 Back to Luzi Matzig's Home
High flier up above
|
|
Luzi Matzig in TravelAsia
For and Against, TravelAsia, November 1, 1996
FOR
Andy Tan, deputy general manager, Chan's World Travel
Corporation, Singapore
"Political troubles" - these two words
seem very common nowadays. Almost every day our eyes are assaulted
by images on the TV screen and the newspapers of the horrors of
wars, both civil and among different nations.
The killings are not only confined to warring nations
but we are also horrified to find innocent travellers killed while
touring in troubled nations such as those in Indochina.
These troubled spots in the world tend to strike
fear in the minds and hearts of the majority of the people reading
or watching the happenings there and they would not venture to
such places if they have a choice.
For every traveller, whether business or leisure,
security and safety is of paramount importance. A tourist goes
on a holiday to get away from the humdrum of working life and
just want to have a few days of fun and relaxation.
The last thing he wants is TO worry over the political
situation of the destination he is holidaying in.
In this competitive tourism industry, there are many
places to go for holidays and travellers are spoiled for choice.
As such they would not want to go to countries with "political
troubles" unless it is strictly bound by business reasons.
In a politically-troubled country there may also
be complications such as riots or breakdown of essential services.
These will not only create fear and insecurity but will also be
of great inconvenience.
No matter how beautiful and enticing a politically
troubled destination can be, safety and security are still the
main deciding factors when it comes to the choice of a destination
for holidays.
Customers' needs come first. It will be "knocking
heads against the wall" if we still promote a destination
with political troubles when there are so many other holiday alternatives
to market.
AGAINST
Luzi Matzig, group general manager, Diethelm Travel,
Thailand, Indochina & Myanmar
Let's define "political troubles". Are
we talking about civil war, revolution, riots or destinations
which are, on the whole, safe but perceived to have political
problems, as interpreted by the Western media?
If we confine the subject to the latter, then definitely
tour operators should continue to promote the destination and
tourists should still go. As long as a destination is safe for
tourists, why should tour operators not sell it?
We are in the business of tourism, not politics.
Politicians have to take sides. We don't, we should be on the
side of tourism, and that means the freedom of people to travel
to wherever they please, however they please, whenever they please.
It is up to us in the tourism business to provide
that choice for consumers - as long as we provide informed choices,
that is, if certain areas of a destination are deemed unsafe,
we must tell the consumer so.
The consumer himself can make the choice whether
he or she wants to visit that destination.
It is definitely wrong to mix tourism with politics.
In the case of Myanmar, I really believe the government will develop
a more open-minded attitude through tourism. There are some who
say by promoting Myanmar, we are supporting a regime that suppresses
human rights. That is untrue.
In a country in which the tourism industry is fully
state-controlled, like North Korea, then maybe you could say you
are supporting the regime. But in most countries, Myanmar included,
the state has little to do with tourism.
Hotels are privately-owned, so is Air Mandalay. Handling
agents are also privately-owned. So it is the private sector,
their staff - the people of Myanmar - you support. The economic
benefits of tourism can do a lot of good for Myanmar, most of
all its people, who have not had the chance to join in the Asian
economic miracle - until now.
Poverty does not breed democracy. It breeds unrest.
Tourism breeds economic benefits breed choice.
|
Photos
Luzi Matzig in other news sources
