Cry timber
People help to dismantle a house made of wood and corrugated iron, the only one still standing at Mahakan Fort, after residents in the community were ordered to relocate to make way for a public park.
Bangkok yesterday lost one of the rare, vintage houses that represent the bygone days of the Rattanakosin era when it was demolished and reduced to a pile of rubble. Only about a dozen such houses now remain.
The house, which was known as house No.99 of the Mahakan Fort community, was an iconic structure of the area. It was one of the most outstanding wood structures in this old community as it represented the style of house built in King Rama III’s reign. And it was still in its original condition with no major modifications.
Over the past years, the house, which was featured numerous times in the media, became a symbol of the Mahakan area’s conservation. Despite its value, the house has now been torn down in what appears to be an example of state manipulation and hypocrisy.
City conservationists cried foul over the demolition which breaches a promise on the part of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA).
During the peak of the conflict over the Mahakan community’s fate in 2016, when the BMA began to tear down houses and boot out residents, a public outcry ensued which prompted the governor to backtrack and promise that this house, among just a few, would be preserved.
But it was naive to think the agency would honour its pledge. It also breached an agreement it made with a panel on the Mahakan community’s conservation that the site would be preserved as a museum.
The house demolition yesterday confirms it doesn’t take such promises and deals seriously. This is no surprise. When it comes to the Mahakan issue, the BMA has always made use of manipulation, money and malicious tactics.
The agency has long stigmatised the community — treasured by local and international organisations for its conservation role — as slum dwellers, people who have defied the law.
There are allegations that the BMA — in order to isolate the community — threatened to cut off financial assistance to civic groups allied with the Mahakan people. It seems to be working, as the community has become cut off.
The community experienced great divisions last year during the work of the Mahakan panel, spearheaded by the Association of Siamese Architects, which forced them to shortlist “eligible” houses for conservation. Few realised that the work was based on a wrong hypothesis, as it placed the focus on architecture, not the people. But in the end, the BMA stood firm on its position, tearing up the agreement: Both houses and people had to go.
The BMA shows no reluctance to use its money tactics, which enable it to further divide the community, as mistrust escalates. During the initial eviction process, the agency used money to lure some residents out of the group, as attested in the case of house No.99’s demolition. Again, this is no surprise. The whole saga shows how two-faced the BMA can be.
In a bid to stigmatise the dwellers, the BMA once accused the community of causing damage to the fort, which is a historical site. But the agency may have forgotten that house No.99 and some others that were torn down are historical sites. How can it sit idly by? How is it that agencies concerned with heritage
conservation allow this to happen? Isn’t this a kind of blasphemy of the conservation principle?
In pursuing its policy on the Mahakan Fort community, the BMA has ignored the orders of the central government, which last November instructed it to abide by the recommendations issued by the National Human Rights Commission that
the community be allowed to stay. It also shrugged off a suggestion by the committee for the conservation of Rattanakosin and Old Towns, which worked with the community to find a solution other than eviction, that a living museum was possible. It did not pay attention to the Rattanakosin committee’s new policy to embrace the old community. In short, there would
be no evictions.
One sad fact we must accept is that the loss of the iconic house No.99 marks the beginning of the end of this old community which has fought eviction for over two decades. It’s the longest fight in Thailand’s eviction history, I’d say.
With regard to the new policy of the Rattanakosin committee, the ongoing eviction of the Mahakan community is not legitimate. In fact, the BMA has lost its legitimacy to handle Manakan since it felled a number of old trees in this area late last year for no reason. That showed poor judgement and zero knowledge of conservation. With its Mahakan plan, the BMA has torn down houses, and torn apart the community. It has inflicted damage on the community to the point where reconciliation will be difficult.
‘‘ The house’s demolition is a breach of a promise on the part of the BMA.