COVER STORY

COMMENTS (0)

RECOMMEND (334)

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PLUSONE

MORE

E-MAIL

PRINT

TEXT SIZE

She o­nce confided to a visiting diplomat that if her party had been in power, the construction of Traders Hotel so close to the Sule pagoda in downtown Rangoon would not have been approved. But such thoughts and any helpful advice o­n tourism fall o­n deaf ears.

Just before the regime launched the tourism campaign in 1996, a local business magazine, Dana, prepared an article outlining prospects for tourism in Burma. The article contained some interesting points, including warning Burma to be careful of sex tourism and offering advice o­n how the country should promote eco-tourism, business and cultural tourism. The article urged Burma to focus more o­n economic development, agriculture and exports. The regime’s notorious censorship board axed the article.

Tourism is certainly a mixed bag.

But at the end of the day, tourism could become o­ne of the main sources of income in Burma. Thus, private sector and tourism officials in Burma should be o­n their guard to prevent overdevelopment and should learn the downside of tourism from the experience of neighboring countries.

Some Burma-based tour companies I spoke to talked about responsible tourism, eco-tourism, and quality tourism, but also community-based travelers programs such as home stays, ethno-museums, and educational programs that bring tourist dollars directly into communities.

Whether tourists can also encourage democracy in Burma is doubtful. When Suu Kyi was asked by a journalist whether democracy could be promoted and human rights abuses prevented more effectively by tourists than by international isolation, she shot back: “Burmese people know their own problems better than anyone else. They know what they want—they want democracy—and many have died for it. To suggest that there’s anything new that tourists can teach the people of Burma about their own situation is not simply patronizing—it’s also racist.”

True. Although more tourists have been visiting Burma in recent years, we have also seen the regime continue to imprison activists, put pressure o­n international NGOs, turn a deaf ear to the UN and increase its repression of ethnic minorities.

Thus, if tourists open up the world to the people of Burma so can the people of Burma open the eyes of tourists to the situation in their own country, if they are interested in looking.

In fact, tourists do not normally care whether a country is ruled by a dictator or a democrat. As long as they feel safe and sufficient facilities are provided, they will visit any exotic place. Hence, we see increasing numbers of tourists flock into Laos, Vietnam, China and Singapore.

As I am not a campaign activist, it is not my business to tell tourists to go or not to go. If you go, that is your decision. 

But Burma is a moral minefield. If you want to be politically correct, you won’t go. But if you have doubts about the boycott campaign and want to see Burma with your own eyes, then I think you’d better buy a ticket now.

But if you do go, I ask you to be a guest of those ordinary Burmese people who also want to be able to travel, free from military dictatorship.