Paradox of a Nation

            Summarizing my experiences in Thailand at this point in the journey is like trying to chew partially digested food- it’s too soon. As I attempt to reflect on my time here, however, I find myself both exhilarated and perplexed. Like many cultures around the world, what has been labeled as “Thai culture,” seems to me as diverse and contradictory as it is rich and beautiful. One example of this has come to the forefront of my attention- namely the paradox of a nation committed to a mainstream development makeover while also trying to preserve traditional knowledge and ways of life that have fostered the well-being of many communities within its borders since its creation. During our two months in the Northeastern region of Isaan and our recent visit to the North, I have become increasingly aware of this countrywide balancing act.

In Khon Kaen (Isaan’s largest city) and Chiang Mai (largest city of the North), Lady boys (Thai cross-dressers), ancient wads (Thai temples), condom advertisements, saffron robed monks, giant portraits of King Bhumibol (Thailand’s current King, crowned in 1950), sprawling open-air markets and multiple 7/11’s all coexist within a minutes walk of each other.

This stark contrast, however, is not solely prevalent in two of Thailand’s largest cities.

While often presenting itself in different forms, the dichotomy between ‘development in the name of progress’ and the preservation of traditional knowledge and ways of life has been predominant in nearly all of our village exchanges and homestays across both Isaan and during our visit to the North.

One of the most striking examples of this shared dichotomy can be seen in the similarities between the Hua Na and Rasi Salai dam affected communities in the Isaan province of Si Sa Ket, and the Kaeng Sua Ten dam affected communities of the North. According to the Thai government, these dam sites are part of the State’s larger initiative of both flood control throughout the country using dams in the north and large-scale irrigation and agro-industrial development in Isaan using dams in the northeastern Khong-Chi-Mun river basin.

After visiting these two dam sites, however, it is clear that in both cases the main parties benefitting from the projects are the government (which enjoys a rise in the State’s GDP- and a consequent boost of international standing), and the companies that are hired to build the dams. Furthermore, these government projects not only fail to accomplish their original intentions, but also cause destruction to surrounding lands and the communities that have lived on those lands for generations. When the Hua Na dam is completed and the gates are closed, many village’s farm and wetlands located along the banks of the Mun river will be submerged under a reservoir of water, stretching 90 km from Hua Na to Rasi Salai dam. And if the two Kaeng Sua Ten Dams are constructed, four communities in the area will be permanently flooded along with one of the oldest Teak forest in the world. Both of these communities have lived on the same land for generations.

In both dam sites of the North and Isaan, the government and companies involved have tipped the balance of the scale by choosing development in the name of progress over the cost of losing entire communities’ land and the traditional ways of life and local wisdom that go with this. Is this justifiable? It’s a complex and morally loaded question, but in my unqualified, present opinion, the answer is no. If there’s one thing I’ve learned in Thailand, however, it’s that rarely is anything ever black or white- so I will keep chewing my partially digested food and attempt to reflect on my time here. 

  

Eleanor Bennett

Middlebury College