• 
• 

Published on August 30, 2007

 

Both the article "English tutors failing the test", (News, August 21) and the letter "Mismanagement of basic education a major factor in failure of English tutors", (Letters, August 23) fail to mention that when English was introduced in schools, Thai teachers were told teach English without proper linguistic skills and textbooks and without any logistical or financial assistance in terms of preparatory and upgrading courses. Therefore, the employment of foreign teachers was necessary but it is still done in completely arbitrary ways. The school system exploits them to the maximum - 23 to 26 hours per week, one-hour classes and up to 55 students per class - and then pretends the foreign teachers produce instant English speakers.

Naturally, all depends on the quality of the students but the same system ensures that the quality is not there. But any failure is of course the fault of the foreigner, not the Thai system.

As I understand, there is a movement among premier Thai universities to improve quality standards in preparing their students. However, none of it is done among the Rajabhats and the Rajamangalas, as they are directly under the Education Ministry's claw-dragging "bureausaurs", who have been giving a "light touch" to education reform for the past 50 years - and will do so for the next 10.

Therefore, even the best students who pass the entrance tests suffer very serious gaps in knowledge and understanding.

The education "bureausaurs" should stop spending all their energy in pulling the wool over the eyes of the minister of the day - the present one included - and start to face their role and complicity in today's catastrophic school system.

Krabong Kuverakorn

BANGKOK

---------------------------------------------------

Corruption a key concern with nuclear power choice

Re: "Nuclear power interests prey on climate concerns", Letters, August 29.

This well thought out letter by Shailendra Yashwant articulates several good reasons why nuclear-power development in Thailand would be problematic.  However, she either didn't know or was too polite to mention another reason: endemic corruption in large contracts.

I challenge anyone familiar with Thailand to name one large public-works project in the past 20 years that has not been tainted with serious corruption allegations.

Let's face it, a mega-project like a nuclear plant is not conceivable without manifold corruption cropping up along the way; in the bidding process, in construction, in maintenance, uranium supply, in security, in operations, in dealing with spent fuel rods ... you name it.  Thailand's leaders should do the smart thing: look to renewable and clean energy sources. 

There are currently many examples worldwide that are working well - not all of which are high tech and/or expensive.  By the way, there seems to be no concerted campaign, which would compel people to conserve energy - but that's another story.

Ken Albertsen

CHIANG RAI

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time running out to find renewable energy source

Shailendra Yashwant is right in her comments on the dangers of using nuclear power to try to stop global warming, especially concerning the disposal of nuclear waste, an issue that no country seems to have satisfactorily resolved to date.

There is, however, another reason why nuclear power will not help us with global warming: the time required to build the plants! Depending on environmental-impact studies, cost-benefit analyses, financing deals and then the eventual construction period of the facility, you are looking at a timeframe of at least 10 to 12 years for completion. With current CO2 levels at 381 parts per million (ppm) and a predicted growth rate of approximately 1.5 per cent per year that means in 10 years time, we will have a CO2 level in the atmosphere of 442 ppm. Many scientists are saying that the point of no return will be reached at 450 ppm. This is when the positive feedback loops, including the 'albedo effect' take over and push climate change forward no matter what we do. That doesn't give us much time for the alternative renewable energy sources to be found and implemented.

George Hanna

BANGKOK

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mom-and-pop protesters may have been paid to act

I have lived in Thailand for 10 years, five in a small village some three hours from Bangkok.  The debate concerning the building of superstores in the provinces clearly has two sides to it.  But there is one aspect of all this I have not yet seen aired. Twice to my personal knowledge and three times according to locals, a small delegation from Bangkok has turned up in the village and other villages in the area.  Their job has been to persuade villagers to go to Bangkok and protest against plans to build a superstore in the area.  This is not a difficult task as the lure of a free bus trip, free food and Bt500 attracted even those who had no idea that a superstore had been planned and thought that one would probably be a good idea anyway. 

I am quite certain that the management at superstores know that this is happening, but it is a pity that a little more investigative journalism is not employed with regard to some of these demonstrations of so-called public concern to give some balance to the cries of anguish supposedly from owners of mom-and-pop shops. I have spoken to the owners of two mom-and-pop shops in the village and they are not in the least concerned by the thought of another superstore in the area.  They now buy a lot of their stock from the existing one, so there is now no middleman taking his cut, and their profit margin has risen accordingly. There will always be the need for good mom-and-pop stores. Frankly, if the less good ones go to the wall - so be it.  That's business, and I see no reason why the customer should subsidise mediocrity.

Jaytee

PRACHUAP KHIRI KHAN

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supposed 'windfall' proof that money politics lives

Re: "Bt40 billion windfall to boost growth", News, August 29.

Here we go again.  Isn't it sickening for all of us, despite the passage of a new constitution that is supposed to plug all the loopholes for past political misdeeds, to find ourselves back on familiar ground with money talking in politics? Your newspaper reported that this so-called Bt40 billion windfall to be spent during the December elections is going to stimulate the economy towards the end of the year. I find it repugnant that the use of political cash, of whatever amount, should once again become the barometer with which to gauge whether the country is doing well economically or not.

Even if the windfall is Bt100 billion, this is not going to help the economy in the long term. The fact that we need the injection of political cash clearly points out the failures of the current administration in tackling the economic woes of our nation.  The baht remains as strong as ever, and if the drastic fall of Thai exports in the month of July was any indication, the worst is sure to come in the near future.  Meanwhile, the sub-prime loan problems in the United States have aggravated this situation.  Stock-market "players" have begun to pack their bags and are going home, which has caused the Stock Exchange of Thailand index to fall, while real sector investors, both local and expatriate, are looking to relocate elsewhere.  The signs are ominous, indeed.

The linkage between money politics and the state of the economy may be inevitable or even unavoidable, but authorities must realise that this resuscitation is going to be temporary at best.  Those who are in command of Thai economic policy tell us all the time that there is nothing to worry about because our economic "fundamentals" are still strong.  But I rather doubt this assessment because it does not explain why we need the political cash in the first place. So money politics has never left us, despite claims to the contrary.  For this to remain a part of the Thai political scene only one conclusion can be drawn, and it is that our democracy is still in its infancy. 

Since money is going to be a part of Thai politics for the foreseeable future and if it should somehow contribute to the betterment of the Thai economy, I think it might be worth our while to hold elections every year so that all is smooth sailing on the economic side.

Prachyadavi Tavedikul

BANGKOK

Send us your views in an instant

E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to

the Editor' in the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com