‘Will you guys return if we are allowed to come back and live here again,” the middle-aged woman says as she finishes a late lunch in a corner of the Wat Kalayanamit community.
The once-united Wat Kalayanamit community will soon be a page in history because of urban development. This community highlights the problems faced by the urban poor who cannot find secure accommodation. (Photo by Pawat Laopaisarntaksin)
Around her are long-time neighbours who are preparing to pack up and leave the community in Thon Buri district, victims of the temple’s decision to reclaim the land.
Mrs Pu, who did not want her real name used, has returned to the community to spend some time with her childhood friends.
The forced eviction is a well-discussed topic that has touched every corner of the Wat Kalayanamit community in recent weeks.
Mrs Pu is among the lucky few who could afford to move to the Phetkasem area with her husband before her house is demolished.
Others at the table are among the majority of the community who have no idea how they will manage. They used to lease their homes from the temple for about 1,000 baht a year, but now they will have to pay rent in their new homes amounting to several thousand baht a month.
Noi-na, a former resident who wanted only to be known by her nickname, managed to find a new place for her family of seven but still struggles with the new rent of almost 5,000 baht a month.
Another resident who asked not to be named said she can afford her new rent but was struggling to adapt to life outside the community.
The community comprises many families who have lived there for generations and who have rented houses from the temple all their lives. Sharing the plot are some working-class people who came to live in Bangkok a few decades ago. Every tenant calls the community their home.
But for most of them time is running out. They only have until the end of the month to vacate their old homes. The temple has reclaimed parts of the surrounding plot, reportedly for landscape development.
People from a total of 57 homes are being forced to leave after a long legal battle with the temple which terminated their leases in 2006 and eventually won a court case last year to evict the residents.
The eviction case at Wat Kalayanamit is just one of countless cases of the urban poor being turned out of their homes in the name of development.
Kannika Angsuthanasombat, a researcher who studies the urban poor, says they usually live in densely packed communities hidden in small sois or on plots of land attached to temples. They are vulnerable to being evicted when the land on which they live is eyed for development.
Ms Kannika says they are often the first to be forced to move away from the city centre for two reasons. First the land they are living on is sold to land developers.
Second, the rent is hiked to an unaffordable level, after urbanisation blankets their “home”, forcing them to relocate, usually outside the city and far from public transport.
According to the Four Regions Slum Network, transport projects — the rail network in Bangkok and the planned double-track rail routes in the provinces — have already affected over 34,000 people from 86 communities in Bangkok and certain provinces.
Secure accommodation has become the main problem for the urban poor who are at the bottom of the financial pyramid, said Ms Kannika. “They are victims of urban development projects, including the emerging rail transport network.”
Ms Kannika believes a more efficient way of solving the problem would be to change the mindset of authorities and private business and convince them that a city must accommodate people from all financial backgrounds.
She said every city, especially Bangkok, needs the urban poor as they are unskilled labourers who do the unsavoury jobs, such as cleaning or garbage collecting, the middle class refuse to do.
Anthropologist Srisakra Vallibhotama doesn’t see the problem simply as a financial struggle. He looks upon the Wat Kalayanamit case as a human rights violation, but the National Human Rights Commission is not getting involved.
“Eviction doesn’t only destroy individuals, it breaks up whole communities and their relationships,” he points out. He accused the temple of paying for the eviction of the residents and using the law to push low-income people out.
Society has always been based on the concept of boworn, or bor wor ror — the supporting link between the three main institutions that form the basis of a strong society. That is, bor for baan (home), wor for wat (temple) and ror for rongrian (school), which ensure people who stay on the land can offer alms while rents are used to maintain the temple.
In the Wat Kalayanamit case, the residents are being forced to leave a two-century-old community.
According to the residents, the Wat Kalaya community had always been based on these concepts. That is until the current abbot came along in 2003.
The abbot had never performed bintabat to receive alms in the morning and had also tried to evict them from their homes by claiming ownership rights to the 15-rai plot surrounding the temple.
“Monks aren’t supposed to manage the land,” said Mr Srisakra, adding that this situation is similar to what has happened at many other temples, including Wat Yannawa in Sathon, where tenants were pushed out to pave the way for city infrastructure or new, high-end residential buildings.
The ownership of the land surrounding Wat Kalayanamit remains unclear according to Chieanchuang Kalayanamitr, whose family has lived in the community for generations.
He said his ancestors only gave over management rights to the land, not ownership rights, to the Education Ministry, then called the Dharmakan Ministry.
Mr Chieanchuang suspects foul play was involved when land ownership deeds were transferred to the temple in 1975.
Mr Srisakra doesn’t agree with ownership rights being handed to the temple or even its committee, explaining monks aren’t allowed to touch money or be involved in any activities in the secular world.
He said the temple and authorities should find an alternative location for the whole community to relocate to, so they do not lose their close bond.
The community's residents, however, would prefer to stay put and carry on with their lives as normal.
“I for one will move back if the temple allows it,” answers Ms Noi-na, without a second thought, though that seems unlikely.
