After my brief visit in Bendum, I am more confused now and have more questions in relation to "development" as a future development worker.

My reflections on my country

I was born in the central area of Bangkok, the capital city of Thailand, where the price land is most expensive compared to other areas in Thailand. I have a background in economics and is working with the business sector and conducting economic research.

Therefore, I do understand the practice of profit-oriented companies in relation to environmental protection, especially in factories and heavy industries. Even though companies follow environmental regulations by installing water-cleaning systems, polluted water is still returned to the environment without efficient re-oxygenized machines to cut production costs.

I have known about increasing cases of unjust reallocation of natural resources taken by the "haves" from the "have nots." The haves, specifically the middle- to high-class population living in urban areas, use the natural resources for the country's development. For instance, the government's mega projects such as building dams are decided in air-conditioned rooms, looking at maps, and pointing to desirable spots without consulting people who live in these particular areas. If there are groups of people living in the selected areas, they will be forced to migrate out of their homes and this is where conflicts start.

Government perspective on development

Since I had worked closely with various government offices in Thailand, I do understand the perspective of our country's development. There is an optimism in government and they do think about the people in rural areas, and this is how decentralization was initiated.

In addition, the current National Economic and Social Development Plan (2007-2011) emphasizes a society of happiness measured by Gross National Happiness which also contains an environmental dimension (Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board, 2007).

Nevertheless, I see the large loophole in this national-planned development. Notwithstanding corruption which happens everywhere, the notion of national development seems to disregard the importance of the grassroots communities, both the officially recognized communities and marginalized indigenous societies.

The central government's procedure is to launch the cross-sectional national development plan to each province using all available numerical data. Then, local government units will receive the detailed plan and budget to process according to their particular projects in which theoretically reflect the needs of each province based on the statistical data.

To ensure the satisfaction of the grassroots communities, the projects require active community participation. To promote the real community development, I find the term "community participation" as totally politically wrong. Often, government promotes an attitude amongst the communities where communities expect to be provided with material needs that they don't have and don't need.

There are many examples on this. For instance, after finalizing the report of UNIEF on children and UNESCO on education which indicated that two primary factors discouraging children in rural areas from education are distance between their home and schools and financial support from their family, the Ministry of Education initiated the project to build more schools to increase the school's coverage. Moreover, the Ministry sent qualified teachers and provided free education.

What actually happened was that they taught Mathematics, Sciences, Thai language and many other subjects that were not beneficial for their lives back home. This is actually the real reason why the children in rural areas discontinue their "formal" study when they reach a certain age. They cannot relate the formal education to their real life.

More importantly, by receiving "formal education," they lose their identity. This is worsened when their parents believe that "formal education" will be the only way to bring a better future to their children. With that, children are ready to abandon their hometown and family and find jobs in cities.

This example shows the failure of central-planned development in terms of both project effectiveness and budget management. Instead of community participation, a better term for rural development should be government participation by which a project is initiated by and for a community since they know what they actually want. Also, they know their own path of development. The role of the central and local governments is to support them financially and technically.

Model of modernization

Nevertheless, this brings me to the development dilemma. On the one hand, the Thai government acknowledges the wave of globalization and stands among international communities and believes in the concept of Nation States. Thus, it tries to "decentralize" and "develop" the country in the internationally accepted approach of "modernization" which satisfies some private sectors both domestically and internationally.

On the other hand, by employing this model of modernization through free market economy, formal education promotion and industrialization, Thailand pays huge in terms of environmental destruction, great reduction of its forest areas, and perhaps the most expensive cost of all, the clash of development between the government and communities which leads to internal and structural conflicts.

It was unfortunate that the communities in Thai context who very much rely on agriculture and forest don't have even chance to deny the development package from the government. Moreover, many NGOs come to help them building something materially without concerning about the communities' sustainability. Both development activities bring them to the level of material attachment.

Nowadays, if we ask them what they want, money will be their priority. This is another development dilemma for me. Money is attractive because it can buy many things. Some believe that it can buy happiness.

This is why parents in rural areas encourage their children to work in cities where they can earn much more money than doing farming. I do believe that, on one hand, money is a safeguard when they need to pay for health care services or many other necessities. On the other hand, money is addictive in a way that people want it more and more to reach the full stage of security. In fact, grassroots people do not need much money to live since they can do farming which traditionally helps build up the community unity and engagement as well as preserve their own ways of life.

Unfortunately, Thai government has taught them indirectly the importance of addictive money through aid policies. With the lack of efficient fund administrative system, poor people will be given free money in which they can use it to buy everything they want without concern. This policy's corruption becomes a structural problem in Thailand's democracy and politics by which poor people will vote only for the political party who gives them easy money.

Balancing the need for economic development and cultural integrity

As a future development worker, I understand the dilemma that the Thai government is confronting. While they tried to balance between economic development and our wisdoms and beautiful traditions, we face the armed conflict in the southern region, the border problem in the northern region, poverty and lack of natural water and forest in the northeastern region, as well as the current political conflict in the capital city which started because of the conflict of economic interest.

By standing in the world community, the country has to go forward. However, I would recommend the policy makers to shift from economic-led model of modernization to our own way of modernity. We do have our balanced model of Thai modernity by promoting happiness and self-sufficiency economy even though it is still very much in the philosophical level. The government has to put more effort to translate our philosophical modernity into practical policies' implementations.

To avoid the anticipated conflict between the central government development plan and grassroots people who understand the real importance of natural resources, water and environment, local communities have to change from the role of recipients to initiators. Instead of waiting for unwanted material aid assistance, the communities have to proactively begin to develop their own community and identify the participatory role of the government.

However, the underlying assumption is that it requires communities to know exactly what they actually want which, as far as I've known, is not the case in Thailand. We need a trusted person or group of people with the goodwill and would like to develop with a community to help facilitate, identify and gather their real need.

My observations of the youth in Bendum

Since the younger generations in these communities are more exposed to the outside world than the older generation, they are the important voices for the future of their community.

At this point, I would like to draw from the youth in Bendum a comparison with youth in the cities. I found the different values and beliefs between the two societies. In Bendum, young people always attach with their parents and community's activities. I observed the familiar lifestyle when I was young. They have time to play and rest, learn and socialize, work and be responsible as boys and girls. Their parents would like them to be educated so that they will not be treated as the people from mountains. They will be able to protect their community from people who want to take an advantage and because their parents would like to give them choices and see a better life than their generation.

Youth nowadays in the cities have very tight and limited lives. Because of economic development, parents have to earn more money, often leading to lesser time with their children. In ensuring the future of their children, youth in the cities have to study eight hours in formal education with two hours of extra study classes as well as music, drawing and dancing classes. They have to wake up at 6 a.m. and finish all classes at 9 p.m. They have less time with their parents and parents have less time with their children. This process diminishes their level of maturity and socialization ability.

I can't evaluate which one is better or worse than the other. However, a more important thing is that they have different lifestyles and both are the hopes of our future.

What the youth can bring to the development agenda

With their different sets of imagination and creativity, energy and aspiration, they can both meaningfully contribute to their own society. For youth in the rural areas, I would like to see them keep the locally transferred wisdoms from the older generation which are an important part of their identity and so that they will not get lost in the attractive modern society.

With the adequate education, they will be able to bridge the technology and knowledge to help develop their own community with their own meaning of development. And they will be a powerful voice of the community in responding to government-planned projects and bring the full benefit of government participation.

For youth in the cities including me, I would like to hear our voices in communicating our expectations and ideas. We were born in an environment where we can be the center of change. We have the chance to experience the imbalance of urban-rural development, air and water pollution, and current global challenges. With our career opportunities, open minds, and the ability to question, we can be future critical policy makers who seek a better world.

At some point, I would like to see youth from both rural and urban areas to exchange experiences, thoughts, and ideas to complement missing aspects emerging from our different environments. Thus, we will understand and be able to change and eventually bring meaningful commitments for our future.

My learning points

In this learning trip in Bendum, we shared our experiences with the youth in the village. I learned much from them and opened up my own concept of development, nature, forest, water and life.

I have new perspectives and mindsets broadened by people who are treated as uncivilized, indigenous peoples, and who don't have even the chance to enjoy their citizenship. This community is planting as many as possible trees as we "plant" the tallest possible buildings. This community is protecting the forest, the source of O2 creation and balance of climate while we protect our economy that is traded off with CO2 emission and climate change.

After 18 months in this peace studies program, this trip to Bendum wraps up the meaning of peace and human security for me. It's not something I can find in textbooks, but it's their life. I would like to share this invaluable experience back home and hopefully we will spend time more in understanding and listening, than imposing only our own ideas.

Mr Teerapong "Pong" Praphotjanaporn is from Thailand and is a student of the Dual Campus Master of Arts Programme in International Peace Studies, Asia Leaders Programme at the University for Peace, SY 2009-2010. Pong also holds a bachelor's degree in Economics in Quantitative Analysis and a master's degree in Labor Economics and Human Resource Management. He is a researcher at the Faculty of Economics in Chulalongkorn University since April 2008.

ESSC had the opportunity to engage with Pong when he attended the course Environmental Security, Sustainable Development and Peace last May 2010. Pedro Walpole was the lecturer for this course and this is his reflection paper after a visit to the Pulangiyen community in Bendum, Bukidnon, Philippines.