END
top of page
THE BEACH: A TALE OF TWO FREEDOMS
By Guy Redden, Department of English,
University of Queensland
Defining Freedom
This essay is a reading of Alex Garland's
1996 novel, The Beach. It also charts the making of a film (based on
the novel) in Thailand, the place where the story is set. As will
become clear, the essay is also a tale of two freedoms: 'negative'
freedom and 'positive' freedom.
The Beach and the way it was made into a
film, I will argue, show how longstanding Western cultural values
with regard to freedom become manifest in cultural and economic
practices today, sometimes with distinctively negative consequences.
It is not that culture doesn't change, but that, as time 'moves on'
we bring certain key cultural values with us and adapt and apply them
in new ways. Realising this may be the first step in creating
political and ethical strategies that are relevant to social
relations 'here and now'.
So, before offering a reading of The Beach,
it is first necessary to give an account of the cultural values
regarding freedom that are at stake here. From the
seventeenth-century in European culture freedom has gradually become
viewed as something that all human beings have or at least should
have, a birthright that political systems should allow us to
exercise. As Rousseau so famously observed "man is born free but
everywhere is in chains". In a liberal democracy the law ensures
we have freedom of speech, freedom to vote, freedom to trade, freedom
of belief and so on. It is not up to the State to decide what we do
with our freedoms—it just ensures that we are all theoretically
free to act. Of course, there are limits to our freedoms. The state
intervenes when people 'abuse' them in certain ways, but on the whole
we should adopt 'liberal', tolerant attitudes towards what other
people choose to do. Hence, many people still cherish the idea the
William Walwyn expressed in seventeenth-century England (I remember
it word for word from my school history classes): "every man
ought to be protected in the use of that wherein he doth not actually
hurt another". Thus, in liberal milieux, freedom to act is often
a cherished end-in-itself, and, so the story goes, if we want to 'be
free' we must tolerate the freedom of others rather than dictate to them.
The liberal concept of freedom is certainly
beautiful, but as such it is overly seductive. What I want to do in
this essay is suggest that it is very limiting if taken as a guide
for action and the organisation of collective life. My main
theoretical argument, one for which I claim no originality, is that
the liberal concept of freedom is actually better described as
'negative' freedom. In other words citizens (and businesses) are free
to not have to act in certain ways, free to do what they want to as
long as they do not interfere with the theoretical liberties of
others. This is an ethically problematic perspective that does not
invite us to ask enough questions about what impacts our actions may
have on other people and communities.
Whilst current western systems of political
economy are based on ideals of negative freedom (freedom of trade),
liberalism is less eager to idealise power than it is freedom. Why?
It is clear that any person's freedom to do something is
proportionate to their access to the resources which allow them to
carry it out. Gender, race, social class and other factors, influence
how 'free' people are to act. Also, money represents buying power.
Having a lot of it gives one more power than many others, and, in
spite of universal theoretical freedoms to act, groups with money
also tend to have the ability to sustain their advantage as they
control the world of business. Those freedoms now start to look
theoretical indeed. Ideals of negative freedom—freedom to do
what you want—ensure that those with power are able to exercise
it with minimum restriction. And, of course, society is encouraged to
tolerate this situation out of a principled respect for the freedom
of others that ignores the power imbalances in society.
Approaching the Beach
Instead of theorising any further, I want to
show how the liberal concept of freedom is deeply enculturated in
Western society. It influences the actions of many individuals,
social groups and subcultures and manifests in various cultural
practices. In spite of theories of postmodernity that suggest a
general break with the past, the saga of The Beach shows how negative
freedom continues to manifest in leisure, business and the ways
Westerners imagine themselves and their relations with cultural
others in literature.
The Beach, then, portrays freedom through
adventure. As such it is part of a long tradition of writing that
positions individual Western subjects as discoverers of the new,
fascinating and scarce, as heroes who come to terms with alien
environments. But this freedom to adventure is, in the novel, also a
matter of contemporary youth subculture—the young western
travellers who set up an alternative community on a paradisical
hidden island are experimenting with their time, attempting to
fashion themselves in a way that is different from the mainstream.
The milieu in which the novel is set—the international
backpacker youth culture of Thailand—is a very real one off the page.
Richard, the British hero of the novel,
checks into a guest house in Khao San Road, the backpacker hub of
Bangkok. He acquires a cryptic map (the spur of many a good adventure
plot), which eventually leads him and two French travelling
companions to 'the beach' on a remote island in a Thai national
marine park, where a small group of backpackers have set up their own
secret community 'away from it all'. The whole point of community is
to get away from the tourist hordes and spoiled places like Ko Samui
and Ko Pha-Ngan, places that were hip before they were popularised.
Although the community is illegal, it is very unlikely to be
discovered by the authorities or the hordes, as it is tucked away in
a large archipelago, and, once there, Richard adapts to the needs and
pleasures of an alternative, self-sufficient community of free,
self-empowered youths. He takes up his place in the division of
labour by becoming a fisherman, and endless after-hours pot-smoking
allowed by large cannabis fields near the beach, seals the
realisation of 'youthtopia'. The bulk of the plot concerns the bonds
that the group build from nothing, their novel back-to-nature
lifestyle, sexual undercurrents and the threat of 'the outside': that
is the threat of discovery by the authorities or the Thai drug
dealers who inhabit (also illegally) the other side of the island.
Eventually, however, paradise sours, and the novel, in a way similar
to Lord of the Flies depicts an isolated community of overexposed
individuals going crazy. A power struggle ensues and ends in deaths
before the community dissolves.
In her essay "On or Off the Beaten
Track?: Tourist Trails in Thailand," Lisa Palmer takes up some
of the issues implicit in The Beach in her examination of the youth
traveller culture in Thailand. From ethnographic experience she
paints a picture of independent travellers as being people who are
proud of that independence and who primarily seek extraordinary
experiences in an unfamiliar culture (Palmer 68-9). Yet they also
project their own culture-specific desires onto the local culture
creating markets around their fulfilment and breaking local social
codes. Palmer avers that "backpacker tourists, like their
predecessors in the counter-culture tourism of the late 1960s and
1970s, are often attracted to a region primarily because of the
accessibility and cheapness of drugs". "Tourists lounge
'wasted' in the 'idyllic' surroundings of a hill tribe village or
tropical island" (82). She pulls no punches: "Backpacker
delusions of 'getting in with the natives' extend to nude sunbathing
and an assumed 'free for all' from the tropical fruit orchards and
coconut plantations, all in full view of the always modestly dressed
locals and land owners" (83).
If there is a contrast in tone between my
account of The Beach and Palmer's observations, it is because Palmer
speaks the issues subtending but repressed by the imaginary of self-centred
adventurism, those which are incomprehensible to yet caused by
ingrained personal belief in the good of negative freedom. In fact,
The Beach is an intelligently written novel that debunks the
narrator's initial belief that "escape through travel works"
(115). But the problem lies in the way that it debunks the myth. As
I read I couldn't help but wish that Richard could experience a
breakthrough by getting to know some Thai people, realising that he
had appropriated their land and violated their laws because he valued
his personal experience more highly than their culture. No such move
is made, however. The community remains isolated from the surrounding
threatening culture until the end. The reasons for its dissolution
are internal to the group and involve no kind of geopolitical
awakening to the abuse of a privilege that lies in having the time
and money to be able to arrive, experiment and leave. Thus the novel
repeats longstanding imperial ways of seeing, extends what Palmer
calls "the West's own historical and ongoing practice of
projecting desires and cultural practices onto the 'Other'"
(71). In an article in The Observer newspaper Nigel Williamson
portrays an international dance and drug culture of travellers,
people going to far-off places and acting as "the ultimate
hedonists" (16). One of his interviewees, Phoebe Collins, raises
the question "does the freedom to party really mean the freedom
to wreck a peaceful environment?" (16). Another, a British party
traveller interviewed in Goa, India, is more cavalier "'The
beaches are getting polluted, so why not go somewhere else? The world
is our oyster. There are a million beautiful beaches. It's a free
world and it's our money to spend where we like'" (17). It would
be harder to find a better example of how belief in negative freedom
can override consideration of the communal consequences of 'free' actions.
The Spiral
One part of The Beach shows the dependence
of the alternative community on the outside world: Richard and a
friend have to go to Ko Pha-Ngan to buy rice (151-189). This raises
the question of the boundary between alternative community and 'the
mainstream', a question often tackled by cultural studies scholars in
analyses of subcultures. One strand of this work, exemplified by Dick
Hebdidge's famous reading of Punk culture, tends to regard youth
subcultures as radical signs of dissidence in an unfair society.
However, Sarah Thornton sees subcultures as more politically
ambiguous than this. "Today" she believes "it is
easier to see each cultural difference as potential distinction, a
suggestion of superiority, an assertion of hierarchy" (209). In
The Beach this is evident in the articulation of the subculture's
identity in contradistinction to the tourist hordes. Yet it is also
apparent, in a less obvious way, in the use of a foreign country as
the site of rebellion. A tacit supremacism lies in constructing
foreign culture as the site of adventure without attempting to engage
with it. Thais are placed in three main positions in this book:
scenery, e.g. the transvestite at Ko Samui (51); servants, like the
fisherman who takes Richard to the beach (52); and enemies—the
armed dope growers. This curtailment of Thai personhood suggests one
simple outcome: the novel is not interested in inter-cultural
communication with individuated Thais, but only intra-cultural
communication between individuated Westerners.
It's all the more remarkable then that this
feature of discounting interest in the Other in favour of
self-interest was carried through from the fictional realm to the
making of the film of The Beach. The irony that 20th Century Fox shot
the film illegally in a Thai national park in spite of the protests
of many local Thai people, is astounding. The film, which stars
Leonardo di Caprio, was principally shot at Maya Bay on Phi Phi
island (on Thailand's west coast) in early 1999. 20th Century Fox
executives secured the location by making a 'donation' of four
million baht to the Thai Royal Forestry Department. Critics argued
that the law was not for sale querying the notion of making
charitable donations to a government department, and also predicted
environmental damage to one of Thailand's most beautiful areas. Still
acked by the authorities, Fox went ahead and bulldozed the beach,
removed native plants and planted 60 coconut trees because the film
script called for a perfect tropical beach. Opponents of the shooting
staged various protests, including a rally at 20th Century Fox's
Bangkok office, several petitions to concerned government agencies,
media campaigns and a peaceful sit-in on Maya beach.
Protests continued during and after the
filming. In January 1999 a group of 19 local residents took the Thai
Government and Fox to court. It is very hard to see why a court would
not have stopped the filming of The Beach, as not only was it illegal
but local residents were against it. The result spoke volumes about
how the unequal social relations masked by principles of negative
freedom can be upheld by law. Fox had to pay a hefty bond of five
million baht against possible environmental damage but was free to go
ahead, meaning buying power translates into freedom of action once
more. A similar attempt to get Fox prosecuted under the U.S. Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act that was made by presentation of a petition to
the U.S. Embassy in Thailand, similarly failed. Fox made the film as planned.
The result, according to Pennapa Hongthong
in The Nation newspaper, was that "native plants like giant
milkweed, sea pandanus and spider lily, which were removed from the
beach and grown in a nursery for months, were unable to survive as
their roots were cut. The glistening white sand which once attracted
tourists was swept away by storms because there were no plants to
hold it in place" (n.pag). There is, however, still hope that a
prosecution may be made. Pennapa continues "As Maya Bay lies in
shambles, the Krabi Authority Organisation together with the Ao Nang
Tambon Administration Organisation, which supervise the island, and a
number of Krabi residents have filed a lawsuit against those involved
in the disaster, including the RFD and Plodprasop, the Agriculture
Ministry, Fox and its Thai coordinator Santa International Film
Production Co."
The case is now before the court, though Fox
still intends to screen The Beach in Thailand on March 10 2000.
Hopefully some measure of justice will be
achieved, but the case raises important geopolitical issues about the
exercise of freedom and power across borders. In a supposedly
globalising world marked by the mobility of persons, capital, and
ideas, an obverse immobility—having certain local rights
circumscribed by translocal buying power, is rarely acknowledged as
the structural necessity it is. Large corporations like Fox invest in
projects all over the world, but only if their terms are met. On a
political level the world's most economically developed countries are
attempting to establish a global 'free market' through the efforts of
(unelected) international organisations like the World Trade
Organisation and the International Monetary Fund.
But what does this mean? For Paul Hellyer,
the former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, the supposed global free
market where everyone is equally free to trade and act is "the
biggest con-job in history". Rather, it is a new phase in a long
history of colonialism. According to Hellyer the five richest
countries in the world all accumulated their great wealth through
colonialism and protectionism. As a result of this history their
companies are now so much larger and richer than most companies from
most other countries that protectionism is no longer a necessary
policy for their further expansion. Rather if a world free trade
environment is established, these corporations will be able to win
further markets outside their countries of origin whilst being too
strong to lose enough of their already-established domestic markets
to offset the large gain. Again, we come back to the same principle:
freedom, in any social context, is a function of power and power
often a function of wealth. The already-rich organisations of the
developed world dominate the conditions of international trade, are
usually in superior bargaining positions. Hence, the travesty of The Beach.
Thus the abuse of negative freedom in
inter-cultural contexts by both private Western individuals and
Western organisations with power, is a continuation of the colonial
project. The new millennium will challenge commentators to specify
the new formations of international exploitation. Whilst civil
liberties are clearly important and freedom is a warranted ideal for
the truly oppressed, freedom is not always a sufficient
ethical/political ideal for those who already have great freedom of
action. The pursuit of freedom in this way can all too easily become
the excuse for oppressive actions. Rather we need to look at the ways
liberties impact on others and question how the less empowered can
attain positive freedom to have their own reasonable desires heard
and carried out. This is a huge, rewarding multi-faceted task. As a
critical grounding we could follow James Clifford's injunction to
interpret the relays (which always involve power) through which
inter-cultural relations are formed. "New representational
strategies are needed" (101) he argues. Focussing on people
Clifford stresses that we need to analyse the social roles of
intermediaries who bring cultural and economic practices across
boundaries of inside and outside: servants, entertainers, police,
prospectors, migrant labourers, recent immigrants, tourists,
missionaries, merchants. To this list we can add backpackers,
novelists, filmmakers, politicians business people and, of course,
the capital and objects through which their relationships are forged.
(Lest we forget that it is people, with their desires, who shape the
institutions that shape our world.)
Guy Redden is a research student at the
University of Queensland. At the time of writing a version of this
essay is forthcoming in Social Alternatives Journal.
REFERENCES
Clifford, James. "Travelling
Cultures." Cultural Studies. Ed. Paula A. Treichler, Cary
Nelson, Lawrence Grossberg. New York:
Routledge, 1992. 96-116.
Garland, Alex. The Beach. London: Penguin, 1996.
Hellyer, Paul. Stop: Think! Toronto: Chimo
Media, 1999.
Honthong, Pennapa. The Folly of Maya Bay:
The Sand Dunes Are No More. 1999. The Nation. Available: http://www.nationgroup.com/nation/Sun/e1210.html.
16/09/1999.
Palmer, Lisa. "'On or Off the Beaten
Track?': Tourist Trails in Thailand." UTS Review 4.1 (1998): 67-91.
Pleumarom, Anita. "'The Beach'
War." Third World Resurgence 103, March 1999.
Thornton, Sarah. "The Social Logic of
Subcultural Capital." The Subcultures Reader. Ed. Ken Gelder
Sarah Thornton. London: Routledge, 1997. 200-208.
Williamson, Nigel. "They Came in Search
of Paradise." The Observer 25/05/1999. 16-17.
END
top of page
CYBERSPACE CAMPAIGNS SLAM 'THE BEACH' PROTESTS
By Anita Pleumarom (Published in The Nation
24+25 Nov. 1999)
In November 1998, the Royal Forestry
Department (RFD) gave the US film company 20th Century Fox permission
to create a "tropical paradise" on Maya Beach in the Phi
Phi Islands National Park for its film 'The Beach', starring Leonardo
DiCaprio. Government officials justified the decision on the grounds
that the Hollywood movie would help boost tourism and thus bring in
badly-needed foreign exchange which could pull Thailand out of its
economic crisis. Local residents of Krabi province and civic groups
from all over Thailand protested strongly not only at the proposed
changes in landscape but also at the state-sanctioned breaking of
environmental and national park laws. One year on, the controversy is
still far from being resolved.
The country's environmental and
pro-democracy groups consider 'The Beach' case to be a key test of
Thailand's new constitution adopted in 1997, which promotes public
participation in policy-making and grants citizens more legal rights.
They argue: If Thailand can not uphold the integrity of the country's
legal system by effectively prosecuting unlawful activities
perpetrated by government agencies and a large foreign company at
Maya Beach, it will be even harder to prevent future unsustainable
and damaging development activities in the country as a whole.
Two elected assemblies from Krabi province -
the Krabi Provincial Authority Organization and the Ao Nang Tambon
Administration Organization - and several Krabi residents have filed
lawsuits against the RFD and its general-director Plodprasop
Suraswadee, Agriculture Minister Pongpol Adireksarn, Fox and its Thai
coordinator Santa International Film Production Co. The next court
hearing is scheduled for 9 December.
Recent reports, photos and a video from
Krabi residents monitoring Phi Phi Leh Island just confirm what
critics have predicted from the beginning: The alterations made to
Maya Beach so that it conforms to Hollywood's image have led to
irreversible ecological damage despite Fox's promises and attempts to
return the site to its original state. Heavy rain storms in October
have eventually ruined the beach completely. Local witnesses say Maya
Beach has suffered much more from erosion this year than other
beaches in the area hit by the monsoon. They also fear that the
massive amounts of sand washed into the sea will have devastating
impacts on the surrounding coral reefs.
'The Beach' controversy has not only been
raging within Thailand but also in cyberspace through various web
sites with international links and contributors - an aspect that has
largely remained unnoticed in Thailand.
The most prominent web site is
thaistudents.com/thebeach, established in October 1998. Contrary to
its name, this web site does not represent the voice of any of the
Thai university students groups who have joined the debates and
activities concerning 'The Beach' in this country. It has in fact
been developed by Richard Barrow, an expatriate on the staff of the
high-class private Sriwittayapaknam School in Samut Prakarn, which
accommodates children from the ages of three to fifteen.
The web site includes a disclaimer: "We
are not affiliated with or receive payments from any groups that have
associations with people and organizations such as 20th Century Fox,
Leonardo DiCaprio, Beach Productions and environmental groups."
However, another of the school's web sites, sriwittayapaknam.ac.th,
states that Leonardo DiCaprio sent videos and calendars to the school
"worth thousands of US dollars". It shows photos of school
children holding posters of the Hollywood heartthrob and displaying
gifts he sent after 'The Beach' filming was completed in Thailand.
Moreover, during the filming, Richard Barrow and three students were
invited by the film publicist, Sarah Clark, to visit Phuket and Phi
Phi Leh Island and meet the film's cast and crew.
The school's 'The Beach' web site reflects
tireless and comprehensive efforts; it features massive amounts of
written materials in English language and photos about the movie and
related issues, including a lot of tourism information on Thailand.
It is updated at least once a day, seven days a week. One gets the
impression that this is not the effort of just Barrow, the diligent
webmaster, and Thai pupils alone, but of a whole team of public
relations experts, who are carefully monitoring and analyzing news
worldwide, contacting individuals and agencies to make statements,
producing articles and commentaries and moderating discussions on the
various web site message boards. The Internet identification numbers
from the webmaster's messages put on the web site also indicate that
these messages are sent from overseas as well as from Thailand.
Barrow has repeatedly stressed his
neutrality in 'The Beach' controversy and his eagerness to present
all sides involved in this case, and judging by the messages sent to
the site, most correspondents abroad believe that his information is
independent and correct.
There is the observation, however, that as
soon as any information and comment not in favour of the 'The Beach'
finds its way on this web site, counter-statements will appear
promptly or the webmaster interferes to question the credibility of
the critical reporters and to pre-empt their arguments. Therefore, it
is not surprising that apart from DiCaprio fans living all over the
world, the site has received special praise from voices closely
related to Fox: the official web site of DiCaprio, his media
consultant for 'The Beach', Richard S. Ehrlich; his production
consultant, Dave Walker; the production director of Birken
Interactive Studio, Chuck Smith; and the producer of' 'The Beach',
Andrew MacDonald, who was quoted as saying: "To the students of
Sriwattayapaknam School. On behalf of the entire cast and crew of The
Beach, including Leonardo DiCaprio, we would like to thank you for
all your support and goodwill messages, which we have been reading on
your web site. We appreciate all the time and hard work that has gone
into the site."
A recent example gives an insight as to how
this web site operates for the film's supporters. On 29 October, the
British newspaper The Guardian published an article about the
recently discovered environmental damages at Maya Beach. Basically,
the story was not much different from a full-page report, including
photos, in The Nation of 12 September, which described Maya Beach
after heavy monsoon storms as "a forlorn scene of ugly bamboo
fences and dead native plants - the legacy of (Fox's) promise that
could not be kept." Strangely, the webmaster overlooked The
Nation article. But within a few days after the internationally
renowned British paper brought up the matter on its front page,
thaistudents.com/thebeach featured statements from both Fox and the
RFD, playing down the destruction as a natural annual event during
the monsoon season - meaning this was not the result of misguided
human action. It was also suggested that the film company and its
British-based gardener Ross Palmer had done good work to rehabilitate
Maya Beach. Webmaster Barrow added his own comment: "We met Ross
several times and he is very qualified at the job he is doing now for Fox."
Furthermore, there is evidence that earlier
this year, this web site mobilized various parties to challenge a US
environmental justice group, Women's Voices for the Earth (WVE),
which had called for an international boycott of 'The Beach' via
their web site, wildrockies.org/WVE. This group mostly presented
information based on what was common knowledge among the Thai public
when the protest gained momentum in December 1998 and justified their
boycott call with environmental and legal concerns in accordance with
those raised by Thai activists. Webmaster Barrow, however, was quick
to point out "discrepancies" in WVE's statements and
claimed the group was distorting the truth regarding the number of
people who had expressed their intention to boycott 'The Beach'.
Meanwhile, he referred to "our own independent look at the
issues involved and the pictures we took ourselves of Maya
Beach", which suggested there was hardly any reason to protest.
Since WVE's boycott call, more foreign
researchers have put forward their views on various web sites -
including thaistudents.com/thebeach and sites promoting eco-tourism
in this region. They often refer to each others'
"independent" or "scientific" investigations on
Maya Bay to strengthen their stance that campaigners against 'The
Beach' are biased, produce false information and manipulate both the
Thai and international media.
One report, which was widely picked up and
also published in the Bangkok Post (18 Feb. 1999), was produced by
Phuket-based members of an international conservation group, Reef
Check (no link available). In their article, Robert Cogen and Anne
Miller claimed they had thoroughly inspected Maya Bay in December and
January and found that as a result of Fox's activities, the area's
environment was better than it had been in years. Discrediting the
movement protesting against the filming of 'The Beach' in a national
park, they concluded: "We were sure that none of those
demonstrators (from Bangkok) had seen Koh Phi Phi Leh. Who put on
this show? Who scripted it?" Their report ended with the call,
"Seek the truth. Go look for yourself." That is exactly
what many Thai people from all walks of life actually did at that
time, and most of the eyewitnesses reported very different findings.
(See the photo essay).
It is interesting to note that the Reef
Check authors are not innocent of commercial interests. Cogen and
Miller jointly run an eco-tour company based in Phuket called In
Depth Adventure, which offers explorations to "Romantic
Uninhabited Tropical Islands" in Thailand and Mergui Archipelago
in Burma, including activities such as scuba diving and snorkeling,
sailing and sea canoeing, trekking and birdwatching.
As competition among eco-tour operators in
Phuket and Krabi provinces is tough, it is logical that companies
have been trying to capitalize on the filming of 'The Beach' in the
area and superstar DiCaprio to prop up their tourism business. From
the In Depth Adventure's homepage, which actually states that
"Filming 'The Beach' did NOT harm the environment", one can
click to the Reef Check report, which includes a photo of Cogen and
Miller arm-in-arm with DiCaprio during his stay in Thailand.
Reef Check has also benefited in other ways
as the official web site of DiCaprio promotes this conservation group
in its "Earth" section. On the occasion of DiCaprio's 25th
birthday on 11 November, a Project 25 was publicized via a US-based
web site geocities.com as well as thaistudents.com, encouraging
DiCaprio fans to send - as a birthday present for their idol -
donations to DiCaprio's "environmental favourites",
including Reef Check. Fans willing to make financial contributions
were asked to sign on to a donation cover letter to the conservation
groups as "Thai students 'Leonardo Fans Only!' board
member", even though not one Thai student was involved in
setting up the initiative. The Project 25 web site includes a letter
from Reef Check coordinator Miller of 10 October, accepting the
funding offer.
Other eco-tourism promoters also became
active in cyberspace, such as Noah Shephard, director of
Environmental Tourism Consultants in Phuket. A former general manager
of the Phuket-based eco-tour company SeaCanoe, which has won several
international travel awards, Shephard is now running his own tour
company, Siam Safari Nature Tours and has established a web site for
the Lao PDR tourism authority to promote "Visit Laos Years 1999-2000".
In April, Shephard placed a message on an
internationally renowned, tourism-related web site, green-travel.com,
under the title "Re: Scientific Research & Ecotourism: The
Beach", claiming the protest actions against 'The Beach' filming
were "a rather silly chain bandwagon campaign, with no
foundation." As proof, he included the Reef Check report,
referring to co-author Cogen as "an expert and buddy of
mine." He also added a 5 February press release by DiCaprio,
stating that Fox was taking "meticulous care" of Maya Bay
and that 'The Beach' was a wonderful opportunity for tourism.
Ecotourism.about.com is a US-based web site
that has also played a significant role in rebuffing the
international boycott call by the American women's group and actions
of Thai protesters, while promoting Phi Phi Islands as an ideal and
"unspoiled" destination for eco-tourists. It features a
July report produced by another "independent" research
team, entitled "20th Century Fox's 'The Beach' exonerated by
EcoLert Investigation", which again uses
thaistudents.com/thebeach and the Reef Check article as its main
sources. EcoLert, which is described as a non-profit, ecological and
environmental public awareness and education programme, claims:
"The alleged destruction of these uninhabited, unspoiled islands
by 20th Century Fox produces more than just damaged reputations&ldots;
We do not comprehend why or how these initial allegations were
created upon completing our investigation. The painstaking measures
taken to insure the safety of the islands, reefs, beaches, and the
native vegetation were observed, documented, providing factual
evidence of restoration. We are confident that this additional
information will abolish the unqualified opinions and assumptions of others."
Meanwhile, on the Environmental News
Network's web site, enn.com, another article appeared "In
defense of 'The Beach'", authored by the director of the
Wildlife Conservation Society's (WCS) Asia Program, Dr. Joshua
Ginsberg. He insists, "There are critical environmental issues
in Thailand, but the filming of The Beach is not one of them,"
and reiterates the claims of 'The Beach' producers and supporters.
Notably, the American conservation group WCS has a notorious record
in Southeast Asia, according to many ecological and social justice
groups from around the world. A few years ago, the WCS was condemned
for supporting the highly controversial Nam Theun 2 dam project in
Laos because it would cause massive deforestation, wipe out wildlife
and affect the livelihoods of several thousand people. More recently,
international human rights movements have drawn attention to its
cooperation with the Burmese military dictatorship to establish conservation-cum-ecotourism
projects in Burma. They include the Lampi National Marine Park,
which is part of Mergui Archipelago, and the Myinmolekat Nature
Reserve in Karen State. Both projects reportedly involved the forced
eviction of local villagers and forced labour to clear the areas for
the construction of tourism facilities and infrastructure.
In conclusion, most web site postings
represent the views of the pro-'The Beach' lobby and reflect a
collusion of different interests. Fox, as well as Thai government
officials, facing court cases for having broken the Thai law and
ravaged a protected area, have a natural interest in defending
themselves. The producers of 'The Beach' and their cast, including
DiCaprio, are eager to shrug off their bad image caused by the
controversy and to sell the movie to as wide an audience as possible
with an optimal profit. They particularly cater to the many movie and
DiCaprio fans who find it hard to believe that their favourites could
have been involved in any wrong-doings. Last but not least, tourism
entrepreneurs and conservation groups have been using the Phuket and
Krabi area as a playground for their own activities and are likely to
gain from worldwide distribution of 'The Beach'.
These and other support groups may have
different motivations, but all express similar opinions.
Firstly, there is the common argument that
Fox in cooperation of the RFD have made tremendous efforts to avoid
damaging Maya Beach and to even upgrade it, by collecting garbage and
natural debris for example. This reveals a strikingly narrow
environmental view. To make a place look green and clean can be
easily done at any time to hoodwink people and to sell images of an
"unspoiled" paradise to tourists. Meanwhile, the attempt to
conceal other Fox activities - exactly those that have caused the
most serious long-term ecological damage such as bulldozing the sand
dune and removing its natural vegetation - is obvious. There even
persist claims that Maya Beach was not levelled and widened to
prepare the filming.
Secondly, several commentators assert that
Thai people in general do not really care about the environment, and
those who are making "a fuss" about 'The Beach' should deal
with other more important ecological issues instead. There is no
acknowledgement that Thailand has one of the most advanced
environmental movements in Southeast Asia to protect the country's
natural heritage from encroachment, over-exploitation and
destruction. Fortunately, the country's relatively free press has for
many years covered Thai citizens' uphill struggles against unfettered
development - including destructive tourism projects - and related
environmental conflicts. Through this omission, the pro-'The
Beach'-lobby tries to convince their audience that the protesters are
not working for the public good but have a private "hidden
agenda" - a term commonly used by 'The Beach' fans to dismiss
oppositional voices.
Indeed, the misrepresentation of the Thai
resistance movement against 'The Beach' is immense. Clearly, the
self-appointed "independent" investigators leading the
discussions on the web sites have little, if any, knowledge who is
actually involved and why. The "Who's Who" section of
thaistudents.com/thebeach, for example, does not even list the names
of the plaintiffs in the court case and the environmental and legal
experts of the Lawyers Association of Thailand who have played a key
role in the investigations and the legal challenge. Without full
information about the participating parties, how can a judgement be
made about the motivations of opponents and their "hidden agendas"?
One aspect that has been particularly played
down or ignored is the involvement of local residents, which has
helped to create the myth that just a few trouble-makers in Bangkok
are behind the protests. Ginsberg of WCS states bluntly: "The
local people of Phi Phi, the Sea Gypsies, no longer exist in the
area," giving the impression that the islands are all
uninhabited and that residents of Krabi, who have been settling and
making a living in the area for centuries, are outsiders as well.
Flatly denying the existence of locals implies there is no resident
population to claim ownership or rights to use and look after the
land and the sea around Phi Phi. Ironically, an exception may be the
many resort-owners, tour-operators and other tourism-related
businesses from outside who are keen to take over the
"uninhabited" territory to attract foreign visitors to
"unspoiled" islands, including the filming site of the 'The Beach'.
The Internet is an intriguing communication
system to spread information quickly and stimulate discussion
worldwide. But there is also the danger that cyberspace debates
become removed from local realities and serve as a means of exclusion
and propaganda. 'The Beach' affair is a case in point.
Anita Pleumarom is a researcher and
investigative writer focussing on tourism, development and
environment issues in Southeast Asia.
END NOTES (included in the Thai translation)
Since the publication of this article,
several changes have been made on Sriwittayapaknam School's Web
sites, e.g.:
A disclaimer was added on thaistudents.com/thebeach
that the operators of this site are not affiliated with any Thai
universities or Thai Students Associations.
Several individuals and groups were added to
the Web site's "Who's Who" section, including the
plaintiffs, defendants and lawyers involved in the ongoing court
case, local residents, journalists and Reef Check representatives.
All information regarding the gifts Leonardo
DiCaprio sent to the school were deleted from sriwittayapaknam.ac.th.
It is also interesting to note that earlier
this year, another Web site, The Beach Support Page, was set up by an
American woman named "Sooz" who has been a regular
correspondent to the school site's message boards. The Support
Group's mission is "to battle unfair and unfounded journalism
directed at The Beach and its participants", and to stop the
threat of a film boycott. Richard Barrow and Web site users of
thaistudents.com claim the Support Page is an "independent"
initiative and it was just a generous gesture of Barrow to establish
a link between the two sites.
Following the publication of a number of
critical news reports and commentaries in Thailand and overseas in
October and November, "Sooz" posted a message on
thaistudents.com to recruit helpers to shore up 'The Beach' Support
Page, which has been considered "a home base for our gallant
soldiers", and, thus, to intensify "the fight against the
type of press we've received". She reasoned that "Richard
(Barrow) has to remain neutral&ldots;" and "it would do an
infinite amount of good for the school if we used the Support Site as
the operation headquarters."
END
top of page
Petition to the Minister of Agriculture and
Cooperatives concerning a Request to Revoke the Permission to film
the Motion Picture The Beach, inside Nopparat Thara - Phi Phi Islands
National Park
12 January 1999
To His Excellency the Minister of
Agriculture and Cooperatives, Mr. Pongpol Adireksarn
Concerning the permission given by the Royal
Forestry Department, through Mr. Plodprasop Surasawadee, the
Director-General of the Royal Forestry Department, allowing Santa
International Film Production Co. Ltd. to change the state of the
beach and plant coconut trees in Maya Beach, Phi Phi Leh Island,
which is inside Nopparat Thara Beach - Phi Phi Islands National Park,
in order to film a foreign motion picture named The Beach, we the
undersigned 37 law professors from various universities have the
opinion that THIS PERMISSION IS UNLAWFUL, an opinion we arrived at
according to the following basis of consideration:
1. The aforementioned permission is clearly
in conflict with the intent of the National Park Act, BE 2504 [1962].
The Act's intent is to forbid the destruction or transformation of
the state of nature, as stipulated in Article 6 (1): "When the
government has seen fit to keep any territory with interesting
natural features in its original state for the benefit of public
education and recreation, it has the power to do so by issuing a
Royal Decree." This also appears in the commentary appended to
the Act: "To protect and conserve existing natural resources
such as plant species, forest products, animals, and including the
landscape, forests and mountains, SO THAT THEY REMAIN IN THEIR
ORIGINAL STATE, NOT TO BE DESTROYED OR CHANGED, FOR THE CONTINUING
BENEFIT OF THE STATE AND THE PEOPLE BOTH DIRECTLY AND
INDIRECTLY." Article 16 specifically forbids all actions inside
national parks that would impact their natural state (Article 16,
please see Annex1). Violation of this Article is a criminal offence
punishable by imprisonment or fine, or both imprisonment and fine.
2. The digging of the sand dunes; the
uprooting of plants; the leveling of the sand dunes and the cutting
of plant roots; the digging of holes to plant 100 coconut trees; the
digging and laying of fresh water pipes; the building of a pier and
other construction in the area of Maya Beach and other places on Phi
Phi Leh Island (please see the accompanying photographs in annex 2),
as well as the closing off of the bay to the tourists, are forbidden
actions under Article 16(1), (2), (4), (6), and (8), (please see
annex 1), the violation thereof being unquestionably a criminal act,
except in cases under exemption by Article 19, which states:
"Provisions of Article 16. is not applicable to officials whose
work is for the benefit of the protection and conservation of
national parks or for educational purposes or for academic research
or for the convenience of tourists and for shelter, or for providing
safety or knowledge to the people" (For all of Article 19,
please see annex 1).
3. Ordinarily the application for permission
to film inside a national park must come under the Royal Forestry
Department's Regulations Governing Film Production inside National
Parks, BE 2534 [1991], which is issued by Article 16 (13), whereby
the recipient of the permit must abide within the other restrictions
of Article 16. Paragraph 8 of the aforementioned regulation states:
"The recipient of the permission, their staff or workers must do
nothing whatsoever to impact the state of nature or cause damage to
the state of nature" In conclusion, it permits only the filming;
it does not permit any transformation of the state of nature whatsoever.
In giving filming permission to the motion
picture named The Beach, by allowing them to change the state of the
beach and plant coconut trees at Maya Beach, Phi Phi Leh Island, the
Director-General of the Royal Forestry Department did not give
permission under the power of Article 16 (13), as he should have done
and which is and has been the ordinary, publicly accepted practice.
Instead he sidestepped this and gave permission claiming Article 19,
as seen in the "Agreement to permit the filming of the motion
picture named The Beach, inside Nopparat Thara - Phi Phi Islands
National Park" which was made on 27 October 1998, Item 1:
"To support officials in their improvement of a tourist
attraction according to the National Park Act, BE 2504 [1962],
Article 19", (please see annex 1).
A study of Article 19 shows that violations
of Article 16 which come under exemptions by Article 19 must fall
under two conditions as specified by law:
1) Any violation of Article 16 must be the
action of officials.
2) The aforementioned officials must commit
the violation according to the following purposes:
1. In the interests of protection and
conservation of the national park.
2. For educational or academic research.
3. To provide convenience for tourists or
for shelter.
4. In the interests of public safety.
5. To give knowledge to the people.
We will now consider each factor accordingly:
1. Is it the action of park officials?
Santa International Film Production Co. Ltd.
is not a Royal Forestry Department official. It is also not employed
by forestry officials. It is the RECIPIENT OF PERMISSION from the
Royal Forestry Department, which has committed violations of Article
16 in exchange for giving 4,000,000 baht to the Royal Forestry
Department after the end of the film production (Agreement Item 6).
It is not permissible to claim that the permission was given "to
support officials in the improvement of a tourist attraction",
since this project is Santa company's project, not a Royal Forestry
Department project. And in truth, Article 19 does not empower the
Royal Forestry Department in any way to permit violations of Article
16 by the private sector. This case therefore lacks condition number one.
2. Does the improvement of a tourist
attraction come under the purpose of Article 19?
THE IMPROVEMENT OF TOURIST ATTRACTIONS does
not fit in with any purpose under Article 19. Even in cases of the
Royal Forestry Department's own projects with the aim of improving
tourist attractions, the Royal Forestry Department cannot violate
restrictions of Article 16. And in fa other places on Phi Phi Leh
Island (please see the accompanying photographs in annex 2), as well
as the closing off of the bay to the tourists, are forbidden actions
under Article 16(1), (2), (4), (6), and (8), (please see annex 1),
the violation thereof being unquestionably a criminal act, except in
cases under exemption by Article 19, which states: "Provisions
of Article 16. is not applicable to officials whose work is for the
benefit of the protection and conservation of national parks or for
educational purposes or for academic research or for the convenience
of tourists and for shelter, or for providing safety or knowledge to
the people" (For all of Article 19, please see annex 1).
3. Application to Film Inside National Park
Ordinarily the application for permission to
film inside a national park must come under the Royal Forestry
Department's Regulations Governing Film Production inside National
Parks, BE 2534 [1991], which is issued by Article 16 (13), whereby
the recipient of the permit must abide within the other restrictions
of Article 16. Paragraph 8 of the aforementioned regulation states:
"The recipient of the permission, their staff or workers must do
nothing whatsoever to impact the state of nature or cause damage to
the state of nature" In conclusion, it permits only thas no
bearing on this case.
In a democratic system of government, the
ruler or administrator may have power and the right to use power only
as empowered by the law. For the administration to use power beyond
the scope provided by the law, or to interpret the law to give itself
power according to its own will, is extremely detrimental to the
democratic system of rule, and to the principle of rule by law or
government by law. Such unlawful permissions as in this case cannot
be permitted. Even though the transformation of nature and the
planting of coconut trees in the area of Maya Beach, Phi Phi Leh
Island are already accomplished, leaving only the film production to
proceed, which may not entail the further changing of the natural
state and violations of the law, to allow film production which makes
use of a backdrop that was obtained through the destruction of nature
and from violations of the law, is tantamount to allowing this
criminal act to succeed in its aims, and for the criminals to benefit
from their crime. This is not permissible.
As professors of the law, we call on THE the
Minister of Agriculture who is the person in charge according to the
National Park Act BE 2504 [1962], Article 5, TO REVOKE THE PERMISSION
TO FILM THE MOTION PICTURE NAMED THE BEACH, INSIDE NOPPARAT THARA -
PHI PHI ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE and PROSECUTE
VIOLATORS OF THE NATIONAL PARK ACT, so that this case will set a
standard and prevent similar events in other national parks, and to
show the international community, which is following this news, that
Thailand does not value money above righteousness; that Thailand,
Thai people, Thai civil servants and Thai politicians have dignity;
that no foreign country or company, however much money it has, cannot
buy Thai national parks, Thai righteousness and Thai law.
Yours Respectfully,
Prof. Dr Panom Iemprayoon, Law Faculty,
Thammasaat University
Somyos Chuathai, Law Faculty, Thammasaat University
Assoc Prof Dr Pairoj Kampusiri, Law Faculty,
Thammasaat University
Assoc Prof Dr Surapol Nitikraipojn, Law
Faculty, Thammasaat University
Prof Piruna Tingsabadh, Law Faculty,
Thammasaat University
Prof Dr Udom Rath-amarit, Law Faculty,
Thammasaat University
Dr Visnu Varanyu, Law Faculty, Thammasaat University
Prof Saowanee Aswaroj, Law Faculty,
Thammasaat University
Ekbul Wongsawasdikul, Law Faculty,
Thammasaat University
Pokpong Srisanit, Law Faculty, Thammasaat University
Assoc Prof Dr Somkid Lerdpaitoon, Law
Faculty, Thammasaat University
Assoc Prof Dr Surasak Likhasithwattanakul,
Law Faculty, Thammasaat University
Assoc Prof Dr Vorapoj Visarutpichya, Law
Faculty, Thammasaat University
Prof Malee Preukspongsawalee, Law Faculty,
Thammasaat University
Prof Somkiati Vorapanya-anand, Law Faculty,
Thammasaat University
Sawatri Suksri, Law Faculty, Thammasaat University
Prasith Piwawatanapanich, Law Faculty,
Thammasaat University
Surasakdi Manisorn, Law Faculty, Thammasaat University
Pranit Bhumithavorn, Law Faculty, Thammasaat University
Dr Tassavudh Vititviriyakul, Law Faculty,
Thammasaat University
Vichitra Vichienchom, Law Faculty,
Thammasaat University
Matalaksana Sethmethakul, Law Faculty,
Thammasaat University
Dr Orapin Sabairoob, Law Faculty, Thammasaat University
Thapanant Nipithkul, Law Faculty, Thammasaat University
Dr Virawat Chantachoti, Law Faculty,
Thammasaat University
Prinya Thevanarumitrkul, Law Faculty,
Thammasaat University
Pitikul Jiramongkolpanich, Law Faculty,
Thammasaat University
Prasert Tunsiri, Law Faculty, Ramkamhaeng University
Dr Somchai Sirisomboonvech, Law Faculty,
Ramkamhaeng University
Pratuang Thaniyaphol, Law Faculty,
Ramkamhaeng University
Junpen Chananont, Law Faculty, Ramkamhaeng University
Dr Galaya Tunsiri, Law Faculty, Ramkamhaeng University
Somchai Prichasilpakul, Law Faculty,
Chiangmai University
Asdayuth Mol, Law Faculty, Chiangmai University
Natamon Kongjaroen, Law Faculty, Chiangmai University
Assoc Prof Jatuporn Wongtongsun, Law
Faculty, Ramkamhaeng University
Prof Pimjai Sratong-oon, Law Faculty,
Ramkamhaeng University
Surasakdi Iembunlit, Law Faculty,
Ramkamhaeng University
Bhumi Chokemoh, Law Faculty, Ramkamhaeng University
Dr Siriwat Supornpaibul, Law Faculty,
Ramkamhaeng University
Paisith Panichkul, Law Faculty, Chiangmai University
END
top of page
Request for a Statement from the United
States Justice Department, according to the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act Opinion Procedure
29 January 1999
Peter B. Clark, Deputy Chief
Fraud Section, Criminal Division
US Department of Justice, Room 2424, Bond Building
1400 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20530 USA
Dear Mr. Clark,
Re: Twentieth Century Fox's bribery of a
Thai governmental organisation.
As concerned citizens of Thailand, we would
like to bring to your attention a case of corruption practiced by a
US company, Twentieth Century Fox, in Thailand, a case which has been
making newspaper headlines here continuously since last November.
Twentieth Century Fox, through its agent,
Santa International Film Production, has promised to pay 4 million
baht ( US$108,108 ) to the Thai government's Royal Forestry
Department, under the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, to
obtain an extraordinary permit to change the landscape of Maya Bay on
Phi Phi Leh Island, inside a Thai national park, to facilitate the
production of a Twentieth Century Fox feature film, The Beach. (This
is a blatant violation of our National Park Act of 1962.) The money
is to be paid on the successful completion of the film production.
Normally, the fee for filming in a Thai
national park is 1,000 baht per day (US$26.48) for foreign films, and
permission for filming in a national park is ordinarily obtained and
issued under filming permit regulations of Article 16 of the National
Park Act. But Twentieth Century Fox's permit for The Beach, to film
in a national park bypassed Article 16, which forbids any change
whatsoever to be made to national parks.
The agreement between Twentieth Century
Fox's agent, Santa International Film Production, and the Royal
Forestry Department, makes use instead of Article 19, which allows
changes to be made by park officials, and only for conservation,
educational and recreational purposes. There is no provision anywhere
for changes to be made to a national park for the purposes of film production.
We are enclosing a copy of the contract and
English translation for your perusal. Also enclosed is a petition
from prominent law professors nationwide to the minister of
agriculture to revoke the unlawful contract, which explains clearly
why it is unlawful.
The Provincial Administration Organisation
(PAO) of Krabi province and the Tambon (subdistrict) Administration
Organisation (TAO), local elected government bodies legally entrusted
with the protection of natural resources in their jurisdiction, have
filed a civil suit against five defendants: Defendant #1, the
Minister of Agriculture and Cooperatives; Defendant #2, the Royal
Forestry Department; Defendant #3, the Director-General of the RFD;
Defendant #4, Santa International Film Production; Defendant #5,
Twentieth Century Fox.
A copy of the plaintiffs, complaint is
enclosed herewith, along with the English translation of the relevant
parts, detailing the defendants, actions.
On 11 January 1999, the Civil Court accepted
the case for trial, with the first hearing to begin on March 26,
1999. This case is unprecedented in Thai history, a test case for our
new Constitution (passed into law in 1997, part of wide-ranging
political reform to increase the people's participation in the
political process). Given the immense power and influence of the
defendants, and the comparatively lower worldly status of the
plaintiffs, the court is unlikely to have accepted the case for trial
if the preliminary evidence had not been considerable.
However, since the filming may be finished
before the trial begins, and evidence may be tampered with, the
plaintiffs, represented by the Lawyers Society of Thailand, requested
an emergency hearing and temporary protection order of Maya Bay. The
Civil Court has refused to grant an emergency hearing. The judges
have also rejected a request for them to visit the site and see the
evidence for themselves. Meanwhile, the destruction of the
environment on Maya Bay continues, including the application of
agricultural chemicals.
Thai government authorities and institutions
have consistently sided with Twentieth Century Fox. The argument put
forward by officials is that Thailand is in a recession, and the
country needs the income from Twentieth Century Fox. In other words,
we are bankrupt and must overlook the law in this case.
Maya Bay may be a small cove on a small
island. However, the damage is not only to the physical environment
of one site, but also to the National Park Act itself, as this
violation of the law is setting a dangerous precedent. This is why we
cannot allow the crime to go unpunished.
The Court and the trial will come under
tremendous political pressure. In the past three months of this
controversy, the Thai public's faith in governmental institutions has
been dangerously eroded. It is difficult to have faith in the process
of Thai law enforcement. This is why we have resorted to informing
you of this matter, since the whole was instigated by the actions of
a US company in the furthering of its own interests.
We, the undersigned citizens of Thailand,
would like to request an opinion from you whether the aforementioned
action by Twentieth Century Fox constitutes a violation of the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of the United States of America, and if
it does, we would request that the company be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law, in order to set an example and uphold the
sanctity of the law of both our nations.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Yours sincerely,
(Ms Sirinee Yomana)
Phuket Environmental Protection Association
PEP Bangkok Office, 70 Onnouch 52,
Suanluang, Bangkok 10250, Thailand
phone: (66-1) 499-0729; fax: (66 2) 721-4965
on behalf of the following environmental and civic organizations of Thailand:
Ao Nang Subdistrict Administration Organization
Krabi Provincial Administration Organization
Campaign for Popular Democracy
Thai Development Support Committee
NGO Coordinating Committee on Development
Phuket Environmental Protection Association
Project for Ecological Recovery
Thai Volunteer Service
Southern Students Assembly
October Network of Southern Thailand
The National Confederation of Thai Teachers
Suratthani Love-Community People's Club
Artists Alliance for Democracy and the Environment
Coordinating Committee of the Network of
Southern Traditional Fisheries NGOs
Creative Youth of Suratthani
Songkhla Youth for the Environment
The Forest and Sea for Life Project
Andaman Project for the Participatory
Restoration of Natural Resources
Assembly of Trang
Assembly of the Poor
JUSTICE
FOR MAYA BAY INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE
END
top of page
