Institute and a resurrected Fine Arts Department (FAD). The first comprehensive Act on Ancient Monuments, Objects of Art, Antiques, and National Museums was approved in 1934 and came into operation in the following year. This Act replaced all the legislation described above, and introduced new definitions of antique, ancient monument, object of art, and museum. An ancient monument was defined as “an ancient immoveable property, or a fragment of such, which by virtue of age or style of construction or available historical facts is of utility for history, archaeology or art.” The Act commanded the director-general of the FAD to draw up a register of ancient monuments, including Buddhist wat (temples) and other religious buildings, both those that had owners and those that were ownerless. The director-general had to inform owners in writing, and if the owner objected to the registration then the matter would be adjudicated by the minister. Once a monument was entered on the register, it could not be transferred, repaired, modified, altered, or destroyed without written permission from the director-general, and then within conditions imposed by the director-general. The Act also made owners, both public and private, responsible for taking care of the monuments within regulations. Monuments under the charge of other government departments were to be transferred to the FAD, which was also authorised to purchase monuments or acquire them through the law on forcible purchase for purposes of conservation or making them available for public view. With respect to antiques and objects of art, a process similar to that for

The Act that remains in force until today was passed in 1961. Although the new legislation made many changes of detail and definition, the scope and approach of the Act closely follow the Act of 1934. One major change concerned the definition of monuments. In 1951, the FAD proposed a new draft to replace the Acts of 1934 and 1943 on the grounds that the legislation was difficult to implement because the registration of monuments did not specify the boundaries of the monument, only its name and location (e.g., “Nakhon Pathom Province: Base of a stupa, Thammasala Village,

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

The Act of 1961

88

Rewadee Sakulpanich

The Development of Law on Tangible Cultural Heritage

Mueang District”). There were cases where looters dug tunnels under monuments but did not touch, damage, or affect the monument in any way, and the public prosecutor declined to process the case on grounds the legislation did not define the area of the monuments. In the new Act of 1961, the registration of ancient monuments required a plan of the monument indicating its boundaries. In addition, this Act revised its key definitions to be stricter as follows:

At the time of this amendment, a foreign boat was discovered attempting to steal ceramics from an underwater wreck, but was forestalled by the Royal Thai Navy, after which the ceramics were placed on display in the National Maritime Museum in Chanthaburi. This incident prompted amendment of Clause 24 to exend coverage to, “Antiques or objects of art buried in, concealed or abandoned within the Kingdom or the Exclusive Economic Zone,” where the Exclusive Economic Zone included the territorial waters. This amending Act of 1992 also considerably increased the penalties for various offences. For example the penalty for damaging, destroying, or depreciating the value of an ancient monument was raised to imprisonment up to seven years or a fine of 700,000 baht or both, and the equivalent for an antique or object of art became imprisonment up to ten years or a fine up to a million baht or both.

Ancient Monument means an immoveable property which, by its age or archaeological characteristics or historical evidence, is useful in the field of art, history or archaeology. Antique means an archaic moveable property, whether produced by man or by nature, or being any part of an ancient monuments or of human skeleton or animal carcass which, by its age or characteristics of production or historical evidence, is useful in the field of art, history or archaeology.

89

Conclusion

The Act increased the severity of penalties. For example, as there had been many cases of looting monuments, the Act increased the penalty for modifying or damaging a monument from imprisonment up to six months or a fine of up to 3,000 baht to become imprisonment up to five years and fines up to 10,000 baht. The Act was slightly amended by two Decrees of the Revolutionary Council (the government of Thanom Kittikachorn), No. 308 dated 11 December 1971 and No. 189 dated 23 July 1972. There had been a spate of looting monuments in Udon Thani and Sakon Nakhon, which threatened to spread to other provinces. The looters had often severely damaged evidence of early history. One provision of Decree No. 189 authorised the director-general to issue a written notice to owners of antiques or art objects of historical or archaeological value to hand over these objects at a designated place and within a designated time, without compensation, and on pain of imprisonment up to six months and fine up to a thousand baht, or both. In addition, the director-general or a designated official was authorised to enter and inspect places suspected of storing objects that had not been declared or had not been handed over on request, with power to seize the said objects. An Act was passed in 1992 to amend several clauses of the 1961 Act. Several regulations were tightened. Many new regulations and procedures were introduced to confront a boom in the production and sale of copied artefacts.

From the development of the law described above, it can be seen that Thailand has had laws to protect and preserve tangible cultural heritage covering ancient monuments, antiques and objects of art for over a century. The law has been amended from time to time to help preserve the cultural heritage of the nation and the world for future generations. However, the current law in force, based on the 1961 Act and subsequent amendments, in some cases is not as effective as it should be. Although the provisions are strict and the penalties are high, yet criminals are not deterred by this law and continue to commit criminal acts such as destroying or modifying monuments, constructing buildings within areas registered by the FAD as monuments, looting monuments, stealing antiques and objects of art, or exporting them without permission. In addition, there are problems within the judicial process. Those that have the power to arrest, investigate, and interrogate offenders give scant importance to such cases, compared to cases which threaten life and property. Also, there are problems over budget and manpower resources. In 2008, the FAD proposed a legal development plan to amend the current legislation, including a new draft law with amended definitions and amendments to other clauses. Some clauses bring the Act into line with government policy on decentralisation by transferring certain responsibilities to local bodies and providing more opportunities for public participation. Some clauses simplify the regulations and procedures relating to the trade in antiques and copied antiques. Other amendments bring the Act into line with international conventions which Thailand is considering to sign, namely: the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property of 1970; the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen and Illegally Exported Cultural Objects of 1995; and the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

Object of Art means a thing produced by craftsmanship which is appreciated as being valuable in the field of art.

90

Rewadee Sakulpanich

Heritage of 2001. Overall this new draft Act considerably expands the legislation from under fifty clauses to over one hundred. The draft has passed scrutiny by the Council of State and is now in the legislative process.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Section 2

Issues

Tourism and Heritage: A Tense Relationship Surin Pitsuwan1

Tourism is an industry and a very important commercial activity for many countries and economies around the world, including in the ASEAN region. One reason for the discussion and debate on this subject, and the cause for concern, is because tourism is a growth industry that thrives and prospers but also has the potential to bring about negative changes in a country’s culture and national identity. More convenient travel; telecommunications that provide access to more information; freedom of movement and ever increasing frequency and volume of travel; increased purchasing power – all of these factors make individuals, who think they are being limited by the boundaries of their culture and community, feel a thirst for knowledge and so are eager to find out what is interesting, different or diverse beyond that which is familiar to them – things that are considered to be exotic, strange or unusual. His Majesty the King once remarked: “They are interested in the strange and bizarre aspects of Thailand. Think nothing of it because by nature mankind is curious and keen to encounter, experience and learn.” However, once tourism becomes an industry and a commercial activity, profits become the driving factor that decide which activity or cultural product, or form of performing art, appeals most to consumers and the market. In this way, cultural treasures are transformed into commodities. For as long as something exists in the form of a cultural treasure, we can apply our own standards which are based on cultural excellence. But as soon as cultural heritage becomes commodities that are exchanged – bought and sold – they become products defined by what sells well or in great volumes and what appeals to the This article originated as a keynote speech delivered on 17 January 2012 in a panel on “Tourism and Heritage: A Tense Relationship” organized by the Siamese Heritage Protection Program with coordination of the Senate Standing Sub-Committee on Religious, Moral, Ethics, Arts and Culture for Studying and Facilitating of Cultural Heritage Management.

1

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

94

Surin Pitsuwan

Tourism and Heritage: A Tense Relationship

consumer most. This is the inherent source of conflict in the tourism versus heritage protection debate. Many countries have met with great success, albeit superficial or short term. Let’s take an example from within the ASEAN region – Phuket in Thailand and Bali in Indonesia. Let us see what the difference will be between these two destinations in a period of, say, 50 to 70 years. In terms of the quality of their beaches, natural surroundings and air quality, both Phuket and Bali are about the same. Neither is superior to the other. Some might even claim that the beaches in Phuket and Phang-nga are magnificent and clean, and still retain their charm – perhaps even more than those found in Bali. What Bali has that Phuket does not are the elements of culture and daily ritual – aspects that visitors can experience without having to pay an entrance fee or purchase a ticket. As you walk around the market, the hotel, or even along the beach and along the road, what you see is the preservation of religious rituals and ceremonies, which the Balinese believe in, observe and practise. These are still living features of the culture today. If we are to go in search of such “values” in Thailand, regardless of any particular cultural group, the Siam Society would have to organize an excursion or study trip. When we travel to Myanmar – whether to Mandalay or even Yangon – we see these religious rituals and ceremonies in everyday life – still alive and well. They live the rituals. They live the culture. This is something for managers, senior executives and operators to consider with regard to tourism in Thailand. But then again, these are not the sort of things that can be decided or controlled by those in authority or government. The tourism authority does not go out to the Balinese people and tell them how to live – how to wear costumes or to wrap cloths in certain ways; or how to present ritual offerings consisting of palm leaf containers with candles, incense, and flowers at the sacred Hindu shrines found on every street corner. Walk along any path in a hotel and you’ll see baskets of offerings hidden discretely among the shrubs. They are not intended to be displayed for everyone to see. This is everyday life and it is this that has intrinsic value because it is “exotic” life – a distinctive aspect of the daily ritual and ceremony that is still being diligently observed. In Thailand, it may be more difficult for us to find this in Bangkok or in city communities. It still exists in rural communities but is increasingly becoming a commercial activity. This is an area that needs to be given increased attention. Further away in Marrakech, southern Morocco, is an area that is largely a desert. Situated on the fringes of the parched Sahara, it is home to many tribal peoples, a

place tourists find most impressive – much like Chiang Mai. Its art, culture, rituals, ceremonies, architecture, traditional folk games and performances are all alive and well, and they are able to carefully nurture all this. What is of increasing interest to tourists and travellers is the purity of the environment – a clean and pristine environment. They come in search of exotic places, but in Thailand these are becoming fewer and fewer by the day. We used to go up into the hills to visit hilltribe villages. This is getting to be easier and easier to do. However, once we’re there, we see hilltribes dressed in hilltribe costumes, but they now use cellphones to communicate with their children and relatives. Whether this is in Bangkok or Chiang Mai, the charm disappears. But in our neighbouring countries, there is still an abundance of exotic destinations. So formidable are the strength and dynamism of the Thai tourism industry that its impact is felt even in neighbouring countries. Some say that Thailand is rapidly running out of exotic destinations that are sufficiently unusual, different, and diverse for world travellers to want to experience. Hence the need for them to venture out into other markets in search of attractions beyond our borders. If we have poor internal management, and do not strive to protect and preserve anything within our own country, what we offer to our neighbours, whether Myanmar, Laos, or Cambodia, will be the same. The same experience will be repeated in those countries and destinations and that would be a shame. In addition, everyone is going in search of exoticism and purity of environment, such as secluded beaches devoid of human footprints. If they happen to be private

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

Figure 1. Tourists at a Bangkok floating market (photo: Steve Van Beek)

95

96

Surin Pitsuwan

Tourism and Heritage: A Tense Relationship

97

beaches, all the better. Everyone wants exclusivity – something that is exclusively ours. Hence there are exclusive hotels – the more exclusive they are, the more expensive. Therefore, the people who can afford to consume these services are individuals of another “bracket” for whom the unusual and different matters even more. As a result, what is offered becomes an increasingly commercial product. People also seek cultural diversity. We talked about this earlier on. ASEAN is one of the world’s most culturally diverse regions. It is home to the only Catholic country in Asia – the Philippines. The largest Muslim country, Indonesia, is also situated here. In Indonesia, there are many more sub-cultures. The whole of the island of Bali represents “fossilized Hinduism”. It is as though Hinduism in Indonesia retreated back to the island of Bali. The form of Hinduism on the island preserves Hindu characteristics that are unique. Visitors from India who visit are intrigued that this is not the Hinduism they know in their own country. It is as though the evolution of Hinduism on the island stopped in its tracks and is frozen in time – and hence it is all the more fascinating and of great interest to visitors. Diversity. The varied rhythms of dance and the various performances appeal to our senses. It is what we feel. One special segment of travellers finds slums such as Klong Toey of interest. If in Cairo, one travels to see the community behind the big masjid which is also a slum. And if one goes to Beijing, one goes to the hutong, districts that were always inhabited by the poor and still are. They have managed to preserve their original form. This is “exotic” in another sense of the word. Such visitors travel there to see for themselves. They find it interesting provided that they do not have to live there. It triggers a sense of guilt. They begin to wonder: why do these people live like this? How can we help them? Is there no fairness or equality in society? They ask themselves these questions. If there are voluntary organizations to facilitate travel, such visitors are keen to visit and want to be of help in some way. There are travellers who find this type of experience appealing just so long as they are not really part of the situation, because if they were, it wouldn’t be much fun. But because they are on the outside looking in, and have only come along to volunteer for a day or two, or maybe a week, they feel they have done some good and contributed to the community and humanity in some way. They walk away with a sense of fulfilment. When tourism, culture, values and ways of life converge, can we avoid conflict and confrontation? Can we find some way to minimize the negative impact that tourism and commercialization has on all aspects of artistic and cultural heritage? Yes we can, provided that such efforts are undertaken with wisdom (panya). Co- operation from all sectors must be forthcoming. The Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) needs to be aware that what we promote is heritage that belongs to all of society and is “social capital”. If we are not careful and allow our heritage to become tourism commodities

traded, bought and sold, market forces will be the determinant. The colourful variety being offered must appeal to visitors. The rhythm and pace will no longer be what they used to be. The form it takes will no longer be the same, but will be one that appeals to a larger market – an external market with high purchasing power. Tourism may lead to cultural integration, and if we are not careful this mixing of cultures can ultimately lead to cultural change to the extent that the original uniqueness is lost forever. Take Thai food for example. In New York, there are some 70 to 80 Thai restaurants all serving tom yam, yet none tastes the same. It is the same for khao pad Thai – Thai fried rice. The uniqueness has gone because the dish has evolved according to market needs and individual preferences and tastes. Do we need standards? Who will set the standards? No doubt, the TAT will not be able to do it all alone. But TAT needs to present opportunities for cultural experts, sociologists, social anthropologists, historians and members of the Siam Society to ask questions about what is taking place. Is it right? Is this the best that it can be? What needs to be changed? How do we slow down the process to prevent changes that can impact cultural heritage and cultural commodities so quickly that we can no longer preserve uniqueness, cultural integrity, purity or beauty? There is tremendous reliance on “selling the old” and we have not developed what is new to the same standard as the old. And the new that is being created is not as ornate and beautiful, or as worthy of admiration, as the old. But neither do we protect and preserve what we have. We let the old deteriorate, change and be modified. The owners of this heritage in rural upcountry areas have no say in deciding which of their cultural treasures are to become tourism commodities – be it a chedi, wat (temple), bot (chapel, ordination hall), or an ancient city wall – because they have no control. All is decided, or not decided, by being left to free-for-all, open market, free market competition. Local people lose control – even though these treasures belong to them. If you ask me about the structure that stands opposite the front of Wat Phra Mahathat in Nakhon Si Thammarat, I will say do not build a petrol station right there because it diminishes the grandeur of the Phra Mahathat stupa. No one thinks about these things. It doesn’t occur to them. How did this (idea) come about? Central government – it is a franchise of the central government. Who decides? Who determines this? Not the locals. It just happens to be an excellent location for a marketplace, an ideal refuelling stop for motorists driving away from the municipal district, but it is an eyesore – painful to behold and emotionally unsettling. The local people – the actual owners of this inheritance – have no say in the way in which their local cultural treasures and assets are put to use or transformed into cultural products. One needs to take this into account as well.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

98

Surin Pitsuwan

Tourism and Heritage: A Tense Relationship

99

Here’s a quote by Mom Rajawongse Kukrit Pramoj about the Department of Fine Arts: “Dance movements and artistic forms, everything that’s found in the regions (of the kingdom) or upcountry, all possess qualities that are beautiful, enchanting, fascinating and intriguing. Any time the Department of Fine Arts steps in to set standards, it’s a disaster. It takes the life out of it,” he observed. “The reason for this being it loses its liveliness and charm, and is neither delicate nor dainty.” Hence in countries that have a successful track record in protecting and preserving art and culture, they leave it to the locals – they leave it to the real owners. Others can behold and appreciate, but should not be allowed to decide, change or modify anything. If something appeals to your senses, admire it in its original form. Naturally it will not always be possible to do this 100 per cent of the time, but at least for us to be aware that whenever central government ventures out to establish standards, there will be nothing left in the end. It will conform to the standards set by the central administration and all the original charm will be lost. Hence the vital role of involvement from the local community. This will help to guarantee artistic and cultural distinctiveness and the uniqueness of the various cultural treasures that form part of their lives and existence. Do not be enamoured with growth figures. Thailand has 16 million visitors a year. I have just been to Cambodia. They say that when one speaks of tourism growth in Cambodia, one in actual fact refers to the growth of tourism in Siem Reap. There are 2.6 million visitors representing growth of 20 to 25 per cent per annum. But part of the growth that takes place, includes “costs” that one needs to pay for – the various components that are purchased in order to promote tourism. Many restaurants are part of overseas franchises. Visitors expect the same level of comfort to which they are always accustomed. As we go for visitor arrival numbers, we agree to have these restaurants and the import of various ingredients from abroad. Additionally, travellers fly in on foreign flag carriers and perhaps stay at hotels that are part of international chains. It is all part of an international network. Hence in the final tally, what we end up with in terms of benefits for society and the economy are not all that significant. It is better for us to go for quality tourism, sophisticated tourism – a sophisticated form of tourism that values cultural experiences over pure consumerism – indulgence – to indulge, to see, to spend during their week-long stay and then to depart, with little to be gained. This is what I believe we should be aware of and be concerned about. And we must try our best to steer towards achieving a balance. ASEAN itself hosted the meeting of the ASEAN Tourism Ministers in Manado on the island of Sulawesi recently. ASEAN is reporting 60 million visitors who travelled to the region. How do we ensure that these 60 million individuals are quality visitors? How can we promote intra-regional travel within ASEAN? How should we share our cultural values,

experiences and ways of life with these people if they are not merely to be transient visitors who arrive in the country, consume services and then depart leaving nothing of value for the owners of these cultural treasures, assets and resources. Thailand needs to give serious thought to these considerations. We should not solely focus on growth and growth rates because in the end, if we leave it to market forces that arise out of competition and are only driven by profit, there will be nothing left – nothing that international visitors will find appealing or of interest. Therein lies the conflict and contradiction. The Tourism Authority of Thailand has to ensure that there is a system in place to manage tourism and see to it that it functions effectively. Furthermore, TAT needs to ensure that standards are achieved. But at the same time, excessive management will result in a loss of diversity. Society needs to find a balance. The Ministry of Tourism and Sports needs to listen to the public at large – the people, cultural leaders, spiritual leaders, historians, academics, social anthropologists, sociologists and art and cultural experts. In many countries, certainly in Thailand, many of the activities are being undertaken inside “silos”. Whoever is responsible for tourism promotion does only that. Those who oversee culture solely focus on culture, and the same applies to town planning. We lack integration, co-ordination and linkage between the different elements and entities to ensure effective protection and preservation of what constitutes our heritage. What I hope the Siam Society will do in addition to heritage protection is to ensure the effectiveness of such actions. How does one make everyone feel that it is our individual duty and responsibility to be involved in heritage protection? This is not just attempting to push this agenda in isolation independently of other organizations and entities, and without being able to drive a campaign or movement that encourages all sectors of society to feel they are co-owners and involved. These feelings of ownership and involvement are vital because anyone who does anything without trying to involve all sectors of society will not be successful and will not receive support. In the end, instead of making things better, this may lead to conflict, aggravating the situation through lack of trust, with each party placing self-interest above all else. Therefore what needs to be jointly considered is what makes for “humane tourism” – that is to say tourism that takes into account mankind and humanity more than profits, more than volume and more than growth. Humane tourism should be about learning about each other’s values. When they come to Thailand, what actual values and what way of life will we share with citizens of the world? Buddhist ways? Thai ways? Rural ways? Those of the various sub-cultures and sub-sectors that exist must be allowed to manage and present their own heritage and values because these are their living legacy. They are aware of these things. They treasure and cherish them. They practise them.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

100

Surin Pitsuwan

Tourism and Heritage: A Tense Relationship

Many of you may have seen the movie “Eat. Pray. Love.” starring Julia Roberts. It captures the essence of modern day tourism in which an individual’s awareness of various experiences is categorized by country, community and culture. The question for Thailand is what can Thailand offer to individuals like the Julia Roberts character? Or will she find that when she comes here, there’s nothing here that sets Thailand apart – nothing that reflects the uniqueness of Thai society in terms of wisdom (panya), in terms of thoughts and beliefs, in terms of awareness (sathi) or other values. Nothing that will enrich her upon her return home. Nothing that sets Thailand apart from anywhere else. If we ask ourselves this question and respond by saying that from now on humane tourism in Thailand will cater to those who come in search of uniqueness and “Thainess”, this is how everyone can become involved with and contribute to heritage protection and preservation, while not forgetting comfort, convenience, the various facilities and amenities that we are capable of offering. Hence they still have the opportunity to experience, to savour the human touch of Thailand, its culture and society within the framework of Thai society. This increases the value of Thai tourism. This form of tourism will help preserve the diversity of the human race and will not lead to a world community as described by Marcuse who wrote the book One Dimensional Man. What this suggests is that consumer culture in this world will lead to uniformity across every culture and every society, and everyone in this world. Wherever one ventures, there’s a McDonalds; wherever one goes, there’s Coca Cola. Wherever we travel, we go in search of Starbucks. We dress like everyone else and our tastes and preferences are just like everyone else’s. We watch the same movies; we listen to the same music; we eat the same food – the one-dimensional tourist. The onedimensional man or woman. What an extremely boring world this will be. And prior to arriving at this point, there will be conflict and confrontation and violence because everyone wants to protect their individual identity, and if they are unable to have a voice or become involved in this process of one-dimensional consumption, then there will be resistance, and this can lead to confrontation, conflict, and violence. This happens worldwide. Hence the discussion is not all about tourism. It is not just a matter to be explored or analysed only within the realm of tourism. This impacts society and culture as a whole. It also impacts individuals employed in the cultural industry or culturally related industry sectors that produce, present, package and sell what is considered to be cultural heritage. If we are not careful, these things will disappear. They will deteriorate to such an extent that we will be left without anything that is culturally unique, special, different or distinctive. We’ll run out of exoticism – from the word “exotic”, meaning something distinctive, diverse and worthy of admiration because of its unique appeal. This is all of great concern to the United Nations. To minimize such conflict and

prevent losses in cultural diversity, the organization is working to come up with the UN Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of the Heritage of Indigenous Peoples. This covers hilltribes, various tribal peoples with diverse cultures, tribespeople with unique characteristics around the world and also those within ASEAN. Today in the 17,000 inhabited islands of Indonesia, over 400 dialects are still being spoken. Furthermore, each of these communities takes pride in this fact and is attempting to preserve this. It is much the same in the Philippines. As far as I know, and the following may be of interest to the Siam Society, we too have much diversity but this is disappearing by the day. We are in great danger of losing this impressive diversity, and being left without anything that is different or diverse. Therefore we should undertake studies and conduct research and try to benchmark our efforts with those being undertaken worldwide and regionally, including efforts undertaken by the UN, ASEAN and the European Union. What are they doing? How does one protect, preserve and nurture these aspects? What measures are being implemented to preserve this for future generations and for the future of world heritage? Life is not all about materialism. It is not all about wealth and competition – the race to acquire worldly possessions, what we have in the bank or our possessions and belongings. Life imbued with value is one that enables us to admire and appreciate diversity

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

Figure 2. Domestic tourists at Si Thep (photo: Chris Baker)

101

102

Surin Pitsuwan

– both in terms of cultural heritage as well as history. Pristine nature is an inherent right for all to enjoy. Without realising it, the people of Bangkok have to purchase the air they breathe, except perhaps in the Siam Society with its wide open spaces. This morning, the 500 people in a meeting room needed air-conditioning. If those indoors are kept cool, those outdoors will invariably feel the heat as heated air is drawn out of the room. We therefore have to “purchase” the air we breathe by paying for electricity. Thais no longer drink water from the wells, or even tap water. We all drink bottled water. While I was still active in parliament, a friend who is a member of parliament told me that he spent 300,000 baht stocking water for funerals and weddings so that those in need can come to him for supplies. As an MP, this was one of his duties. Values have changed, hence the material possessions that we accumulate are not indicators that guarantee our happiness. Given that we are presented with the opportunity to immerse ourselves in our rich heritage and legacy passed on to us to cherish, protect and preserve, should we choose to sell any part of this, it must be done with awareness. It must be packaged with awareness of how best to present things to avoid adverse impact. We also need to ensure that growth is not the enemy of all that is beautiful, intriguing, valuable, fascinating and worthy of admiration. If we do not act with awareness, the balance cannot be maintained and will be lost, and in the end we will become the one-dimensional man as observed by Herbert Marcuse. The one-dimensional woman will use the same brand of handbag and lipstick. Men will wear the same brand of shoes and dress in the same way. Everything will be decided for us by others leaving us without individual identity. In my eyes, this is hardly the type of society Thais should be proud of. I believe that we should place far greater importance on the process of crosscultural exchange and the exchange of values, of which tourism is a key part. How can Thais, Thai society and Thai culture successfully maintain a distinctive identity? What I mean is to be able to speak Thai clearly – not that we are unable to speak other languages, but to be able to speak Thai well and to be ready to embrace Thai values, Thai culture, and all that is good that society offers. Only then can we stand proud in the world community. If we fail to do so, we will be just like everyone else and will not be able to stand on our own two feet. We will lose the Thainess we should all be proud of because of its inherent value. This is not about resisting the forces of development, change and globalization but about being intelligent enough to be able to withstand these pressures and preserving integrity. This will be the best way forward for Thai society and that should be the goal of Thai tourism. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

The Crown Property Bureau and Heritage Conservation Yongtanit Pimonsathean

Introduction: Beyond ancient monuments The authorized conservation of cultural heritage in Thailand still focuses on the protection of ancient monuments and archaeological sites under the sole responsibility of a national organization, the Fine Arts Department (FAD under the Ministry of Culture. The power to register anything as heritage rests with the FAD, and has not been devolved to local authorities. Nevertheless, during the past two decades, there have been several efforts to promote the conservation of other kinds of heritage places such as private commercial buildings, shophouses, private residences and traditional urban communities. Such attempts did not come from the national conservation authority, but rather from residents, scholars, local government bodies or independent private conservation groups. Since the end of the Second World War, the scope of heritage conservation has broadened from a focus on ancient monuments to encompass more mundane sites. People have realized that their customary environments were being severely damaged by war and industrialization and that there was a need to balance the quality of life by preserving the cultural identity of the people at large (Feilden and Jokilehto 1998: 11). The new concept of heritage conservation has been universally accepted and promoted by ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) in its International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites of 1964, known as the Venice Charter, where the term “historic monument” is defined to include more modest works and urban and rural settings. In 1987, heritage conservation was further targeted to historic towns and urban areas as seen by the launch of the ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas, known as the Washington Charter - 1987, and also the introduction of historic towns and town centers as a sub-category of Groups of Buildings in UNESCO’s Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO 1987). The conservation of ordinary or everyday-life heritage is different from that of ancient monuments as it has to Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

104

Yongtanit Pimonsathean

The Crown Property Bureau and Heritage Conservation

deal with the complexity of land ownership and tenure patterns, diverse actors and stakeholders, as well as contemporary socioeconomic demands. Consequently, a single conservation body such as the FAD, that pays attention only to restoration techniques, may not be capable of saving the new kind of heritage because that requires negotiation skills and an understanding of the socioeconomic dynamics of urban development. With only limited efforts at protection on the part of government, several mundane heritage sites in Thailand have been threatened or destroyed by new developments and rapid urbanization. Concerned over this loss and degradation, some private and nongovernmental organizations have undertaken actions and campaigns to protect valued properties which are not prioritized by the government. Examples of such efforts are the ASA (Association of Siamese Architects under Royal Patronage) Conservation Awards which have now been extended to individuals and traditional communities (see ASA 2012), the restoration of private houses and a traditional temple by the Siam Society under Royal Patronage, the communityled conservation in Samchuk in Suphanburi province and Rim Nam Chanthabun in Chanthaburi province, as well as conservation programs initiated by local government in Lampang, Amphawa and Phuket municipal areas. Recently, a major landlord organization has actively participated in the conservation of everyday-life heritage, and through a decade of work has provided some hope to broaden the scope of heritage conservation in Thailand. The organization is the Crown Property Bureau.

The Crown Property Bureau (CPB) is one of the most prominent landlords in Thailand. The CPB has approximately 37,000 rental contracts covering a total area of 41,000 rai or 16,400 acres (Grossman 2011: 294–295) in thirteen provinces in Thailand. The profitable properties of the CPB are only 7 percent of the total, while the remaining 93 percent are rented out at zero or minimal rates to nonprofit and governmental organizations. Despite the small proportion of profitable properties, the CPB enjoys a significant income from the rental business, reported as 2.7 billion baht or USD 900 million in 2011 (CPB 2012: 10–11). The properties of the CPB are mostly located in the inner city or business core areas where land values are high. Apart from this rental income, the CPB also has income from the dividends of three leading public companies, namely Siam Commercial Bank Pcl (SCB), The Siam Cement Group (SCG), and The Deves Insurance Pcl. The CPB is a unique organization. The roots of the Bureau can be traced back to the reign of King Rama V (1868–1910). During the era of absolute monarchy, all land belonged to the King and was under the responsibility of Phra Khlang Maha Sombat (the National Treasury) and Phra Klang Khang Thi (the Privy Purse). During

his reign, King Rama V separated his private properties from the national properties. There were at least two reasons for this separation. First, the government reformed its budgeting as a part of a comprehensive reform of national administration to cope with the demands by westerners for modernization and their threats to national sovereignty (CPB n.d.: 9). Second, the King had difficulty in withdrawing his private money from the Treasury Ministry and complained about the unfairness of the Privy Purse and the Treasury Ministry which took all the revenues, including those stemming from the His Majesty’s own efforts, into the national budget (see National Archives 1893 and 1906). On the guidance of the King, national properties such as tax revenues and expropriated land were placed in the care of the National Treasury while the King’s private properties, which came from inheritance or his own ventures in property and financial businesses, were placed under the responsibility of the Privy Purse, a unit under the Treasury Ministry. The separation of the two property accounts had an impact 30 years later after the 1932 revolution. Instead of combining all the royal and national properties into a single pot of national treasure managed by the proclaimed democratic government, the work of King Rama V had helped to segregate the properties into three types: public properties, meaning those being used for public interest; the King’s private properties, meaning those belonging to the King before ascending the throne; and the crown properties, meaning those acquired by any means by the King during his reign. The separation was promulgated in 1936 in the Crown Property Act B.E. 2479 and the crown properties were managed under a newly established organization, the Crown Property Bureau (CPB). Initially, the CPB was under the Ministry of Finance but later in 1948, through the Crown Property Bureau Act B.E. 2491 (as amended), the CPB became an independent judicial entity supervised by its own executive board (CPB n.d.: 11). Hence, the CPB nowadays does not have the status of a public body that has to follow the rules and procedures of the government bureaucracy. Under the Act of 1936, most of the properties under the Privy Purse were transferred to the CPB. The Bureau also acquired additional properties through subsequent transactions particularly during the first two decades after the 1932 reform. Among its large number of properties, there are buildings constructed since the reign of King Rama IV that have historical and architectural value. Based on a preliminary survey conducted in the early 2000s, the CPB classifies its heritage properties into three groups: palaces and residences; shophouses and commercial buildings; and offices and facility buildings (CPB 2002; see Table 1). In the category of palaces and residences there are 24 sites such as Ladawan Palace (presently the head office of the CPB), Maliwan Palace (presently the office of UN-FAO) and Parusakawan Palace (presently the National Intelligence Office). Most of the palaces and residences were converted into new uses such as government

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Heritage buildings of the Crown Property Bureau

105

106

Yongtanit Pimonsathean

The Crown Property Bureau and Heritage Conservation

offices, schools and associations to meet contemporary demands. In the category of office and facility buildings, there are six places such as the old provincial hall of Monthon Prachin, now in Chachoengsao province, the former headquarters of the Metropolitan Water Works Authority in Bangkok, and Bang Pa-in Lighthouse in Ayutthaya province. In the category of shophouses and commercial buildings, there are fifteen sites comprising a total of 1,960 units. Many shophouses are located in Rattanakosin Island or other parts of historic Bangkok such as Na Phralan, Tha Chang, Tha Thian, Praeng Phuthon and Praeng Nara. Some shophouses are in Yaowarat or Chinatown district such as Loenrit and along Songwat Road.

Preliminary list of heritage property of the CPB classified by type1

Figure 1. Maliwan Palace (The FAO office) (source: author)

Figure 2. Loenrit shophouses (source: author

Figure 3. S.E.C. Building (Siam Commercial Bank) (source: author)

Figure 4. Sala Chalermkrung Theatre (source: author)

Palace and residence Bang Plu Palace (Prince Prompong Atiraj residence) Ladawan Palace (Prince Yukhontikampohn residence) Parusakawan Palace Prince Dilok Noparat Palace Maliwan Palace (see Figure 1) Prince Naretworarit and Prince Sawat Watanawisit Mother Luen Residence Luang Jitjamnongwanit Residence/ former USSR Embassy Prince Marupong Siripat Residence Nongkran Samosorn Throne Hall in Suan Sunanta Palace Thao Worakanan Residence Ampawan House BA buildings around Dusit Palace Princess Tippayalankan Residence Phraya Prasertsongkram Houses Phraya Udom Residence Princess Manassawas Residence Thamniap Tha Chang Residence Phraya Aphai Ronnarit Residence Phraya Srithammatirat Residence Luang Sunthonnurak Residence Groups of houses at the Sanam Chan Palace site Shophouses and commercial building Praeng Nara shophouses and Preedalai Theatre 1

Source: CPB (2004). Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Praeng Phuthon shophouses Na Phralan shophouses Tha Chang shophouses Tha Thian shophouses Phraya Sri Sahathep shophouses Loenrit shophouses (see Figure 2) Srasong Longtha shophouses King Prajadhipok Museum (formerly John Sampson & Son Store) The Oriental Hotel S.A.B. and S.E.C. buildings (see Figure 3) Phra Athit Rroad shophouses Dheva Sathan shophouses on Bamrungmuang Rroad Shophouses at the corner of Songwat Rroad Tang Toh Kang goldsmith building Office and facility Former Monthon Prachin provincial hall in Chachoengsao Province Monthon Prachin Courthouse Former Metropolitan Waterworks Authority at Maen Sri Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

107

108

Yongtanit Pimonsathean

Bang Pa-in Lighthouse Buildings in Ratchatruenamai Association Sala Chalermkrung Theatre (see Figure 4) This list is only a preliminary inventory of the CPB’s heritage sites. Since 2004, the Bureau has continued collecting documents and conducting surveys on other valued properties both in Bangkok and provincial areas. Properties that have potential to be added to the heritage list include shophouses in Ayutthaya, Suphanburi, Chachoengsao, Phetchaburi, Ratchaburi and Nakhon Sawan provinces.

The path toward heritage conservation In its role as a landlord and real estate investor, the CPB in its early days had no engagement in historic preservation. Some old buildings survived, not because of any commitment to conservation, but because of a laisser-faire approach, while many others were pulled down. Take for example the redevelopment of Talat Ming Mueang, a market in an old area of Bangkok famous for its tailoring services and the site of a bus depot in the early twentieth century (see Figure 5). Two blocks of shophouses were built in the late nineteenth century, and a market in very fine late neoclassic revival style was built during the 1920s and 1930s. By the 1980s, Talat Ming Mueang was in decline so CPB decided to clear and redevelop the site in the 1990s. The historic shophouses and market were demolished, making way for a new shopping mall and residential penthouse called “The Old Siam Plaza”, resulting in gentrification with a historic touch (see Figure 6). At the turn of the twenty-first century, the CPB became aware of the heritage value of its properties. Perhaps at least three factors contributed to this shift: the organization was restructured after the economic recession in the late 1990s; the rise of community pressure; and lessons learned from “wholesale” redevelopment projects. In 1997, the Thai economy slumped as a result of a poor monetary system,

Figure 5. Shophouses of Talat Ming Mueang before redevelopment (source: National Archives)

Figure 6. The Old Siam Plaza built on the site of Talat Ming Mueang in 1996 (source: CPB)

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

The Crown Property Bureau and Heritage Conservation

109

overinvestment in real estate business, excessive speculation and serious currency devaluation. The depression had a direct impact on the CPB as its two core companies, the Siam Cement Group (SCG) and Siam Commercial Bank (SCB), paid no dividends for some years. Initially the CPB had a recovery plan to increase rental income fees from its landholdings, including the historic sites, but this elicited complaints from the tenants. However, SCG and SCB were able to solve their financial problems in good time (Grossman 2012: 295), and the CPB resolved to use the experience of this recession to restructure its organization with the aim of reducing risk as much as possible. Instead of aiming at maximizing profit, the CPB followed the sufficiency economy approach advocated by King Bhumibol since the early 1980s. The CPB set itself four working goals: fairness to all concerned; security to cope efficiently with unexpected situations; a balance between conservation and development to meet social, economic, cultural and environmental demands; and public interest to promote livelihood in society (CPB n.d.: 11–14). After restructuring, the CPB launched a number of projects, campaigns and activities that enhanced public well-being, such as offering student scholarships, sponsoring research projects and academic seminars as well as assisting community development programs. The new policy also extended to heritage conservation particularly through provision of budget to support the restoration of historic temples such as Wat Makut Kasattriyaram in Bangkok (see CPB 2010). The CPB’s holistic approach under the King’s sufficiency economy philosophy has more scope for heritage conservation for the future.

Figure 7. A building in the compound of the former Russian Embassy on Sathorn Road in Bangkok (source: CPB)

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

110

Yongtanit Pimonsathean

The Crown Property Bureau and Heritage Conservation

One of the very first cases that made CPB more sensitive to the issue of heritage conservation concerned the site of the former Russian Embassy on Sathorn Road in the central business district of Bangkok (see Figure 7). The buildings in neoclassical revival style were constructed around 1910 as a residence of Luang Jitjamnongwanit, a Chinese entrepreneur. The compound was sold to the Privy Purse in 1916 and came under the management of the CPB after 1936. It was used as a hotel for a while and then in 1948 was rented as the office of the Russian Embassy. In 1996, the leasehold contract was transferred to a real estate company, North Sathorn Realty, that wanted to demolish the old buildings and construct a 30-storey high-rise complex comprising a hotel and residences. In 2001, the compound was registered as a national heritage site by the FAD. Without any experience in heritage conservation, the CPB as the landlord had to negotiate with the FAD about the appropriate treatment of the site. In the negotiation process, the Bureau became aware of the site’s cultural significance and agreed to preserve the existing buildings which will eventually be surrounded by modern high-rise. The case of the former Russian Embassy was the beginning of collaboration between the CPB and the FAD on subsequent conservation projects. The second factor that paved the way for the CPB’s involvement in heritage conservation was the rise of citizen pressure. From the late 1980s and early 1990s there were several protests by communities and environmental groups over government development projects for dams, expressways and slum clearance. This citizen power was encouraged by the 1997 Constitution that enshrined the principles of human rights, citizen participation and decentralization. There have been cases of both success and failure in the subsequent fights by citizens and NGOs against projects backed by government and politicians, but the constitution has at least established the principle that stakeholders must be consulted before the final decision is made on a project. One of the prominent cases in Bangkok concerned Ban Khrua, a longestablished Muslim community that blocked an expressway project in the early 1990s by appealing to community rights in the constitution (see Damrilert 2002). Before the constitution and these protests, the CPB had experience working with communities. In 1988, a low-income community located on CPB land in the Plabphla suburb of Bangkok faced plans to construct an expressway overpass on the site. With help from professional advisors on community development, the CPB negotiated a land-sharing scheme whereby a portion of the land was sacrificed to the expressway and the remainder was reassigned to accommodate all the residents in the community. The CPB also promoted the community’s well-being by granting 30-year tenure and upgrading basic infrastructure and services. The project led to a partnership with universities and the Community Organizations Development Institute (a government agency) to plan improvements for many other low-income communities living on CPB land (see CPB n.d.: 54-67). During that time, however, the CPB was not involved in any community-

based action regarding heritage conservation particularly with the old shophouse communities. Since the promulgation of the 1997 constitution, community opposition has emerged against government proposals for developing Bangkok’s historic area. A well-known case concerns the threat to a community living near Mahakan Fort in the Rattanakosin area. The case attracted attention from a network of slum communities, universities, human rights organizations, low-income housing groups, and even the United Nations (see Bristal 2008). One proposal to solve the problem at Mahakan Fort area was a land-sharing scheme (Prakitnontakarn 2006) which followed the example of the success story of the CPB with the Plabphla community. The government proposal to relocate this historic community prompted resistance from residents of the CPB properties. In 1997, the Cabinet approved a conservation and development master plan for the Bangkok historic district or Rattanakosin (ONEPP 2004). The master plan, prepared without due public consultation, proposed relocating several communities to make way for open spaces and tourist facilities. Two of the targets for relocation were the Tha Thian and Tha Phrachan communities situated on the riverfront. Both are on CPB land. The authorities had to abandon the plan, and later in 1998, the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) commissioned academic researchers to propose alternative plans (see, for instance, KMITL 1999). At that time, the CPB was not directly involved in the study except as a partner in the process. The first attempt to improve the physical condition of a community came through cooperation with the BMA to improve walkways and renovate façades at the CPB-owned Tha Phrachan and Tha Thian shophouses (see Figures 8 and 9). In the late 1990s, the CPB did not yet have an approach to communitybased conservation but at least had moved away from actions that disrupted old communities, as had happened at Talat Ming Mueang in the late 1980s. The third factor which converted the CPB to heritage conservation was the lesson learned from the failure of a “wholesale” redevelopment project. In 2001, the CPB proposed to undertake a large scale revitalization of Ratchadamnoen

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Figure 8. Tha Phrachan shophouses before improvement of walkways and façades (source: CPB)

111

Figure 9. Tha Phrachan shophouses after improvement of walkways and façades (source: CPB)

112

Yongtanit Pimonsathean

The Crown Property Bureau and Heritage Conservation

Figure 11. Khao Hong shophouses before rehabilitation (source: CPB)

Figure 10. Illustration of large-scale Ratchadamnoen redevelopment project proposed in 2001 (source: CPB)

Avenue and adjacent areas on Rattanakosin Island (see Figure 10). The project was administered by the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) and expected to receive approval from the cabinet. The project, which included improvement of facilities and changes in the usage of buildings and spaces aimed at boosting tourism-based economic activities and property value, covered an area of 3.216 square kilometers or nearly 800 acres. Several communities would be affected by improvements in infrastructure and transportation as well as the introduction of modern business activities which would eventually induce gentrification on a massive scale. A project of this type requires a good working partnership among the stakeholders, but the Ratchadamnoen scheme made little progress because the stakeholders, including local government, infrastructure providers, environmental and conservation groups, and particularly the affected communities, could not reach agreement. The stagnation of the Ratchadamnoen project made the CPB adopt a more pragmatic approach. It refocused on much smaller and more feasible projects such as the conversion of a vacant building in modernist-fascist style on Ratchadamnoen Avenue into an interactive history museum, Nithat Rattanakosin. This project was completed in 2008 (see CPB 2012b). Another small-scale conservation project involved the renovation of nine units of Khao Hong shophouses on Phra Athit Road. For the first time in its renovation of commercial shophouses, the CPB ran a full consultative process with individual tenants regarding heritage conservation. The Khao Hong project began in 2005 with an initial idea to renovate and convert the Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

113

Figure 12. Khao Hong shophouses after rehabilitation (source: CPB)

70-year old shophouses into a boutique hotel, similar to conversions in Singapore’s Chinatown conservation area. The existing tenants would be paid compensation to move out, and the shophouses would then be gentrified. However, after consulting with town planners and conservation professionals, the CPB adopted an alternative approach, namely to keep the existing tenants and work together with them on the renovation. Two surveys were conducted, one on the structural strength of the buildings to find out whether they were still in good condition, and another on the opinions and requirements of the tenants to discover whether they were willing to participate in conservation and adaptation if they were not forced to move out and given security of tenure. Finally, the CPB decided to retain the existing contract with its tenants and to bear the costs of renovation on the condition that the tenants would follow some design guidelines to help to preserve the environment. The Khao Hong project took two years to complete and became a blueprint for other projects of communitybased heritage shophouse conservation by the CPB (see Figures 11 and 12). These three factors shaped a new direction for the CPB at the turn of the twentyfirst century. As part of its restructuring, the CPB has begun to emphasize human values, community development at the grassroots level and heritage conservation. In 2000, the CPB established a Conservation Project Division. In 2007, because of its increasing number of projects, the division was upgraded to a Conservation Management Department with two subdivisions - one responsible for implementing conservation projects and another responsible for historical research, database, inventory and internal administration.

The CPB’s conservation planning process The CPB categorizes its conservation projects into two types: individual buildings and groups of buildings or more specifically shophouses which are inhabited. Both types follow a conservation planning process with three steps identification; conservation treatments; and implementation. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

114

Yongtanit Pimonsathean

Step 1: Identification. Heritage identification is universally recommended as the first step in conservation planning (see Stubbs 2009: 145–146; Parker 1985). Identification means a process of ascertaining whether a property has some cultural significance according to a set of criteria. The most popular criteria used in this identification are historical, archaeological, architectural, technical and artistic values. For the CPB, this identification step requires archival study, site investigation, and documentation. In its archival study, the CPB gathers information and materials from many sources. The Office of His Majesty’s Principal Private Secretary has information on buildings built since the reign of King Rama V including cadastral records, tenure history, rent contracts, reports and memoranda from internal departments. Other materials such as old photographs, old maps, rare books, chronicles, seminar proceedings and research reports are collected from the National Archives, Royal Survey Department, FAD, various libraries and universities. For site investigation, the CPB conducts extensive surveys on potential properties, covering the structure, facilities, interior and exterior conditions (see Figure 13). The Bureau usually contracts these surveys out to qualified professionals specializing in heritage conservation. In many cases, archaeological study is also undertaken to understand the cultural significance of the site. The CPB also inspects its heritage buildings in Bangkok every other year to insure that they are used appropriately and maintained well.

Figure 13. CPB staff at site investigation (source: CPB)

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

The Crown Property Bureau and Heritage Conservation

115

The findings from archival study and site investigation are combined to evaluate the cultural significance of each heritage property and to make recommendations on a suitable approach to conservation. Documentation is the final task of identification. The heritage buildings are

Figure 14. Architectural documentation of historic shophouses at Na Phralan before and after restoration (source: CPB and Praditthananurak Co. Ltd.; CPB and Kudakan Co. Ltd.)

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

116

Yongtanit Pimonsathean

documented in the forms of photographs, maps, descriptive reports and architectural drawings. Drawings are made to depict the current condition as well as the assumed original state of the buildings (see Figures 14, 15). This identification phase creates an inventory of heritage properties consisting of digital maps showing the locations and files of information such as name of the property, address, year of construction, architect or builder, brief history, architectural characteristics and state of conservation.

The Crown Property Bureau and Heritage Conservation

117

Figure 17. CPB Regional Office in Chachoengsao (formerly Prachin Provincial Hall) (source: CPB) Figure 15. Rehabilitation was chosen as the treatment for the Na Phralan shophouses as there is an extended structure at the rear to meet contemporary use (source: CPB and Kudakan Co. Ltd)

Step 2: Conservation treatments. In conservation, the term “treatments” means any actions or interventions that appropriately protect, reveal and enhance the cultural value of the heritage. There are various degrees of treatment or intervention ranging from do-nothing to reconstruction of heritage that has already been lost (see Feilden and Jokilehto 1998: 59–63; Stubbs 2009: 125–127). In Thailand, some popular treatments are preservation and stabilization (retaining the existing condition and preventing future deterioration); restoration (bringing back to an original state based on proven evidence); rehabilitation (restoring a significant part along with additional

Figure 16. Ladawan Palace (source: CPB)

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

structural work to fulfill new uses); and reconstruction (re-creating a lost structure on the same location). The decision on which treatment to apply depends upon the present state of the building, evidence of its past, budget availability, as well as the conservation philosophy. The CPB does not make the decision on its own judgment, but invites five conservation advisors from outside the organization to recommend the appropriate treatment. The conservation advisors also help in the selection of qualified contractors to insure quality and transparency in the conservation process. Step 3: Implementation. There are three aspects to the implementation of a CPB conservation project: funding, construction work and quality control. The source of funding depends on the type of tenants and the future use of the building. In the case of heritage buildings which the CPB occupies, such as the Ladawan Palace and the CPB regional office

Figure 18. Former residence of Phraya Sri Thammathirat under restoration. The project is funded by the tenant, Sitabutr Bamrung School and Sino-Thai Foundation for Culture and Education (source: CPB)

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

118

Yongtanit Pimonsathean

The Crown Property Bureau and Heritage Conservation

in Chachoengsao province, the CPB uses its own budget for restoration work. In the case of heritage buildings rented to tenants, the CPB has at least two forms of partnership. The first is “tenant’s budget”, meaning that the cost of construction is paid by the tenant who is usually granted a long leasehold contract. Examples are the Warishves Palace, rented by Matching Studio Public Company Limited; the former residence of Luang Jitjamnongwanit, which later became the Russian Embassy, rented by North Sathorn Realty Company; and the former residence of Phraya Sri Thammathirat, rented by Sitabutr Bamrung School and the Sino-Thai Foundation for Culture and Education. The second type of partnership, known as “matching budget”, is usually applied to groups of individual tenants who rent shophouses and who each have a different financial situation and living preferences. The CPB contributes 75 per cent of the construction cost while the remaining 25 per cent is paid by the tenants. This method was applied in the renovation of the Na Phralan shophouses completed in 2011 (see Figure 19) and will be applied to future projects in Tha Chang, Tha Thian and Ban Mo. These projects involve no gentrification so the CPB extends the rental contracts of all the existing tenants. To lessen the hardship of the tenants, the CPB also subsidizes any moving and rental costs

during the construction. This matching budget program may not be applied to all the CPB-owned shophouse communities as the conditions may differ from one community to another. The CPB contracts out the construction work to qualified companies on a competitive basis. Eligible companies must be certified by the FAD and have a good record on restoration work. The company is selected after a review by the CPB’s panel of conservation advisors. In order to insure the quality of conservation work, all the conservation projects regardless of their type of funding have to pass a review process by the conservation advisory panel. In the case of registered buildings, approval is also needed from the National Committee on the Conservation of Monument of the FAD.

Figure 19. Na Phralan as an example of shophouse restoration under matching funding program (source: CPB and Association of Siamese Architects)

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

119

Implications for heritage conservation in Thailand In Thailand, the CPB is not the only owner of everyday-life heritage, like shophouses, marketplaces and residential buildings. Many more heritage places belong to private individuals, private organizations, temples, local government bodies and the Treasury Department. Unlike the CPB, most owners do not have sufficient resources to undertake conservation programs. Moreover, as discussed

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

120

Yongtanit Pimonsathean

The Crown Property Bureau and Heritage Conservation

earlier, the national conservation authority, the FAD, may not be capable of taking care of all kinds of heritage sites. Therefore there must be alternative ways to help safeguard and preserve heritage without placing the burden on private owners and the FAD. The CPB’s experience in conservation projects suggests that schemes to preserve everyday-life heritage should have three components: heritage identification and inventory; economic incentives; and protection measures. Everyday-life heritage can be found in any urban area that has been developed over time. The process of identification, documentation and inventory should be done at the local level rather than at the center by the FAD. This implies the introduction of a system for registering heritage sites. The challenge lies in finding the required knowledge and professional skill at the local level. The CPB has successfully implemented conservation through the system of matching funding between the tenants and the bureau. An outside contribution of funding can help to convince a private property owner to favor conservation rather than redevelopment. Tax credits and matching funding schemes are popular ways to offer economic incentives for conservation. Reduction of tax in the case of conservation donation can help establish a conservation fund. Unfortunately, in Thailand there are no such incentives for heritage conservation. The current system for registering monuments by the FAD is too rigid, and practical only for ancient monuments. The protection and maintenance of everydaylife heritage must be undertaken at the local level with the participation of local conservation groups, local government bodies and residents in the community. Each locality can be linked through a nationwide network in order to have weight in negotiating with the central government on such issues as conservation standards and economic incentives. Lastly, all CPB projects are made possible because of the attention paid to communicating with all the stakeholders including the FAD, tenants who have diverse objectives and constraints, local government bodies, and other relevant authorities. Any program of conservation requires investment in gathering information and skills in communication and negotiation.

Conservation Project Division. 2011a. Survey of Heritage Buildings in Supan Buri Province. CPB internal technical report, February 21-22, 2011, Bangkok. (in Thai). Conservation Project Division. 2011b. Survey of Heritage Buildings in Ayutthaya Province. CPB internal technical report, August 25-26, 2011, Bangkok. (in Thai). CPB (Crown Property Bureau). N.d.. The Crown Property Bureau on the Path of Sustainability. Bangkok: Daoruek Communications. ______. 2004. Tassaneeyakan: Heritage Buildings of the Crown Property Bureau. Bangkok. (in Thai). ______. 2006. Wang Ladawan. Bangkok: Daoruek Communications. (in Thai) ______. 2010. Makut Kasatriyanusorn. Project on the Restoration of Makutkasattriyaram Temple to commemorate the 200th birthday of King Rama IV. Bangkok: Amarin Printing and Publishing. (in Thai) ______. 2012a. Annual Report 2011. Bangkok: External Communications Division. ______. 2012b. Nithat Rattankosin: Rattankosin Exhibition Hall. Bangkok: Amrin Printing and Publishing. (in Thai) Damrilert, Ruangsak. 2002. Prawattisat ban khrua lae kan to tan thang duan CD Road khong chao chumchon (The History of Ban Krua’s fight against CD Road expressway). Research funded by National Research Fund. Bangkok: Arun Publishing. (in Thai) Feilden, Bernard, M. and Jokilehto, Jukka. 1998. Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites. second edition, Rome: ICCROM. Grossman, Nicholas, ed. 2011. King Bhumibol Adulayadej: A Life’s Work. Bangkok: Editions Didier Millet. KMITL (King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang). 1999. Krongkan wang phaen chapo haeng nai puen thi samkan thang prawattisat boriwen Tha Thian-Pak Khlong Talat (Project planning for areas of historical significance at Tha Thian and Pak Khlong Talat). Research submitted to Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, Bangkok. (in Thai) Mason, Randall F. 2009. Preservation Planning in American Cities. Forum. National Trust for Historic Preservation, Winter, 38-44. National Archives. 1893. Ro 5, Ro Lo 3/7 “Phra ratchaprarop Phrabat Somdej Phra Chulachomklao rueang phra ratchatan sap moradok chabap thi song” (King Chulachomklao’s statement on his legacy, No. 2)” dated April 30, Ro So 112 (1893). National Archives. 1906. Ro 5, Rr Lr 6/5 “Phra Boromaratcha ongkan kiao kap phra ratchasap suan phra khlang khang thi” (Royal order on the property of the Privy Purse) dated February 28, Ror Sor 125 (1906). NESDB (National Economic and Social and Development Board). 2005. Report on Strategic Plan for the Administration of Special Area of Ratchadamnoen

References ASA (Association of Siamese Architects). 2012. Architectural Heritage in Thailand II: A Decade of Architectural Conservation Award 2003-2012. Bangkok: Association of Siamese Architects under Royal Patronage. Bristal, Graeme. 2008. Pom Mahakan: community design and human rights. http:// www.Claimingpublicspace.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6 . Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

121

122

Yongtanit Pimonsathean

Boulevard. Bangkok (in Thai). ONEPP (Office of the Environmental and Natural Resources Policy and Planning). 2004. Kan anurak lae phattana Krung Rattanakosin (The conservation and development of Rattanakosin). Bangkok: ONEPP. (in Thai). Parker P.L. et al. 1985. Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. National Register Bulletin 24. Washington D.C.: National Park Service. Prakitnonthakan, Chatri. 2006. The master plan for conservation and development: the community of ancient wooden houses, Pom Mahakan. in Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Local Heritage Conservation: The Transdisciplinary Approach and ICOMOS Thailand Annual Meeting 2006. Bangkok: Amarin Printing and Publishing. Saoek Architects. 2010. Architectural Survey of Historic Buildings in Tha Tian. Report submitted to the Crown Property Bureau. (in Thai) Stubbs, John H. 2009. Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. UNESCO. 1987. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO. Wachirayanvises (newspaper) “King Rama IV proclamation on princes and princesses in the palace.” Vol. 2, 1887, p. 269. Acknowledgements: The author would like to thank the following people who kindly provided details of the conservation policy and projects of the Crown Property Bureau: Dr. Chirayu Isarangkun Na Ayuthaya, Director-General, CPB Mr. Somboon Chaidejsuriya, Assistant Director-General, CPB Mrs. Vunvimol Supprasert, Assistant Director-General, CPB Mr. Kemtat Visavayodhin, Senior Head, Conservation Management Department Mr. Bovornvet Rungrujee, Inspector-General, Ministry of Culture Mrs. Oranut Im-Arom, Senior Head, Conservation Projects Division, CPB Mr. Kamphon Ekabandhu, Senior Chief of the Conservation Projects Section I , CPB Mr. Voravithaya Punthanaprueksa, Senior Chief of the Conservation Projects Section II, CPB Mrs. Yupin Hatthagnamlert, Senior Chief of the Conservation Projects Section III, CPB The staff of the Conservation Management Department, CPB Pictures and illustrations from the CPB were supplied by Mr. Kittasak Akaraphotiwong and Miss Jittima Kiatrasamee, CPB Conservation Management Department. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Rattanakosin Charter: The Thai Cultural Charter for Conservation1 Chatri Prakitnonthakan

“The BMA should not seek popularity by allowing oddities in the Rattanakosin Island Conservation Area... This matter is wrong for the conservation of Rattanakosin Island. The Vishnu shrine is not something old which we need to preserve, not something built before the Fifth Reign, but an oddity built later, and considered inappropriate, because it mars the cultural heritage.”2 (Adul Wichiancharoen on the demolition of a Vishnu shrine beside Wat Suthat, 25 February 2011) “However, it doesn’t mean that new things that have no history have no value... so if the new Supreme Court is beautiful it will be both attractive and valuable, communicating the historical meaning of the area where it is sited near the Grand Palace... who would not support the building of a Supreme Court that the whole Thai nation can be proud of as a place of outstandingly beauty at the heart of Rattanakosin Island.”3 (Adul Wichiancharoen on building a new Supreme Court complex beside Sanam Luang, 22 May 2009)

A Vishnu shrine under 10 meters high built on a plot of less than 30 square meters beside Wat Suthat was criticized by the former chairman of the Subcommittee for the Conservation and Development of Rattanakosin Island as an “oddity”, something new and without value that marred the cultural heritage of Rattanakosin An earlier version of this paper appeared in Thai in An (Read), 3, 1 (October-December 2010), 76–89. Translation by Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit. 2 “Ko tho mo moen roe san khang wat suthat” (BMA not interested in dismantling shrine beside Wat Suthat) Thai Post, 25 February 2011. 3 Office of the Courts of Justice, “Bot sampat sastrachan Dr. Adun Wichiancharoen khrongkan kosang akan san dika mai” (Interview with Professor Adul Wichiancharoen on the project to build a new Supreme Court building), Rop rua san yuthitham [Around the courts], 2, 16 (June 2009), 5, 10. 1

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

124

Chatri Prakitnonthakan

Figure 1. Comparison of Sanam Luang at present (above) and as projected after construction of the new Supreme Court rising up to 32 meters high (below), illustrating the immense impact on the landscape.

Island. He appealed through the press to force the Bangkok Metropolitan Authority, the agency responsible for the area, to have it urgently demolished. Around three years earlier, when the government proposed as part of its celebration of the King’s 80th birthday to build a new 32-meter tall Supreme Court complex on an area of 10,000 square meters close to the Grand Palace, this building would have been twice the legal height limit of 16 meters on Rattanakosin Island, and over 150 meters long.4 This same former chairman of the Committee for the Conservation and Development of Rattanakosin Island supported its construction, arguing that being new did not mean being without value, and paid no attention to its height which would certainly impact the neighboring landscape of old buildings (see Figure 1). These two examples display the inconsistency in principle, thinking, and standards that the Rattanakosin Island Committee has applied in many other situations over many decades past. In truth, the Cabinet approved the 32-meter height of the new Supreme Court complex as a special case by a resolution on 19 July 1987,5 yet as head of an agency that provided government with technical advice on matters pertaining to the conservation of this area, the chairman of the Committee for the Conservation and Development of Rattanakosin Island did not merely fail to challenge the project, in

The Rattanakosin Charter

125

contrast to his public protest over the Vishnu shrine, he even came out to voice his approval and support through the press. From a superficial angle, these interviews might seem to display the lack of standards and principles on the part of an individual. But a serious look at the issue of conservation on Rattanakosin Island shows that this kind of double standard is so common that it goes far beyond the behavior of any one individual I think these interview statements are clear examples reflecting the basics of rationality, belief, and principle on the issue of conservation in Thailand. If measured by any international yardstick, these basics of rationality, belief, and principle appear abnormal and inconsistent. But if we view these matters in the context of Thai history, society, and politics, we shall find that the approach to conservation in Thailand has a distinctive character that differs from international principles and standards. In other words, there is a Thai cultural charter of conservation which has a distinctive character. In this article, this is called the Rattanakosin Charter The Rattanakosin Charter cannot be understood within the framework of international standards of conservation but can be understood within the context of the distinctive thinking, belief, and ideology on the subject of conservation in Thailand. That is the key proposition of this article.

What is the Rattanakosin Charter? The concept of conservation as it is understood today appeared in the world only some 200 years ago as part of the emerging ideology of the modern nation-state. In Europe, thinking about conservation can be traced back to the Renaissance,6 yet the discourse about conservation, about the value of things to be conserved, about the utility that can be had from conservation, and about the methods of conservation known at present are all new cultural constructions created around the eighteenth century in the process of establishing modern nationstates.7 In the past 200 years, buildings and monuments that had fallen into ruin and been left derelict whether for reasons of age, natural disaster, or human warfare, and that societies (prior to the era of the modern nation-state) saw as of no value or

See details in Chatri, “Bang hetphon thi sangkhom mai khuan yom hai ‘roe-sang’ san dika mai” (Some reasons why society should not accept the new Supreme Court building),” Sinlapa watthanatham, 29, 5 (March 2008), pp. 132–46 5 Office of the Courts of Justice, “Khwam pen ma kan kosang akhan san dika lang mai” (Background to the new Supreme Court building), Rop rua san yutthitham, p. 12.

Maurizio Peleggi, The Politics of Ruins and the Business of Nostalgia (Bangkok: White Lotus, 2002), p. 4. 7 See further detail is Worrasit Tantinipankul “Kan plian plaeng naeo khit nai kan sang lae buranapathisangkhon wat luang nai ratchasami phrabatsomdet phrajulajomklaojaoyuhua jon thueng patjupan: kho khatyaeng nai kan anurak boransathan lae watthanathm baep chatniyom” (Change of thinking on building and renovation of royal temples (wat) from the Fifth Reign to the present: nationalist disputes over conservation of monuments and culture” in Suwanna Kriangkraipetch Prawatisat nai miti wattanatham sueksa (History from the perspective of cultural studies), Bangkok: Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre, 2009), pp. 213–221

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

4

6

126

Chatri Prakitnonthakan

The Rattanakosin Charter

interest,8 have become priceless objects, representations of national greatness, and the ultimate symbols of a nation’s culture. In modern nation-states everywhere, conservation sits alongside the production of knowledge through history and archaeology as one of the tools of nationalist ideology.9 This modern concept of conservation has developed in stages and been disseminated far and wide as one major international concept of the present-day world, and of course the Thai state has not escaped its influence. The discourse on conservation entered Thailand in the late nineteenth century10 through the elite of the court as part of the process of developing a modern nation state, in much the same way as in the rest of the world.11 Since then, thinking on conservation has gradually developed in Thailand in parallel with the discourse on conservation at the international level. Today, Thailand has established many agencies and organizations, both public and private, to take specific responsibility for conservation. Thailand has also established networks of cooperation with organizations at the international level, instituted education on associated disciplines following international principles, and adopted international techniques and frameworks of thinking about conservation. However, I would like to propose that there is no truly ready-made international concept of conservation. The meaning of conservation, the definition of heritage, the selection of what should be conserved and what may even be demolished, all these matters are shaped afresh in each society. Of course, there are many international organizations such as UNESCO,

ICCROM,12 and ICOMOS,13 that set out the framework for conservation and collectively try to propose basic international principles that various countries should uphold and implement under several charters on conservation such as the Venice Charter of 1964, the Florence Charter of 1981, and the Washington Charter of 1987. But in truth, all these various international principles must always confront the specific context of each society and always in a different way. Out of this confrontation, through a social process which is part conscious and part unconscious, part deliberate and part unwitting, some principles are accepted, others are rejected, and many new ones are added. The final result is a charter displaying the distinct character of each society. If we ask what enters into this confrontation with the international principles of conservation, the answer is the culture of each society. For this reason I shall call the result a “cultural charter of conservation.”14 Conservation in Thailand cannot escape this reality. Thus Thai society has its own “cultural charter of conservation,” which I call the Rattanakosin Charter. This charter operates in parallel with the approaches and methods of conservation at the international level. The Rattanakosin Charter is not inscribed as an official written document, yet has power to determine the whole field of conservation. It is a frame of mind that controls the approach to conservation in Thailand without anyone being aware of the charter’s existence because, like the air that we all breathe, the charter is something that we cannot see yet exists for certain. All the various international principles of conservation, no matter how well accepted at the world level, no matter whether preached by experts from wherever, and no matter whether drafted into written laws in Thailand, if they conflict with the Rattanakosin Charter then they will always be violated or bypassed. However, although the Rattanakosin Charter is paramount, its content and principles are not fixed and constant. Any “cultural charter of conservation” has its own internal dynamism, with the content always changing as the social context changes, by adding, subtracting, modifying and supplementing its constituent principles.

This does not mean there was absolutely no thinking of this sort at all. Some major sites considered sacred according to religious belief, or some worshipped images with special meaning for a society, have been well looked after. However, the vision and methods of traditional conservation are ot the same as their modern equivalents. For example, in traditional Thai society Buddha images could not be left to appear old or headless, and conservation made them appear always new, but in modern society, old things, even headless Buddha images, have value that is worth preserving, and renovating things to look new is considered a destruction of their historical traces and hence improper conservation. This is a matter to be considered in detail elsewhere. 9 See for example the use of history and archaeology in the service of nationalist ideology in Bruce G. Trigger, “Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist,” Man, 19, 3 (September, 1984), pp. 355–360. 10 Many studies argue that Thailand practiced conservation long before adopting the modern international approach, as seen for example from the old Pali text, Winai mahawak, which talks about the renovation of stupas, or from passages in the chronicles about renovating various religious monuments. These studies attempt to give local roots to conservation. See for example Pinrat Kanchanatthithi Kan anurak moradok sathapatayakam lae chumchon (Conservation of architectural heritage and community) (Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press, 2009), pp. 18–22. But in truth such matters should not be called conservation according to the definition and discourse as understood today, because these are a product of modern society, not at all related to or similar to what is called renovation in traditional framework. 11 See details in Maurizio Peleggi, The Politics of Ruins and the Business of Nostalgia, pp. 13–17. 8

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

127

ICCROM is the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, an international organization founded in 1956 with responsibility to give advice on conservation of world heritage. 13 ICOMOS is the International Council on Monuments and Sites, an international organization which aims to promote consciousness about conservation and its methods, as inscribed in the Venice Charter. 14 One inspiration for this idea of a “cultural charter of constitution” came from Nidhi Eoseewong’s article on “Ratthamanun chabap watthanatham thai”, originally published in Sinlapa Watthanatham 13, 1 (November 1991), pp. 266–84), and translated by Chris Baker as “The Thai Cultural Constitution,” Kyoto Review of Southeast Asian Studies, 2 (March 2003). 12

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

128

Chatri Prakitnonthakan

The Rattanakosin Charter

More specifically, the two related factors that shape the Rattanakosin Charter as a frame of mind that determines the approach to conservation are the power relations in the society and the bundle of historical memory.

forgotten can reappear and be constructed as the collective memory of the society. Power belongs to those who construct memory, and conversely memory has the ability to consolidate power. When memory and power are two sides of the same coin, then memory is a battlefield which must be constantly fought over. Those who can capture the collective memory of a society are those who have power; and those who have power can establish the memory from which they benefit as the collective memory of the society. The contestation over historical memory appears in all areas of society and in everything that is built by human endeavor, because all cultural materials are stores of memory and battlefields for the contest over memory.15 Conservation is one area of this battlefield over historical memory because conservation is a process of selecting what to keep and what to erase as part of historical memory in response to certain objectives in the present day.16 The “space of conservation” is an arena where protagonists contest over historical memory with the objective of recasting the power relations of society in a new form. Out of such struggles comes the definition of a “cultural charter of conservation” of each society. In this article I try to describe the Rattanakosin Charter as a way to understand the approach to conservation in Thailand, and particularly to understand how the historical memory is constructed and the power relations in society are defined within the “space of conservation.” At the outset I should note that these are only my preliminary propositions about the contents of the Rattanakosin Charter and that a fuller account must await deeper study in the future.

Conservation: Historical memory and power relations in society If we ask who created the Rattanakosin Charter or the “Thai cultural constitution of conservation”, how it was created, and for what benefit, the short answer is that there was no single person. The charter is a collective creation by many different individuals and institutions. The compiling of this charter is a function of the power relations in society and the process of establishing historical memory. The conservation of cultural heritage in any society is not simply a matter of managing the cultural materials inherited from the past by setting up the appropriate machinery and applying international-standard techniques. Rather conservation is a process of establishing memory about the past. This memory is compiled by a constant process of selection, rejection, addition, and subtraction. Conservation is a process of constructing and reconstructing new memories about the past, rather than a process of storing existing memories or reviving old ones. The definition of heritage – of what a society should remember and preserve, or what a society should forget and erase – is a matter of contestation. The ability to define what a society should remember and what it should forget is a form of power. Anyone who wants to capture the power of the state or capture the power to lead society must be able to capture the ability to define the memory of the past. Memory is not merely a process of recording any events that took place in the past, but rather a process of recording those past events that have power to influence actions in the present and the future. The historical memory of any society is the result of a process of selection, of deciding to record some events from the past and to forget others. The choice of what to remember or not remember is a function of the power relations in that society. Memory that is antagonistic towards the power structure of the present is likely to be suppressed or erased, while memory that supports the power structure of the present is likely to be recorded, reproduced, and disseminated so that it becomes the society’s collective memory. However, the memory that is rejected in one era may be rehabilitated in another era, while memory that was once widely accepted and disseminated may later be suppressed and forgotten if the power relations of the society change. The choice of which buildings and other materials should be conserved and which should be neglected or demolished is determined by the structure of power relations in each era. This structure is not fixed and permanent. The society’s collective frame of mind concerning the past is related to the power relations of the time. Whenever those power relations change, memory that was once buried or Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

129

Rattanakosin Charter: Principles and key propositions The Rattanakosin Charter has at least four main clauses, which are interrelated and which collectively define what kinds of historical memory, including cultural heritage of any kind, should be considered valuable and worthy of preservation, and what kinds have no value and can be erased. These principles are not written into any international charter of conservation. Each principle is an indicator of the power relations in Thai society at the present day. Understanding this charter not only helps us to understand the practice of conservation in Thailand, but also helps to clarify the structure of relations between various groups in Thai society. I have used the same approach to study the contestation of historical memory in the planning and building on Ratchadamnoen Avenue, see Chatri, “Khwam songjam lae amnat bon thanon ratchadamnoen” (Memory and power on Ratchadamnoen Avenue), Mueang Boran, 33, 4 (OctoberDecember 2007), pp. 67–86. 16 J. E. Tunbridge and G. J. Ashworth, Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1996), pp. 5–6. 15

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

130

Chatri Prakitnonthakan

The Rattanakosin Charter

131

Clause 1: Conserve only the heritage of high culture under the ideology of royalnationalism A key mandate of the Rattanakosin Charter is that only the heritage of high culture – such as palaces, monasteries, forts, walls, cities and government offices created by royalty and aristocracy – should be selected for conservation on grounds that this heritage alone has the highest historical value. If we study the list of buildings on Rattanakosin Island that have been registered as historical monuments, we will find that this mandate is clearly being followed. If we scrutinize the Masterplan for the Conservation and Development of Krung Rattanakosin we will find this mandate stated even more clearly. The mandate to conserve only the heritage of high culture is the most outstanding feature of the Rattanakosin Charter and of the Thai cultural charter of conservation in general. If evaluated by international principles of conservation, the bias in this mandate is clearly incorrect. The Venice Charter of 1964 states: The concept of a historic monument embraces not only the single architectural work but also the urban or rural setting in which is found the evidence of a particular civilization, a significant development or a historic event. This applies not only to great works of art but also to more modest works of the past which have acquired cultural significance with the passing of time17

This bias did not arise casually, but within the context of the Thai political economy over the last half century or so, within a political atmosphere characterized by “conservatism” and by a reversion to making the monarchical institution the central focus of everything in Thai society – the focus of politics, focus of national sentiment, focus of being Thai, and focus of the cultural heritage of the whole nation.18 This atmosphere was constructed anew from 1957 onwards along with the construction of historical memory in a form that Thongchai Winichakul has called “royal-national history.”19 In this construction of memory, the Thai nation in the past was always surrounded by enemies that threatened the country’s territory, and only one elite group, namely the kings, took up the heroic duty of standing up against these enemies. The Venice Charter, Definitions, Article 1, accessed 9 September 2012, at http://www. international.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf 18 Thak Chaloemtiarana, The Politics of Despotic Paternalism, revised edition, Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books, 2007 [1979]. 19 Thongchai Winichakul, “Prawatisat thai baep rachachatniyom: jak yuk ananikom amphrang su rachachatniyom mai rue lathi sadet pho khong kradumphithai nai patjuban” (Thai history in royalnationalist style: from the era of covert colonialism to new nationalism or the cult of King Rama V of the present-day Thai bourgeoisie” Sinlapa Watthanatham, 23, 1 (2011), pp. 56–65. 17

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Figure 2. Views of Rattanakosin Island in the 1994 Masterplan (from the Masterplan)

Once this royal-national historical memory, full of heroic tales about kings, has put down deep roots in Thai society, it is natural and unavoidable that conservation on Rattanakosin Island should reflect this construction of historical memory in the selection of what to retain, and what not to retain. Hence the cultural heritage created by royalty has priority while the cultural heritage of other groups of people is overlooked. This approach appeared initially in the plans to conserve and renovate monuments on Rattanakosin Island at the time of celebrating the 200th anniversary of Bangkok in 1982.20 In these plans, there were nine monuments selected for 20

See details in National Archives, Fine Arts Department, Chotmaihet kan anurak krung Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

132

Chatri Prakitnonthakan

The Rattanakosin Charter

133

conservation and renovation, another two projects for “rebuilding” monuments, and many subsidiary projects, almost all of which were about palaces, monasteries, and other important monuments that are the heritage of “high culture.” This approach was consolidated in twenty projects in the Masterplan for the Conservation and Development of Krung Rattanakosin launched in 1994. These plans to conserve and develop the area are completely determined by the frame of mind which draws on the royal-nationalist bundle of historical memory. Most of the projects are designed to open up vacant space in order to improve the views of prominent monuments associated with the monarchy. They include: a project to open up the view of Wat Bowornsathansuthawat; a project to landscape the Chao Phraya riverbank to open up a view of Wat Pho; a project to create vacant space and a public park in the vicinity of the Navy Club in order to open up a view of the Grand Palace; a project to demolish commercial buildings to open up a view of the Golden Mount; and a project to create a public park at Mahakan Fort to open up a view of the fort and city wall (see Figure 2).21 From the outset, both academics and non-academics criticized this Masterplan for paying no serious attention to the history of Rattanakosin Island which was not solely about royalty and the elite, resulting in a plan which, if implemented, would create a lifeless area full of nothing but public parks, monasteries, palaces, forts, and walls. Yet this kind of bias in the selection of cultural heritage for conservation still survives to the present day. Another large-scale project, which is quietly going ahead, aims to conserve and develop Ratchadamnoen Avenue and the adjacent area (which is owned by the Crown Property Bureau) to be like the Champs Elysées in Paris. A leading architectural company was commissioned to draw up a masterplan for this purpose around 2003. The plan has been nicknamed the chong elise thai or “Thai Champs Elysées” plan (see Figure 3). In this plan, the first two of the five statements defining the vision are: 1. “Maintain as a road for royal ceremony, official ceremony, and public ceremony;” and 2. Make Ratchadamnoen Avenue into “a road that communicates the continuity of the history of the Chakri dynasty.”22 These two points display the approach of conservation under the influence of royal-national history very clearly. Although the first point refers to official ceremony and civic ceremony, there is nothing on these topics in the whole volume of this masterplan. The history of this

Figure 3. Views of Rattanakosin Island in the 2003 masterplan to develop Ratchadamnoen Avenue and the adjacent area (from the plan)

rattanakosin (Records of conservation of Rattanakosin Island). 21 See details of the whole plan in Synchron Group Phaen maebot phuea kan anurak lae phatthana krung ratanakosin (Masterplan for the Conservation and Development of Krung Rattanakosin) (Bangkok: Synchron Group, 1997). 22 NESDB, Khrongkan jat tham phaen phung mae bot kan phatthana phuen thi thanon ratchadamnoen lae phuen thi boriwen to nueng (Project to make a masterplan for the development of Ratchadamnoen Avenue and the adjacent area) (Bangkok, 2003), p. 2/1.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

134

Chatri Prakitnonthakan

The Rattanakosin Charter

135

of Thailand in 2008 (see Figure 4). It includes a masterplan for the conservation and development of the area along the Chao Phraya River on the Bangkok side from Tha Phrachan to Pak Khlong Talat. The various constituent projects are designed to preserve buildings which are associated with the monarchy and open up vacant space to create outstanding views of the Grand Palace and monasteries built by kings – much the same approach as that adopted over the past 30 years.25 Clause 2: Reject the modernist cultural heritage of the People’s Party era

Figure 4. View of the Chao Phraya River in “Bright Chao Phraya River Project in Honor of His Majesty the King”, 2008 (Rattanakosin rim chao phraya )

road’s associations with democracy scarcely merits a mention, and is not emphasized in any of the plans. The insertion of “official ceremony” and “public ceremony” in this point seems designed to make the statement look beautiful rather than to lead towards any real result. In this way of thinking, the space of Bangkok (not only Ratchadamnoen Avenue) appears in history from nowhere in 1782 through the actions of King Rama I alone, yet in truth this space has a long history over many centuries before then and a social complexity that cannot be captured by relating the history of Bangkok through the actions of kings alone. Bangkok was the successor to Thonburi, which was founded by King Thaksin as a consequence of the area’s long history as a fort and harbor. And so on.23 In the case of Ratchadamnoen Avenue itself, King Rama V’s decision to create the road is only part of its history. The road has figured in many other episodes including the era of the People’s Party, 14 October 1973, and Black May 1992. Besides, the area has a history before the road was built. The landscape, neighborhoods, residents (Lao, Mon, Cham, Chinese, Indian), and how they made a living are all part of the historical memory on the space of Ratchadamnoen Avenue yet they do not appear in the “Thai Champs Elysées” plan at all.24 The latest grand project which reproduces royal-nationalist historical memory, the distinguishing feature of the Rattanakosin Charter, is the “Bright Chao Phraya River Project in Honor of His Majesty the King” launched by the Tourist Authority

The first clause of the Rattanakosin Charter, which mandates conservation of only the heritage of high culture under the ideology of royal-nationalism, implies that the cultural heritage of one particular era in Thai history must be erased from Rattanakosin Island. That is the cultural heritage of the People’s Party era. The People’s Party was a group of people who launched the revolution in 1932 to change the system of government from absolute monarchy to democracy and who had only a short period of prominence from 1932 to 1947. From that period, the People’s Party has left behind a large heritage of art and architecture on Rattanakosin Island (see Figure 5). This cultural heritage is in the style known as Modern Architecture or Modernism, a major movement in art and architecture in the world in the 1920s. The People’s Party adopted this architectural style as it enshrines a political ideology of equality under democracy, rejecting the power and role of monarchy. Importantly, this style emphasizes modernity and has no attachment to traditionalism.26 The cultural heritage of the People’s Party era inevitably clashes with the heritage of high culture surrounding the institution of monarchy. Hence it is quite natural that the Rattanakosin Charter, which is founded on an ideology of royal-nationalism, must be antagonistic towards the cultural heritage created in the People’s Party era, and it is not surprising that the Rattanakosin Charter aims to attack and demolish the value of the cultural heritage created in the People’s Party era. Erasing the historical memory that includes the cultural heritage of the People’s Party era is one main mission of the Rattanakosin Charter. We will not find such an approach in any international charter at all. Significantly, in the present circle of conservation at the international level, the heritage of the modernist era in the 1920s, which is the style of the cultural

See details in Sujit Wongthet, Krungthep ma jak nai (Where did Bangkok come from) (Bangkok: Matichon, 2005). 24 Though the project was heavily criticized and seems to be on hold, in fact it is at the stage of working out the details of implementation, and will appear in a new form under a new name and not as a single large-scale project but several localized projects to evade criticism.

See details of the project in SJA, Raingam khrongkan chaophraya sotsai thoetthai ongrachan phaen ngan kan jat tham phaen maebot kan prap prung boriwen rim mae nam chaophraya (wisaithat) (Report of the project Bright Chao Phraya in honor of the king, to make a masterplan for improving the area along the Chao Phraya river (vision)) (Bangkok, 2008). 26 See details in Chatri, Sinlapa sathapatyakam khana ratsadon: sanyalak thang kan mueang nai choeng udomkan (Art and architecture of the People’s Party: Symbol of the politics of ideology) ) (Bangkok: Matichon, 2009).

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

23

25

136

Chatri Prakitnonthakan

Figure 5. Examples of architecture of the People’s Party, from top: Bangrak Post Office, Justice Ministry, stupa of Wat Mahathat, Bang Khen (National Archives) 27

heritage of the People’s Party, is attracting growing interest because this style reflects an important era in world history – the advent of industrial society. A specific organization has been founded to campaign for conservation of this era’s cultural heritage under the title, The International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage (TICCIH), and a specific charter has been composed about the heritage of this industrial era, called The Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage.27 In Thai society under the Rattanakosin Charter, the contents of this international charter are unacceptable, because the cultural heritage of the industrial era of the 1920s was adopted by the People’s Party as a political symbol in opposition to the heritage of high culture under the ideology of royal-nationalism. So this international charter has no place in Thailand and will certainly never be used. A case that confirms this proposition concerns the Sala Chalermthai theatre. Though this building was freighted with historical memory and stories about the culture of showing plays and movies in modern Thailand yet it was demolished to open up a view of the Loha Prasat or Wat Ratchanadda built on the command of King Rama III. Other examples of the architecture of this era, which have value for the study of modern Thai political history and as the products of the industrial era, are under ever-increasing threat. The Khurusapha Printing House on Phra

The Rattanakosin Charter

Sumen Road was forcibly delisted as a registered monument for conservation so that the building could be demolished to make way for a public park and replica of the city wall. The Supreme Court, built as a symbol of regaining complete judicial autonomy in 1937, is to be demolished to build a new Supreme Court complex in the architectural style of royal-nationalism. Shophouses in Soi Wanglee were demolished not many years ago even though these houses and warehouses on a river jetty were one of the most important places in Bangkok seventy years ago. Even the complex of commercial buildings on both sides of Ratchadamnoen Avenue may be among those demolished in future because they have not been registered as monuments and the Crown Property Bureau, owner of the land, has begun gradually not renewing the rental contracts with old tenants so that the

Figure 6. Sala Chalermthai (top) and Sala Chalermkrung (bottom), same architectural style but different heritage value (http://statics.atcloud.com/files/comments/56/561630/ images/1_original.jpg; National Archives of Thailand)

The charter is at www.international.icomos.org/18thapril/2006/nizhny-tagil-charter-e.pdf. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

137

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

138

Chatri Prakitnonthakan

Figure 7. Monument to Suppressing the Rebellion, built 1935 (top); model of the overpass at Laksi intersection and the new position of the monument (bottom) (www.prachachat.net/news_detail.l.php?newsid==1247742636)

buildings can be developed in line with the “Thai Champs Elysées” concept. Their future is very uncertain. Yet the buildings are a perfect example of their era both in terms of their distinctive architectural style and their historical value, as they have formed the backdrop to many scenes in Thailand’s modern political history. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

The Rattanakosin Charter

139

It is noteworthy that a building from the same era and in the same distinctive architectural style of this industrial era, yet which was built not by the People’s Party but by the king, is accorded greater historical value and judged worthy of conservation. The case in point is the Sala Chalermkrung theater. The style of the Sala Chalermkrung is indistinguishable from other buildings built in the era of the People’s Party. The time difference between the Sala Chalermthai and the Sala Chalermkrung is less than ten years. Their conservation value should be equal but that has not been the case. The Sala Chalermkrung was judged to have enough historical value to be worthy of being conserved. This strange double standard is incomprehensible if we do not appreciate the essence of the Rattanakosin Charter, but quite obvious if we do. This is because Sala Chalermkrung was built on the command of King Rama VII. If we compare the demolition of the Sala Chalermthai with the conservation of the Sala Chalermkrung from the perspective of international conservation we must be surprised by the contrasting fate of the two buildings despite their similarity in style and timing. But within the framework of the Rattanakosin Charter, the Thai cultural charter of conservation, which suffuses the subconscious of most conservationists in Thailand, the contrast is not surprising at all. The latest incident which confirms this principle concerns the Memorial to Suppressing the Rebellion, popularly known as the Laksi Monument. This memorial is another product of the modernist art of the People’s Party era. Built in 1935 to commemorate the defeat of the Boworadej Rebellion in 1933, it was moved to make way for a new overpass at the Laksi intersection. The leader of the revolt was Prince Boworadej Kridtakorn a high-ranking member of the royal family, who once held a ministerial post in the time of King Rama VII. This memorial of the People’s Party era has national significance and used to be the site of an annual ceremony to remember the event. After the end of the People’s Party era, the memorial was renamed as the Laksi Monument and the ceremonies were discontinued. Much later a large roundabout was built surrounding the monument and making the monument virtually inaccessible. The Monument to Suppressing the Rebellion thus lost any historical meaning, and became the most isolated and lonely monument in Thailand.28 Around 2010 there was a project to build an overpass across the Laksi intersection. As a result the monument was moved from its original site and placed in a small garden constructed anew alongside the bridge. Even though the monument still exists, it is located in a meaningless position and lacks any symbolic force as a monument (see Figure 7). See details in Chatri, Meru khrao prap kabot boworadet: meru samanchon khrung raek klang thong sanam luang” (Cremation at the time of the suppression of the Bowaradej Rebellion: First commoner’s cremation in the center of Sanam Luang,” Fa Dieo Kan 5, 2 (April-June 2007), 212–29.

28

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

140

Chatri Prakitnonthakan

The Rattanakosin Charter

Under international principles of conservation, an overpass across an intersection where there is a monument built over 80 years ago would have to be designed to avoid the monument rather than cutting straight through it. But in this case, the monument belongs to the cultural heritage of the People’s Party era. Moreover the monument casts a high-ranking member of royalty as a historical villain. This is certainly not in line with the royal-nationalism of present-day Thai society; hence the project to build an overpass across Laksi intersection could go ahead following the principles of conservation in the Rattanakosin Charter.

they fall within the category of the heritage of local buildings according to the Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage of 1999, which stipulates that

Clause 3. Reject the cultural heritage of ordinary people

However, such a definition of values does not appear in the Rattanakosin Charter. The Mahakan Fort community is another example where the cultural heritage of ordinary people can be erased according to the criteria of the Rattanakosin Charter. The Mahakan Fort community area is situated on a historical site called “Below the city walls,” meaning the space between the city wall and the moat. This area has been densely settled since the early Rattanakosin era, and similar areas can

Another implication of Clauses 1 and 2 is that the “cultural heritage of ordinary people” should be ignored or overlooked. The cultural heritage of ordinary people has no place in the Rattanakosin Charter. Even though Thailand advanced to become a modern democratic state nearly 80 years ago, power relations are still clearly class-based. Only a handful of elites have access to resources, political power, and economic opportunities whereas the majority of people are still seen as subjects with no power or social role. These power relations result in the bundle of historical memory about ordinary people being suppressed and denied space in history. The wheel of Thai history still seems to be turned by an elite minority including the king, royal family, and nobles. Since the bundle of historical memory in Thailand still revolves around elites, the history of ordinary people has value only as personal memory or group memory with no place in the pages of national history. As a result, cultural heritage produced by ordinary people is valueless and can be thrown away. The area of Tha Thian Market is a good example. In the Masterplan for the Conservation and Development of Krung Rattanakosin, the area of Tha Thian Market is merely a slum with no historical value. Hence the shophouses and market are slated to be demolished, including Ban Metta, a detention center for juvenile offenders. The only building to be spared is the Chakrabongse Palace. These changes will open up the view of Wat Pho.29 Tha Thian Market is a very old market dating back to the beginning of the Bangkok era. For a long period, it was a center for exporting goods to provincial towns and a distribution center of goods to feed the city. Yet this history is not judged worthy of being remembered and conserved. It can be sacrificed so that Wat Pho may be seen more clearly Tha Thian Market area is full of buildings from many successive eras. Though the area is crowded and the buildings may not be judged as beautiful by the criteria of high-class art and architecture, from the perspective of international conservation

141

The built vernacular heritage is important; it is the fundamental expression of the culture of a community, of its relationship with its territory and, at the same time, the expression of the world’s cultural diversity.... Examples of the vernacular may be recognised by: a) A manner of building shared by the community...30

Figure 8. View of Pak Khlong Talat after renovation (http://www.yodpimanmarket.com/development.html)

still be found in other towns and cities. The Mahakan Fort community has several distinctive features that have not survived in any other location. There are old-style stilt-house residences dating back to the early Rattanakosin period; “gingerbread” style wooden houses reflecting the taste for foreign styles during the Fifth to Seventh reigns; and wooden houses belonging to the past half-century or so.31 The layout of the community is old and quite unique, not found in any other neighborhood on Rattanakosin Island or elsewhere. This layout enables each house to make great use of the common area. The houses themselves are built next to one another and

Synchron Group, Phaen maebot phuea kan anurak lae phatthana krung rattanakosin (Masterplan for the Conservation and Development of Krung Rattanakosin), p. 246.

Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage, accessed 27 March 2010, at http://www.icomosthai. org/charters/vernacular_e.pdf. 31 See details in Chatri, “Phuen thi pom mahakan: jak panha rueang kan anurak su wikrit panha thang kan mueang” (Mahakan Fort area: from conservation problem to political crisis), Asa 2-3 (2007), pp. 81–92

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

29

30

142

Chatri Prakitnonthakan

The Rattanakosin Charter

arranged in such a way that all have good access to a community courtyard, a common space for drying clothes, and other common facilities. There are no walls and fences isolating each family as found in modern housing developments. From the standpoint of international conservation, the Mahakan Fort community is an historical area of the city that warrants conservation under the Washington Charter of 1987.32 But this is yet another international principle that does not appear in the Rattanakosin Charter. The existence of the Mahakan Fort means that major historical monuments built on royal command are not prominent enough. Hence the Masterplan for the Conservation and Development of Krung Rattanakosin evaluates this community as a derelict slum appropriate only for complete demolition so that a public park can be built and thereby open up the view of nearby monuments. The latest example in this same category is a project to renovate the Pak Khlong Talat area by demolishing some buildings and renovating others to restore the architectural appearance of the area in the Fifth Reign (see Figure 8). The area at present is typical of a market – crowded, busy, full of vendors. The project will create an environment appealing to middle-class taste, with a boxing ring to provide shows to attract tourists, and air-conditioned buildings for comfort.33 There is no thought of conserving the old setting of the area’s residents as that has no significance in the Rattanakosin Charter.

but reflects a wish to create vacant space to give added prominence to monuments built by kings. This again reflects the bundle of historical memory in the style of royal-nationalism. One example is the “Maha Chedsadabodin Royal Pavilion” the space where the Sala Chalermthai theatre once stood. This open plaza is hardly used at all by city people because, with no big trees to give shade, the plaza is far too hot during the day and only usable in the late evening. In addition, the large royal pavilion on the area has been designed with the high-class architecture associated with royalty, so ordinary people cannot enter. Thus this plaza is not seriously intended for use by ordinary people but is another space designed to reproduce historical memory in the style of royal-nationalism. All the architectural components point in that direction – the Rama III memorial, the vacant space (without many tall trees) to provide views of the Loha Prasat, and the palace-style architecture that prohibits use. These same components can also be seen at Santichaiprakan Park in the vicinity of Sumen Fort. The demolition of the Mahakan Fort community in order to create a public park is another clear example. As already noted, this demolition runs against the principles of conservation in the Washington Charter, but that has no impact on the Rattanakosin Charter at all. In addition, a park on this site would not attract much use by the general public. The Mahakan Fort area is rather closed-off because the only access is by four remaining tunnel gates through the city wall. In the daytime the park would be too hot for anyone to use, and in the evening the area would be too dangerous to enter. Hence the true objective of building a public park at Mahakan Fort is simply to create vacant space that offers a grand vista of nearby monuments, including Mahakan Fort, the city wall, Loha Prasat, and Wat Sakae. One large-scale project presented in public recently, the “Bright Chao Phraya Project in Honor of the King”, is the latest example that confirms this aspect of the Rattanakosin Charter. This project aims to develop the area along the Chao Phraya River from Tha Phrachan to Tha Thian Market by building many historical reproductions rather than conserving existing buildings. These reproductions include: a clocktower which used to be in the palace of King Rama IV; palace buildings at Rachaworadit Pier; a foreign ambassador’s residence and a model junk; a royal landing stage at Wat Pho jetty; a Peacock Gate; a gate to Tha Phra at Tha Chang; and many large barges strung all along the riverbank to be used as a tourist shopping mall (see Figure 9).34 All these projects, apart from faking history which risks turning the riverbank into a funfair rather than a historical site, destroy the old Thai setting of a riverbank, especially the string of barge reproductions along a large stretch of the river. But

Clause 4: “Building anew” to enhance the high cultural heritage is acceptable A prominent feature of the Rattanakosin Charter is to allow new buildings and additions to historical buildings, even though in many cases these are against principles of international conservation. The key point is that such new construction is acceptable if it confirms and reproduces historical memory in the ideology of royal nationalism. For many decades, there have been plans to build many small public parks scattered around the monuments in Rattanakosin Island, ostensibly to reduce the density and increase the amount of green in the city. However there has been no serious study whether these planned public parks are consistent with the lifestyle of people living on Rattanakosin Island, and no serious study whether the shortage of green space is real or illusory. Significantly, such plans to increase green space on the grounds that the current supply is inadequate always fail to count green areas in monasteries. There are many such areas and these are consistent with the lifestyle of Thai society over a long period. From my long observation, I have a hypothesis that the true objective of creating green areas has nothing to do with how they might be used by city people, Washington Charter at http://www.icomosthai.org/charters/Washington_e.pdf, accessed 27 March 2010. 33 See details of plan to renovate Pak Khlong Talat at http://www.yodpimanmarket.com/ development.html 32

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

143

See details in Wiraphan Shinawatra, ed., Rattanakosin rim chaophraya (Rattanakosin beside the Chao Phraya) (Bangkok: Plusplace, 2009)

34

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

144

Chatri Prakitnonthakan

The Rattanakosin Charter

those involved in this project do not share these concerns because the project will greatly expand the space devoted to the royal-nationalist bundle of historical memory on Rattanakosin Island, which is the main objective of the Rattanakosin Charter. Another example is the permission given to create a plaza to celebrate the anniversary of King Rama IX in 2009 at the head of Ratchadamnoen Avenue on land once occupied by the old Public Relations Department building burnt down during the events of May 1992, whereas the project to build a memorial to those who died in the May 1992 incident, which is sited in the same vicinity, has been delayed for more than ten years, and there is no indication when it will be realized.35 The four clauses presented above frame the thinking, belief, and ideology on conservation in Thailand. Let us now reconsider the words of the chairman of the Committee for the Conservation and Development of Rattanakosin Island, cited at the start of this article, in light of the Rattanakosin Charter. The two interviews seem to contradict each other so starkly that Figure 9. Examples of renovation under the “Bright Chao there can be no principle or standard Phraya Project in Honor of the King”: From top, barges for tourists along the riverbank; reconstructed clock in conservation. But in truth, the two tower; the former ambassador’s residence, and model junk statements both reflect the principles (Rattanakosin rim chaophraya) and standards of the Rattanakosin Charter. Even though the Vishnu Shrine beside Wat Suthat and the new Supreme Court complex are both new buildings, the former was built by ordinary people in connection with their religious belief and thus has little value under Clause 3 of the Rattanakosin Charter, whereas the latter, even though so huge that it affronts

international standards of conservation, will replace a modernist building of the People’s Party era, which has no value under Clause 2 of the Rattanakosin Charter, and is associated with a government project to honor the king, and hence is in line with Clause 4 of the Rattanakosin Charter. The fact that it breaches the law on the height of buildings is immaterial. The criteria of selection, method of thinking, and ideology in this example exemplify the “frame of mind” which dictates the evaluation of all cultural heritage on Rattanakosin Island, and indeed all over Thailand. Besides the Rattanakosin Charter, we should also discuss the agencies and departments involved with conservation in Thailand. Even though there are large numbers of them, for structural reasons they all accept the conservation thinking contained in the Rattanakosin Charter in its entirety.

See details in Chatri, “Anuson sathan pruetsapha prachatham: kan mueang rueang thi tang lae khwam songjam bon thanon ratchadamnoen” (The May 1992 memorial: Politics of position and memory on Ratchadamnoen Avenue) An (Read), 3,4 (Oct 2011 to March 2012), pp. 76–91 35

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

145

Rattanakosin Charter and conservation agencies in Thailand In the circle of conservation in Thailand there are many agencies, organizations, and individuals, including sub-agencies of international conservation organizations. The multiplicity of agencies should operate as checks and balances on one another, resulting in conservation in Thailand having the same openness of mind and widespread participation by people from different walks of life that are characteristic of the international agencies. But if we look closely at the structure and personnel of these agencies, we find that they are so intertwined that they cannot act as check and balance on one another, nor have conflicting views. Most personnel in these conservation agencies are drawn from a small circle. A few people serve on the boards of many different agencies, with the result that these agencies all have the same views, and accept the conservation principles contained in the Rattanakosin Charter. The major agencies dealing with Rattanakosin Island are the Fine Arts Department (FAD), Committee on Rattanakosin Island and the Old City, ICOMOS Thai, the Society for the Conservation of National Treasure and Environment (SCONTE), and the Subcommittee on Conservation of Art and Architecture within the Association of Siamese Architects. Although there is a multiplicity of organizations they do not counterbalance one another. Take the example of the FAD and ICOMOS Thai. In principle they should be independent of each other, as the FAD is a government department and ICOMOS Thai is a sub-agency of an international NGO, not reporting to government. But in reality, ICOMOS Thai is a sub-agency under FAD since the director of FAD serves as its chairperson.36 The FAD and ICOMOS Thai cannot have any conflict of view on conservation because the same person heads both agencies. There are 36

See details on history and structure in http://www.icomosthai.org/ Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

146

Chatri Prakitnonthakan

The Rattanakosin Charter

controversial cases where ICOMOS Thai should play a role but cannot do much, such as over the demolition of shophouses in Soi Wanglee (heritage of modernist architecture from the People’s Party era). In this case, the FAD sent a letter stating that the buildings had some value but not enough to warrant being registered as a monument. ICOMOS Thai, under the chairmanship of the FAD director, could not offer a different opinion. In the end the shophouses were demolished. Another problem is the mesh of cross-memberships among the boards of these agencies. If we look at the lists of the board members of the FAD, the Committee on Rattanakosin Island and the Old City, ICOMOS Thai, and SCONTE, the same names appear repeatedly. Some individuals sit on three or more of the boards. As a result all these agencies reflect the thinking of a small group of 15 to 20 people. Moreover, most of these people come from government departments such as the FAD and the Committee on Rattanakosin Island and the Old City, Even though some of the boards are quite large – the Committee on Rattanakosin Island and the Old City has thirty persons and is chaired by a deputy prime minister – but most of these people are appointed ex officio from various organizations and departments located on Rattanakosin Island such as the under-secretary of the Ministry of Defense, director of the Highways Department, head of the Budget Bureau, secretary-general of the Royal Household, director of the Crown Property Bureau, minister of education, governor of Bangkok, and so on.37 The people sent to sit ex officio on these boards may have little or no interest or knowledge about conservation. As a result seven or eight specialists largely determine the direction of policy and implementation by these agencies. These experts are the same small group of people mentioned above. For these reasons it is not surprising that Thailand has many conservation agencies but only one approach to conservation, namely that mandated by the Rattanakosin Charter. There is no counterbalancing power, no new ideas, and no space for ordinary people to participate in the work of these agencies. The planning, policy-making, administration, and implementation are confined within a small circle of bureaucrats and experts who virtually all have the “frame of mind” of the Rattanakosin Charter At present there many new faces from a new generation of academicians in the circle of Thai conservation. They have new ideas, new concerns, new principles, and new approaches to evaluating cultural heritage. But because of the structure of the conservation agencies, with cross-memberships and domination by a small circle of people, new ideas cannot flourish and replace the principles of the Rattanakosin Charter.

The struggle to change the Rattanakosin Charter

147

See details in Mati khana rathamontri thi kieo khong kap amnat nathi khong khan kammakan anurak lae phatthana krung rattanakosin lae mueang kao (Cabinet resolution on the powers and duties of the committee on the conservation and development of Rattanakosin and the old city) (Khana kammakan krung rattanakosin doem, xerox n.p., n.d), pp. 2–3

Yet, as stated at the start of this article, a cultural charter can change. When power relations in society change, resulting in changes of historical memory, eventually the criteria for evaluating cultural heritage will change too. As is evident from the social and political events of the past decade, Thai society is undergoing a major structural change in power relations. As a result, a new struggle for the space of historical memory is emerging. The Thai cultural charter of conservation will inevitably face challenges, including demands for changes in its principles, ideology, and mandates. This process at the moment is very much at the beginning, yet we can sense changes to come. In the last ten years, communities on Rattanakosin Island have begun to get together in order to consolidate their strength in negotiating with government over projects of conservation and development. They have begun to construct a new bundle of historical memory, different from the old bundle; begun to place the historical memory of their communities more in the public sphere where it can attract the interest of society; begun to overturn old forms of historical explanation in favor of new ideas which will change the criteria used to evaluate cultural heritage. The Banglamphu civic action group came out to oppose the demolition of Khurusapha Printing house which the government deemed as lacking any historical value, by offering an opposite view. As a result of pressure from this civic action group, the printing house was eventually registered as a monument. Many people on the Rattanakosin Committee were highly resentful of this outcome. This struggle should not be viewed as merely a conflict between individuals but rather as a challenge to the Rattanakosin Charter, the major cultural charter of conservation. This challenge has begun to change the old bundle of historical memory, begun to undermine the power of experts who claim to know about evaluating the historical value of heritage. This resentment stems from a shift in the structure of power relations rather than from the conflict between individuals. Another signal of change is the struggle against the demolition of the Mahakan Fort community. The plan for a public park has not been realized. The community created a diverse and widespread network of support with bargaining strength that the government could neither ignore nor overcome. By defining itself as a “community below the city wall” and a “community of ancient wooden houses”, the Mahakan Fort community began to reconstruct a version of history that could fight against the version of history wielded by the government. At present, we cannot predict which of these versions of history will win, but the struggles spread over the past ten years signal that the Rattanakosin Charter is beginning to lose its traction. Apart from the case of the Mahakan Fort community, there have been conflicts in the past few years over the conservation and development of the Woeng Nakhon Kasem area around Wat Mangkorn Kamalawat and the area of Pak Khlong Talat.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

37

148

Chatri Prakitnonthakan

Residents challenged government agencies over the definition of what was worth and not worth conserving, again signaling that the Rattanakosin Charter is being increasingly questioned. In defiance of Clause 2 of the Rattanakosin Charter, during the political conflicts over the past three to four years there have been efforts to revitalize the history as well as the cultural heritage of the People’s Party era. People have participated in ceremonies to commemorate the 1932 event at the plaque recording the event set

Figure 10. Commemorating the 1932 revolution at the People’s Party plaque and a UDD ceremony at the Memorial to Suppressing the Rebellion (www.prachatai3.info)

into the road on Ratchadamnoen Avenue. Many networks campaigned against the demolition of the old Supreme Court buildings, and while the project has not been cancelled it has been postponed indefinitely. There is a growing tendency to see the value of the cultural heritage of the People’s Party era. On 12 March 2010, a group from the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD, the red shirts) held a rally and ceremony at the Memorial to Suppressing the Rebellion at the Laksi intersection (see Figure 10). For several decades this monument could be said to be historically dead. Had it been demolished, nobody would have noticed. But this ceremony has revived the monument, and offered a challenge to historical memory in the style of royal-nationalism to some extent. These are the small beginnings of a struggle for space to redefine the Rattanakosin Charter. It remains to be seen how this struggle will end. Yet, I am quite confident that this struggle will not merely change the thinking and principles on the conservation of cultural heritage, but will also shake up the bundle of historical memory and shift the structure of power relations in the long term.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Cultural Rights and Conservation of Old Bangkok Tiamsoon Sirisrisak and Natsuko Akagawa

Cultural diversity is one of the major characteristics of old Bangkok resulting from various groups of local people of different race and religion. Unfortunately, the development of old Bangkok has always been tied up with the interests of politicians. Therefore, lack of public dialog and acknowledgement of cultural diversity remain as major issues. Over the past five decades, development policies focusing on modernization and tourism promotion have put local communities under pressure. A number of historic communities, both inside and outside the designated conservation zone, are affected by new development projects initiated by the government, investors, and landlords. The rights of local people to take part in the development processes are not honored and their voice is usually ignored. As a result, issues regarding cultural rights in old Bangkok are unlikely to be resolved by the local communities themselves but remain an obligation for Thai society as a whole. Bangkok is a city of immigrants. Chinese and Viet people settled on the eastern side of the Chao Phraya River since at least the Thonburi period (1767–1782) (FAD 1982: 29). Many prisoners of war were brought to Bangkok in the early Rattanakosin period (1782 to present). Other groups, including Laotian and Malay people, gravitated to this area. At the beginning of the Rattanakosin era, a number of Chinese were relocated to Sampheng, currently known as Chinatown, to vacate the area for building the Grand Palace and the Temple of the Emerald Buddha on the banks of the Chao Phraya river. Both the Grand Palace area and Sampheng represent today’s old Bangkok. After the new capital was established, various groups of people, such as Khmer, Burmese, Viet, Mon, and Malay were brought to old Bangkok as artisans and laborers (FAD 1982: 47–49). In the mid-nineteenth century, Sir John Bowring (1857) estimated the population of Siam as 4.5 to 5 million, while Mgr. Jean-Baptiste Pallegoix (1854) suggested a figure of 6 million, a quarter of whom were Chinese. Pallegoix estimated the population of Bangkok as 400,000, of whom only 120,000 Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

150

Tiamsoon Sirisrisak and Natsuko Akagawa

Cultural Rights and Conservation of Old Bangkok

were Thai while the remainder included Chinese, Khmer, Mon, Lao and Westerners (Pallegoix 1854). In the reign of King Mongkut (Rama IV, r. 1851–1868), treaties negotiated with several Western countries led to a change of policy in foreign affairs. Consular representatives of Western countries were located in Bangrak, an area south of Sampheng. Later Charoenkrung Road, referred to by Westerners as New Road, was built as a result of complaints over the poor condition of the roads at the time. Two and three storey shop houses were built along the road using a style adopted from the Straits Settlements. In the reign of King Vajiravudh (Rama VI, r. 1910–1925), there were three major commercial districts: Yaowarat (Sampheng) for the Chinese; Bangrak for the Westerners; and Banglamphu for the Thai (FAD 1982: 91). Each district comprised residential, industrial, and commercial land use. In sum, Bangkok has been a center of diverse ethnic and religious groups ever since the establishment of the city. In the course of the some two hundred years of living in old Bangkok, these different groups of people have exchanged their cultures in many ways, such as intermarriage and trade. Nevertheless, each has been able to able to maintain their cultural identity. This cultural diversity is becoming more complex due to the increase of migration, both legal and illegal, during the past decade, accelerated by the impact of globalization and increased mobility. People from diverse ethnic backgrounds and countries who previously did not form distinct communities are now emerging as identifiable communities. This article discusses the implications of cultural rights for the conservation of old Bangkok, beginning with an introduction to the discourse on cultural rights in Thai society, followed by issues regarding cultural rights in old Bangkok, issues regarding cultural rights in the designated area called Rattanakosin, and the nondesignated area of old Bangkok, and lastly the conclusion.

In contemporary international discourse, an individual’s right to express their culture is considered as part of human rights. Nevertheless, cultural rights are a relatively new concept in the category of human rights. Emerging after the devastation of World War Two, human rights found their place in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, one of the first declarations of the newly formed United Nations. Some years later the “right to participate in cultural life” appeared in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1966. The right to participate in cultural life prohibits the discrimination of cultural differences, such as race, color, and gender. Nevertheless, the term “cultural rights” began to be used only in the past two decades, usually meaning rights related to the cultures, languages, and nationalities of minorities. Understanding and acceptance of cultural rights and the acknowledgement of

the importance of cultural diversity appeared concurrently. Over the past decade, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) adopted two major documents on cultural diversity: the 2001 Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity and the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. The Fribourg Declaration on Cultural Rights, the first document specifically on cultural rights, was adopted in 2007. “Culture” in the Fribourg Declaration covers those values, beliefs, convictions, languages, knowledge and the arts, traditions, institutions and ways of life through which a person or a group expresses their humanity and the meanings that they give to their existence and to their development. It should be noted that one of the major messages in the Fribourg Declaration is that culture is dynamic (Amara 2010). This is different from past ethnographic studies that tended to focus on culture as a something static, related to religion or race. This conventional approach gave little attention to adaptation to changing circumstances and the influence of cultural exchange among people from different cultures. As a result, it often created bias, as it assumes the culture of an ethnic or marginal group is static and always menaced by state power. In reality, culture changes as time goes by. Elsa Stamatopoulou, chief of the Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in the Division for Social Policy and Development at the United Nations, explains that human rights help to protect disadvantaged people, particularly indigenous people, but cultural rights are also crucial for other groups, such as migrants, refugees, children, poor people, homosexuals, and disabled people (Stamatopoulou 2004; 2008). As stated in the Fribourg Declaration, Stamatopoulou (2008) explains that the understanding of cultural rights and the understanding of culture are concurrent. For example, culture in its material sense is now defined as a process of artistic and scientific creation, and culture in its anthropological sense is defined as a way of life. The UNESCO terminology has been influenced by the anthropological concept of culture as ways of life. Hannele Koivunen and Leena Marsio (2007: 25) argue that this is one of the reasons why “UNESCO’s definition is too loose to enable any actual rights or duties to be built upon it.” For example, the definition of minorities does not include immigrants (Kymlicka 2005). The ways of life of immigrants are not necessarily protected by applying an international framework, as for instance, “no EU member state has ratified the UN International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers” (Koivunen and Marsio 2007:26). Consequently, how to properly define cultural rights is still a universal question. In this regard, Kymlicka (2005) suggests seeing cultural rights within a political sphere so that they include a “right to effective participation” which is more than the right to enjoy one’s own culture but less than the right to internal self-determination. Another issue is that cultural rights that focus on the right of a group of people could potentially conflict with human rights focusing on the individual. Though this

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Discourse on cultural rights and Thai society

151

152

Tiamsoon Sirisrisak and Natsuko Akagawa

Cultural Rights and Conservation of Old Bangkok

issue is still widely discussed, some scholars involved with human rights argue that human rights and cultural rights can be complementary. For instance, Koivunen and Marsio write “the ethical dimension of culture and cultural policy is in fact intrinsic to and integrated into the practical realization of the aforementioned rights.... [C] ultural rights can be used as a tool promoting and supporting cultural diversity” (2007: 20). However, they further caution that cultural rights “must also be limited to the extent that they do not infringe on others’ rights” (Ibid.). Likewise, Amara Pongsapich (2010) suggests that the use of traditional custom as an excuse to force community members to conduct a ritual practice is wrong. It is suggested that this is one of the reasons why cultural rights have not been well adopted (Stamatopoulou 2008). In fact, traditional practices which today are judged as violations of human rights might still be acceptable to the people belonging to that culture. For example, foot-binding, a Chinese traditional practice of wrapping girls’ feet, dating back to the tenth century, was considered a “cruel practice” and legally prohibited in 1912 as a result of a campaign by Christian missionaries beginning in the 1860s (Appiah 2010). However, a number of Chinese women who have undergone foot-binding still believe they have made a right choice. Many of them willingly and secretly submitted to foot-binding after 1912. Although the traditional practice might contradict today’s human rights, it is very sensitive to judge traditional practices from the viewpoint of different cultures. Some scholars suggest the concept of rights in the East is different from that of the West. Amara Pongsapich (2010) suggests the East is usually seen as being less concerned with the violation of human rights because of traditional Buddhist and Hindu beliefs. These beliefs make people in the East accept injustice as part of what they need to experience in their current lives, and thus, they are willing to tolerate inequality and discrimination. Accordingly, Amartya Sen (1997) argues that the Eastern world pays less attention to political rights and civil rights compared to the Western world. Nidhi Eoseewong (2005) believes that human rights in Thailand, before the country became a more centralized nation, were embedded in traditional mechanisms within the community. These community rights appeared in the kinship system, customs, and belief in ghosts. These are different from the emphasis on the individual’s rights and its relationship with the state power in the Western context. Today community rights are defined in Article 66 of the 2007 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand:

exploitation of natural resources and environment including the biological diversity in a balanced sustainable manner. (Unofficial translation by the Bureau of Technical and International Cooperation, Secretariat General of the Administrative Court)

153

The Constitution clearly states the rights to conserve, restore (or rehabilitate), and participate. Although these terms cover some aspects of cultural rights, the Constitution does not fully adopt cultural rights as discussed in international documents, particularly the Fribourg Declaration. Court cases of eviction in recent years show that, although the community has the right to conserve, rehabilitate and participate in the use of their cultural resources, community members who are just tenants with no landownership do not have the right to take part in decision making. To this day, landlords have been winning court cases regarding eviction in old Bangkok. This raises the question of whether Thai society, including the general public and the government, pays much attention to community rights and cultural rights.

Issues regarding cultural rights in old Bangkok

Persons so assembling as to be a community, local community or traditional community shall have the right to conserve or restore their customs, local traditional knowledge, arts or good culture of their community and of the nation and participate in the management, maintenance, preservation and

Bangkok has always been the center of change and vanguard of social movements in Thai society (Askew and Logan 1994; Askew 1994). While old Bangkok provides historical evidence of the development of Bangkok, it is also socially and economically important for both contemporary Bangkok and the country. Given that old Bangkok is culturally diverse, it should be one of the first cases to be considered when discussing cultural rights in the Thai context. To date, scholars working on cultural rights have usually paid attention to minorities in the rural context but given far less attention to communities in urban settings. The urban population of the world has been increasing and has already exceeded the rural population since the beginning of the twenty-first century. In a metropolis like Bangkok, many residents are immigrants from rural areas of Thailand and neighboring countries with different cultural backgrounds. Therefore, the metropolis has its own complex issues regarding cultural rights. Old Bangkok is the center of different ethnic and religious groups of people, whose traditional cultures tend to be impacted by development policy (Akagawa and Tiamsoon 2008). Prior to the political revolution in 1932, major urban development projects including the construction of roads, shop houses, and infrastructure were initiated by the monarch. After the title deed law was enacted in 1908, some land plots were gradually transferred to common people and later developed by the new landlords. After the political revolution, a large part of the royal land in old Bangkok was controlled under a new institution called the Crown Property Bureau (CPB) and its holdings have changed very little since then. Both before and after the

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

154

Tiamsoon Sirisrisak and Natsuko Akagawa

Cultural Rights and Conservation of Old Bangkok

creation of the CPB, local people were tenants without rights to be involved in the land development plan. This ownership system has played a key role in Thailand’s capitalist economic system and urban development in the following decades. To date, large areas of old Bangkok are owned by only a very few landlords who are influential in directing government policy. Old Bangkok is usually defined as the Rattanakosin area, which was built up prior to or during the reign of King Chulalongkorn (Rama V, r. 1868-1910) and was designated as a conservation zone and site for the bicentennial celebration of Bangkok in 1982 (see details in FAD 1982). Based on the 1961 Monument Act, the criteria for listing were: 1) historical and archaeological value, 2) architectural value, and 3) age value of a building aged at least 100 years old (amended to 50 years in 1992). Therefore, buildings built prior to the reign of King Chulalongkorn were considered valuable. However, even if the age value was strictly applied, the conservation zone could have been larger. The currently designated area is predominantly occupied by monuments. Following a paradigm shift in heritage discourse, particularly in relation to cultural landscape and historic urban landscape, new elements valuable to the local people, and regardless of age, should now be considered important. The following sections discuss concerns regarding cultural rights in both the designated and non-designated areas of old Bangkok.

conservation, largely comprising temples, palaces, city walls, and public amenities. In 1997, the conservation idea was incorporated in two masterplans: the Masterplan for Conservation and Development of Rattanakosin, comprising 20 urban design projects, and the Masterplan and Action Plan for Conservation and Development of Thonburi, comprising 21 urban design projects. Several projects focused on creating open space for the monuments and enhancing the landscaping of Rattanakosin with the aim of conserving what the Committee considered valuable (ONEP 2012). Under these projects, a number of residents would be evicted and many historic shop houses torn down (City Planning Unit, Bangkok Metropolitan Administration 2005). In reaction to this project, one community at Pom Mahakan started to express its concern, and gained support from some Thai and foreign academics such as Michael Herzfeld, professor in anthropology at Harvard University. In 2005, the case was submitted to the Advisory Group on Forced Evictions (AGFE) of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) as one of fifteen cases of forced eviction around the world (see AGFE 2005). In response to a letter of protest from the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), an international non-governmental organization that works closely with various UN agencies, Apirak Kosayodhin, governor of Bangkok, sent a reply assuring there would be no eviction:

Issues regarding cultural rights in the designated area called Rattanakosin

155

I would like to inform you that Bangkok Metropolitan Administration always respects the housing rights of our residents.... Realizing that Mahakan Fort Community preservation should serve as an example for other ancient communities, the residents are not deemed [sic] to eviction. (Apirak Kosayodhin to COHRE, 19 December 2005)

In preparation for the bicentennial celebration of Bangkok, two committees were established: a committee on the conservation of historic, archaeological, artistic, and architectural structures (established 1976), and a committee on the conservation and restoration of monuments in Rattanakosin (established 1978). Subsequently, these two committees were merged as the Committee on the Rattanakosin Project, renamed in 1988 as the Committee on the Conservation and Development of Rattanakosin and Historic Towns (hereafter the Committee). The original function of this committee was to control the physical change in Rattanakosin. The conservation zone was divided into three areas: inner Rattanakosin, outer Rattanakosin, and Thonburi. In 1981, the Committee set up land use policy for inner Rattanakosin which can be summarized in brief as follows: prohibit new industry; limit commercial land use; prohibit new residential building, repair structures built in the reign of King Chulalongkorn or before, if rebuilt the height must not exceed 16 meters; regulate the use of river banks and piers; regulate the use of roads and promote pedestrians; control signage; protect historical views; increase open space, particularly on the banks of the Chao Phraya River; encourage the safeguarding of historic buildings and traditional culture; and promote land use for cultural activities (FAD 1982: 670–671). Similar rules were also applied in outer Rattanakosin and Thonburi. In 1982, the Committee announced a list of 133 valuable structures for

However, after Apirak Kosayodhin stepped down as Bangkok governor in 2008, the situation of Pom Mahakan became uncertain again. Most parts of old Bangkok are not an economically depressed area. The communities have lived and worked in the same location for generations and most of their businesses depend

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

The second report of AGFE presented an update: Pom Mahakan is a community of around 300 residents located next to Mahakan Fort, between the old city wall and the canal in central Bangkok, Thailand. In January 2003, the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) served the residents with a notice to vacate their homes. Residents were offered relocation to a place 45 kilometres away, on the outskirts of Bangkok. The proposed relocation was part of the Government sponsored Rattanakosin Island development plan, to make way for a manicured urban park. (AGFE 2007: 18, emphasis added)

156

Tiamsoon Sirisrisak and Natsuko Akagawa

Cultural Rights and Conservation of Old Bangkok

157

on each other. Thus old Bangkok is not only their home but also their workplace and more importantly their cultural space. In other words, traditional commerce is the major characteristic of the local people’s culture which forms the identity and unique nature of the place. Thus the eviction of local people to create romantic views of palaces and temples would be a dramatic change, with not only a physical and economic impact but also a cultural and social impact. Although the masterplan is yet to be implemented, it has never been revised. The original purpose of the designation of Rattanakosin as a conservation zone was to recognize its significance for Thai society. However, as can be noted from the way the masterplan was designed, this intention gradually changed to an expectation for generating more revenues from tourism-related businesses. Today Bangkok welcomes at least 11 million foreign visitors a year, thus the Rattanakosin area is considered a prime resource for international tourism. Although the masterplan is yet to be implemented, major landlords with strong support from the government launched projects to redevelop parts of the area and threatened local people with eviction. In 2009, the CPB in collaboration with Siam Commercial Bank, SJA+3D Architects, and Bangkok Metropolitan Administration published ideas for redevelopment of the waterfront of the Chao Phraya River. A book appeared entitled Rattanakosin rim chaophraya (Rattanakosin beside the Chao Phraya) with Dr Weeraphan Shinawatra as editor and M.R. Sukhumbhand Paribatra (Bangkok Governor), Dr Chirayu Issarangkul Na Ayudhya (director of the CPB), and Dr Sumet Jumsai Na Ayudhya as honorary advisers. However, local people who are supposed to be one of the most important stakeholders were missing from the scene. The book proposes a redesign of the Chao Phraya riverfront of the Rattanakosin area to promote tourism. It proposes to build floating markets and raft houses, while some historic shop houses will be torn down keeping only their facades (see Figure 1). However, many studies show that a sustainable tourist destination, especially in an urban setting, must offer visitors an authentic experience of the way of life of local people rather than present the place like a theme park as proposed here (for example, MacCannell 1973; Hughes 1995). Although the idea proposed in the book is unlikely to be implemented, this is not the sole example of such development projects supported by the government. For example, a project to redevelop Ratchadamnoen Avenue was adopted by the Cabinet in 2001, but sharply criticized as it would affect many local communities. The project aims to convert the area along Ratchadamnoen Avenue to be like the Champs Élysées in Paris, as a boulevard with luxury shops, cafés, and so on, using a budget of about 7 billion baht (Jakkamon 2003). The project recently started with renovation of buildings belonging to the CPB, while other parts of the project that will affect local people are still pending. Even though the area is owned by the CPB, the project was sponsored by the government. Moreover, as a study by Porphant

Ouyyanont (2008) shows, the CPB is likely to have special arrangements with the Ministry of Finance. Thus, although the proposed redevelopments in “Rattanakosin beside the Chao Phraya” take place on private land, the scheme could be adopted as a government project in the future. Rattanakosin is increasingly being exploited by tourism-related businesses, particularly as a result of the development of Khaosan Road for backpackers after the bicentennial celebration of Bangkok in 1982. Today local residents gain little benefit from tourism development, as almost all investments are made by outsiders, but the social impact has become a major issue since most of the area used to be residential. For instance, the Chakkapong Mosque previously kept its gate open for residents around the mosque and any other visitors who wished to pay a visit. However since commercial activities catering to tourists now operate throughout the night, the mosque has to limit access for security reasons. This kind of social impact has not been addressed and local people who are affected have never been compensated. One of the cases of eviction that had a major impact on the local community occurred in the Wang Burapha area. Soon after the political revolution in 1932, a palace built for HRH Prince Bhanurangsi Savangwongse (1859–1928) was sold to an investor who turned this land into a major entertainment complex comprising three movie theatres: Kings, Queens, and Grand. Shortly after that, Ming Mueang Market and Chalermkrung Theatre were built to celebrate the 150 years of the establishment of Bangkok. All these facilities made Wang Burapha one of the most attractive places for youth in the 1950s when it was the fashion for many adolescents

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Figure 1. Redevelopment of Tha Tian Market (source: Weeraphan, 2009)

158

Tiamsoon Sirisrisak and Natsuko Akagawa

Cultural Rights and Conservation of Old Bangkok

to dress like James Dean and Elvis Presley. Ming Mueang Market became a hub of tailor shops making this gear, and related businesses spread through nearby districts, such as textile trading at Phahurat, sewing machines at Worajak, and buttons and accessories at Sampheng. However, in 1959, the government closed down Ming Mueang Market, forcing the tailors out and affecting related businesses in other districts. The affected people had no say in this decision and eventually most of the tailors could no longer sustain their businesses and scattered elsewhere in Thailand. These events in Wang Burapha clearly exhibit the lack of public participation in the processes of development in old Bangkok. As for conservation work, a participatory approach can be seen only in recent years. In 2010, a participatory approach was initiated in the renovation of historic shop houses belonging to the CPB on Na Phralan Road (see Figure 2). The area is located just opposite to the Grand Palace and thus has very high potential for tourism-related businesses. The tenants were asked to contribute to the matching fund for conservation work in exchange for the right to keep the tenancy contract and return after the renovation was completed. An acceptable new rental rate was negotiated between the owners and tenants. “The Na Phralan Historic Shophouses Project” was awarded an Honorable Mention at the 2011 UNESCO Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation and received considerable compliments from heritage professionals.

The success of this project led to the hope that such participatory conservation could be a model for other historic communities. However, the original tenants at Na Phralan soon discovered that they could not meet the new rental rate, which they had believed they could afford, and therefore had to move away from the area. The area is now largely occupied by new tenants and franchises targeting tourists. The project successfully restored the shop houses to a good physical condition, but the most important elements of the “place,” such as the residents, shop keepers, and activities, changed as a result of the conservation work and the international recognition which encouraged a process of gentrification. The participatory model introduced by the CPB could be a useful model but since a community is a living entity, the act of “conservation” cannot be a one-off physical improvement. A participatory approach requires continuous dialog involving the stakeholders so that the conservation effort can be sustainable.

Figure 2. The

Na Phralan Historic Shophouses Project (photo: the authors, 2012). Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

159

Issues regarding cultural rights in the non-designated area of old Bangkok In addition to the designated conservation zone of Rattanakosin, there are other areas that should be considered as historically significant, even under the criteria set by the Committee in the 1980s. One is the area to the east and the north of Rattanakosin which was also developed during the reign of King Chulalongkorn. Many historic communities in this area form important historical layers of Bangkok. Designation of the conservation zone of Rattanakosin has had positive and negative impacts. The positive impact has been that major historic buildings, particularly palaces and religious buildings, are well preserved. The negative impact has been that pressure for development has been diverted to non-designated parts of old Bangkok where there are many historic shop houses. Many countries undergoing development have made the mistake of destroying their historic urban fabric in pursuit of the immediate economic interests of the time. Fortunately, the nondesignated areas of old Bangkok have not changed much largely because there are many listed religious buildings in the area ensuring that conservation controls have been applied more generally throughout the area. However, the historic shop houses, which are important elements of the heritage of common people, are not protected. The construction of a new subway (the Blue Line between Hua Lamphong and Bang Khae) will dramatically change old Bangkok. One area that will be highly affected is the Wat Mangkorn neighborhood of Chinatown where a new subway station is planned. This area is part of one of the oldest and biggest Chinatowns in the world. The area called the Chinatown of Bangkok is located in Sampanthawong and Pomprab districts to the south of Rattanakosin. Its history goes back to the establishment of Bangkok as the new capital when the Chinese community living on the eastern bank of the river was ordered to move south to Sampeng (Nangnoi 1991). In the late nineteenth century, Charoenkrung Road was built through this area as the first road for automobiles in Siam. Judging from an old map surveyed in 1921 and Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

160

Tiamsoon Sirisrisak and Natsuko Akagawa

Cultural Rights and Conservation of Old Bangkok

161

published in 1931 by the Royal Survey Department, the shop houses along the road were built late in King Chulalongkorn’s reign or before 1910. These old shop houses are therefore historically and architecturally important and should be conserved by designating them as monuments or a conservation zone like Rattanakosin. In 2007, Yongthanit Pimonsathean, assistant professor in urban planning at Thammasat University, identified heritage buildings on northern Charoenkrung Road. The study argued that the old shop houses near Wat Mangkorn station are significant at the local level because of their historical and architectural value, and thus merited conservation (Yongthanit 2007). Under current circumstances, however, these shop houses are evaluated as less important than national monuments, and could be replaced by new buildings if the local government decided to redevelop the area. There is a tendency for politicians to focus on an immediate economic benefit or have some conflict of interest regarding landownership and construction projects, and thus may well favor large-scale redevelopments. In areas with economic potential, they may vaunt the projected profits in order to legitimize the eviction of local people and the demolition of historic buildings. In recent years, some plans to redevelop large land plots in parts of Chinatown including the Charoenchai community, Woeng Nakhon Kasem and Loenrit community, were halted because they were in conflict with the existing building codes and because of concerns over the local people’s opposition. However, this situation might change as a result of the construction of the new subway line and the enactment of new urban planning protocols by the BMA. In the draft of the new Bangkok City Plan (2012–2016), areas within a radius of 500 meters from a subway station are encouraged to have more high-rise buildings for residential, condominium, commercial, hotel and office purposes. This guideline will be applied to the new stations located in old Bangkok and will unquestionably increase pressure to develop areas occupied by historic communities. If this plan is implemented, more than half of the Chinatown area will be irreversibly changed. In mid-2012, an area of about 2.3 hectares in Woeng Nakornkasem was sold to Charoen Siriwattanapakdi, the third richest person in Thailand according to the ranking by Forbes Magazine in 2010. At the time of writing, the prospect for Woeng Nakornkasem is still unclear. One aim of bringing the subway line into this area is to facilitate and boost the flow of visitors. However, if the cultural identity of Chinatown, expressed through architecture, people, and commercial activities, is lost, the place will no longer be attractive for visitors and will not be sustainable. In sum, major landlords with strong support from the government have plans to develop parts of the non-designated area of old Bangkok as much as in the designated area. Recently, this concern has been taken up by the Siam Society and the network of cultural heritage conservation bodies, such as Thailand ICOMOS, the Association of Siamese Architects Under Royal Patronage, and some academic institutions. Also in a non-designated area of old Bangkok, the government plans to build a

new parliament on the banks of the Chao Phraya River at Samsen Road, an old area developed since the reign of King Chulalongkorn. In 2009, the Secretariat of the House of Representatives judged Arsom Silp Institute of the Arts as winner of the 200 million baht prize in a competition to design the new parliament. The estimated construction cost is around 12 billion baht (400 million USD). Some communities and schools will be relocated, and the design is problematic (see Figure 3). The Arsom Silp Institute of the Arts, which claims to be a non-profit, private institution of higher education, proposed a new parliament in a style based on the concept of the three worlds, tri-bhumi or trailokya in Sanskrit, tiloka in Pali. In Brahmanical philosophy, the three worlds are heaven, earth, and the lower regions. In early Buddhist texts, the meaning shifted to signify the world of desire, the world that has form, and the world without form (Theosophical University Press 1999). With little explanation on how exactly they employ this concept of tri-bhumi, the designers proposed to create what they call a monthon saksit (most commonly translated as “sacred place”). The building has wings for the house of representatives and the upper house. Between them, there is a museum, hall for royal ceremonies, and hall for Phra Siam Thevathiraj (a guardian deity of the kingdom). This latter element, the highest and most visually dominant part of the complex, is built in traditional Thai architectural style resembling a Buddhist temple. Some people say the parliament looks outdated but the more problematic issue is that the design lacks respect for other religions. Although the majority of the Thai population is Buddhist, there is no legal obligation to use Buddhist architecture for institutional or government buildings. Many countries avoid using religious motifs in the design of state buildings as this could offend citizens of different religious communities. In Thailand, which is home to people of many different religions (including animism), applying a particular religious concept to a building housing the nation’s legislature would seem, at the very least, to be insensitive, if not flying in the face of the cultural rights of some citizens. The proposal to place a symbol of one religion on top of the building may be considered offensive by some religious groups. One can imagine that members of religions other than Buddhism might well doubt whether they have rights equal to those of Buddhists as they walk through the hall of a legislative building topped by a Buddhist symbol. In the judging criteria for the design competition, 40 percent weighting was given to the “identity” expressed in the exterior and interior design, without defining “identity”. The designers seem to have interpreted this to mean that the design must have traditional Thai style found in Buddhist architecture. This also reflects an understanding among the majority of Thai people that Thailand is a Buddhist state. This image is probably shaped by the government through media and the work of government agencies such as the Department of Religious Affairs that focuses primarily on Buddhism. Given that Thai society is diverse and likely to become yet

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

162

Tiamsoon Sirisrisak and Natsuko Akagawa

Cultural Rights and Conservation of Old Bangkok

163

more diverse, after the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community, it may not be too late to rethink the handling of religious image.

Conclusion

Figure 3. Drawings of the new parliament designed by the Arsom Silp Institute of the Arts (http://newthaiparliament. multiply.com/, accessed 2 March 2012).

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Historic communities in the era of globalization need to adjust to keep up with the pace of change. Heritage conservation is just one of many ways to deal with change. Heritage conservation should not try to freeze objects at one point in the past, but can be part of development which builds on the culture of each place in order to strengthen the place’s identity and to enhance a sense of belonging. The key issue in thinking about heritage is not the conflict between development and conservation, but the concern for the cultural rights of local communities. These cultural rights may include the right to express a local culture, to take part in development planning, and to be empowered to make decisions and have the right to self-determination rather than being simply subject to orders. The policy and projects of urban development tend to be directed by the central government. As there is little scope for public participation, even projects planned with the best of intentions are likely to face public opposition and may not be implemented as effectively and sustainably as planned. Amara Pongsapich (2010) suggests that Thai people, as Buddhists, tend to accept and tolerate injustice in society. Moreover, they seem indifferent when it comes to issues that may not affect them directly. Increasingly, this attitude has led Thai society to become highly self-interested, and unwilling to consider the interests of marginal people. Government regularly justifies mega projects by reference to the “public benefit” with little thought about the local people who will be affected. In the case of old Bangkok, the local culture is the way of life of a people who are deeply associated with traditional commercial activities and the history of development (see also Akagawa and Tiamsoon 2005a; 2005b). These economic and social activities represent the cultural roots of Bangkok and also of the nation. In areas that have been designated for conservation, the physical condition is well controlled but local communities are under pressure, especially because of tourism development supported by the government (Tiamsoon 2009). A top-down approach to making development policy prevents local communities from exercising the right to safeguard and express their diverse cultures. Non-designated areas face a similar situation but with even more development pressure due to the looser regulations. Most local people have no rights over land and hence are insecure over housing. As the value of these communities is not recognized, it is not difficult for the government to legitimize new development and eviction of local communities on the grounds of “public benefit.” As a result, the possibility for the communities to exercise their cultural rights is relatively slim. Given the relationship between government and investors, the interests of Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

164

Tiamsoon Sirisrisak and Natsuko Akagawa

Cultural Rights and Conservation of Old Bangkok

certain communities are unlikely to be a priority, particularly in an urban context with many stakeholders and multiple layers of bureaucracy. Both the government and society need to accord more recognition to cultural rights and find ways to conserve the economically, socially, and culturally important characteristics of a community or district within the context of today’s needs. Maintaining cultural diversity and acknowledging cultural heritage is an important aspect of any community or nation. A society must develop ways to safeguard the “right to effective participation” in order to build an inclusive society. In heritage projects, such as those discussed above, the necessity of local participation is central to their success.

cooperation with The National Human Rights Commission of Thailand and Bangkok Art and Culture Centre, pp. 8-21 (in Thai). Apirak Kosayodhin. 19 December 2005. “Letter from Mr. Apirak Kosayodhi, Governor of Bangkok, to Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions.” In Advisory Group on Forced Evictions (AGFE), UN-HABITAT, 2007, Forced Evictions – Towards Solutions? Second Report of the Advisory Group on Forced Evictions to the Executive Director of UN-HABITAT, AnnexII , Nairobi: UN-HABITAT. Appiah, K.A. 2010. “The Art of Social Change.” New York Times Magazine, http:// www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/magazine/24FOB-Footbinding-t.html?_r=1 (accessed 2 September 2012). Askew, Mark. 1994. Interpreting Bangkok: the urban question in Thai studies. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press. Askew, Mark. and William. S. Logan, eds. 1994. Cultural identity and urban change in Southeast Asia: Interpretative essays. Victoria: Deakin University Press. Bowring, John. 1857. The Kingdom and People of Siam. London: J. W. Parker and Son. City Planning Unit, Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. 2005. Conservation Area of Rattanakosin. Document provided in training for local conservators, 3 May, Bangkok, (in Thai). Fine Arts Department (FAD). 1982. Jotmaihet kan anurak Krung Rattanakosin (Krung Rattanakosin conservation report). Published in the occasion of Rattanakosin Bicentennial Celebration, Bangkok: Sahaprachapanit, (in Thai). Hughes, George. 1995. “Authenticity in tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4), pp. 781-803. Jakkamon Pasukwanit. 2003. “Various stories from the Secretariat of the National Economic and Social Development Board: Development of Ratchadamnoen and vicinities towards Champs Elysees.” Economic and Social Journal, January–February, pp. 82-84, (in Thai). Koivunen, Hannele and Leena Marsio. 2007. Fair Culture? Ethical dimension of cultural policy and cultural rights. Ministry of Education, Finland. Kymlicka, Will. 2005. “A European Experiment in Protecting Cultural Rights.” In Cultural Rights, Human Rights Dialogue, Series 2 Number 12, Carnegie Council on Ethical and International Affairs, pp. 28–30. MacCannell, Dean. 1973. “Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist settings.” American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), pp. 589-603. Nangnoi Sakdisri, M.R. 1991. Ongprakob thang kaiyaphap Krung Rattanakosin (Physical elements of Rattanakosin), Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University, (in Thai).

References Advisory Group on Forced Evictions (AGFE), UN-HABITAT. 2005. Forced Evictions – Towards Solutions? First Report of the Advisory Group on Forced Evictions to the Executive Director of UN-HABITAT. Nairobi: UN-HABITAT. Advisory Group on Forced Evictions (AGFE), UN-HABITAT. 2007. Forced Evictions – Towards Solutions? Second Report of the Advisory Group on Forced Evictions to the Executive Director of UN-HABITAT. Nairobi: UN-HABITAT. Akagawa, Natsuko and Tiamsoon Sirisrisak. 2005a. “Intangible heritage in urban planning process: Case study: Chao Phraya Riverscape, Thailand.” In Cities for People: The 8th International Asian Planning Schools Association Congress 2005: School of Housing, Building and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia, September 11-14. Akagawa, Natsuko and Tiamsoon Sirisrisak. 2005b. “The Current Issues on Urban Conservation in Bangkok.” In Action for Sustainability: The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference in Tokyo. “SB05 Tokyo” by Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MLIT), International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB), International Initiative for Sustainable Built Environment (iiSBE), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Tokyo, Japan, September 27-29. Akagawa, Natsuko and Tiamsoon Sirisrisak. 2008. “Cultural Landscapes in Asia and the Pacific: Implications of the World Heritage Convention.” International Journal of Heritage Studies, 14(2), pp. 176-191. Amara Pongsapich. 2010. “Human rights in cultural dimension.” In Natthanai Prasannam, ed., Let Equality Ring: Literature and Human Rights Studies, Department of Literature, Faculty of Humanities, Kasetsart University, in Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

165

166

Tiamsoon Sirisrisak and Natsuko Akagawa

Nidhi Eoseewong. 2005. “Wattanatham sitthi manutsayachon kap khwam pen thai” (Culture, human rights, and Thaines). Proceedings of the conference of civic society networking and protection of human rights for healthy individual and community, year 2, 27 July 2005, Chiang Mai, (in Thai). Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Planning and Policy [ONEP]. http://www2.onep.go.th/ncecd/natural/bangkok2_new.html (accessed 20 May 2012), (in Thai). Pallegoix, Mgr. J. B. 1854. Description du Royaume Thai ou Siam. Paris: Se Vend. Porphant Ouyyanont. 2008. “The Crown Property Bureau in Thailand and the Crisis of 1997.” Journal of Contemporary Asia, 38(1), pp. 166-189. Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre. 2012. “Culture and Rights: About us.” http://www.sac.or.th/databases/cultureandrights/?page_id=2 (accessed 20 September 2012). Sen, Amartya. 1997. Human Rights and Asian Values. New York: Carnegie Council on Ethical and International Affairs. Stamatopoulou, Elsa. 2004. “Why Cultural Rights Now?” Presentation in Carnegie Council on Ethical and International Affairs. http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/ resources/transcripts/5006.html (accessed 8 March 2012). Stamatopoulou, Elsa. 2008. “Background paper for the Fortieth session of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.” E/C.12/40/9, 9 May 2008, Economic and Social Council, The United Nations. Theosophical University Press. 1999. Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary. http:// www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/tho-tre.htm (accessed 10 October 2012). Tiamsoon Sirisrisak. 2009. “Conservation of Bangkok old town.” Habitat International, 33(4), pp. 405-411. Weeraphan Shinawatra, ed. 2009. Rattanakosin rim chaophraya (Rattanakosin and Chao Phraya River Front,). Bangkok: Plus Place. Yongthanit Pimonsathean. 2009. Heritage Buildings on Northern Charoen Krung Road. Bangkok: ICOMOS Thailand (in Thai).

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Reviving the Neglected Heritage of the Rattanakosin Era: The Case of the Old Chao Phraya River Oxbow Worrasit Tantinipankul

Introduction Historic urban communities in the major towns across Thailand are facing rapid demolition as a result of urban development. According to a report of the National Housing Authority of Thailand,1 there are 140 historic urban communities, which can be classified into five categories: floating houses, waterfront houses, shop houses, urban villages and market communities. Comprised of simple wood structures, these homes and shop houses of humble architectural craftsmanship represent unique patterns of early urban settlement, knowledge of light wood frame structure, and the livelihood and culture of the Chao Phraya River Valley. And yet, the cultural landscape of these urban clusters of wooden houses does not figure in the official Thai conception of architectural heritage, which focuses on Buddhist and royally-related structures.2 In this article, I focus on three river-based communities in the area of the Old Chao Phraya River Oxbow in Thonburi. These three communities are: Khlong Bangkok Noi to the north, Chakphra in the middle, and Bangluang or Bangkok Yai at the south. This area was selected in part because of its unique historical relationship with the Rattanakosin Island Historic District. The residents of this area are the descendants of low-ranking bureaucrats who served the ruling classes in the capital city of Bangkok. It is also well known as the birthplace of the popular female protagonist “Mae Ploy” in the Thai classic novel, Four Reigns, or Si Phaendin. This research will highlight this area’s historic significance, the major problems causing its decline, and the struggle by its canal Research Section of the National Housing Authority of Thailand and Faculty of Architecture, Thammasat University, Final Report: Study of Housing and Community Standard for Conservation of Identity and Value of Historic Towns, September 2010, p. 21–22. 2 Weeraphan Shinawatra, “Understanding Cultural Landscape in Thai Urban Context: Bangkok Neglecting Water-Based City,” conference paper for the 6th international Symposium of Southeast Asian Technical University Consortium (SEATUC), March 2012. 1

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

168

Worrasit Tantinipankul

Reviving the Neglected Heritage of the Rattanakosin Era

communities to preserve the local identity of their urban settlements. My aim is to show that the Thai state’s official heritage discourse neglects not only the vernacular architecture, but also the histories of farmers, merchants and bureaucrats who established these river-based urban settlements on the periphery of the royal capital. I will argue that restoration and planning efforts must focus not only on conserving the physical fabric of vernacular architecture, but also on documenting and revitalizing the intangible culture and local histories of its residents.

Thonburi on the west bank of the Chao Phraya River has not faced the same level of rapid development and urbanization, and thus still maintains the historic urban fabric of early canal communities which date to the establishment of Bangkok as the kingdom’s capital. Moreover, an alternative narrative of the official history of Rattanakosin Historic District can be found among the residents, whose predecessors served royal members in Bangkok’s palaces and worked in the old city district. The urban settlements of the Old Chao Phraya River Oxbow – with their everyday activities in communities along a canal network – constitute a unique cultural landscape in keeping with the definition of World Heritage3 and represent the living history of the Rattanakosin era. The uniqueness of this cultural landscape is reflected not only in the wooden houses, but also the market places and small but elaborated royal temples along the canal—structures which bear untold, alternative histories of the Rattanakosin era, which will be discussed later in this article. The local houses along the Old Chao Phraya River Oxbow can be divided into two categories: houses of commoners and bureaucrats. The former (see Figure 2) are simple, light-frame wooden structures for local farmers and merchants, and the latter (see Figure 3) display unique architectural details reflecting European influences that were incorporated into royal villas in Bangkok during the reigns of King Chulalongkorn and King Vajiravudh respectively. The houses of local commoners exemplify the pattern of early urban settlement in the area with its distinctive canal lifestyle. Those of bureaucrats, with their unique architectural features, such as hip roofs with ceramic tiles and shutter windows, demonstrate the knowledge of art and crafts which was transferred from ruling elites to petty bureaucrats and commoners. However, these wooden houses and canal communities are now in a seriously dilapidated state and in need of a proper development and conservation plan. The population in the community has declined because the younger generations have moved out to live near their workplace or to suburban areas. For the most part, only senior residents are left, and they face difficulties in maintaining the historic wood houses. Vacant lots near the main streets have been transformed into new suburban housing developments and factories, which clash visually with the old community. Moreover, immigrants have come into the area as labor for the factories, changing the socioeconomic profile. The newly developed network of roads was not planned to connect to the old canal network, thus creating difficulty for traveling

Old Chao Phraya River Oxbow: Bangkok’s last canal community The water-based communities along the Old Chao Phraya River Oxbow contain urban settlements that date back to around 1767 when King Taksin established Thonburi as his capital. When his successor, King Rama I, moved the capital across the river to the east side, which today is the Rattanakosin Historic District, most bureaucrats continued to live on the Thonburi side, concentrated in the area which today is Khlong Bangkok Noi–Bangkok Yai. The origin of this area can be traced back to the reign of King Chairacha of Ayutthaya (r. 1534–1546) when he ordered the excavation of a shortcut route to reduce travel time to the Gulf of Thailand (see Figure 1). This shortcut grew wider as a result of the direct flow of the river, and is now recognized by most Bangkok residents as part of the Chao Phraya River, while the old oxbow became a small channel (later mistakenly called a canal) encircling communities of bureaucrats who served the palace from the beginning of the Bangkok period through the end of the absolute monarchy. In stark contrast to the bustling metropolis of Bangkok on the east bank,

In the World Heritage Convention 1992, the Committee acknowledged that cultural landscapes represent the “combined works of nature and of man” designated in Article 1 of the Convention. They are illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal. Cultural landscapes fall into three main categories: First is the clearly defined landscape designed and created intentionally by man. The second category is the organically evolved landscape and the final category is the associative cultural landscape associated with powerful natural and religious elements. The area of Khlong Bang Luang also fits the category of the evolved landscape.

3

Figure 1. Thonburi and Bangkok before and after the shortcut was created in 1542

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

169

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

170

Worrasit Tantinipankul

Reviving the Neglected Heritage of the Rattanakosin Era

171

Figure 2. Wooden houses along Khlong Bang Luang

Figure 4. Abandoned wooden house along the canal of Khlong Bangkok Noi and Chakphra

from the canal community to other parts of Bangkok. The roads leading to the community are narrow pedestrian walkways, not wide enough for full services of basic public infrastructure, such as garbage collection, sewage systems, and tap water. Therefore, refuse and garbage is illegally disposed into the canal causing water pollution and blocking transportation. Moreover, in some areas, utility ducts are installed along the edge of the canal, creating visual chaos around the canal communities. Long tail boats carrying tourists for sightseeing activities also generate loud noise disturbing the neighborhood. These physical problems are driving some indigenous residents to move to other parts of Bangkok, which offer better public facilities (see Figure 4). Most of the historic conservation plans and reports produced by the Rattanakosin Committee consider only the Rattanakosin Historic District on the east bank of the

Chao Phraya River and perhaps also King Taksin’s palace district in the Thonburi area (see Figure 5). Furthermore, there have been no studies supported by the government or academic institutions on the history of the bureaucrats who served the royal rulers in the Rattanakosin Historic District in the past, nor any conservation plans for these historic wooden houses. The Old Chao Phraya River Oxbow needs a historic conservation plan that can safeguard this area and provide solutions for sustainable tourism, as well as a plan to renovate the public facilities and utilities. Without such a conservation plan, such as the one implemented in the area of Rattanakosin Island, mega projects and infrastructural development can be introduced without any consideration of preserving the fabric of the historic community. Indeed, this process is already underway. The mass transit system in Thonburi is now in the construction stage on Charansanitwong Road, the major artery cutting through the water-based communities of this area (see Figure 6). The elevated train stations will become the new neighborhood centers, and the land value of the area will increase exponentially. The owners of historic wooden houses will be able to earn more from selling their property for new high-rise towers and condominiums. Without proper planning, the construction of public facilities such as concrete flood walls and utility ducts, that government authorities must provide for these new developments, will create more visual chaos and block the view to the canal. The historic canal community of Bangkok will soon disappear, and the alternative histories of the petty bureaucrats who were the life and soul of Rattanakosin Historic District will vanish.

Figure 3. Wooden houses with hip roof and simple gable roof

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

172

Worrasit Tantinipankul

Reviving the Neglected Heritage of the Rattanakosin Era

Figure 5. Zoning of Rattanakosin Historic District, based on Synchron Co. Ltd., Phaen maebot phuea kan phatthana rabob satharanuprapok satharanuprakan lae kan chai prayot thidin nai boriwen khrongkan krung rattanakosin (Masterplan for development of public facilities and land used in Rattanakosin District), ngo-33

Figure 6. Map showing mass transit line and stations cutting through the area of Khlong Bangkok Noi and Bang Luang, produced by 4th year students as an assignment for ARC456 Urban Planning at the School of Architecture and Design, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi.

Neglected by the state conservation agency: Fine Arts Department as the legacy of royal heritage According to official documents, which articulate Thailand’s “authorized heritage discourse”4 (Smith 2006), the authorities focus primarily on two categories of Thailand’s architectural heritage. The first is Buddhist religious and royal-related architecture (no matter how much western influence is reflected in the building). These structures are widely deemed as symbols of the nation and thus the main focus for conservation in urban areas. The second is the traditional stilt house of Central Thailand, which is considered the symbol of the nation’s identity for vernacular architecture.

173

The key state agency responsible for historic conservation in Thailand is the Fine Arts Department (FAD). As stated in an article celebrating its centenary,5 the FAD has long been the key institution responsible for conservation of the nation’s art and cultural heritage, with a focus on safeguarding the art, architecture, performance and rituals relating to royal rulers and the Buddhist religion. The FAD has a very strong relationship to royalty. It was founded by King Vajiravudh in 1911 as a department within the Ministry of Palace Affairs by combining the guild unit of royal guards (royal artisans and craftsmen6) from the

The term “authorized heritage discourse” refers to grand and nationalistic narratives by European scholars from the 19th century which give certain upper middle class and elites authority to dominate and arbitrate definitions, preferences and management of heritage. See more in Laurajane Smith, Uses of Heritage (New York: Routledge, 2006).

Weena Rotjanaratha, “A century of Fine Arts Department”, 96 Years of the Establishment of the Fine Arts Department, 2011, p. 15. 6 The article on “History of Fine Arts Department and the duties of its units” in 96 Years of the Establishment of the Fine Arts Department, 2007, p. 7, uses the term “guild unit of Royal Guard” or chang mahatlek for the special art and craft unit separated from the Ministry of Public Works, but other sources such as “Entering the 100th year of Fine Arts Department” in 100 Years of the

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

4

5

174

Worrasit Tantinipankul

Reviving the Neglected Heritage of the Rattanakosin Era

Ministry of Public Works with the Museum Department from the Ministry of Moral Affairs. The first director general of the FAD was Prince Krommaphra Naretworrarit, King Vajiravudh’s uncle, King Chulalongkorn’s half-brother and a former minister of the capital. Moreover, when King Prajadhipok established the Royal Institute and merged the FAD into this new institution, the key directors of the units within the Royal Institute were also prominent royal members. In 1935, three years after the end of the absolute monarchy, the nationalist government reestablished the FAD and dissolved the Ministry of Palace Affairs into a small office of Palace Affairs. The government then moved the royal guild unit of the Outer Palace (kong chang wangnok) and classical court performance (kong mahorasop) to the FAD.7 After this revival and consolidation, the FAD continued to play an important role in constructing national heritage and identity, but most FAD staff were royal court servants. Thus we can say that the FAD was the state conservation office responsible for producing and disseminating the “authorized heritage discourse” to fortify the nation’s identity grounded in the intellectual legacy of royal arts, architecture, literature, rituals and crafts. From the annual reports published by the FAD from 2001 to 2011, we can see that the FAD’s main duty is to carry on the same sort of conservation work and museum collection as was envisioned by previous royal rulers, dating back to King Rama I’s search for Buddhist manuscripts for the Convocation of Lord Buddha’s Canon at the beginning of the Bangkok period, and King Chulalongkorn’s establishment of the Museum Department in 1897.8 Moreover, the FAD often portrays itself as the agency executing the wishes of the king and royal members to nurture Thai arts as the heritage of Thailand. In addition, it claims to act under the auspicious direction of the king as the great artist and the father of the nation’s heritage conservation.9 With respect to historical conservation, the FAD’s Office of Archaeology makes surveys and prepares documents while the Office of Architecture provides technical knowledge for conservation. The primary tasks of the Office of Archaeology include: surveying of historic sites, evaluating historic significance, preparing documents, and maintaining connections and networks of international institutions involved with conservation. However, the FAD does not have much experience in the conservation of living, historic communities, although it has organized seminars supporting local advocacy and collaboration with communities since 1990.10

Some of the FAD’s staff are aware of the recent focus on cultural landscape as defined by UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee, but they still lack staff with expertise in both architectural conservation and community development to collaborate with local communities. Only in 2010 did the FAD start to work with local organizations to manage five historic sites in provincial towns11 but these towns still request the FAD to execute their renovation projects. Moreover, the conservation law in Thailand has no compensation programs for the owners of historic properties, thus it is difficult for the FAD to work with the private owners of living heritage. Listing them as national heritage will limit the owners’ right to develop their properties and could affect their everyday life without financial compensation. The FAD needs a better legal framework with financial support and more staff who can work closely with communities and owners. According to several FAD annual reports, the work of the Office of Architecture includes supplying various architectural designs, ranging from large-scale government buildings such as monumental libraries, grand exhibition halls abroad and Thai traditional architecture for royal temples to small structures of stages, pavilions, gateways and street furniture for royal ceremonies, rituals and government events, along with implementing conservation plans and maintaining more than a thousand historic sites in Thailand. With a staff of less than one hundred12 (including about 20 architects and four landscape architects), FAD’s Office of Architecture is overwhelmed with work requested by government agencies. Due to all of these historical factors and human resource limitations, historic, cultural landscapes such as the Old Chao Phraya River Oxbow are largely neglected by the FAD. Even though the early settlement of canal communities in this area would fit with the World Heritage Committee’s definition of a cultural landscape, this early canal urban settlement still has no place on the national heritage list. The work by the FAD most closely related are some studies and conservation projects on Thai vernacular architecture that involved royal members in their history. It is clear that the FAD's primary duty is to protect and conserve the royal architectural legacy.

Establishment of the Fine Arts Department, 2011, p. 7, use the term the chang pranitsin or guild of decorative arts instead. 7 “Entering the 100th year of Fine Arts Department”, p. 8. 8 Bulong Srikanok, “Retrospective review of the duties of the Fine Arts Department” in 90 Years Fine Arts Department, 2001, p. 12. 9 Somsuda Leeyawanit, “Entering the 100th year of Fine Arts Department” in 100 Years of the Establishment of the Fine Arts Department, 2011, p. 11. 10 “Office of Archaeology” in 96 years of the establishment of the Fine Arts Department, 2007, p. 68. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

175

Chaotic public facilities The problems with public facilities in the loop of Khlong Bangkok NoiChakphra-Bang Luang are largely due to the lack of cooperation among government agencies at both national and local levels. As noted above, the old urban communities in the heart of Thonburi district have small narrow roads and canal networks, and public utilities and facilities were installed in an unplanned manner, causing “Archaeology Office” in 100 Years of the Establishment of the Fine Arts Department, 2011, p. 47. 12 “Office of Architecture” in 100 Years of the Establishment of the Fine Arts Department, 2011, pp. 111–113. 11

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

176

Worrasit Tantinipankul

Reviving the Neglected Heritage of the Rattanakosin Era

difficulties in maintenance. For instance, the narrow roads in the community are wide enough for bicycles and pedestrians, but not for garbage trucks, resulting in illegal trash disposal in the canal (see Figure 7). Water and air pollution have followed. Moreover, due to the lack of connections to the local road system, boats are still a primary mode of transport in the area. Residents in the past used to paddle boats or take shuttle boats to work, but today engine-powered boats operating for tourists dominate the canal, making paddle boats unsafe. Boat tours along Khlong Bangkok Noi are very popular among foreign visitors staying at the luxury hotels along the Chao Phraya River, but the boats’ diesel engines produce noise pollution and high waves, affecting the livelihood of residents along the canal. To solve the problem of canal transportation, these canal communities need to work with various government agencies at both national and local levels. The Marine Department issues licenses for operating boats and the Department of Pollution Control is responsible for mitigating noise. The Bangkok Metropolitan Authority’s Transportation Department and Drainage Department regulate the water transportation system including barriers along the waterways and jetties (see Figure 8). For solving problems over inappropriate utility ducts, structures, and barriers, residents of this water-based community need to negotiate with various state agencies. The electric power, telephone and tap water lines belong to the three different national agencies (Metropolitan Electricity Authority, Telephone Organization of Thailand and Metropolitan Waterworks Authority), while planning of pedestrian walkways, sewage, road, trash collection, and lighting systems are maintained by the Bangkok Metropolitan Authority (BMA) through the district office. Since Thailand was not colonized by European colonial rulers but rather selectively modernized by its royal rulers, the internal social organization in government agencies in Thailand still has a hierarchical order and feudal character. The heads of different agencies still act as feudal masters surrounded by circles of lower ranking noblemen. Planning decisions and agreements among government agencies are difficult to execute since all decisions by representatives must first get approval from the heads of their agencies. This condition makes it difficult to move

forward with the implementation of any masterplan in Thailand. Given the current problems, the area of the Old Chao Phraya River canal loop needs proper planning to improve and manage all public utilities and transportation systems in an integrated manner. The area also needs conservation planning and zoning regulations to protect it from new infrastructure development that could wipe out the communities, as is likely to happen with the new skytrain stations that create a demand for new, high-density residential developments around these transportation nodes. However, as it now stands, the Rattanakosin Committee and its Secretariat, the Office of Environmental Planning and Policies, can regulate the development only of the government properties that are located near the royal temples and palaces in Rattanakosin Historic District.

Figure 7. Utility duct overhanging houses along the canal and illegal trash disposal at the junction of canals

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

177

New hope for saving Khlong Bang Luang Although the main government agencies, such as the FAD and the Office of Environmental Planning and Policy, are still preoccupied with larger scale conservation work, numerous international and national advocacy organizations, such as the Society for the Conservation of National Treasure (SCONTE), the Association of Siamese Architects (ASA), the School of Architecture and Design of King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT), the Department of Urban and Regional Planning of Chulalongkorn University, the Artist’s House, the River City Shopping Center, and ICOMOS Bangkok Office, recognize the historical value of the canal loop of Khlong Bangkok Noi–Khlong Bang Luang in the nation’s cultural landscape. This private-academic network has endeavored to support local advocacy groups in the area to improve the living conditions of canal communities. For instance, the group has proposed sightseeing boat trips for tourists along this canal loop, with a focus on the history and cultural heritage of the community (see Figure 9). The trip could cover important historic sites from the Museum of the Royal Barges at the northern loop and include the group of historic royal temples with elaborate architectural details (Wat Ratcha-Orot, Wat Apsornsawan, Wat Nang,

Figure 8. Concrete structures for protection against flooding and erosion cause visual chaos and block transportation

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

178

Worrasit Tantinipankul

Reviving the Neglected Heritage of the Rattanakosin Era

and Wat Nangnong) and waterfront markets at the southern end. For the sake of local residents, the boats need to install engines with special equipment to lower the noise. The Faculty of Engineering at KMUTT can provide the test run for this equipment. The Marine Department can then mandate this equipment for all future navigation licenses. This private-academic group can also help to represent the local community in negotiation with various agencies responsible for the improvement of public facilities in the canal. For instance, the ticket cost for boat trips should be paid per hour instead of per ride, which encourages a boat driver to earn more payment by driving faster, causing high waves that damage the banks of the canal and make other waterfront activities unsafe.

houses cannot afford to maintain the entire houses and live only on the first floor. The second house belonged to unknown royal servants, but was sold to the current owner whose house is nearby. The third house originally belonged to Prince Kromphraya Devavongs Varopakarn, the first finance minister in Thai history, and was passed down to his daughter, Princess Srisalalai. The ownership was then passed on to her cook, the mother of the present owner. The fourth house belongs to the grandchild of a palace servant who was married to a palace policeman. His grandparents both worked in the palace and had described paddling by boat to work in the Grand Palace. The sixth house belongs to a village headman whose great grandmother owned a factory that dyed saffron robes, and who had worked for royal elites. A photograph shows her in female palace attire of the early twentieth century, wearing a lace blouse and Thai traditional lower garment or jongkraben. Among the four houses belonging to commoners, the fifth, seventh and eighth once belonged to orchard farmers while the ninth belonged to a merchant selling farm tools and fertilizer. These houses also trace the local history of Thonburi’s early agricultural settlement. The drawings and perspective sketches from surveys of the houses not only provide a technical record for conservation, but also encourage the owners of the houses to share more information and realize the aesthetic value of both their stories and houses. The drawings provide baseline documents for conservation which professional and academic institutions can use to help the owners conserve their homes, both in terms of the technical knowledge and suitable materials for renovation. These drawings can also be a starting point for eliciting the stories of community members, their patterns of everyday activities, local events and festivals that are the intangible heritage and an integral part of local wisdom linked to the royal heritage of Rattanakosin Historic District. There are several old canal markets and communities that have maintained their heritage and can be a spark for local revitalization, as was the case at Samchuk in Suphanburi and Amphawa in Samut Songkhram. The clusters of historic wooden houses along the canal need to be safeguarded from new developments. Although academic institutions and private business groups are helping them, the overall masterplan for historic conservation zoning and special building regulation such as height limits and façade control is still the key to protect them from unchecked real estate development. Conservation zoning must be developed and the BMA should impose new building regulations in this community for careful real estate development. With the present construction of elevated and underground mass transit systems, an effective conservation plan needs to be discussed as soon as possible. In fact, the BMA’s Planning Office had already undertaken a study for a Special Conservation Zone for the Khlong Dan junction at the southwest corner of Khlong Bang Luang in response to the BMA’s earlier extension of the BTS skytrain. If major agencies such as the Rattanakosin Committee and the FAD recognize its historic value and establish conservation zoning for this old Chao Phraya River Oxbow,

Sketching homes, recovering local histories A survey of historic wooden houses to support the new boat trip and create a record of historic wooden houses was conducted by a group of students from the School of Architecture and Design, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (see Figures 10, 11, 12). It revealed not only the tangible record of wood structures, but also important information about the intangible culture, livelihoods, and local histories of Khlong Bang Luang and Rattanakosin. For instance, among eight wooden houses surveyed along the Khlong Bang Luang to Bangwak canal, four belong to the descendants of bureaucrats who worked for royal elites, and the rest belong to the offspring of farmers and merchants. Currently, senior residents of these

Figure 9. Map of proposed boat trip along Khlong Bangkok Noi Chakphra and Bangkok Yai including Khlong Dan

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

179

180

Worrasit Tantinipankul

Figure 10. Plan and elevation of a house once owned by a royal family member (drawn by KMUTT 4th year architecture student, Ms. Sutthida Pholkaew)

the BMA’s Office of City Planning can propose a height limit regulation that will curb new development in the area. The history of the Old Chao Phraya River Oxbow should be recognized as a vital part of the national history of Rattanakosin Historic District, and national conservation and planning agencies must take action before it is too late.

Reviving the Neglected Heritage of the Rattanakosin Era

181

heritage has been the funneling of resources and expertise into the restoration and preservation of elite heritage to the exclusion of Bangkok’s diverse and dynamic vernacular cultural landscapes. Over the past twenty years, engaged academics and critical heritage practitioners—together with international heritage organizations such as UNESCO—have promoted a reconceptualization of heritage, shifting from the physical fabric of sites and objects to the living practices, meanings, and values inscribed in objects and places. This new conceptualization seeks to broaden the space for the representation of alternative histories and vernacular cultural heritage by involving local communities and cultural agencies more actively as stakeholders. Recently, several state cultural agencies in Thailand have promoted decentralization and have worked to incorporate local advocacy groups into their work. In principle, this move should help redefine the meaning and practice of heritage conservation in less rigid and more diversified terms. However, the leading heritage agency still lacks staff to monitor the conditions of historic structures and work with local communities living in and around historic sites across Thailand. With its centralized structure and limited number of specialists, the state authority takes action only when conservation conflicts become visible to the public. This means that more vernacular heritage and old towns will deteriorate before proper conservation takes place.

Conclusion The deterioration of the canal communities along the Old Chao Phraya River in Thonburi highlights the problem of the “authorized heritage discourses” in Thailand which privileges the cultural heritage of royal and elite lineages as if it were national heritage. One enduring ramification of this narrow definition of

Figure 11. Section and elevation of a house belonging to a commoner (drawn by KMUTT 4th year architecture student, Ms. Yuthika Kalayanasuko)

Figure 12. Map of scenic boat trip and perspective sketches of houses along the route of Khlong Bang Waek and Bang Luang

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

182

Worrasit Tantinipankul

For instance, there is a current problem in Bangkok’s Chinatown (Yaowarat), where the tangible and intangible heritage will be seriously impacted by the real estate development around underground mass transit stations, while in Thonburi, new mass transit stations are also under construction which will soon affect canal communities. The Ministry of Culture established provincial cultural offices and cultural councils, which should be encouraged to work with communities to safeguard historic places as well as intangible heritage, but in fact these local offices have no connection to the heritage conservation agency even though they fall under the Ministry of Culture as well. Similarly, the BMA has a planning office and district community tourism offices that can work for community heritage, but these offices rarely maintain long-term collaboration with the FAD. Today, a growing number of middle class and professional groups in Bangkok are working with local communities to recognize, revitalize, protect, and manage their heritage. Firstly, the emerging local and professional advocacy groups for historic conservation should be encouraged to work with academic institutions, and also build alliances with the private sector to respond to the rising demand for ecotourism and boutique hotels. These initiatives can bring economic benefits to local communities and small businesses, provided that they abide by proper conservation guidelines and development plans. Secondly, Thailand’s authorities involved with heritage issues should embrace new approaches to documenting historic structures that focus more on the artistic impression through architectural rendering and sketches, as these kinds of representations can foster a sense of local pride and can also be reproduced via various print and digital media to raise social awareness about heritage sites and their communities. Several methods (such as the highly detailed rendering of Vernadoc13) have been developed by academic and private institutions, with the aim of supporting local communities in their efforts to document, promote and manage their heritage in both its intangible and tangible forms. Thailand is a country rich with heritage, but clearly not all heritage can be protected and conserved. Nevertheless, the leading heritage agencies could do a lot more to support conservation and revitalization of Thailand’s diversity by reforming the legacy of the nationalistic, centralized bureaucracy responsible for conservation. These state agencies need to reinvent themselves with a more proactive approach towards working with local communities in order to understand these communities’ sense of ownership, intangible values and history.

Vernadoc or Vernacular Documentation is a process, initiated by a Finnish architect, Markku Mattilla, of collecting data on historic buildings by using simple tools and techniques but high-quality drawings. A Vernadoc drawing combines a detailed, realistic sketch along with an architectural draft for conservation. The realistic drawing brings out the value of the building and creates a sense of pride among owners. Sudjit Sananwai of Rangsit University introduced the technique in Thailand since 2007. 13

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Reconnecting Bangkok’s Heritage Landscape: Urban Waterways and the Modern City Montira Horayangura Unakul

In a city famed for being the Venice of the East, a strange urban phenomenon can be found: a housing development called the Grand Canal. Billboards advertising the residential community showcase an idyllic scene of European-inspired villas along a faux canal, bedecked with Venetian gondola hitching posts. The surreality of this situation came to a head during the Great Flood of 2011 which inundated over sixty provinces, with central Thailand bearing the brunt of the waters. The floods transformed this fantasy landscape into a nightmare of roiling water swirling about the houses and streets. A comment posted on a YouTube video of the flooding at the Grand Canal likened it to white water rapids. Whereas Bangkokians of a century ago would have sanguinely carried on with their daily lives from the dry comfort of their raised houses and paddled about on their boats, the residents of the ersatz modernday Venice of the East were reduced to panic. The flooding at Grand Canal was a particularly ironic – but by no means isolated – illustration of the very fundamental changes that have been wrought to the urban landscape of Bangkok over the past century. The 2011 flooding was a wake-up call for a country that had once experienced regular yearly floods as a matter of course, rather than as a cause for national crisis. The alarm was particularly magnified as Bangkok, often protected by government policy at the expense of other upstream provinces in previous years, could not be spared this time. Districts to the north, west and east of the city were engulfed in water. The periphery of the city, once rice paddies strung along irrigation canals which performed an important function in retaining, then draining flood water, had gradually been transformed into a hardscaped sea of built-up areas, leaving the water nowhere to go. The collective soul-searching that ensued raised probing questions about the modern landscape of the city. Once a city vaunted for its intricate network of waterways, Bangkok had gradually turned its back on this fundamental infrastructure. For its citizens, water had become a menace to be battled and canals the dreaded Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

184

Montira Horayangura Unakul

Reconnecting Bangkok’s Heritage Landscape

185

more indigenous traditions that would have allowed for an easy co-existence with the inevitable annual rising of the waters. The tradition of living with water, in the context of the modern city, had all but disappeared. This paper traces the historic evolution of Bangkok’s waterways – which form the underlying anchor for its vernacular forms of urbanism and architecture – and examines the erosion of this traditional urban vernacular, which has had disastrous consequences on the function of the city. It goes on to make some policy recommendations on means of reintegrating the canal system, not merely as an aesthetic expression of a long-gone tradition, but as an alternative for revitalizing the ecological and socio-cultural sustainability of Bangkok today and in the future.

Historical development

means for its conveyance. During the crisis, canals, long absent from public life, became a mainstay of daily government public service announcements and the object of obsessive analysis by news commentators and ordinary people. Modernday houses, built right on the ground instead of teetering on stilts, became vulnerable targets; fortifications of sandbags and improvised water barriers proved defenseless against the relentless water. So absolute was the eradication of the vernacular logic of water-side building that even in designing an ersatz canal-side community like the Grand Canal, presumably to satisfy some lingering nostalgia among consumers for canals, a completely alien notion of living by the water was preferred rather than

The founding of Bangkok was predicated upon the replication of the geopolitical template of Ayutthaya, whose urban configuration was an “island” protected on all sides by the Chao Phraya and Lopburi Rivers. The historic capital had a sophisticated system of water management. A series of parallel canals ran northsouth across the width of the island, controlled by water gates at the junctions with the rivers. Localized water features like secondary canals, moats and ponds were connected to these primary canals, serving variously for retention and drainage. Bangkok, located at a strategic ox-bow-shaped bend of the Chao Phraya River, took on a similar form through the reshaping of the natural hydrological regime. The stretch of the river that now adjoins the Grand Palace was actually dug as a canal bridging the two ends of the bend. Over time, the canal became the principal waterway. With the addition of a ring canal to demarcate the eastern flank, the recreation of the Ayutthaya urban model was complete. The resulting Rattanakosin Island, eventually ringed by a triple layer of canals with fortifications, housed the royal palace, temples, and the elite. It was originally the only area of the city where buildings were erected on solid ground. Most residential and commercial structures serving commoners were built along waterways – perched either on floating rafts or on stilts. The city retained its amphibious nature well into the late nineteenth century, with canals serving as the major circulation routes. Early “streets” were little more than rough footpaths, which bridged the numerous canals with simple planks. Early visitors to Bangkok waxed lyrical about the charm of the eastern “Venetian” city, while foreign residents decried its lack of firm ground, particularly streets. Early canals served defensive, transportation and drainage functions. With Bangkok sitting in an alluvial plain, it was originally criss-crossed by natural watercourses. The later man-made canals augmented the natural system, creating a great network throughout the central plains which facilitated water distribution for

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

Figure 1. The urban formation of Bangkok in 1870 (from Sternstein, Portrait of Bangkok)

186

Montira Horayangura Unakul

Figure 2. Early morphology of canal-side settlement

everyday use and water flow to the Gulf of Thailand in heavy rains. Approximately ten major man-made canals were dug to create short cuts along the river bends, and also to connect laterally from the Chao Phraya River to other north-south rivers.1

Modernization and the transition to roads The shift in Thailand’s economy from self-sufficient rice growing to exportoriented rice production after the signing of the Bowring Treaty of 1855 necessitated the construction of additional irrigation canals and the expansion of the agrarian land frontier. Newly-dug canals assumed a primary irrigation function, while

Reconnecting Bangkok’s Heritage Landscape

continuing to serve as transportation routes. Royal financing for the excavation was supplemented by investment from aristocrats and wealthy Chinese, vastly expanding landholdings among the landed aristocracy and officials.2 Not all tracts were immediately transformed into rice paddies. While new canals expanded the city limits into new agricultural settlements, within the city proper, canal-building and then increasingly road-building were key mechanisms structuring urban growth. The first real road, New Road (also known as Charoenkrung Road), was built in 1861 upon royal decree, running southeastwards from the riverine old city, and paralleling the river. European accounts at the time report that the king was accommodating various foreign legations who petitioned for roads where they could engage in recreational activities for salubrious effects. Most of the foreign legations and trading houses located along the river, in close proximity to New Road. A new paradigm of land development arose – with roads opening up inhabitable areas, creating new typologies of inhabitation and circulation. The modernization efforts during the reign of King Rama V saw the construction of twenty major irrigation canals outside the city core, creating the infrastructural backbone for Bangkok’s current 1240 square kilometer total metropolitan area. Canals such as Mahasawasdi and Rachapimol on the western bank of the river, and Rangsit and Prakhanong on the eastern side created a regional transportation and irrigation network.3 A new canal, Sawadpremprachakorn, provided a connection between the upstream former capital of Ayutthaya and Bangkok, which were historically linked primarily by the river itself, thus creating new inter-municipal linkages through the reclaimed agricultural land.4 In the city itself, the canal took on new forms and meanings as, increasingly, road-building and road-based development gained currency. Padung Krung Kasem Canal was dug as the third layer around Rattanakosin Island – doubling the urban area. Unlike in the past where the outer ring canal served as a moat, marking the de facto edge between formal settlement and extramural informal settlement, this last ring canal did not function as a hard edge, but rather as another circulation route in the expanding new urban landscape. Both within the expanded city and outside the third ring canal, road-building grew rapidly. In addition to Charoenkrung Road, Fuang Nakhon Road and Bamrung Muang Roads were built. The northeast stretch of the original city wall was taken down, and the new royal compound at Dusit was constructed within a regularly gridded plan. Monumental boulevards, based on Baroque urban exemplars, were built as axes between new European-style government and royal complexes. At times the construction of roads and canals went hand-in-hand. In the case of Bangrak Denpaiboon, “Transformation by Modernization”, 2–15. Bunnag et al, Canals in Bangkok, map 4. 4 Ibid. 2 3

1

Bunnag et al, Canals in Bangkok, 21. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

187

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

188

Montira Horayangura Unakul

Reconnecting Bangkok’s Heritage Landscape

(Silom) Canal southeast of the ancient city, the excavated dirt for the canal provided the fill material for a parallel road running along the waterway. In addition to constructing more roads, King Rama V encouraged the introduction of the first railway in 1891 and electrified tramways in 1894, and also subsidized a new bridge for each succeeding year of his reign. At the same time, the enactment of land ownership rights by the king encouraged residents to move from the water to newly-available plots of land by canals or new roads. The spread of water-borne diseases led to the introduction of new regulations for canal inhabitation and use. These included the Canal Fee Act (1870), which banned the discharge of human waste into the canals and introduced taxation on raft houses, and the Thai Territorial Waters Navigation Act (1903) which regulated the size and mooring locations of raft houses.5 By 1900, Bangkok’s built-up area covered some thirteen square kilometers, with development spreading rapidly, but at low densities, beyond the old city wall. The first bridge across the river, Phra Buddha Yodfa Bridge, was not built until 1932, so growth was concentrated on the eastern side of the city. Furthermore, the Boat Mooring Control Act (1936) made illegal the mooring of any craft, including raft houses, for more than three days, spelling the end of canal dwelling in the capital city, leading to the transfer into stilt houses on land.

Post-War road-based boom Urban growth began to pick up after World War II and exploded in the 1960s, with new development clustering densely along new road infrastructure corridors. As Thailand stepped into a new development paradigm emphasizing industrialization, Bangkok’s role shifted from an administrative and cultural center surrounded by agricultural production, to a political and cultural center and locus of industrialized economic production, adding to its primacy. At the same time, the rise of private vehicular ownership began to supplant mass transit usage on trams or by boat, which had confined urban expansion in the past. These structural changes seemed to necessitate the corollary of road-based development, remaking Bangkok’s urban identity again. Furthermore, the shift to roads was absolute – rendering canals physically and notionally peripheral to the new mapping of Bangkok. As agricultural activity in the immediate area of the city declined, so did the importance of canals. As the economic structure shifted to industry and services, jobs moved away from the canalstructured agricultural land to factories and shops “in town”. As real estate boomed, agricultural land was converted into new housing and commercial development which was accessed by streets. Canal traffic dwindled, canal communities grew physically and socially marginal, and canals themselves were paved over, blocked 5

Denpaiboon, “Transformation by Modernization”, 3-6. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Figure 3. The expansion of the waterway network: Bangkok in 1901 (from Sternstein, Portrait of Bangkok)

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

189

190

Montira Horayangura Unakul

Reconnecting Bangkok’s Heritage Landscape

1960 1960

1970 1970

1980 1980

1990 1990

Figure 4. Bangkok’s rapid post-war growth (from Bangkok Plan)

by gates, or left as conduits for sewage and stormwater drainage. As the network was locally eradicated one area at a time, the functioning of the entire system of water movement was destroyed, creating stretches of stagnant water that only exacerbated the decline and abandonment of canals. If canals were not physically erased from the planning map, they were otherwise treated as practically invisible. New major roads loosely paralleled major canals to some extent, but outside of the historic city center, no effort was made to cut roads immediately adjacent to canals or to find a way for the two systems to meet or intersect in a bivalent way. Heavy government spending to upgrade the Bangkok metropolitan area, private investment responding to the expanding metropolitan market, better road networks, and technological advances that allowed for the erection of mid- and high-rise buildings all contributed to the rapid economic and physical growth of the city.6 With rapid expansion, and no longer anchored around the historic core, Bangkok grew into a city with multiple nuclei, linked primarily by roads, while maintaining its historic pattern of undifferentiated land use. In the 1960s, new highdensity residential areas located along five major roadways: Sathorn/Nang Linchee, Ploenchit/Sukhumvit, Patiphat, Lat Phrao, and Din Daeng. Likewise, commercial development, primarily in mixed-use shophouse form, lined every new street. At 6

Vichit-Vadakan et al, Urbanization in the Bangkok Central Region, 31. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

191

many points in the city the linear commercial strips intersected to form nodes.7 The southeastern and northern corridors from the city were increasingly densely occupied, with a high concentration of subdivisions as well as industrial estates. The Eastern Seaboard industrial development zone, which took off in the late 1980s, triggered both residential and commercial development to the east. Of the 16 million square meters of residential development for which permits were issued between 1991 and 1993, over two-thirds were located on the eastern edge of the city. Commercial development was split evenly between the inner city and the eastern suburbs, following residential growth and new consumer markets.8 At the same time, the northern corridor was opened up with the expansion of Don Muang International Airport and the upgrade of north-south arterials and expressways. The construction of more bridges across the Chao Phraya River to Thonburi also encouraged growth on the western side of the city. By the mid-1990s, up to 3 million people were estimated to commute to the eastern side each day.9 The MIT-proposed Bangkok Plan (1992) pointed out that major arterial roads and expressways have had such an important impact on physical development in part because the local streets do not follow a clear pattern, lack capacity and connectivity. Roads in Bangkok account for only 8 percent of total land area, in comparison to the more typical 20–25 percent found in other cities. Road length per capita is also low – 0.6 meters, well under ten times lower than in American cities, and lower than other Asian cities too. Major roads (arterials, distributors, secondary roads) account for 980 kilometers, while small local access roads, which are typically no more than two lanes wide and do not connect, account for 2800 kilometers.10 Major roads are constructed by the state, while the secondary street network is often built by private land developers. This prevents a pre-planned fabric with a clear hierarchy of interconnected streets. The secondary street network serves only local circulation functions – moving people from the main arterial road into the depths of the secondary streets. There is rarely connection through to another main street at the back, resulting in secondary streets which dead-end – surprisingly often, at a canal edge. The disconnected network has resulted in “ribbon development” and concentrated traffic volume along major transportation corridors extending radially out from the city center. Dense commercial activity that serves a city-wide catchment area lines the main street. Moving into the flanking fabric, localized pockets of development (scattered residential, retail, and slums) typically extend either along dead-end streets or in a loose network behind the main arterial. This pattern leaves wide swathes of land in between main streets undeveloped, and the secondary street Sternstein, Portrait of Bangkok, 124. EEC-BMA Urban Planning Team, Trends in Office Building Construction. 9 Bangkok Plan, 7. 10 Poboon, Bangkok: Anatomy of a Traffic Disaster, 14. 7 8

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

192

Montira Horayangura Unakul

Reconnecting Bangkok’s Heritage Landscape

193

DNA. Some 864 canals are still left, constituting an infrastructural filigree totaling some 1890 kilometers in length.11 However, for the reasons described earlier, many of these canals no longer serve the full range of their original functions. Today, they mostly serve as part of the surface drainage system, sewerage and wastewater drainage, and to a lesser extent, as part of the transportation system. In the outlying areas of Bangkok, the canals also continue to provide irrigation functions. Incompatible modern infrastructure has hampered the drainage capacity of canals as originally designed. Moreover, the new pattern of road-based building has turned its back on the canals, resulting in socio-spatial marginalization from outside (through the lack of purposive engagement), and from within (through the ensuing decline of canal-side settlements themselves). The result is a whole network of lowdensity green belts lining the canals, often housing pockets of historic settlements that have deteriorated into slums. However, their seeming abandonment belies their continuing importance in structuring the city. The morphological development of infrastructure and settlement in Bangkok arose through the conversion of agricultural land, which was organized precisely around the canals. Present-day land holding patterns, roadways, drainage routes, and even political boundaries are more often than not informed by a historic waterway. When the underlying geographical and morphological structure is not respected, then problems, such as prolonged flooding, will follow. This underlying waterway logic that governs the city, albeit silently, coupled with the sheer amount of open space along the canals, present a tremendous opportunity for strategic engagement with a view towards sustainable urban growth. A revitalization of the partially defunct canal system could provide a means to address several of Bangkok’s municipal needs, namely by: • Improving environmental quality and resilience to flooding • Increasing green areas and open space network • Easing urban transit congestion with supplementary canal-based transport • Creating alternative opportunities for infill development served by canal transit • Promoting the viability of historic canal communities

Figure 5. Modern urban morphology with new developments concentrated along roadways instead of waterways

network underused for through traffic. The undeveloped land hemmed in by road-based development is often traversed by canals. In some cases, the access into such areas remains water-based. In other cases, access is limited to pedestrian paths off the road network. Rarely is this in-between fabric accessible by roads.

Canals today: challenges and opportunities In spite of all the changes outlined above, the residual canal network of Bangkok still remains extensive, a testament to how deeply it is embedded in the city’s Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Improving environmental quality and resilience to flooding The drainage regime of Bangkok is inextricably tied to the underlying canal system, which historically discharged both wastewater as well as surface storm water. The debilitation of these dual functions, particularly the latter one, became 11

Denpaiboon, “Transformation by Modernization”, 2–23. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

194

Montira Horayangura Unakul

Reconnecting Bangkok’s Heritage Landscape

195

painfully apparent during the Great Flood of 2011. The majority of Bangkok’s canals run east-west, draining into the Chao Phraya River in the heart of Bangkok, into the Tha Chin River on the Thonburi side, and into the Bangpakong River on the eastern side. Later canals excavated to irrigate new agricultural land on the eastern side of the city run north-south, draining into the Gulf of Thailand. In the past, when the annual rainy season or occasional flood resulted in inundation throughout the delta, the water was gradually absorbed by the permeable ground surface and slowly discharged through the canal network into the rivers or the Gulf. As houses were elevated on stilts and transportation was largely

of water gates, locks and pumping stations. Water gates located at the canal outlets, in particular, mechanize the water exchange, replacing the natural system of tides, flooding and gradual subsidence. The heavy intervention, requiring a technologyand capital- intensive approach, has fundamentally altered the function of the canal system as originally designed. The drainage function of the remaining canal system has been greatly compromised by a decrease in the canals’ capacity, coupled with an increase in surface run-off. Many inner-city canals have been filled in to accommodate new road lanes, with open channels being replaced by piped drainage. The remaining canals have essentially not been improved or expanded from their early urbanized

Figure 7. Canals are relegated to the backs of buildings, unlike in the past

by boat, such periodic inundations were accommodated as part of daily life, and indeed served a vital role in rice-growing. Even after the gradual transformation of the city starting at the turn of the last century, the canals still continued to perform their drainage functions relatively efficiently using a natural system of gravity flow and tidal changes. In the modern context of Bangkok, hydrological control is no longer left to natural forces but is actively regulated, with water levels, tidal flow, and water exchange (particularly with saline water) in the canal network being monitored and controlled by municipal authorities. The control is accomplished through a system

condition, while maintenance in the form of routine dredging is spotty, unlike in the Netherlands where canal and dike upkeep is of utmost priority. The habit of constructing roads in the path of canals has further blocked drainage flows. Together, these factors have decreased the system’s capacity for dealing with surface run-off water. At the same time, the rapid urbanization of the city has led to a concomitant increase in impervious surfaces, creating heavier volumes of surface run-off, which then overtax the drainage system, resulting in flooding. To address this problem of inadequate drainage, the capacity of the canals could be increased, through an improved regime of periodic dredging or expansion where appropriate. Careful planning of new infrastructure to ensure that existing drainage gradients and waterways are not blocked would maximize the flow of water through

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

Figure 6. The canal network today. The canals in bold are served by water transit

196

Montira Horayangura Unakul

Reconnecting Bangkok’s Heritage Landscape

historic conduits. Increasing permeable ground cover could help. After the 2011 floods, architects proposed designing contemporary buildings which would provide open space at the ground level for water to be retained or else absorbed. Combined with a system of retention ponds, these measures could help to deal with flooding in a manner which is more effective and more attuned to the underlying topographical and morphological reality of Bangkok. The other function of canals as conduits for wastewater dates back to the very first urban settlements. Today, much of the city’s wastewater comes from domestic sources, with industrial wastewater accounting for a quarter of the total discharge volume. While this use has given rise to the unsavory appearance and foul smell of many canals today, in fact, the public health problem was even more acute in the past since the canals also served at that time as the main source of domestic water for drinking, bathing and washing. Various regulations passed in the late 1800s tried to control direct discharge into the water, with limited success. In the ensuing century, the infrastructure for wastewater collection has not improved much, though a separate water supply system now exists. A large volume of wastewater continues to be discharged directly without treatment into the canals and the Chao Phraya River. Bangkok now has only seven sewage treatment plants, treating a combined total volume of 992,000 cubic meters per day serving 12 percent of the total area and 40 percent of the total population,12 up from 420,000 cubic meters per day a decade ago when the system was only capable of serving a mere 42 square kilometers and 1,320,000 people.13 The plants mostly serve the heavily populated districts that line the eastern flank of the river, leaving the majority of the western districts and the rapidly growing suburbs under-serviced. The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration’s Department of Drainage and Sewerage has also been working on a system of interceptor pipes running along canals and surface drains to collect wastewater in already developed areas. This strategy for separating wastewater is the cheapest and easiest to implement, although occasional contamination may be a problem. The discharge of sewage and effluents, coupled with the disposal of trash, has led to high pollution levels in most of the canals. A UNEP study of canal water quality demonstrated, on the basis of 661 sampling points around the city, that most canals fell within the Category 5 standard which indicates that canal water can be used for transportation purposes only. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels were less than 2mg/l, falling short of minimum Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) levels of 4 mg/l.14 The resulting odor, murky water and lack of oxygen kills aquatic life and degrades the overall canal environment. Pollution abatement is primarily contingent on the comprehensive implementation of infrastructure for sewage collection and treatment.

In part, the decline in canal conditions is due to their lack of use. Reviving water traffic and other daily functions would help to aerate the water, reducing the growth of anaerobic bacteria. Experiments show that after water shuttles were re-introduced along certain canals, with water movement and constant agitation from the outboard motors, the concentration of bacteria dropped by up to 30 percent. Finally, community stewardship can be mobilized to ameliorate the canals. The limited interaction of most Bangkok residents with the canals has led to waning concern with the downstream effects of careless actions such as improper trash disposal. This attitude only hastens the deterioration of canal conditions, which becomes a self-reinforcing vicious cycle. In order to combat lack of public awareness, there is an urgent need for education and outreach efforts. In addition to general public relations efforts, a more effective strategy would be to create expanded usage of the waterways so people would have more opportunities to interact with the canals on a more regular basis, with the hope that greater public awareness could then lead to a stronger stewardship ethic. Such programs include an open space network, transit, housing and other urban uses.

Visvanathan, Present Status of Sewage Dissemination, 10. Bangkok Plan, 89. 14 http://www.gpa.unep.org/igr/Reports/THAILAND.htm. 12

Increasing green areas and open space network Bangkok has the dubious distinction of being among the megacities with the least amount of park land (0.21 percent of total urbanized land area) and the lowest amount of park space per person (an average of 0.46 square meters for each of its 9 million registered inhabitants).15 Even cities with seemingly similar levels of congestion out-perform Bangkok – New York has 19.2 square meters of park per resident, and even Tokyo has 3.7 square meters of park per resident. The net area of park space alone is not the only problem. Bangkok’s recreational open space tends to be concentrated in a few large parks, with no even distribution throughout the city by a system of district or neighborhood parks. Moreover, the existing large parks are located either in the city core or on the outskirts of town, limiting convenient access given the traffic congestion. The quality of air in Bangkok, the terrible condition of its sidewalks, and the paucity of community centers (other than temples or schools) mean that most recreational activity, especially exercising, is almost entirely limited to the parks, making the need for them even more pressing. In addition to the larger parks such as Lumpini Park, Chatuchak Park and Rama IX Park, several smaller urban parks have been inaugurated in the past twenty years, including Benjasiri Park (converted from the old national meteorology center) and Rangnam Park, which occupy less than five hectares and are located in dense commercial or residential areas. Sited near major roads, they are also easily

13

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

197

15

Bangkok Plan, 105. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

198

Montira Horayangura Unakul

Reconnecting Bangkok’s Heritage Landscape

accessible by public transit and by foot, but not so accessible by car, given their lack of parking. These welcome additions reflect the on-going efforts of the Bangkok Metropolitan Authority to increase the city’s green recreational space, at least at the regional and district levels. However, neighborhood parks still remain under-provided in the city. Moreover, the current park system is mainly aimed at meeting recreational needs. It does not yet utilize the city’s existing green infrastructure to provide enhanced ecological connectivity or functions. For instance, parks could be deployed as part of a flood control mechanism which employs the city’s open spaces to direct and retain water as part of the overall hydrological regime. The connections which would be necessary for such a system to function would require the creation of a series of linked parks and parkways. Planning parks as part of an integrated recreational and ecological management system can leverage existing parks and shape future green space development, with greater benefits to the entire city. The difficulty in acquiring land, given the intense competition for more remunerative urbanized uses, is one of the main limitations in creating new green spaces. Admittedly, choice parcels of an adequate size, in the desired underserved location, and with adequate transportation and infrastructure linkages, are increasingly rare. With occasional exceptions, even land held by the government is not readily made available for such public uses. The proposal here is to consider the natural green network in the city – the waterways and their attached lands. Making neighborhood pocket parks by selective conversion of the agricultural parcels and vacant lots which line the city’s canals would create an amenity literally in the back yards of many residents. The underutilization of these sites makes them more affordable for park land than road-side sites. By channeling surface run-off or other greywater through the parks into the canals, and encouraging a regular maintenance program through on-going use, the functioning of the canals as the drainage vessels for the city would be re-established. The waterways would become the green arteries that anchor nodes of park space, which might be programmed with complementary and different functions as dictated by the circumstances of each neighborhood. The connection along the waterways could be relatively easily enhanced through improved pedestrian or bicycle paths and canal transportation. Such non-vehicular modes of transit could help ease Bangkok’s gridlock to some extent.

create distorted incentives for car ownership. Meanwhile, the inconvenience, slow traffic speed, and poor maintenance of the bus network, the major and most extensive public transportation system, hastens the desire to “trade up” towards car ownership. Moreover, the prestige of car ownership creates a self-reinforcing situation in which transportation modes become segregated along class lines, and car ownership becomes an important indicator of perceived upward mobility. As a result, car ownership rates in Bangkok are the highest in Asia and 51 percent of trips are made by private vehicle.16 On the supply side, Bangkok has fewer roads per capita than other cities in Asia or in the world. At the regional level, the completion of new bridges across the river in recent years, the final stages of the expressway network, and new tollways and motorways heading north and east have eased longer-distance commuting and bypass movement around the city. However, within the city core, the road supply still falls short of ever-increasing demand. As critical as the total road length is the configuration of the road network. The main highways and arterials are planned and constructed by the public sector, with some coordination with future growth patterns. However, there is no planning or public financing for the local access road network. This has resulted in a web of dead-end narrow secondary streets (typically no more than two lanes wide) which do not connect with each other. Unlike in a gridded road network, where traffic volume is distributed along alternative routes, in Bangkok the primary roadways are constantly overloaded, resulting in heavy congestion. This morphological problem of the disconnected road network is endemic throughout the city. Better coordination and planning could help avoid this situation in future development areas. However, in already built up areas, the cost and logistics make the task of introducing secondary streets impossible. The intractable headache of surface transportation makes a strong case for distributing the commuting load through alternative modes of transportation, especially those that are not road-based. The success of various other forms of transportation depends on the level of coordination with each other and with roadbased transportation, which will still remain the primary mode of circulation in the foreseeable future. The Seventh and Eighth National Plans (1992–96 and 1997– 2001) placed a priority on shifting away from road and expressway projects in favor of investing in comprehensive mass rapid transit systems for Bangkok. The recent experiment with dedicated bus lanes along Rama III Road has had some success in improving bus speed, but at the expense of the other lanes of traffic. Other forms of mass transit include the elevated train, which came online in 1999, the subway which started operations in 2004, and various forms of water-based transit on the Chao Phraya River and canals.

Easing urban transit congestion with supplementary canal-based transport Bangkok’s notorious traffic results from too many cars squeezed onto a road network which is inadequate and disconnected. On the demand side, free and easily available parking, subsidized fuel, and the relative ease of obtaining car financing Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

16

Bangkok Plan, 59. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

199

200

Montira Horayangura Unakul

Reconnecting Bangkok’s Heritage Landscape

201

The viability of water-based transport is most obviously seen with the express Chao Phraya River shuttle, which arguably provides the most rapid form of northsouth transportation in the city. Large ferries that can seat about 200 passengers run from Yannawa, below the Sathorn

multi-modal point (i.e., where a boat stop meets a bus stop) or between nearby destinations (i.e., school to home). In such canals, some water-side pattern of life may be maintained, with local residents owning private boats and maintaining private boat landings in front of houses or shops. On the west bank of the river in less-highly urbanized Thonburi, where agrarian land is still prevalent, a more extensive system of canals is still in use, not only for public water transit, but also for private boating.

Figure 8. Canals provide a green respite in the heart of the historic city (photo: the author)

Bridge in Bangkok, upstream to Nonthaburi, stopping on both the east and west banks of the river en route. The shuttle is supplemented by local ferries that cross the river at certain heavily populated points. On the Thonburi side, it also connects with canal shuttle boats that ply local routes further inland. However, on the Bangkok side, there are no river-to-canal connections. Once they disembark, boat riders typically connect to the bus, taxis, motorcycle shuttles or the elevated train. The current use of canals as transport routes falls well below the potential of the existing physical network which is quite extensive. Shuttle boats operate only in 21 major canals, providing skeletal coverage of the city and lacking secondary routes for more local circulation. On the east bank, one main route runs east-west (mostly on Saensaeb Canal), connecting to two other lines going north towards the old airport (along Ladprao Canal) and east towards the new airport (Prawet Buriram Canal). Along these main trunk lines, the boats are run by private concessionaires, and only stop at designated landings maintained by the Port Authority. These larger canals snake through highly dense urbanized areas, where much of the earlier canal-facing settlement has been replaced by office or residential towers and other intensive uses. On smaller canals with less through traffic, independent shuttles operate on a more local basis, providing short-distance trips from a transit

These localized water transit services point the way forward for more extensive mobilization of canal transport as feeder routes and for short-distance commuting trips that supplement main public transit such as buses. Given that the canal system is not fully interconnected at the scale of the entire city, the use of canals for long-haul cross-town connections has limitations. Furthermore, due to the operation of water gates, not all canals are passable, limiting the possibility of cross-town connections to a small handful of routes. However, since many inner-city Bangkok neighborhoods are located between a road at one end and a canal at the other, accessibility to canal transit is possible to a certain degree. Instead of competing with the other forms of private and public transportation, canal transport would be most effectively deployed as a supplementary system of para-transit. In terms of shorter-distance routes, canal transit should build on its strengths, in particular the rapid travel speeds possible by its unimpeded right of way, verdant open spaces, and access to historic structures. This framework suggests creating additional canal routes to serve local neighborhood commuting needs, to provide district-level recreational and historic trails, and to link to other city-wide forms of transit.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

202

Montira Horayangura Unakul

Reconnecting Bangkok’s Heritage Landscape

203

Creating alternative opportunities for infill development served by canal transit Since the development boom of the 1960s, heavy government spending in infrastructure, better road networks, speculative private investment, and construction advances that allowed for the erection of mid- and high-rise buildings have contributed to densification of the city center and tremendous expansion of the periphery.17 As large-scale developers became more active from the 1970s onwards, housing production densified in two locations, specifically: the inner core and the outer suburbs (11–20 kilometers outside the city).18 Housing in the inner core has been dominated by high-rises, mostly aimed at the middle- to high-end market. Between 1986 and 1990 alone, over 500 condominium towers were constructed, located mainly in major urban corridors like Sukhumvit Road. In the same time period, the percentage of high-rise condominiums as a share of the total housing market jumped from two percent to 43 percent of new units, while single-family houses dropped to 30 percent and townhouses fell to 20 percent.19 Building dense up-market high-rises allows the acquisition and development of expensive city-center parcels to be profitable. The real estate boom in the early 1990s (which went spectacularly bust in the 1997 crisis), led to high-rise towers mushrooming all over the city, so that opportunities for such dense citycenter developments have become increasingly more difficult. Readily developable vacant parcels with suitable vehicular access and infrastructure are rare and prohibitively expensive, leading Bangkok to follow the footsteps of Hong Kong in the redevelopment of already dense parcels into even “higher and better” uses. Moreover, with scores of half-built towers haunting Bangkok’s skyline, access to financing for such projects has become much more stringent. However, there are some encouraging signs of continued demand – real estate statistics show that the downtown residential market has continued to grow steadily. With the hiatus of construction projects post-1997, this demand indicates an under-served and pent-up market for urban housing. Meanwhile, the city’s periphery has been transformed even more dramatically. From 1974 to 1988, agricultural land was rapidly converted to urban uses, with about half of new urban development ending up for residential purposes, pointing to the important impact of housing development on the form of urban growth. New development has clustered densely along highway and arterial corridors. The early suburbs took the form of detached or semi-detached housing. As land prices rose, developers turned to building more intensively, constructing smaller detached units, townhouses and condominiums. The more modestly sized and priced units then became affordable to a burgeoning middle class.

Figure 9. Existing transportation networks in Bangkok

17

Changes in family structure and the rise of the middle class have led to sustained demand for new housing. In the 1970s the tradition of extended family living gave way to a new pattern of newly-married couples moving away from parental homes in the inner urban core out to new subdivisions. In the boom of the 1980s and 1990s, an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 new dwelling units were needed each year to meet the demand of 150,000 to 200,000 new residents.20 Until 1997, the growing middle class enjoyed strong purchasing power and high mobility, which translated into a ready market, mostly for suburban housing. In the aftermath of the crisis, housing demand has continued to surge as Bangkok’s population grows from a combination of migration and internal growth. Development continues to move further afield, to peripheral areas with easier road access and opportunities to acquire large-scale land plots.21 In the absence of metropolitan planning, unrestrained private development has led to a haphazard pattern of land conversion, assembly and development. The result is non-contiguous and leapfrog development, which makes it more expensive and more difficult to provide infrastructure, precisely when higher-densities make such services more critical than ever. Most suburbs are not well-served by public transit, exacerbating the rise in car ownership and consequently congestion. Bangkok is not unlike other metropolitan areas that face the complicated problems of sprawl, with its relentless conversion of agricultural land, steadfast

18

20

Vichit-Vadakan et al, Urbanization in the Bangkok Central Region, 31. Dowall, A Second Look at the Bangkok Land and Housing Market, 15. 19 Ibid., 35. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

21

Ibid., 2. Ibid., 42. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

204

Montira Horayangura Unakul

Reconnecting Bangkok’s Heritage Landscape

205

reliance on automobility, and patently unsustainable growth patterns and resource consumption. Unlike in North America where many downtown areas have hollowed out, there is still strong demand for living in downtown Bangkok. In this case, the option of urban infill development seems a logical alternative. However, redeveloping existing road-side buildings is wasteful of resources in the form of the physical building stock and the accumulation of social capital and meaning, and also destroys the historic continuity of the city. Meanwhile, struggling to find and develop vacant plots is equally problematic since they are mostly small, if available at all. However, a ready source of available land continues to exist, if a different urban development paradigm is considered: the canal sides. As discussed above, there are vacant parcels along the lengths of Bangkok’s canals – some quite deep and wide, and others more shallow and linear along the waterways. Thus far, they have been little developed in modern times since road access has not been constructed to access

such as elementary schools and grocery stores, it becomes possible to reduce cumbersome outside commutes, while creating a sense of community, not unlike the nature of earlier canal-side settlements. Since the canal-side sites are still not in much demand, they are relatively affordable in comparison to similar road-side sites. As a result, it will be possible to develop a range of housing and commercial building types, instead of constructing just mid- to high-end high-rises, which is increasingly the development norm in the city center where land prices necessitate maximizing the built-up space. With lower financial pressure at the canal-sides, having a diverse mix of housing and retail options will allow for social adjacencies to occur in a way which is not possible by the spatial separation of different demographic groups into dispersed areas of the city. In this way, a more diverse range of residents will be able to share the amenities of the proposed canal-side developments.

Figure 10. Canal-side living (photo: the author) Figure 11. A neighborhood hub along the Prakhanong canal (photo: the author)

such blind spots. Some of these sites could be connected as part of a green open space network. In other cases, they could be developed for housing and other uses. If vehicular access is made possible, or alternative modes of transport are provided, then the option of developing these sites becomes a very real and tempting one. In particular, making the connection between future land use and transit would create a new model for urban infill development in lieu of privileging only sites with road access. As part of a holistic strategy, reviving water transit while encouraging canal-side property development would maximize the chances of success of both. On the one hand, a ready commuter market is created by locating housing or commercial activity next to the canals. On the other hand, the new development also becomes viable and attractive, with both in-town locations as well as alternative forms of transport that would allow commuters to by-pass the traffic-clogged roads. Moreover, the new canal-side developments will stand a better chance of flourishing if they respect Bangkok’s dominant pattern of mixed land uses. By developing canal sites around existing amenities, and adding needed local services

The physical isolation of canals has consequently led to their social and economic decline as well. Many canal-side settlements today are low-income informal communities. Their provenance varies. Some are vestigial remnants of the original agricultural settlements which were located when the land was first claimed for rice or fruit farming. Some are home to rural emigrants who have come to Bangkok in search of jobs and now squat on municipal or private land. Other areas have a history as distinct communities that were granted rights to settle a certain area, either with or without formal land titles. For instance, the contested Ban Khrua community is a Muslim community whose roots along the Saen Saeb Canal date back around two hundred years when they were settled by royal land grant. Likewise, there is no one generalizable pattern of canal-side settlements in physical terms. The buildings range in typology and condition, with wooden sheds located adjacent to elaborate teakwood houses or modern reinforced concrete

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

Promoting the viability of historic canal communities

206

Montira Horayangura Unakul

Figure 12. The current disconnection between the road and canal systems presents both a challenge as well as a future opportunity

buildings with generous front lawns. Many settlements retain a collection of vernacular architecture which is today rare to find. These include wooden shophouses with wide frontages and walkways, the occasional traditional raised house of the Central Plains style, and later gabled houses with wooden fretwork fascia boards. As these kinds of buildings are mostly unlisted on national registers of archaeological heritage, they are subject to being demolished or treated in ways that diminish their authenticity. Like many other informal communities, the canal settlements often lack a full complement of urban amenities, in addition to being physically segregated from the rest of the city. Water, garbage collection, street lighting, electricity, sewage, phone booths, and mail delivery may not be available, along with the absence of roads, sidewalks, public transit, and parking. If they do exist, they may have been provided in an ad hoc way, and are often not as complete or at the same scale as in more formally developed areas of the city. Yet these downscaled amenities provide a critical level of service which allows the communities to continue to function. Moreover, the maintenance of local institutions such as schools, temples, local retail and para-transit has given these communities a vibrancy and level of interaction which are often missing in other areas of the city. Encouraging modern canal-side infill development in a manner that is sensitive to the pre-existing historic communities would provide a means not only for re-connecting them physically, but also for rewiring them back into Bangkok’s social and economic networks, thus providing these communities the possibility to be sustained in the future. By providing needed amenities like green spaces to Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Reconnecting Bangkok’s Heritage Landscape

207

serve the city at large, these once-neglected communities would become more livable, accessible and attractive as destinations. By providing better transportation connections and improved local urban amenities like connected pedestrian paths along the canal edges and improved sewerage systems, the living conditions for existing communities will be improved. Moreover, promoting mixed use development will increase local economic development opportunities, which will allow existing local residents access to a wider range of livelihood options even in their immediate neighborhood. The retention and integration of the existing communities and their houses and community institutions into new development projects allow them to escape the constant threat of whole-sale removal, displacement and replacement. Historic houses, stores, schools, gardens, religious institutions and infrastructure like public boat landings should be retained alongside new developments. This would allow the maintenance of distinctive forms of vernacular water-side townscapes and buildings, nowadays no longer being constructed, along with the attendant social networks and traditions which sustained these communities. Hopefully this strategy would help bring new life to the canals, by respecting and harnessing the energy of the existing communities, and creating continuity with the historical physical and social fabric of the canals.

Future possibilities The lessons from the 2011 floods underscored the folly of urban development that fails to adequately take into account the underlying ecological and morphological context, in particular, the backbone of urban waterways which have played a key role in the past for drainage, transport and communication and thus constitute the fundamental basis for the city’s heritage landscape. With a generation of urban dwellers more interested in fake canals and canal heritage theme parks rather than the real thing, valorizing Bangkok’s urban waterways has become more of a challenge than ever. Yet, as this paper proposes, the canal system, if properly reinvigorated, has rich potential in many ways – as an important part of the urban water management system which is well-attuned to the environmental rhythms of the Chao Phraya delta, as a potential site of green spaces, as an alternative means of urban transport, as a location for urban infill, and as a repository of the city’s vernacular built heritage and associated traditions in the form of historic communities. That said, the strategy proposed in this paper is not appropriate along all of the city’s canals. Certainly, only a subset will have the necessary ingredients to augur success: relatively sound environmental conditions; remaining social and physical landmarks and hubs; navigability by water and the possibility to connect to other existing forms of transport; and proximity to job centers, schools, retail, and recreational areas. Even if the strategy proves successful, it would not be a panacea for all of Bangkok’s urban ills. What the proposal does do, however, is to raise Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

208

Montira Horayangura Unakul

the possibility of working within the logic and vocabulary of the neglected historic urban landscape of the city in a way that leaves the canals renewed and Bangkok’s waterside traditions revitalized in a manner appropriate to the complexities of the contemporary city.

References Bangkok Plan: A Vision for the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Area, 19952005. Discussion Draft. Cambridge, MA: MIT, January 1996. Bunnag, Piyanant, Duangporn Nopkum and Suwattana Thadaniti. Canals in Bangkok: History, Changes and their Impact (1782 AD-1982 AD). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University, 1982. (in Thai) Denpaiboon, Chaweewan. “Transformation by Modernization of the Traditional Waterfront Settlements in the Context of their Coexistence with the Aquatic Environment: A Case Study of Raft Houses and Pillar Houses in Thailand.” Kyoto University. Dissertation. 2001. Dowall, David. A Second Look at the Bangkok Land and Housing Market. Berkeley: IURD, November 1990. EEC-BMA Urban Planning Team. Trends in Office Building Construction: 19911993. (Report). 15 May 1995. Poboon, Chamlong et al. Bangkok: Anatomy of a Traffic Disaster. Perth: Murdoch University, 1995. Sternstein, Larry. Portrait of Bangkok. Bangkok: Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, 1982. Vichit-Vadakan, Vinyu et al. Urbanization in the Bangkok Central Region. Bangkok: University Research Associates, 1976. Visvanathan, C. Present Status of Sewage Dissemination in Thailand and the Applicability of UASB-DHS to Thailand. 2011. Retrieved January 2013. http:// www.faculty.ait.ac.th/visu/pdfs/AIT-TOHOKU.pdf

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

The Crypto-Colonial Dilemmas of Rattanakosin Island Michael Herzfeld

It is now over a decade and a half since Marc Askew published an influential critique of the rise of heritage discourse in Bangkok (Askew 1996). In an argument that reverberates sympathetically with my own critique of modernist planning a decade later (Herzfeld 2006), he suggests that the current planning regime has chosen to ignore existing, on-the-ground social arrangements in favor of a Westernderived and locally unappealing concept of “heritage,” now officially enshrined in state discourse as moradok haeng chaat (“national heritage”). While the term is etymologically cognate with the Lao moladok, its exponents in Thailand have never succeeded in promoting its potentially affective appeal in the way that has made significant inroads in the Lao consciousness (Berliner 2010). In order to understand why the concept has so little appeal and how its implications nonetheless suffuse current urban politics in Bangkok, I propose in this brief exploration to address some key issues both from the intimate perspective of ethnographic research and through the telescopic lens of trans-national comparison. Through this typically anthropological convergence of apparently opposed viewpoints, I hope to tease out some traces of the key dynamics so long obscured by the myopic grandiloquence of formal historiography. The conceptual dilemmas and practical difficulties of promoting the idea of a national heritage in Thailand are exemplified in Rattanakosin Island, where the imposing plans envisaged for the area’s reconstruction have been mired in bureaucratic foot-dragging, inter-agency rivalry, contradictions within the legal provisions for eminent domain and expropriation, and popular resistance. Some of the official dreaming has simply been unrealistic, as in the continuing promotion of Ratchadamnoen Avenue as the “Champs-Elysées of Asia,” a throwback to the Phibun era (Wong 2006: 65) that was revived with considerable enthusiasm by Thaksin Shinawatra. That naked instance of emulation of the West, taken in contrast to the ongoing threat to the vernacular (as opposed to royal and religious) architecture of earlier times, would seem to suggest that an attitude of disdain for poor Thai Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

210

Michael Herzfeld

The Crypto-Colonial Dilemmas of Rattanakosin Island

211

communities and the uncritical embrace of “Western” models of town planning and design are two sides of the same coin. But what do the attitudes that have shaped the official face of the area look like from the perspective of people who actually live there? There is little to suggest that these people – who represent a complex mixture of classes, religions (Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, and Christians as well as Buddhists), and ethnic and regional backgrounds – evince any disaffection from the official rhetoric of Thai national identity. Rather, they dispute the moral authority of its current representatives. Residents of some of the poorer communities in Rattanakosin Island, for example, complain that the BMA bureaucracy perpetuates the ideology of sakdina, the old feudal system with its distinctions between nobles and commoners. That charge may be a somewhat exaggerated invocation of history to explain away the often openly contemptuous stance of individual bureaucrats – a common device of critical discourse in Thailand (see Reynolds 1987: 150) – without admitting that the structure of the BMA bureaucracy is largely modeled instead on Western notions of city governance. Nonetheless, the contempt – or, at least, the indifference – is a reality; there are numerous civil servants in the BMA who care deeply about the fate of the urban poor, but they are collectively described as not being “the people with power” (phuu mii amnaat) and they exercise little if any influence on the way in which poorer residents are treated by the institution as a whole. On the other side of the fence, that perceived lack of sympathy and respect provokes a matching rhetoric from community leaders, one of whom told me that he deeply respected the “institution” (rabop) of the BMA, but not those who currently staffed its offices. While Thai bureaucratic and political life is indeed marked by strongly hierarchical social arrangements, the impetus for democratic reform also has a long history. The emergence of a middle class sympathetic to, and indeed committed to, NGO interventions, but also jealous of its new gains, has progressively reinforced both tendencies. The NGO movement itself displays some of this internal paradox (see Missingham 2003). More generally, I have argued elsewhere (Herzfeld 2012) that Thai political culture is marked by a tension – or perhaps “oscillation,” recalling Leach’s (1954: 8–10 et passim) analysis of political and cultural dynamics in Highland Burma – between extremes of egalitarianism (“democracy”) and hierarchy (“feudalism”). In contemporary cultural terms this means that one swing of the pendulum identifies “Thainess” (khwaam pen thai) with centralized authoritarian rule, while the reverse swing allows local communities to invoke the same ideal of Thainess in order to attack what they treat as the “un-Thai” and “uncompassionate” (and hence “un-Buddhist”) indifference of some functionaries, especially of those who clearly do have considerable power at their disposal. Thailand has a long history of experimenting with democratic systems. But the fact that communities have to resort to the rhetoric of Thainess means that, for all intents and purposes, they are always forced to calibrate their local history to a national standard. It would be easy to treat this as simply a form of acquiescence

in a dominant national discourse. The proliferation of formal temple and palace architecture on Rattanakosin Island and the relative dearth of vernacular architectural forms strengthen this sense of a national “high culture” to which all else must be adumbrated. It is obvious that no community is going to get far by resisting the formal image thus generated. What local people do resist is the separation of functions I have called “spatial cleansing” whereby religious, commercial, and social spheres are separated from each other in a legalistic logic that culminated in a court decision to deny the people of the Pom Mahakan community the right to remain as residents in a public park, on the grounds that private residences and public parks were mutually incompatible. In other words, while they may accept and even embrace the outward forms of official Thainess, they rework its socio-political implications by disrupting and delaying the processes by which officialdom promotes it. In part this is just a matter of “buying time” (seua welaa); in part it consists of tactically using the forms of official discourse and style while pursuing locally relevant ways of living together. The emergence of Pom Mahakan as a compact, largely consensual community doubtless owes a great deal to the pressures exerted on it by the authorities.1 Its claims to being a community are contested in various ways; one BMA official told me, for example, that it was not a real community in the traditional Thai sense since its inhabitants were not united by a common profession (such as the production of begging bowls or paper umbrellas, to cite two well-known examples that fit this criterion). Yet it is important to remember that the term chumchon is itself a neologism in the Thai context (Anan 2001: 111); indeed, one well-informed local commentator who has had active interests in the Rattanakosin development has repeatedly told me that he does not know what the word means or whether such a thing really exists (although he was more willing to concede that it did in the case of Pom Mahakan than in those of some of the middle-class and politically more fractious districts such as Phraeng Phutorn or Wat Saket). That said, the claim to identity as a community is often made in terms that model official discourse. In one attempt to contest the right of the BMA to evict the residents in favor of a public park (suan sattharana), the residents constructed their own garden (also suan), neatly labeled as a collective achievement with elegant greenery forming the letters that proudly announced the community’s name. And in an invocation of the newly fashionable concept of “local knowledge,” a concept originally popularized by anthropologists such as Anan Ganjanapan and more recently coopted by, or made to resemble, official discourse in much the same way as has happened with “local history” (see Thongchai 2001), the residents erected an A-frame community museum with the inevitable stylized gable finials and a

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

The story of the Pom Mahakan community’s struggle against collective eviction, now over two decades long, has been the subject of considerable media attention. Scholarly and activist accounts include Ariya n.d.; Bristol 2009; Chatri n.d.; Herzfeld 2003, 2006, 2012; Thanapon 2007.

1

212

Michael Herzfeld

Figure 1. Pom Mahakan: A venerable house overlooking the community’s meeting space (photo: the author) Figure 2. Vernacular architecture and community renewal (photo: the author)

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

The Crypto-Colonial Dilemmas of Rattanakosin Island

Figure 3. Modalities of heritage: handicraft and the old city wall (photo: the author) Figure 4. Spiritual symbiosis: a new home for the spirits, and old home for the living (photo: the author)

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

213

214

Michael Herzfeld

The Crypto-Colonial Dilemmas of Rattanakosin Island

formal red shingle with gold lettering that read “pavilion of the community’s local knowledge” (saalaa phumipanyaa chumchon) (Figure 4). Local acquiescence in this officializing discourse (Bourdieu 1977:40) does not automatically mean conformity with its semantics, but it does entail a risk of cooptation. One should ask how far even the well-intentioned recognition of local knowledge might represent a successful imposition, however strongly resisted from within, of an interpretative framing that reproduces the hierarchical colonization of knowledge that has been analyzed in many colonial and postcolonial settings (e.g., Gupta 1998; Raheja 1996).

“Crypto-colonial” countries claim to have avoided colonial domination but in reality are heavily dependent on, and indirectly but materially subject to, intrusive control by Western colonial powers. The term signals “the curious alchemy whereby certain countries, buffer zones between the colonized lands and those as yet untamed, were compelled to acquire their political independence at the expense of massive economic dependence, this relationship being articulated in the iconic guise of aggressively national culture fashioned to suit foreign models. Such countries were and are living paradoxes: they are nominally independent, but that independence comes at the price of a sometimes humiliating form of effective dependence” (Herzfeld 2002: 900–1).

homogeneity is an imitation of the European model of “national culture” as a common possession (on which see especially Handler 1985; Macdonald 2013). This imitative capacity – an affectation of Occidentalism that in any postcolonial society would easily be recognized as a remnant of “colonial mimicry” (Bhabha 1994: 85–92) – is a clear sign that Thailand, for all its vaunted independence from the might of the colonial powers, has actually, for most of its modern history, accepted as a condition of national survival a thoroughly Western-derived concept of the nation-state as bounded by clear frontiers (Thongchai 1994) that contain within themselves a single national culture led by a self-appointed but foreign-supported elite. The physical manifestations of that dependent condition are everywhere to be seen in the area of the Rattanakosin Island project. Just as Greece, that other paradigmatic case of “crypto-colonialism” according to my original formulation of the concept (Herzfeld 2002), used neo-Classical architecture to create the illusion that the people’s hearts and minds were already wedded to a national image closer to Bavarian fantasies of high antiquity than to their own everyday experiences in the present, so also in Thailand the relentless pursuit of the “typical” Thai architecture was a way of clothing, perhaps even of straitjacketing, the body politic by wrapping it tightly in a uniform representation of temple architecture. But such strategies have a way of backfiring simply because they provide effective cover for all sorts of reassessment. In Greece today the ancient past is invoked against the dominant, Eurocentric rhetoric of power by increasingly vocal critics of the country’s current, humiliating status (see Plantzos 2012). Invocations of Thainess by the marginalized residents of Rattanakosin Island may similarly suggest a concealed capacity for inverting long-established meanings from behind the cover of apparent conformity with official cultural norms. The implications of crypto-colonialism as a concept deserve a brief parenthetical word of explanation. When I originally coined the term, I knew far more about the Greek case than the Thai, and so I was fascinated by the speed with which Thai scholars and journalists adopted it. When a journalist became aware of my interest in the Rattanakosin Island project, he titled the entire article, complete with a rather menacing photograph of this author with videocamera in hand superimposed on a shadow drawing of the Temple of the Golden Mount, with the banner headline “Crypto-Colonialism: ‘Western Perspective’” (Pornchai 2003). The Greeks were far slower to adopt either the terminology or the model, reluctant as they perhaps were to admit either to sharing common ground with an Asian country or indeed to having submitted at all to the pressures of the Western Powers’ colonial schemes. Even in Greece, however, perhaps in part because of the naked use of economic force against that country by the so-called troika of European institutions, there has lately been a noticeable shift toward considering the concept’s relevance to the Greek case (e.g., Plantzos 2011). In Thailand, Thongchai Winichakul’s lectures on the topic and his early use of the term (which in

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Figure 5. The Pavilion of the Community’s Local Knowledge (photo: the author)

Like the idea of “community” (which is not without its local critics), the contested nature of “Thainess” also feeds off an internal paradox: in its very nativism, it exemplifies a conceptual framework of largely foreign origin. The difficulty any critical analysis must face is indeed the fact that much of the vocabulary of resistance to official forms is similarly derived from external sources; it, too, in this sense risks being crypto-colonial.2 Yet with that proviso in mind, we can still attempt the analysis on the grounds that such devices are arguably the only viable responses to the overweening power of state and municipal authorities. Those authorities, moreover, are openly claimed (in the persons of the modernizing monarchs Rama IV and Rama V) as having directed the process whereby Western civilizational models became the norm. Such efforts were spectacularly successful. While – in both ideology and architecture, which reinforce each other’s messages – national rhetoric does sport elements that local and foreign people can easily recognize as stereotypically Thai (such as the gable finials on the community museum), that very conceit of 2

215

216

Michael Herzfeld

The Crypto-Colonial Dilemmas of Rattanakosin Island

publication date precedes my own [Thongchai 2001]) in its Thai form (aanaanikhom amphraang) evidently exercised a strong influence on the architectural historian Woranuch Charungratanapong, whose application of the term to the architecture of Rattanakosin Island deserves more consideration because she explicitly links stylistic features to the demands of the tourist industry and thus to the economic realities undergirding the cultural rhetoric. The model of crypto-colonialism is not simply a re-hash of older ideas about indirect rule, although it more closely approaches recent analyses of the Thai case in particular. It is specifically a model of cultural imperialism, and that is why it is especially germane to the politics of representation involved in historic conservation efforts. It does not require its subjects to obliterate all traces of an independent identity. On the contrary, what makes it so insidious is that it insists on the glorification of a specifically national culture. Here, the rhetoric of “heritage” is especially relevant; the term moradok haeng chaat stands precisely for this unifying concept. But it is a concept that signals its own Western derivation more clearly than it does any strong local interest on the part of the citizenry. Rattanakosin Island – whether in its original form as a national capital calqued on the formal Buddhist polity and mandala format of its predecessors in Sukhothai and Ayutthaya (see Tambiah 1976: 102–131) or in the Disneyfied version envisaged in successive Masterplans promulgated by the BMA in association with various other bodies – was clearly the emblematic model for a process intended to ramify throughout the nation as a whole. Although on the surface the present-day authorities’ “high-modernist” (Scott 1998) attempt to reproduce an idealized simulacrum may strike purists as a betrayal of the original form of the settlement, it does at least share one – albeit ironic – feature with that model: both are devices for securing power, whether in the cosmological terms of the old Buddhist polity or in response to Western pressure. The difference between the two phases, however, is important. First of all, the latter phase is, in Baudrillard’s (1994) terms, deliberately intended as a simulacrum of the earlier, but with none of its implications of fluctuating authority (although these may persist among ordinary people). And second, the very idea of historic conservation as presently conceived, with its origins in debates that were dominated by European thinkers and planners (see, e.g., Macdonald 2013), runs counter to Theravada Buddhist understandings of materiality – not so much because the material is irrelevant, as because material additions to the fabric may elaborate the original design and absorb its sanctity without necessarily allowing the original material to be visible at all (Byrne 2007: 153–154).3

Existing habits did not entirely reject the re-use of older materials, but principles of respect for religious buildings demanded ever more elaborate encrustations on original structures (or their wholesale replacement), while the preservation of old materials for domestic architecture, as in some community projects, owed less to archaeological considerations than to the fact that re-use is generally a cheaper option. Thus, until recently there were few constraints on radical reconstruction and very little painstaking restoration. This tendency was reinforced, in the more recent plans, by a desire to create public spaces that had more to do with European and North American modernist ideals about parks and traffic flow than with the dense social multifunctionality of the older yaan (neighborhoods) of Bangkok. If colonial planners desired to create a clear demarcation between the seemingly aimless “oriental” quarters of local residents and the neatly grid-ordered sections intended for the European colonizers (Rabinow 1989), the Thai planners were instrumentally involved in the project of convincing Western observers that there were, quite simply, no uncivilized “natives” in the new Siam. In this they were following a pattern of cultural politics that centered around the goal of achieving “civilization” in terms acceptable to the West (Thongchai 2002) – the defining condition of crypto-colonialism. Moreover, the Rattanakosin Island project was clearly intended as a model for emulation throughout the land, the underlying intention being the homogenization of the imagined past of Thailand. The recognition of local peculiarities of architectural design did not disguise this overarching translation of a “unity in diversity” model of national identity into architectural terms.4 Indeed, the clearest evidence of that intention lies in the progressive transformation of the original Rattanakosin Island Committee, which was initially charged solely, if exclusively, with the restoration of the old dynastic capital to its former glory, into a committee responsible for all the historic cities (“old cities,” moeang kao) of the Kingdom. The cultural attitudes thus evidenced have not changed very much in the past century or more. Stylized Thai motifs and haughty bureaucrats remain the expected norm; people and objects conform to established expectations, or are at least perceived to do so. Occasionally the authorities overstep the limits of credibility, as when the Thaksin administration tried to enforce the use of itinerant food vendors’ handcarts with stylized Thai ornamentation (especially that of self-exoticizing “spirit hooks”); these were hardly practical, and the vendors basically voted with their feet and the project was quickly allowed to wither away. But by and large the cultural models

There is a direct parallel here with Eastern Orthodox Christian practices of encrusting icons with gold and silver and repainting them in ever more garish colors and stereotyped outlines. Given the parallels between Greece and Thailand noted in this brief essay, further investigation of the implications of the parallel might be suggestive in regard to the fate of commemoration and conservation under crypto-colonial systems of culture.

4

3

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

217

It is worth noting that the construction of highly material images of Thai culture were given strong impetus by Luang Wichit Wathakan (Byrne 2009: 84; Wong 2006: 60), who was also strongly influenced by Italian fascism – a doctrine that countenanced enormous regional variation by treating this aspect of Italian culture as expressive of a transcendent unity and genius (see also, variously, Barmé 1993; Herzfeld 2005: 107–108). Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

218

Michael Herzfeld

The Crypto-Colonial Dilemmas of Rattanakosin Island

219

still remain those of a crypto-colonial system, with European classicism defining “structure” and stereotypically Thai ornament the “surface.” The Corinthian capitals that grace the interior of the Rattanakosin Hotel in combination with murals depicting temples and palaces of clearly and aggressively Siamese design (Figure 6) offer a striking illustration of this mixture, in close association with the royal name (the hotel is called “Royal Hotel” in English) and a location in the heart of Rattanakosin Island, just where Ratchadamnoen Avenue

the irrelevance of the material, but on the grounds of the presumed incapacity of such humble objects to contribute to the highly material streamlining of the image of Thai culture (see Byrne 2009: 84). To the residents, by contrast, such moves are simply sacrilegious, and an attack on their standing as a representative fraction of the Thai nation. In the same way, the rabop of municipal administration transcends the alleged iniquities of those who staff the institutional framework, permitting popular judgment on their performance even though such judgments rarely translate into

Figure 6. A meeting of two crypto-colonies: “Greek columns” and the Siamese city (photo: the author)

Figure 7. Ancestral presence, threatened future (photo: the author)

ends at the holy royal ground of Sanam Luang. There is a nice irony in the use of a Greek architectural feature in a Thai hotel, especially in such a symbolically dense location; it is a feature that the colonial esthetic had already transformed considerably from the original Greek model, but its presence is an unmistakable sign of that same esthetic’s penetration of Thai taste (much as similar devices appear around the globe in colonial and post-colonial architecture). Architecture gives an impression of permanence, but that rhetorical claim must be re-cast in each religious, ideological, and cultural context according to local concepts of time. What is projected here is supposedly an image of the Thai polity and of Thai culture that defies the corrosion of temporality but that also, consistently with Buddhist teachings about the impermanence of the material world, transcends the mere physicality of its realization as a built environment. One supposes that the anticipated destruction of trees and shrines (e.g., Figure 7) deemed sacred by Pom Mahakan residents slated for eviction would also not be justified in terms of

popularly generated reform. They do, however, frequently translate into resistance. That resistance is perhaps the most forceful of numerous and increasingly insistent signs that the “feudal” image of municipal management in Bangkok has slowly begun to change, as local communities challenge the authority of the municipal leadership and as much clearer patterns of class conflict have emerged from 2009 on. Moreover, with regard to historic conservation, several academic planners and architects have expressed strong views in favor of a more inclusive conservation policy, recognizing the significance of vernacular architecture and of minority styles. Yet the subservience of the Siamese state to “Western” interests in the nineteenth century lives on for the moment in a pattern of emulation that typifies the crypto-colonial cultural regime; even when they argue for the preservation of old houses – a difficult task in a city where even the powerful have found this to be an uphill battle and where the majority of residents simply have no desire to inhabit elderly dwellings – they must do so in terms of a chronology that is set by the

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

220

Michael Herzfeld

The Crypto-Colonial Dilemmas of Rattanakosin Island

221

sequence of “reigns” (rachakaan) rather than of artistic styles or popular events.5 At the same time, when they turn to plans for renovating or replacing those dwellings that are beyond repair, they tend to invoke “tradition” at the same time as they show a deeply rooted desire for “Western” domestic arrangements and their attendant comforts (Figure 8). In Pom Mahakan, for example, there has been a great deal of discussion (from 2004 on) about what kinds of house would replace the slum dwellings if and when the residents dared to attempt that transformation. While there was some sentiment in favor of row houses, a design familiar from the Chinese-inspired shophouses of other parts of Rattanakosin Island, the interiors were to be furnished in largely

boraan) – while bringing to their own dwellings the accoutrements of a materially comfortable “civilization.” What is the solution? In a very real sense, the authorities have now been hoist by their own petard, at least in the case of Pom Mahakan. In a country where earlier ages saw no great interest in what is today called heritage, the desire to emulate an imagined West – but on Thai terms – has created a hybrid cultural and conservationist ideology. Because the driving desire is to create monuments to a unified national culture, this is the rhetoric – as well as the practice – that infuses resistance to authority and critiques of its legitimacy. Just as Greek owners of old houses learn to play on the authorities’ sensibilities about “Turkish” versus “European” elements in their culture in order to achieve either demolition (in the first case) or refurbishment (in the second) (Herzfeld 1991), so the people of Rattanakosin Island, led by what was originally the poorest and weakest of communities, have learned under pressure how to play the game of nationalist emulation – an emulation that, in a cryptocolonial situation, itself emulates external models and so compromises the very goal of cultural independence.

References

This is the way in which the history of architecture is taught, implying, not inaccurately, that the monarchy provided the lead in determining esthetic principles and changes; although some vernacular architecture appears in the standard works, it is clearly dependent on more aristocratic models. See characteristically Phusadee 2002a, 2002b, 2003a, 2003b.

Anan Ganjanapan. 2001. Mitichumchon: Witthikhit thong thin waa duay sitthi amnaat lae kaanchatkaan sapyakawn. Bangkok: Research Support Fund Office. Ariya Aruninta. N.d. Controversies in Public Land Management DecisionMakings: Case Study of Land Utilization in Bangkok, Thailand. Unpublished paper, available at http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/cityfutures/papers/webpapers/ cityfuturespapers/session3_1/3_1controversiesinpublic.pdf (last accessed 5 January 2013) Askew, Marc. 1996. The Rise of Moradok and the Decline of the Yarn: Heritage and Cultural Construction in Urban Bangkok. Sojourn 11(2): 183–210. Barmé, Scot. 1993. Luang Wichit Wathakan and the Creation of a Thai Identity. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Baudrillard, J. 1994. Simulacra and simulation. Tr. S. F. Glaser. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Berliner, David. 2010. Perdre l’esprit du lieu: les politiques de l’UNESCO à Luang Prabang (RDP Lao). Terrain 55: 90–109. Bhabha, Homi. 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bristol, Graeme. 2009. Rendered Invisible: Urban Planning, Cultural Heritage,

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Figure 8. Modernist dreams of the future: a model house at Pom Mahakan (photo: the author)

Western style. In this way, just as in the BMA’s own official plans royal models of temples and palaces were to be combined with a Haussmanesque understanding of the military advantages of clearing away narrow, winding streets and focusing the whole area toward a broad central avenue (the “Champs-Elysées of Asia”), so the residents of Pom Mahakan sought salvation in calibrating a few spectacularly beautiful or well-preserved houses to the royal chronology – and to a broader sense of world history by means of their formal designation as “ancient houses” (baan 5

222

Michael Herzfeld

The Crypto-Colonial Dilemmas of Rattanakosin Island

223

and Human Rights. In William Logan, Mairead Nic Craith, M., and Michele Langfield, eds., Cultural Diversity, Heritage and Human Rights. London: Routledge, ch. 8. Byrne, Denis. 2007. Surface Collections: Archaeological Travels in Southeast Asia. Lanham: Altamira Press. ------. 2009. Archaeology and the Fortress of Rationality. In Lynn Meskell, ed., Cosmopolitan Archaeologies (Durham: Duke University Press), pp. 68–88. Chatri Prakitnontrakan. 2007. Phoenthii Pom Mahakan: jaak panhaa roeang kaananurak suu wikrit panhaa tang kaanmoeang. ASA, 02–03, pp. 81–92. Gupta, Akhil. 1998. Postcolonial Developments: Agriculture in the Making of Modern India. Durham: Duke University Press. Handler, Richard. 1985. On Having a Culture: Nationalism and the Preservation of Quebec’s Patrimoine. In George Stocking, ed., Objects and Others (= History of Anthropology, vol, 3) (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press), pp. 192–217. Herzfeld, Michael. 1991. A Place in History: Social and Monumental Time in a Cretan Town. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ------. 2002. The Absent Presence: Discourses of Crypto-Colonialism. South Atlantic Quarterly 101: 899–926. ------. 2003. Pom Mahakan: Humanity and Order in the Historic Center of Bangkok. Thailand Human Rights Journal 1: 101–119. ------. 2005. Cultural Intimacy: Social Poetics in the Nation-State. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge. ------. 2006. Spatial Cleansing: Monumental Vacuity and the Idea of the West. Journal of Material Culture 11: 127–149. ------. 2012. Paradoxes of Order in Thai Community Politics. In Felicity Aulino, Miriam Goheen, and Stanley J. Tambiah, eds., Radical Egalitarianism: Local Realities, Global Relations (New York: Fordham University Press), pp. 146–157. Leach, E. R. 195. Political Systems of Highland Burma: A Study of Kachin Social Structure. London: Athlone Press. Macdonald, Sharon. 2013. Memorylands. Abingdon: Routledge. Missingham, Bruce D. 2003. The Assembly of the Poor in Thailand: From Local Struggles to National Protest Movement. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books. Phusadee Thipathas. 2002a. Baan nai Krung Ratanakosin, 1: Rachakaan thii 1–3. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University. ------. 2002b. Baan nai Krung Rattanakosin, 2: Rachakaan thii 4–5. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University. ------. 200a3. Baan nai Krung Rattanakosin, 3: Rachakaan thii 6. Bangkok:

Chulalongkorn University. ------. 2003b. Baan nai Krung Ratanakosin, 4: Rachakaan thii 7–8. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University. Plantzos, Dimitris. 2011. Behold the Raking Geison: The New Acropolis Museum and its Context-free Archaeologies. Antiquity 85: 613–630. ------. 2012. The Kouros of Keratea: Constructing Subaltern Pasts in Contemporary Greece. Journal of Social Archaeology 12: 220–244. Pornchai Lapdamrongkij. 2003. Aanaanikhom amphraang: “taat tawantok.” Sawatdii Krungthep, 12 August, pp. 1, 26–27. Rabinow, Paul. 1989. French Modern: Norms and Forms of the Social Environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Raheja, Gloria Goodwin. 1996. Caste, Colonialism, and the Speech of the Colonized: Entextualization and Disciplinary Control in India. American Ethnologist 23: 494–513. Reynolds, Craig. 1987. Thai Radical Discourse: The Real Face of Thai Feudalism Today. Ithaca, NY: Southeast Asia Program, Cornell University. Scott, James C. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press. Tambiah, Stanley J. 1976. World Conqueror and World Renouncer: A Study of Buddhism and Polity in Thailand against a Historical Background. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thanapon Wattanakul 2007. Kaanmoeang thong phoenthii: Polawat sangkhom khong chumchon (korani soeksaa: Pom Mahakan). Bangkok: Openbooks. Thongchai Winichakul, 1994, Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-body of a Nation, Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press. Thongchai Winichakul. 2001. Prawatisaat thai baep rachaachaatniyom: jaak yuk anaanikhom amphraang su rachaachaatniyom mai roe latthii sadet phaw khong kradumphii thai nai pachuban. Silapawathanaatham 23 (1): 56–64. Thongchai Winichakul. 2002. The Quest for Siwilai: A Geographical Discourse of Civilizational Thinking in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century Siam. Journal of Asian Studies 59: 528–549. Wong, Ka F. 2006. Visions of a Nation: Public Monuments in Twentieth-Century Thailand. Bangkok: White Lotus. Woranuch Charungratanapong. 2002. Phaen mae bot poea kaan anurak lae phathanaa Krung Rattanakosin. In Various, Phuu ying kap khwaamruu (Bangkok: Khrongkaan satri lae yaowachon soeksaa Mahawithayalai Thammasat).

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Mapping Living Heritage at the Phanom Rung Historical Park: Identifying and Safeguarding the Local Meanings of a National Heritage Site Alexandra Denes

Over the past two decades, a growing number of international heritage instruments and guidelines have drawn attention to the importance of safeguarding the intangible meanings and values associated with cultural landscapes, archaeological sites and monumental heritage. Acknowledging the inherent incompatibility of earlier modernist heritage principles deriving mainly from Europe, which privilege rationalist narratives and scientific approaches to conservation, the authors of these recent frameworks have called for an approach to heritage management that respects the living spiritual and religious values of heritage sites and recognizes the rights of cultural communities to maintain their role as stewards of their own heritage. In the Asian context, this new approach to heritage management was first expressed in the Nara Document on Authenticity (1994), which stated that: “Responsibility for cultural heritage and the management of it belongs, in the first place, to the cultural community that has generated it, and subsequently to that which cares for it,” and which further proposes that the conservation of cultural heritage is “rooted in the values attributed to [it]” (Nara Document Article 8 and 9). Since then, the core principles of the Nara Document have been reiterated and bolstered by a host of international instruments and initiatives focused on the intangible, including the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (UNESCO 2001), the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO 2003), the Yamato Declaration on Integrated Approaches for Safeguarding Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage (2004), the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (UNESCO 2005), and The Hoi An Protocols for Best Conservation Practice in Asia (2009). In Thailand, policy and legislation indicates that there has been movement towards the recognition of cultural rights and a more community-based, participatory approach in the heritage sector. This can be seen in the 2007 Constitution, where the rights of communities to manage their own cultural and natural resources are stipulated in Section 65. This is echoed in Section 5 of the 2011 Thailand Charter on Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

226

Alexandra Denes

Culture Heritage Management drafted by the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Thailand, which focuses on community participation in the management of heritage, and explicitly refers to the rights and responsibilities of local communities as well as the value of cultural diversity. In practical terms, however, there are still very few examples of the successful implementation of these participatory principles by the Thai heritage authorities – the Fine Arts Department (FAD).1 Drawing on field research at the Phanom Rung Historical Park in Buriram Province between October 2010 and March 2012, this article aims to shed light on some of the conceptual and practical challenges involved in making this shift from the tangible to the intangible in heritage management. The first part of this article will trace the history of Phanom Rung’s incorporation into Thailand’s national heritage — a process which valorized archaeological and nationalist interpretations of the Angkorean era sanctuary and led to the marginalization of local beliefs and values inscribed in the landscape. As we shall see from this account, over the course of the 20th century, the Phanom Rung sanctuary was transformed from a locally sacred site of Buddhist pilgrimage and worship of tutelary spirits into a national symbol of Thailand’s Khmer heritage. With this background in place, the article turns to the practical question of how to initiate community involvement in the management and interpretation of the sanctuary, particularly given its national significance. Toward this end, this section will focus on a discussion of the process and findings from a stakeholder forum on Community Participation in Safeguarding the Intangible Meanings and Values of the Khmer Sanctuaries in Phanom Rung Historical Park organized by the Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre (Public Organization) in February 2012. Herein, the aim is to demonstrate how qualitative research tools such as cultural mapping and focus group discussions can generate rich data and insights into the intangible significance of heritage sites, which can, in turn, serve as the basis for participatory heritage safeguarding efforts.

The Phanom Rung Historical Park: Appropriating local cultural landscapes in the making of national heritage Located in Buriram province, the Prasat Hin Phanom Rung sanctuary is dramatically situated at the summit of an extinct volcano 400 meters above sea level. Built of laterite and sandstone during the tenth through thirteenth centuries CE, the Hindu shrine was constructed in dedication to the deity Siva, and symbolizes his heavenly abode, Mount Kailash. Surrounded by ancient water reservoirs (barai), temples (prasat), hospitals (arokayasala) and rest houses (dharmasala), the One example of a project focusing on an integrated, community-based approach to heritage is the SEAMEO-SPAFA “Living Heritage” project in Phrae Province, which is discussed by Patcharawee (2009).

Mapping Living Heritage at the Phanom Rung Historical Park

227

Figure 1. Phanom Rung Map with surrounding villages. Stars indicate villages where interviews were conducted.

Phanom Rung sanctuary and its environs were once linked to the Khmer capital at Angkor by a “royal road” that stretched to Prasat Hin Phimai in Nakhon Ratchasima Province. Like most temples built during the Angkorean era (802–c.1431), Phanom Rung functioned as a ritual space for the cult of the devaraja,2 a highly ritualized mode of statecraft that centered on the construction of monumental temples symbolizing the Hindu cosmos wherein the king was the divine universal ruler and living manifestation of the Hindu god Siva (Chandler 2000; Mabbett and Chandler 1995; Nidhi 1976). With the collapse of Angkor in the fifteenth century, the Khmer temples in the northeast of Thailand lost their original function and meaning as sites for the ritual legitimation of a ruler’s divine power. Nevertheless, while construction of new

1

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Devaraja is alternatively translated as “god-king” or “king of the gods.” See Mabbett and Chandler 1995, 88-90.

2

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

228

Alexandra Denes

Mapping Living Heritage at the Phanom Rung Historical Park

temples and associated buildings ceased after the fall of Angkor, these structures were never completely abandoned. As the Thai historian Srisakra Vallibhotama (1995) has argued, local populations in the northeast – including the indigenous Khmer and Kui, as well as subsequent settler populations of Lao and Thai – continued to modify, repair, rebuild, and reuse the Khmer structures, which suggests the temples’ reincorporation into local beliefs and a continuation of religious practice, albeit not in the context of a state cult.

of a monk from Surin (Phumjit 1986), pilgrims would travel by foot up the mountain to the Phanom Rung sanctuary to pay respects to the tutelary spirits and deities of the sanctuary (sen wai chao thi lae thepachao) with flowers and incense, to ask for their benevolent protection, and to ensure sufficient rain and fertility of the soil in the coming year. The sanctuary was a place for asking for good luck and good fortune, and for repaying the spirits who fulfilled one’s wishes (bon lae kae bon). Villagers also came to make merit at the forest temple located at the top of a hill near the sanctuary, give alms to the monks and put gold leaf on the sanctuary and the Buddha’s footprint (phraphuthabat) housed in a small tower called the prang noi.4 Both Thai and colonial records indicate that these syncretic local beliefs and practices date from at least the 1890s, and possibly earlier (Aymonier 1901; Phumjit 1986; Seidenfaden 1932). Photographic evidence of the spiritual significance and function of Phanom Rung to local communities was captured in 1929 when Prince Damrong Rajanubhab – a prominent statesman and scholar during the early years of Siam’s modernization – visited the northeastern provinces of Siam, making his way to the Phanom Rung sanctuary by elephant. In one photograph, we see the small temple tower called prang noi (mentioned above) covered with a corrugated iron roof structure, and while there is no clue from the photograph as to the image within, the well-worn path to the entry suggests frequent pedestrian traffic to the site (figure 2). And yet, the purpose of Prince Damrong’s visit was not to document the spiritual meaning of the sanctuary to local communities. Rather, photographs taken during this expedition showed the prince and his official entourage surveying the ruins of the seemingly abandoned ancient Hindu temple in a moment of archaeological “discovery” (figure 3). Viewed within the wider historical context of the expansion of colonial powers in Southeast Asia in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and their accompanying projects to excavate the historical past in the colonies, what these photographs vividly articulate is the Siamese ruling elite’s desire to establish their equality with European colonial powers by proving their own civility, or siwilai (Thongchai 2000). The disciplines of history and archaeology were critical tools in this endeavor, as they were a means for Siam’s elite to substantiate their grasp of Western scientific rationalism and harness the past to author the story of the nationstate (Peleggi 2002; Rasmi 2007). Elaborating this point further, Byrne (2009: 82) argues that Prince Damrong’s archaeological surveys and inventories throughout Thailand in the early twentieth century were a means of collecting “local source material to build national history.” However, before these “local source materials” could be used for nation-building, they had to be purged of the beliefs that gave them meaning in the local context.

We can think of this kind of renovation [kan som saem] as a kind of revival of “dead” religious architecture. However, it was not necessary for this revival to restore the original beliefs and practices associated with the site. Rather, it was the belief systems of the living that would be instilled in the edifice. This is because the people of this region shared the conviction that it was not necessary to destroy ancient religious sanctuaries, as it was possible to transform them. (Srisakra 1995: 396; translation by author)

Similarly, as Byrne (2009), Byrne and Barnes (1995), Edwards (2008), Karlstrröm (2005), and Thompson (1997) have all argued, within the syncretic religious epistemology of popular Buddhism, which represents an integration of Theravada Buddhism with Hindu-Brahminism and animism, the remains of historical religious structures are not regarded as archaeological sites belonging to the past. Rather, they are regarded as sites of potent spiritual power that can be harnessed through propitiation, veneration, and renovation.3 From interviews with twenty-two local informants living in the vicinity of Phanom Rung Historical Park in October 2010 and April 2011 (figure 1), I found evidence of this adaptive reincorporation of the ancient Khmer sanctuaries in the Phanom Rung Historical Park into living local beliefs and practices associated with both Buddhism and the tutelary spirits of place. Asked about their historical relationship to Phanom Rung and smaller structures found in the vicinity of the park, villagers – mostly of ethnic Khmer, Lao and Thai Khorat background – explained that the ancient edifices were the sacred abodes of tutelary spirits (thi yu khong chao thi lae sing saksit). Regarding the Phanom Rung sanctuary, informants recounted that before the road construction and temple restoration which began in the late 1960s, they would travel to the sanctuary by foot every year. This traditional annual pilgrimage, which took place in April, was called prapheni duean ha sip ha kham, or the “festival of the waxing moon during the fifth month of the lunar calendar,” and villagers from all around the sanctuary and from as far away as neighboring Surin province would come to participate. During this annual festival, which reportedly began in 1938 under the leadership

Phumjit (1986) reported that the Buddha’s footprint was placed in the prang noi by a Buddhist monk in 1894.

4 3

Byrne (2009) refers to this potency as the “magical supernatural.” Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

229

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

230

Alexandra Denes

Mapping Living Heritage at the Phanom Rung Historical Park

231

[T]his project of mapping, which helped bring into being a national space, had no interest in the supernatural attributes of the sites. It might indeed be argued that these places could only play their nation-building role once they were freed from the web of magical supernatural power relations that contextualized them within popular culture (Byrne 2009: 84).

Figure 2. Archival Photo of prang noi from Prince Damrong’s Visit to Phanom Rung, 1929 (courtesy of National Archives).

Six years after Prince Damrong’s first visit, in 1935, Phanom Rung was registered as national heritage in the Government Gazette No. 52, Chapter 75, marking the advent of management by the FAD. This designation had limited impact on the local population until the 1960s, when the FAD launched the restoration of Phanom Rung and Phimai under the supervision of two French UNESCO experts, B. P. Groslier and Pierre Pichard.5 From 1971 to 1988, the FAD – together with local villagers hired as laborers – restored Phanom Rung using the technique of anastylosis. During the same period, archaeological studies by prominent Thai scholars, including Manit Walliphodom (1961), M.C. Subhadradis Diskul (1973) and HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn (1978), reconstructed the symbolic meanings as well as the religious and political functions of the Hindu temple. Building upon earlier studies of the Angkorean empire by influential French scholars such as Aymonier (1901), Coèdes (1968), and Lunet de Lajonquière (1907), these Thai scholars offered rationalist, scientific interpretations of the archaeological evidence, including inscriptions, sculptures and bas-reliefs. In the process, these Thai scholars contributed to an “authorized heritage discourse” (Smith 2006)6 which situated the sanctuary firmly within the Thai national past and severed it from its contemporary meanings to living communities in its vicinity. In 1988, the restoration was completed, and the following year, the Historical Park was officially opened. The opening of the park coincided with another important national event — the repatriation of the Phra Narai (Vishnu) lintel (figure 4). The carved lintel, which depicts a creation myth featuring the Hindu god Vishnu asleep on the serpent Ananta, was stolen from the Phanom Rung sanctuary in the early 1960s, and eventually made its way to the Art Institute of Chicago. With the imminent opening of the park, the Thai public rallied to demand the return of the lintel. They were joined by the Thai rock band Carabao, which wrote a song featuring the lyrics, “Take back your Michael Jackson, and give us back our Phra Narai!” In December 1988, the lintel was returned to Thailand. This longstanding and ultimately successful Pichard’s UNESCO report (1972) offers a description of the restoration of Phanom Rung, and also mentions the presence of the monastery. 6 Smith argues that authorized heritage discourses are “reliant on the power/knowledge claims of technical and aesthetic experts, and institutionalized in state cultural agencies and amenity societies. This discourse takes its cue from the grand narratives of nation and class on the one hand, and technical expertise and aesthetic judgement on the other. The authorized heritage discourse privileges monumentality and grand scale, innate artefact/site significance tied to time depth, scientific/aesthetic expert judgement, social consensus and nation-building (2006: 11).” 5

Figure 3 Prince Damrong’s Visit to Phanom Rung, 1929 (courtesy of National Archives).

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

232

Alexandra Denes

Figure 4. Narai lintel (the author).

campaign to repatriate a piece of Thailand’s Khmer heritage marked a turning point in Thai public awareness about Phanom Rung and the place of Khmer heritage in the national imaginary (Keyes 1991). When the park opened its gates in 1988, it was thronged with visitors, many of whom came to see the famed lintel.

Tracing Thailand’s claims on the Khmer past

Mapping Living Heritage at the Phanom Rung Historical Park

233

modes of statecraft were indelibly shaped by centuries of engagement and warfare with the empire of Angkor. After the collapse of Angkor in the fifteenth century, the rulers of Ayutthaya continued to see themselves as the successors of the Angkorean legacy.7 Indeed, given the dominance of Khmer language and other cultural forms derived from Angkor at the court of Ayutthaya, some historians have gone so far as to classify the early Ayutthaya period up to the late sixteenth century as Khmer (Vickery 1973, 1977; Wolters 1966).8 Thailand’s overt claims of entitlement to Angkor continued well into the nineteenth century, as is evidenced by King Mongkut’s (r. 1851–1868) construction of a replica of Angkor on the grounds of the royal palace in Bangkok, as well as his unrealized plans to transfer a number of Angkorean sanctuaries to Bangkok in 1859 CE (Charnvit 2003).9 In the context of the French colonial project to restore Cambodia’s national heritage and protect its racial purity, however, the Siamese court’s claims to Angkor became an egregious case of irredentism which posed a threat to what was then widely perceived to be the “vanishing Khmer race” (Edwards 2008). Suffice it to say here that when Siam ceded all of its former Khmer territories to France in 1907 – with the single exception of the ethnic Khmer populations and the sanctuaries located in what is now Thailand’s northeast – it not only forfeited any future claims to the material wealth of these territories, but was also required to surrender the integral symbolic place of Angkor within the pre-colonial imaginary of the Siamese court. In keeping with the epistemological turn to purified national origins inaugurated by the colonial encounter, “the father of Thai national history,” Prince Damrong, shifted attention away from the hybrid empire of Ayutthaya with its Angkorean connections to a narrative of the “freedom-loving” Tai race. Adopting formalist,

In order to appreciate the full symbolic significance of Phanom Rung within the Thai national imaginary we must first consider Thailand’s extant – albeit ambivalent – claims to Khmer heritage, particularly the legacy of Angkor. In 1991, the prolific Thai studies scholar, Charles F. Keyes, published an essay entitled “The Case of the Purloined Lintel: The Politics of a Khmer Shrine as a Thai National Treasure,” in which he put forth a provocative argument regarding the Thai state’s official restoration of the Khmer ruins found throughout Thailand’s northeastern provinces. Apart from the state’s interest in promoting cultural tourism to these stone sanctuaries, which served as religious centers in what were once the northern outposts of the Khmer empire, Keyes suggested that the restoration of these sites also implicitly constituted the Thai state’s bid to retain its claim on Angkor symbolically as a site of national origins. Keyes reminded his readers that prior to the establishment of the French Protectorate of Cambodia in 1863, Siamese monarchs of the Chakri dynasty in Bangkok traced their ancestry to the court of Ayutthaya – a polity established in the mid-fourteenth century whose cultural identity, language, arts, architecture and

One example of this was King Prasat Thong (r. 1629–1656) of Ayutthaya. Upon ascending the throne, King Prasat Thong led a successful siege against the Cambodian capital of Lovek. To commemorate this victory, he built Khmer-style palaces and religious architecture named after Angkor Wat and Angkor Thom. As Vickery (1976: 231) noted, “[I]t is known that both Song Tham and Prasat Thong were frequently preoccupied with Cambodia, attempting to assert suzerainty which the Cambodians denied and were strong enough to resist. Prasat Thong, moreover, seems to have had a deeper interest in his neighbor, for he copied the plan of Angkor Wat, built two temples modeled on it, and at one point planned to give the classical name for Angkor, Yasodhara, to one of his palaces.” 8 Wolters (1966) went as far as to suggest that the Khmer rulers at Angkor may have seen the struggle with Ayutthaya as a civil war rather than one between two independent kingdoms. Vickery (1977: 61) supported this idea, stating that “the ‘conquest’ of Angkor by Ayutthaya might well have been, as O.W. Wolters (1966) has already suggested, not in the nature of an international war, but a conflict between rival dynasties for control of mutual borderlands, and I would add for control also of what both considered to be their old, traditional capital: nagar hluon for the Thai, brah nagar for the Khmer of Cambodia.” 9 A record of King Mongkut’s plans to transfer the actual edifices can be found in the Royal Siamese Chronicles of the Fourth Reign of the Chakri Dynasty, written by Phra Chao Thipakorawong and published in 1961. On page 224 of the chronicle, the author states that the king ordered a number of edifices to be transferred to Bangkok as they would bring prestige (pen kiat yot pai khang na).

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

7

234

Alexandra Denes

Mapping Living Heritage at the Phanom Rung Historical Park

empirical methods from European scholars, Damrong authored the first nondynastic, rational and linear history of the Siamese nation, which was introduced in 1914 (Charnvit 1979). Drawing on the disciplines of philology and archaeology, Prince Damrong traced the migrations of the Tai from Southern China into mainland Southeast Asia, including Siam, Northern Laos and Vietnam, as well as territories of Assam and the Shan states. In this linear and ostensibly empirical narrative, the Tai who began migrating into the heart of the Chao Phraya Valley around the tenth century were heroic conquistadors of territories and indigenous civilizations. The Tai settlers were initially dominated by the Khmer empire until they united and shook off the yoke of Khmer oppression during the thirteenth century, thereby actuating the etymological connotation of “Thai” which means “free.” In spite of the primacy of this purified narrative of national origins, Thailand’s ruling elites have never completely relinquished their claims of succession to Angkor, as we can see from the state’s periodic efforts to restore the symbolic place of Khmer heritage within the Thai national imaginary over the decades since 1907. The first of these efforts was the Thai state’s temporary reclamation of the “lost” Khmer territories during World War II – a deal brokered in cooperation with the Japanese by Prime Minister Phibun Songkhram, who used the Japanese occupation as leverage against the enfeebled French regime. In an attempt to legitimate these territorial seizures to the Thai public and the international community, Phibun’s indispensable propagandist Luang Wichit Wattakaan produced a series of speeches on “Thai-Khmer Race relations” in which he argued that the Thais’ absorption of the ancient Khmer was proof that the Thai and the Khmer were actually the same race. As Luang Wichit stated in 1940, “The Cambodians of today are not ancient Khmers, because Thai blood has insinuated into their veins” (Wichit 1940: 4). Following the defeat of the Japanese, the Thais were once again forced to relinquish these “lost” Cambodian territories, and Luang Wichit’s claims of the Thais racial absorption of the Khmer were roundly condemned as irredentist rhetoric. Even so, the importance of Khmer heritage did not entirely dissipate with this territorial forfeiture. Instead, as the national boundaries between Thailand and Cambodia calcified during the Cold War era, the Thai state’s attention gradually shifted towards the Khmer heritage within its national borders. In the 1960s, tensions between the Sarit regime in Thailand and the independent government of Cambodia under Prince Sihanouk manifested in a dispute over the Preah Vihear temple complex in Sisaket province, which both regimes adamantly claimed as their national heritage. As Keyes (1991) pointed out, the settlement of the case in favor of Cambodia by the International Court of Justice in 1962 sparked a public outcry in Thailand and mass demonstrations in protest of the ruling, which in turn instigated the Thai government’s funneling of funds and French expertise into the Fine Arts Department’s restoration of Angkorean-era heritage sites in the northeast, most prominently Phimai in Nakhon Ratchasima Province and Phanom Rung. As I have

argued elsewhere (Denes 2006, 2012), this shift of attention from Angkor and Preah Vihear to the Khmer heritage within the nation-state from the 1960s onwards constituted a form of displacement, wherein the Khmer sanctuaries in Thailand’s northeast became a metonymic substitute for the “loss” of Angkor as a site of cultural origins. I have offered this brief summary of the history of Thailand’s claims to Khmer heritage here because it has had direct implications for the interpretation, use and management of the Phanom Rung Historical Park. Firstly, as already mentioned above, scholarly research based on Khmer and Sanskrit inscriptions, bas-reliefs, and statuary laid the foundations for a scientific, officially sanctioned, “authorized heritage discourse” (Smith 2006) of the sanctuaries and their relationship to Angkor. A second implication has to do with how these authorized narratives have become the basis of a corpus of “invented traditions” (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983) staged at Phanom Rung, including Hindu-Brahmin rites, annual festivals, and cultural performances – all of which represent Thailand’s claim to ancient Khmer culture. As we shall see in the next section, this official narrative and its accompanying reinvented traditions of Khmer antiquity have eclipsed the living, dynamic and syncretic local meanings and practices associated with the sites.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

235

Stakeholder forum: Community participation in safeguarding intangible cultural heritage at the Phanom Rung Historical Park Building on two periods of field research with communities in the Phanom Rung Historical Park (October 2011 and April 2011), in February 2012, a team10 from the Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre (SAC) organized a two-day stakeholder forum entitled “Community Participation in Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage.” The objectives of the forum were threefold. The first aim was to bring together representatives from nine communities located in the vicinity of Phanom Rung Historical Park to share their stories about the local meanings of the sanctuaries and to trace how their relationships to the sites had changed following increased intervention of state authorities. The second objective was to employ participatory cultural mapping to identify the intangible meanings inscribed in the landscape, including sacred sites and pilgrimage routes up to Phanom Rung prior to 1968. The third objective was to formulate recommendations for fostering community participation in the management, use and interpretation of the sanctuaries, and to present these ideas to government stakeholders. After a brief introduction to the concepts of cultural heritage rights, intangible heritage and participatory heritage management, local residents were invited to share stories about their relationship to the sanctuaries. Phon Lamaisri, a former headman The stakeholder forum team was comprised of four SAC staff, the author and Ms. Rungsima Kullapat, a PhD candidate in the International Heritage and Tourism Management Program at Silpakorn University.

10

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

236

Alexandra Denes

Mapping Living Heritage at the Phanom Rung Historical Park

237

of Khok Muang village in Chorakhe Mak sub-district, explained that around seventy years ago, the area around the Phanom Rung temple was still a heavily forested landscape with many wild animals, where villagers would take their cattle and buffalo to graze. At that time, villagers had not yet constructed a spirit house, but they worshipped the tutelary spirits (chao prasat) at a Bodhi tree near the sanctuary. On Buddhist days of worship, villagers heard traditional mahori music emanating from the temple, and many reported seeing a large red glowing orb floating between Phanom Rung and the Muang Tam sanctuary. The headman further recounted that during the fifth month of the lunar calendar, which falls in April, villagers from as far away as Surin would travel up the mountain by foot to propitiate the tutelary spirits, asking for rain and protection from thieves and bandits. Some time later, after many accidents on the path up the mountain, the spirit house (san chao ton pho) was built. The headman also described the beliefs and practices associated with the Muang Tam sanctuary, where the local guardian spirit (pho pu or ta pu) of Khok Muang was believed to reside. In years of unusual weather or drought, villagers would consult with the local ritual specialist to perform rituals to appease the angry spirits. Villagers also performed an annual merit making ritual at the Muang Tam sanctuary (tak bat prasat) to ensure well-being of the whole community. Another presenter from Chorakhe Mak sub-district, Ms. Napha Iamsiri, explained that the people who came from Surin to Phanom Rung in the past were the followers of a wandering monk of Luang Puu Duun’s lineage named Phra Ophad Thamayaan, who had traveled from Surin to establish a forest monastery

at the ancient temple. In 1938, Phra Ophad initiated the annual pilgrimage to Phanom Rung during the waxing moon of the fifth month (prapheni duean ha sip ha kham), and at this time of year, thousands of residents would travel by foot and oxcart caravans to make merit, propitiate the spirits, and place gold leaf on an image of a Buddha’s footprint. All of the subsequent presenters from local villages offered similar accounts of the significance of the Phanom Rung sanctuary and other ancient sites in the area, thus confirming previous research findings that local populations of ethnic Khmer, Lao and Thai Khorat who came to settle in the region between 100 and 150 years ago had incorporated the sites into their cultural landscape and identity. The important point demonstrated by all these narratives was that the intangible values inscribed in the sanctuaries were not singular and orthodox but rather syncretic and multivalent, representing both animist beliefs about tutelary spirits of place and Buddhist belief and practice. In the second half of the morning, the discussion turned towards the impact of increased state intervention following the official opening of the Historical Park in 1988. Several participants associated the opening of the park with the forcible relocation of the forest monastery (figure 5) to a plot of land located at the eastern base of the sanctuary – an event which marked the beginning of enduring tensions between local communities and the FAD. Ms. Yem Songkranrod (see figure 6), a seventy five year-old resident of Nong Bua Lai village, described her sense of grief when the authorities came to relocate the monk residing on the grounds of the Phanom Rung sanctuary, saying that “she couldn’t stop crying.” Another ramification of increased state intervention after 1988 was the transformation of the annual pilgrimage from a local, religious event to a cultural spectacle staged for tourists (figure 7). Many of the forum participants reported that the involvement of the Buriram Provincial Administration and the Tourist Authority in the organization of the annual festival since 1988 had instigated a transformation of the character and purpose of the event. What was once a local ritual to propitiate the spirits, give alms to the forest monks, Figure 6. Yem Songkranrod (courtesy of Sirindhorn and pray at the Buddha’s footprint had Anthropology Centre).

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Figure 5. Phanom Rung Monastery 1974 (courtesy of National Archives).

238

Alexandra Denes

Figure 7. Cultural pageantry at the Phanom Rung festival in April 2011 (courtesy of Tiamsoon Sirisrisak).

Mapping Living Heritage at the Phanom Rung Historical Park

Figures 8, 9. Brahmin rites at the Phanom Rung festival in April 2011 (courtesy of Tiamsoon Sirisrisak).

become a cultural extravaganza, with an elaborate pageant and a sound and light show aimed at drawing tourists and generating revenue for the province. Rather than being held on the date of the waxing moon, the festival was organized on a fixed date to accommodate tourists, many of whom also came to witness the sunrise through the portal of the Phanom Rung sanctuary, which was widely promoted as an auspicious event. Villagers wishing to join the state-sponsored festival had to pay the standard park entry fee, and few could afford the expensive tickets for the sound and light performance held in the evening. As a result of these changes, many forum participants said that they no longer joined the event. There is an important analytical point to be interjected here about the statesponsored annual Phanom Rung festival after 1988 and how it represented ancient Khmer heritage and its place within the Thai national imaginary. As I observed during April 2011, the cultural pageantry and iconography on display at this state-sponsored event offered a stylized performance of the imagined past, when Phanom Rung was the center of a powerful local kingdom connected to the Angkorean empire. Through their interpretations of the archaeological evidence – including bas-reliefs and inscriptions – the Provincial Cultural Council11 and Provincial Administrative Organization had choreographed a reinvention of 11

Interview with Mr. Jirasak, head of the Buriram Cultural Council. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

239

240

Alexandra Denes

Figures 10, 11 Cultural pageantry, soldiers and princesses at the Phanom Rung festival in April 2011 (courtesy of Tiamsoon Sirisrisak).

traditions associated with the Angkorean empire, replacing the syncretic Buddhist and animist beliefs of the local residents with an ostensibly “authentic” procession of the “vehicles of the gods” (khabuan hae thep phahana) and HinduBrahmin rituals invoking the power and protection of the Hindu deity Siva, thus symbolically and performatively restoring the sanctuary to its original function (figures 8 and 9). In the procession, Buriram residents were dressed as “Brahmins,” “kings” and “queens” in glittering Angkorean-era period costumes and carried on palanquins by “soldiers” in painted tattoos (figures 10 and 11). This reinvention and upgrading of ritual practices from relatively simple rites and offerings to a sumptuous affair featuring highly structured Brahmanic

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Mapping Living Heritage at the Phanom Rung Historical Park

241

rites attended by government officials and politicians and geared towards domestic tourists also reflected the changed symbolic status of the site, from a sacred landscape for local populations to a heritage site of national significance that symbolically and temporally referenced the ancient Khmer empire. As forum participants explained, none of these elements of cultural pageantry and Hindu-Brahmin ritual had been part of their traditional pilgrimage. This reinvention had eclipsed the local, living meanings of the site, displacing contemporary beliefs with a re-enactment of Angkorean grandeur. Yet another consequence of the opening of the park as described by locals was the FAD’s stricter adherence to conservation principles in the park’s management. So for instance, villagers were now forbidden from using land and water sources within the park that were previously used for cattle grazing, fishing and agriculture. In order to preserve the physical fabric of the sanctuaries, villagers were also prohibited from performing any rituals which could impair the temple structure, as the candle wax, incense, gold leaf, powder and other paraphernalia could damage the site. These restrictions were further tightened in 2008, when the Phanom Rung sanctuary was vandalized.12 As a result of the vandalization, the FAD introduced a new system of regulations for requesting permission to use the park areas, requiring the applicant to fill in a form declaring the purpose, materials, and procedures of the event thirty days in advance. These regulations also further restricted the zones within the park where rituals and events could be held. The new regulations prompted many complaints by the local government offices, as well as from local residents who had previously used the sites for a range of events, including propitiation rites (phithi buang suang) as well as Children’s Day activities and the Loi Kratong festival. In the afternoon, forum participants split into four groups for a cultural mapping activity. Participants were given large maps of the vicinity and asked to mark the traditional pilgrimage routes up to Phanom Rung from their respective villages, and to identify and name important sacred and ritual sites, such as spirit houses, trees, and the former locations of Buddhist forest monasteries or Buddha images. The mapping process generated much boisterous discussion, as participants debated and consulted with each other to determine the traditional pilgrimage paths taken by foot or oxcart and exact locations of spirit shrines (figures 12 to 17). The following morning, participants split into four groups again, this time to discuss what they saw as the main obstacles to safeguarding the local intangible values associated with the sites, and to formulate recommendations for further action. Ms. Pan Thitkrathok, the headwoman of Ta Pek village, explained that the primary obstacle was the difference of viewpoints between local communities and Evidence surfaced that prior to the vandalization, the ethnic Khmer politician and native of Buriram, Newin Chidchob, had been permitted to invite ritual specialists to perform Brahmanic rites at the Phanom Rung sanctuary in order to ward off bad luck and augment the power of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Many speculated that the desecration was the result of black magic rites intended to negate the power of Newin’s earlier Brahmanic rites (Pasuk and Baker 2008).

12

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

242

Alexandra Denes

Mapping Living Heritage at the Phanom Rung Historical Park

Figures 12-17. Mapping process in Khok Muang Village (courtesy of Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre)

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

243

244

Alexandra Denes

Mapping Living Heritage at the Phanom Rung Historical Park

245

state agencies responsible for managing the sanctuaries. A second obstacle was the lack of understanding among the younger generations, who knew little about the local, spiritual significance of the sanctuaries, and who tended to look down on these beliefs as superstitious (ngom ngai). Ms. Pan went on to recommend that local communities should establish a Phanom Rung committee which would have the responsibility of speaking on behalf of local interests and values in terms of the use, access and management of the Historical Park. So for instance, the committee would be invited to participate in the planning of the annual Phanom Rung festival, and would have a say in shaping the park’s use and access policies. She also suggested that local knowledge about the sanctuaries should be part of the school curriculum, so that young people would be encouraged to value and carry on the rituals and traditions associated with the sanctuaries. Other participants reiterated their frustration with the strict rules and regulations of the FAD, and asserted that they were the traditional caretakers of the sites and should be recognized as such. In the afternoon, the participants presented summaries of their cultural maps and recommendations to the government stakeholders in attendance, including an archaeologist from the Phanom Rung Historical Park Office, development and tourism officers from the Phanom Rung Municipality, and representatives from the District Cultural Offices of Chaloem Prakiat and Prakhon Chai and the Buriram Provincial Cultural Office. Responses from the government stakeholders were largely positive, and all acknowledged the inherent value of the beliefs and practices of local communities. The Director of the Bureau of Religion, Art and Culture at the Buriram Provincial Cultural Office, Mr. Wichai Samaorn, responded at length, noting sympathetically that while the existence of the tutelary spirits could not be scientifically proven, they were nonetheless fundamental to the happiness and well-being of those who believe in them, and thus should be respected. He went on to say that while Phanom Rung had been listed as Thailand’s national heritage to bring international recognition to the site, it was nonetheless important to value the local meanings equally alongside the national significance. Ms. Kannika Premjay, an archaeologist at the Historical Park also responded, stating that it was indeed the right of local communities to use and access the sites according to their beliefs and traditions. However, she went on to say that in some instances, beliefs were also the inadvertent cause of damage to the sites, inasmuch as ritual practices often involved touching the artifacts and using ritual paraphernalia such as candles, incense and other offerings which could cause decay of the physical fabric. It was for this reason that the FAD had to establish rules and restrictions regarding use of the sites, not to forbid local communities, but rather to ensure that they were mitigating the potentially damaging effects of ritual practices. The stakeholder forum concluded with reflections and a commitment from the SAC team to consolidate all the stories and pilgrimage routes from the cultural mapping exercise into a printed map, complete with a legend in Thai, for distribution

to the participating communities and government offices. This map could be used in schools, as part of the local curriculum, and it could also be used to inform visitors about the local, intangible values of Phanom Rung Historical Park.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Following up: Presenting the cultural map and the film On 25 June 2012, a team from the SAC13 returned to Buriram to present the map (figures 18, 19) that we had designed based on the data gathered during the February stakeholder forum and to screen the short film produced by SAC about the mapping and stakeholder process. Our first meeting was with thirteen forum participants from Chorakhe Mak sub-district, including Ms. Napha Iamsiri, the deputy mayor of the Sub-district Administrative Office, and Ms. Jiraporn Pianprakhon, the permanent secretary of the Sub-district Administrative Office. Also in attendance were eleven village headmen. We explained that our aim for this visit was to review the content and accuracy of the map before printing, garner feedback on the film, and discuss how the map would be used by the local communities. Through their close reading of the text, the local participants identified several errors, and they also noticed that some of the details of stories pertaining to specific sites had not been included. For instance, one participant reiterated his memory of visiting Prasat Phlai Bat many years ago, and seeing hundreds of Buddha images within the sanctuary, which had long since disappeared. This account triggered yet more elaboration about Prasat Phlai Bat and its significance within the legend of Pajit Oraphim. While acknowledging the significance of these narratives, we explained that we were unable to include all the information from the forum due to the map’s space limitations. However, we hoped that the map could serve as a catalyst at the community-level for more research and documentation about these intangible meanings and values. All in all, the participants were happy with how the cultural map had turned out, both in terms of design and content, and said that they would definitely use it for promotional and educational purposes. To begin with, they wanted copies of the map to be available at various cultural centers in the sub-district, in the homestay network, and in the schools. With regards to the short film, entitled “Community Participation in Safeguarding Intangible Heritage at the Phanom Rung Historical Park”,14 all the participants were excited to see themselves and fellow local residents. In one scene in the film, Napha Iamsiri boldly asserted that community members would perform their rituals even if they did not receive permission from the FAD because they were the rightful caretakers – prompting smiles and nods from the audience. The team was comprised of the author, Prof. Rungsima Kullapat, and Arithat Srisuwannakij. The film is accessible at the following website: http://www.sac.or.th/databases/ cultureandrights/?page_id=1495

13 14

246

Alexandra Denes

Mapping Living Heritage at the Phanom Rung Historical Park

247

Figure 19. Cultural map of Phanom Rung sanctuary (detail)

We concluded the meeting with representatives from Chorakhe Mak by promising to revise the map according to their specifications, and to print copies for distribution to the relevant offices and schools. The following morning, we went to the Phanom Rung Historical Park office to meet with Chutima Chanthed, the park director, and Kannika Premjay, an archaeologist with the park who had also attended the February 2012 stakeholder forum. We showed them the map, and explained that our objectives were to identify and document the intangible meanings and values of Phanom Rung and associated sanctuaries to the communities living in the vicinity of the park. Referencing the 2003 Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, the 1995 Nara Document on

Authenticity, and the 2009 Hoi An Protocols, we explained that our efforts to involve local communities in the identification and safeguarding of the intangible values associated with Phanom Rung sanctuary were part of a larger, global movement within the field of heritage studies and practice, which is grounded in the principle of community-based, participatory heritage management. Chutima responded that in fact, the FAD had also studied the surrounding communities’ historical relationship to Phanom Rung, and they were well aware of the traditional annual pilgrimage and other beliefs and practices associated with the sites. However, the director maintained that these aspects of local culture were not part of the FAD’s mandate for the Historical Park. Rather, the FAD’s primary role was to manage and conserve the sites and to serve as a learning center for the wider public, including tourists. Towards this end, the FAD focused on presenting interpretations of the archaeological evidence about the historical function and meaning of the sanctuaries.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Figure 18. Cultural map of Phanom Rung sanctuary

248

Alexandra Denes

Mapping Living Heritage at the Phanom Rung Historical Park

Chutima went on to say that in terms of site management, the Historical Park staff faced many challenges. One particular challenge was dealing with politicians who sought to use the park to stage cultural events such as the annual Phanom Rung Festival, which was co-sponsored by the Provincial Authority and the Tourist Authority of Thailand, who organized the event and also collected revenue from entry tickets. Chutima stated that the annual provincial festival was mired in local politics and special interests, and that the most that the FAD could do was to mitigate damage from the event and ensure that the representations of Phanom Rung were historically accurate. For instance, the provincial organizers were required to submit the script for the sound and light performance to the FAD for review and approval in order to ensure that it was consistent with the historical evidence and accepted archaeological interpretations of the site. I asked whether it would be possible to include the cultural map of community values associated with the site in the historical park’s interpretive materials, for instance, in the Museum and Information Center located at the base of the stairway, before one enters the park. After all, the surrounding communities’ annual meritmaking pilgrimage to the sanctuary pre-dated the provincially sponsored event by at least fifty years, and community representatives we talked with felt strongly that this historical relationship to the site should be recognized and respected. I suggested that the cultural map would be a first step in acknowledging the local, intangible values inscribed in the landscape and layering of meanings associated with the site, which would also be consistent with the Hoi An Protocols. The director hesitated, and reiterated the point that while these beliefs and histories of ritual practice were real and meaningful to the communities, they were nonetheless not part of the FAD mandate, which was centered on education. Moreover, these beliefs and practices had no connection to the historical function of the site. I questioned this stance, arguing that in fact, the scientific, archaeological approach to heritage management and interpretation was imported from the West, and was an inappropriate paradigm for Thailand and much of Asia, because it overlooked how religious architecture continued to live and acquire new layers of significance through reuse and reinterpretation. The discussion was left at something of an impasse. The director agreed to review the map’s content and send us comments. In closing, she asked us to change the name of the map, from “Cultural Map of Communities in the Vicinity of the Phanom Rung Historical Park” to “Cultural Map of Communities in the Vicinity of Phanom Rung Sanctuary.” This change was necessary, she explained, so as to prevent any misunderstanding that the map was produced or endorsed by the FAD’s Historical Park office. Our last follow-up visit was with six forum participants from Ta Pek Subdistrict, whom we met at the home of a village headwoman, Ms. Pan Thitkrathok. As we had done the previous day, we explained that the objectives of our visit were

to review the content of the map and explore how it could be distributed and used by the community. In the case of Ta Pek, participants felt the best use of the map would be in the classroom, to teach about local history and culture. I then asked the group what they thought about the cultural mapping and stakeholder forum process as a whole —had it been beneficial? The participants were enthusiastic in their response, noting that since the forum, the Phanom Rung Historical Park office (commonly referred to as uthayan) had been more conscientious than ever before about involving local communities in FAD activities. For instance, the Historical Park office had invited village headmen from Chaloem Prakiat District to join a study tour of Khmer sanctuaries in Buriram province, providing transportation, food and a tour guide. Moreover, they had recently hired more locals for staff and caretaker positions in the park. We were later informed by the FAD that the timing of the study tour shortly after the stakeholder forum was a coincidence, and was not a result of the SAC’s activities. Nevertheless, the eager and positive response from the local residents was a clear indication that they wish to be recognized and valued as equal stakeholders in the management of their heritage by the FAD.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

249

Conclusions As stated at the outset, over the last several decades the field of heritage management has undergone a significant conceptual shift from the tangible to the intangible. International instruments such as the Nara Document on Authenticity (1994), the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003), and the Hoi An Protocols for Best Conservation Practices in Asia (2009) have all called for a reconceptualization of heritage to include the dynamic, living meanings and spiritual values inscribed in heritage sites throughout history by their different communities of users. Towards this goal, the Hoi An Protocols make an explicit appeal for the research and safeguarding of intangible aspects of built heritage to be a central part of the conservation, management and interpretation process. The religious activity and/or sacred elements associated with many monuments, buildings and structures contribute to their authenticity. These symbolic aspects may have guided the original design of a monument and be built quite literally into its fabric. The structure may also have acted as a stage or backdrop for a range of sacred activity which changed through history. These associations must be identified through research and reflected in the conservation of the site. (UNESCO 2009:34)

The Protocols go on to outline five key principles to guide heritage conservation practice, as follows: Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

250

Alexandra Denes

Mapping Living Heritage at the Phanom Rung Historical Park

Principle 1: Collective mapping of cultural space, its hierarchies, symbolic language and associations is a prerequisite for appropriate and successful conservation.

associations with Angkor through elaborate rituals and cultural performances which augment their own prestige while simultaneously promoting tourism. In contrast, field research and the stakeholder meeting with communities living in the vicinity of the sanctuaries showed that the local, intangible values associated with Phanom Rung were not tied temporally to the Angkorean past.16 Rather, local communities who came to settle in the area some 150 years ago had incorporated the sites into the more proximate, contemporary and syncretic belief systems of ancestral spirit cults and Theravada Buddhism. Returning to the question at hand, can these local, intangible values inscribed in the sites exist alongside these dominant narratives, or do these authorized heritage discourses of Phanom Rung first have to be deconstructed in order to create the space for alternative interpretations of heritage? I maintain that the challenge that lies ahead is how to raise critical awareness among the different stakeholder groups about the inherently multivalent and contested nature of heritage. As stated in the Hoi An Protocols, heritage conservation “succeeds when histories are revealed, traditions revived and meanings recovered in a palimpsest of knowledge” (UNESCO 2009: 48). Our aim, therefore, must be not to determine the historically correct interpretation of Phanom Rung, but rather to create space for dialog, in order to arrive at a conservation plan “through a negotiation process, resulting in a life-enhancing space” (UNESCO 2009: 48). In this spirit, this participatory research project has endeavored to establish a space for dialog between local and state stakeholders about the contested meanings of Phanom Rung Historical Park. Through the stakeholder forum and communitybased cultural mapping, the long-neglected intangible meanings of the sanctuaries were rendered visible and tangible. The bigger challenge going forward will be how to encourage a more participatory approach to heritage management which would support the integration of these alternative narratives of heritage into the “authorized heritage discourse” of the Phanom Rung Historical Park.

Principle 2: Tangible cultural expressions derive their origin, value and continuing significance from intangible cultural practices. Principle 3: Authenticity, the defining characteristic of heritage, is a culturally relative attribute to be found in continuity, but not necessarily in the continuity of material only. Principle 4: The conservation process succeeds when histories are revealed, traditions revived and meanings recovered in a palimpsest of knowledge. Principle 5: Appropriate use of heritage is arrived at through a negotiation process, resulting in a life-enhancing space. (UNESCO 2009: 48)

And yet, this case study about intangible values at the Phanom Rung Historical Park vividly demonstrates the complexity of actualizing this turn from the tangible to the intangible. Firstly, there is the question of how to deal with the “authorized heritage discourses” which have come to define the place of Phanom Rung within the Thai national imaginary. As shown above, the archaeological excavation and study of Phanom Rung in the early twentieth century was a means for Siam’s ruling elites to demonstrate their intellectual equality with the colonial powers, who considered rational, scientific, historical and archaeological knowledge about the nation’s heritage as a prerequisite to national sovereignty. As such, the studies of Phanom Rung and its adjacent sanctuaries have focused on revealing their true, original function as well their place within the greater empire of Angkor. I have argued, however, that, in addition to proving the Thai elites’ mastery of the past, the restoration of Phanom Rung from 1968 to 1988 and the subsequent reinventions of “ancient” Khmer rituals after the opening of the Historical Park in 1988 constitute symbolic and performative expressions of the Thai elite’s longstanding claims of succession to the cultural legacy of Angkor – a legacy which represents not only high culture, but is also associated with forms of supernatural power and magical potency.15 In effect, local communities are caught between two groups of elites who are – at times competing – arbiters of the “authorized heritage discourse” at Phanom Rung. On the one hand, there is the Fine Arts Department, who see themselves as the guardians of the rational, scientific interpretations of the national heritage site, and on the other hand, the local politicians, Provincial Administration and Tourist Authority, who seek to harness the symbolic potency of Phanom Rung and its

251

For an example of the magical potency of Phanom Rung and its use by politicians, see Pasuk and Baker (2008).

One exception to this statement is the Pannasa Jataka legend of Thao Pajit and Oraphim, an epic love story featuring the Buddha in a past life that takes place against the backdrop of the Angkorian sanctuaries in the northeast, including Phimai, Phanom Rung and Muang Tam. In the version found in the northeast of Thailand, the protagonist, Thao Phajit, is a virtuous prince related to Khmer royalty, who travelled to Phanom Rung to study with the famous monk, Hiranya. According to the tale, Thao Phajit is responsible for renovating Phanom Rung, as well as constructing the sanctuary of Muang Tam for the birth of his future wife, Oraphim. What is most striking is that events and places in the legend are linked to place names across Buriram and Nakhon Ratchasima, clearly indicating the centrality of this story and the sanctuaries to the identity of the local populace. While this story references the ancient Khmer empire, it is nonetheless within the frame of a Buddhist legend, or Jataka tale, and does not recount historical events. The author is indebted to Rungsima Kullapat for sharing her knowledge about the legend of Pajit Oraphim and its place within the cultural memory of the residents of Nakhon Ratchasima and Buriram provinces. Her forthcoming doctoral dissertation, “Living Heritage through Literature: The Development of a Cultural Route from Phimai to Angkor,” features extensive research findings on the Pajit Oraphim legend.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

15

16

252

Alexandra Denes

Mapping Living Heritage at the Phanom Rung Historical Park

Afterword: Cultural rights and the Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre

approaches to heritage research and management, both in terms of tangible cultural resources, such as archives and museum collections, and in terms of intangible resources, such as traditional knowledge and living cultural practices. To strengthen the conceptual framework for this institutional initiative, in 2009, the SAC launched the Culture and Rights in Thailand project, a three-year, interdisciplinary project aimed at developing a more nuanced understanding of cultural rights in the Thai context through nine field-based research projects examining various aspects of community rights, heritage rights and cultural policies. This Phanom Rung research is a part of this project. As many of the case studies featured in a forthcoming edited volume from the project illustrate, the concept of cultural rights – like its human rights forebear – is regarded as a foreign and unwieldy discourse in the Thai context, and one that is rarely deployed by ethnic groups and communities seeking to assert their identity or claim entitlements to cultural resources. Rather, most of the communities studied preferred more familiar, less overtly contentious idioms to frame their claims to cultural difference, such as the phumpanya thongthin (local wisdom) discourse, which accommodates the authority of the state. A second, cross-cutting issue in the volume is how to bridge the gap between the ideals of participation, decentralization and consultation implicit in cultural rights frameworks given the enduring reality of social hierarchies and the power of the state in Thailand. Expressed otherwise, how does the culture of rights in Thailand have to change, if cultural rights are to be realized? In addition to the edited volume, which will be published in 2013, a central goal of the Culture and Rights in Thailand project has been to initiate wider dialog and debate about these questions through a series of public stakeholder forums, such as the one organized with communities living around the Phanom Rung Historical Park. Additional details about the project are available on the SAC website at: www. sac.or.th/databases/cultureandrights.

In closing, I would like to say a few words about cultural rights in the Thai context, and the scope of Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre’s role in this emerging social issue. A public organization under the supervision of the Minister of Culture, the SAC’s overarching mission is to employ anthropology as a tool for promoting cross-cultural understanding and respect for cultural diversity in Thailand and the ASEAN countries. Within this broad mandate, SAC’s projects and activities fall into three main areas: library resources and digital archives; research; and public education, training and outreach. In the Centre’s role as a knowledge repository, SAC has developed a range of online resources for researchers and the general public, such as the Ethnic Research Database, the Local Museums in Thailand Database, and the Thailand Anthropological Archives, the latter of which features primary field data such as fieldnotes, photographs and video. One of the major challenges in developing these online archives has been the question of what role source communities and culture bearers should play in the management of the archives, particularly in terms of public use and access. In countries with a history of settler colonialism such as the United States, Canada and Australia, indigenous and ethnic minority communities have instigated cultural restitution movements calling upon academic, research and cultural institutions (including museums) to recognize their rights in determining how their cultural heritage is managed and represented to a broader public. In some cases, this has resulted in the collaborative, co-curation of tangible and intangible cultural heritage, while in other instances, it has led to the repatriation of objects or restriction of access. Unlike in post-colonial states and settler colonies, where the authority of the state as the sole arbiter of heritage has been contested by local and indigenous communities, in Thailand, critical questions regarding access, ownership and rights to cultural heritage have only just begun to surface, largely as a response to international initiatives rather than as a result of homegrown cultural rights movements. Regarding the SAC’s database and research projects, the question has been how to develop methods and protocols for cultural heritage management involving source communities in the absence of a national discourse, legal mechanisms, and broader public awareness of cultural rights. Should the SAC endeavor to foster a sense of cultural custodianship among source communities using the international instruments and vocabulary of cultural rights as a means for strengthening communities? Or, rather, should it identify and build upon local and vernacular conceptions of cultural custodianship? After repeated encounters with these kinds of complex questions, the SAC realized that it was necessary to frame these issues in a broader conceptual, empirical and comparative context of cultural rights writ large. As Thailand’s leading public cultural institution, the SAC has sought to spearhead participatory, rights-based Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

253

Acknowledgements I would like to express my profound gratitude to Rungsima Kullapat (Vongchavalitkul University) for her contributions to this research, both in terms of her role as a skilled cultural mapping facilitator at the stakeholder forum in February 2012, and for her participation in the follow-up meetings with forum participants and the FAD in June 2012. I am also deeply indebted to Mr. Tiamsoon Sirisrisak (Research Institute for Language and Cultures of Asia, Mahidol University), who was my co-researcher in Buriram from 2010-2011, and co-author of a chapter entitled “A Rights-Based Approach to Cultural Heritage Management at the Phanom Rung Historical Park in Northeast Thailand,” featured in the forthcoming volume, Rights to Culture? Language, Heritage and Community in Thailand (Silkworm Press 2013). Finally, this research was made possible through the support of the Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre and the Culture and Rights in Thailand Project. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

254

Alexandra Denes

Mapping Living Heritage at the Phanom Rung Historical Park

References

Mabbett, Ian, and David Chandler. 1995. The Khmers. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell. Manit Walliphodom. 1961. “Prasat Hin Phanom Rung ti phim nai raingan samruat lae khut taeng boranwathusathan nai phak tawan ok chiang nuea phak thi 2” (The Phanom Rung Sanctuary, Published in the Report of the Survey and Excavations of Ancient Monuments in North-Eastern Thailand). In Kan anurak moradok Thai kap 77 pi haeng kan sathapana krom silpakon (Conservation of Thai Heritage and 77 Years of the Fine Arts Department). Bangkok: Fine Arts Department. Nidhi Aeusrivongse. 1976. “The Devaraja Cult and Khmer Kingship at Angkor” In Explorations in Early Southeast Asian History: The Origins of Southeast Asian Statecraft, edited by Kenneth R. Hall and John K. Whitmore, 107-148. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Pasuk Phongphaichit and Chris Baker. 2008. “The spirits, the stars, and Thai politics.” Unpublished lecture delivered 2 December 2008, Siam Society, Bangkok. Accessed June 10, 2011 at: http://pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th/~ppasuk/ spiritsstarspolitics.pdf. Patcharawee Tunprawat. 2009. “Managing living heritage sites in Mainland Southeast Asia”. PhD thesis, Silpakorn University. Peleggi, Maurizio. 2002. The Politics of Ruins and the Business of Nostalgia. Bangkok: White Lotus Press. Phumjit Ruangdej. 1986. Prapheni khuen khao Phanom Rung nai Buriram (The Phanom Rung Pilgrimage Buriram). Art and Cultural Centre of Buriram Teacher’s College. Pichard, Pierre. 1972. Restoration of a Khmer Temple in Thailand. Paris: Unesco. Rasmi Shoocongdej. 2007. “The Impact of Colonialism and Nationalism in the Archaeology of Thailand.” In Selective Remembrances: Archaeology in the Construction, Commemoration and Consecration of National Pasts, edited by Philip Khol, Mara Kozelsky and Nachman Ben-Yehuda (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 379–399. Seidenfaden, Erik. 1932. A Siamese Account of the Construction of the Temple on Khao Phanom Rung. The Journal of the Siam Society 25: 83–108. Sirindhorn, HRH Princess Maha Chakri. 1978. Charuek phop thi prasat Phanom Rung (Inscriptions found at Phanom Rung Sanctuary). Unpublished MA thesis, Silpakorn University. Smith, Laurajane. 2006. The Uses of Heritage. New York: Routledge. Srisakra Vallibhotama. 1995. “Sri Sa Ket: Sisaket khet khamen padong” (Srisaket: The Area of the ‘Backward Cambodians’). In Khon ha adit khong mueang boran, edited by Namphueng Ratana-ari, 373-401. Bangkok: Muang Boran.

Aymonier, Etienne. [1901] 1999. Khmer Heritage in Thailand. Translated by Walter E.J. Tips. Bangkok: White Lotus Press. Byrne, Denis, and Gina L. Barnes. 1995. “Buddhist Stupa and Thai social practice.” World Archaeology 27, no. 2: 266–281. Byrne, Denis. 2009. “Archaeology and the Fortress of Rationality.” In Cosmopolitan Archaeologies, edited by Lynn Meskell, 68–88. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Chandler, David. 2000. A History of Cambodia. Third edition. Boulder: Westview Press. Charnvit Kasetsiri. 1979. “Thai Historiography from Ancient Times to the Modern Period.” In Perceptions of the Past in Southeast Asia, edited by Anthony Reid and David Marr. Singapore: Heinnemann Educational Books. Charnvit Kasetsiri. 2003. “Thailand-Cambodia: A Love-Hate Relationship.” Kyoto Review of Southeast Asia, Issue 3. Accessed September 7, 2012 at http:// kyotoreview.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/issue/issue2/index.html. Coedès, George. 1968. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. Honolulu: EastWest Center Press. Denes, Alexandra. 2006. “Recovering Khmer Ethnic Identity from the Thai National Past: An Ethnography of the Localism Movement in Surin Province.” Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University. Denes, Alexandra. 2012. “The revitalisation of Khmer ethnic identity in Thailand: Empowerment or confinement?” In The Routledge Handbook of Heritage in Asia, edited by Patrick Daly and Tim Winter, 168-181. New York: Routledge Press. Edwards, Penny. 2008. Cambodge: The Cultivation of a Nation, 1860–1945. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Fine Arts Department (FAD). 2005. Phaen mae bot khrongkan anurak lae phathana mueang Phanom Rung (The Master Plan for the Preservation and Development of Phanom Rung). Buriram: Winai Publishers. Hobsbawm, Eric, and Terence Ranger, eds. 1983. The Invention of Tradition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Karlström, Anna. 2005. “Spiritual materiality: Heritage preservation in a Buddhist world?” Journal of Social Archaeology 5, no. 3: 338–355. Keyes, Charles. 1991. “The case of the purloined lintel.” In National Identity and Its Defenders, edited by Craig Reynolds, 261–292. Clayton, Victoria: Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University. Lunet de Lajonquière, Etienne E. 1907. Inventaire descriptif des monuments du Cambodge. Paris: E. Leroux. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

255

Atrocity Heritage Tourism at the “Death Railway” Apinya Baggelaar Arrunnapaporn

By definition, heritage is something that people judge to be important, a part of the past that has contributed to the present. But for different people, the nature of that importance, the meanings attached to a piece of heritage, can differ widely. When heritage is put on display as a tourist attraction, the dissonance between different meanings can result in conflict and controversy. Many stakeholders are involved: tourists in search of gratification; entrepreneurs turning a profit; conservationists worried about the future of that heritage; and perhaps a local community with a sense of ownership. Hence, management of heritage, and especially of heritage tourism, is never easy. Most problems in the management of heritage result from a failure to understand the different meanings which that heritage has for the different parties involved. Many involved in the marketing of heritage seem unaware of such multiple meanings and the political implications of how heritage is presented and interpreted. “Atrocity heritage” is a term applied to heritage associated with death and disaster. The generic problems associated with heritage are multiplied in the case of this subcategory because of the sensitivity of the emotions involved. Typically an atrocity will have had both perpetrators and victims. Each will have translated the event into memory in a different way. What then happens when both perpetrators and victims in the past become the tourists of today at the site? Besides the generic issues of interpretation, commodification and conflict of interest, management of the special category of atrocity heritage demands special sensitivity surrounding issues associated with death and disaster. This article focuses on the atrocity heritage tourism site known as the “Death Railway” in Kanchanaburi Province of Thailand. It is one of the most prominent of such sites in Southeast Asia, attracting around one million overseas visitors and three million Thai visitors every year. The multiple dissonances surrounding this site are especially complex. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

258

Apinya Baggelaar Arrunnapaporn

Atrocity Heritage Tourism at the “Death Railway”

Although the site is located in Thailand, its meaning as heritage is most valued in other countries, especially Australia. The historical episode behind this heritage is something that Thailand has seemed intent on forgetting, in part because of the close economic relationship developed with Japan, the perpetrator. As an added complication, Chinese visitors, who have no direct relationship to the site’s history, have become an increasing proportion of tourists to the site, with unexpected consequences. The “Death Railway” is thus an example of how heritage tourism with a strong economic interest and a lack of understanding of the site’s significance can harm the heritage.

more than 200,000. The Japanese kept no records of these deaths and their graves remained unmarked. After construction was completed, some prisoners of war were moved to bigger camps while others remained as maintenance workers. The railway was in operation for almost two years, carrying military troops and supplies. In mid1944, the Allies recognised the strategic importance of this railway and began aerial bombing, especially of bridges. During the bombing raids, hundreds more prisoners of war were killed. The bridge across the River Kwai was hit many times, but was repeatedly repaired until a last raid on 24 June 1945, after which the Japanese abandoned the line. After the armistice, the Allied armies took control of the railway and demolished some parts. The section in Thailand was sold to the Thai government. The remains of those prisoners of war who died, apart from those of the Americans that were repatriated, were moved from the camp burial grounds and solitary sites along the railway (see Figure 4) into three war cemeteries – at Figure 2. Prisoners of war building the railway (Australian War Memorial) Chongkai and Kanchanaburi in Thailand and Thanbyuzayat in Burma – placed under the care of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. After a technical inspection in 1947, the State Railway of Thailand decided it was feasible to re-open the line only as far as Namtok Station (called Tarsao during the war). The bridge was repaired with two central spans (distinguished by their square rather than curved shape) supplied by the Japanese Figure 3. Conscripted Asian labourers building the railway (Australian War Memorial) as war reparations (see Figure 5). While also used for local transportation, the line became a tourist attraction known as the “Death Railway”. On weekdays there are two trains mostly used by local people while at weekends extra services are added to meet tourist demand.

The historical background

259

In December 1941, Japan launched its attack against the western Allies in Asia. After Japanese troops landed on the Thai coast, the Thai government agreed to allow them passage to invade the British colonies of Malaya and Singapore, and later issued a declaration of war on the Japanese side. The Japanese Imperial Army demanded Thai assistance for the construction of a railway into Burma. Capturing Burma was important to Japan for three reasons: to cut the “Burma Road”, the 720-kilometer Lashio-Kunming highway that was the only route for the western Allies to transport military supplies to China; to secure raw materials required by Japanese industry such as wolfram from the Mawchi mines and oil from the Yenangyuang oil fields; and to establish a supply line through Burma to India to replace the sea routes vulnerable to submarine attacks. The 415-kilometre railway from Nong Pladuk in Thailand to Thanbyuzayat in Burma (see Figure 1) was built between June 1942 and October 1943 through the remote and difficult terrain of mountains, forests and river valleys. The work was done by British, Dutch, Australian and American prisoners of war and conscripted Asian labourers, predominantly Indian, Indonesian, Malay, Vietnamese and Burmese (see Figures 2, 3). During the construction, more than 12,000 of the 60,000 Allied prisoners of war died mainly from disease, malnutrition and exhaustion, and were buried along the railway. Among the Asian labourers the death rate was higher, as between 80,000 Figure 1. Map of the railway and 100,000 perished out of a total of

Heritage tourism is a well-known category or aspect of tourism. Atrocity heritage tourism has emerged as a distinct sub-set of this category. Several of the

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Atrocity heritage tourism

260

Apinya Baggelaar Arrunnapaporn

Atrocity Heritage Tourism at the “Death Railway”

261

Figure 4. Temporary burial ground by the railway during construction (Australian War Memorial)

Figure 5. The bridge on the River Kwai (the author)

most prominent sites of atrocity heritage tourism are associated with the Second World War. They include former concentration camps in Germany and the Atomic Bomb Dome and Peace Park in Hiroshima, the target of the atomic bomb dropped on 6 August 1948. The Dome was part of a major exhibition hall which was hit directly by the bomb. The Japanese government decided to leave the remaining steel frame of the building as a memorial that visually recalled a human skeleton. Around this focus, the government built a memorial garden as a peaceful area where survivors, the bereaved, the concerned and the curious could visit to reflect on the event. In popular usage, atrocity means almost any event that is abnormally bad, but particularly any “case of deliberately inflicted extreme human suffering” (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996: 95). Atrocity thus has three overlapping aspects: it involves acts of severe cruelty perpetrated by people against people; those acts are particularly shocking or horrifying to others; and the perpetrators are perceived as culpable. Because their atrocities involve both perpetrators and victims – and bystanders – interpretation of the event is bound to be dissonant and emotional. Atrocity heritage includes all associated artefacts, buildings, sites and place associations, as well as the intangible accounts of the acts of atrocity, interpreted by the various parties involved – victims, perpetrators, bystanders and others. It

stands as a separate category of heritage because it is “disproportionately significant to many users” and because “dissonance created by the interpretation of atrocity is not only peculiarly intense and lasting but also particularly complex for victims, perpetrators and observers” (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996: 21). Large-scale sites of atrocity heritage are often beset with controversy because the site is incapable of reflecting the highly varied interpretations of what should be memorialized according to different groups involved. Where those groups are drawn from different countries, such controversy can easily become political. Hence, managing sites of atrocity heritage faces a special range of problems. Dissonance among the different groups involved, such as victims, perpetrator and bystanders is inevitable. Although this dissonance cannot be erased, it can be reduced and balanced.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Dissonance at the “Death Railway” In the case of the “Death Railway” this usual dissonance among the three main parties – victims, perpetrator and bystanders – has some added aspects. To begin with, the war means different things to different people, as is evident from the way it is named. In the West, it is the Second World War, a term which clearly yokes this war to the 1914–18 war and the European theatre. In Asia, it is more usually known as the Great Asia-Pacific War, switching the focus to the US and Asia rather

262

Apinya Baggelaar Arrunnapaporn

Atrocity Heritage Tourism at the “Death Railway”

than Europe. In Thailand, it is called the Great South-East Asia War, focusing more narrowly on Japan in Southeast Asia. Thailand’s relationship to the heritage of the “Death Railway” is especially complex. Although the site is located in Thailand, few of those being commemorated are Thai. Most of the dead were Western prisoners of war or Asian labourers imported from elsewhere. While one part of the Thai government co-operated with the Japanese and declared war on the Allies, another part co-operated with the Allies through the Seri Thai (Free Thai) movement. Since the war, the wartime co-operation with the Japanese has tended to fade from public memory while the co-operation with the Allies (the victors) has been better retained. Since the 1980s, Japan has become the largest single source of foreign investment in Thailand, as well as a major trading partner. The Japanese are now one of the largest expatriate communities in Thailand, and a significant factor among tourist arrivals. In other countries of Southeast Asia, the memory of the war also has a certain ambivalence. In Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, the Japanese occupation is remembered for many acts of exploitation and violence. Yet it is also recognized that the Japanese occupation disrupted European colonialism and paved the way for national independence more quickly than it might have been realised otherwise. For both Thais and other Southeast Asians, the meanings of the “Death Railway” site will be very different compared to those of Westerners or Japanese. Finally, there is yet another potential dissonance among the victims. As we shall see below, the film that launched the “Death Railway” as a tourist site focused very heavily on the European prisoners of war and almost elided the Asian labourers. Australia has established a kind of ownership at the site. But during the construction of the railway, Asians far outnumbered Westerners among the victims. This imbalance is a source of controversy.

achieve either their tourism potential or their heritage potential because the differing objectives of these two forms of management result in mutual suspicion and conflict (McKercher and du Cros 2002: 3). In the case of the “Death Railway” these generic problems of commodification are magnified by the particular way in which it emerged as a site of atrocity heritage tourism. The event that launched the site was the film The Bridge on the River Kwai (see Figure 6), which won seven Oscars, three BAFTAs and three Golden Globes in 1957, and topped the box office earnings list the following year. The film was based on a novel written by a Frenchman, Pierre Boulle, who had been a prisoner of war elsewhere in Thailand. The story is a fiction which uses the bridge and the railway construction as its setting. At the climax, the bridge is destroyed, an event which never happened. The fact that the popularity of the site depends in large part on a fictional account adds yet another window of dissonance. The river across which the bridge was built in 1942–43 was called the Maeklong. Only after the film became popular and the bridge became a site of tourism did the Thai government rename this stretch of the river as the River Kwai (officially Khwai) in the 1960s.

The production and marketing of heritage

263

Dissonance and controversy at the site of the “Death Railway” In summation, the “Death Railway” site is freighted with many layers of dissonance and potential controversy: the disjunction between “history” and heritage”; the generic tension between preservation and exploitation of heritage; the multiple interpretations by perpetrator, victim and bystanders, common to most atrocity heritage sites; and the ambivalent memory of wartime history in Thailand and Southeast Asia. This section explores how this complexity has affected the organization and management of the site. The bridge

The creation of both history and heritage involve a selection from the past. History is converted into heritage by a process of commodification which involves interpretation, simplification, packaging and marketing. The product that emerges from this process may be substantially changed from its original form. The commodified heritage may achieve an independent life of its own and even begin to rewrite the understanding of the past as “tabloid history” (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996; Hewison 1987, 1989; Walsh 1992; Lowenthal 1985). When heritage becomes an object of tourism, another set of contradictions is introduced. In their role as heritage, sites need to be protected and preserved, but in their role as objects of tourism, sites will be commercialised and exploited. Hence, cultural heritage tourism requires two forms of management: cultural heritage management and tourism management. Many heritage attractions fail to

The fundamental of any heritage site is the physical fabric and setting. In the case of the bridge on the River Kwai, the memory is of a bridge in an area of remote tropical rainforest. The film reinforced that scene. Today that landscape has disappeared. The big trees have been cut down. The area around the bridge has been paved over with concrete. There are new buildings to accommodate tourists: shophouses for travel agencies and trinket stores; vendor stalls selling food and souvenirs; a pier for long-tailed boats newly built by the municipality almost under the bridge itself; and right beside it, a Figure 6. Film poster, 1957

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

264

Apinya Baggelaar Arrunnapaporn

Atrocity Heritage Tourism at the “Death Railway”

265

grand floating restaurant serving hundreds of customers. The visual perception of the scene has totally changed. The historic connection between the bridge and its landscape has been destroyed. A new intrusion on the site is a huge Chinese temple right opposite the bridge (see Figure 7). The temple compound includes a hall of worship, a reception centre for visitors, a vegetarian canteen Figure 7. Chinese temple by bridge on River Kwai (the and a garden running down to the river. In author) the garden, close to the bank of the river, stands an 18-metre statue of the Chinese goddess Kuan Yin, facing towards the bridge (see Figure 8). Undoubtedly, the construction of this temple reflects the fact that the number of Chinese and other East Asian tourists visiting Kanchanaburi has been rising. When construction of the Chinese temple began in May 2009, controversy immediately arose. Opponents argued that the temple would diminish the historical value of the bridge. They petitioned the court on the grounds that the temple was too close to the river and had not undertaken an Environmental Impact Assessment, and won an injunction for a temporary halting of the construction. However, the temple appealed against the judgment, and continued with the construction. Despite this legal challenge, the temple was officially opened on 16 June 2012 with the governor of Kanchanaburi presiding at the ceremony. This opening reflects a victory for the temple while the Figure 8. Kuan Yin overlooking the bridge (the author) lawsuit is still unresolved. Perhaps the negligent management of the site is partly a function of Thailand’s ambivalent relationship to the site. Although the site is on Thai soil, Thai citizens are a small fraction of those being commemorated. The building of the railway belongs to an episode in history that Thailand seems intent on forgetting. The protesters

against the Chinese temple could not invoke the legal framework to protect heritage because the bridge is not officially registered as a national monument. They had instead to rely on municipal bylaws. This negligence is evident elsewhere. In the square beside the bridge and railway station, the municipality has built abstract-style sculptures with text explaining the history of the site. But the area is inundated with vending stalls. Nobody reads the boards or appreciates the sculptures. Instead the stall-keepers use them as storage space for their stock. In the same vein, the main activity of the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) at the bridge has been to use it as a stage setting for festivals or spectacular events. TAT has founded an annual week-long festival at the end of November featuring “rides on a vintage train” and a light-and-sound presentation simulating an air attack on the bridge (Figure 9). In these activities, largely oriented to the domestic tourist market, the atrocity element has been totally elided. The bridge is a setting for festival and fun. In some years, the light-and-sound show has included scenes from a romance between a Japanese soldier and a Thai girl, the theme of a hugely popular Thai novel that has been repeatedly adapted in films and television series. The story is totally fictional and would of course be unknown to any non-Thai visitor to the show, but has become a prominent part of Thai perceptions of Kanchanaburi “heritage” through this highly popular work of fiction. Erik Cohen has noted how “a cultural product…which is at one point generally judged as contrived or inauthentic may, in the course of time, become generally recognised as authentic, even by experts” (Cohen 1988: 379–80).

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

The cemetery For Australian and other western visitors, the prime site of commemoration is the Kanchanaburi War Cemetery comprising 6,982 graves. Here the landscape has suffered from a similar neglect as found at the bridge. The boundary of the cemetery is now lined with concrete shacks housing tourist shops. The tranquillity of the site has been badly impaired. JEATH War Museum JEATH is an acronym for Japan-England-Australia/America-ThailandHolland. The museum was set up by and is maintained by monks of a nearby monastery. Photographs of prisoners of war are exhibited in a bamboo hut, built as a replica of those in the prison camps during the railway’s construction. In a nearby concrete building is a collection of weapons. A visit to this museum is an unsettling and gruesome experience. Visitors are confronted with the physical setting of a shabby bamboo hut in the heat and humidity of the tropical climate. Old pictures of prisoners of war create an atmosphere of sorrow and anger. The museum has been criticised for having unprofessional

266

Apinya Baggelaar Arrunnapaporn

Atrocity Heritage Tourism at the “Death Railway”

267

the museum is in a security sensitive area under military control. Visitors have to register at a military check-point before entering the museum. Protests by the Australian government have failed to alter this condition. After visiting the museum building, visitors are encouraged to walk along a trail to the pass, but not allowed to walk outside the trail for security reasons. Controversy does not end there. The fact that the museum focuses heavily on the experience of Australian prisoners of war has led to complaints that others, both Western and Asian, have been omitted. This issue has been a matter of debate since the museum opened. Thailand-Burma Railway Centre This private museum, located beside the Kanchanaburi War Cemetery, is owned and run by an Australian, Rod Beattie, who has dedicated himself to research of the “Death Railway” for around twenty years. This museum was opened in 2003 and faced some difficult years, but recently has received more attention from tourists. The displays tell the story of the Second World War in Kanchanaburi within the larger context of the war in Asia. The second storey of the building has a panoramic view over the cemetery. Operated by a professional team using good presentation techniques, the museum manages to tell its story in an accessible manner. Vintage train Figure 9. Light and sound show of bombing the bridge (the author)

displays, showing a strong bias towards the Allies and against the Japanese, being overwhelmed by shops and stalls, and being positively misleading. The weapons in the concrete hut do not originate from the Second World War, but from the later wars in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos, yet the visitor is not informed of this. Hellfire Pass Museum

A ride along the railway in a vintage train is perhaps the most authentic experience on offer at the site. The train passes along the track of the original railway, through landscape which is largely unchanged beyond the urban limits. There is no commodification of the war story involved, just an experience of the train and the landscape. Since the train Figure 10. Tourist train on re-laid track (the author) is also a regular service for local transport, tourists experiencing the “Death Railway” through the forest sit side-by-side with local residents on their daily business. The clash between function and culture is an interesting phenomenon.

Australia has established a powerful stake in preserving the “authentic” meaning of the site. The Australian interest has focused on the area now known as Hellfire Pass (Konyu Cutting during the war), 75 kilometres from Kanchanaburi towards the Burmese border. In 1998, Australian Prime Minister John Howard presided over the opening ceremony of the Hellfire Pass Memorial Museum, which was built by the Australian government and managed by its Department of Veteran Affairs. Each year on ANZAC Day, 25 April, many Australians resident in Thailand and other Australian visitors gather at Hellfire Pass for an official commemoration known as the Dawn Service. In contrast to the chaos around the bridge, the Hellfire Pass Memorial Museum is efficiently organised with a high standard of informative displays. Behind the museum is a trail to visit a famous mountain pass. Unfortunately, this museum has been troublesome for both the Thai and Australian governments. Thailand claims

Heritage is never easy to manage; heritage that is exploited for tourism even more so; and atrocity heritage that is exploited for tourism even more so because of the category’s special sensitivities. Into this mix, the “Death Railway” adds extra complications because of the host country’s ambivalent relationship to the history of the site, and the way in which the site’s value as heritage was partly created by a

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Conclusion

268

Apinya Baggelaar Arrunnapaporn

highly fictionalized version of the history. The site is strewn with different meanings. The Thai role in the history of the site is primarily that of bystander. The Thai stakeholders have tended to focus on the short-term value of the site as a source of profit with very little attention to the factors which make it valuable as heritage. Hence, TAT uses the bridge as a backdrop for entertainment; monks cobble together a shoddy museum; the municipality replaces the forest with concrete; construction contractors destroy the tranquillity of the cemetery; the military is obstructive; and the law cannot prevent a Chinese temple transforming the landscape and meaning of the site. Western standards of heritage management might be relevant or irrelevant when confronted with different contexts. The respect due to all cultures requires that heritage properties must be considered and judged within the cultural contexts to which they belong. The atrocity heritage of the “Death Railway” desperately needs some planning that appreciates the value of the site and its multiple meanings. This will only be achieved through involvement of all those associated with the site as heritage, whether perpetrator, victim (both Western and Asian), local community, host government and new tourist (Chinese). Otherwise, the value of the site, both as heritage and as an asset for tourism, will decline.

Bibliography Cohen, E. 1998. “Authenticity and commoditization in tourism”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol 15, pp. 371–386. Hewison, R. 1987. The Heritage Industry. London: Methuen. ______. 1989. “Heritage: An interpretation”, in Heritage Interpretation, edited by D. Uzzel, Vol.1. London: Belhaven Press. Lowenthal, D. 1985. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McKercher, B. and du Cros, H. 2002. Cultural Tourism: The Partnership between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management. New York: Haworth Hospitality Press. Tunbridge, J. E. and Ashworth, G. J. 1996. Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Walsh, J. 1992. The Representation of the Past. London: Routledge.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Heritage Across Borders: The Funerary Monument of King Uthumphon Based on a lecture delivered at the Siam Society on 13 September 2012 by

Woraphat Arthayukti and Edward Van Roy

On 21 July 2012, the front cover of the Bangkok Post carried a story headlined, “Ayutthaya king’s tomb set to be destroyed”. The story, written by Yan Pai, had appeared three days earlier in the online journal, The Irrawaddy. The story opened as follows: A site believed to be the historic tomb of a Thai king is set to be destroyed to make way for a new urban development project in Myanmar. King Uthumphon was the 32nd and penultimate monarch of the Ayutthaya kingdom, ruling in 1758 for about two months. His burial place is believed to be inside the prominent Linzin Hill graveyard on the edge of Taungthaman Lake in Amarapura township, Mandalay. ‘‘Thai people come to this tomb regularly to pay respect to their king,’’ a resident told The Irrawaddy. ‘‘I have heard that this graveyard will soon be cleared for some sort of urban project.’’ According to Myanmar’s historical records, King Hsinbyushin (1736-1776), the third king of the Konbaung dynasty, invaded the ancient Thai capital of Ayutthaya in 1767 and brought as many of its subjects as he could back to his capital Ava, including Uthumphon, the former king. ‘‘The records say the Thai king was in the monkhood when he was brought back as a prisoner of war and, when he died in captivity, his body was buried at Linzin Hill,’’ said Tin Maung Kyi, a well-known historian and Mandalay resident. Figure 1. Bangkok Post article

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

270

Woraphat Arthayukti and Edward Van Roy

Protecting Heritage Across Borders

271

The mission On 5 August, we flew to Mandalay with four objectives: 1. To check with the relevant authorities on the reported plans to demolish the monument; 2. To investigate alternative solutions including, preserving the monument in situ, moving it to an appropriate site in Myanmar, or moving the ashes of the King back to Ayutthaya; 3. To seek information on Ayutthaya settlements in the Ava area and on the funerary monument mentioned in the press articles; and 4. To use this information as a basis for making recommendations to the proper authorities. The Association of Siamese Architects also sent a team, headed by Vichit Chinalai, an architect specializing in renovation and conservation of cultural heritage buildings. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also broached the issue through diplomatic channels. The Thai Embassy in Yangon sent a letter to the major of Mandalay to delay the clearing of the site.

The site After Ayutthaya fell to the Burmese on 7 April 1767, some 30,000 prisoners were taken to Burma according to the Thai chronicles. Ordinary prisoners, perhaps two-thirds of the total, were led by a southern route towards Pegu, while craftsmen, nobles, and the former king Uthumphon went by a northerly route to the Burmese capital at Ava. Some were settled across the Irrawaddy River in Sagaing. To this day, the area is famous for silver and bronzeware skills believed to have passed down from craftsmen among the prisoners. There are temples built in the Thai style with internal walls painted in the distinctive style of Thai murals (see Figure 2). Nearby Amarapura is famed for silk, also linked to the Thai prisoners.

Figure 4. Mandalay in a 1914 British map, showing the location of the Lin Zin Gon cemetery and Shweta-chaung Canal

According to U Maung Maung Tin,1 a Mandalay historian who collected information from descendants of the Ayutthaya prisoners, the Burmese king provided land for the prisoners to settle along the Shweta-chaung or Golden Canal (see Figure 4), especially in a village named Rahaeng, later changed to Yawahaeng. They built a market known as Yodaya Zay, Ramathep Shrine, and three stupas. Beside the road along this canal, there are temples which still show characteristic traces of Thai architecture on the outside. The descendants of the Ayutthaya prisoners still hold an annual festival of building sand stupas U Maung Maung Tin, “Chaloei thai nai manthale” [Thai war prisoners in Mandalay], tr. So Yokfa and Sunait Chutintaranond, in Phama rop thai [Burmese wars with Siam], ed. Sunait Chutintaranond (Bangkok: Matichon, 1999). The original article in Burmese appeared in 1983.

1

Figure 2. Yodaya Ordination Hall in Maha Teindol Temple, Sagaing (photo: Woraphat Arthayukti)

Figure 3. Plaque at Monte Zu sand pagoda in Mandalay (photo: Woraphat Arthayukti)

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

272

Woraphat Arthayukti and Edward Van Roy

Protecting Heritage Across Borders

along this canal. Beside one of these, Monte Zu, there is a plaque erected in 19902 that states that “the Yodaya King who abdicated the throne, Chaofa Dok” was settled in this area along with his “relatives, ministers, and officers” (see Figure 3). The market in Mandalay is still known as Yodaya Market, based on the old Burmese rendering of “Ayutthaya”. At a temple in this market, we saw a mask for a character from the Rama story, a reminder that, while the story was well-known in Burma, the dance-drama of this story also came from Siam to Burma with singers, dancers, and mask-makers among the prisoners.3 The Lin Zin Gon cemetery is not far from this creek, some 16 kilometers to the south of central Mandalay (see Figure 4). The name “Lin Zin” comes from “Lanchang,” a term which the Burmese used to describe people from Chiang Mai, Luang Prabang, and Siam.4 “Gon” means a knoll. Nearby is U Bein Bridge, a major local tourist attraction claiming to be the longest teak bridge in the world (1.2 km), built with wood salvaged from the old palace in nearby Amarapura. Some tourists also visit the Lin Zin Gon cemetery, especially Thai visitors and descendants of Thais settled in Burma. The late HRH Princess Galyani Vadhana visited the cemetery in the 1990s.

the Burmese withdrew. During the subsequent Burmese siege which culminated in the fall of the city in 1767, he is not mentioned in the chronicle accounts and presumably remained in the monkhood. At the fall of the city, King Ekathat was killed. A Burmese poetic account of the fall reports that “princes and princesses and their retinues, more than 2,000 in number, over 800 queens bearing titles” were taken away as prisoners. At Ava, they were debriefed on the history, geography, government, and ceremonial of Ayutthaya. The resulting document, known in Burma as the Yodaya Yazawin (chronicle),5 later found its way back to Siam. One Thai translation was entitled, Khamhaikan khung luang ha wat, the Testimony of the King who Entered a Wat.6 The title expresses a belief that former King Uthumphon was the source of the testimony, but there is no proof. The document has no account of the prisoners themselves or what happened after the fall of the city. According to the Konbaung Chronicle, Uthumphon was in the robe of a monk when brought to Mandalay, and remained so until his death in 1796.7 The plaque at Monte Zu sand pagoda specifies that the Thai king lived in Paung Le Tike, a monastery close to and east of the Raheng Market.

The former king The penultimate king of Ayutthaya was born around 1730, a son of King Borommakot (r. 1733–1758). He was originally named Dok Maduea after the flower of a fig species sometimes called the gular tree. In early 1757, when he carried the title of Prince Phon Phinit, his father named him as deputy king and hence his likely heir, in preference to his older brother, Prince Anurak Montri. Just over a year later on 26 April 1758, King Borommakot passed away. According to one version of the Royal Chronicles, he confirmed the succession in his final hours. Prince Phon Phinit was consecrated as the new ruler on 12 May 1758, and is known to history as King Uthumphon, a Sanskrit version of fig flower. However, the tension with his elder brother was already evident. On 22 May, King Uthumphon chose to abdicate. He entered the monkhood and went to reside at Wat Pradu (later known as Wat Pradu Songtham), to the east of the city of Ayutthaya. His elder brother assumed the throne as King Ekathat (sometimes known as King Suriyamarin). The former King Uthumphon left the monkhood in 1760 to assist with the defense of Ayutthaya against a Burmese attack, but promptly returned to the robe when

273

The challenge At the start of our visit in August 2012, we paid a call on the mayor of Mandalay and learned two important pieces of information. First, the reason for wanting to clear the cemetery might be a little more complex than “a new urban development project” as reported in the press. Second, the authorities were intent on going ahead with the project. They had already removed other tombs and ruins on the site. They have deferred to the Thai Embassy’s request for a delay in removing the supposed tomb, but they will not delay indefinitely. They claimed there is no evidence to prove that the monument is the tomb of former King Uthumphon. They said those who want to preserve the tomb must prove it is what they claim.

The problem In truth, this is difficult. There is no plaque or inscription on the monument. There is no written evidence of when and why it was built. In the manuscripts collection of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office,

This was six years after the 200th anniversary of the construction of the sand pagoda in 1784. 3 See Tin Maung Kyi, “Thai Descendants in Burma: A Thai Court Dancer’s Family,” JSS, 89 (2001), pp. 57–61.. 4 The term Lin Zin is also used for the area in Sagaing where some of the prisoners were settled.

Tun Aung Chain, Chronicle of Ayutthaya: A Translation of the Yodaya Yazawin (Yangon: Myanmar Historical Commission, 2005). 6 Khamhaikan khung luang ha wat (Bangkok: Sukhothai Thammathirat University, 2004). 7 U Maung Maung Tin, “Chaloei thai nai manthale,” p. 138 reproduces the relevant extract from the chronicle.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

2

5

274

Woraphat Arthayukti and Edward Van Roy

Protecting Heritage Across Borders

275

now stored in the British Library, is a parabaik, or accordion book, which states on folio 288, here translated line by line by Dr. Tin Maung Kyi (see Figure 5):

Figure 6. The monument in Lin Zin Gon cemetery before the site was cleared (photo: Woraphat Arthayukti, July 2007)

This old document, stating that the funerary rites for the former king were held at Lin Zin Gon, would seem to offer a degree of proof that the monument at Lin Zin Gon today is his tomb. But the document is problematic in several ways. First, the image shows a man in royal attire, yet the text states clearly that the former king was in the monkhood while in Burma. Second, the last line muddles the names of the two last kings, calling Uthumphon by the name of his brother Ekathat who died in the fall of the city. These errors and inconsistencies bring the credibility of the document into question.

Figure 5. From parabaik in the British Library (used with permission of the British Library)

The third founder of Ratanapura [Ava] and Lord of the White Elephant fought and won Ayodhya, together with the King. The King was brought here. During the reign of his brother (King Badon), the founder of Amarapura, the [Thai] King while in monkhood, died at Amarapura. At Linzin-gon cemetery he was entombed/cremated with great honor entitled to a monarch. This is the image of Chaofa Ekadath [Ekadasa].

The Burmese king in the first line is Hsinbyushin (r. 1763–76). His brother, known as Badon or Bodawpaya, became king in 1782 and moved the capital from Ava to Amarapura in 1783. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Figure 7. Lin Zin Gon after clearing (photo: Woraphat Arthayukti, 25 September 2012)

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

276

Woraphat Arthayukti and Edward Van Roy

Protecting Heritage Across Borders

The monument is also problematic (see Figure 6). It stands some 6–7 meters high. Often it is referred to as a stupa or chedi, since that is the structure normally used to inter crematory remains. But the building at Lin Zin Gon does not resemble any chedi known in Siam. There is a rather similar structure at Mingun, around 20 kilometers away, north of Mandalay. It stands in front of the Mantalagyi or Great Royal Stupa, begun by King Badon in 1790 and intended to become the greatest stupa in the world. The construction was abandoned unfinished after an earthquake in 1838 cracked the structure. But the Mingun site is suggestive. At Lin Zin Gon, behind the supposed tomb is a mound which was covered with overgrowth. The plan which the Association of Siamese Architects team drew of the site shows that this mound stands at the center of other monuments, including the supposed tomb, in a pattern that resembles a mandala. When the undergrowth was stripped away in September 2012 (see Figure 7), the mound was revealed as the base of a stupa, square with redented corners (similar to the Mantalagyi). Perhaps this much grander structure was the depository for the former king’s crematory remains, and should be the target of conservation. If the written evidence is problematic, and the site still full of unknowns, there remains strong circumstantial evidence that needs to be taken seriously. It is known that some of the Ayutthaya prisoners were settled in this area. Lin Zin Gon is located in a no man’s land between four old capitals – Mandalay, Amarapura, Ava, and Sagaing. The buildings of their dynasties are located within these capitals. There is no history or memory linking the buildings at Lin Zin Gon to any of them. The area may have been a site used by several communities brought as prisoners, in the same way that religious sites of Malay, Lao, Mon, Khmer and other communities brought as prisoners can be found around Ayutthaya and Bangkok. No figure of similar status as former King Uthumphon is known to have lived and died in this area. The association of the Lin Zin Gon remains with the former king is plausible. It should be investigated properly while that is still possible. Though the likelihood of finding “proof” in the form of written words may be remote, experts in art history and archaeology could contribute to the discussion. Finally, there is the folk memory. The belief that Lin Zin Gon is the site of the former king’s remains has been passed down across two centuries, largely in the oral culture of the descendants of the Thai prisoners of 1767. The Irrawaddy reported a local resident saying, “Thai people visiting Burma come to this tomb regularly to pay respect to their king.” This oral history could also be examined more closely. Even if all these efforts produced no “hard” proof, the emotions of the Thai descendants should be respected. The Irrawaddy report pointed out,

‘‘Thai people regularly come to their ex-king’s tomb to pay respect,’’ said Nyein Win, an archaeologist in Amarapura. ‘‘I always have to clean the tomb before their arrival. They will also feel hurt if the tomb is destroyed.’’8

Scholars in Mandalay have raised concerns that the new project will mean the loss of considerable heritage and affect Myanmar’s nascent yet potentially huge tourism industry. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

277

The monument may be a trace left from a period of great conflict between two neighbors. At a time when relations between the two are becoming closer, the preservation of the monument could contribute to that amity. In this case, the internal and external politics of the matter may be more important than any kinds of “proof.”

The state of play By late 2012, there were three main players involved in the issue. The Mandalay Municipality wished to remove the monument, relocating any crematory remains found to another cemetery. However, as the diplomatic approaches had brought the Myanmar Government into the picture, they were hesitant to move independently. The Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs wanted a delay so that the monument can be properly studied and perhaps authenticated, in which case it would consider offering funding to ensure that the monument were preserved. The Association of Siamese Architects proposed disassembling the monument and reconstructing it in a nearby monastery. They have made preliminary engineering plans for the task, and formally requested permission from the Municipality.

The second mission9 A second mission, headed by Damrong Kraikruan, deputy director-general of the Department of Information in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and an assistant, and including a representative of the Ministry of Culture as well as an independent researcher and member of the Siam Society, traveled to Mandalay and the Myanmar capital, Nay Pyi Daw, on 24–28 September 2012. At a meeting with an official of the Myanmar Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the head of mission stressed the importance of the stupa issue for bilateral relations, since there are good reasons to believe that it contains the ashes of a former king. The official had no previous knowledge of the issue and said that only the Culture Ministry could raise this issue at cabinet level. The delegation then met with a recently appointed deputy minister of culture, himself a historian and knowledgeable about the stupa. In July 2012, as a member of the Upper House, he raised the matter in parliament and stated that the stupa should not be destroyed. He showed us a Yan Pai, “Siamese king’s tomb to be destroyed,” The Irrawaddy, 18 July 2012, at . 9 This section was added in December 2012. 8

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

278

Woraphat Arthayukti and Edward Van Roy

letter that the historian Dr. Tin Maung Kyi sent to the prime minister to ask that the stupa not be demolished. The deputy minister also said that the Burmese Konbaung Chronicles mentions King Uthumphon’s cremation. In Mandalay the delegation met Dr. Tin Maung Kyi, a descendent of the Yodaya captives who lives in downtown Mandalay, and four families that are descendents of the Yodaya prisoners. Dr. Tin did not know about the stupa until 1989 when he saw a copy of the parabaik from the British Library and passed on the information to U Puinnya or Phra Panya, abbot of the monastery adjacent to the Lin Zin Gon cemetery, who had not known that the stupa contained the ashes of the Thai king. An 84 year old female descendant of the Yodaya people, who lives about 300 meters from the stupa, said she had since childhood been told by her forebears that the stupa contained the ashes of the Thai king. A nearby family, not Yodaya descendants, said that their grandmother, who is almost 100 years old, had told them that the stupa contained the Thai king’s ashes. However, a family of Yodaya descendants that the delegation met living in downtown Mandalay did not know about the stupa. So the evidence of oral history seems positive to a certain extent. Additional oral history studies would be important. Prince Damrong Rajanuphap, who had heard rumors of the stupa of King Uthumphon, visited Mandalay in 1936 and directed an unsuccessful search in Ava.10 He concluded that the stupa was probably in Sagaing, but this is unlikely. The delegation concluded that there is sufficient evidence to believe that the ashes of King Uthumphon are in the stupa complex in Lin Zin Gon cemetery. After the trip, there were two meetings between representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Culture, Association of Siamese Architects, and other parties which decided that the Ministry of Culture would conduct an in-depth study of the Yodaya captives, the Association of Siamese Architects would excavate the site, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would liaise with the Myanmar authorities. Excavation was expected to begin in early 2013. Acknowledgements Thanks to Chris Baker for editing and supplementary information on the history, and to San San May of the British Library for assistance with the Burmese manuscript. In his account of his visit to Burma in 1935, Prince Damrong Rachanuphap wrote: “It was known since the Fifth Reign that the site had been found of the remains of the King of Siam (that is, King Uthumphon, who we call ‘the king who sought a wat’) who died in Burma. I believe the site must be a stupa with an inscription in Ava since Ava was the capital when Burma carried the Thai away after the fall of Ayutthaya.” He made enquiries about such a stupa in Ava but drew a blank. On return to Penang he read from the Royal Autograph Chronicle that the Thai had been taken to Sagaing, and regretted his missed opportunity. Prince Damrong Rajanubhab, Thieo mueang Phama [A visit to Burma] (Bangkok: Phrae Phithaya, 1971), pp. 212–13. 10

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Section 3

International perspectives

Heritage Conservation in Asia: Shifts and Developments, 1972–2012 H. Detlef Kammeier

Introduction This paper is intended to add a broad international background to the Thailand specific discussion by most of the papers in this 100th issue of the Journal of the Siam Society. The time frame selected alludes to this year’s celebration of four decades since the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) launched the World Heritage Convention.1 Using the same time period for assessing changes in development, we have witnessed unprecedented economic growth in Asia but also, albeit less visible, some remarkable progress in heritage conservation – changing attitudes, growing interest and capability, and some outstanding tangible results - despite continuing conflict between conservation and development. The World Heritage system may be the most visible and prestigious framework of conservation worldwide, but the local and national dimensions are more important for each country and locality where the difficult integration of conservation and development must be achieved – often amounting to the proverbial squaring of a circle. In contrast, there would be hundreds of sites in need of effective protection by national legislation and local management skills. For example, Thailand still has only five sites with World Heritage (WH) status2 but hundreds more significant buildings, historic towns, nature parks, and wetlands, apart from other largely intangible cultural goods such as dance and music – all of which deserve to be conserved, for different reasons. Many of these vestiges of a rich and lively culture are threatened by modernization and squeezed into a marginal existence, neglected for lack of interest and lack of funding, and, in the growing cities, barely tolerated and often demolished. Even many of the religious and royal monuments that are The same period of time applies to the author’s presence in Asia, most of it in Thailand. The five sites are, in order of their inscription: Historic City of Ayutthaya, 1991; Historic Town of Sukhothai and associated historic towns (i.e., Si Satchanalai and Kamphaeng Phet), 1991; Thung Yai – Hua Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, 1991; Ban Chiang Archaeological Site, 1992; Dong Phayayen – Khao Yai Forest Complex, 2005.

1 2

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

282

H. Detlef Kammeier

Heritage Conservation in Asia

traditionally better protected by law and more respected by people have been badly neglected by local authorities. Using the established World Heritage system as a framework for orientation, this paper outlines the system’s legal foundation, its elaborate procedures, and the broadening of conservation issues. It will then move on to the shifts and developments in the heritage value system of the past 40 years, at the same time also looking at the principal differences between West and East.

worth mentioning. First, tentative lists (prepared and maintained by each country) of prospective sites are often known years ahead of the actual nomination. Second, there is a list of World Heritage in Danger that includes certain sites for a period of observation until the threat of damage or mismanagement has been removed. Otherwise, the site may be de-listed.

Some aspects of the World Heritage system The total number of World Heritage sites is now approaching 1,000 (Table 1) so in each country there are only a few, or in larger countries, perhaps a few dozen sites. Over the past decades, the World Heritage Convention of 1972 has been signed by 190 states and territories (“States Parties” in WH parlance) but some of them came quite late in their recognition of this important document. In a sense, it is the most successful international law as not a single state has actively opposed it. Table 1. World Heritage Sites Total number of World Heritage Sites (in 157 states and territories)

962

Cultural sites 745 Natural sites 188 Mixed sites 29 Source: World Heritage List, 2012, statistics after the last World Heritage committee session, June 2012

The distribution of sites still reflects the Eurocentric views of many of the committee members who decide on inscriptions under the Convention.3 China and India, the most populous nations with extraordinarily rich cultures (and natural environments as well), still do not have as many of their uncountable number of candidate sites inscribed as the classic European “champions” of heritage protection (Table 2). This imbalance has been addressed for many years by restricting the new inscriptions in Europe and giving a certain “bonus” to developing countries. However, Europe and North America together still account for almost half (48 percent of all World Heritage sites. Although the majority of sites are in the cultural category, there are now more and more “mixed” sites, natural sites, and cultural landscapes. Some of the newly inscribed sites are exceedingly large and complex, raising serious questions as to their manageability.4 Two instruments for regulating the number of inscriptions are 3 4

283

Table 2. Eurocentric distribution among selected countries World Heritage sites in selected countries up to 2012 China India Italy Spain France Source: World Heritage List, 2012

Numbers 43 29 47 44 38

During the last few years, several sites have actually been delisted because their management was found to be unsatisfactory, especially where new incompatible developments were permitted in violation of the agreed local statutes. In the long term, it might even become feasible to limit any inscription to a fixed period (perhaps 25 or 30 years) with the condition that it be reconsidered so that new criteria might be considered. Though highly controversial and probably untenable on political grounds, such a measure could adjust the list to the changing state of understanding without growing beyond a reasonable size. The World Heritage system grows in complexity and international competence in heritage protection, reflecting the shifts in defining heritage values and their translation into protection policies.

Categories of heritage and their values Most heritage objects are buildings that are fixed in a specific site, on a road, next to a square or in a particular geographic spot. Others are mobile, such as statues or other objects that are even easier to move than a statue. Immobile heritage objects are often deemed worthy of protection because of some reasons that could be generalized as “memorial values” or perhaps as historically generated values that are typically tied to a physical site or building (where a memorable historic event took place). While the economic use value of any building or site inevitably goes

The first inscriptions were made in 1978, several years after the convention had been agreed upon. An example of the complex types of “sites” is the serial inscription of the remnants of the Roman

Limes (shared by Germany and UK). In comparison, cross-border sites like the English Garden of the eighteenth-century Muskau Castle (straddling the German-Polish border) appear relatively easy to manage. However, nominating and eventually inscribing the Silk Road remains an exceedingly ambitious multi-national project. For more information, refer to the World Heritage List, http:// whc.unesco.org/en/list but also to the Operational Guidelines (updated to 2008).

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

284

H. Detlef Kammeier

Heritage Conservation in Asia

285

down to zero after the end of its economic life, the memorial value (or historic, or perhaps sentimental value) rises and declines with the importance of that memory in people’s minds.5 The “natural” or rather economic cycle of growth and decline in a place’s economic importance results in periodic replacement or heavy modification. This triggers debates of how to go back to preserving the “original” structure or any particular stage rather than the accepting and enhancing the “palimpsest” of the historical layers that are so typical of any older building. A general classification of heritage types and their values is outlined in Figure 1. Quite obviously, most heritage conservation projects have more than one dimension – the physical structures that need repair and maintenance cannot be separated from the intangible dimensions of meaning and use of a building, and generally, from the social and cultural issues that are involved.

are inscribed in a list which was launched as late as 1992. In addition, there is a convention on safeguarding intangible heritage (UNESCO, 2003). This is a very significant extension of the previously narrow focus on material heritage, without adequately recognizing their immaterial aspects. It can be argued that the separation into “tangible” and “intangible” heritage is artificial because the physical evidence of human interaction with nature (buildings, towns, cultural landscapes) is based on intangible constructs of the mind, on societal power structures, and on human ingenuity, while most intangible features of heritage are closely linked with territories and sites. The World Heritage system constitutes the most refined collection of expertise in heritage conservation with contributions on all kinds of heritage sites that are under examination. It could serve as a model for legislation at the national level

NATURAL                     MAN‐MADE Cultural / Social

Ecosys

INTANGIBLE Phenomena                         Activities

Cultur

Phenomena                             Activities Natural Objects                        Artefacts

t em

al land

s c a pe

Herita

ge site Mo nu ment

Natural Objects                    Artefacts

TANGIBLE Movable / Immovable

Figure 1. A comprehensive classification of heritage resources

Heritage objects, tangible or intangible, man-made or natural, movable or immovable, come in different sizes – ranging from the familiar single building (or part of a building complex like a sacred shrine) to larger areas like an entire monastery, or a historic city center, or even a whole region of historic relevance. Such a region falls into the category of a cultural landscape where the natural setting is enhanced in value, perhaps due to significant settlement structures or agricultural practices (such as the rice terraces in Nepal, Bali, or the Philippines), or due to specific historical periods that shaped the natural environment (such as the Loire Valley in France that has been a World Heritage site for many years). Figure 2 illustrates the increasing size and complexity of heritage sites over the past thirty years – from single buildings to cultural landscapes and serial nominations. UNESCO has added another global register of outstanding heritage of the intangible category, the so-called “memory of the world”. This term refers to a growing collection of exemplary documents of art, science, and civilization that

Expanding the scope of “heritage resources” and “heritage sites” implies growing community involvement as well as increasingly  complex institutional arrangements

Figure 2. Expanding scope of conservation objects

2

which in many countries is far behind the demand for adequate consideration and treatment of heritage resources.

Compatibility of traditional and modern buildings and urban fabric

And also in the appreciation by changing governments, or in the views of various social groups – which indicates the complications in defining heritage values.

If historic fabric in Thailand (or similar countries) is currently met with more adequate understanding and treated with growing expertise compared with the situation forty years ago, one might ask whether the overall situation has been better – here or in advanced countries where heritage conservation is taken even more seriously. This is almost a rhetorical question because new urban development has always required transformation, rebuilding, and demolition of existing stock. So the cycle of new development, demolition, and conservation always leads to difficult choices, between replacing or retaining parts of the environment, with no chance ever of meeting all stakeholders’ preferences.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

5

286

H. Detlef Kammeier

Heritage Conservation in Asia

What is new nowadays is the sheer size of new urban construction projects on a scale unprecedented in history. Similarly, the acreage of prime forest converted into oil palm plantations (in Indonesia, for example) or into grazing land for cattle raising (in the Amazon area) is much larger than any rural transformation in the past. The difference lies not only in the enormous scale of modern city growth, but also in the great difficulty of making modern concrete and steel construction compatible, in terms of scale and materials, with traditional buildings made of timber and bricks. In former times, the style of what was “modern” differed from the styles of earlier periods, but both scale and materials were much more sympathetic to the historic surroundings than nowadays. History is replete with dramatic cases of the changing “use values” of previously grand structures. Three examples:

Obvious differences would exist between the most advanced economies (such as Japan and Singapore) and the latecomers in development (such as Laos and Cambodia). Singapore embraced heritage conservation only in the early 1980s, after having re-developed most of its former shophouse fabric. What is left of the traditional Singapore townscape is a few islands of highly gentrified complexes of shophouse alleys and a good number of public buildings, apart from the meticulously conserved open spaces. Within less than twenty years, China probably achieved the greatest progress in catching up on state of the art conservation methodology with many interesting results, including some last-minute decisions for active conservation in Tibet, after most of the extant buildings had been demolished. Cambodia and Laos have not had enough time and opportunity for updating their heritage legislation, but there are some modest projects of urban conservation, apart from the special case of Angkor where large-scale historic preservation meets an increasingly unmanageable influx of tourists. Thailand, as witnessed by the most interesting range of papers in this volume, has its share of successes and failures all over the country, in terms of historic substance rescued, long-term policies, and some intelligent projects.8 In a sense, from superficial observation, there are no great East-West differences any more because Asian urbanization has already overtaken the West in speed and volume. The present conditions prove that long periods of economic boom are far worse in their destructive power than war.9 Similarly, the overly confident modern architects and city planners in the East are as bad as their Western colleagues in their apparent superiority complex (coupled with a lack of historic knowledge) that is let loose on cities and landscapes with rich layers of historical fabric. But there are differences that can be generalized. In the East, there is generally a short historical distance of perhaps twenty to thirty years between a stage when much of the cityscape is the product of “traditional” modes of building production and planning, and the current stage of “modernity” in terms of architectural style that is often poorly adapted to Asian environments and culture. In the West, that historical distance would be at least sixty to eighty years. In addition, there is also a

• After its heyday as the center of the ancient Greek democracy, the Acropolis of Athens lost its significance and monument value. During the Ottoman occupation of Greece, Athens was a dusty provincial town, and the Acropolis was used as a gunpowder magazine which then became the target for a destructive attack by the Venetian army (1687). It took another 200 years for the Acropolis to be re-appreciated for its “heritage” value. • Not long after the Forum Romanum had lost its dignity as the center of the most powerful empire of the ancient world, it became a quarry for building houses and streets.6 • After Ayutthaya had been sacked by Burmese troops in 1767, a new capital had to be founded in a safer location, in the swamps along the Chao Phraya River. What had been left of the proud capital was the memory, and the bricks, many of which were shipped down the river to build the landmark chedi at the “golden mount” of Wat Saket so as to recreate the old capital.

Differences between East and West Are there any significant differences between a typical Western country and an Asian country in terms of heritage appreciation and conservation? This question is not as easy to answer as it would have been forty or fifty years ago, especially when comparing countries at widely different stages of their socio-economic and legislative development.7

287

The wonderfully documented archaeological sites at some subway stations in Rome (and Athens) show that many houses used the marble from previously important historical structures as solid but inexpensive building material. 7 In this broad comparison, Australia is part of the “West” in terms of culture and socio-economic

development although clearly geographically part of the Asia-Pacific Region. It is inappropriate to throw all of the Asian countries into one basket because there are so many significant differences. 8 One of the most successful long-range programs must be that of Rattanakosin Island which was launched at the 200th anniversary of Bangkok. When the program began in 1982, I would never have believed it would become so successful in showing what a consolidated and continuously refined policy can achieve. 9 That was the same in Europe where the economic boom after the war destroyed more historic substance than the devastating bombing. The signal for overall policy change was the European Year of Architectural Heritage declared by the European Council in 1975. At that time, most cities had already successfully begun to turn from new urban development to piecemeal rehabilitation and conservation.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

6

288

H. Detlef Kammeier

Heritage Conservation in Asia

significant difference between a mature planning and control system and one that is only recently created and largely untested. There is another significant difference – in defining the authenticity of heritage. In the classical European doctrine (which only developed since the eighteenth century), the authenticity of the material is very important, while in Asia the focus is on the authenticity of the spirit of place. Therefore, murals may be repainted, and facades may be rebuilt rather than being painstakingly restored, to clearly mark the difference between genuine old parts and reconstructed parts where there is no evidence how it may have looked 300 years ago. In contrast, the spirit of a sacred place is not considered affected if the mural now appears in vivid fresh colours.10

The Asia-Pacific Awards for Heritage Conservation

Defining and assessing heritage values Perhaps the most well-known general criterion for World Heritage listing is that of “outstanding universal value”. This is contradictory in itself because, by definition, all heritage is culture-specific as well as locality specific, hence “universal values” are always difficult to define. Two other key terms have given rise to long discussions among heritage specialists. The first is “authenticity”. Its specific interpretation in Asia was authoritatively presented in the Nara Document (first published in 1994), setting it apart from its earlier Eurocentric meaning. The China Principles (ICOMOS, 2004) were adopted for similar reasons. The second term of equally high importance is “integrity”, again with differences in interpretation in Asia and Europe. Both terms have been proposed in an innovative way as qualifying criteria for World Heritage nominations and also as part of the increasingly refined management framework for World Heritage sites. The late Herb Stovel (2007) presented an inspiring discussion of the complexities of authenticity and integrity and their practical use, leading to most interesting alternative approaches to dealing with World Heritage resources. The framework for assessing heritage qualities contains the following criteria: • Wholeness; intactness; material genuineness • Genuineness of organization of space and form • Continuity of function; and continuity of setting Stovel demonstrates the use of such criteria with regard to archaeological sites, historic towns, architectural monuments and complexes, and cultural landscapes.

289

All of the demanding criteria for good heritage conservation have been applied in selecting projects in a program that has attracted the attention of professionals and communities throughout Asia. The director of the cultural office of UNESCO Bangkok launched the program of best practices in 1999. 11 The idea is to award privately funded cultural heritage projects in the Asia-Pacific Region (which includes Australia), avoiding any inappropriate competition with government sponsored programs. Typically sponsored by individual property owners or by non-government agencies and often managed by communities, the projects represent an extraordinary range of interesting and competently managed cases of heritage conservation. Thus they do not compete with the World Heritage properties that are normally funded and managed by states, municipalities, or specific public agencies. The annual competition has been running successfully for more than ten years, with very encouraging results. The award-winning projects of the first five years have been published in a beautiful book (Engelhardt, 2007). On the basis of the documentation, it can be stated with confidence – and that is a very important message particularly for the poorer countries in Asia – that privately sponsored and competently executed conservation projects are the most effective promotion of broad based heritage management.

The convergence of heritage conservation and environmental protection The “heritage of mankind” can be conceived as a precious but fragile gift that comes with heavy conditions for its care. The gift is from previous generations to our present society (who must take responsibility for looking after that precious gift) and future generations (who, one would hope, will eventually receive that gift undamaged). This is precisely the same moral obligation which is now universally accepted with regard to the environment. Both principles, of the protection of natural and cultural heritage, have effectively moved from marginal positions in public opinion to center stage (the environment probably more than cultural heritage). In the process which can be observed all over the world, there has been a convergence of both types of social

In the past ten years, the famous murals at Wat Phra Kaew and Wat Suthat have been carefully restored, fully in line with the Asian interpretation of authenticity rather than material authenticity.

Here is a welcome opportunity for giving credit to Dr. Richard A. Engelhardt as the untiring and resourceful promoter of heritage conservation campaigns in all of the Asian countries. He launched the series of Asia-Pacific Awards and managed the implementation of the program until his recent retirement from UNESCO. It was a privilege for me to serve on the jury for several years where I met a good number of other professionals who have faith in the growing potential of highly competent heritage conservation projects. The special website for the program is richly illustrated and informative – UNESCO (Bangkok), 2011.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

10

11

290

H. Detlef Kammeier

Heritage Conservation in Asia

responsibility, so much so that new legislation for heritage conservation is often incorporated in environmental laws that are already in force.

most significant are the gaps between the well intended, but highly sophisticated and Eurocentric international documents and guidelines, and the national, regional and local conditions at the implementation level. Because many states fear their sovereignty may be undermined, the core provision of human rights, the right to self-determination, is not yet accorded to groups which differ from the mainstream society. For many governments sovereignty, along with political and economical issues, are still paramount over conservation. The status of indigenous peoples in nation-states differs greatly. In NorthEuropean liberal democracies, indigenous peoples enjoy relative autonomy; in North-America, Australia and New Zealand they have recently achieved some striking successes concerning their territorial claims. Fleischhauer and Kammeier (2007) expressed the cautiously optimistic view that there is hope in sight, despite the long established incompatibility of international laws and the restricted role that indigenous peoples are commonly allowed to play in managing natural resources. The issues involved are very complex, cutting across the realms of international law, natural science, cultural sciences, social anthropology, and also “heritage management”, as an emerging field which is not quite established as a branch of scientific knowledge.

Nature protection and the recognition of the role of indigenous peoples The imperative of sustainable development takes a different direction when it comes to the role and the rights of indigenous peoples, who are typically living in those nature reserves that have been left untouched by modern civilization. Over the past two decades, two global movements have brought issues concerning indigenous peoples to greater public attention. • One movement is the continuous human rights activism of international organizations and the ceaseless efforts of indigenous peoples themselves, supported by a number of NGOs, which have brought to light the reality of ethnocide, the oppression and discrimination of indigenous groups all over the world. • The other movement is focused on environmental issues – the vulnerability of nature and its fragile equilibrium, global warming and climate change, excessive logging in tropical forests, overexploitation of natural resources and the destruction of ecosystems, man-made catastrophes like hazardous mining activities and frequent cases of oil pollution, and purely natural catastrophes, such as the tsunami which hit Southeast and South Asia in December 2004. These events triggered a new perception of nature and an increasing interest in indigenous and tribal societies that have a strong attachment to their land and live in apparent harmony with their environment. Indigenous peoples are more and more perceived through a lens of nostalgia, a longing for things that cannot be found in conditions of modernity, particularly in those countries that call themselves “advanced”. The rapid decrease in biological and cultural diversity has spurred the interest of scientists and environmentalists in the unique ways in which indigenous peoples perceive, use, and manage their natural resources. For environmental protection, indigenous peoples have now been discovered as useful partners, even though this sympathetic view is not shared by many governments. Indigenous communities often have admirable and complex practices for the sustainable management of their land, even though these methods differ from those of western science. Indigenous practices have proven to be successful, have delivered similar results as Western approaches, can be inexpensive, and, through religious or spiritual prescriptions, can sometimes be enforced more effectively. There are large gaps between international policy and local realities. Perhaps Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

291

The human rights based approach to cultural heritage conservation A human rights based approach has also been discussed with regard to cultural diversity, which is seen as equally important as biological diversity, and thus serves as a strong argument for the management of cultural heritage resources by local ethnic groups that may otherwise not be part of mainstream society (Bjoenness, 2008; Jokilehto, 2012). It is surprising that human rights issues have not been brought into the discussion of cultural protection much earlier, although they have been basic to the goals of the United Nations from its beginnings in 1945 (Logan, 2008). Amund Sinding-Larsen uses the human rights argument in his monumental work on the development of Old Lhasa (2012) – perhaps the most controversial and highly politically loaded case of heritage management anywhere in Asia.

Demanding management plans for heritage sites The institutional framework, negotiation and mediation among stakeholders, and regular monitoring of existing sites have moved to center stage in the assessment of World Heritage sites. Management plans are now required as part of the nomination and inscription procedures, and it may be expected that all sites that do not have an adequate management plan now (and that is the majority!) will need to have one in a few years. The elaborate specifications of the World Heritage system may also Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

292

H. Detlef Kammeier

Heritage Conservation in Asia

293

be applied to nationally and regionally registered monuments and sites, perhaps in appropriately simplified manner. As one of the largest global industries, tourism is often closely related to major heritage places, and heritage tourism has become big business. Decision makers in all countries usually equate heritage conservation with tourism promotion although this is patently wrong because the two sets of objectives are hard to reconcile. Heritage protection requires carefully balanced limits on the number of visitors depending on the nature of the site, but commercial tourism promotion aims at ever larger numbers. The heritage management plans must deal with tourism – typically, for small and unknown sites, with the objective of bringing in more visitors, but more often, with the aim of controlling the visitor crowds within sustainable limits. As with all other aspects of heritage, from value definition to local participation in decision making or implementing maintenance and monitoring procedures, the seemingly technical work is inextricably linked with local and often national politics.

relevant and affordable at all, as it competes with the much more pressing problems of poverty, health, education, social injustice, and inequality.

Acknowledgements Urban conservation had been part of my professional profile long before joining AIT. There, many of my students shared my interest. One of them is Dr Yongtanit Pimonsathean, who has become a veritable “Mr Conservation” in Thailand. I should also like to acknowledge the seminal contributions by Dr Sumet Jumsai na Ayutthaya whom I have known since 1972. He has been able to achieve so much in conservation, apart from being one of Thailand’s most interesting architects and planners. Finally, I should like to pay my respect to the late Dr Apichat Wongkaew with whom I interacted on planning and conservation matters for 30 years.

Concluding remarks Conservation concerns have grown much more over the past forty years than any earlier conservation movements with their nineteenth century roots. The main reason lies in the speed of change in recent decades that has been much faster than in the past. There are serious threats to the finite heritage resources (natural and cultural). Broad sectors of society are worried by the vanishing of cultural identity as a result of the levelling effects of economic and cultural globalization. The growing conservation movement all over the world is in fact a counter movement against the widespread and naively unreflective faith in unlimited economic progress. This observation may however only apply to the post-industrial countries of the West with their much longer experience with that kind of progress. Elsewhere, it tends to be the position of intellectuals who can see well beyond contemporary development fashions though they might lack opportunities for intervention. The scope of conservation has been broadened considerably, linking the formerly unconnected fields of cultural conservation, urban development, and environmental protection. The emerging cultural conservation movement has also been fused with the global environmental movement since the 1992 Earth Summit (Rio de Janeiro) and the well known Local Agenda 21 since 1996. Despite its growth all over the world, the conservation movement may still be seen as a Western and distinctly post-industrial agenda, which originated in the 1960s and 1970s when the post-war economic boom (which had been utterly disrespectful to historic city centers throughout Europe) came to a halt. For the poorer pre-industrial (or industrializing) part of the world the principal question is whether the relatively new import of “Western” conservation thinking is

Bjoenness, Hans C., 2008. “Changing territorial values in urban conservation. From Patan, Nepal to Gyantse, Tibet Autonomous Region”, A. Tomaszewski, ed., Values and Criteria in Heritage Conservation. Proceedings of the International Conference of ICOMOS, ICCROM and Fondazione Del Bianco, Florence, March 2-4, 2007, Rome: ICCROM, 2008, pp. 134-143 Engelhardt, Richard A., ed., 2007. Asia Conserved: Lessons Learned from the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Heritage Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation (2000-2004), Bangkok. The book is also available in electronic form from the UNESCO (Bangkok) website. Fleischhauer, Andrea, and H. Detlef Kammeier, 2007, “International environmental law and the role of indigenous peoples in protected areas: Hope for creative solutions in a setting of established incompatibility”, International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, Southampton, Boston: WIT Press, Vol. 2, No. 3 (2007), pp. 332-352 ICOMOS China, 2004. The China Principles. English-language translation and photographs copyright Paul Getty Trust, Los Angeles; at www.getty.edu/ conservation first printed 2002, second printing with revisions 2004. Jokilehto, Jukka, 2012. “Human rights and cultural heritage. Observations on the recognition of human rights in the international doctrine”, Intenational Journal

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

References

294

H. Detlef Kammeier

or Heritage Studies, Vol. 18, No. 3 (May 2012), pp. 226-230 Kammeier, H. Detlef, 2008. “Managing cultural and natural heritage resources”, City and Time, Internet journal, Centro de Estudos de Conservação Integrada (CECI). Vol. 4, No. 1, Recife (Brazil), 2008, pp. 1-13; at http://www.ct.ceci-br. org/ Logan, William, 2008. “Cultural Diversity, Heritage and Human Rights”, Graham, B., and P. Howard, eds., The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity, Aldershot (UK): Ashgate. Nara Document on Authenticity, 2007 (first published 1994); at http//:whc.unesco. org/events/gt-zimbabwe/nara.htm Sinding-Larsen, Amund, 2012. Old Lhasa: Built Heritage and Urban Form 19952005. PhD dissertation, NTNU Trondheim, Norway. August 2012 Stovel, Herb, 2007. “Effective use of authenticity and integrity as World Heritage qualifying conditions”, City and Time, Vol. 3 No. 2. CECI, Recife (Brazil), 2007, pp. 21-36; at http://www.ct.ceci-br.org/ UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 2003; at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001325/132540e.pdf UNESCO Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, 2008; at http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08-en.pdf UNESCO Memory of the World Register, 1992; at http://www.unesco.org/new/en/ communication-and-information/flagship-project-activities/memory-of-theworld/register/ UNESCO World Heritage List, 2012; at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list UNESCO (Bangkok), 2011. Website on Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation; at http://www.unescobkk.org/culture/world-heritage-andimmovable-heritage/asia-pacific-heritage-awards-for-culture-heritageconservation/2011-heritage-awards/award-regulations/

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Exploring Shared History, Preserving Shared Heritage: Penang’s Links to a Siamese Past Khoo Salma Nasution

In Penang, history is being kept alive through a growing appreciation of the heritage of its historic port, which once served as a regional port for Thailand’s south-western seaboard, Sumatra, and the northern peninsular Malay states. The local heritage movement pushed for international recognition of George Town, which was jointly nominated by the Malaysian government together with the older city of Melaka, to the UNESCO World Heritage list. The “Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca” were gazetted as UNESCO sites on 7 July 2008. As part of this movement, the Penang Heritage Trust organized “The Penang Story,” a series of colloquia and an international conference in 2001–2002. This multi-level exercise involved both academics and community historians in sharing the social histories of the port city’s diverse multicultural population. In the following year a conference on “Shared Histories” explored Penang’s historical connections beyond borders. These two conferences have stimulated historical interest in Penang, uncovered Penang’s links to its Siamese past, and also helped to identify Siamese and Thai heritage in Penang. The pre-British history of Penang is inseparable from the history of Kedah, a kingdom which has been under the sway of Sri Vijaya, the Chola dynasty of South India, and then Siam. Ancient Kedah was at a confluence of maritime and overland trading networks – sea routes poised at the entrance to the Straits of Malacca and fanning out to the Indian Ocean and trans-peninsular land routes reaching over to the Gulf of Siam and South China Sea. This strategic position was usurped by the British trading post at Penang, which emerged as the most modern nexus of old regional trading networks.1 Envisioned by the English trader Captain Francis Light, Penang offered free port facilities, favourable terms of land alienation and freedom of worship, and succeeded in attracting thousands of settlers within the Phil King, “From Periphery to Centre: Shaping the History of the Central Peninsula,” PhD thesis, University of Wollongong, 2006.

1

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

296

Khoo Salma Nasution

Exploring Shared History, Preserving Shared Heritage

first few years. Chinese, Indians, Hadrami Arab and other foreign traders created permanent trading colonies, using Penang as a convenient station to venture into the surrounding hinterland.

was later erected in the grounds of St. George’s Church. Some mystery surrounds Francis Light’s Catholic wife Martina Light also known as Martinha Thong Di. She is a likely candidate for the anonymous woman emissary whom Light met in the Acehnese court with a proposition from the Sultan of Kedah. Her identity (recorded as Siamese, but also variously thought to be part-French, Portuguese, or Malay), her status (whether she had connections to the Kedah and Siamese courts), her marriage to Light (whether common-law or conducted under certain rites), and the identity of their Kedah-born son William Light, chief surveyor and acknowledged founder of Adelaide, has been subject to much speculation. 5 The inability of British administrator-historians to deal with cultural complexities in this part of the world has contributed to the muddle, resulting in disrespectful asides against this pioneering woman who most likely played a key role in bridging many cultures and power relationships. Hailing from Phuket or elsewhere in Siam, she was a contemporary of the Governor’s widow Than Phuying Chan and her sister Khun Muk, honoured as Thao Thep Kasatri and Thao Si Sunthon, heroines of Thalang who led the defence of Thalang against Burmese invasion in 1785. In Penang, there is a strong tradition that Rozells started an orphanage, and a street in Penang is informally called “Martina’s Lane” after her. Early Penang attracted various groups which had been left in a vulnerable position after the fall of Ayutthaya in 1767. Three separate Catholic institutions were established in early British Penang. The Church of the Assumption was established on Penang Island in 1786, having been relocated from nearby Kuala Kedah. The Bishop Arnaud-Antoine Garnault of the Missions Étrangères de Paris had started a church in Kuala Kedah four years earlier, under the protection of the Sultan of Kedah; the parishioners comprising of Siamese-Portuguese families who had recently fled there from Phuket and Ligor. In Penang, the church and bishop’s presbytery were located at Church Street and Bishop Street respectively, two of the first streets in George Town. Significantly, the earliest known school in Penang was started here for the Catholic families. In 1860, the church moved to its present location on Farquhar Street. The College-General, a famous seminary set up by the Missions Étrangères de Paris in Siam, had to relocate several times after the Burmese conquered Ayutthaya in 1766, before finally finding its permanent home in Penang in 1807, occupying large tracts of land in Pulau Tikus (until 1986) and Mariophile in Tanjung Tokong (until today). The seminary trained priests for Catholic churches in Asia, drawing students from all over Asia and as far as Mexico. Among some of the renowned seminarians trained here were those martyred in Korea and Annam (Vietnam) and later beatified.

Francis Light, Martina Rozells, and the Transfer of Catholic Institutions from Siam to Penang The circumstances of the British occupation of Penang Island in 1786, and its consolidation with the annexation of a larger territory on the mainland in 1801, have been debated by historians for decades. Although trade rather than territorial expansion was the East India Company’s initial motivation, the forced cession of Penang heralded the gradual encroachment of British imperial power on the SiameseMalayan peninsula. Relations between Kedah and British Penang were embittered from the beginning. Captain Francis Light, a country trader who pushed for the establishment of this British trading post and became its first Superintendent, is painted with a negative brush in the indigenous versus foreign dialectic of Malaysian history, and often portrayed as someone who betrayed the trust of the Kedah Sultan. By contrast, the Thalang letters which run from 1773 to 1792 show him to be a respected friend of the Governor of Thalang and his wife, Than Puying Chan. Light was apparently bestowed the title “Phyaratchakapitan” (Phraya Raja-Capitan) by King Taksin in 1778.2 Operating from Sapam bay in Phuket (also called Thalang or Junk Ceylon) for more than 20 years and trading to and from the Coromandel, Bangkok, and around the Straits of Malacca, Light had developed complex relationships with the rulers and traders of Kedah and other Malay kingdoms. These relationships will only be better understood with the gradual exposition of the 1,200 or so of “The Light Letters” kept at the School of Oriental and African Studies. 3 Much new material on Light’s early life in England and his family has already been uncovered by his descendant, Noel Purdon.4 Light’s legacy is still tangible in George Town, the town founded by him, where he built Fort Cornwallis and Government House (now in the grounds of the Convent Light Street) as well as his Suffolk Estate on the way to Ayer Itam. He lies buried in the Christian cemetery on Northam Road and a memorial to his memory Kachorn Sukhabanij, “Siamese Documents concerning Captain Francis Light”, in K. G. Tregonning, ed., Papers on Malayan History (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1962), pp. 1-9; E. H. S. Simmonds, “The Thalang Letters, 1773–94: Political Aspects and the Trade in Arms”, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 26, No. 3 (1963), pp. 592–619. 3 A few of the letters have been reproduced in Annabel Teh Gallop, The legacy of the Malay letter / Warisan warkah Melayu (Kuala Lumpur: British Library for the National Archives of Malaysia, 1994). 4 Noel Purdon is based in Adelaide and has presented a paper entitled, “William Light and his Family” to the Pioneers’ Association of South Australia on Commemoration Day, 2012. 2

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

297

Ian Morson, The Connection, Phuket Penang and Adelaide (Bangkok: The Siam Society, 1993); A. Francis Steuart, A Short Sketch of the Lives of Francis and William Light, the founders of Penang and Adelaide: with Extracts from their Journals (London: Sampson Low, Marston, 1901). 5

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

298

Khoo Salma Nasution

Exploring Shared History, Preserving Shared Heritage

299

The Church of the Immaculate Conception in Pulau Tikus (Figure 1) was reconstituted from the remnants of the Siamese-Portuguese Catholic parishioners of the Church of Our Lady Free from Sin in Phuket. As a result of the devastating Burmese sack of Thalang, the parish priest father John Baptist Pasqual moved the church to “Civitate Penang” in 1811, where they were welcomed by earlier Siamese-Portuguese settlers. The descendants of this community were notably involved in the development of Penang’s education, cuisine, and musical traditions.6 Figure 1. Church of the Immaculate Conception (courtesy of parishioner Michael Weber)

The Siamese invasion of Kedah in 1821 Early depictions of Penang island are found in two Siamese maps dated circa 1810 (see Figure 2), charting the region possibly to secure better defences against Burmese threats as well as to inform future military designs on Kedah. Seen from a Bangkok perspective, Fort Cornwallis is conspicuous on the map while a few European-style buildings appear randomly placed over the island, qualifying a caption that Penang is a “farang” camp or settlement.7 In addition, two flagstaffs are represented by drawings of tower-like structures. The first flagstaff was located near the fort on the north-eastern promontory and the second on top of Flagstaff Hill (in Malay, Bukit Bendera), now popularly known as Penang Hill.

Anthony Sibert, “Phuket-Penang Shared History through the Penang Eurasian Community and the revived Malaysian Catholic Church in the 19th century,” paper presented at the Shared Histories Conference, Penang, 2003; Anthony E. Sibert, ed., Church of the Immaculate Conception, Pulau Tikus Penang, 1811-2011, Parish Bicentennial Celebration 2010-2011 Souvenir Magazine, 2011 (Penang: Parish Council of the Church of Immaculate Conception), pp. 3, 5–7. 7 Santanee Phasuk and Philip Stott, Royal Siamese Maps: War and Trade in Nineteenth Century Thailand (Bangkok: River Books, 2005), pp. 31, 91. 6

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Figure 2. Penang in an early Siamese map, circa 1810 (from Santanee Phasuk and Philip Stott, Royal Siamese Maps, reproduced with permission)

During the Siamese invasion of Kedah in 1821, the Sultan of Kedah and most of his population fled Kedah to seek refuge in Penang Island and Province Wellesley (Prai). The population of Malays in Province Wellesley (annexed by the British since 1800) jumped from 5,000 souls, prior to the invasion, to 42,500 in 1835, while those on the island also increased to 16,436 out of about 40,000.8 Some families from the “Siamese Malay States” have at various times sought refuge in Balik Pulau on “the other side of the island” (an area glossed over by the Siamese maps of 1810), where their descendants are living still. In Old Phuket, Gerini writes that in 1821, an official Burmese letter addressed to the Raja of Kedah instigating the latter to a rebellion against the Siamese monarch, was intercepted by a Macao Chinese named Lim Hoi, a resident merchant of Thalang returning from business in Penang. Lim was rewarded by King Rama II with the title of Luang Raja-Capitan and a tin-smelting monopoly for Phuket.9 The delicate balance of power in this region opened the door to Chinese entrepreneurship in tin mining, encouraged both by Siamese policies and a growing British presence in the region. The British signed the Burney Treaty with Siam in 1826, acknowledging James Low, The British Settlement of Penang (with an introduction by James Jackson) (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1972 [1836]), pp. 125–6. 9 G. E. Gerini, Old Phuket: Historical Retrospect of Junkceylon Island (Bangkok: The Siam Society, 1986), p. 97. Anthony Farrington, Low’s Mission to Southern Siam, 1824 (Bangkok: White Lotus, 2007), pp. 50–52. 8

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

300

Khoo Salma Nasution

Exploring Shared History, Preserving Shared Heritage

Siam’s rule over Kedah and other northern Malay states, to the dismay of the exiled Kedah Sultan and some of the Penang European-Eurasian mercantile community.

British Penang became an important gateway for Chinese migration to the northern Straits of Malacca. From the early nineteenth century onwards for about a century, a handful of Penang-based Chinese clans and families provided the capital, labour, and entrepreneurial skills for the development of southern Siam. As a result, the early town centres of Phuket, Trang, and Ranong, with their rows of shophouses, were largely developed by Chinese traders and miners and bear great resemblance to the streetscapes of George Town. The Chinese dialect spoken in those towns is Penang Hokkien, a local version of the southern Fujian dialect. Several early connections with Siam emanate from the family of Koh Lay Huan, the first Kapitan China of Penang, being a pioneer settler who came over to Penang from Kuala Muda in Kedah in 1786. His eldest son Koh Kok Chye served from 1821 as Siamese governor over Kuala Kedah and as an agent of the Ligor court at Pungah (Phang-Nga). Koh’s daughter, who had married into a prominent na Nakhon family, sponsored Khaw Soo Cheang to become governor of Ranting in 1844.10 With their Koe Guan Company firmly ensconced in Penang, the Khaw created a “Sino-Thai tin-mining dynasty” (as the scholar Jennifer Cushman called it) with firm ties to the local Siamese elite in southern Thailand.11 The Khaw family, later styled na Ranong, provided the leadership in harnessing Chinese commerce and labour to develop the south-western seaboard of Thailand.12 The Chinese in the Straits Settlements typically consisted of merchants, shopkeepers, planters, landed proprietors, and revenue-farmers, making up a class of permanent settlers well-connected to each other through family ties and long acquaintance. Through their distinctive material culture, the few elite families differentiated themselves from the Chinese hoi polloi – thousands of illiterate labourers and artisans who were short-term sojourners returning after a period of three years or so. In between were the newly-arrived shopkeepers and petty traders who attempted to save some money to return home or settle down in the Nanyang (literally, “South Seas”).

As immigration of women from China was restricted, Chinese men trading in Penang tended to buy Balinese, Javanese, or Nias slaves as concubines, or else look for wives in the Siamese territories. James Low, observing Chinese-Siamese intermarriages in 1824 remarked that, “as the religious institutions of both people are free from the unsocial restrictions of caste, they assimilate easily together”.13 Their offspring were typically brought back to Penang to be raised and educated in Straits Chinese ways, so that these children could be registered as British subjects and gain the advantage of an English education. Thus the Straits Chinese – local-born or naturalized Chinese of the Straits Settlements – took advantage of the Bowring Treaty of 1855 which granted extra-territorial rights and legal immunity to British subjects. Rising tin prices in the 1840s led to a great influx of Chinese groups to the peninsula, competing for tin-fields. In the nineteenth century, Penang became a regional centre for the outlying towns in southern Siam, offering greater proximity and ease of travel compared to Singapore and Bangkok. It was also the refining and export centre for the rich tin belt which stretched from Ranong in the north to Taiping in the south. Malaysian textbooks highlight the involvement of Cantonese and Hakka tin miners in Perak and Selangor but leave out the larger transboundary picture that show Hokkien Chinese venturing earlier into southern Siam. Many mining techniques were introduced from Phuket into Perak, the tripod “Tongkah furnace” being an obvious one. A comparison can be done of Khaw Soo Cheang’s fort in Ranong, Phraya Wichitsongkram’s residence in Tha Rua in Phuket, the Mantri of Larut Ngah Ibrahim’s residence in Matang, Perak, and the Gedung Raja Abdullah in Selangor – these were all tin factories, centres of tin revenue collection, containing the chief’s residence, court house or audience hall, and warehouses, the whole brickbuilt complex fortified to prevent tin theft, smuggling, and enemy raids.14 The Chinese entrepreneurs who could mobilize labour to exploit tin were leaders of “sworn brotherhoods” (the Hung league, or Heaven and Earth Society), which the British called “secret societies”, imagining them to be much like their own Freemason lodges. These Chinese brotherhoods originated in China where they had an anti-Qing government ideology. These societies served as an effective way of organizing labour, self-protection, and business syndication on the untamed mining frontiers of Southeast Asia. Both bosses and coolies on the Siamese and Perak mining frontiers belonged to branches of societies based in Penang, where tin traders, tin financiers and labour contractors had their homes.15 The Khian

Phuwadol Songprasert, “The Implications of Penang’s Historical Connection with Southern Thailand”, Malaysian Journal of Tropical Geography, Vol. 33, Nos. 1 & 2 (2002), pp. 1–10. 11 Jennifer W. Cushman, Family and State: The Formation of a Sino-Thai Tin-mining Dynasty 1797-1932 (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1991). 12 The name “na Ranong” was bestowed on the family by Rama VI, who introduced surnames to Thailand.

Farrington, Low’s Mission to Southern Siam, pp. 50–52. These comparisons are based on the author’s observations made during various visits to Phuket and Ranong. 15 Khoo Salma Nasution, “Hokkien Chinese on the Phuket Mining Frontier: The Penang Connection and the Emergence of the Phuket Baba Community”, Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JMBRAS), Vol. 82, Pt. 2 (2009), pp. 81–112.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Penang Hokkiens and Straits Chinese on the Siamese tin-mining frontier

10

13 14

301

302

Khoo Salma Nasution

Exploring Shared History, Preserving Shared Heritage

303

Teik Society in Tongkah, Phuket, answered to the private temple headquarters in Armenian Street, Penang, which still stands intact today on Armenian Street.16 The Ghee Hin and Ho Seng, societies with branches in southern Siam, also had their headquarters in Penang. The Phuket Ghee Hin consisted mainly of Hokkien people, while their counterparts in Perak were mainly Cantonese. In both Phuket and Perak, native chiefs first invited Chinese entrepreneurs to bring in coolies, organized under society leadership and control, in order to exploit the tin resources. However, the native chiefs soon found the Chinese fraternities too hot to handle when feuds broke out between competing groups. Inter-society feuds had a way of spreading from one place to another, across porous borders. In the Penang Riots of 1867 and the Phuket disturbances (or massacre) of 1879, the Khian Teik gained an upper hand over their Ghee Hin rivals.17 The prohibition of secret societies in the British territories in 1890, and in Siam a few years later, brought about a new social order. The Chinese pioneer of Phuket was Tan Tham or Tan Gaik Tham (circa 18021877). He was a contemporary of Khaw Soo Cheang and similarly affiliated with the Small Swords Society in China. Backed by the deputy governor of Phuket, Phra Palatt Tatt, Tan Tham opened tin fields in Tongkah and became its first “townbuilder”, laying out what are now Thanon Thalang and Thanon Thepkasatri. Rice and other provisions were supplied to the Phuket mining population by tin traders who had shops on Beach Street in Penang. The Phuket Chinese also became the main consumers of opium distributed by the Penang opium syndicates. A Chinese trading and mining oligarchy emerged in Phuket, composed entirely of Hokkiens, many of them hailing from the Tan clan and having connections to Penang. According to the family biographer Andrew Beattie, Tan Tham’s son Tan Lean Kee was one of five “Phuket Tans” who in 1878 were principal donors to the rebuilding of the Tan Kongsi, a clan association along Beach Street.18 Capital accumulation for the early Hokkien Chinese was mainly accomplished through tin mining and revenue farms, and consolidated through clan-based corporations formed on the basis of common lineage and with the objective of venerating common ancestors and patron saints. The Tans were one of the five big clans (Cheah, Khoo, Yeoh, Lim, Tan) based in Penang and related to each other through marriage. While the Tans were primarily engaged in Phuket, some families traded to other parts of southern Siam, peninsular Malaya, and Sumatra. The web of kinship binding the five major Hokkien clans in Penang allowed the collective accumulation of financial and social capital. Their collaboration in

business cartels and wide-ranging political networks spanning British, Dutch, and Siamese territories is painstakingly documented in the historian Wong Yee Tuan’s growing body of work.19 The clan associations of the “Big Five” are today preserved in the core zone of the George Town World Heritage Site. Under the leadership of the Khaws, the Tans, and the Ongs, the Phuket Hokkien community became a cultural satellite of the Penang Hokkien community, and a historical demonstration in Straits Chinese place-making. Phuket streetscapes with Penang-style shophouses fronted by five-footways and a few European colonial-style commercial buildings convey the influence of Penang architecture and townscape. Phuket temples dedicated to the Goddess of Mercy and the Song-dynasty Buddhist monk Cheng Chooi Chor Soo have the same functions as older ones in Penang. Even the Hokkien working-class fishing village of Bang Neow is reminiscent of the Bang Leow in Penang’s Tanjong Tokong. And finally the hill park Khao Rang and seaside promenade of Saphan Hin were apparently directly inspired by Penang Hill and Gurney Drive.20 Though most cultural traditions can be ultimately traced to China, Penang was the immediate provenance or reference point for many of the Phuket Hokkien traditions and cycle of festivals. A notable exception is the Nine Emperor Gods festival, which originated in the tin mines of Phuket and spread to Trang and other parts of the peninsula including Penang.21 As Straits Chinese families in southern Siam gradually intermarried and assimilated with the local Siamese elite, they gradually adopted Theravada Buddhist beliefs and the folk veneration of Siamese ancestral spirits or tok nenek (Malay word for ancestors).22 By the time the colonial authorities had abolished secret societies and terminated the revenue farming system, the role of religious patronage and philanthropy had intensified as a means for prominent businessmen to maintain their leadership of the Chinese community. This included Chinese patronage of Theravada institutions in southern Siam as means of expressing loyalty to the king and their adopted home. For its hinterland, Penang provided an important reference point, a modern administrative system, and advances in technology. Khaw Sim Bee effectively

Khoo Salma Nasution, “Hokkien Chinese on the Phuket Mining Frontier”, pp. 81–112. Jean DeBernardi, Rites of Belonging: Memory, Modernity, and Identity in a Malaysian Chinese Community (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004). 17 Tan Lye Ho, Bestowing Luck & Prosperity on All (Penang: Hock Teik Cheng Sin Temple, 2007). 18 G. A. C. Beattie, “A Forgotten Tan Family of Penang and Puket”, paper presented at the Shared Histories Conference, Penang, 2003.

Wong Yee Tuan, “The Big Five Hokkien Families in Penang, 1830s-1890s”, Chinese Southern Diaspora Studies, Vol. 1, 2007; Wong Yee Tuan, “Penang’s Big Five Families and Southern Siam during the Nineteenth Century”, in Patrick Jory and Michael Montesano, eds., Thai South and Malay North: Ethnic Interactions on a Plural Peninsula (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 2008), pp. 106–115. 20 During my research in Phuket in 2005, I was fortunate to be personally guided by Pranee Sakulpipatana, the Phuket expert on the common heritage of Penang and Phuket. 21 Khoo Salma Nasution, “Hokkien Chinese on the Phuket Mining Frontier”, pp. 85, 89–90. Also see DeBernardi, Rites of Belonging. 22 This was the case with the paternal side of my family, which had strong connections with southern Siam in the late nineteenth century. Emeritus Professor of Malaysian History Khoo Kay Kim also asserted this link between Baba Nyonya families and Siamese tok nenek in a public talk in 1998.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

16

19

304

Khoo Salma Nasution

transferred some ideas and institutions to Trang and Phuket. Using national archives sources, the Thai scholar Phuwadol Songprasert’s thesis shows that with the signing of the Anglo-Siamese secret convention, the Penang resident councillor A. M. Skinner negotiated with Prince Damrong Rajanubhab to convince the central government to promote Khaw Sim Bee from governor of Trang to superintendent commissioner of Monthon Phuket. As Khaw had spent his childhood in Penang, Skinner expected a strong ally in him for British business, but later complained about Khaw’s creative business strategies and subtle thwarting of British penetration. Although the Khaw family did not have a strong presence in Phuket before Khaw Sim Bee’s appointment, the latter quickly won the cooperation of the local Phuket business elite. 23 Khaw Sim Bee, who was awarded the title Phraya Phraya Ratsadanupradit Mahitsaraphakdi, made full use of his family connections to the Penang “Big Five” clans to create transboundary cartels and syndicates in mining, opium trade, labour recruitment, shipping, finance, and eventually rubber, and also to bring in Penang talent in the form of shopkeepers, accountants, and architects, rapidly modernising Phuket from 1900 up till his assassination in 1913.24 Considering the unprecedented rate of Chinese migration to southern Siam in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, intense patronage by the elite was instrumental to ensuring cultural assimilation and instilling loyalty to the Siamese throne. The Chinese nationalist leader Sun Yat Sen visited Siam four times – in 1903, 1906, and twice in 1908 – where he inspired a clandestine following among the Bangkok Chinese, the majority of whom are of Teochew (Teochiu or Chaozhou) descent. At first Khaw Sim Bee took Sun Yat Sen to visit the minister of interior but then distanced himself from the movement when radical elements in Bangkok started citing Sun Yat Sen’s anti-Qing rhetoric to instigate the overthrow of the Siamese regime.25 From 1906, Sun Yat Sen’s political movement, the Tongmenghui (China Revolutionary Alliance), established a strong presence in the region from its Southeast Asia headquarters in Singapore. A branch was established in Phuket, called the “Baba Tongmmenghui” presumably because it was formed by the Phuket Baba (in this case “Baba” is a term applied to the local-born Hokkien elite). However, it should be pointed out that in contrast to anti-monarchists in Bangkok, the Hokkien Chinese leaders in Phuket were utterly devoted to their Siamese king (especially King Rama V) whom they saw as their protector. Indeed, the Baba Tongmenghui in Phuket, headed by a wealthy tin-miner Tan Pek Khiad, titled Luang Pithak Chinpracha, looked not so much to Bangkok as to Penang, which assumed the role of the Southeast Asian Tongmenghui headquarters, after

Exploring Shared History, Preserving Shared Heritage

305

Figure 3. Phuket Thai Hua School, founded in 1911, now a museum (photo by Khoo Salma, 2005)

it was transferred from Singapore by Sun Yat Sen himself in 1910.26 In November 1910, Sun launched the fundraising campaign for the Huanghuagang Uprising in Penang, and the overseas Chinese in Siam contributed significantly.27 The Penang movement mobilized funds and fighters for the revolution in China, but also emphasized local community building through civic institutions, media, and schools, in their country of adoption. Two important Tongmenghui leaders in Penang were Ng Khim Kheng, son-in-law of Khaw Sim Kong, governor of Ranong styled Phraya Rattanasetthi, and Tan Sin Cheng, a rubber tycoon in Phatthalung, southern Thailand.28 The Phuket Chinese reaffirmed their ethnicity by founding the Hua Boon Chinese School, which opened at Krabi Road in 1913. Khaw Sim Bee suggested to Prince Damrong to place the school securely under the Ministry of Education as a bulwark against any potential political subversion. The first teachers were recruited via Penang connections.29

Phuwadol Songprasert, “The Development of Chinese Capital in Southern Siam, 1868-1932”, PhD. Thesis, Department of History, Monash University, Melbourne, 1986, pp. 268–270. 24 Khoo Salma Nasution, “Hokkien Chinese on the Phuket Mining Frontier”, pp. 91–104. 25 Phuwadol, “The Development of Chinese Capital”, pp. 314–321.

Khoo Salma Nasution “Hokkien Chinese on the Phuket Mining Frontier”, p. 89. The Tongmenghui Khoo Salma Nasution, Sun Yat Sen in Penang (Penang: Areca Books, 2008). Sun Yat Sen gave the inaugural fundraising speech at 120 Armenian Street, the Tongmenghui reading club, now the Sun Yat Sen Museum, which was visited by the governor of Bangkok M.R. Sukhumbhand Paribatra in early 2012. 28 Kuang Guo Xiang 邝国祥, Bincheng Shan Ji 槟城散记 [Anecdote about Penang). (Singapore: Shijie Shuju 世界书局, 1958), p. 143. 29 Khoo Salma Nasution, “Hokkien Chinese on the Phuket Mining Frontier”, pp. 104–106. The

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

23

26 27

306

Khoo Salma Nasution

Exploring Shared History, Preserving Shared Heritage

307

Figure 5. Siamese princes and nobles at Ranong House, Penang, on 5 December 1897

Figure 4. The Straits Steamship Matang, which ran a weekly service between Penang and Phuket until the early 1950s

Steamships plying the west coast routes were operated by the Khaw family and their associates, initially through Koe Guan Steamship Company and then through Eastern Shipping, thus providing weekly links between Penang-Phuket-Trang as well as Penang-Phuket-Takuapa-Ranong-Mergui-Rangoon. The coastal trade operated by the Straits Chinese greatly expanded Penang’s entrepôt role in the region while developing the export economy of its hinterland. Thai scholar Chuleeporn Pongsupath (now better known as Chuleeporn Virunha) provides empirical data to show that Penang’s entrepôt function had matured by around 1890.30 The growing importance of Penang started to attract Western capital, but this however influenced government investments in port development, and policies in shipping, tin production, and trade which favoured British enterprise to the disgruntlement of local Chinese and Tamil shipping operators. By floating companies such as Tongkah Harbour Tin Dredging, Eastern Smelting Company, Eastern Shipping Company, and Khean Guan Insurance, the Khaw family and their Straits Chinese associates attempted to modernise their operations in mining, smelting, shipping, and finance with the help of Australian technology and capital Hua Boon School is now the Phuket Thai Hua Museum. 30 Chuleeporn Pongsupath, “The Mercantile Community of Penang and the Changing Pattern of Trade”, PhD thesis, University of London, 1990; Loh Wei Leng, “Penang’s Trade and Shipping in the Imperial Age”, in Yeoh Seng Guan, Loh Wei Leng, Khoo Salma Nasution and Neil Khor, eds, Penang and Its Region: The Story of an Asian Entrepôt (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 2009). Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

in Phuket and German expertise in Penang. However, ultimately they could not compete with British enterprise, bolstered by international finance, in a changing economic landscape. The Khaw family maintained an important commercial base and social presence in Penang over three generations, building or refurbishing European mansions along Northam Road and Penang’s north coast, within minutes of the port. The Khaw Soo Cheang Estate donated “Ranong Ground”, where Rajah Lodge once stood, to the Penang public to serve as a playing field; it is now the site of the city’s arts auditorium, Dewan Sri Pinang. Khaw Sim Bee’s Chakrabong House was demolished in 1962.31 However, many Khaw mansions survived till the 1990s, long enough to be appreciated as “heritage” and to become implicated in heritage controversies. Brook Lodge, former home of Khaw Joo Choe, was illegally demolished over Chinese New Year of 1992. Asdang House, the former home of Khaw Joo Tok which welcomed King Prajadhipok (King Rama VII) in 1929, had been converted into Hotel Metropole for some decades before it was demolished over the Christmas of 1993.32 This was Penang’s first major heritage scandal, which implicated the politicians of Penang’s ruling government. A small fine was imposed but the developer was soon allowed to build a 29-storey condominium. Khaw Sim Kong’s mansion Hardwicke survives but had an office tower built behind it; this is often shown as an example of bad heritage “facadism”. The mansion of Khaw Bian Cheng (Khaw Sim Bee’s grandson) at Pykett Avenue was Lim Kwee Phaik, Life at Chakrabongse House: Khaw Sim Bee, Phraya Rasadanupradit Mahisornpakdi (New South Wales, Lim Kwee Phaik), 2011. 32 Kim Gooi, “Sad Tale of Beauty Felled”, in The Sunday Nation (Bangkok), 28 May 2000. 31

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

308

Khoo Salma Nasution

Exploring Shared History, Preserving Shared Heritage

309

such as the cuisine, have naturally evolved and incorporated dominant southern Thai influences. However, the urban heritage remains intact and recognizable. Though often called Sino-Portuguese, much of Phuket Old Town would be more correctly interpreted as a Sino-Thai offshoot of Straits Settlements architecture.

Expansion of German commercial interests from Penang to southern Siam

Figure 6. Na Ranong ancestral hall in Ranong (photo by Khoo Salma, 2007)

illegally demolished in 2010. And most recently, one of a pair of bungalows on Burmah Lane, which welcomed Thai prime minister Phraya Manopakorn Nititada, Prince Damrong Rajanubhab, and Prince Svasti Sobhana, was demolished while the other will be incorporated into a new condominium block. The Khaws were landlords of the E&O Hotel property developed by the Sarkies Brothers, and now a flourishing heritage hotel. The Koe Guan Kong Lun had its office at 63 Beach Street until the trust was wound up in 2004. Its mid-nineteenth century warehouse and coolie quarters were demolished, and the office building was sold and has been turned into an Indian saree shop. The prominence of the Na Ranong family is still recognized in Thailand today, whereas in Penang, it is only the older generation who remember the Khaw family were once Siamese “regents” (Hokkien, “Siam Ong”). The Na Ranong clan still maintains an ancestral hall in the ruined tin fort in Ranong, near Khaw Sim Kong’s Rattanarangsarn Palace.33 The close relationship between Penang and Ranong or Penang and Phuket has faded into distant memory. In Phuket only the older generation of the old families still speak a little Hokkien, while the younger generations only speak Thai and many are learning Mandarin. Many traditions,

While Siam could rely on Chinese entrepreneurs to develop the south through tin and rubber, its reliance on German commerce and technology to keep the British out of the Thai south was thwarted by the larger play of international events. William Thomas Lewis, who served as resident councillor of Penang in the late 1850s, was appointed Siamese consul at Penang in 1863 under King Mongkut, with the title of Luang Dwip Siam Kich (Thawip Siamkit). His second wife Maria Antonetta Neubronner was the daughter of a German Johan Anton Neubronner, who arrived in Malacca in 1789 and worked as a German book-keeper for the Dutch East Indies Company. Connected to several important Malacca Dutch Eurasian families through marriage, his nine children exerted considerable influence throughout the Malay States in the nineteenth century, as intermediaries between the Siamese, Malays, Straits Chinese, and Europeans. After Lewis’s death, an Armenian was provisionally in charge of the Siamese Consulate before Lewis’s and Maria Antonetta’s nephew, Alfred De Windt Neubronner (1844–1915; se Figure 7), took over the position about two years later. 34 Neubronner was appointed agent for Perak and responsible for revenue collection there and in the western provinces of Siam. While acting as Siamese consul general he was also an employee of the Khaw family’s Koe Guan Company, which gave rise to the occasional conflict of interest. When the baht was first issued in southern Siam, Neubronner played a role in manipulating the currency market in favour of the opium syndicate operated by the Khaw family and their associates. Neubronner was eventually given the title Phraya Thawip Siamkit, the highest rank that could be attained by the civilian foreigner. His obituary stated that “He could speak the Siamese language and was an authority on subjects connected with the Kingdom of the White Elephant.”35 Alfred De Windt’s son, Henry Alfred Neubronner (1871-1919), took over as Siamese consul but apparently lacked his father’s political talent. Instead he will be remembered as Penang’s first European-trained architect, accredited by the Royal Institute of British Architects. Henry Alfred Neubronner’s legacy in Penang are his well-designed banks, mansions, clubs, schools, and religious monuments

Clement Liang, “Penang’s Disappearing Thai Heritage”, in PHT Newsletter (Leslie James, editor), No. 100 (October 2011), pp. 11–12

Khoo Salma Nasution, More Than Merchants: A History of the German-Speaking Community in Penang, 1800s–1940s (Penang: Areca Books, 2006), pp. 70–79. 35 Pinang Gazette, 26 October 1915.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

34 33

310

Khoo Salma Nasution

Exploring Shared History, Preserving Shared Heritage

311

which gave Penang a distinctive new look in the early twentieth century.36 By the 1870s, Anglo-German commercial rivalry in the peninsula had prompted Britain to change her policy of non-intervention and push for the installation of British advisors to the Malay States. The plan for a “German railway” and Behn Meyer’s proposed leasing of Langkawi islands are the subject of several books and theses. During the period leading up to the Bangkok Treaty of 1909, sensitivities were tested by the famous Penang-based German photographer August Kaulfuss (also royal photographer for Kedah) who repeatedly applied for a large mining concession on the critical Kedah-Rahman border.37 The powerful German companies that expanded their shipping, tin and trade interests in the northern peninsula were based in Penang. Friedrichs & Co., a firm founded in Penang by F. H. Friedrichs from Hamburg, was involved in refining Siamese tin. Its smelting business was taken over by the Singapore-based Behn Meyer. The Hamburg merchant families of Sturzenegger and Pickenpack were also involved in the Penang-Bangkok trade. British merchants found the Germans overly competitive in the race for resources in both southern Siam and Malaya, and were relieved when German firms were closed down and their properties confiscated during the First World War. Today, the former merchant offices of Behn Meyer and other pre-Second World War German firms which once had such grand commercial ambitions in Siam can still be seen along Weld Quay on the George Town waterfront.38

Royal visits and soft diplomacy King Chulalongkorn (Rama V) first visited Penang with a large entourage in December 1871. As Patricia Lim wrote in her account of this visit, “His stopovers in Penang were brief but important because they gave the King an opportunity to keep in touch with developments in his southern dominions and with the people involved in those developments. Penang played a significant role in the trade and economy of these provinces and was adjacent to Kedah which was then a vassal state of Siam.”39 From then on, various Thai kings have visited Penang, at times as a stopover to and from Europe. In 1890, for example, King Chulalongkorn was a guest at Phraya Ranong’s house, the Penang Botanic Gardens, the Residency, the New Town Hall, Cheah Tek Soon’s hill retreat, and the Straits Settlements Governor’s Khoo Salma Nasution, More Than Merchants, pp. 80–88. Khoo Salma Nasution, More Than Merchants, pp. 71–73. 38 A “German Heritage Trail in Penang” was launched by the Penang Heritage Trust in 2012. It consists mainly of pre-First World War sites, with the exception of Swettenham Pier which was used by German U-boats during the Second World War. 39 Patricia Pui Huen Lim, Through the Eyes of the King: The Travels of King Chulalongkorn to Malaya (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2009), pp. 27, 32. 36 37

Figure 7. Consul-General of Siam in Penang, Alfred De Windt Neubronner (1844-1915) (courtesy of the Stanley family)

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

312

Khoo Salma Nasution

Exploring Shared History, Preserving Shared Heritage

Bel Retiro on Penang Hill. At the Infant Jesus Convent, “he met a Siamese nun from Phuket and another Siamese girl who worked there. The convent had a school that accommodated over 200 students, of which six or seven girls were Siamese, originally from Phuket. The King and Queen gave a donation to the convent for which the nuns were highly grateful and praised the King and Queen’s kindness.”40 The diplomat Isorn Pocmontri, who is studying the royal visits from 1868 to 1965, emphasizes that the Thai nobles and royals were consistently welcome in a dignified and preferential way by local British authorities. Furthermore, the visiting royals and nobles could expect the loyal support and service of the local Sino-Thais such as the Khaw family and also renew their friendship with Malay princes and nobles from Kedah and Satun.41 The Rajah of Satun was the Kedah-born Tunku Baharuddin bin Tunku Meh (1848–1932), better known as Ku Din Ku Meh. An efficient administrator, Ku Din Ku Meh was given the title Phraya Purminard Pakdi in 1902 and was responsible for modernizing Satun until his retirement in 1916. Ku Din Ku Meh was considered a traitor to the Sultan of Kedah, for undermining Kedah’s historical claims upon Satun out of his personal loyalty to the Siamese regime. Around the year 2000, his former mansion in Satun was restored and turned into a museum by the Thai authorities. He left at least two heritage buildings in Penang: a town bungalow Segara Ninda on Penang Road, which is now a budget heritage hotel in the World Heritage Site managed by Ku Din’s descendants; and a country mansion Udini House (built in 1882) on top of a hill in Gelugor, the ruins of which today command a view of the Penang Bridge.42 After the coup d’état of 1932, Prince Damrong lived in exile in Penang where he was joined by Prince Svasti Sobhana and other Thai royals. Prince Damrong lived in a house called Cinnamon Hall at 15 Kelawai Road where he wrote his memoirs, returning to Thailand only in 1943. The 1933 coup ousted Phraya Manopakorn Nititada, the first prime minister of Siam. He also fled to Penang, was initially put up in a bungalow at Burmah Lane and later moved to a permanent home in Bagan Jermal. After he passed away, Jalan Mano and Solok Mano in the Pulau Tikus suburb were named after him.

The Siamese community and Buddhism in Penang

Rajaphruek Bunga Raya: 50 years of Everlasting Friendship between Thailand and Malaysia 1957-2007 (Bangkok: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2007). 41 Talk by Isorn Pocmontri, ambassador attached to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Office of the Permanent Secretary, on “Significant aspects of the relations between Thai royalties and Penang (1868-1965)” at the seminar, “The Siamese Heritage and their Footprints in Penang”, organized by Penang Heritage Trust, 6 July 2012. He touched on the visits to Penang of King Chulalongkorn, King Vajiravudh, King Prajadhipok, King Ananda Mahidol, the Queen Grandmother, as well as King Bhumibol Adulyadej. 42 Incidentally, both the Udini House in Gelugor and the Cinammon Hall in Kelawei Road originally belonged to an earlier Tengku Kudin, a prince of Kedah who became the son-in-law of the Sultan of Selangor considered a traitor to Kedah for his role in the nineteenth-century Klang War. 40

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

313

The site of the Pulau Tikus Siamese Temple, the oldest Siamese temple in Penang, was cleared in 1795 and a Burmese temple was established there since the early nineteenth century. Around 1830, the Siamese and Burmese community totalled 648 out of a population of about forty thousand.43 In 1845, during the term of W. J. Butterworth as governor of the Straits Settlements, the East India Company made a grant of land to the Burmese and Siamese inhabitants to be jointly held by Nongmay and Boonkhan as representatives of the Burmese community, and Nankayo and Boonsoon as representatives of the Siamese community. The first head priest was Phra Kuad. Inscriptions showed that the building of the temple had been largely due to the philanthropic efforts of Chinese Buddhists. In the nineteenth century, the Lark Phra festival was observed by conveying a beautiful chariot containing a Buddha image from this temple to the Penang Waterfall (at the present Penang Botanic Gardens) but this was discontinued. In 1910, Mrs. Lim Leng Cheak was patron of the nine sacred stones (Loog Nimit) consecration ceremony. Another lady benefactor was Nang Churne Pradheep na Thallang, wife of a mining engineer C. C. W. Liddelow, who sponsored the furnished residential quarters for the priests and a bronze Buddha image from Bangkok in 1930.44 This temple was renamed Wat Chaiya Mangkalaram in 1948, and its famous Reclining Buddha statue was unveiled by the Thai king and queen before a crowd of 5,000 during their official trip to Malaya in 1962.45 Tan Say Seang Neo (ca. 1851–1930) was in her younger days a planter and miner in Kedah. Her husband Lim Leng Cheak was a wealthy rice-miller of Penang and Kedah, and his mother was from a Siamese noble family.46 Tan herself was known to the Siamese as Meh Nya Siang,47 and as a wealthy widow, she was entirely responsible for providing the site and building the Wat Sawan Arun, later better known as Ang Hock See, a temple at Perak Road.48 Her obituary read, “She was an ardent Buddhist and had made many pilgrimages to well-known shrines in Siam, Burma, Ceylon and China. The Pagoda at Kotahena Temple, Ceylon, was one of her numerous gifts in Buddhist interests in Ceylon. She erected a nunnery in Bangkok Low, James, The British Settlement of Penang, p. 126. [Nai Deng Sararaks], Souvenir in Commemoration of the Inauguration Ceremony of the New Buddha Image Wat Chaiya Mangkalaram (Pulau Tikus Siamese Temple). c. 1948. 45 Straits Times, 26 June 1962, p. 1 46 Teoh Shiaw Kuan 张少宽 张, Binlang Yu Fujian Gongzhong Ji Jiazhong Bei Ming Ji 槟榔屿福建 公冢暨家冢碑铭集 (Epigraphic Inscriptions of Penang Hokkien Public and Family Cemeteries), (Singapore: Singapore Society of Asian Studies, 1997), p.31. 47 [Nai Deng Sararaks], Souvenir in commemoration of the inauguration ceremony of the New Buddha Image. 48 Benny Liow Woon Khin, “Buddhist Temples and Associations in Penang”, Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 62, Pt. 1 (June 1989), pp. 72–73. 43 44

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

314

Khoo Salma Nasution

Figure 8. Stupa at what is now Wat Chaiyamangkalaram, Penang (courtesy of Malcolm Wade)

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Exploring Shared History, Preserving Shared Heritage

Figure 9. Buddhist philanthropist Tan Say Seang Neo (1851-1930)

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

315

316

Khoo Salma Nasution

Exploring Shared History, Preserving Shared Heritage

317

and endowed agricultural land for a monastery at Foochow.”49 She was also the main donor to the King Rama VI Pagoda of the Kek Lok Si (Temple of Supreme Bliss) in Ayer Itam. The monumental building project of a Buddhist priest was begun by the abbot Beow Lean in 1893 and supported by the leading Penang Chinese. King Rama V visited this temple in 1907. King Rama VI laid the foundation stone of a pagoda during his visit in 1915, but construction was interrupted during the First World War. Completed in 1930 with a $200,000 donation by Madan Tan, the King Rama VI Pagoda is distinguished by a syncretic design combining Chinese, Siamese, and Burmese architectural elements.50 It is important to note three other old Theravada temples, the Wat Bupparam from the early twentieth century and two temples in Green Lane on the southern side of George Town from the late nineteenth century. The Green Lane temples were initially called Wat Candaram or Wat Nai (inner temple), now the Malayan Buddhist Meditation Centre, and Wat Nok (outer temple). In 1934, Wat Nok was officially named Wat Pin Bang Onn by Prince Svasti Sobhana, who passed away the following year and was cremated in a special pavilion in front of the ordination hall. His funeral service was attended by key Siamese dignitaries such as Prince Damrong Rajanubhab and Prince Purachatra Jayakara, as well as Arthur Mitchel Goodman, Resident-Councillor of Penang (Figure 10).51 When Phraya Manopakorn passed away in Penang in 1947, his remains were preserved for some time in a special catafalque before removal to Thailand. During the Japanese invasion of 1941, about 400 Chinese and Thais sought refuge at Wat Pin Bang Onn, as Japanese military officers were strictly ordered not to interfere in Buddhist temples.52

Continuity and change in modern times The expansion of Chinese entrepreneurship into southern Siam continued into the early twentieth century, especially with the expansion of rubber small-holdings. Phuwadol Songprasert highlighted the Penang and Medan investors’ stake in the Bangkok-Southern Railway Construction Co., and Penang businessman Cheah Ky See’s ownership of 1,000 trading shops in Hat Yai during the 1920s.53 Michael Montesano’s work documents the links between Penang and Trang particularly the educational links through the Chinese schools in Penang.54 During the decades Straits Times, 22 September 1930, p. 6. Liow, “Buddhist Temples and Associations in Penang”, pp. 71–72; Khoo Salma Nasution and Malcolm Wade, Penang Postcard Collection 1899-1930s (Penang: Areca Books, 2011 [2003]), pp. 235-241. 51 Prince Svasti Sobhana’s funeral was dated 22 December 1935. 52 Liow, Benny, “Buddhist Temples and Associations in Penang”, pp. 62–64. 53 Phuwadol, “The Implications of Penang’s Historical Connection with Southern Thailand”, pp. 1-10. See Cushman, Family and State. 54 Michael J. Montesano, “The Commerce of Trang, 1930s–90s: Thailand’s National Integration in 49 50

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Figure 10. At Prince Svasti Sobhana’s funeral at Wat Pin Bang Onn in Penang, 1935, from left to right, Prince Purachatra Jayakara, Prince Damrong Rajanubhab and Arthur Mitchel Goodman, Resident-Councillor of Penang (Courtesy of Prince Damrong Rajanubhab Library, with the help of Prapassorn Posrithong).

of tin restrictions, Western tin-mining companies expanded from Perak to southern Thailand. For many tin and rubber enterprises, the accountant as well as machinery and provisions would almost invariably come from Penang where the agency houses, banks, rubber exchange, and tin-smelting operations were located. It was only after the Second World War, that the Bangkok-centred Teochew (Teochiu) Chinese economically overtook the Penang-centred Hokkien Chinese in southern Thailand.55 In the early twentieth century, affluent Chinese families in southern Thailand would send their children to Penang schools: Ranong boys Social-Historical Perspective”, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1999. 55 Yan Liu, “Trust, Identity and Commercial Advantage: Hainanese Upward Mobility in the Rice Trade on the East Coast of Peninsular Thailand (mid-nineteenth century-1980s)”, MA thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2007. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

318

Khoo Salma Nasution

Figure 11. House of Phra Pithak Chinpracha Tandavanitj in Penang (courtesy of Sanchai Tandavanitj)

Figure 12. House of Phra Pithak Chinpracha Tandavanitj in Phuket, circa 1940 (courtesy of Sanchai Tandavanitj)

to Penang Free School, Phuket boys to St. Xavier’s Institution, and Trang boys to Chung Ling High School. The girls were sent to Convent Light Street. These connections are largely continued in recent times through alumni associations and business networks. Today, the Chinese schools, notably Han Chiang and Chung Ling in Penang, are most popular among Thai families of Chinese descent.56 As Penang and Phuket as well as other parts of south Thailand are being transformed by tourism, social histories start to surface. Here are several different aspects of Penang connections with southern Thailand.

Exploring Shared History, Preserving Shared Heritage

319

From the late nineteenth century up to the 1970s, the Shaikh Haji or pilgrim brokers who used to bring their flocks of pilgrims to Penang to await the Hajj ship would also buy Muslim religious tracts printed in Acheen Street, Penang, for use in the pondok schools in Pattani. Penang was a centre for Muslim intellectuals returned from Mecca and Cairo who involved themselves in Islamic schools and the Malay press. Today, an Arab from Pattani still owns a shop, Almuariff, in nearby Buckingham Street, selling Penang-printed Islamic books to an old clientele. Tan Iu Ghee, a China-born educated Hokkien woman came to Penang from Phuket. She joined the Anglican mission in Penang, translated the Book of Common Prayer into Chinese and helped recruit Chinese students for the fledging St George’s Girls’ School founded in 1885. Her daughter Lim Beng Hong went on to become the first woman lawyer in Malaysia.57 One Tan family’s Penang-Phuket connections lasted for more than a century. Tan Neo Yee, who came to Phuket from Penang in the 1850s, became the largest tin mine owner in Phuket. His son Tan Ma Siang studied in Penang and built two Penang-style houses in Phuket, as well as a house in Penang. He was a consultant to the Royal Department of Mines and given the title Luang Pithak Chinpracha as well as the family name Tandavanitj. His son Tan Joo Ee went to St. Xavier’s Institution in Penang and in 1928 married the grand-daughter of Mrs. Lim Leng Cheak. Tan Joo Ee became the second MP for Phuket in 1937, titled Khun Chyn Sathan Phithak. He was the Phuket agent for the Straits Steamship Company and the Penang agent for the Thai Airways Company after the Second World War.58 In the early twentieth century, a migrant from Tai Pu district from Chaozhou started a shop in Penang before relocating north, where he founded the Guan Choon Tong herbal shop at 16 Thalang Road, now the oldest Chinese herbal shop in Phuket. For decades, the shop maintained family links to a medical shop in Carnarvon Street, Penang.59 Expat managers stationed in the tin mines and rubber plantations of southern Thailand would travel out to Penang periodically to visit the agency offices, accompanied by their wives for a shopping spree at Whiteaways Department Store. The weekend would not be complete without a dinner and dance at the E&O Hotel. Up to the 1960s Penang island was a free port, and therefore an attractive shopping centre for many people from across the border – they also came for the cinemas, amusement parks, and to update themselves on modern trends and fashion. Incidentally, a great deal of smuggling was done by operators in small boats, carrying cigarettes, liquor, watches, and condensed milk back to Phuket. In recent times, revival of diaspora identities and connections are being carried

Apasra Hongsakula, the first Thai woman to win the Miss Universe crown in 1965, went to boarding school at Convent Light Street in Penang. Her classmate and housemate married my uncle and became my aunt.

Khoo Salma Nasution, Alison Hayes, and Sehra Yeap Zimbulis, Giving Our Best: The Story of St George’s Girls’ School, Penang, 1885-2010 (Penang: Areca Books, 2010), p. 170. 58 Khoo Salma Nasution, “Hokkien Chinese on the Phuket Mining Frontier”, pp. 95, 103. 59 Khoo Salma Nasution, field survey in Phuket, 2005.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

56

57

320

Khoo Salma Nasution

Exploring Shared History, Preserving Shared Heritage

out through cultural societies. The annual Peranakan Convention was started in Penang in 1986 and has since been organised by Melaka and Singapore associations by rotation. Pranee Sakulpipatana who grew up in her family shophouse at Thalang Road, joined the network around 2000 and spearheaded the formation of the Thai Baba Peranakan Association. This association first hosted the annual convention in 2006 and is now a full member of the circuit. In the meantime, the Phuket Old Town Association, which also aspires to conserve its heritage shophouses, has organised study trips to George Town. The Peranakan revival in Phuket has been facilitated by budget travel and the use of social media.

speaking of her grandfather, expressed the dilemma of cultural identity: “We, his descendants, always thought of him as Malay but when I went to Thailand, they told me he was a hundred percent Thai.”61 Where previously there was cultural fluidity, plurality, and overlapping worlds, the solidification of nation-states and divergent paths of nation-building have turned porous borders into walls, determining the way we construct our stories and identities.

Figure 13. Pranee Sakulpipatana (third from left) at Hongyoke House (photo by Khoo Salma 2005)

The Penang Heritage Trust held a seminar sponsored by the Thai ConsulateGeneral, entitled “The Siamese Heritage and their Footprints in Penang” in July 2012. The seminar showcased oral history drawn from 93-year old Prabanh Sanasen, who had accompanied Phraya Manopakorn Nititada to Penang in 1932 as the sister of his late wife Khun Nit Sanasen, daughter of Phra Wisutkosa. The seminar culminated with the unveiling of a commemorative plaque at Phraya Manopakorn’s cenotaph at Wat Ping Bann Onn in Green Lane, Penang, on 8 July 2012.60 Ku Din Ku Meh’s granddaughter Tengku Sepora Tengku Mahadi of Penang, Phraya Mano’s history in Penang is now documented by the Thai scholar Prapassorn Posrithong, as well as Clement Liang and Vasana Salifa of Penang Heritage Trust. The project has the special encouragement of the Thai Consul-General Voradet Viravakin. 60

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

321

Conclusion The social history of the region can partly be told through the stories of old elites. The movement of elites and subalterns across porous borders during prenational times resulted in the formation of transboundary networks linking nodes of social and cultural capital. Personal relationships and marital unions, familial ties and tribal loyalties, the establishment of religious institutes and the recurring performance of ritual and patronage, helped to create the social conditions for secure economic investment and productivity. The British colonization of Malaya did not deter but rather intensified and expanded these transboundary networks and movements, as the Penang port developed into a modern capital of a sub-region which was being increasingly absorbed into the global economic system. Ironically, it was the hegemonic nature of modern nation-states, of both Thailand and Malaysia, which severely restricted natural trans-border movements and undermined old relationships, preferring instead to strengthen the centrifugal political-economic forces of Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur respectively. In Malaysia, academically-constructed national histories and textbook histories have not been successful in creating a sense of cultural inclusivity. On the other hand, the proliferation of media stories linked to cultural identities, migration histories and diaspora communities have done better in capturing the popular imagination and rekindling social memory. In tandem with the movement for popular social history is the movement in recovering cultural heritage which supports a sense of place and belonging. Cultural heritage could be interpreted as selective evidence of the past which we value today. With the fast rate of physical change and development since the late twentieth century, places of cultural significance in many Asian cities, small towns, and rural landscapes have been quickly eroded and replaced with globalized architecture and industrial infrastructure. We are witnessing a cultural “tragedy of the commons”, and soon we shall have little left of the past except constructed histories. Historians have warned that heritage-based approaches to history may give rise Talk by Tengku Sepora Tengku Mahdi, “Ku Din Ku Meh and his Thai Heritage in Penang”, at the seminar, “The Siamese Heritage and their Footprints in Penang”, organized by Penang Heritage Trust, 6 July 2012.

61

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

322

Khoo Salma Nasution

to nostalgic, inaccurate, or biased interpretations of the past. However, it cannot be denied that heritage in the age of cultural tourism and information communication technology has helped to generate fresh questions and new discourses in history. By placing a high value on unique genealogies and cultural difference, the construction of new local histories tend to affirm diaspora identities, religious minorities, and communities of mixed ancestry, even when these same cultural identities might be contested at other levels. Once the importance of the principle of cultural diversity is acknowledged, heritage can be easily understood as a common resource for people-centred development, with growing applications in education, the knowledge economy, cultural industry, and creative industry. Furthermore, with the internet making it easier for people to research their genealogies and re-establish transboundary links with their long-lost relatives, it is now easier for diaspora communities to discover their cultural roots, as well as homeland or overseas heritage. This phenomenon leads to the increasing relevance of the concept of transboundary “shared histories” and “shared heritage” worldwide. George Town has been listed as a World Heritage Site for three outstanding universal values (OUVs): its cultural diversity and layered history as a trading port; its living intangible cultural heritage; and its built heritage within a historic townscape. The challenge to preserve these values has led to deeper inquiry into local histories in all its cultural complexity. A great deal of cultural evidence of the past is still there to be explored. It is hoped that this article will arouse greater curiosity in the connected threads of local histories across the Malaysian-Thai border, and encourage the preservation of places where cultural resonance and historical friendships can be rekindled.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Yangon’s Heritage: Steps Towards Preservation Paula Z. Helfrich

When I returned to live in Yangon in 2007, my sense of direction was rooted in my upbringing of the 1950s and 1960s, the bittersweet memories and epic history of those times. I knew everything and nothing – Scott Market, the English Methodist School, St. John’s, St. Mary’s Cathedral, Golden Valley, Kyaikkasan Race Course, the Union Club, Kokine Club, Park Street and the Royal Lakes, and the Rangoon Sailing Club on Victoria Lake. I was familiar with York Road, Halpin, Fraser, Prome Road, Merchant Street and a host of other Anglicized place names, but I was utterly lost in modern Yangon, until I transcribed the Strand Hotel’s antique map of downtown “Rangoon” onto a contemporary map. Finally, I had come home. More correctly, I could find homes and places I’d known, history hiding in plain sight, my favorite being the beautifully refurbished Zoological Gardens, founded in 1924. Myanmar carries the burden and blessing of one of the most romantic histories in the world, shaped by Theravada teachings, Jataka tales and Nat legends, swashbuckling Portuguese sailors and the star-crossed warrior-poet Nat Shin Aung, valiant efforts by monks, writers and students to achieve independence, the death of the Martyrs, the decades of silent national grief, the amazing new beginnings, and the age-old Buddhist principle of freedom from fear. As in most tropical cultures, there are thousands of ancient religious shrines built for the ages, but there are no ancient palaces or public halls, attributable possibly to the Buddhist view of impermanence and the devastations of World War II by three invading forces.

An emerging interest in heritage preservation Among the dozens of recent changes evident around Myanmar and particularly in Yangon, there is a new interest in preservation of the erstwhile colonial structures which have endured, as well as an eagerness to share these cultural treasures that would otherwise be frozen in time, forgotten by accident or design. Although dozens of architectural fans and history buffs have dreamed for years Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

324

Paula Z. Helfrich

Yangon’s Heritage: Steps Towards Preservation

325

a comprehensive conservation strategy for the city, as part of a wider urban development plan. The Trust hopes its efforts will not only protect the city’s architectural heritage for future generations and help create a more liveable city, but also celebrate Yangon’s rich and cosmopolitan past.

Thant Myint-U became the first head of the Yangon Heritage Trust and chaired the first conference which included a stellar speaker-roster of public and private sector experts, government leaders and international resources. The outcome of the conference was a commitment from city and national government leaders, privatesector business and academics, leading engineers and architects – all determined to initiate a formal planning process for the preservation and enhancement of the 189 buildings identified as significant architectural and historical resources. Phillip Davies, the former director of English Heritage, London, said:

Figure 1. Yangon rooftops: Yangon River, the port, City Hall and Mahabandoola Square (Aye Min, 2012; Trish Gallery, Yangon)

of a renaissance for Yangon’s colonial buildings, there has been until recently very little hope or funding for such a massive undertaking, although a list of 189 potential candidate properties was established by the Yangon City Development Corporation in 1996–2000 as a first step. In 2008, Hurricane Nargis tore up trees and opened up overgrown gardens and parks, revealing hundreds of beautiful old buildings, many in disrepair, all evocative of the country’s history. When government operations were removed to the new capital at Naypyidaw, the huge inventory of beautiful colonial architecture was virtually abandoned, presenting a once-in-a-century opportunity for a whole range of “what-if?” changes, notwithstanding the general aversion to memorializing the unfortunate events of colonialism. What if these structures could be preserved to benefit this and future generations of Myanmar people, to retain historical accuracy, to embellish the urban landscape, and to help the economy? This issue was debated in many places and eventually these discussions bore fruit. Dr. Thant Myint-U, distinguished author, scholar and grandson of U Thant, who was the secretary-general of the United Nations, notes, The Yangon Heritage Trust was founded in early 2012 by a group of Myanmar historians, architects, businessmen, and others, with the aim of seeking to protect, promote and preserve Yangon’s unique architectural heritage. The Trust is a Myanmar non-governmental organization. It held its first international conference on 1 June in Yangon and is currently working with the Myanmar government and a wide range of national and international partners towards Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Yangon is the hidden pearl of Asia – and one of the world’s great colonial trading cities. Its superb heritage of historic buildings is a huge cultural and economic asset that could so easily be lost through ill-considered development. It desperately needs a sensitive vision for the future based on its unique qualities to ensure that it does not repeat the mistakes of other cities in the region with inappropriate high-rise buildings in the wrong places, and unrestricted traffic growth.

Figure 2. Yangon Railway Station, ca. 1932, after the Mandalay style (Aye Min, 2010; Trish Gallery, Yangon)

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

326

Paula Z. Helfrich

Yangon’s Heritage: Steps Towards Preservation

327

Sao Mya Thee homes in Kalaw (where I lived in the 1950s), and literally dozens of efforts conducted by owners anxious to participate in the renaissance. Many of these refurbished homes and buildings bring high rental prices as diplomatic residences, restaurants, art galleries, hotels and guest houses. The economic benefits of the renaissance are only beginning. The Yangon Heritage Trust is setting up offices and staff in Yangon, developing a strong Internet presence (yangonheritagetrust.org), as well as a schedule of workshops and conferences to sustain the momentum.

Yangon and its historic buildings

Figure 3. Yangon City Map, ca. 1950s, showing Anglicized and Myanmarese names (courtesy of Ma Thanegi, Things Myanmar, 2012)

Thant Myint-U echoed this theme in his closing remarks at the conference: “The Yangon Heritage Trust intends to offer that vision to the government and people of Myanmar in the next couple of months.” Work has already begun on a number of these important buildings, and the plan for restoration, financing and marketing is being refined for presentation to government in the last quarter of 2012. Probably one of the most dynamic features of the plan is an impact analysis of the various locations, primarily in Dagon, Bahan and Botataung Townships, and mostly within the lower quadrant of the city between Bogyoke Aung San Street as the northern limit and Strand Road to the south, bordered by Pansodan and Sule Pagoda Road to the west and Bo Aung Kyaw Street to the east. One of the critical elements of the planning process is inclusion of the long-term tenants who have made their homes in these historic locations, know the history and have lived and worked in the area for many years. Everyone has their own favorite historic property or story, such as the thunder of horses’ hooves at Kyaikkasan’s four sand, gravel and turf tracks – one and a half miles of the best track in Asia – that still exists as Myanmar prepares for equestrian events at the SEA Games in 2013. There are also individual private endeavors to restore and maintain properties in other locations – Candacraig in Pyin Oo Lwin, the Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Yangon means “end of strife”. King Alaungpaya gave this name to a small fishing town, formerly called Dagon, in the mid eighteenth century. The change of name came at the end of years of war with the Mon kingdom of southern Myanmar. The Sule Pagoda then was on a high spur of laterite, surrounded to the south by swampland inhabited by birds, elephants, crocodiles and tigers. In 1783, the British East India Company obtained permission from the Myanmar king to open a trading post on this swampland, calling it by the anglicized name of “Rang-oon”. In 1852, the Second Anglo Burma war resulted in the British annexation of the fertile Bago provinces. The governor general, Lord Dalhousie, delegated Dr. William Montgomerie (who had some experience in the urban planning of Singapore) and Lt. Alexander Fraser of the Bengal Engineers to draw up plans for a new “Rangoon”, complete with wide boulevards, streets, sewers and water systems. The first buildings were better than the previous barn or prison-like residences used for immigrant labor in the delta. During the 1870s, work started on construction of the government, commercial and institutional buildings we still see today. City planning and governance were colorful and erratic, with huffy quotations at the time about wholesale degradation, corruption and filth. The plans drawn up by the Royal Engineer Corps show a whole series of sluice sewers to be built in the marshy area below Sule Pagoda. Unfortunately these were not completed, which may well be the cause of the annual flooding that still occurs today. By the end of the eighteenth century, however, Yangon was a flourishing port that Michael Symes, the British envoy to the Konbaung Court at Ava, thought “the best in the Eastern World”. The wide streets, spacious designs, elegant proportions, and the unique colonial architecture of red brick and yellow trim was reminiscent of Calcutta, Singapore, and other colonial cities of the era from Hanoi to Batavia. Here I will focus on a number of the most beloved buildings, including some like the Strand Hotel where renovation has been completed, and others like the Secretariat, and Yangon General Hospital, where work is urgently needed. The following partial inventory has been compiled by noted author Ma Thanegi, with Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

328

Paula Z. Helfrich

Yangon’s Heritage: Steps Towards Preservation

329

Figure 4. Yangon General Hospital on Bogyoke Aung San Road, ca. 1904-11, built in the Georgian style (Aye Min, 2010; Trish Gallery, Yangon)

selected artwork by artist U Aye Min provided by Patricia Pun of Trish Gallery.1 They are collaborating on a volume about the history and preservation of Myanmar architecture that will serve as a benchmark for the work ahead. The buildings2 The expansion of the colonial heart of Yangon made Sule Pagoda the center, and it remains so to this day. Some architecture of that period survives along the streets in the neighborhood of the Strand Hotel, probably the best-maintained remnant of colonial architecture in the whole country. Once owned by Messrs. Sarkies Brothers, owners of the Raffles Hotel in Singapore, the Strand opened in 1901 with 60 rooms. A French chef ruled the kitchen, with eight-course menus offered daily. A room cost Rs. 10 a night, a hefty sum in those times. The Strand is the only colonial hotel left intact after the bombs of World War II. Across the road from the Strand is the Australian Embassy, once part of the hotel premises. The British Embassy was built down the street in 1920 and was once owned by J & F Graham Co., which exported rice and imported Western made goods. Architectural styles wrought many variations on the standard of four-storied Aye Min’s work is on display at Trish Gallery, Excellent Condominium, Patra/Min Kyaung Streets, Dagon, Yangon. 2 For an account of these buildings and a walking tour, see Sarah Rooney, 30 Heritage Buildings of Yangon: Inside the City that Captured Time (Chicago: Serindia, 2012). 1

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Figure 5. Victorian elegance: overlooking Pansodan Street, formerly Phayre Street. (Aye Min, 2010; Trish Gallery, Yangon)

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

330

Paula Z. Helfrich

Figure 6. Bankers’ Row: Imposing colonnades and porticos of the early twentieth century on the former Lloyds Bank building (Aye Min, 2010; Trish Gallery, Yangon)

commercial or residential buildings with 14-foot ceilings, wide verandahs and recessed windows. The red-brick Customs House was built in 1916 in place of an old wooden shed. A long limestone building erected in 1931 now houses the Township Judicial Offices, and was formerly the Burma Socialist Program Party Headquarters The magnificent building has an imposing façade of lofty pillars and thick walls of solid stone. Not far away is the Myawaddy Bank with cream-yellow Ionic columns behind the fluffy leaves of tamarind trees. Across the road is the former Imperial Bank of India, a jewel of an edifice built in 1914. Down Pansodan (street of the fabric dyes), once known as Phayre Street, one can see the imposing Port Authority building with its high tower on the corner. Across the street is a smaller building, now the Civil Courts, but once the Accountant General’s Office, built before 1900. Nearby is an office of the Information Ministry, built after the First World War. It has a charming, slender design, wedged in between the massive Port Authority and what was once Grindlays Bank, which served briefly as the National Museum. It is an imposing four-storied building with spare lines; its unadorned half-pillars are spanned with walls of lacy masonry. An elegant building with tall Corinthian pillars rising nearly three stories high was once headquarters of the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company, built in 1933 for a shipping company that started operations in 1862. During World War II, the company voluntarily scuttled all its ships so that they would not fall into the hands of the Japanese army. From time to time, even in recent years, some have been dredged Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Yangon’s Heritage: Steps Towards Preservation

331

out of the muddy bottom of the Ayerawaddy River. After independence, the building became the headquarters of the Inland Water Transport Board, which still operates many historic vessels. Along Pansodan, more so than other streets, there are still many more surviving examples of colonial architecture, including stately office buildings as well as a pretty little structure tucked away in between. At the corner where Pansodan meets Merchant Street, Rander House sits opposite Sofaer’s Buildings, opened on 1 January 1906, and now the home of the Lokanat Art Gallery. At the next corner with Mahabandoola Street, the Department of Communications building, erected in 1914, faces towards the Tejoomal Building shown in 1890 photographs, and a beautiful but empty clock face stares down at the busy intersection. Running parallel to Strand Road is Merchant Street. The pretty Indian Embassy building was built in 1914 and was once owned by the Oriental Life Insurance Company. Across from it, there is an elegant three storied building built in 1930 and once owned by S. Oppenheimer and Company that handled a diverse range of goods from police uniforms to orchids, elephant tack and Underwood typewriters. Between Maha Bandoola and Bo Aung Kyaw Streets lies the Secretariat, a massive red-brick Victorian era building begun in 1889 and completed in 1905, with four wings intercepted with three-storied blocks on the corners and centers of each. The compound fills an entire block with luxuriant but now overgrown gardens in

Figure 7. The Secretariat, ministerial buildings ca. 1889–1905 (Aye Min, 2010; Trish Gallery, Yangon)

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

332

Paula Z. Helfrich

Yangon’s Heritage: Steps Towards Preservation

each quadrant. A huge dome over the front entrance was destroyed by an earthquake in 1930, along with a number of the towers and pavilions. Cloaked in the red-bricked dignity befitting its role, it has served as the nerve center of the government through many political transitions, and is mute testimony to Myanmar’s perseverance. It was the site of the great tragedy of modern Myanmar. On 19 July 1947, General Aung San, the forceful leader of the emerging nation, and five members of his Cabinet were assassinated while in a meeting, only a few months before Independence on 4 January 1948. The quiet hallways stand ready for yet another role in remembrance of times past, and there are plans to dedicate the space to meditation or a museum of the war era The recently re-opened Bogyoke Aung San Museum lies off Natmauk Lane (formerly Park Street) near the German Embassy. Entering the well-kept grounds of the historic 1920s mansion, one feels a welcoming presence, as though the young Bogyoke and his family are happy to receive you in their airy, high-ceilinged home, surrounded by polished teakwood floors and dark teak trim and fretwork, delightfully carved. The home is inspiring, containing the family’s simple, elegant furnishings, framed photographs, a thoughtful collection of books on history, social topics and military strategy, and peaceful views of the Shwe Dagon and Kandawgyi Lake. People flock here with their families, leaving a neat array of footwear at the door, as at every Myanmar home; they smile at each other, happy to be visiting this special place, often bringing their aged family members who may remember visits long ago. The attendants are amiable and happy to provide information on the grounds and the home’s poignant history, as well as its famous residents, past and present. Back in the city center, further down Maha Bandoola from the Secretariat, Rowe and Company’s department store was built in 1910 in much the same style as the Secretariat, and became a prestigious place to shop until it was nationalized in 1964 by the Socialist government. The architecture of the three-storied City Hall, officially opened in 1936, incorporates many traditional Myanmar motifs, such as floral designs, mythical creatures and the dancing peacock, symbol of the Konbaung dynasty. The Hall was built on land that the Municipality Committee bought from the British Government for Rs. 169,182, with construction costs of Rs.180,000, and has been recently renovated. On Sule Pagoda Road between Maha Bandoola Street and Merchant Street, the Myanmar Travels and Tours building is one of the most beautiful examples of colonial architecture. The Chief Court sits off Maha Bandoola Street, facing Maha Bandoola Park, once known as Fytche Square. Beside the park is the elegant golden stupa of Sule Pagoda that marks the center of Yangon, and is often known as the “younger brother” of the 2000-year-old Shwe Dagon Pagoda, clearly visible on Singatura Hill in the near distance.

Faith, hope and the future

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

333

The proximity of religious shrines, temples and churches is a signature characteristic of Yangon. Almost adjacent to Sule Pagoda, there is a large mosque, a Baptist church and a Hindu temple to Kali. Back up by the Secretariat on Bo Aung Kyaw Street, opposite the old Myanmar Times Building, is St. Mary’s Cathedral, built in 1909 for Rs. 410,000, and newly renovated to celebrate its hundredth anniversary. It is renowned for its leaded glass windows, one of them honoring Saint M. Theresa of Calcutta. Dozens of former mission school buildings dot the city, all recognizable by distinctive architecture, and all a testament to the good works and intentions of people of many faiths. Nothing gives a better sense of the people of Myanmar, the diverse races, cultures and religions living side by side in peace. It is fitting that these buildings of antiquity stand within sight of each other, their mellowing facades representing the aspirations and hard work of the past, and good work ahead for the future. While there is great excitement and anticipation of the design and reconstruction work ahead, there is debate on the urgency of moving quickly to “save” these historical structures. In some cases, there is a disagreement about what type of renovation is appropriate, and at what cost. In other cases, a particular structure may have negative historical connotations, such as the Pegu Club, which was famously (and apocryphally) remembered for a sign that allegedly stated “No dogs or Burmese on the premises”. There are in fact some sites that are too far gone to salvage, and perhaps others that are squeezed in-between completely unsuitable modern neighbors. And in many quarters of the city, there is already a huge construction boom underway, consisting almost entirely of high-rise skyline structures that would not be in keeping with the Heritage Trust concept. There is general agreement that the scope of the renovations must be guided by careful planning, inclusivity of purpose and a steady funding stream. There is no question that the current work is spurred by an historic sense of place, a wish to restore order and hopes for stimulating tourism. These structures will probably continue to serve as commercial venues, although updated to new uses as restaurants, galleries, art centers, museums and the like. Success will require training for artisans and tourism professionals, marketing funds to get the message out, much more infrastructure, and more investment in secondary and tertiary education. Of course, the speed of transition is a question mark. Most Asian cities that have instituted heritage policies and certified selected sites have done so over a ten or twenty year timeline. In Yangon’s case, there is an urgent need to agree an action plan. Once that is established, and stakeholders identified, it will be important to proceed with care and respect for all concerns, precisely because the undertaking is so massive. Some predict a Nargis-like tsunami of investment and change, but quieter voices counsel incremental steps. As the Bogyoke Aung San Museum and Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

334

Paula Z. Helfrich

the golden Shwe Dagon complex rising beyond it remind us, it is important above all else to remember the dignity and timelessness of Yangon, “the end of strife”.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Lessons from the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation: International Best Practices in Thailand Richard Engelhardt, Montira Horayangura Unakul and Julia Davies

The notion of cultural diversity as a resource for sustainable development is enshrined in the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity: Cultural diversity widens the range of options open to everyone; it is one of the roots of development, understood not simply in terms of economic growth, but also as a means to achieve a more satisfactory intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual existence. (Article 3)

This recognition of the link between culture and development has a special relevance in Thailand, as it does throughout Asia, where the physical, human-made components of the built heritage serve as the setting for intangible expressions of cultural traditions. The importance of the preservation of the diverse heritage values represented in a multiplicity of heritage buildings and sites is therefore fundamental to the preservation of the diversity of the region’s cultural identity. To promote the conservation of the greatest diversity of the region’s built heritage, in the year 2000 UNESCO inaugurated the annual Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation, a program designed to respond to the question: “Within the realities of contemporary, fast-track development, what of the built heritage do Asians value and want to preserve from the past to inform the region’s place in the global future?” The UNESCO Heritage Awards recognize excellent achievement in successfully conserving heritage buildings and properties in the region by the private sector or by public-private initiatives. Since 2000, UNESCO has received 469 entries from 24 countries. A total of 148 projects have received Awards for exemplary conservation efforts, while 8 projects have received the Jury Commendation for Innovation. UNESCO believes that commending such initiatives will encourage others to undertake conservation projects in the future. Ten entries from Thailand have been recognized with UNESCO Heritage Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

336

Richard Engelhardt, Montira Horayangura Unakul and Julia Davies

Lessons from the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation

337

Awards so far, contributing a specific and unique perspective to the conservation process due to the fact that the profession in Thailand has never been dictated to by a western colonial power and so has been able to express freely an endogenously developed conservation ethic. The Thai Award-winning projects span the gamut from ornate royal complexes to humble vernacular buildings, from high Rattanakosin Era architecture to indigenous forms of buildings from various parts of the country. In terms of typology, they range from palaces (such as Phrarachawangderm in Thonburi and the Tamnak Yai at Devavesm Palace on the opposite side of the Chao Phraya River) to historic residential and commercial districts (such as Samchuk Community and Old Market District in Suphanburi and Amphawa Canal Community in Samut Songkhram) to monasteries (such as Wat Pongsanuk in Lampang and Wat Thepthidaram in Bangkok). The winners reflect a number of key issues facing the conservation profession not only in Asia but globally which are addressed by the UNESCO Heritage Awards program, namely: • Is it possible to adapt heritage buildings for contemporary needs and still retain their heritage significance? • How do we insert contemporary architecture into the historic urban landscape? • To what extent is change possible if historic districts are to maintain their character and identity? and crucially, • Is historic conservation a mainstream action key to sustainability strategies, or only a minor diversion in the development process? The solutions proposed by the winning entries offer proof that the answer to each of these questions is a resounding “yes” and demonstrate that while conservation is grounded in universal principles, it is expressed in specific cultural practices which vary from place to place because of the environment, politics, tradition, and most, importantly, the perception of the value of heritage in each community. Strategically positioned at the center of the often heated debate between “western principles” and “Asian values” informing the practice of heritage conservation, the UNESCO Heritage Awards establish a means of identifying and showcasing the most successful of the “best practice” examples of built heritage conservation from the region.

are technical, demonstrating that technical achievement in conservation must be underpinned by a profound understanding of conservation as a social process. These “first principles” are: 1. Collective mapping of cultural space, its hierarchies, symbolic language and associations is a pre-requisite for appropriate and successful conservation; 2. Tangible cultural expressions derive their origin, value and continuing significance from intangible cultural practices; 3. Authenticity is a culturally relative characteristic to be found in continuity, but not necessarily continuity of material; 4. The conservation process succeeds when histories are revealed, traditions revived and meanings recovered in a palimpsest of knowledge; 5. Appropriate use of heritage is negotiated, resulting in a life-enhancing space. Together, the “first principles” affirm a set of professional norms which have arisen out of a uniquely Asian physical and socio-cultural space. Below, the winners from Thailand are examined within the context of the principle which each exemplifies.

Principle 1: Collective mapping of cultural space, its hierarchies, symbolic language and associations is a pre-requisite for appropriate and successful conservation

Emerging from winning entries of the UNESCO Heritage Awards program can be seen a growing consensus around a set of “first principles” anchored by international standards of conservation while reflecting the specificities of Asian practices – practices which are as often based on socio-cultural values as they

Conservation professionals and students are well-trained that conservation work should begin with a thorough investigation of the building. By studying historical documentary evidence and in-situ physical evidence in the building fabric itself, it is possible to come to an understanding of the evolved significance of the place and to identify character-defining elements of the site which must be conserved in the ensuing work. However, the winning projects go beyond the technical exercise of mapping the building, its key physical attributes and its state of dilapidation prior to planning and carrying out conservation work. They often take a well-rounded approach to understanding the building in its larger physical, cultural and social setting as well, in order to ensure that the conservation work does not only give new life to a building, but also to the cultural space to which it belongs as well as the community which animates it. Thus, the physical building surveys by architects are often accompanied by a wider study of its environmental surroundings as well detailed consultations with the community to identify the cultural heritage which they find significant through a process of cultural mapping. This allows for a better understanding of the local needs and aspirations, not only in practical terms (i.e., the need to pave a local square in front of the building being

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

First principles: international conservation standards, Asian specificities

338

Richard Engelhardt, Montira Horayangura Unakul and Julia Davies

Lessons from the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation

conserved to avoid flooding) but also in spiritual and social terms as well (ie, community desires to also revive festivities formerly associated with the space).

Principle 2: Tangible cultural expressions derive their origin, value and continuing significance from intangible cultural practices

Salarian Pavilion of Wat Kutao, Songkhla (2011 Honourable Mention)

Jury Citation: “The restoration of the Salarian Pavilion of Wat Kutao highlights the accomplishment of a participatory conservation approach involving the local community, educational institutes and technical specialists. After deteriorating to a complete ruin, the 18th-century wooden pavilion was restored in a technically competent manner, relying mainly on local builders using traditional materials and vernacular techniques. The project received an outpouring of support from the community and has inspired a greater awareness of local cultural heritage, leading to the subsequent restoration of other historic structures in the monastery.”

The tangible and intangible are inextricably intertwined in heritage spaces. Any conservation project which privileges tangible over the intangible values of a building risks stripping away the true significance of the place, leaving only an empty shell. The intangible cultural heritage, which includes oral traditions, performing arts, social practices, knowledge about nature, and traditional craftsmanship, provides the basis for vibrant and on-going cultural expression. Many of the winning projects ensure that intangible cultural practices associated with a building are also strengthened as part of the conservation efforts. This holistic approach to safeguarding may have a quite direct link to the built heritage – for instance, in the revival of building traditions or skills such as carpentry or stucco work which are required in the conservation of the building. In other instances, the consolidation of the built heritage may shine a spotlight on the heritage of the community as a whole, leading to the revival of a way of life – encompassing social practices, traditions and art forms – which may have been on the brink of disappearance. In so doing, the conservation project ensures that the built heritage continues to be imbued with meaning that is constantly being reaffirmed and reinvented, and thus is of on-going relevance to the community. Wat Sratong Temple, Khon Kaen (2002 Award of Merit)

Na Phra Lan Historic Shophouses, Bangkok (2011 Honourable Mention) Jury Citation: “The refurbishment of the Na Phra Lan Historic Shophouses has uplifted a historically significant urban complex in the heart of the historic core of Bangkok. Prominently located across from the Grand Palace, the project has restored not only this architectural landmark from the early 20th century, but also the surrounding historic streetscape as well. By removing inappropriate modern additions, using high-quality materials in repairs and upgrading services to meet modern building codes, the project has recovered the original, historically-accurate aesthetic while accommodating continued contemporary use. The project establishes a commendable model for participation by the long-term tenants, who contributed to the project costs and have committed to maintaining the buildings in the years to come.” (See picture on pp. 118–119) Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

339

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

340

Richard Engelhardt, Montira Horayangura Unakul and Julia Davies

Lessons from the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation

Jury Citation: “The outstanding restoration of the 1832 ordination hall of Wat Sratong demonstrates the high standard of conservation work which can be achieved through a grassroots approach. With the guidance of the community conservation training programme at Khon Kaen University and the partial sponsorship of the Thai Fine Arts Department, the local villagers of Ban Bua undertook all aspects of restoring the historic building after in-situ technical training. In keeping with the Buddhist tradition of merit-making, villagers donated their labor and materials to return the abandoned ordination hall to its central role in the monastery and the community. Well-considered conservation decisions were made to retain as much of the original building fabric as possible. The cooperative approach taken by the project sets a model of local conservation initiative worthy of emulation throughout the region.”

Principle 3: Authenticity is a culturally relative characteristic to be found in continuity, but not necessarily continuity of material

Amphawa Canal Community, Samut Songkhram (2008 Honourable Mention)

The conservationist’s mantra of “do as much as necessary and as little as possible” is subject to interpretation within the framework of widely varying cultural norms throughout Asia. Anecdotal evidence illustrates fundamental clashes between standard bearers for the most catholic interpretation of seminal documents such as the Venice Charter, which hold material authenticity sacrosanct, and local stakeholders calling for renewal of the fabric to ensure the spiritual intactness of the place. The 1994 Nara Document on Authenticity articulates a middle ground which reflects a way of balancing these diverse definitions of authenticity, reflecting different underlying values within an Asian sensibility in the conservation process and product. The Nara Documents states that “It is thus not possible to base judgements of value and authenticity on fixed criteria. On the contrary, the respect due to all cultures requires that cultural heritage must be considered and judged within the cultural contexts to which it belongs.” The Nara Document does not provide a license for cultural relativity, but rather, reaffirms the validity of a rational system for evaluating and consequently safeguarding various heritage values, one that is consistent within its own sociocultural system. In so doing, social, cultural and spiritual values may gain a foothold alongside artistic and historic values in the conservation process. Tamnak Yai, Devavesm Palace, Bangkok (2005 Honourable Mention)

Jury Citation: “The restoration of the traditional Amphawa Canal Community has successfully achieved public-private cooperation in the safeguarding of heritage structures in Thailand. With co-funding from the local government and Denmark, the project has benefited from the active support of the local residents and homeowners and the guidance of Chulalongkorn University. The project has conserved numerous historic buildings of local significance and retained the traditional canal-side urban morphology, which is under threat around the country. The project demonstrates a recognition of the cultural significance of Amphawa and an appreciation of both the architectural and living heritage of the historic canal community.” Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

341

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

342

Richard Engelhardt, Montira Horayangura Unakul and Julia Davies

Lessons from the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation

Jury Citation: “The restoration of the Neoclassical Tamnak Yai, the most prominent residence of Devavesm Palace, sets a standard for conservation of early 20th-century buildings in Thailand. The project demonstrates sophisticated research into the historic building fabric, deployment of appropriate building materials and techniques, and sensitive adaptations for modern use. By opening the building to the public and showcasing both architectural conservation and the building’s royal historical background, the palace takes on a significant social and educational role. Moreover, the future restoration of the surrounding landscape promises to re-establish the direct connection to the river, thus enabling the appreciation of the palace complex as one of Bangkok’s major riverside ensembles. The Bank of Thailand, the present owner of the estate, has set an important precedent for corporate investment in heritage conservation in Thailand which could serve as a model for similar initiatives in the region.”

Principle 4: The conservation process succeeds when histories are revealed, traditions revived and meanings recovered in a palimpsest of knowledge

Scriptures Hall of Wat Thepthidaram, Bangkok (2011 Award of Merit)

343

In extreme, but increasingly not uncommon circumstances, the thread of continuity has been frayed to the point that it is barely distinguishable. Left to the course of economic renewal and the tides of social change, the heritage and the values it embodies is often vulnerable to being eradicated or subsumed into a newer narrative which may be non-self-reflexive. The judicious intervention in these cases through a conservation activity can result in revealing unique histories, reviving local traditions and recovering the meaning of the place. The UNESCO Heritage Awards have recognized projects which have excelled not only in technical virtue but also in the dramatic impact that they have effected, especially upon traditions that are dying or have faded away. They often do so in a way which does not impose one solitary reading of the place by capturing a single snapshot of time, but rather by revealing a renewed understanding of the place in the context of other historical layers of meaning embodied in the building. In some projects, this remembrance of meanings past is accomplished in a quite literal yet effective manner – by physically juxtaposing the layers of the building history against each other. In other projects, this recovery is a social process, which reaches back into historical traditions and revives the living core of the community. Prarachawangderm, Thonburi (2004 Award of Merit)

Jury Citation: “From a state of serious disrepair, the scriptures hall of Wat Thepthidaram has been restored with an outpouring of public support and a united effort from the Thai conservation community, the monastery and the local neighborhood. The scriptures hall has been refurbished with exemplary use of traditional craftsmanship and materials, worthy of its stature as a historically significant royal monastery. The methodology of restoration was also praiseworthy, demonstrating meticulous research, documentation and continual learning throughout the course of the project.”

Jury Citation: “The restoration of this significant royal palace complex, Prarachawangderm, sets a new precedent for conservation in Thailand and demonstrates the enormous potential of private-sector-led efforts to save

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

344

Richard Engelhardt, Montira Horayangura Unakul and Julia Davies

Lessons from the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation

important parts of the community’s heritage. The project has successfully preserved this valuable ensemble of structures which represent over 300 years of transformation, including the main core of palace buildings which were the centre of royal political and military power during the Thonburi Era. This multi-faceted and ambitious project has effectively incorporated the use of traditional methods and craftsmanship and has conserved important examples of royal decorative fine arts. Attention to details of the original structures and to accuracy in colours has preserved the authenticity of individual buildings within the complex, which each represent a historic period. Exposure of earlier features through archaeological excavation and the use of landscape elements to interpret those features have successfully created a palimpsest of history at the site. With the development of a historical museum and a library on-site, the complex is a center of public outreach and education into the history of the nation. The restoration of the palace complex highlights the achievements of the Thonburi Era and raises awareness of an important period in the development of Siamese statehood and foreign relations.”

work has been undertaken in a holistic way, including not only the heritage architecture, but also the living heritage of this historic commercial hub, thus contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the site’s value as a cultural heritage resource for the community. The community has been the main driving force for the project at all levels, from setting policy to establishing urban design guidelines. The full restoration of three major historic buildings into living museums and neighborhood centres provides a focal point for the urban district of wooden shophouses. The project will have a major impact in raising awareness about grassroots heritage conservation and is an important model for empowering other historic communities in Thailand.”

Samchuk Community and Old Market District, Suphanburi (2009 Award of Merit)

345

Principle 5: Appropriate use of heritage is negotiated, resulting in a life-enhancing space With heritage conservation unfortunately being a relatively low priority on most political agendas in the Asian region, the experience of the winning projects has shown the importance of raising awareness among stakeholders of the multiple benefits of conserving heritage. The essential messages include: heritage as a fundamental cultural right, heritage as a building block for sustainable development and heritage as a shared resource for local stakeholders. However, given that different stakeholders often have a different set of values associated with the same heritage building – some may find its economic value most compelling, while others may be more attuned to its historic or spiritual value – this complicates the process of coming to consensus on how to proceed with any conservation project. The collective cultural mapping referred to in Principle 1 may provide a way of eliciting multiple viewpoints, but these then need to be reconciled through a process of negotiation. By accommodating the various interpretations, aspirations, and demands of various parties in strategizing and designing the conservation work, this ensures that the results are meaningful and life-affirming to a broad range of stakeholders. Crown Property Bureau Building, Chachoengsao (2008 Honourable Mention)

Jury Citation: “Once in serious socio-economic decline, the Samchuk Community and Old Market District has been successfully revitalized through the far-sighted vision and cooperation of the local residents. The conservation

Jury Citation: “The restoration of the Chachaoengsao Old Provincial Hall to serve as the Crown Property Bureau Building in Chachoengsao Province has given new life to an important heritage building that had been extensively damaged by fire. The restoration has re-affirmed the role of the building as a key urban landmark. In the reconstruction and conservation works, careful attention has been paid to the historic character of the building, both in the interior and exterior. The project has bolstered local pride and led to the larger revitalization of the historic urban district of Chachoengsao and the Bangpakong waterfront. The high-visibility project demonstrates the notable

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

346

Richard Engelhardt, Montira Horayangura Unakul and Julia Davies

Lessons from the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation

commitment of the Crown Property Bureau to conserve the historic structures in its portfolio that are a significant part of the country’s heritage.”

authorities and academic advisors. The restoration works have been sensitively carried out, with the revival of traditional building and decorative techniques. The project has also achieved educational aims in teaching local history, as seen in the thoughtful on-site exhibits and the subtle notations of the earlier building footprint. By empowering the traditional caretakers of the temple, the restoration project ensures that Wat Pongsanuk can continue to be sustained as a vital part of the cultural heritage of Lampang and northern Thailand for many years to come.”

347

Conservation lessons learned from Thailand

Jury Citation: “The restoration of Wat Pongsanuk provides an inspirational model of community-led conservation in saving a unique Lanna temple. The project showcases the collective achievements of the monks and the local residents working in close cooperation with traditional craftspersons, local

Embodying the various principles introduced above, the UNESCO Heritage Awards winners in Thailand are particularly notable for conservation which has a significant catalytic impact on the community at large. Beyond the act of repairing the physical fabric of the building as a kind of artefact, the conservation process used in these projects showcases a sensitivity to the larger socio-cultural and economic context of the built heritage. In the winning projects, the conservation of the buildings anchors a more fundamental process of renewal for the local residents who are directly affected and for the wider community which has affinities to the heritage buildings in some way. The renewal has taken on multiple forms – activating economic regeneration, strengthening social ties, especially when they have weakened, revitalizing knowledge which has been lost, renewing local identity. A number of the winning projects showcase how conservation of buildings in the Thai context – as elsewhere in Asia – is often undertaken as part of established cyclical processes of renewal. These processes are fundamental not only to extending the life of the buildings per se, but also for extending the identity and sense of well-being of the communities as well. This is most clearly seen with the temple conservation projects such as Wat Sratong and Wat Thepthidaram. The yearly ceremonies of merit-making at Buddhist temples that offer requisites to the monks and contribute to the upkeep and expansion of the monastic buildings satisfy the obligations of Buddhist laity to support the institutions of Buddhism. The desire by lay supporters to ensure that the monastic buildings are in good condition is more an act of faith rather than a concern for conservation in its more technical sense as understood in the profession. This motivation then drives building work which tends to privilege aesthetic renewal as a demonstration of respect for the monastic buildings and artefacts – murals being repainted periodically, roof tiles being replaced and interiors being redone – rather than an attachment to historic materials and fabric. While the technicalities of these decisions can be debated from a conservation purist point of view, the resulting vitality of these heritage spaces and their on-going centrality in their communities sends a strong message about the need to consider new approaches to dealing with built heritage within a living heritage context. The fact that the temples are continuously maintained over generations as meaningful and ever-evolving spaces

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

Wat Pongsanuk, Lampang (2008 Award of Merit)

348

Richard Engelhardt, Montira Horayangura Unakul and Julia Davies

Lessons from the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation

of the highest symbolic import for the social and spiritual well-being of the local communities provides validation for these approaches to conservation. Conservation can also serve as a mechanism for community revival using cultural resources as the driver for social and economic growth. The case study of Samchuk Community and Old Market District in Suphanburi showcases the potential of historic buildings and traditions as a basis for reversing the declining fortunes of old neighborhoods. Through the determination of local businessmen and civic leaders, Samchuk was transformed from an almost abandoned town on the verge of partial demolition. The town’s strategy for revival was predicated upon

the mobilization of its most salient and yet once overlooked assets: an ensemble of historic wooden shops and homes dating from its days as a prominent trading hub. Cashing in on the surge in nostalgia-driven tourism among Thai families and youth, Samchuk’s market – featuring local delicacies, old-fashioned toys and housewares, and old-time shops – became a prime destination for weekend visitors intent on experiencing days gone by. Young Samchuk people began to return home to help re-open and run family businesses which were almost defunct. Samchuk’s success as a cultural tourism destination was singled out by then prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva as an exemplar for advancing the creative economy at the community level by making use of available resources, and has since been widely recognized as worthy of emulation by other towns around the country.

Another aspect of renewal that the Thai winning projects highlight is how the conservation projects can serve as a forum for sharing local knowledge, thus valorising and giving renewed meaning to bodies of knowledge which are central to the collective wisdom of each community. The involvement of local elders, “wise persons” and scholars in the awarded projects complements the role of conservation professionals in a seamless manner, with both groups enriching each other and passing along their respective skills and knowledge to the young generation. This method of working provides a locally-nuanced alternative to the pure technically driven approach which may ignore indigenous forms of knowledge and values. The restoration of Wat Pongsanuk in Lampang provides a case in point. The temple’s deputy abbot, community leaders and senior craftsmen worked alongside academics from Chiang Mai University, contributing local knowhow and institutional memories about caretaking of the temple’s collection of Buddhist artefacts and buildings. While certain knowledge had been lost – such as the production of ancient glass mosaics – other neglected skills such as traditional lime slaking and paper cutting for ritual objects was revived within the context of restoring the temple. The renewed interest in all things Lanna catalyzed by activities at the temple has turned Wat Pongsanuk into a learning hub for Lampang and nearby provinces. The documentation of such revived knowledge and its dissemination Kom loi at Wat Pongsanuk to celebrate receiving the through networks of like-minded local UNESCO Award (photo: Angela Srisomwongwattana) communities and monks has led to a renaissance of northern Thai building arts. From the point of view of larger-scale municipal renewal, the two winning projects undertaken by the Crown Property Bureau exemplify the hallmarks of the Bureau’s approach to conservation: saving not only the historic building, but also contributing to the welfare of the local community and improving the overall quality of life and historic character of the city as a whole. In conserving its local office building in Chachoengsao Province, the Bureau made an effort to ensure that the newly conserved building would help to uplift the historic character of the overall townscape. This necessitated removing a row of townhouses in front of the historic building which had been constructed later for rental income. In so doing, the project

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

Community consultations during the renovation of the Salarian Pavilion of Wat Kutao, Songkhla

349

350

Richard Engelhardt, Montira Horayangura Unakul and Julia Davies

opened up not only the building’s historic façade, but also a river-side vista which had long been obstructed, which in turn encouraged the municipal authorities to launch other activities to raise awareness about the city’s heritage. As for the Na Phra Lan Shophouses project, the Bureau undertook a lengthy process of awarenessraising with its existing tenants to gain their support for the project. From a practical standpoint, in a bid to retain the existing tenants, the Bureau subsidized their housing during their temporary removal for the construction work and provided them the option to return to their original units once the work was complete. This process has ensured that proprietors of various historic establishments who have been fixtures in the neighbourhood for decades could come back to help sustain the life of the historic buildings as living landmarks. The intention to use this model to conserve two additional groups of shophouses in the same neighbourhood at the epicentre of historic Bangkok ensures that the wider urban context will be further enhanced. Taken as a whole, the portfolio of projects which have been awarded the UNESCO Heritage Awards brings to light a body of standard-setting practices from Thailand that are worthy of attention not only in the country, but also within the region or even internationally. They showcase how the conservation of the physical form of tangible heritage is inextricably linked to the continuation of the intangible cultural practices which originally produced and continue to give meaning to the heritage. They demonstrate that good conservation practice needs to be grounded in an understanding of the locality of place and its many overlapping values. The values-based approach to conservation practice yields a richly-nuanced end result – where tangible and intangible heritage are conserved and historic layers of meaning are revealed. Through the application of these “first principles”, the long-term safeguarding of the diverse cultural heritage of Thailand can be ensured to form an essential part of the core resources for sustainable development with a recognizable Siamese face. And yet, for all the achievements they exemplify, it should be noted that these projects, which represent the vanguard of Thai conservation practice, still hew closely to the well-accepted trifecta of mainstream Thai architectural heritage: palaces, temples and houses. The range and breadth of cases represented through the Awards does not constitute a true representation of the richness and variety of Thailand’s cultural heritage. Heritage conservation in Thailand still does not reflect the strides taken by global conservation practice or by other countries in recent years, which now recognize the value of an ever-widening range of cultural heritage: from cultural landscapes to industrial heritage, from modern heritage to military heritage, from rural heritage to heritage of minority groups. Moreover, the ability to manage other forms of heritage, such as intangible heritage, is still nascent as well. As conservation discourse, awareness, policy and know-how in Thailand evolve and deepen, the future challenge will be to embrace and protect the country’s cultural heritage resources in all its true diversity. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Contributors Alexandra Denes received a doctorate in anthropology from Cornell University in 2006 with a thesis on Khmer heritage and ethnic identity in Surin. Since 2008, she has been a senior research associate at the Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre in Bangkok, where she directs the Intangible Cultural Heritage and Museums Field School, the Culture and Rights in Thailand Research Program, and the Visual Anthropology Program. She is currently involved in an Australian Research Council funded project examining “intangible cultural heritage across borders” in the ASEAN region. Among her publications, she contributed to the Routledge Handbook of Heritage in Asia (2012). Apinya Baggelaar Arrunnapaporn has a BA in anthropology from Silpakorn University, MA in Museology from the University of Amsterdam, and a PhD in Architectural Heritage Management and Tourism from Silpakorn and Deakin University, Australia. She is now a lecturer in the College of Innovation at Thammasat University. Chatri Prakitnonthakan is a lecturer at the Faculty of Architecture, Silpakorn University. He has been involved in researching architectural history, with a particular emphasis on politics in architecture. He has published many articles and books on political symbols in modern Thai architecture, recently The Art and Architecture of the People’s Party: Political Symbols in Ideological Aspect (2009, in Thai). His current researches focus on politics in conservation of the historic urban landscape of old Bangkok. Chris Baker has a PhD in history from Cambridge University and taught Asian history and politics there before moving to Thailand where he has lived for over 30 years. With Pasuk Phongpaichit he has written Thailand’s Boom and Bust (1998), A History of Thailand (2005, 2009), Thaksin (2004, 2009), and translated works by Pridi Banomyong, Chatthip Nartsupha, King Rama V, Nidhi Eoseewong, and the Communist Party of Thailand. Most recently they published a translation of the great folk epic, The Tale of Khun Chang Khun Phaen (2010). Edward Van Roy is a visiting research fellow at the Department of History and a visiting fellow at the Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University. He has written articles on Bangkok’s Portuguese, Lao, Mon and Chinese communities and on the rise and fall of Bangkok’s mandala structure (Journal of Asian Studies, 2011), and the book Sampheng: Bangkok’s Chinatown Inside Out. Euayporn Kerdchouay was born in Nakhon Sithammarat, studied at Poh Chang Arts and Crafts School in Bangkok from 1957 to 1961, and became an independent artist. He exhibited in a show of contemporary Thai art in London, travelled on Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

352

Contributors

Contributors

scholarships in the US and Europe, and received an MA in Fine Arts from Hornsey College of Art in London in 1966. He joined the staff of the Siam Society in April 1970 as an administrative secretary, and became general manager in 1999. In 2008 he officially retired but remains very active in the Society as a senior consultant.

and its local social and cultural impact, has focused on Greece, Italy, and Thailand. He has produced two ethnographic films and ten books; among the latter are: A Place in History: Social and Monumental Time in a Cretan Town (1991), The Body Impolitic: Artisans and Artifice in the Global Hierarchy of Value (2004), and Evicted from Eternity: The Restructuring of Modern Rome (2009).

H. Detlef Kammeier was born and educated in Germany (architecture and urban planning), and has been based in Bangkok since 1972. He was professor of urban and regional planning at the Asian Institute of Technology, 1976-2000, and has been a consultant for the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and many other agencies in about 25 countries. He has been a visiting professor at international postgraduate schools including the World Heritage Programme of the Brandenburg University of Technology and the Urban Management Programme of the Technical University of Berlin. James Stent earned his Master of Public Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University. He has made his career in banking in Asia, with the last 33 years spent in Thailand and China. In retirement he now heads the Working Committee of the Siamese Heritage Trust of the Siam Society. From 1983-1992 he was a member of the Council of the Siam Society, and he presently serves as vice chairman of the Piriya Krairiksh Foundation. Julia Davies was practicing as an architect in London before settling in Asia in 2004. Following her MA in Architectural Heritage Management and Tourism at Silpakorn University she has been working as a senior programme assistant within the Culture Unit at UNESCO Bangkok where she is coordinating the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation, the Arts Education Programme and issues related to the Historic Urban Landscape in Asia and the Pacific. Khoo Salma Nasution, nee Khoo Su Nin, runs the Sun Yat Sen Museum, a private house museum, and Areca Books, a publishing company based in Penang. She is the author of Streets of George Town, Penang (1993), More Than Merchants (2006), Sun Yat Sen in Penang (2008), Heritage Houses of Penang (2009), and co-author of Penang Postcard Collection (2003), Raja Bilah and the Mandailings in Perak (2003) and Kinta Valley: Pioneering Malaysia’s Modern Development (2005). She conducted her research in Phuket in 2004-2005 as an Asian Public Intellectuals Fellow of the Nippon Foundation. She is currently president of the Penang Heritage Trust.

353

Montira Horayangura Unakul has a BA in economics and East Asian studies from Harvard University and Masters Degrees from the University of California, Berkeley in architecture and in city planning. Since 2001, she has had an active role in implementing UNESCO programmes in the Asia-Pacific region related to the safeguarding and sustainable development of cultural heritage, with a focus on World Heritage. She serves on the Council of the Siam Society, the Advisory Boards of SEAMEO-SPAFA and the International Association for the Study of Traditional Environments, and as a past Committee Member of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Thailand chapter. Natsuko Akagawa is assistant professor at the University of Western Australia and affiliated with Osaka City University. She is a co-editor of Intangible Heritage (Routledge 2009) and is the author of ‘Concept and practice of cultural landscape protection in Thailand’ (in Managing Cultural Landscape, Routledge 2012), ‘Rethinking the global heritage discourse - overcoming “East” versus “West” ?’ (in Theorising Heritage, Routledge forthcoming) and a number of articles in international journals. She is currently finalizing a manuscript on the role of heritage conservation in Japan’s cultural diplomacy. She has studied and taught extensively in various countries, including Australia, France, Japan, Macau, Portugal and USA. Paula Z. Helfrich was raised in Myanmar, educated at Loreto Convent, Darjeeling, Northwestern University and the University of Hawaii at Hilo where she took a degree in anthropology. She travelled the world with Pan Am for 20 years, visiting 140 nations, and developing a passion for archaeology, history and adventure. She directed economic development activities in Hawaii, and currently teaches English to monks and college prep students in Myanmar, while working on a number of books and commentaries. She has written a first novel Flying (2011) with Rebecca Sprecher, and is working on her parents’ memoirs of Myanmar from 1943 to 1966.

Michael Herzfeld is the Ernest E. Monrad Professor of the Social Sciences in the Department of Anthropology at Harvard University, where he also serves as Coordinator for Thai Studies in the Asia Center. He is also affiliated with doctoral programs at the University of Rome-I and Thammasat University. His extensive ethnographic field research, much of it dealing with questions of historic conservation

Phuthorn Bhumadhon was born in Nakhon Si Thammarat and studied history at Chiang Mai University and Chulalongkorn University. He was a curator at Phra Narai National Museum, Lopburi, and Bangkok National Museum for 12 years and has been professor of history at Rajabhat Thepsastri University, Lopburi for 16 years. He has served as president of the Club for Conservation of the Antiquities, Ancient Monuments and Environment of Lopburi Province for several terms, during

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

354

Contributors

Contributors

which time the Club created new local museums, held regular cultural activities and campaigned to preserve heritage sites. He has published many books and articles on Thai history focusing on the Dvaravati Period and the seventeenth century.

Surin Pitsuwan was born in Nakhon Si Thammarat, received a PhD from Harvard University in 1982, taught at Thammasat University, and published Islam and Malay Nationalism: A Case Study of Malay-Muslims of Southern Thailand (1985) along with many scholarly articles and opinion pieces. He was elected MP from his home town for the first time in 1986, served as deputy foreign minister 1992-5, and foreign minister 1997-2001. From 2007 to 2012, he served as secretary-general of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Throughout his career he has been a prolific speaker and writer especially on human rights and Southeast Asian affairs.

Piriya Krairiksh earned a doctorate in the history of art from Harvard University, and was employed as curator of Asian art at the National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. On his return to Thailand, he taught history of art at the Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat University, and after retirement became director of the Thai Khadi Institute. He served as president of the Siam Society and was appointed senior research scholar by the Thailand Research Fund. He has published many articles and books on Thai art in both Thai and English, most recently The Roots of Thai Art (River Books, 2012). Rewadee Sakulpanich has a bachelor degree in law and masters degree in political science from Thammasat University. She entered government service in the office of the parliament but transferred to the Fine Arts Department where she is now expert on the law on cultural heritage. She has studied heritage management in the UK, France, Australia and India, been a special lecturer at Silpakorn, Mahidol and Srinakharinwirot universities and an examiner at Chulalongkorn University, appears often at seminars and conferences on issues of heritage, and has represented Thailand at international gatherings. She was editor of a manual on the law on monuments, antiques, objects of art and national museums and has authored articles in Silpakorn journal in 2007 on “The return of stone Budda images to Thailand” and “Drafting the law on the Bunditpatanasilpa Institute”. Richard A. Engelhardt, honorary advisor to the Siamese Heritage Trust, has worked in heritage conservation for more than 30 years, including as head of the UNESCO Office for Cambodia, and UNESCO Regional Advisor for Culture in Asia and the Pacific. After retiring from UNESCO, he is the UNESCO Chair Professor of Heritage Management at the Pakistan National College of Art, Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Architecture at the University of Hong Kong, and Honorary Professor of Architecture at Southeast University in Nanjing, China. For his services in the conservation of the Angkor monuments, Richard was bestowed the title of Commandeur de l’Ordre Royal du Cambodge by HM King Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia. Sumet Jumsai earned a doctorate in architecture from St John’s College Cambridge, and had a distinguished career as an architect, perhaps best known as the designer of the Robot Building on Sathorn Road and the Nation Building featured at the Venice Biennale in 1996. He was made Honorary Fellow of the American Institute of Architects in 2001, and Member of the French Académie d’Architecture in 2002. He is also a painter and designer, honoured as National Artist of Thailand in 1998 and Chevalier de l’Ordre des Arts et des Lettres (France) in 2008. His publications include Naga: Cultural Origins in Siam and the West Pacific (OUP, 1998). Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

355

Tiamsoon Sirisrisak received his PhD in urban planning. Over the past decade, he has been involved in researching cultural heritage, with a particular emphasis on international concepts and practices in the context of Thailand and the Asian region. He joined the Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia at Mahidol University in 2011, where he teaches cultural heritage. His current researches focus on the community-based conservation of the historic urban landscape of old Bangkok and the Chinatown. Woraphat Arthayukti is a former associate professor of Engineering at Chulalongkorn University and spent the latter part of his career as an executive of a US Oil Company. After his retirement he joined the Council of the Siam Society and gained an appreciation for history. He edited an autobiography in Thai entitled The Life and Events in the Life of Field Marshall Pin Choonhavan (Amarin, 2009). He also became interested in the fate of the Ayutthaya captives who were taken as war prisoners to Awa upon the fall of Ayutthaya in 1767. Worrasit Tantinipankul received his PhD in historic preservation planning from Cornell University in 2006 with a dissertation on contestation over Buddhist monastic space in historic Bangkok. He teaches history of architecture in Thailand, urban planning, and Southeast Asian urbanism at King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi where he also serves as Associate Dean for Foreign Affairs. His current research focuses on historic areas of Phetchaburi and Thonburi, exploring the impact of planning on the cultural landscape of vernacular wood architecture and local communities. Yongtanit Pimonsathean is teaching urban planning and heritage conservation at the Faculty of Architecture and Planning, Thammasat University, Thailand. He holds a degree of Doctor of Urban Engineering from The University of Tokyo in Japan. He is currently the President of ICOMOS Thailand and a conservation advisor to the Crown Property Bureau. He has been extensively involved in citizenbased regeneration and conservation projects in urban areas in Thailand particularly shophouse communities in Bangkok and Phuket.

Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

Notes for Contributors

Notes for Contributors The Journal of the Siam Society welcomes original articles and notes of a scholarly nature in conformity with the principles and objectives of the Siam Society, of investigating the arts and sciences of Thailand and neighbouring countries. Articles—Articles should be primarily in English, and must be accompanied by an abstract in English (of fewer than 200 words) and a brief biographical note about the author(s). The word length of the manuscript contribution must be given in a covering letter, with full postal and e-mail addresses. The author(s) must confirm that the article has not been published elsewhere in any form, nor is currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. Articles submitted to JSS are subject to review by external referees. Typescripts should not normally exceed 7,000 words (including footnotes and references). They may be sent by email or mailed on a CD to the Society, preferably as an MSWord® document, with an accompanying pdf of the same content. Contributors using special fonts, such as for various Asian languages, should consult the editor in advance. Citations in the text should, where possible, follow the author—date system (e. g., Jones 1970: 82) and full details should appear in the list of references at the end of the article. These references must be complete bibliographical entries and include the full name of the author(s), title, and publication data, including the place of publication, publisher and date of publication (including the original date of publication, if the item is a reprint). Titles of the books and periodicals should, of course, be italicized. N.B. Thai authors are to be cited and listed according to their first name (not their surname, as most non-Thai authors are). Footnotes are to appear as such, not as endnotes, and should be numbered consecutively. References to articles or books written in Thai should include the title in romanized Thai followed by a translation into English in parentheses. Romanization in general follows the system of the Royal Institute. If in doubt concerning form or how to reference non-standard sources, please consult the Chicago Manual of Style (most recent edition), or Hart’s Rules for Compositors and Readers at OUP (most recent edition). If in doubt over spelling, use, as with the United Nations, the Concise Oxford Dictionary (most recent edition), taking the first entry where variants are allowed. Style—Each paper should follow a consistent form of dating, capitalization (to be kept to a minimum), and other aspects. The style should be appropriate for scholarly journals with a readership of specialists in a diversity of fields and nationalities; this said, jargon is to be avoided and articles should be readily comprehensible by non-specialists. Numbers below 11 are to be written out, as are century numbers (e. g., nineteenth century) and the First or Second World War. Date forms should be day—month—year, without contractions; e. g., 13 April 2007. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 100, 2012

357

Acronyms must always be spelt out when first used; e. g., National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB). Measurements should be metric, not imperial. Non-native speakers of English are strongly advised to have their contributions checked by a native speaker before submission. Both British and American English variants are admitted, but an article must be internally consistent in the use of whichever is selected. Illustrations—Photographs, drawings, site plans, maps and other illustrative materials should be produced on strong paper, white card or good quality tracing film, and suitably lettered for printing. They should measure approximately twice the intended final size, which should be indicated where possible. lf they have been scanned or are computergenerated, the appropriate files should be sent indicating format, together with hard copy. Do not embed any graphics in the text on the disk or printout, but send them separately. A published full-page illustration may not exceed 210 mm x 140 mm. Photographs should be printed on glossy paper and mounted on thin card. Figures, maps and plates should be titled and numbered; originals should be numbered lightly on the back in pencil only. A list of captions to the illustrations must be provided on separate sheets. Authors must obtain approval, before submission, for the reproduction in JSS of illustrations or other material not their own. Redrawing or lettering of maps or figures cannot be undertaken by the Siam Society or the editor, who may omit or return substandard work for re-presentation. The number of illustrations in an article should be limited to a maximum of ten; many articles may need no accompanying visuals. The Siam Society and its editors stress that the safekeeping of illustrations is entirely the responsibility of contributors and the Society will not be held responsible for any loss or misplacement of visuals. Copies of illustrations must be retained by contributors until after the publication of the relevant article. Illustrations submitted will not be returned to contributors. Proofs and Copies—Page proofs will be sent to authors if time allows. Authors are reminded that proofs are intended for checking, not rewriting: substantial changes to the text at this stage will result in the contribution being rejected. Failure to respond about corrections by the required date may lead to substitution of the editor’s corrected proofs. One copy of the Journal and 20 photocopy prints will be supplied free to authors on publication of the issue in which their contribution is included. Reviews—Unsolicited book reviews are not normally accepted. Offers to write reviews should be directed to the Editor, JSS. Reviews should normally be 1,000–2,000 words in length, written in English and supplied in the same form as for articles. Full bibliographic details about the book under review must be supplied, including ISBN, number of pages and price, if known. Disclaimer—The opinions expressed in the JSS are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Siam Society. The editor’s decision is final in all disputed issues. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

358

General Information

General Information

359

Past Presidents of the Siam Society

The Siam Society, under Royal Patronage, is one of Thailand’s oldest and most active learned organizations. The object of the Society is to investigate and to encourage the arts and sciences in Thailand and neighbouring countries. Established in 1904, the Journal of the Siam Society has become one of the leading scholarly publications in SouthEast Asia. JSS is international in outlook, publishing original articles of enduring value in English. All articles are subject to peer review. The Society also publishes the Natural History Bulletin. Since its inception, the Society has collected monographs, journals and material of scholarly interest on Thailand and its neighbours. The Society’s library, open to members, has one of the best research collections in the region. For those interested in the Society’s library, lectures, tours, publications and other benefits, information is given below on how to become a member. Correspondence—-Typescripts, books for review and all correspondence should be sent to: The Editor, Journal of the Siam Society 131 Sukhumwit Soi 21 (Asoke-Montri Road) Bangkok 10110, Thailand Tel. (662) 661 6470-7 Fax. (662) 258 3491 E-mail: [email protected] Subscription requests, membership enquiries and orders for publications should be addressed to Membership Services, at the address given above. Information about exchange copies of Siam Society periodicals may be obtained from the Honorary Librarian, at the same address. Journal of the Siam Society, Vol 100, 2012

Mr W. R. D. Beckett Dr O. Frankfurter Mr H. Campbell Highet Mr W. A. Graham Professor George Coedès Phya Indra Montri (Francis Giles) Major Erik Seidenfaden His Highness Prince Dhani Nivat His Royal Highness Prince Wan Waithayakon His Highness Prince Dhani Nivat His Highness Prince Prem Purachatra His Serene Highness Prince Ajavadis Diskul Phya Anuman Rajadhon His Royal Highness Prince Wan Waithayakon Professor Chitti Tingsabadh His Serene Highness Prince Subhadradis Diskul Mom Rachawong Patanachai Jayant Dr Piriya Krairiksh Mr Athueck Asvanund Mr Bangkok Chowkwanyun Mrs Bilaibhan Sampatisiri Mom Rachawong Chakrarot Chitrabongs Mr Athueck Asvanund

1904–1906 1906–1918 1918–1921 1921–1925 1925–1930 1930–1938 1938–1940 1940–1944 1944–1947 1947–1965 1965–1967 1967–1968 1968–1969 1969–1976 1976–1979 1979–1981 1981–1989 1989–1994 1994–1996 1996–1998 1998–2004 2004–2006 2006–2010

Honorary Members (with year of election) Professor Prawase Wasi H. E. Mr Anand Panyarachun Mr Dacre Raikes Phra Dhammapitaka Mrs Virginia di Crocco Mr Henri Pagau-Clarac Mr Term Meetem Professor Michael Smithies Dr William Klausner Dr Pierre Pichard Thanpuying Putrie Viravaidya H. E. Dr Thanat Koman Mr Euayporn Kerdchouay Professor Prasert na Nagara Dr Thawatchai Santisuk Dr Warren Y. Brockelman Dr Piriya Krairiksh Dr Sumet Jumsai Dr Chetana Nagavajara Dr Tej Bunnag Dr Peter Skilling

1985 1992 1992 1995 1995 1995 1995 1996 2000 2000 2000 2000 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 2004 2004 2010