 | Stego's FAQ on Nepal travel v.3 - Polemic on entrance fees to Bhaktapur 1/1 |
|
|
|
Keywords: Polemic
From: Manny Freitas <[email protected]>
| Date: 97.01.02 | (Id.: 149) |
: On entrance fees to Bhaktapur...
: >That would be all very nice if the money that
: >we pay actually made it to where it should go. Instead you feel good
: >because you think you're halping needy people but in fact you're supporting
: >a parallel economy that's making the rich even richer and the poorer
: >even poorer. Lets stop being so naive for a while and think about it.
: >
: What "parallel economy"? Tourism is about the best shot Nepal has at getting
: money, and anything contributed to the economy (Nepal's or any other) makes
: the whole country richer and nobody poorer.
You mean, you wanna see Bhaktapur/Nepal turn into a Pattaya, or Pukhet, or Bali???
: Besides, whoever is keeping up
: Bhaktapur is clearly doing a fine job, and the money requested is minimal.
It's minimal for who? Certainly not for me. Five bucks to walk around a friggi' square!!! Give me a break.
The truth is, there are people who have clearly different views on this, like you and me, and no matter what you tell me it will not convince me that I should pay $5 to visit the square. There are people in Nepal who don't make $5 per month, and you want me to go there and pay $5 just to walk around a public square, and you think that is good for the country? Please, spare me.
The sad part is, people like me who enjoy the place the way it is now, in its natural form, will eventually stop going there because it will be transformed into just another tourist trap where tour buses unload their rich customers who don't mind paying the superinflated price for the privilege of bringing home a few pictures. Next thing you know, they're building hotels on top of the temples and chipping out wood carvings from the facades to sell it to the tourists.
And voila', another unique, magical place has disappeared from the face of the eath. And where did your five bucks go to?
Keywords: Polemic
From: Manny Freitas <[email protected]>
| Date: 97.01.22 | (Id.: 138) |
: On entrance fees to Bhaktapur...
: >That would be all very nice if the money that
: >we pay actually made it to where it should go. Instead you feel good
: >because you think you're halping needy people but in fact you're supporting
: >a parallel economy that's making the rich even richer and the poorer
: >even poorer. Lets stop being so naive for a while and think about it.
: >
: What "parallel economy"? Tourism is about the best shot Nepal has at getting
: money, and anything contributed to the economy (Nepal's or any other) makes
: the whole country richer and nobody poorer.
You mean, you wanna see Bhaktapur/Nepal turn into a Pattaya, or Pukhet, or Bali???
: Besides, whoever is keeping up
: Bhaktapur is clearly doing a fine job, and the money requested is minimal.
It's minimal for who? Certainly not for me. Five bucks to walk around a friggi' square!!! Give me a break.
The truth is, there are people who have clearly different views on this, like you and me, and no matter what you tell me it will not convince me that I should pay $5 to visit the square. There are people in Nepal who don't make $5 per month, and you want me to go there and pay $5 just to walk around a public square, and you think that is good for the country? Please, spare me.
The sad part is, people like me who enjoy the place the way it is now, in its natural form, will eventually stop going there because it will be transformed into just another tourist trap where tour buses unload their rich customers who don't mind paying the superinflated price for the privilege of bringing home a few pictures. Next thing you know, they're building hotels on top of the temples and chipping out wood carvings from the facades to sell it to the tourists.
And voila', another unique, magical place has disappeared from the face of the eath. And where did your five bucks go to?
- Manuel.
Keywords: Polemic
From: Ken McKinney <[email protected]>
| Date: 97.01.25 | (Id.: 140) |
>You mean, you wanna see Bhaktapur/Nepal turn into a Pattaya, or Pukhet,
>or Bali???
>: Besides, whoever is keeping up
>: Bhaktapur is clearly doing a fine job, and the money requested is minimal.
>It's minimal for who? Certainly not for me. Five bucks to walk around a
>friggi' square!!! Give me a break.
>The truth is, there are people who have clearly different views on this,
>like you and me, and no matter what you tell me it will not convince me that
>I should pay $5 to visit the square. There are people in Nepal who don't
>make $5 per month, and you want me to go there and pay $5 just to walk
>around a public square, and you think that is good for the country? Please,
>spare me.
>The sad part is, people like me who enjoy the place the way it is now, in
>its natural form, will eventually stop going there because it will be
>transformed into just another tourist trap where tour buses unload their
>rich customers who don't mind paying the superinflated price for the
>privilege of bringing home a few pictures. Next thing you know, they're
>building hotels on top of the temples and chipping out wood carvings
>from the facades to sell it to the tourists.
>And voila', another unique, magical place has disappeared from the face
>of the eath. And where did your five bucks go to?
> - Manuel.
It's true that 5 dollars is a lot of money to a Nepali. That's one reason why 50% of all children die in Nepal before the age of 5 -- because there's just not enough money for medical care and public works improvements like clean water, etc.
Is it a lot of money to you? Isn't it more like, the cost of a meal at McDonalds? Do you really think that it's right to oppose an influx of tourist money into Nepal, on the grounds that Nepal is a "magical place", when the lack of money and economic opportunity gives their children a 50% survival rate and the life expectancy of a the Nepali people is, like 52?
Oh, by the way, I was told about the survival rate of children by a peace corps volunteer I met in Jomsom, who had been working in the Terai. Do you think she complains when she pays the 5 bucks?
Keywords: Polemic
From: Manny Freitas <[email protected]>
| Date: 97.01.27 | (Id.: 142) |
: Manuel wrote:
: > ...And where did your five bucks go to?
: Answer: It went toward improving the standard of living of the people
: of Bhaktapur. That is more important than preserving picturesque
: poverty for the enjoyment of foreign tourists.
: It's a shame you're so cynical and bitter. It must make it hard for
: you to enjoy traveling.
I'm not being either cynical or bitter. This is simply what I think about it. How can you be so sure that the money goes toward improving the standard of living of the people of Bhaktapur.
Let me just ask you one thing. When you see a homeless person in a corner, beging for money, what do you think it's the right thing to do? Throw some change and go about your own life feeling good for yourself? Or actually take the time of day and help him how to earn his own life?
Keywords: Polemic
From: Manny Freitas <[email protected]>
| Date: 97.01.27 | (Id.: 143) |
: In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Manny Freitas) wrote:
: It's true that 5 dollars is a lot of money to a Nepali. That's one reason why
: 50% of all children die in Nepal before the age of 5 -- because there's just
: not enough money for medical care and public works improvements like
: clean water, etc.
: Is it a lot of money to you? Isn't it more like, the cost of a meal at
: McDonalds? Do you really think that it's right to oppose an influx
: of tourist money into Nepal, on the grounds that Nepal is a "magical
: place", when the lack of money and economic opportunity gives their
: children a 50% survival rate and the life expectancy of a the Nepali
: people is, like 52?
I could name a whole list of third world countries that receive a lot more money from tourism than Nepal does, and yet have as bad a survival rate and life expectancy.
Mass tourism will not bring better life to the population of Nepal. The budget travelers like me maybe, because we don't give our money to the foreign based tour operators and foreign owned hotels. But either way, the odds of tourism bringing better quality of life to the majority of the population is non sense. Name one third world country that has used tourism to its advantage in giving its population a better life.
Don't even try naming AIDS plaged Thailand or military dictatorship run Indonesia.
I don't care how much I pay for a meal at McDonalds at home (if I ever went to one :-)), we're not talkin' about home, we're talkin' about Nepal.
But one thing I can tell you, it doesn't cost me 5 bucks to visit Times Square in NY City, or St.Peter's Square in the Vatican, or any other public square in the world, whether it is a poor country or not.
Remember that is just too easy to throw money and feel good about it, and go home thinking, "oh, it was only 5 dollars, that won't even buy me a meal back home."
: Oh, by the way, I was told about the survival rate of children by a peace
: corps volunteer I met in Jomsom, who had been working in the Terai. Do
: you think she complains when she pays the 5 bucks?
Good for her. At least she's doing something useful instead of just paying her 5 bucks. She can actually say that she helped out.
Keywords: Polemic
From: Ken McKinney <[email protected]>
| Date: 97.01.28 | (Id.: 144) |
>: Is it a lot of money to you? Isn't it more like, the cost of a meal at
>: McDonalds? Do you really think that it's right to oppose an influx
>: of tourist money into Nepal, on the grounds that Nepal is a "magical
>: place", when the lack of money and economic opportunity gives their
>: children a 50% survival rate and the life expectancy of a the Nepali
>: people is, like 52?
>I could name a whole list of third world countries that receive a lot
>more money from tourism than Nepal does, and yet have as bad a survival
>rate and life expectancy.
Please do -- I think you're wrong about this.
>Mass tourism will not bring better life to the population of Nepal. The
>budget travelers like me maybe, because we don't give our money to the
>foreign based tour operators and foreign owned hotels. But either way,
>the odds of tourism bringing better quality of life to the majority
>of the population is non sense. Name one third world country that has
>used tourism to its advantage in giving its population a better life.
>Don't even try naming AIDS plaged Thailand or military dictatorship
>run Indonesia.
>
Actually, I believe that the average Thai has a much better chance of seeing their children survive to adulthood than the average Nepali. And the problem with prostitution in Thailand isn't just due to foreign tourists
-- one study showed that 75% of unmarried Thai men saw a prostitute at least once a month.
Most people who have to worry from week to week whether another of their children is going to die from Malaria or Dysentery, or if they will have enough food to feed everyone, don't worry about whether or not they live in a dictatorship. It has absolutely no effect on their life.
Manny, I'm a budget traveller too, and I improved the lives of several Nepalis that I met -- the porter that I hired (at far more than the prevailing local wage) -- the owners and employees at the teahouses that I stayed at on the Annapurna Circuit, and the artists that I bought Thangkas from (directly) in Bhaktapur.
Did you also complain about paying the Annapurna Conservation Fee when you got your trekking permit? You know, I saw experimental farming plots, water improvements, etc. all over the area that were paid for by this fee.
And hardly anyone who treks in Nepal stays in "Foreign owned Hotels".
Most foreigners aren't interested in running/owning a shack in a place that is so remote that there isn't even a road to get there.
>I don't care how much I pay for a meal at McDonalds at home (if I ever
>went to one :-)), we're not talkin' about home, we're talkin' about Nepal.
>But one thing I can tell you, it doesn't cost me 5 bucks to visit Times Square
>in NY City, or St.Peter's Square in the Vatican, or any other public
>square in the world, whether it is a poor country or not.
>Remember that is just too easy to throw money and feel good about it, and
>go home thinking, "oh, it was only 5 dollars, that won't even buy me a
>meal back home."
So, you feel entitled to pay the same that a local pays? I think they're entitled to charge you "what the market will bear".
And what's wrong with "throwing money around and feeling good about it"?
If the Sultan of Brunei came through your hotel and gave everyone ten thousand dollars, would you return the money because you wanted to preserve your culture, or would you have a party?
By your logic, I should have insisted that my porter worked for 3 dollars a day and paid for his own meals, since that's what a local would have paid for his services. Should I feel ripped off? Hell, I paid a whopping 8 DOLLARS a DAY for his services... I don't think that's so much... about 1/30th of my salary for a days work. I would have paid more, if he had asked for it.
Nepal is in a bad situation because the mountainous geography which gives it it's beauty also makes it very difficult to develop an infrastructure.
(roads, safe water, telephone, electricity, etc). Without these things, industry cannot develop, and people are locked into subsistence living.
Tourism is one of the best things that Nepal has going, because it brings cash to the country, which it desperately needs, without necessitating a huge up-front expense in infrastructure and education, which Nepal cannot meet.
Keywords: Polemic
From: Manny Freitas <[email protected]>
| Date: 97.01.28 | (Id.: 145) |
: In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Manny Freitas) wrote:
: Manny, I'm a budget traveller too, and I improved the lives of several
: Nepalis that I met -- the porter that I hired (at far more than the
: prevailing local wage) -- the owners and employees at the teahouses
: that I stayed at on the Annapurna Circuit, and the artists that I bought
: Thangkas from (directly) in Bhaktapur.
Excelent point. But you saw with your own eyes where the money was going to. That's exactly what I'm trying to say here. When I give $5 to the guy at the door in Bhaktapur, I'm not sure the money goes to where it should be going. You know what I mean?
: Did you also complain about paying the Annapurna Conservation Fee
: when you got your trekking permit? You know, I saw experimental
: farming plots, water improvements, etc. all over the area that were
: paid for by this fee.
I saw it too. The thing is, I payed $12 for 3 weeks worth. That's only 2 cents per hour. Lets say I'd spend 2 hours in Bhaktapur, at the rate you're paying to visit the square, your treking permit would cost you 1260 dollars. But if you ask me, $12 for a treking permit is a bit too little. I'd almost be willing to pay that per day.
: And hardly anyone who treks in Nepal stays in "Foreign owned Hotels".
: Most foreigners aren't interested in running/owning a shack in a place
: that is so remote that there isn't even a road to get there.
Well, until now maybe but not if Tourism becomes big business. Have you seen the hotel they built in Nagarkot? What about the Japanese-built hotel in Namche Bazzar that cater mostly to foreign tourists flying in on organized tour groups?
: So, you feel entitled to pay the same that a local pays? I think they're
: entitled to charge you "what the market will bear".
I feel entitled to pay a fair price. Nothing bothers me more than when I know someone is trying to pull a slick one on me. But to some extent, yes.
I know this might sound nasty but, when other people come to visit my country, they pay the same that I pay to get in the local museum. Hell, the average Japanese make 10 times more than I do but they still pay the same when they come to visit
: And what's wrong with "throwing money around and feeling good about it"?
: If the Sultan of Brunei came through your hotel and gave everyone ten thousand
: dollars, would you return the money because you wanted to preserve your
: culture, or would you have a party?
Donating money is different. I wouldn most certainly give some as a donation.
Hell, I'd probably even give more than 5 bucks. What I don't like is to be led to pay a clearly overblown charge for something I know it's not worth that much money.
: By your logic, I should have insisted that my porter worked for 3 dollars a
: day and paid for his own meals, since that's what a local would have paid for
: his services. Should I feel ripped off? Hell, I paid a whopping 8 DOLLARS
: a DAY for his services... I don't think that's so much... about 1/30th of my
: salary for a days work. I would have paid more, if he had asked for it.
Not if you worked in Nepal.
Why don't we stop comparing Nepal with other countries, and start accepting Nepal as one, single, independent country. By your logic, I should have payed $50 per night in Thamel, and $10 a meal right? Can you imagine what would happen if every single inhabitant of Nepal realized that they could make in one day what they were making in one month, just by moving to Kathmandu to sell beeds on the street?
You claim to be a budget traveler right? I'm assuming you've been to Bangkok?
Next time you're there, take a side trip to Klong Toey, maybe you've heard of it. It's a ramshackle slum just a few miles east of Patpong. About 35 thousand people live (or die), there. Many of them driven to the big city by the lure of easy tourist money. It's worst than anything I've ever seen in Nepal.
: Nepal is in a bad situation because the mountainous geography which gives
: it it's beauty also makes it very difficult to develop an infrastructure.
: (roads, safe water, telephone, electricity, etc). Without these things,
: industry cannot develop, and people are locked into subsistence living.
: Tourism is one of the best things that Nepal has going, because
: it brings cash to the country, which it desperately needs, without
: necessitating a huge up-front expense in infrastructure and education, which
: Nepal cannot meet.
Maybe yes, maybe not. Chile is as much a mountainous country as Nepal, and yet has managed to develop a strong economyand only now, it is moving into a strong tourism economy. There are a lot more things to factor into Nepal's problems. One of them being the fact that the country was isolated from any outside influence, by its rullers, until as recent as the 1970's.
Geez, this is getting long :-) The bottom line here is. I don't mind paying a fair price and personaly $5 to Bakthapur it's not a fair price, I don't think. Also, tourism can be used for many goods, but the greed for easy money can ruin an entire country, especially if there are no pre-established infrastructures to redirect that money to the right places.
Keywords: Polemic
From: Sven Berglund <[email protected]>
| Date: 97.01.28 | (Id.: 146) |
> When I give $5 to the
>guy at the door in Bhaktapur, I'm not sure the money goes to where it should
>be going. You know what I mean?
and many other things.
It has been quite interesting to watch the argument unleashed by my ironic comment on Kurt's original post. It was not really my intention to discuss Bhaktapur. Rather, my target was those tourists that go completely overboard when encountering a low cost, no-fixed-prices culture. Some spend a major part of their vacation haggling, and very unpleasantly so (for themselves as well as others). There is some lack of proportion, considering what they paid to get there.
(I am not advocating throwing money around indiscriminately. I certainly do not donate at super-wealthy temples and I give to beggars only in special circumstances.)
But as for Bhaktapur, the place must be maintained, somehow: this is a matter for skilled craftsmen rather than street-sweepers, and I doubt that any of us have those skills (say, expertise in Nepalese roof-laying). Consequently, all we can do is contribute money. Then, should we? If yes, how?
If we do not, one way or another, it will go down. We cannot expect super-poor Nepal to give touristic sites a higher priority than development projects if tourism does not pay. Consequently, we must.
We can, of course, donate collectively. I believe Bhaktapur looks so nice partly because a lot of German aid money went into restoration work there; maybe Kurt could have claimed his fee was already paid.
But this only works for special projects.
There are lots of ways to make tourism pay. One can do it drastically, like Bhutan, where you have to pay a nice little sum to enter at all.
Or by charging tourists a bit more for lots of things, like China. Or by having taxes on lots of things connected with travelling in general, such as hotel rooms. But the disadvantage of all these methods is that the money goes into a general budget and may emerge elsewhere.
There is the theory that tourism automatically generates wealth. But this does not work at Bhaktapur: few tourists stay there, the majority just daytrip from Kathmandu, at best buying some souvenirs.
Consequently, I think the best way really is to collect money locally and use it on the spot. I guess I would pay, on the chance that it would be used wisely. Certainly, I think entering Bhaktapur is worth a few dollars. So do the rest of you, whatever you may say. If you did not, you would not.
Sven Berglund
__
Sven Berglund
***************************************************
For him that respects the dignity of man, and practices what love and courtesy require, for him all men within the four seas are brothers.
Keywords: Polemic
From: Manny Freitas <[email protected]>
| Date: 97.01.28 | (Id.: 147) |
: [email protected] (Manny Freitas) wrote:
: > When I give $5 to the
: >guy at the door in Bhaktapur, I'm not sure the money goes to where it should
: >be going. You know what I mean?
: and many other things.
: It has been quite interesting to watch the argument unleashed by my
: ironic comment on Kurt's original post. It was not really my intention
: to discuss Bhaktapur. Rather, my target was those tourists that go
: completely overboard when encountering a low cost, no-fixed-prices
: culture. Some spend a major part of their vacation haggling, and very
: unpleasantly so (for themselves as well as others). There is some lack
: of proportion, considering what they paid to get there.
You have to remember that in most Asia countries, haggling for prices is part of the culture, and most locals will consider an insult if you don't haggle with the for prices.
Another thing is the lack of proportion you mentioned, about "us" paying to get there. Well, in my case, if Nepal wasn't such a cheap country to travel I would never have gone there because I'd spend practically all my money just to get there. I would have to, say go to Europe or something like that, because while it costs me only $300 to get to Europe, a ticket to Nepal will never cost less than $1200.
: Consequently, I think the best way really is to collect money locally
: and use it on the spot. I guess I would pay, on the chance that it
: would be used wisely. Certainly, I think entering Bhaktapur is worth a
: few dollars. So do the rest of you, whatever you may say. If you did
: not, you would not.
Well, lets see how it turns out. A few years ago it was free. Two years ago when I visited, they requested a donation from the visitors. Now it costs $5. Next year it will cost $10. And while people keep saying, oh it's just a few dollars, they'll keep raising it.
I'll give you a perfect example, Angkor Wat in Cambodia. I've heard of people who payed as much as $120 to visit it. Their argument was always the same:
It's worth it, it's such a great place that need to be taken care off. When I went to talk with the UNESCO representative in charge of Angkor Wat, his words were: "We don't even see any of the money that tourists pay for the tickets. All the work is done with money from foreign aid groups."
I know, Nepal is different, but how different? How do we know? I'm pretty confident that the majority of the people are as honest as they can be. I've seen it with my own eyes. But they're not the ones in charge of the money that comes in.
Then again I'm here arguing something that I've seen over 2 years ago. Things might have changed over the past couple of years. Bakthapur might actually show some major improvements from the past. Improvements that I didn't see when I was there. Can someone here say if things have gotten significantly better from, say, 3 or 4 years ago????
Manuel.
Keywords: Polemic
From: Sven Berglund <[email protected]>
| Date: 97.01.29 | (Id.: 148) |
>You have to remember that in most Asia countries, haggling for prices is
>part of the culture,
Sure, Manny. I haggle, too, but with a bit of moderation, not as if my life depended on saving a rupee or two, and not all the time. In practice, you will always end up paying a bit of "paleface tax" (no racial slur intended) no matter what you say or do.
>and most locals will consider an insult if you don't
>haggle with the for prices.
Doubtful. But undoubtedly, you will be considered somewhat stupid.
However, a great many westerners also seem to believe that haggling normally includes insult. That is what makes things unpleasant (and doubly so if the sum is quite small).
Traditional haggling can be very enjoyable. One certainly does not question the quality of the goods (which means you have inferior taste) or the honesty of the dealer (which means you deal with crooks). You do claim great poverty (I do my best to dress the part, maybe you have an even better chance - but they all know we spent a fortune just to get there) and hint at the possibility of having to buy (with great regret) the (clearly inferior) stuff sold at the next stall. Still, out of mutual respect and regard, you do agree at a price that equally ruins seller and buyer. :)
(Nevertheless, you always have the worst of it. Going for anything else proves stupidity just as clearly as not haggling at all.)
>Another thing is the lack of proportion you mentioned, about "us" paying
>to get there.
You paid a lot to get there, I paid a lot to get there:
that means us, not "us".
>Well, in my case, if Nepal wasn't such a cheap country to
>travel I would never have gone there because I'd spend practically
>all my money just to get there.
You have my sympathy. I guess I would have done the same. Still, it means the Nepalese get nothing out of your visit which is a pity.
Someone always has to pay for the proverbial free lunch.
>I would have to, say go to Europe or something
>like that,
Tragic. ;-) (And even so, you would have to pay to visit the Forum Romanum.
Ruins need maintenance, believe it or not.)
>because while it costs me only $300 to get to Europe, a ticket
>to Nepal will never cost less than $1200.
>: Certainly, I think entering Bhaktapur is worth a
>: few dollars. So do the rest of you, whatever you may say. If you did
>: not, you would not.
>Well, lets see how it turns out. A few years ago it was free. Two years
>ago when I visited, they requested a donation from the visitors. Now it
>costs $5. Next year it will cost $10. And while people keep saying, oh
>it's just a few dollars, they'll keep raising it.
Until net gains have been maximized; then you have the fair price. The law of supply and demand operates in Nepal, too.
>I'll give you a perfect example, Angkor Wat in Cambodia. I've heard of people
>who payed as much as $120 to visit it. Their argument was always the same:
>It's worth it, it's such a great place that need to be taken care off.
And I would tend to agree.
>When
>I went to talk with the UNESCO representative in charge of Angkor Wat, his
>words were: "We don't even see any of the money that tourists pay for the
>tickets. All the work is done with money from foreign aid groups."
And I can well believe it. An utter disgrace.
>I know, Nepal is different, but how different? How do we know?
You cannot. You can only make a fair guess based on what you see and hear.
>I'm pretty
>confident that the majority of the people are as honest as they can be. I've
>seen it with my own eyes. But they're not the ones in charge of the money
>that comes in.
Well, how do you know that?
>Then again I'm here arguing something that I've seen over 2 years ago. Things
>might have changed over the past couple of years. Bakthapur might actually
>show some major improvements from the past. Improvements that I didn't see
>when I was there. Can someone here say if things have gotten significantly
>better from, say, 3 or 4 years ago????
I was there ten years ago. But from what I hear, it is very much the same. That is the very point: a place where time seems to stand still.
But the realist has to recognize that even that costs money (perhaps more than a possible "improvement", whatever that may be).
__
Sven Berglund
***************************************************
For him that respects the dignity of man, and practices what love and courtesy require, for him all men within the four seas are brothers.
Confucius, Analects
|
|
© J. Mário Pires, 4 Mar 97
| LinkExchange Member | Free Home Pages at GeoCities |
Go to the TheTropics GeoPage.
This page is hosted by 
Get your own Free Home Page.
Feedback