Dear Bule Tulus

I think that this is mainly for Balinese people to take care of and not for the “tamu” guests.

I think that people here and everywhere else are motivated by greed and that they will start caring when they are convinced that by spending a bit on preserving nature they will benefit ultimately by attracting more tourist and investment.
Another point you have not made is that the Balinese are selling their lands to outsiders to pay the bills (a lot of this goes into ceremonies) and that their children might find themselves strangers in their own (devastated) land soon.

Regards. “X”

My response:

Hi, “X”,

You wrote:

I think that this is mainly for Balinese people to take care of and not for the “tamu” guests.

Yes. Point taken, to some extent.

When “tamu” get involved in efforts and organizations to manage, control or “help” Bali, it often goes sideways somehow, and almost always strikes some very dissonant chords.

A very small scale example is the tempest that blew up when a small “do-good” organization of bules did things like holding barbecues for a number of Indonesians who lost family members in the first bombings. Very interesting points were raised about the appropriateness (or inappropriateness) of both their efforts, and the views implied by them.

A very large scale example is the effect of World Bank loans used (or rather abused) for the Bali Urban Infrastructure Project! Again, “tamu” but from a greater distance, made a bit of a muddle of things, and certainly upset a lot of people, and wasted a great deal of money.

You wrote:

I think that people here and everywhere else are motivated by greed and that they will start caring when they are convinced that by spending a bit on preserving nature they will benefit ultimately by attracting more tourist and investment.

And absolutely, you are right again! People are motivated by greed. But “greed” is perhaps too pejorative a term. Let’s state it more objectively and accurately. People are motivated by self-interest, which is very normal, and includes basic desires for things like self-preservation, comfort, and the respect (and love) of other people. Excessive self-interest is greed. I don’t think this characterizes most people. Some, but not most, and certainly not all. If you disagree with me on this, perhaps you should find some new friends or move into a new social milieu!

And yes, again, it makes sense to assume that people will start to take better care of their assets when they realize that to do otherwise would be self-defeating, and would go against their own self-interest (or greed). If people are to come to that realization usually requires time, compelling evidence, information and quite a bit of discourse. This is exactly why I chose to speak up, and have also spoken up in Indonesian-language media. To do otherwise would be careless.

Certainly, “tamu,” tourists and others should participate in this discourse if they have something of relevance to contribute to it. We are civilised people, after all, living in society with one another. Tamu are undeniably part of Bali’s diverse society, whether they want to be or not. Within its actual, and broadest scope, the diverse society of Bali contains many subsets, one of which is the Indonesians who are “Suku Bali”, born in Bali, living in Bali, and are Balinese Hindus. This subset, which is still the largest one, is rightly regarded as having a very special position among all subsets of society in Bali, due to its indigenousness, primacy, and central role in creating and sustaining the particular “Bali-ness” on which the fame and fortunes of this island are founded.

So, this is quite a story, after all.

What we see is this particular subset (the largest one, the one which “owns” the “Bali-ness” that has been the backbone of development here all along), being in a very difficult position indeed.

They are the ones who “make and do” the “Bali-ness” of Bali. Which is what “sells” the whole island. And everyone profits from it, even those who have no hand in “making and doing” the “Balin-ness” they profit from.

Something seems slightly unfair here, already. Then to toss the burden of working out the problems of over-development back onto the Balinese (meaning: “Suku Bali”, born in Bali, living in Bali, who are Balinese Hindus), is perhaps a bit much.

You wrote:

I think that this is mainly for Balinese people to take care of and not for the “tamu” guests.

Hmm. So we throw that all in the lap of this (majority) subset of the island’s society? With what reasoning? The following perhaps?:

- They made all the stuff that made the island famous. (“Bali-ness”)
- Therefore they are responsible for cleaning up all the mess that people from all over the world (including them), have made by clamouring pell mell to get their piece of it.
- And to keep “making and doing” the “Bali-ness” that Bali’s success is founded on (ceremonies, traditional dress, hospitable behaviour, gracious manners, temples, traditional music, traditional dance, and so forth).

This doesn’t sound quite right somehow. If I were part of the majority subset of the society of the Island of Bali, I would be feeling very confused and very stressed at this moment.

Wouldn’t you?

Cheers,

Susi

P.S. About selling land (your last point). You wrote:

Another point you have not made is that the Balinese are selling their lands to outsiders to pay the bills (a lot of this goes into ceremonies) and that their children might find themselves strangers in their own (devastated) land soon.

People everywhere tend to make facile arguments surrounding this issue. Rather than go into that labyrinth right now, perhaps we can just look at some places in the world that have dealt rather more intelligently with their own success, and desirability as real etate, than Bali has so far. Take the most desirable areas of Morocco. The laws there (enforced rather consistently), allow foreigners to buy land, but no less than one hectare, and they may make only one residence per hectare of land. Development there is smaller in quantity, but greater in quality. The impacts on pre-existing local societies are less abrupt, and the inputs to their economy are greater. The impacts on the environment are far less. The calibre of people able to meet these requirements are proving to be beneficial to the quality of life for the areas as a whole, rather than the opposite. This is by no means the only place that has managed an “over-desirability problem” in this way. Similar systems are also working in the San Juan Islands (Washington State, USA), certain islands in the Caribbean, and elsewhere. The values of real estate in all sectors in these areas go up, the quality of life, and the beauty of these places increases, rather than decreases. The vision of an “elite,” “luxury” future is sustainable, not self-destroying. I believe there are other solutions as well to the problems of an area that is highly desirable to outsiders. No reason why some efforts in these directions can’t begin (or begin to be enforced) in Bali.

how come a society with a unique culture like the Balinese that has been built over more than a thousand years, suddenly needs mass tourism for its survival?

Simple answer:

They don’t need it.

Furthermore there is some bizarrely naive misunderstanding of the basic principles of economics here in Bali at all levels.

Supply and demand curve? Know about that? Intuitively or otherwise?

Raise the “price” until you hit that ideal spot on the supply/demand curve!

How can people say the Balinese are greedy for struggling so hard to get more tourists in the door? Not greedy, just naive. Or stupid.

If they were indeed greedy, they would have figured out how to charge the maximum price possible in order to keep the same total revenues. Far, far fewer tourists would be here, only the ones to whom the price was “worth it” or who were able to afford it. This would mean fewer villas, fewer bars, fewer paved-over rice fields, fewer cafes, hotels . . . but still the same amount of money coming in. Imagine that.

This “alternative-but-possible reality” would also create natural incentives for cooperation (rather than vicious and fruitless competition and jealousy), effecting a fine antidote to the “iri” syndrome, where people here tend to hate their neighbors for succeeding (with a warung, bungalow, cold drink stand, sarong stand, whatever), and respond by badmouthing them, attempted sabotage by devious means, or . . . most often . . . by going into direct competition against them. Then we have nine or nineteen or ninety sarong sellers all in a row, competing with each other. Prices go down so far, none of them are making any money at all! It happens EVERYWHERE here, ALL the time.

When the sarong prices (or bungalow room prices, or whatever) go down so far, the vendors need to respond by finding ways to get CHEAPER inventory. Quality drops. The downward spiral accellerates.

And this model applies not only to the sarong-selling level of the economy here. Bungalows, hotels, villas, nightclubs, you name it. They syndrome is acute, and I hope not chronic, or fatal!!!

The analysis above does a lot to respond to Julita’s ill-founded “defense” of Bali which was based partly on the fact that you can get a five star hotel room cheap here. That is post patently NOT a Good Thing!

In fact it underlines the problem, highlights it, and illustrates it.

I say “fie” on those who celebrate the five star room at a two star price as evidence that Bali is “good” and “everything is beautiful”. It’s heinous, actually.

Cheers,

Susi