RIGHTS-THAILAND: Raw Deal for Food Hawkers

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Frances Suselo

BANGKOK , Dec 12 2005 (IPS) - Hawking fresh fruit on busy Sukhumvit Road, Nu-Han, 29, makes a tidy 500 baht (12 US dollars) in daily profit – which is more than what a smart, front desk receptionist at a luxury hotel earns in this bustling megacity of 6.5 million people.

“There are many buyers in Bangkok, so vendors can make a lot of money if they are not lazy,” he said, when asked why Bangkok has so many street food vendors. “Besides, it is part of the culture of Thai people to eat outside.’’

Nu-Han’s customers range from budget conscious office-goers looking for a quick bite of wholesome fruit to schoolchildren and the occasional tourist who might marvel at the variety and abundance of food items displayed on the pavements-if in somewhat unsavoury settings.

Food hawkers are so much a part of Bangkok’s streets that it is difficult to believe that they are not a part of the formal economy and that they do not enjoy the benefits that other workers can avail of, under the law.

There has always been a cold détente between street food vendors – who number some 380,000 – and the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA).

In an interview with IPS, BMA’s deputy governor Vallop Suwandee said, “We have always wanted to eradicate them (the vendors), but this problem has been neglected for such a long time that many people in Bangkok feel that they are already a part of city life and impossible to abolish.’’

So why are the hawkers still around? Vallop took the plea that the BMA ‘’lacks the manpower and attentiveness to really enforce our policy.’’ Vendors, he added, usually come from poor economic backgrounds and hail from the provinces.

There is talk of officials accepting protection money from vendors, especially for strategic locations-and it is all too evident that a certain cosy relationship exists.

Vallop admitted that there is corruption in the BMA but is reluctant to talk in terms of any formal arrangement between the government and the hawkers. At present, the vendors officially do not have to pay anything, “not even cleaning fee…if they do pay fees, those are illegal fees, usually for mafia protection’’.

He was quick to add that the BMA would not like to collect formal fees from vendors ‘’because this leads to corruption of our officers’’.

But corruption exists, nevertheless. Nu-Han says he pays a monthly ‘fee’ of 300 baht (7.5 dollars) to the ‘tessakit’, black-uniformed police that are a part of the BMA and charged with enforcing city regulations, to stay in business.

Narumol Nirathron, a sociology professor at Thammasat University and a consultant on the subject of street vending and the informal economy to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in Bangkok, says that the BMA does benefit by collecting fines from hawkers, if not taxes.

According to her research, in 2004, there were 211,308 street food vendors’ arrests in Bangkok alone, a jump from 177,432 arrests in 2003. “Fines, in turn, have also increased to 66 million baht (1.65 million dollars),” said the professor. “From this, the BMA got 33 million baht (825,000 dollars) as revenues.”

‘’There are many kinds of mafia involved,” stated Vallop without elaborating.

Vendors – part of the informal economy that contribute in a major way to the national economy- are still not officially recognised by the government.

They are not covered by Thai labour laws and do not have insurance or work-related benefits but can avail of the country’s health care scheme that is available to all citizens, said Vallop.

“These vendors do not pay any kind of taxes and just take advantage of society,” said Vallop. “The majority of them are not Bangkokians and they come here only for an easy way out. It is actually not the BMA’s responsibility to take care of these people.” said Vallop.

He does, however, find the idea of hawkers paying taxes justified. “They are dirty and cause trouble to the city, so they must pay for it,” he said.

Hawkers are still in business because they meet a popular demand. According to Narumol’s research paper, 96 percent of Bangkok residents feel that the hawkers are providing a service and that street food is a necessity.

Vallop disputes that. “I don’t think they are a very essential part of living in Bangkok. Restaurants actually have better settings and the prices are not so different. Students can eat in school cafeterias.”

But clearly, the hawkers are giving the swanky fast food outlets, with or without the double golden arches, a run for their money. ‘’Therefore, one can see that street food vending is very lucrative,’’ observed Vallop.

“Yes, you can reason that these vendors contribute to the economy but we should also look at the cost, socially,” Vallop said. “The cost is sacrificing order and street convenience. The BMA has to pay a lot of money for street cleaners.”

Vallop insists that tourists are aghast at the sight of Thais eating food flavoured with pollution and dirt from the streets. “Tourists who visit Bangkok want to see temples, not taste street food. We can’t promote tourism with them around, because we need to show the world that Bangkok is a clean city, even though street food is a part of Thai life.”

The BMA aims to decimate the number of street food hawkers annually. “In 10 years’ time, there will be no more vendors left,” Vallop said, but added: “This is very hard to achieve. Nevertheless, it’s important to have a target in mind and keep a watchful eye.”

While the BMA is trying to mimic squeaky-clean Singapore’s firmness in dealing with vendors, neighbouring Cambodia is looking up to Thai street enterprise as a model worth emulating.

Kyoko Kusakabe, a professor from the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) who has spent four years researching street food vendors in Phnom Penh, said: “Thailand can be a role model for Cambodian street food vendors in food safety standards.”

However, “in Cambodia, the markets and street foods are not as vibrant as in Thailand. The prices are also not that cheap,” Kusakabe, whose study was part of the same ILO project on the informal economy, said in an interview.

Narumol opines that street food vending does provide many earning opportunities, especially for the poor, “even though the vendors aren’t really the poorest of the poor,” she said. “Instead of trying to limit their numbers or do away with them, the BMA should focus on food hygiene. These vendors should be accommodated and provided with running water.”

Vallop agrees that, ultimately, it is Bangkok’s residents who will decide the food vendors’ fate. ‘’The public can be a watchdog for the next administration so that order can return to the pavements and pedestrians can enjoy their rights.’’