This is a question I am becoming unable to answer after a few days exploring the countryside of Bali. Villagers have impressive walls around their houses and amazing archways that you enter to get into their compound. Once inside you find several temples and small pillars, ornaments and other objects that tend to be gold. Hiding behind them, somewhere is the living quarters -probably extending quite a way back, since the houses seem to have plenty of land. In between will be a water feature and plenty of plants as well as offerings that are laid fresh every day.
We have seen this everywhere, and it extends to hotels too -most of which also seem to be temples at first glance. And when we actually find a temple that is a temple and not a house -and though there might be thousands of houses in an area, there are still hundreds of temples- the temple is deserted, but still impressive. There is clearly no shortage of stone in Bali. We have been taken aback with how beautiful the area is, and now I understand the popularity and legend that has arisen over Bali.
Yet, despite over 20 years of regular and extensive tourism, this large island (over 130 km wide, and over 40 km long), does not seem to have been that affected. Granted we have seen minimal poverty (presumably other parts of Indonesia are much worse) and the government seems to have invested in the road system (still only single lanes, but they are all tarmac), but most people are living their usual, rural life. All over we saw people working in the fields, carrying bushels of something-or-other on their backs as they walked along the roads, and children kicking balls in the roads. Yes, a lot of people are getting an income from tourism, working in cafes, restaurants or hotels, or as tour guides or ticket agents, but it does not seem to have changed the way of life dramatically for most people. This is not exactly what I was expecting.
Then again, Ubud, the 'other half of the Bali duopoly' as the Lonely Planet calls it (Kuta is the beach half and Ubud is the culture/countryside half), is also not what I expected. Initially thinking that a village would be a village I was disappointed to find several long streets packed with motorbikes, cafes and guesthouses. But behind these, most of the guesthouses look out onto paddy fields, and quickly one can escape the 'village' to explore. Has tourism growth here been responsible? Compared to most other places, it seems so. Has it affected the locals? It does not seem that it has.
The other intriguing element to Ubud is the range of accommodation. There is plenty of mid-range accommodation of around 20-40 dollars a night (often with swimming pools), but limited below that, which is pretty expensive for backpackers. But most westerners here are not backpackers (who might only stick to the beaches with more nightlife) but mature travellers or families. Indeed, most rooms come with a double bed and a spare bed; and there is an outrageous plethora of expensive resorts around Ubud -some are several kms away- which cost upwards of 300 dollars a night with gorgeous views and various perks. As can be expected, there are quite a few british people here, but they are totally outnumbered by the Australians, on the streets at least. I do wonder who make up the patrons of the upmarket resorts? In the big scheme of things, I suppose they are not that expensive, it's just they seem unnecessary. Most of the accommodation in Ubud is wonderful, our's is exceptionally so. The rooms really do feel a part of a family's house with most hotels having only 10 rooms meaning you feel like being in a homely environment; and if you are lucky, like we are, one that is quiet and away from the noise of the motorbikes storming past all day long!
No comments:
Post a Comment