Pom Mahakan eviction would be a calamitous loss

Pom Mahakan eviction would be a calamitous loss

The Pom Mahakan community, located in the symbolic core of Rattanakosin Island, has been struggling for more than two decades to achieve a cooperative land-sharing arrangement with the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA).

One of the old wooden houses in the Pom Mahakan Fort community, which is under constant threat of eviction by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, which wants to turn the fort area into a public park. Some residents took compensation, rather than move to a relocation site which has been prepared on the city’s outskirts. Many, however, have resisted forced eviction and tried to turn the area into a living museum. PAWAT LAOPAISARNTAKSIN

Instead of eviction and dispersal, most of its 300 inhabitants seek to demonstrate their skills as guardians of the historic site. Indeed, they have already demonstrated an extraordinary ability both to conserve the site and to manage their own affairs. They have maintained their living space as a clean, tranquil oasis that contrasts dramatically with the noise and pollution outside _ and with the disgraceful condition of the one segment that the BMA has already taken over, once the scene of lively community events but now a soulless lawn that has already degenerated into a sordid, unkempt, and deeply embarrassing mess.

About half the residents have now been served with notice to leave the site by Sunday. This came as a devastating surprise, not only for the community, but also for its many admirers around the world. Why, after such a long silence, so much haste? Whose interests will be served? Clearly, not everyone in authority agrees with this precipitous move, and, with the promise of some additional time to reflect, it is to be hoped that wiser counsels will now prevail.

The truth of the matter is that Pom Mahakan means something very different from what it represented 21 years ago. When the residents' struggle began, there was little popular support for their cause. Some BMA officials were even putting it about that the community was drug-infested and riddled with crime.

Then a very different truth began to emerge. The community, with official police support, had taken a strong but non-violent stand against their presence, banishing drugs and their users from the area. Today the community is tranquil, its lanes echoing to the happy laughter of clean, carefree children and youths.

Why should the BMA reverse such a success story? One can easily imagine what would happen if the BMA were indeed to replace this vibrant community with an empty lawn between the thick city wall built by Rama I and the canal on the far side! By now the Bangkok public knows the realities and realises the threat that an empty, concealed space would pose to public security and the value of the surrounding land.

The residents have invested huge efforts and precious communal money in refurbishing their living areas. They have sustained a laudable absence of violent factionalism in these troubled times. They have demonstrated an avid appetite for historical knowledge, using it for the greater benefit of the people of Bangkok _ notably in their hosting of likae performances the place where that Thai tradition first took hold in Bangkok. They have impressed visitors from Thailand and from abroad with their courtesy and sensitivity.

Some residents did agree to accept compensation in exchange for moving elsewhere, but the proposed alternatives proved unviable. By contrast, the land-sharing plan promoted by former Governor Apirak Kosayodhin in collaboration with the Silpakorn University architect Chatri Prakitnonthakan and the community leadership offered a socially and culturally exemplary model.

Although that plan foundered in legal technicalities, it inspired the hope that a satisfactory outcome would emerge. Among hints of changing official attitudes is the invitation sent about two months ago by Bangkok governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra's office to "the president of the Pom Mahakan community" to attend the celebration of Bangkok's "World's Best" award for 2013. This was a de facto recognition of the community's legitimacy. Why, then, the sudden reversal?

As a foreigner, I should probably not comment on the case's implications for the future evolution of Bangkok politics, or on the adequacy and consistency of laws used to justify a socially destructive act. Thai commentators have already cogently addressed those issues. But as an international observer who has worked closely with the community over the past decade, I cannot escape the moral obligation to emphasise what a grievous loss to Bangkok, Thailand, and the world the community's eviction would entail. It would stifle the emergence in Thailand of a globally influential new approach to urban poverty, surrendering extraordinary local achievements to a blind fixation on procedure.

If MR Sukhumbhand instead now deploys the considerable moral authority of his office against such mechanistic legalism, he will enrich the whole world with a lesson in how poor but resilient communities can creatively engage in the synergistic merging of two key goals _ historic conservation and decent habitat. The people of Pom Mahakan have repeatedly pleaded to work with, not against, the BMA. Their community is truly among the "World's Best", its talents and virtues a precious resource. Why destroy it now?


Michael Herzfeld is the Ernest E Monrad Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard University, where he also serves as coordinator for Thai Studies in the university's Asia Centre. He is writing a book about the Pom Mahakan story.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT