This paper looks at the origins, location and physical characteristics of slums in Bangkok, as well as the socio-economic status of slum-dwellers. I also examine and critique government policies towards the slums and conclude with my perspective on the future of the slums.

1. The Eyesore in the City of Angels:
Slums in Bangkok
Please contact xingledout[at]gmail.com if you’d like to use any
information from this paper.

2. CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. II
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1
SLUMS: DEFINITION ........................................................................................................................... 2
TABLE 1: NUMBER OF SLUMS IN THAILAND, 2000 ................................................................... 2
SLUMS: ORIGIN AND EXPANSION .................................................................................................. 4
History of slums........................................................................................................ 5
Location of slums today ........................................................................................... 6
SLUMS: PEOPLE ................................................................................................................................... 9
Socio-economic aspects ............................................................................................ 9
Education ................................................................................................................ 12
Myth 1: “They all migrated from the Northeast” ............................................... 13
SLUMS: GOVERNMENT POLICIES ............................................................................................... 18
Macro policies......................................................................................................... 18
Housing policies...................................................................................................... 19
Policy assessment ................................................................................................... 20
SLUMS: FUTURE................................................................................................................................. 23
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 25
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Number of slums in 2000 ............................................................................................................2
Table 2: Location of slum housing in relation to the city centre ...............................................................8
Table 3: General socio-economic data of slums in Bangkok, 1994 ........................................................11
Table 4: Occupations of slum-dwellers and other Bangkokians .............................................................15
Table 5: Selected monthly per capita income at 1993 prices ..................................................................16
Table 6: Assets of slum-dwellers ............................................................................................................18
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Move-in and move-out statistics ................................................................................................5
Figure 2: Map of slums in Bangkok, 1985 ................................................................................................7
Figure 3: Slums evicted from 1984 to 1988 ..............................................................................................8
Figure 4: Map of slums in Bangkok, 2003 ..............................................................................................10
Figure 5: Map of slum population in Bangkok, 2003 .............................................................................10
Figure 6: Education of slum dwellers ......................................................................................................12
Figure 7: Comparing Bangkok as birth place between head of household and all household members 14
Figure 8: Suan Phlu slum community at football field............................................................................22
Figure 9: Suan Phlu slum community back on original site ....................................................................22
ii

3. Introduction
In October 2003, a giant banner – reportedly the largest in the world – was
strung up along a stretch of the Chao Phraya river to welcome Pacific Rim leaders
descending on Bangkok for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) meeting.
Emblazoned with the image of Bangkok’s stunning Grand Palace, the 360m-by-10m
banner was ostensibly used to greet the group’s foreign affairs and trade ministers
with the message, “A Warm Welcome to Thailand to All Apec Delegates”. But the
real intention behind the nine-million-baht banner was actually to hide the riverside
slum, the Tha Thien community, so that the hallowed eyes of the dignitaries are
shielded from the eyesore as they cruise down the river. “The purpose is to improve
the landscape at Tha Thien area,” a Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA)
official told journalists. “There was no opposition from the residents. As a matter of
fact, they were in favour of the project…” (The Nation, 2003). One would think that
nine million baht spent on upgrading the community would probably go a longer way
than on a banner. The ubiquitous slum1 – or “crowded community” as the Thai
government prefers to call it now – with its rickety dwellings, dirty and overcrowded
conditions has long been an embarrassing thorn in the flesh for the government as it
pushes the country towards developed nation status. This paper looks at the origins,
location and physical characteristics of slums in Bangkok, as well as the socio-
economic status of slum-dwellers. I will also examine and critique government
policies towards the slums and conclude with my perspective on the future of the
slums.
1
In this paper, I will use the term slums instead of “crowded communities” because it is still widely
used on government websites and publications by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration.
1

4. Slums: Definition
The National Housing Authority defines a slum as “a dirty, damp, swampy or
unhealthy area with overcrowded buildings and dwellers (sic) which can be harmful
for health or lives or can be a source of unlawful or immoral actions. The minimum
number of housing units per rai (1,600 sq metres) is 15”.
Table 1: Number of slums in Thailand, 2000
URBAN COMMUNITIES HOUSE- SLUM POPULATION TOTAL SLUM
CENTRES TOT SQUATT HOLDS NUMBER /UNI /HH POPULA- POP (%)
AL ERS (HH) T TION
NO %
BANGKOK 796 125 16 196,354 1,099,575 8.0 5.6 5,680,380 19
NONTHAB 60 10 17 6,994 34,970 7.4 5.0 859,607 4
URI
PATHUM 93 28 30 17.099 85,495 8.0 5.0 654,701 13
THANI
SAMUT 207 13 6 41,456 207,280 7.0 5.0 995,838 21
PRAKAN
SAMUT 62 4 6 8,838 44,190 8.0 5.0 428,814 10
SAKHON
NAKHON 30 1 3 3,038 15,190 5.7 5.0 781,138 2
PATHOM
BMR 1,248 181 15 273,779 1,486,700 7.8 5.4 9,400,478 16
TOTAL
PROVINCI 341 112 33 62,673 277,172 5.3 4.4 52,478,268 1
AL CITIES
THAILAND 1,589 293 18 336,452 1,736,872 7.2 5.2 61,878,746 3
TOTAL
Note: BMR refers to the Bangkok Metropolitan Area and includes Bangkok and five other neighbouring provinces:
Nonthaburi, Pathum Thani, Samut Prakan, Samut Sakhon and Nakhon Pathom.
Source: Figures compiled from the National Housing Authority (2000a-e) and Agency for Real Estate Affairs
(1996a).
In Thailand, slums and squatter settlements are similar in their derelict
appearance. The only difference is in legal status. Slums are legal in that they exist
on a house/land rent basis. On the other hand, squatter settlements are illegally
located on others’ land without permission. The illegality of squatter settlements
excludes them from upgrading programmes. For example, Khlong Toei, the largest
settlement in Bangkok is actually a squatter settlement although it is referred to as a
slum (Sopon 1985:2). Squatters are not a major problem in Thailand, except in
2

5. Pathum Thani where a large number of people squat on the public land along the
irrigation canals (Table 1).
In the past, “chumchon bukruk” (illegal community) was the old term used by
government officials for illegal squatter settlements but people never used it. They
preferred “chumchon bukberk” (pioneering community) since it puts a more upbeat
light on the process of informal settling. Both terms, or just chumchon, were
commonly used until 1982 when “chumchon aai aat” (crowded community) was
introduced by Dammrong Lathapipat, the then-Governor of National Housing
Authority with the approval of the Cabinet. This perhaps reflects the NHA’s attempt
to shift its approach to the slum problem – from viewing it as a dilapidated area that
needs to be cleared to seeing it as a community that needs upgrading (Akin, 1999).
Slums are identified by four major physical components – overcrowdedness,
limited privacy, substandard housing conditions and substandard living environment.
Generally, there are more than 38 units per acre in a slum compound. An
average slum household has 5.6 members, compared to Bangkok’s 3.3. But the
average slum house houses eight people because part of the unit is usually sublet to
others (Table 1). So a slum house is almost three times more crowded than other
housing units in Bangkok. Moreover, houses in the slum are built next to others
without any planned pattern. Often, new houses in the compound spring up in
whatever little space left between existing houses, leading to little privacy for the
slum-dwellers. Although it results in a high degree of interaction among them,
tempers are sometimes frayed because of the close proximity.
Slums have a make-shift, dilapidated and deteriorated air about them because
the houses are usually made of wood, with corrugated iron sheets for roofs. Yet these
3

6. wooden houses will not be out of place, much less considered an eyesore, in a rural
village. They would just be considered rural houses. So it seems that it is the
sophisticated urban environment that “causes” these rural houses to be labelled as
slum houses. The ground on the slum compound is usually wet as there is typically
no land-filling before housing construction. Drainage is a problem in many slums
while sewage is discharged to a septic tank. Almost all dwellers get access to potable
piped water and electricity supplies. But drugs, alcoholism, gambling and other social
ills are usually rampant in these communities.
Slums: Origin and Expansion
Thailand has a total slum population of 1,763,872 (Table 1). About 60 per
cent of that population is concentrated in Bangkok alone. This is hardly surprising
given its status as a primate city where all socio-economic and political activities are
clustered. Slum-dwellers make up 19 per cent of Bangkok’s population.
According to the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, there were 1,720
slums in Bangkok, housing 1,629,155 people in 2003. But according to the National
Housing Authority (NHA), there were 796 slums housing 1,099,575 people in 2000.
Even after accounting for the natural birth increase from 2000 to 2003, which was
2.89%, there is still a difference of 497,802 slum-dwellers. There also could not have
been a sudden influx of in-migration because more people move out than move in
(Figure 1). The big discrepancy in figures can be explained in two ways. First, the
NHA does not include slums with less than 50 households in their surveys. Second,
while a community of 15 housing units per rai is an accepted criterion of defining a
slum, some surveyors also include communities with less than that density. To
minimise confusion, I will use the NHA’s data as it has conducted more slum surveys.
4

7. Going by its figures, the number of slum settlements in Bangkok has decreased from
943 in 1985 to 796 in 2000, while the slum population has gone up from 956,400 to
almost 1.1 million in the same period. This goes to show that the existing slums are
getting increasingly crowded and possibly expanding in area too.
Figure 1: Move-in and Move-out Statistics
490,000
480,000
470,000
Num ber of 460,000
people 450,000
440,000 Move-in
430,000
420,000 Move-out
2000 2001 2002
Year
Source: Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, 2002
History of slums
When Bangkok’s industrialisation took off in the 1960s, it drew many people
from the rural areas to the city. During the period from 1960 to 1970, Bangkok had a
net gain of 260,000 in-migrants, while the other regions in the country experienced
net losses. This amounts to an average of 26,000 people a year2. In 1958, 46 per cent
of Bangkok’s population lived in overcrowded areas (Litchfield 1960:84). For the
rural migrants, the only way they could afford a roof over their head is if they rent
land and build their own house. Even up to 1980, 80 per cent of Bangkok households
could not afford a new house offered in the market. So people continued to do the
same thing – rent land of approximately 100 sq metres from the landowner at about
12 baht per sq metre and build their own house (Sopon 1992:46). Land-owners also
2
But Angel argues convincingly that most of the migratory movements then were from one rural area
to another. Using the 1970 Census of Population, he found that of more than 3.3million moves made in
the last five years, more than 77 per cent were into rural places (1988:251).
5

8. found it profitable to lease out land in this way, especially land with bad access, such
as old fruit orchards.
In 1985, half of the 1,020 slums then were located within 6.5km of the city
centre, taken as the Pathumwan Intersection (Sopon 1985:2). Figure 2 indicates that
people need to live near a source of employment. Income-earning opportunities, such
as those offered by the Khlong Toei Port and the former garbage dump in Huai
Kwang where people can collect resaleable refuse, are the prime stimuli for the
formation of these settlements. Apart from the central area of the city, there were 50
distinctive commercial sub-centres that served different parts of Bangkok, for
example, Lad Phrao Intersection, Suan Phlu, Bangkhae Market, Saphan Kwai,
Southern Bus Terminal and etc. These sub-centres and the slum settlements have a
symbiotic relationship. The centres encourage the growth of the settlements while the
slums are a source of low-cost labour for the centres.
Location of slums today
According to the 1988 slum survey by the National Housing Authority, the
average distance from the slums to the centre of Bangkok, taken as Pathumwan
Intersection, has increased from 7.1 km in 1984 to 9.97 km in 1988 (excluding
Pathum Thani which was not surveyed in 1984), or 10.57km (including Pathum
Thani). Between 1984 and 1988, 35 per cent of the slums within 5 km of the city
centre were evicted because of development pressure (Figure 3). During the same
period, 11,376 housing units within 10km of the city centre were demolished while a
considerable number of slum housing units emerged in the suburban areas beyond
11km from the city centre (Table 2). As more slums in the city centre were evicted,
slum dwellers were forced to look for new accommodation especially because the
6

9. demolished units were not being replaced by low-income public or private housing.
To remain near the city, some would rent a house or a room in an existing nearby
7

10. slum as it is unlikely there would be space to build a new house there. This would
cause existing slums to become even more crowded. Alternatively, some would move
further away from the centre. At the same time, new factories generating many new
employment opportunities were springing up in the urban fringe, particularly in Samut
Prakan, Samut Sakhon and Pathum Thani. For example, Samut Prakan had the
highest proportion of newly established medium-sized firms of the provinces
surrounding Bangkok (Lee 1988:13). Many low-income households were thus
attracted to move closer to these new money-making places. Given the lack of
affordable formal housing in these areas, households often have to find shelter in
informal settlements. The number of slums in Samut Prakan almost doubled from
144 in 1984 to 278 in 1988 (Yap 1992:42).
Figure 3: Slums evicted, 1984 to 1988
12% 6%
35% Distance from centre
1-5km
6-10km
47% 10-15km
More than 15km
Source: National Housing Authority 1988 Slum Survey
Table 2: Location of slum housing in relation to the city centre
Distance (km) 1974 1984 1988
0-5 69,738 69,906 63,907
6-10 42,296 46,031 40,654
11-20 23,091 36,581 47,718
21-30 4,015 6,370 15,398
>30 186 1,257 2,961
Total 139,326 160,145 170,638
Source: Padco-LIF Land Market Assessment (1990:125)
The trend continues today, with more slums located on the suburban fringes,
particularly in areas near to Nonthaburi and Pathum Thani, two provinces that offer
8

11. many employment opportunities (Figure 4). Nonthaburi has its factories while
Pathum Thani has been the fastest growing province for 10 years, with an annual
growth rate of 4.84 per cent (National Statistical Office, 2000). The fact that there are
fewer slums near the city centre presents a deceptive picture. For example, Khlong
Toei’s 40 slums house 92,119 people while Lak Si’s 69 slums house only 61,944
slums. The slums near the city centre, though few, still house a greater proportion of
slum-dwellers (Figure 5). This also indicates that people still prefer to live near the
city centre, hence adding on to the overcrowding of the already-congested slums.
Slums: People
There are generally two kinds of renters in a slum – land-renters and house-
renters. A rare minority actually owns the land. The former rents a piece of land and
build their own wooden house on it while the latter rents an existing house. House-
renters are either too poor to build a house or are planning to stay there temporarily.
The rent is about 500 to 1,500 baht excluding charges for water and electricity
supplies. It was estimated that the proportion of house-renters in slums was 28 per
cent (Sopon 1992:56). I would expect the figure to have gone up by now because
many slums have been destroyed due to eviction, and rental housing in slums is a
relatively cheap housing alternative.
Socio-economic aspects
As mentioned earlier, the household size in slums is generally larger than
those of other Bangkokians (Table 3). Interestingly, the proportion of dependent
household members in slums is higher than non-slum dwellers. A third of those who
live in slums are either aged below 15 or above 60 years old compared to just a
quarter of those who live in formal housing units. There are also slightly more
9

12. Figure 4: Map of slums in Bangkok, 2003
Source: Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, 2003
Figure 5: Map of slum population in Bangkok, 2003
Source: Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, 2003
10

13. women than men in the slums. Through personal contact with the Suan Phlu slum
before it was razed by fire last year, I discovered that this seemed to be so because
some of the men were in jail for drug offences, some were on the run, others have just
simply abandoned their family.
Table 3: General Socio-economic Data of Slums in Bangkok, 1994
BANGKOK METROPOLIS
THON BURI NORTH, SOUTH
EAST
NO OF PEOPLE PER HOUSEHOLD 6.4 5.0 5.9
DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION
0 - 4 YEARS (%) 5.9 8.2 6.9
5 – 14 YEARS (%) 14.3 14.6 17.3
15 – 59 YEARS (%) 70.7 69.6 66.7
60 YEARS AND OVER (%) 9.1 7.6 9.1
MEDIAN AGE (YEARS) 29.5 28.3 27.6
WOMEN AGED 15 – 49 YEARS (%) 62.3 62.3 61.6
GENDER (MALE:100 FEMALES) 94.1 93.0 91.6
HOUSEHOLDS WITH DEBTS 31.0 21.1 38.5
DEBTORS (%)
PARENTS OR RELATIVES 25.7 20.8 21.6
NON-RELATIVES 49.6 57.8 72.3
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS 19.4 14.7 11.8
Source: National Statistical Office,1994.
About 30 per cent of the slum dwellers are in debt. Because most of them do
not have a steady income, banks would consider them as liabilities and not issue them
loans. While a quarter turn to parents or relatives for a loan, most of them (60%)
actually borrow from informal money-lenders. These could be rich people living in
the slum or gang leaders. Unfortunately, these loans usually come with a high interest
rate, sometimes as astronomical as 240 per cent. Through conversations with social
workers and the slum-dwellers, I found that people typically borrow money to service
gambling debts or a drug habit. Others also borrow money so that they can buy
consumer products like 36-inch TV sets.
11

14. Education
The education of slum-dwellers has improved over time (Figure 6). Because
of compulsory education, at first for only six years and now ten years, the number of
those who completed only primary school has decreased from three-quarters of the
population to half. This trend is also in line with what is happening in Bangkok. In
1992, the number of years of education a man aged 15 years old is 8.1. In 2000, it
went up to 9.9 years (NESDB 2000:27).
In the past, few slum-dwellers received a degree. The number has increased
over time. Sadly, there are still more uneducated women than men. Although women
lag behind the men at every level, they are on par with men at the tertiary level. This
shows that women have the ability to get a degree if they are given the opportunity.
This also suggests that it is not because of a lack of ability that women are tailing the
men but family members might have pressured women to quit school earlier to look
after the family or get a job to support them.
Figure 6: Education of Slum Dwellers
100%
80%
60% Undergraduate
40% Secondary school
Prim ary school
20%
No education
0%
1960 1971 1981 1985 1994 1994
(male) (female)
Sources: 1960: Khlong Toei slum (Pasookniran 1960:32).
1971: Khlong Toei slum (Faculty of Social Administration 1971:74-75).
1981: 47 slums (Archawanitkul et al 1981:59).
1985: 3,594 households (Sopon 2003:20).
1994: National Statistical Office.
12

15. Myth 1: “They all migrated from the Northeast”
It is commonly believed that rural-urban migration is the culprit of urban
growth which leads to the unsightly slums in Bangkok. This was a major factor in the
past and continued until the mid 1970s. However, the situation has now changed. It
has been found that there is a greater volume of rural-rural movement than the
movement from rural areas to urban centres (Visid 1972:22). Many have moved to
big sugarcane and rubber plantations in the west, east and south. Encroached forest
land for agriculture uses also absorbs millions of rural people (Angel 1985:9).
Currently, simple natural growth (under conscious birth control) is the main factor for
slum growth in Bangkok instead of migration. The natural growth rate has generally
exceeded the migration rate. For example, in 2002, the natural increase was 2.11 per
cent while the net migration rate was -0.3 per cent (NSO, 2002).
A 1985 survey of 3,594 slum households found that the most of the slum-
dwellers, or 65.3 per cent, were born in Bangkok (Figure 7). Although the household
heads were in-migrants, their spouses, children, or grandchildren would have been
born in Bangkok. It can be seen that about half the house-renters in the slums are in-
migrants. This makes sense as renting a house or a room will be the most affordable
option for them. As for the in-migrants, most of them come from the central region
and not, as always assumed, from the poorer Northeast (Sopon 1992:80).
Unfortunately, a common misunderstanding persists that the major cause of urban
population growth is migration from rural areas. This has led to a belief that
Bangkok’s development should be minimal in order to discourage this influx of rural
migrants. Many policies targeted rural development so that rural dwellers will stay
put. However, as we have already observed, natural growth is the current main cause
13

16. of population increase and that Bangkok’s supposed strong attraction is now not the
major consideration.
Figure 7: Comparing Bangkok as birth place between
heads of households and all household members
Land rent 48
71.8
House rent 24.8
49.2
50
Tenure
Stay free 72.1 Head of household
Own land 51.2
69.6
All household m em bers
Squatter 39.2
70.5
Average 41.4
65.3
0 25 50 75 100
Percentage
Source: National Housing Authority Survey, 1985
Myth 2: “They are all good-for-nothing, a burden to Bangkok.”
City folk tend to look upon slums, at best, as a relic of village life and the
dwellers as peasants in the city or at worst, an eyesore that needs to be removed. Korff
strongly argues against this attitude, “Although the emergence of slums is traced in
rural problems, slums do have an economic significance for the city. Slums supply the
city with cheap labour power.” (1985:66) Most slum dwellers have a full-time job
although most of them are unskilled and work in the informal sector, for example
being a food vendor or riding a motorcycle taxi. Even in the formal sector, they are
also likely to take on jobs that other people scorn, such as being rubbish collectors, an
occupation which will be labelled as “others” in Table 4. In the past, more than three-
quarters of the slum-dwellers were blue-collar workers such as transport and
production workers. The proportion has decreased to about half by 1994. At the
same time, the proportion of white collars on a higher level, such as those in
professional and managerial positions, has increased to about 10 per cent. This is in
14

17. tandem with the increase in education levels among slum dwellers. As they achieve
higher levels of education, more job opportunities are then open to them.
Interestingly, the proportion of women holding white-collar jobs almost double that of
the men in 1994. This is probably because there are more sales positions open to
women than to men.
Table 4: Occupations of Slum Dwellers and other Bangkokians
Occupations Bangkok Slums
(1990) 1971 1985 1994
Male Female
1. Professional, technical and related workers 13.9% 1.5% 6.5% 5.9% 8.3%
2. Administrative, managerial, government officer 6.3% 1.5% 0.7% 4.8% 2.1%
3. Clerical workers 11.4% 3.0% 11.9% 10.6% 16.4%
4. Sale workers 19.5% 18.5% 20.0% 14.6% 33.3%
5. Agricultural workers 2.6% 0.5% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4%
6. Miners, quarrymen, well drillers 0.1% -- -- -- --
7. Transport and related workers 6.1% 13.5% 7.2% 19.7% 0.9%
8. Craftsmen and production workers 29.0% 22.5% 23.1% 36.3% 24.0%
9. Service workers 10.1% 10.0% 4.3% 7.7% 14.6%
10. Others 1.0% 29.0% 26.1% -- --
Groups of occupations
White collar (Group 1-4) 51.1% 24.5% 39.1% 35.9% 60.1%
White Collar Higher (Group 1-2) 20.2% 3.0% 7.2% 10.7% 10.4%
Blue Collar (Group 5-10) 48.9% 75.5% 60.9% 64.1% 39.9%
Source: 1990: Bangkok (National Statistical Office 1991:23)
1971: Khlong Toei (Faculty of Social Administration 1971:74-75)
1985: 3,594 households (Sopon 2003:21)
1994: Bangkok slums (National Statistical Office)
Myth 3: “They are all dreadfully poor.”
It is a gross misconception that all slum-dwellers are either living on or under
the poverty line. There are some who are quite wealthy but have chosen to remain
staying in the slum because they have developed a symbiotic relationship with the
other slum-dwellers. For example, they may be landlords or money-lenders. There is
also another group of slum-dwellers who can afford to move out of the slum and buy
a house. Yet they stay on in the slum probably because it is in a central location and
near to their workplaces. Over time, the economic situation of slum-dwellers shows
15

18. an upward trend of improving (Table 5). The first income decile of their monthly per
capita income decreased from 58.6% in 1960 to 48.5% in 1971 and then to 17.3% in
1985. At the same time, almost half of Thailand’s population (probably the rural
dwellers) are in that income decile. While it seems that the slum dwellers in Bangkok
are richer than their rural compatriots, the costs of living are different.
Table 5: Selected monthly per capita income at 1993 prices
Income Decile (Baht/person/month) Slums Thailand Bangkok
1960 1971 1985 1990 1990
1 Less than 1,130 58.6% 48.5% 17.3% 49.6% 10.0%
2 1,130 - 1,529 10.2% 17.1% 27.9% 13.8% 10.0%
3 1,530 - 1,979 10.3% 12.8% 19.5% 8.4% 10.0%
4 1,980 - 2,379 9.0% 6.0% 12.0% 5.6% 10.0%
5 2,380 - 2,899 3.1% 5.5% 10.1% 5.5% 10.0%
6 2,900 - 3,439 3.1% 2.8% 5.0% 4.1% 10.0%
7 3,440 - 4,089 1.4% 2.5% 3.4% 3.5% 10.0%
8 4,090 - 5,189 1.8% 3.0% 2.5% 3.4% 10.0%
9 5,190 - 7,319 1.5% 1.1% 1.9% 3.3% 10.0%
10 7,320 and over 1.0% 0.8% 0.3% 2.9% 10.0%
1960: 1,500 households opposite the Department of Highways
1971: Khlong Toei
1985: 3,594 households
Bangkok and Thailand data adjusted from the 1990 Census
Source: Agency for Real Estate Affairs (1993)
In 1993, regardless of any other costs, a person who cannot afford three meals
a day at 12 baht per meal must be considered as the “real poor”. This means a
household with a monthly per capita income below 1,080 baht is what I call “very
poor”. Less than a fifth of slum-dwellers are considered to be in this category (Table
5). They typically stay for free in the slum and depend on the goodwill of the
relatives they are staying with. In Bangkok, less than 10 per cent of the total
population belongs to this group. Next, a household with two people earning the 1993
minimum wage of 125 baht per day, and with two dependants, is what I assume to be
“poor”. Their monthly per capita income is 1,562.50 baht. Almost half the slum-
dwellers, compared to 20 per cent of the Bangkok population, are considered poor. It
16

19. should be noted that the “very poor” and the “poor” can never afford a house in the
typical housing market. For them, there are very few alternative housing arrangements,
apart from slums.
To define the “not so poor”, I will use the cheapest housing unit, say, a low-
cost condominium unit located in a fringe economic sub-centre of Bangkok, worth
approximately 250,000 baht, as a gauge. A downpayment of 20 per cent is usually
required. Monthly instalments for the remaining 80 per cent (200,000 baht) are paid
generally paid back over a period of 15 years at the prevailing annual interest rate
which was 11.5 per cent in 1993. Hence, the monthly instalment for the cheapest
home would be 2,382 baht. Since 25 per cent of a household’s income should be used
for housing, a monthly per capita income of 2,382 baht is needed in a four-person
household. In this case, more than three-quarters of the slum-dwellers, whose
incomes are lower than this, will not be able to afford to buy a house. Assuming that
the one-quarter of the slum-dwellers who can pay the instalments can also afford the
downpayment, the slum population would automatically decrease by 25 per cent if
they can be persuaded to buy a house outside the slums. The loophole in this fairytale
approach is that even if these richer people move out of the slums, it does not stop
other poorer people from moving into the slums. In fact, these richer people could
then rent out their slum houses to them. It seems that the only people who are moving
out of the slums are those from the tenth decile, with a monthly per capita income
exceeding 7,320 baht (Table 5).
Despite the varying income levels, it is common to find televisions and radio
sets in every slum household, from the poorest to the richest (Table 6). Mobile phones
17

20. and DVD players are also becoming the norm3. Although many of these assets have
been bought using borrowed money, they still go to show that only a minority of the
dwellers in Bangkok slums are truly poor.
Table 6: Assets of Slum Dwellers
Assets Households with assets (%) No. available *
Television 100% 1.6
Refrigerator 96% 1.3
CD set 65% 1.1
Washing machine 65% 1
Cell phone 65% 1.5
Home telephone 54% 1
VDO set 46% 1
Motorcycle 42% 1.1
Automobile 27% 1
Air-conditioned 15% 1.5
Hot water heater 15% 1.3
Microwave oven 12% 1
* per household (counting only households who have assets of each item)
This survey covers 120 households in the Chong Nonsi community.
Source: Sopon (2003:22)
Slums: Government Policies
In this section, I will sketch out the policies regarding slums before critiquing them.
Macro policies
The first two National Economic and Social Development plans (1961 to 1971)
focussed mainly on industrialisation and spurring the economy forward. Then, the
third and fourth plans (1972 to 1981) did not only emphasise economic growth but
also stressed the importance of reducing income disparity by speeding up
development in rural areas. In the fifth plan (1981 to 1986), one of the objectives was
to reduce absolute poverty and accelerate rural development in backward areas. The
idea was to create jobs to increase farmers’ income and prevent migration during the
dry season because the government blames rural-urban migration for the burgeoning
growth in the cities. The first mention of slums popped up only in the sixth plan
3
I remembered walking in Suan Phlu slum three years back and being surprised by all the consumer
products in the shacks. The TV sets were much bigger than the one I had at home and there were huge
hi-fi sets too.
18

21. (1987 to 1991), where one of the main aims was to “improve the quality of life of
low-income earners that live in urban congested areas”. However, it was only until
the seventh plan (1992 to 1996) that the government acknowledged that “the problems
of urban and urban slums have become serious”. Guidelines were drawn up to
upgrade slum communities such as specific legislation to look after them and protect
their rights. It pledged to upgrade the quality of existing slum communities, and
provide new housing for those who have been forced to relocate. It also pledged to
establish community organisations to look after the well-being of slum dwellers and
set up a fund for them to borrow, as well as promote occupational development.
Subsequently, in the eighth plan (1997 to 2001), the only mention of the urban poor
was about increasing poor children’s access to basic education by providing
scholarships. Finally, in the ninth plan (2002 to 2006), the slum issue was subsumed
under the greater goal of poverty eradication. In addition, a tag line that kept
appearing was the objective of establishing “livable communities and cities” by
improving the quality of life. It is debatable as to what constitutes “livable” but the
plan later alludes to it as being “tranquil, convenient, clean and orderly”.
Housing policies
Housing production policy (1948 - 1958): After World War II, social welfare policy
was first introduced into Thailand. The Government Housing Bank was established
in 1953 to construct housing for the urban population. During this period, 3,462
housing units were built (Litchfield 1960:84-85).
City Beautification (1960 - 1971): Slums were considered an eyesore so the only real
policy on slum improvement was slum clearance. Some public housing units were
built for the slum-dwellers but did not meet the demand of the public.
19

22. Slum improvement (1970s): The National Housing Authority was established in 1973
to deal with the housing problem. It constructed highly-subsidised flats which proved
to be too great a financial burden and this attempt was given up soon after.
Land for housing the poor (1980s): The logic is if land is given to the poor, they
would have a sense of belonging and develop their own homes and community.
Hence, there have been a few land-sharing and slum relocation projects. The
principle of land-sharing requires that part of the area of the slum be cleared for the
development of commercial properties while slum-dwellers are re-housed on the
remaining part of the site.
Recognition policy (1990s): Slums have become more recognised through the efforts
of the non-governmental organisations. And the policies made in this period were in
tandem with the seventh national plan which placed special emphasis on slums. In
1992, the Urban Community Development Office was established with an initial fund
of 1.25 billion baht to help support the development of saving groups and generate
loans for slum-dwellers. In 2001, a one-million-baht fund was established in rural
and urban communities to do the same thing.
Policy assessment
Meeting the housing shortage from 1960
When the government first started building flats, it targeted the housing units
at the poor, instead of the middle and higher-income groups. As a result, walk-up
apartments seemed “less privileged” because they were known as places where low-
income groups lived. The flats were too “low-class” for the middle-income but were
beyond the reach of the poor. So the housing shortage continued. But if flats had
20

23. started out with a good image and vertical living took off, then revolving funds could
have been generated and used to provide subsidised housing for the poor.
Vertical living
Former governor of the National Housing Authority Rataya Chantien admitted
that the NHA’s policy to construct the highly-subsidised rental and owned flats was a
failure. Not only were the flats a major financial burden but they were also often not
occupied by those they were built for. Because the rents are low and the estates are
well-located in areas like Din Daeng, Bon Kai and Khlong Toei, the original
occupants can earn useful income either by sub-letting the apartment or by selling
their right to another household while they moved back to the slum. Hence, although
the policy tried to alleviate the housing shortage, it only created more slums.
Slum-dwellers are often reluctant to move into walk-up apartments because of
the regular payment of rent and utilities, the small size of the units, the lack of social
contact and the impossibility of generating income from the dwelling4. Yet there are
those who appreciate the privacy, cleanliness and drug-free environment that the flats
offer (Bangkok Post, 1990). In fact, the tussle between house and flat has caused
deep rifts in the former Suan Phlu slum community. One faction is happy to accept
the government’s offer of building walk-up flats while the other faction is insisting on
having houses. The former is staying on a football field (Figure 8) while the latter has
moved back to the original site to block any attempts to build flats (Figure 9).
Slum relocation and land-sharing
This is like a “dirty word” for slum activists because relocation efforts in the
past were badly managed. People were given little notice to move and were not given
4
The unit is too small to further divide it up for subletting. Many women in the slum also earn an
income by selling food outside their house. This would be impossible in an apartment.
21

24. time to familiarise themselves with their new environment before moving. Some
people lost their jobs after moving out of the slums. For example, the men working as
coolies at Khlong Toei port for 55 baht per day could not afford the 20 baht per day to
go from Rom Klao, their new home, to their workplace and back. (Charoon 1988)
Yet, slum relocation does not have to be a zero sum game, especially if the new
apartments are located along major transport routes. If most non-slum dwellers also
cannot afford to live in the city but have to wake up at 4am to commute into the centre
to work and only arrive back home at 8pm, why should those living in slums be
anymore privileged? Besides, it would be easier for slum-dwellers to change jobs as
half of them are blue-collar workers. So they can get another job in a factory or be a
food-vendor at the new estate.
Figure 8 Figure 9
When a slum faces eviction and there is an option for land-sharing, only a very
limited number of households would seize the opportunity to acquire land. A large
majority will take the compensation and leave, most probably to settle in another slum.
Some make their claim to the plot of the land but never occupy it; others even build a
house but rent it out to other households. Besides, it will be difficult to find
commercial properties that are willing to share the land with a slum community.
22

25. Slums: Future
In several Asian countries, governments are now providing protection of sorts
to slum residents. Policies range from granting de jure security of tenure by
regularising the unauthorised settlements to giving a form of de facto security of
tenure by issuing stay orders at the time of evictions. Research has shown that an
increase in security of tenure is incentive for the dwellers to improve their housing
conditions. In Bangkok, something similar is being proposed. The National Housing
Authority wants to be able to improve land-rental slums regardless of the views of the
land-owner while slum dweller federations want the government to expropriate all
slum land and to sell it to the slum dwellers at subsidised rates. But such policies to
protect the slum residents are likely to backfire here because land-owners would not
want to rent out vacant land to slum-dwellers and might even evict the slum before
such a policy takes effect. The implication is that improvements in the living
conditions in the slums can be initiated only be land-owners.
If the landlord is prepared to sign a medium-term (five- to ten-year) lease with
the slum-dwellers, the situation in the slum can improve considerably. Such contracts
would increase security of tenure and if both parties agree, the land can be reblocked
to improve the layout of the settlement and facilitate the provision of infrastructure.
But if the slum-dwellers and land owner can agree on a long-term lease, the slums can
even be demolished to make way for new houses. A contractor can build rows of
shell houses with only side walls, roof, sanitary unit, while the occupants have to
complete, extend and improve the slum. The houses could then be rented out to the
original slum dwellers. Since the value of the house will be low compared to the
23

26. value of the land, the amortised cost of the shell house can be included in a slightly
increased land rent.
Today, the slum situation is no longer looked upon as just a housing problem,
instead it is seen as a symptom of the deeper problem of urban poverty, where groups
of people have been left out in Thailand’s economic growth. This direction, I believe,
is the correct one to take. In 2000, when the work of the Urban Community
Development Organisation was integrated into a new public organisation called
Community Organisations Development Institute, 950 community savings groups had
been established and supported in 53 provinces. More than 1 billion baht had been
provided in loans and more than half the loans had already been fully repaid.
Informal estimates suggest that assets of some 2 billion baht had been generated by
the projects (Somsook 2003:2). At the same time, the education among slum-dwellers
has also improved. This leads to more job opportunities, instead of being confined to
blue-collar work. Already, one can see that the occupations of the slum-dwellers are
coming on par with their fellow Bangkokians (Table 4). With better education and
better jobs, the next generation would likely not be willing to stay in the slum
anymore. In 1958, slums comprised 46 per cent of the housing stock. In 2000, it
became only 6 per cent of the total housing available. Hopefully in another 10 to 20
years, people will not have to live in slums anymore and there will no longer be
anymore eyesores in the City of Angels.
24

27. References
Agency for Real Estate Affairs (1996a) Executive Summary: 1996 Provincial Slums
(an unpublished survey conducted for the National Housing Authority).
Akin Rabibhadana et al. (1999) Chumchon Aai Aat: Ong khawmroo kab khwan pen
jing [Slum: State-of-the-art and Reality] Bangkok: Thailand Research Fund.
Angel, Shlomo (1988) ‘Where have all the people gone? Urbanization and Counter-
urbanization in Thailand’ in Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 76, November.
Bangkok Bank (1981) ‘The fifth development plan: Structural adjustment being the
name of the game’ in Bangkok Bangk Monthly Review, November.
Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (2004) Statistical Profile of BMA 2003.
Bangkok: Bangkok Metropolitan Administration.
Faculty of Social Administration, Thammasat University (1971) Klong Toey Slum: A
Social Work Survey and Photographs. Bangkok: Thammasat University.
Kanokrat Charoon (1988) ‘Without jobs, former slum dwellers find rough going in
Rom Klao community,’ Bangkok Post, 31 October 1988.
Korff, Rudiger (1985) ‘Slum: Village or Workers Quarter?’ in: Manop Pongsatat (ed.)
Planning Journal: Urban & Regional Planning, Vol. 1, September. Bangkok:
Faculty of Architecture, Chulalongkorn University.
Kritaya Archawanitkul et al. (1981) 46 Slums. Bangkok: Institute of Population and
Social Research, Mahidol University.
Lee, Kyu Sik (1988) Infrastructure Constraints on Industrial Growth in Thailand,
INURD WP#88-2, World Bank, Washington.
Litchfield Whiting Browne and Associates et al. (1960) Greater Bangkok Plan B.E.
2533 (1990). Bangkok: Department of Town and Country Planning.
Ministry of Interior and Bangkok Municipality (1962) The improvement of the slum
opposite the Department of Highways. Bangkok: Ministry of Interior and
Bangkok municipality (currently Bangkok Metropolitan Administration).
National Economic and Social Development Board (1992) The Seventh National
Economic and Social Development Plan. Bangkok: National Economic and Social
Development Board. (47943)
— (1997) The Eighth National Economic and Social Development Plan. Bangkok:
National Economic and Social Development Board. (52820).
— (2002) The Ninth National Economic and Social Development Plan. Bangkok:
National Economic and Social Development Board. (59987).
— (2002) NESDB. Vol. 39 No. 1, January - February..
National Housing Authority (2000a) 1999 Slum: Nonthaburi. Bangkok: National
Housing Authority.
— (2000b) 1999 Slum: Pathum Thani. Bangkok: National Housing Authority.
— (2000c) 1999 Slum: Samut Prakan. Bangkok: National Housing Authority.
— (2000d) 1999 Slum: Samut Sakhon. Bangkok: National Housing Authority.
— (2000e). 1999 Slum: Nakhon Pathom. Bangkok: National Housing Authority.
National Statistical Office (1991) 1990 Population and Housing Census. Bangkok:
National Statistical Office.
— (1988) Report of the 1988 household socio-economic survey, Bangkok Metropolis,
Nonthaburi, Pathum Thani and Samut Prakan. Bangkok: National Statistical
Office.
25

28. PADCO/LIF (1990) Bangkok Land and Housing Market Assessment. Bangkok.
Rataya Chantien (1985) Problems, Experience and Strategies of Low-income Housing
Urban Development. Bangkok: National Housing Authority.
Sak Pasookniran (1960) The Survey of Klong Toey Slums. Bangkok: National Institute
of Development Administration.
Somsook Boonyabancha (2003) A Decade of Change: From the Urban Community
Development Office to the Community Organizations Development Institute in
Thailand. Increasing community options through a national government
development programme. Working Paper 12 on Poverty Reduction in Urban
Areas. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
Sopon Pornchokchai (1985) 1020 Bangkok Slums Evidence Analysis. Bangkok:
School of Urban Community Research and Actions.
— (1992) Bangkok Slums: Review and Recommendations. Bangkok: Agency for Real
Estate Affairs.
— (2003) ‘City report: Bangkok’ in The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on
Human Settlements 2003. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements
Programme
The Bangkok Post (1986) ‘Sixth Plan: Accent on Development,’ 13 September, p. 14.
The Nation (2003) ‘Gigantic banner unfurled to hide slum,’ 17 October.
Visid Prajuabmoh et al. (1972) The Rural and the Urban Population of Thailand:
Comparative Profiles. Bangkok: Institute of Population Studies, Chulalongkorn
University.
Wasant Techawongtham (1990) ‘Vertical living and the slum culture,’ The Bangkok
Post, 18 March, p. 27.
Yap Kioe Sheng (1992) Low-income Housing in Bangkok: A Review of Some Housing
Sub-markets. Bangkok: Division of Human Settlements, Asian Institute of
Technology.
26