• 
• 

Published on October 11, 2007

Of all people, a prime minister must be above suspicion if he is to be a role model for the rest of us. A rigorous, transparent investigation into Surayud's alleged holdings - with his full cooperation - would set a new standard for Thai politics, one that would compare very favourably with that of Thaksin, who managed to own a golf course built on temple land, let his wife buy auctioned-off state property while he was in office and allegedly evaded income tax. After all, as PM Surayud repeatedly declared, to rounds of applause: "We have the rule of law. There are no double standards." 

Yes, finding an interim PM will be harder than finding a virgin on Patpong - yet the problems will be those we made when we set up double standards for ourselves to begin with. PM Surayud should raise levels of accountability and transparency in government for decades to come by cooperating fully with the NLA and resigning if there is any shadow of doubt as to his innocence in the matter. His example might even inspire the generals responsible for the excessive force at Krue Se and manslaughter at Tak Bai to follow suit - now, that'd really astound us!

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

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

Does a strong military really protect us?

Re: "Onus on Burma's neighbours to bring about positive change", Letters, October 10.

Chavalit Van writes an interesting letter concerning his perception of the need for a military in general and in Burma in the specific; and goes on further to make an interesting, though fatally flawed, point about the necessity of a strong military to preserve sovereignty. 

Whilst the need for a strong military to preserve one's sovereignty was certainly the case in the past, when there was little in the way of international natural justice upheld by some form of direct or indirect authority, and where brute force won through, it was every land for itself; and indeed the Western colonial powers used their advantages to devastating effect. However, we now live in a substantially different and more complex world.

It is nonsense to suggest that in this region the military must be bolstered to deter the likes of George Bush rampaging into a nation. America could simply park the likes of the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier, with its awesome firepower, off the coast of any country in this region and lay waste to it tomorrow if it wanted to. But it can't.

If you mix a powerful military with a weak and emerging democracy, then this is a recipe for disaster, and this geographic area is littered with examples of this; Burma being the most recent and appalling case.

Ask the simple question: How many times has the military defended the sovereignty of Thailand against external aggressors since 1932? And then ask how many coups have there been. The strong military here has done nothing to deter invasion by external aggressors but simply to deter various aggressors internally. In short, it has used its powers to repress the country in some way or another.

Chavalit Van has thus fallen into the jingoistic trap of erroneously believing in the corollary that a strong military will protect a country from aggressors. To preserve the military in Burma would simply store up the problem for the next brutal thug to "rescue" the country from its enemies.

The military in Thailand has been enjoying lavish increases in expenditure under the present government. Was there a defence review to ascertain the force profile necessary to effectively protect Thailand from its potential enemies? And just what enemies does Thailand have? Or is it just a male boasting thing?

Dr John Patterson

Bangkok

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

Military force needed to bring change to Burma

The recent mass murders in Burma took place because the United Nations Security Council rejected repeated requests for an investigation into the May 30 massacre. It is unrealistic to expect Than Shwe, the architect of both of these massacres, to engage in "good faith" negotiations to restore freedom and democracy in Burma.

It took a phone call from First Lady Laura Bush to UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon which forced UN Envoy Gambari to quit making foolish statements like the military junta is "turning a new page" and finally tell the truth about the situation in Burma.

Gambari has a history of acting as an apologist for a nasty military regime. The UN has accomplished nothing in Burma for the past twenty years. The UN is part of the problem and cannot act as part of the solution due to the Chinese veto.

This is why several political leaders in Washington DC are now lobbying for targeted military action in Burma.

Targeted military action in Burma will require the deployment of an airborne division to secure the American Embassy in Rangoon.

General Maung Aye has a choice. He can get rid of Than Shwe or we will get rid of Than Shwe.

Myint Thein

Bangkok

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

English language usage a springboard to learning

I believe in Thailand the opportunity for students to use English outside their classrooms is of great importance. If I set communicative competence as the parameter of saying what being good at English is about, students are going to need such a great amount of exposure (and the kind of mind needed in learning from that exposure) to English. This need of exposure leads to another appalling fact of the difference between ESL (English as a second language) and EFL (English as a foreign Language - Thailand, for example) countries. In ESL context, students learn English in class and really get to use it on the outside of the class. They are exposed to it in all their waking minutes. So, here, teaching materials, and methods, matter significantly in themselves. They can be mainly focused on getting the content of the materials learned. Students will automatically use what they learn in class when they are outside, which is the crucial element of putting linguistic knowledge to use. This extra use is what sets proficient speakers apart from those who are not in that the former has an ample opportunity of language observation and testing.

In the EFL context, on the other hand, students have a slim chance of using English on the outside of the class. EFL students' use of English is limited to in-class time. With a 50-minute class of 40 students, as is the case with one Thai high school (Trium-Udom school), the best scenario is students have one minute talking time each (while in fact many may not speak at all). Five of such classes in a week are equivalent to five minutes of talking time. Unless EFL students put some extra effort in using English on the outside of the classes, they will learn very little of English. To be level with ESL students' one month of exposure to English which is equal to 240 hours, supposing they are exposed to it for eight hours per day, EFL students who depend solely on in-class English, using the five-hour-per-week example above, will need to take 48 weeks. That is nearly a year. This is not to mention how so many intervals of starts and stops in the exposure in such an expanse of time can make people forget what they have learned in the past weeks.

So the aims of English classes in such an EFL context as Thailand, apart from focusing on in-class learning, should also be to springboard students into the world of rich language input by arousing their interest. This approach, if appropriately employed, might set the wheel of learning spinning. It starts with the interest in a topic, followed by the search of knowledge in the target language which betters the learner's understanding. More understanding of the language translates into clearer understanding of the topic of interest, which arouses more desire to know. And more interested the learner becomes. He or she then searches further knowledge which furthers the understanding of the language. And the momentum keeps increasing every time the cycle completes itself.

This shall allow students an ample opportunity to be exposed to English. Unfortunately, the ESL-EFL difference is pretty much taken for granted. In Thailand, we adapt many things having originated from ESL contexts, materials or methods, but we adopt the hidden underlying assumption of ESL - that what's taught in class will be put to use on the outside of it.

Pat

Nonthaburi