Published on August 30, 2005
Other Asian venues are either cheaper or have better language skills
Re: “Complete overhaul ‘essential’,” News, August 28.
A poor command of English in Thailand will make it uncompetitive in the future compared with its neighbours and other countries in Asia. Let me make a comparison: countries in Asia where educated people speak English well include Malaysia, India, Singapore, the Philippines and Hong Kong. That is a lot of people. Furthermore, English is not the only important foreign language; Mandarin is also becoming important with the need to do business with China, Taiwan, etc. I see Thailand as remaining a low-cost, low-value place; how can it move up the value chain into services (such as IT, call centres) when its command of English is poor? Kuala Lumpur is now becoming a popular place for foreign companies to set up regional offices; here, they get the benefit of three languages spoken well: Chinese, English and Malay (actually Malay and Indonesian are almost identical). What can Thailand offer? Lower costs? I sometimes think the Thais are far too inward-looking; they don’t seem to regard themselves within a larger community, that being the rest of Asia. Their mindset will have to change if Thailand is to continue its growth. China is cheaper for making things, so where does this leave Thailand? In the 10 years I have spent in Thailand, I have seen a remarkable improvement in English, but still the average standard is far too low. My step-daughter has been studying English for years, and she still can’t hold a conversation in English! Alastair Munro Bangkok ---------------------------------- Let reform include teachers with TOEFL certificates Re: “Kids would learn easily if we only inspired them more”, Letters, August 28. To conclude and generalise that the main content of English lessons in the country is only about learning grammar rules and vocabulary is not entirely true, to say the least. Of course, there is no other way for the print media to teach English effectively, except by giving vocabulary lessons via English articles in Thai-language, and not in English-language, newspapers – English-speaking newspaper readers generally have a good vocabulary already. But English lessons in classrooms depend upon the level of knowledge of the students. Indeed, the basic lessons for beginners embody mostly vocabulary and the basic parts of speech, including sentence construction, but for advanced students like those in university, English lessons include writing essays and reports, listening and speaking. The problem of English-language education in Thailand is in the delivery of knowledge, which is greatly influenced by two important factors: namely, the questionable ability of many instructors to teach English effectively and the lack of English-language usage on the part of the students. Farang Observer in his letter to The Nation should be applauded for citing many good points for tackling this problem. If he is indeed an English teacher, he must be a good one. The arrangement of his thoughts and ideas was impeccable. This is in contrast to some of the previous letters to The Nation by some people who claimed to be English-language lecturers. These letters were surprisingly tainted with grammatical errors. However, I have to disagree with him in two respects. First, it is not only the Thai teachers who should get TOEFL certificates, but all teachers teaching English, regardless of status – part-time or full-time – and this includes farangs. It is already a fact that there are many inexperienced farangs (some call them “backpacker teachers”) without TOEFL certificates who are currently teaching English (mostly part-time) in some English-language schools. Second, a student’s memorised public speech is not indicative of his actual knowledge of the language. Anyone can memorise any words or sentences, or even poems, of any language without even knowing the meaning. Bong and Pla Bangkok ---------------------------------- US generally fails to put its money where its mouth is Like most people, I was only vaguely familiar with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez before Pat Robertson called for his assassination. Since then, I’ve tried to learn as much as I can about the man, and the picture that emerges is that Chavez is a left-wing, somewhat socialist leader who, according to the Carter Centre, was twice legitimately elected president by a landslide. In fact, one could argue that he was far more legitimately elected president than George Bush was. The reason for Chavez’s popularity is that the poor who represent the majority in his country regard Chavez as a hero. I noticed that the right-wing Fox News Channel kept showing Chavez shaking hands with Fidel Castro. But this same “fair and balanced” “news” station had refused earlier to show footage of US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld hugging Saddam Hussein in 1983. Besides, it’s never been explained to me why America thinks it’s wrong to be friendly with communist Cuba but not wrong to be friendly with communist China! This hostility towards Chavez reminds me of 1973, when America supported Augusto Pinochet when he overthrew the democratically elected socialist government of Salvador Allende in Chile. Henry Kissinger – who has more blood on his hands than Osama bin Laden – said back then that if people were “stupid enough” to elect a socialist government, then they “deserve” to have their government overthrown. So while Bush makes nice speeches about wanting to promote democracy all over the world, history shows that whenever America has to choose between backing a dictatorship that serves America’s interest or a democracy that doesn’t, America will always go with the dictatorship in a heartbeat. Eric Bahrt Chon Buri ---------------------------------- Consider more than cost effectiveness of mass transit Re: “Govt U-turn on buy-back”, New, August 29. This in regard to the decision to scrap two of the proposed mass-transit routes didn’t surprise me, but it did disappoint me. Once again, the future must pay for the short-sightedness of the present. Building these routes will not become cheaper or more cost effective in the future. On the contrary, it will become ever more expensive and out of reach with time. The return on an investment such as this can’t be computed in baht alone – it must include the quality-of-life factor. One of the most important things your government can do for Bangkok and Thailand is to build a network of mass-transit systems that will enable the Thai people to travel around their capital city and their entire country in a clean, rapid and energy-efficient manner. Building it may never be “cost effective”, but having it will go a long way towards bringing Thailand into a prosperous and efficient future. Imagine a Bangkok with clean air and no traffic jams. Imagine a Thailand criss-crossed with a rail system that enables her citizens to travel from one end to the other quickly, without the dangers of road travel or the limits of air travel. This future is possible, but only if those who lead the country today have the foresight and fortitude to push it through. Sometimes we must be dragged into the future kicking and screaming, but as our parents used to tell us time and time again: it’s for our own good. Amelia Komlertkul Bangkok ---------------------------------- Why not drop that tiresome old Sanskrit nonsense? Ihave been reading the letters that say the Thais should improve their writing system, and think it is a good idea. Why don’t they get rid of their alphabet and adopt the English alphabet? It would make things much easier for everybody and get Thailand in line with the rest of the world. English has only 26 letters, but I hear that Thai has 40 consonants and about a million vowels. Nobody can make any sense of those Sanskritty-looking squiggles anyway. At least none of the girls in my sewing circle can. Constance Beasley (Mrs) Bangkok ---------------------------------- Reading rejected because it could upset the status quo Re: “Thailand sorely lacks a reading culture”, Opinion, August 27. Thais don’t read or else read only superficial stuff, have an inferior school system and don’t want to become psychiatrists or psychotherapists. Why? Because all these things expose you to yourself, make you think and lead to discussions, quarrels, disharmony. Thinking causes puat hua. Thailand is a society of “forced harmony”; a harmony can only be upheld when the truth takes a back seat. If Thailand wants to improve its education, it will have to overcome this deeply entrenched cultural value, too. Only when you love truth do you develop a hunger for more knowledge and wisdom. Roland Strauss Chon Buri ---------------------------------- Rainfall is a commodity that can attract certain tourists Re: “Uneasy in the West, Arabs flock to Bangkok”, News, August 28. India and Pakistan have been selling rain to their guests from the Middle East for a while. In the low season, the Western tourists shy away, but there are some tourist groups that would like to see and feel the rain, such as Arabs. Why don’t Thai hotels adopt this idea? We are all asleep and waste so much money advertising for cheap tourists from the West. Selling the rain is another way to make money, by using the brain. SP Bangkok
Post your comment to this story here