What do a ban on street food, being pushed by City Hall, and the proposal for 99-year land deals for foreign investors under the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC), architected by the Finance Ministry have in common?
They are driven by people who give favours to the rich and privileged, while marginalising those in the lower part of the social spectrum. Needless to say, both plans -- if put in place -- will aggravate inequality in this country. The military regime and those responsible for drafting the 20-year strategic plan need to pay attention to this issue and set as a priority balanced and equitable economic growth and development.
Let me start with the street food ban.
Unarguably, street food is a way of life for Thais, expats and tourists. It is part of Bangkok's identity which has gained international recognition. Many world-class chefs have tasted, written books about and adapted them into dishes in their Michelin-starred restaurants. They are at times messy and chaotic. But as Pansak Vinyaratn, former adviser to many governments, once said: It is "the beauty of chaos" because of the charm of the on-the-spot cooking, the action of selling, choosing and buying, and to sit or stand and eat around stalls is a picture of "life" in motion.
Suranand Vejjajiva was secretary-general to the prime minister during the Yingluck Shinawatra government and is now a political analyst.
Economically, street food makes sense. Vendors provide food for people from all walks of life -- from low income construction workers to middle-class, white collar employees to the rich and famous craving tasty and convenient comfort food.
Vendors are start-up entrepreneurs. Not the fancy high-tech 4.0 version the government is promoting, but the day-to-day food sellers who have existed since the day humans invented the concept of markets. They awake in the early hours to prepare their wares (afternoon for the night markets) and set up shop in their usual spots throughout the city. Some have settled in Bangkok for decades, some have just arrived looking to pursue their dreams in the Big Mango. Many are husband and wife teams; a lot supplement income for their families as spouses take other odd jobs.
With a cheap, diversified and quality source of raw materials, Thailand has earned the reputation as the Kitchen of the World. Street vendors pay no rent, except a small fee imposed by City Hall. In some cases, they may have to make under-the-table payments to officials or local mafias. But if the demands are excessive, they can still move and set up business in other areas.
Street vendors are not without externalities. Like many other things in this country, there are no laws regulating street food vendors -- except for the permit issue which depends upon official discretion. There are some complaints, mostly about blocked pavements. From time to time, they face food safety inspections by the Ministry of Public Health in the wake of an epidemic. There is no effective urban planning to define public and commercial space.
It should be noted that the street food ban will have a harsh impact, not only on vendors, but also on their patrons. While the government is making a U-turn on the ban, it appears only those in thriving tourist areas will be spared. But it's not right to satisfy tourists and ignore our own people.
This is because the change in the Bangkok landscape which sees shopping malls, high-rise offices and residential condominiums taking precedence has forced those with lower incomes out to the fringes of the city. Spatial development such as the Klong Toey area will mean a number of the poor will be pushed further away from their workplaces. They have to bear the transportation costs to get to work and now their source of food, breakfast, lunch and take-home dinner may be taken away.
Their choices are limited to food centres in shopping malls which sell at more expensive prices, or some convenience stores that offer cheaper, microwavable, ready-to-eat food which depend greatly on added preservatives. In this scenario, it's the major conglomerates that operate the malls and the convenience stores which emerge as the winners.
And the government is not offering alternatives. Take a look at our neighbours. Singapore, for example, made a conscious decision to set up hawker markets. The Thai government which owns plots of land throughout the city has not given this a thought at all.
Now let me move to the 99-year land lease which is a national policy. This is an extension of the existing law which already allows a 50-year leasehold for commercial purposes.
Here are my concerns.
A 99-year period is a long time. The people making the decision (and the writer of this column) will not live to see what this will eventually entail. At least two generations of Thais will have to go through the deal with suspect benefits for the country.
While the government argues that we have to offer a more attractive package to foreign investors, the question is: Why do we have to cater to a corporation's projected cash flow when the technology of today could be totally obsolete in the near future?
Our children should not be stuck with an unwanted legacy of the past. With this fast and changing world, no business project is going to be viable past five years, let alone 99. An up-front lease or concession will never compensate for future lost opportunities.
The government is to set up a special committee tasked with deciding which projects are to get this privilege. But the committee's discretion will not be subjected to any checks or balances. No public hearing, no parliamentary deliberations. What legitimacy, in this instance, does this committee or the cabinet for that matter have over the project?
Finally, it appears the government is concentrating too much on catering to large corporations and international investors (mainly Chinese). But they have so far ignored land reform and agricultural land development which feed this country and the world with our exports. There is no land use planning and how to allocate resources to build sustainable development that benefits all Thais, in the present and future.
The policies on street food and the 99-year land deals are one in the same. They reflect a regime obsessed with quick cash and a growth-led economy without regard to ways of life. These decisions are made in a top-down format without alternatives for the poor and less fortunate, while the actual stakeholders, the people, have little or no say.
Land, especially fertile land, is a limited resource. It is a resource that we must use with care and preserve for generations to come. People must have a say over how it is and will be used. It is time the government thought and openly discusses how we will use our land, urban and rural, with clearly designated zoning for agriculture and industry. Planning and implementation must be transparent with projects that benefit the present and future population.