New Mandala

19 responses so far ↓

• 1 Awzar Thi // Mar 29, 2008 at 7:22 pm

  … and the trial of whom (along with three others), coincidentally, is still in the Court of First Instance:
  Ninety-one judges & 14 years not to complete a trial; A 14-year trial and alleged police set-up

• 2 Leif Jonsson // Mar 30, 2008 at 7:00 am

  So this is set up like a kharawan khon ruay where poverty is an after dinner spectacle? Do the humble natives of Surin have a dance they can do (Bangkok tourists are always happy to see a dance in the countryside)? Thanks for posting this. Lavish spending must feel good if you can be transported to gawk at the gentle poor people who are in harmony with nature and can only be reached by private jet. They are nothing like the poor in Bangkok, eh, who are oh so ordinary.

• 3 BangkokDan // Mar 30, 2008 at 4:53 pm

  You were faster with this story - had it in the drawer and somehow forgot about it.

  What a glorious marketing. What were they smoking. So much sleaze in one ad. A reason sadly not to enjoy the beautiful bar up there anymore.

  Hypocrites.

• 4 William // Mar 31, 2008 at 11:21 pm

  Dear All,

  it is always so convenient to judge someone or something based on a rumor. When you publish something here, please get your facts straight and do your homework. The whole event costs USD 300,000 and not per person or something. The event is an invitation by the hotel and there is no charges to the participants. Read the papers, google, or whatever. But get your facts straight, otherwise it is amateur hour.

• 5 jonfernquest // Apr 1, 2008 at 5:09 pm

  Thanks. The really important part of the article is not exactly how much the dinner cost.

  Essential facts about family run business empires like this are always missing from the business news, presumably because of the cost of fighting defamation suits used to muzzle the truth.

  I suppose blogs are the only place one can find these facts, along with the recently published Baker and Pasuk book.

  There is also the overall aesthetic, to some nauseating, of rich people making superficial ritual acknowledgements of poverty to do penance for cheating banks.

  (BTW the mere statement that someone did good should never be taken on its face value. There are enough frauds out there who use charity as a sweetlooking front to a profitmaking or other self-serving enterprise. For example, orphanages or homes for street children have been used as fronts for sexual exploitation of children and even trafficking. Or allowing missionaries with their religious agendas sweeping kids, usually females, out of villages. “Charity” should not absolve one from critical scrutiny.)

• 6 William // Apr 2, 2008 at 3:44 pm

  That’s a grimm way of looking at life. If someone does something good, that’s already suspicious. If your opinion would be the one of the majority of us, there would not be any more charities or fund-raisers. The rich would be afraid of being suspected of doing this for some other reason than the obvious. About 70 years ago in Europe, people got arrested just because they were suspected of a crime because of their heritage, political standing or their thoughts. Your “critical scrutiny” reminds me of those times a bit……

• 7 Random // Apr 2, 2008 at 6:58 pm

  William,

  I am your basic market capitalist and have nothing against the rich. However, when people do things overtly to appear good, especially when this may bring them other benefits, there is nothing wrong with examining the activities to see if they are real or fraudulent. If I were to do something good, I would have no objection to someone wanting to verify that it was real before promoting it. I would also be happy if others who did false acts of charity were exposed.

  An interesting example today is the entire page 5B of The Nation, which is dominated by the headline “Princess brings it to the underprivileged”. It describes a tiny set of good actions that the Princess herself may or not nor be aware of or involved with. In fact, the Thai government may even have paid for them. The article certainly gives no indication that she did anything.

  While giving two handicapped children computers may be good, it pales in comparison to the thousands of acts of true good that people do every day in this country.

  The impression that I get is that this is a piece of self serving propaganda aimed to perpetuate the dynastic rule of the family. I don’t think that calling attention to this in any way discourages the good actions of others. It may in fact encourage them.

  Your attempt to link scrutiny of claims of doing good to some arrests in Europe in 1930s seems nonsensical.

  I am sure that true doers of good are glad to have their acts and the acts of other subject to some basic levels of scrutiny to separate them from fraudsters.

• 8 Grasshopper // Apr 2, 2008 at 7:24 pm

  William, isn’t good is subjective? Do you consider the values that those in Surin have over your own to be able to say ‘do some good’? Has anyone informed the people at Surin how much this is costing those attending the dinner?

  Also, what are you talking about regarding Europe 70 years ago?- Jon’s only referring to utility - you’re the one who is pre-empting discrimination…

  This event is only good in the same way that lots of icecream is good. Perhaps, William, you are a lobbyist for Oprah Winfrey type people who donate to Save the Children and then have a pavlova for breakfast?

  Good luck to you!

• 9 jonfernquest // Apr 2, 2008 at 9:02 pm

  William: “That’s a grimm way of looking at life. If someone does something good, that’s already suspicious. If your opinion would be the one of the majority of us, there would not be any more charities or fund-raisers.”

  It may be grim but it is often the truth in rural Thailand (see below) and I can certainly deal with the truth without making it a way of life or dwelling on it. You have not lived and worked in rural Thailand. (Only initials of names of rural towns used below):

  1. Matthew McDaniel once had me translate from the Thai of a local school teacher who had received several boys from a local orphanage who claimed they were being trafficked to CM for use in by a Malaysian Chinese masquerading as a Christian missionary. Since there was possible police involvement, nothing ever came of this, according to Matthew, he did unmask several cases of murder and torture though, 2. The case of Rolf, an Swiss NGO worker in MS, former Nestles engineer, early 30s, who ***hung himself in his jail cell in CR prison*** after engaging in a bizarre series of accusations with the local NGO over child molestation, there was no transparency in his case at all, so it is difficult to know the full story but apparently, Rolf was facing charges in his native Switzerland and escaped on bail to Thailand, there are other cases like this, 3. Recently the head of a hill tribe orphanage outfit was dismissed in CR for sexual misconduct, again exact details are difficult to come by, unless you actually are living there, 4. The Catholic priest that used to help Matthew and I with the Burmese and Akha languages used to tell us how the personal use of NGO funds for purchasing personal assets such as house and car was commonplace, 5. for-profit fundraising for other groups on a commission basis can be a very lucrative business, as of two years ago there were some Europeans involved in this business in CM, 6. pay to volunteer setups in which the tourism business gives unqualified tourists something to do in exchange for money, all a broker needs to do this is a telephone and an internet connection, one was operating out of Phuket, setting up tourists for CR organisations, some of the people that the YMCA in CR employed were great, I knew them well, some of them slept with their teenage students and bragged about it, grim, 7. one hill tribe orphanage is a good thing, when they start sprouting up all over the place like mushrooms you begin to wonder, particularly when they are completely unregulated, and this was the situation in CR at least a few years ago.

  Claiming an altruistic motive is like an emotional stun gun, the quickest way to disarm the reasoning powers of a westerner, such as yourself Walter.

• 10 jonfernquest // Apr 2, 2008 at 9:11 pm

  Whoops: Walter = William above.

• 11 Thoams // Apr 8, 2008 at 1:10 am

  Hello all,
  Just saw this enraging debate about whether these hoteliers are hypocrites. I thought my personal experience can be of some help. First, I think this is a novel initiative undertaken by any luxury hotel. And yes, there is a real sense of altruism involved. Just to share a few facts, do you guys know, that even snacks were not served to the visitors who went out to have a feel of the place they were commited to change. Don’t dub it as a picnic within poverty, or poverty tourism.

  The very purpose for the trip was to let people understand and feel the cause to which their money would be contributed. The profile of people were top bankers, industrialists, hospital owners..and the idea was to help them see and understand how they can change the face of the village even without direct donations. The hotel never told me that you have to contribute to Lebua’s fund, they were free to do so in any way they wanted.

  Personally I feel that the objective is a noble one, and yes when talking about the dinner William got it right, the cost for the entire event for all the guests together was $300,000 and more importantly the dinner was there to help people understand how fortunate they were to enjoy the best in life. This indeed is a sublte prod to one’s conscience to share a part of their fortune with the underprivileged.

• 12 roger.casas // Apr 8, 2008 at 1:14 pm

  http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/southeastasia/view/339917/1/.html

• 13 Thoams // Apr 8, 2008 at 8:39 pm

  http://wildsingaporenews.blogspot.com/2008/04/feasting-after-poverty-tour-leaves-bad.html

  Please see the first news as covered by AP.
  I am really appalled at how misquotes by the Press, especially AFP is trying to marr the entire event. If you’ve been a part of the event, you would know how few cynical journalists are making a mockery of a sincere effort. Even Asia Pacific News, which roger has rightly quoted, has got its facts wrong. The 1million baht dinner that is mentioned was held last year and was not a part of emotional tourism

  In this profiteering corporate jungle, I rarely find any company braving the fussilade of inaccurate, at times deriding media coverage
  and yet remaining steadfast to achieve greater good. A fund of 4.5 million baht is not built up through hypocrisy. Let’s for once appreciate an earnest effort.

• 14 Andrew Walker // Apr 8, 2008 at 9:11 pm

  If anyone involved with the event would like to write a report on it, we would be very happy to host it on New Mandala. Here is your chance to provide some unbiased coverage!

• 15 kelly // Apr 8, 2008 at 9:37 pm

  To take any action, we must first be aware of the problem.
  World leaders have the power to stop this suffering. By making them witness the injustice of poverty, disease, violence and hunger, Lebua has created an awareness which would not only benefit the village but would also lead to more acts of charity on part of the guests.
  In the whole furore no one seems to have mentioned that this village was neglected. The people of this village have lived a life of hardship. Had lebua not bought our attention to this village it could have been years before some progress took place there. They plan to set up water sanitation programs, associate the village with the Bill Gates charity foundation educate the villagers about better methods of farming and actually help the villagers make their life better.
  If one really has to go on touting the whole point about “poverty tourism” really what has anybody done for the village till date? It is easy for us to sit here and call it a marketing gimmick, but at least something is being done. Plans to improve conditions are underway.
  I am surprised that in all this no one has even mentioned that the hotel has collected a sizeable amount of donation for the benefit of the village without even asking for any donation from the guests. I don’t see the villagers who will benefit from this event complaining. To us it is just another controversial issue, but to the people of Surin, this is the chance to start again with a ray of hope.
  Why it that this has become an issue? Is it because it actually involved something good?
  I wonder why the media is making such a big deal about it. The guests donated money, the village is going to have better living conditions as well as a chance to make their life easier. Perhaps there was no other “juicer” story that day. After all who likes a happy ending?
  Kelly

• 16 Liam // Apr 9, 2008 at 12:12 pm

  I agree Kelly, I hope many more such initiatives are planned by lebua. Good work……:)

• 17 Mallika // Apr 9, 2008 at 2:09 pm

  Great idea great hotel.

  Why are there no articles about what actually happened and how lebua plans to help these people?

• 18 Niztchie // Apr 9, 2008 at 7:57 pm

  This seems a little more fair than the AFP story:

  A taste of poverty for the rich: Thai hotel stirs controversy over lavish feast for charity (4/7/08)

  By Jocelyn Gecker, Associated Press Writer

  BANGKOK, Thailand (AP, 4/7/08) — A Bangkok luxury hotel treated its top clientele to a tour of a poverty-stricken Thai village on Saturday before dazzling them with a lavish feast, ignoring outrage over the event that prompted a boycott by elite chefs around the world.

  Controversy has surrounded the event, which critics characterize as a tasteless publicity stunt and organizers call a novel approach to helping the needy.

  The posh hotel hosting the event, the lebua, is offering a 10-course meal — for free. The catch was that the guests — 35 bankers and corporate executives from the U.S., Europe and Asia — were required to spend the afternoon visiting a village in one of the poorest parts of Thailand.

  “Who better to give poor people what they need than rich businessmen?” said Deepak Ohri, the hotel’s chief executive, who puts the hotel’s cost for the dinner and trip at $300,000.

  Early Saturday, the hotel jetted its well-heeled group to Ban Tatit village, a ramshackle community of wooden shacks in northeastern Thailand that is home to 600 residents. The village once raised hundreds of elephants but there are now only five of the giant gray beasts, villagers said.

  Organizers said they hoped the visit would inspire their wealthy customers to act charitably.

  Participants disputed the controversy surrounding the event as misguided.

  “How would I ever have known these people needed help?” said Javed Malik, an airline executive based in Hong Kong. “I might not help the elephants but I’d like to help those children,” he said, pointing to a group of smiling girls in dirty T-shirts.

  The controversy appears to have delighted organizers, who credit the resulting publicity with drawing nearly $50,000 in advance donations. Contributions will be managed by a foundation the hotel is creating with its own donation of $96,000 to bring clean drinking water and other basic infrastructure to the village, Ohri said.

  The executives toured the village’s broken water filtration system, its dilapidated schoolhouse and parched farm land, which is too dry to grow crops for themselves or the elephants.

  The sights of poverty did not appear to dent anybody’s appetite.

  “Would they have gotten everyone here together if it hadn’t been for the 10-course dinner afterward?” said Shanghai-based businessman Peter Foster.

  The 10-course meal awaiting the group back in Bangkok included a seafood risotto, scallops with truffles, roasted rack of lamb, neck of Iberico pig — each to be washed down with a different fine Burgundy or Bordeaux.

  An outcry in the French media prompted three of France’s top chefs to bow out of the feast last month after initially agreeing to cook it.

  “You can’t see people living in misery and then go back to Bangkok to eat foie gras and truffles,” said Paris chef Alain Soliveres, one of the three who opted out.

  The bad publicity spooked 20 other top-ranked chefs in France, Germany and Japan, who feared that taking part in the event would harm their reputations, Ohri said.

  Despite the boycott, four chefs from top-rated restaurants in Europe agreed to cook the meal.

  Three of them will walk away with $8,000 each for the night’s work: Christian Lohse from Fishers Fritz in Berlin, Henk Savelberg of the Restaurant Hotel Savelberg in The Netherlands and Atul Kochhar of London’s Benares.

  Belgian chef Yves Mattagne, whose Sea Grill in Brussels has two coveted Michelin stars, said he was donating his earnings to the village of Ban Tatit.

  “This is to help people,” Mattagne said, while chopping chives for a red tuna with ginger entree. “For me, the most important thing is the charity.”

• 19 JG // May 5, 2008 at 8:49 am

  The usual way that such things are measured is with respect to how much money they generate and how much of that money gets to the end user. Is the foundation a sham? Is the water project real? For a one time food based event to generate $100,000 for its target charity is remarkable, as in good or successful.

  Another metric might be whether and how much the hotel is profiting in addition to what it generates for the charity. If it’s just an expensive event, with the hotel contributing part of the cost of staging it, then they are well within what counts as charitable activity in many parts of the world. Even if they are making a profit, as credit card companies do on their alumni affinity cards and the like, they may still be fulfilling a reasonable charitable purpose. But then we would count their part in the event as a business rather a charitable undertaking.

  In the US there are tax laws that prevent donors, the would be guests at this dinner, from disproportionately serving their own interests. They get to count only the portion of the fare that is in excess of the fair market value of the meal as a donation against their tax liabilities. So if it’s a $10,000 fare for a $3,000 dinner, all of the $3,000 counts as perfidious expense, none of it as donation. However, all of the $7,000 is a potential deduction, the tax code’s way of saying worthy.

  My guess is that the villagers are not offended at the waste of wealth and will welcome a well executed water project, if such is the outcome. Whether the hotel deserves our respect for its business savvy or for its charitable heart or not at all remains to be clarified. The donors, prestige seeks louts that they may be, may well have done a good thing.

Leave a Comment