Yangon, Myanmar — The Mekong Tourism Forum 2026, held from 16–18 June 2026 in Yangon, Myanmar, brought one of its most human conversations to the stage with the panel Living Culture and Creative Expression.
Held on 17 June 2026 at Pan Pacific Yangon Hotel, the session explored how tourism can support living culture, protect heritage and strengthen the communities that carry traditions forward.
Moderated by Dr Scott Smith of Assumption University of Thailand, the panel brought together four voices with very different but deeply connected perspectives: Dr Zhu Jinsheng “Jason” of Guilin Tourism University, Ms Thuy An Phan of Thai Hai Village in Vietnam, Ms Maulita Sari Hani of Planeterra and Ms Ohnmar Myo of SEAMEO SPAFA.
The panel asked a simple but urgent question: How can tourism help keep culture alive while supporting the people who live it every day?
“The strongest lesson from this conversation was that living culture cannot be separated from the people who carry it,” said Dr Scott Smith, who moderated the panel. “If tourism is serious about purpose, it must begin asking what communities want to protect, share and pass on.”
The discussion reflected the wider MTF2026 theme, Tourism for People, Travel with Purpose, and moved quickly beyond the usual language of attractions, products and visitor experiences. The message from the panel was clear: culture is not a backdrop for tourism. It is the living heart of a community.
Heritage is not only monuments
For Ms Ohnmar Myo of SEAMEO SPAFA, the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization Regional Centre for Archaeology and Fine Arts, the conversation carried particular urgency.
Speaking from a heritage perspective, she reminded delegates that culture does not live only in monuments. It also lives in communities and in the people who give heritage places meaning.
Her remarks also connected the panel to Myanmar’s recent earthquake experience and the difficult work of cultural protection and heritage recovery.
During the panel, Ohnmar noted that the earthquake damaged thousands of monuments and warned that poor responses after disaster can create a second wave of damage.
Her point was powerful: after a disaster, the challenge is not simply to rebuild quickly. It is to restore, preserve and recover with care.
That work requires local knowledge, community decision-making, government coordination, heritage expertise, NGOs and public-private partnerships. It is not only a technical issue. It is a cultural one.
If heritage is repaired without listening to the people who live with it, something important can still be lost.
Community tourism must outlive the project
For Maulita Sari Hani, Regional Manager of Planeterra, the key issue was long-term impact. She reminded the audience that community tourism should not end when a project is launched, photographed or checked off as successful.
“Community tourism should never be treated as a checklist. When we work with communities, there are real people behind the project, and the benefits should continue long after the visitors leave,” she said.
Drawing from Planeterra’s work, Maulita shared an example from New Zealand, where income from travelers was reinvested into young people through scholarships and exchange opportunities.
Her point was practical and important: community tourism is not only about visitor experience or income. At its best, it creates social, environmental and family benefits that continue inside the community.
A meaningful community tourism project, she suggested, is not measured only by what visitors experience. It must also be measured by what local people gain, keep and pass on.
Love as a tourism strategy
For Thuy An Phan, representing Thai Hai Village in Vietnam, the language of tourism came back to something beautifully simple: love.
Thai Hai Village, recognized by UN Tourism as one of the Best Tourism Villages, is often described as a “Village of Love.” An gave that phrase real meaning.
“With love, we can do anything,” she told the audience. “Love creates our village. Love with nature can create meaningful tourism.”
Her contribution became one of the emotional anchors of the session. For An, culture is not something performed for visitors. It is part of daily life.
When asked about the risk of culture being changed or corrupted by tourism, she offered one of the strongest reflections of the discussion. Culture, she said, should not be practiced because tourists are watching. It should be practiced because it is part of who people are.
In other words, tourism should be the result of living culture, not the reason for changing it.
Her message was clear and memorable: culture is alive when it is lived, not only performed; when it is shared, not sold.
An also spoke movingly about young people, pride and belonging. She explained that visitors’ curiosity can help young people see value in what may feel familiar or ordinary to them. When local people understand the meaning behind their customs, clothing, rituals and daily practices, they are more likely to carry them forward with pride.
People, people, people
For Dr Zhu Jinsheng “Jason”, the final takeaway was direct: people, people, people.
Jason connected the session to the wider idea of people-oriented tourism. For too long, tourism has often been viewed mainly from the demand side, with attention placed on tourists, markets and visitor expectations.
The shift in perspective, he suggested, is toward the supply side: communities, hosts and the people who shape the destination experience from within.
That point tied the panel together. Living culture is not something tourists simply come to see. It is something communities live, protect and choose to share.
If tourism is truly people-oriented, then the “people” must include the communities whose culture, heritage and daily lives make travel meaningful in the first place.
Culture survives through community. It is carried by elders, practiced by families, reimagined by young people and shared by those who understand its meaning from the inside.
For tourism, that means the work must begin before the visitor arrives. Communities need the space, support and authority to decide how their culture is presented, what is shared, what is protected and how benefits are returned to local people.
The take away from the session was simple: culture is not a product waiting to be packaged. It is a relationship between people, place, memory and belonging.The clearest takeaway was that living culture is strongest when communities remain at the center; shaping the story, protecting what matters and deciding how tourism fits into their future.
