• 
• 

Published on October 18, 2007

In the southern parts of Buri Ram and Surin provinces there are some 200,000 people whose first language is not Thai but a local version of Cambodian. My wife went to the local school at a time when all teaching was done in the local language. When she left primary school, she could not speak Thai and only read and write it with difficulty. Even if she wanted to, she would have had no pleasure from trying to read one of the few Thai books available for students. She only learned Thai when she had to come and work near Bangkok in her teens.

Fortunately the government eventually came to its senses and all teaching and class work is now in Thai. As a result children and their parents are now all bilingual. Only some grandparents have a problem communicating in Thai.

Could somebody explain why there is a problem in the southern provinces for children to be bilingual in the same way?

Roger Aslin

Surin

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

In despair at local attitudes to learning

I was, until recently, teaching at a Mathayom School two hours northeast of Bangkok, in a small city. I had the misfortune to be "too honest" and this resulted in the termination of my position. This made me think about the futility of actually trying to educate many students. It seems that you must follow Thai teachers' methods, to always pass students, permit them to copy from each other, and re-test until students finally get a correct answer.

Students sometimes complain to their parents (who might have made large financial contributions to the school). These parents also demand re-tests until their offspring get higher scores than they deserve. The practice of Thai teachers who will unashamedly write up higher scores just to keep the parents happy makes you wonder if Thailand will ever get past all the corruption that goes on here - obviously ingrained during formative years. I might return to Japan, where I found that students actually tried to learn, and cheating was abhorrent - to the point where students would report a cheating classmate to the staff.

Disheartened Teacher

Bangkok

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

Address economics first; democracy will follow

UN special envoy Ibrahim Gambari was recently presented with a proposal to use the 'North Korean model' for Burma. In this, six nations may be involved in talks: India, China, the United States, and three from Asean.

The Burmese government would probably not find this proposal acceptable unless it has a say in which nations can participate - for the proposal does not address the issue of sovereignty, which is at the heart of any arbitration scheme formulated by outsiders. In the North Korean case, we are dealing with nuclear weapons, which is everyone's business.

Including the US in this is also not very practical. The US is, and has been, an openly hostile party in this affair. It will surely bring a pre-conceived and adversarial "solution" to the table, which would hinder more than help the process.

India and China, on the other hand, have very long borders, as well as lucrative trade relations with Burma. What happens in the country will affect them, not to mention Burma's role as a buffer state between two potentially antagonist giants on the Asian mainland. Asean is "family" and should be involved, provided those nations selected are perceived as truly independent and not mouthpieces of the US.

But in the end, even this scheme misses the point. Because the issue in Burma is, despite the rhetoric, mainly economic and not ideological, it should be resolved economically; the political concerns will eventually fall into place. Address the "bread and butter" issues now and stop beating the "dead horse" of democracy.

Most important, an economic approach will provide an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary solution, which will best serve the interests of all the people of Burma. It might not make foreign crusader-activists happy, or others with a "must win" attitude, but it's not their country or their lives on the line.

Michael Aung-Thwin

Hawaii

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

Region falls short on all kinds of freedoms

Re: "What practical alternative for Burma?", Letters, October 17.

William wrote with some good questions about Burma, though some of them were rhetorical. Like all of us who are aware of the troubles there, he's frustrated by the suppression of the Burmese people, which has been further flamed by the recent barbarism of the junta against peaceful protesters. William asks "What kind of democratic government do those calling for an end to the current military dictatorship propose for this country?" - and goes on to denigrate other democracies. He's aware that true democracy is not pretty, nor corruption-free, but he should also know that, even with its flaws, it's the best form of government available. Which other form of government allows town-hall type debates that are open to anyone to speak their mind on any topic - without any fear of repercussions? Granted, that's a standard of true democracy that many countries that call themselves democratic - haven't yet achieved.

On the other end of the spectrum, not only is Burma the polar opposite of democracy at this time, but its biggest outside influence, China, is only marginally better.

Thailand purports to be moving toward a democracy, but even with its new Constitution, it's falling short of some basic democratic principles. Some examples: Not all Thai citizens are eligible to run for office, and even the few that are (by having the proper paper certificate from a university), have to be designated by their party beforehand. Thai politicians have to be careful about what they say about an opponent because rich people in Thailand are very quick to file "defamation of character" lawsuits. Roughly half the legislators will be appointed rather than popularly voted in.

Any future PM will have to stay very chummy with the military top brass because he'll know how quick and easy it has been for generals to take over the reins of government when they're so inclined.

Ken Albertsen

Chiang Rai

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

Election Commission unprepared for job ahead

Re: "Ending the vicious circle", Editorial, October 17.

Despite the Surayud Cabinet's resolution to hold a general election on December 23, there are still reasons to doubt its ability to ensure a free and fair poll. The main bone of contention here is whether the Election Commission - an organisation tasked with overseeing the nationwide election - will be able to perform its job effectively and deliver fair and acceptable results.

First, the EC itself comprises a group of pompous and overbearing bureaucrats. They are unprepared and unorganised for their Herculean task ahead. One Commission member went out of her way to accuse the People's Network for Election - an organisation of volunteers specialising in monitoring elections - wrongly, of fraud, and refuses to apologise. The commissioners themselves rarely visit remote provinces where electoral fraud is rampant. They are living in an ivory tower.

Second, having kept away organisations that could help it deliver fair and clean results - such as the PNET and the European Union - the EC has in turn relied on the Surayud government and its powerful arm, the Interior Ministry, to help in this task. This signals the EC's tendency to become less neutral and more political.

Since vote-buying has become more and more sophisticated, and it is expected that up to B30 billion will be spent in the December election, the EC's conduct and its preparation for its task ahead leaves much to be desired.

Vote-buying in this day and age can be contained only with a well-organised and varied workforce - with preventative measures such as money-movement monitoring and exposure of suspected wrongdoings included in the task. A cop-and-robber method will only ensure failure.

Chavalit Van

Chiang Mai