Slums as the Part of a

n Agony of Developm
ent
Thai state as not developmental b
ut
Predatory state

Most of the Thai leaders clearly show their inte

rest in modernizing the country from agricultu
ral to industrial. Thai leaders have taken out s
o much of the scarce resources, but put back
so little in the way of public leading to weak h
uman capital development and miserable pov
erty in the rural areas.
 Slum in Bangkok
• Urban areas of the Thailand have been the
center of attraction for local labor migratio
n because of better facilities such as trans
portation, public health and other infrastr
ucture. Thus, slums and 78% are permane
ntly settled in the region.
 The Birth of Bangkok Slums
• Thailand has begun its developmental pla
n in the beginning of 1953 in the governme
nt of Sarit era. He tried to industrialize Th
ailand of the agricultural state. His plan wi
despreaded greatly and Bangkok becomin
g center of industrialization, import-expor
t, and migration of investor and laborers.
• In addition, both import-substituting and
export-oriented industrial sectors mostly c
oncentrated in Bangkok (Santikarn, 1992),
have been inadequate for sufficient labour
absorption.
1953, the Age of Industrialization
The first industrial slums of Bangkok
• Somebody regard the compact of slums as
an eyesore sight. Why? Does it reflect som
e negative point of view of the speaker? Th
e image of poor slums that we see on TV al
so reflects the thinking of sitcom producer
s and audience, that poverty is the root cau
se of crime and all kinds of sins in the soci
ety.
• But when you read “chang sam ran”, there
are no such eyesore sights. The poverty do
esn’t always cause crimes like many people
believe. The culture of poverty in Thailand
does not promote drug addition, robbery,
adultery, or other crimes. On the contrary,
it is a kind of culture that promotes stabilit
y in life by focusing on forging interperson
al relationships rather than on accumulati
ng material wealth (Nidhi Eosriwong).
• You can see that nai Chong let his custome
rs buy on credits. The slum communities c
an take care of one boy with true generosit
y. I think this phenomena is rare to see eve
n in the rich society. Thus I think, at least,
“Chang sam ran” speaks out loudly that po
verty is not the source of crimes. Crime is v
ery personal way of life like the special cas
e of Ai Noi, the temple boy , stealing mone
y from Pra so.
Society of “nobody is responsible for anyt
hing”
• Something tragic about this story is “whos
e’s fault?” Is it normal to leave child alone
? Who’s to be blamed? I think superficially
“ Kampol’s parents” will be the first people
to be blamed. But if we think it again. Why
we always put the blame as the personal le
vel?
• The reason is maybe that we cannot put pre
ssure on government agencies that are resp
onsible for high price of land, and neither ca
n we pressure on land owners. The reason w
e cannot pressure these people is we lack so
cial or civic institutions that will do so on ou
r behalf. We have no proactive association,
no political party that represents the interes
ts of small people, no way to participate in h
uman resource jointly with the political Dep
artment, etc.