Here is the Jakarta Post’s editorial of 27 December 2007 (thanks to the Canberra Times for bringing it to my attention). Some refreshing frankness about the state of play in Thailand.
De-Thaksinization failure
With full endorsement from Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the military ousted its then-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a bloodless coup in September 2006. On Sunday, just fifteen months later, a newly established party, the People Power Party (PPP), won 233 of the 480 parliamentary seats. The party used Thaksin’s return to Thailand from exile as its major political platform. The Democrat Party, the main opposition during Thaksin’s five years in power, could only win 165 seats, although it is reportedly endorsed by the military and royal family.
It is a severe slap in the face for the military that, despite all the corruption charges against the multi-billionaire businessman, his likely return to politics has seen voters’ trust in Thaksin remain high. The military said it will accept voters’ wishes. “We have nothing to worry about and will accept it,” Armed Forces Supreme Commander General Boonsrang Niumpradit said Tuesday. But learning from the behavior of the Thai coup leaders, including Gen. Sonthi Boonratglin, it is almost definite the military will take all necessary measures — including dirty maneuvers — to prevent PPP from forming a government.
To a very certain extent, the refusal of Myanmar’s junta to accept the win of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi in 1990 will be repeated by the Thai junta.
The pro-Thaksin’s party itself still needs the help small parties to form a majority in the government. Thaksin remains a strong magnet for the people, especially peasants in the countryside, because under Thaksin’s governance, economy was booming and rural economy grew rapidly. Systematic campaigns by the military backfired — including an accusation that Thaksin has no respect for the King and he used money to buy votes — because the military-appointed government failed to perform better than Thaksin’s. The military disbanded Thaksin’s party, Thai Rak Thai (Thais Love Thais), froze his assets worth 2 billion dollars, and barred more than 100 Thaksin’s loyalists becoming active in politics for five years.
The King himself is in a difficult position. He clearly endorsed last year’s coup, but as voters demonstrated their confidence to Thaksin, the highly respected King needs to use his wisdom to see the reality. Knowing his deep love for the people and the nation, there is no doubt he will act wisely in anticipating the results of this election.
Thaksin announced his plan to return to Thailand from his exile soon after knowing the election results. Although Thaksin promised he would do his utmost to act as an advisor to PPP, but his return to Thailand is seen by the military establishment as a confrontational approach against the military, and perhaps to certain extent, also to the royalist establishment.
In the last 75 years, Thailand experienced 18 coups. Thaksin’s return to Thailand, even when he is no longer active in politics, can add to the number of coups in that country. It is very unlikely the Thai military is ready to accept Thaksin’s return because it is a major blow for the generals who blamed Thaksin for the country’s rampant corruption. It is a severe blow because nearly 50 percent of voters put their trust in Thaksin more than the military.
Actually, the Thai media also shared the military’s shame, because much of the media, both electronic and print, initially supported the coup. Many of them then have to eat their own words because the behavior of junta anywhere in the world is always to restrict democracy and freedom.
Thaksin should be given a fair chance to defend himself in court against charges of corruption and abuses of power. But the former telecommunication tycoon also has serious implications. And because the new Thai constitution guarantees more power for the military, the generals can do many things to prevent Thaksin’s return at any cost. It is not impossible that Thaksin will bring chaos if he returns home. It is the ordinary people, the majority of the population, who will suffer the most. It is time for Thaksin to show his statesmanship to his nation by avoiding a head-on confrontation with the military.
But the military also should respect the public’s wish. When the Thai generals take harsh and undemocratic actions in their “war” against Thaksin, then they are as brutal as the neighboring Myanmar junta. Amid a strong wind of democratization across the globe, a militaristic approach by the Thai junta will see them become a laughing point.
35 responses so far ↓
1 nganadeeleg // Dec 29, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Here’s another one:
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Saturday/Columns/2119833/Article/index_html
(no doubt some New Mandala readers will take exception to this piece)
2 Ladyboy // Dec 29, 2007 at 9:54 pm
nganadeeleg “the king is their only hope for a merit-based nation —Liberalism through royalty,” Do you honestly think the king is going to change his spots now? Lese majeste, support for military coups, support for the Burma junta etc are not strong evidence of “liberalism” and a “merit-based nation.
3 screwtheuselesselection // Dec 29, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Are we allowed to make statements against the King, the army, the police, Thaksin, political parties, royalists and boutique leftists here? I’m sick to death of the lot of them!
4 Grasshopper // Dec 30, 2007 at 12:39 am
screwtheuselesselection, have you considered a job in the civil service?
ladyboy, maybe those examples are strong evidence of the King’s personal liberalism. Merit might just mean how close you are to the King.
If anyone were to live in a merit based nation, there would only be place for people who work quite hard. What if it is your personal, liberal autonomy to grow only into your comfortable chair? You might work quite hard at that. Merit-based nation and liberalism are totally contradictory. Lee Kuan Yew must have realised this and allowed for his liberal principles to direct Singapore into becoming a merit based nation. Which style do you prefer?
5 Sick // Dec 30, 2007 at 12:48 am
Would a PM who waltzed around buying votes still be called a “democratically elected” PM? Wouldn’t that NOT be called “democratically elected” but instead, just simply, BOUGHT?
6 screwtheuselesselection // Dec 30, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Are we allowed to make statements against Grasshopper here? Since his sojourn in Pattani he has become even more insufferable that Thaksin and The King put together!
7 Grasshopper // Dec 30, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Sick, how do you have a democracy when people don’t know what advertisements and bonuses they’re voting for? (see recent Workchoices advertisements of the Australian Liberal Party, or Kevin07!!) Information has to come from somewhere! Now ’somewhere’ just provides it with a financial significance. Yet democracy still continues!!! *eyes roll back into head*
8 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Dec 31, 2007 at 2:00 am
re: Grasshopper
In your reply to Ladyboy, I find it interesting that you seem to be using the term “meritocracy” in both its original pejorative sense and its current positive sense. In either sense, I find it a bit too sweeping to say that meritocracy is mutally exclusive to liberalism. I mean, what form of liberalism are you talking about? Economic “classical” liberalism or Social “progressive” liberalism. I would agree with you concerning the latter, but, as for the former, didn’t most of Ayn Rand’s wet dreams revolve around a laissez-faire capitalist meritocracy (nestled in between the beautiful Rocky Mountains, of course)?
9 Grasshopper // Dec 31, 2007 at 2:31 pm
screwtheuselesselection, Yes! Maybe I could get the King and Thaksin to resume a relationship in order to fight against a common enemy, myself! I picture a Transformers(TM) like battle.
LSS, In reference to my use of both meanings of meritocracy, I was referring to Mill’s requirements of a liberal for what merit should be if there was to be a compatible system, but in the pejorative sense, I was just conveying confusingly that liberal values are often not what those with power determine merit to be.
Furthermore, if one wants a society with a conception of merit that reflects whatever value of work that the society has been directed towards, then I argue classical liberalism (proper liberalism) is impossible because you are only free to do what the society cultures you to do or react against doing. However, it can be argued that society gives the individual options to be free and grow, even if the individual (in, for instance, a meritocracy) is not actually conscious of a freedom that they may be lacking.
But I would say that a meritocracy only allows for a narrow and limited freedom, extending only to the paradigms of those judging merit, which prunes ones growth — especially if the judgment of merit is limited to the views of only one person (and extending perhaps to a Privy Council). Therefore, a meritocracy is not capable of supporting liberalism because merit is only objective to those judging, but subjective to those being judged. Subjective because the judgment comes from another human and I would argue that it is still relative irrespective of persons believing that something greater than humankind has divinely directed the judgment.
I am being facetious about this suggestion of comparative ‘levels’ of liberalism that a lot of seemingly impatient pseudo Western people have because it is not like that those of us in the West are anymore free in merit based judgments, it is only that instead of the judgment being spawned from one person and then carried down through society, over the last hundred years we Westerners have seen public servicemen (and women!) determining what is acceptable and free. This view is dependent on a nation being run by people and not corporate monsters of course. So when I read “not developing liberalism like they should” (should being the Western values that this New Straits Times journalist espouses) arguments, I believe that this very notion stifles Thailand’s ability to expediently evolve it’s own democracy which is ironically what the article is trying to elucidate.
(All this isn’t really relevant in the Rocky Mountains where there is trade amongst communities of 50 enough for ample cider to have merit judged merrily, and friendly vibes as long as there is a new thatched roof from Jim the thatcher for winter and plenty of redwood on the fire from Ted the lumberjack to keep the gosh darn, paralysing and un-free, cold out.)
10 Ladyboy // Dec 31, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Grasshopper. My point was about the KING NOT promoting liberalism and a merit based society as per Ngan’s link.( Ngan was too overwhelmed by my argument to reply) I am not interested in your definitions of these which just gave you a chance to bignote yourself. Being a ladyboy I am quite aware of the meaning of a merit based society and the lack thereof.
11 Restorationist // Dec 31, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Thompson, the author of the article in the New Straits Times, is a long-time US “agent” in SE Asia; i.e. his role has long been to promote a particular and conservative US position in the region. To suggest that the king is likely to promote a merit-based system in Thailand is laughable. Even the king wouldn’t suggest he’s doing that! Goodness, this king has promoted a hierarchal system that has fashioned a royalist elite. But maybe the article suggests that the US, which did so much to promote the king in the Cold War days, is showing its cards in the event that the palace-led elite can, by hook or by crook, overturn the PPP’s election victory.
The new ambassador is arriving in interesting times.
12 nganadeeleg // Dec 31, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Ladyboy: I only posted the link as an example of a different view to the Jakarta Post editorial posted by Andrew – I didn’t realize you actually wanted a reply from me.
Do you honestly think the king is going to change his spots now?
I think the change in the monarchy is slow but ongoing , and like the NST writer I see more chance for positive change with the monarchy in place than under politicians like Thaksin.
I also think the change in the monarchy would have been much quicker if the electorate was more discerning.
13 Teth // Jan 1, 2008 at 1:56 am
I disagree. Because with politicians like Thaksin, there can be protests, criticism, and Constitutional scrutiny of him. Eroded, but still possible and vastly more democratic than any monarch. Now, if you were to base your judgment on your perceived character of these two individuals, then there is nothing I can argue, because neither of us knows them personally. But for me, the record speaks for itself–they are both oddly and intriguingly similar.
How about I think the change in the monarchy would have been much quicker if the monarch was more virtuous? That statement would be just as valid as yours, wouldn’t it?
It is unfair to blame the populace when there is one manipulative and misleading figure (with ample education) trying to control their minds rather than educating or promoting critical thinking.
14 Happy New Year! // Jan 1, 2008 at 3:52 am
Is blogging really a
A serious question for New Year. Does anyone here actually believe that the discussion of Thai politics is ever likely to be a productive activity? Look out the window this evening and you will see millions of people joyously engaged in the business of getting hammered. Their chances of achieving a more equitable system, even by their own standards, are basically about zero. Why bother to sweat what the majority of Thais (including HM & Thaksin) cannot be bothered to sweat for themselves? If some want meritocracy, they’re probably better off going to live somewhere else.
15 nganadeeleg // Jan 1, 2008 at 11:05 am
Teth: I respect your opinion, however I see it differently and think the control can only stop once the electorate show they have responsibility.
I realize that by exercising control, the father is stunting the development of the child, but to me that seems a better alternative than the outright destruction that would probably occur if he let the child ’sink or swim’.
As for your point about education and critical thinking, I think the father has tried, but he obviously needs to develop alternative teaching styles.
Happy New Year said: “If some want meritocracy, they’re probably better off going to live somewhere else”
Although there are places where meritocracy exists in some fields, I would be interested to know about any place that has it as a system of government.
BTW, I don’t hold out much hope regarding your first question, and I treat my participation here as just a hobby.
16 Srithanonchai // Jan 1, 2008 at 3:59 pm
“As for your point about education and critical thinking, I think the father has tried, but he obviously needs to develop alternative teaching styles.” >> I am not so sure whether he has tried, judging from the strong propaganda approach to teaching so far. Anyway, the “father-child” analogy does not fit well, because societies are complex systems with a great many actors and relationships, including power relationships and external links. Comparing this to a very small-scale family-like setting where a father teaches his children cannot but mislead.
17 Grasshopper // Jan 1, 2008 at 7:21 pm
ladyboy, I did understand your point, of course, why would a King with such power want ordinary people to be liberal? As for being a blowhard, I am trying to work out my own ideas too. That’s why I post under a moniker.
nganadeeleg, I realize that by exercising control, the father is stunting the development of the child, but to me that seems a better alternative than the outright destruction that would probably occur if he let the child ’sink or swim’.
But discipline doesn’t have to be through brow beating control. I would think stunting development is only a better alternative if I was fearful of sinking if more people thought for themselves. Adding to Srithanonchai’s point, does the King get a say over where international aid goes?
Also, in regards to meritocracy being a system of govt; isn’t Singapore like this with added nepotism?
Does anyone here actually believe that the discussion of Thai politics is ever likely to be a productive activity?
Of course — because maybe after discussions you walk away with a new, perhaps enlightened, perspective you can influence others with. Even if those numbers influenced are only 1 or 2, maybe they go on and influence another 1 or 2 people and so on. Eventually it’s all peachy. Happy new year to you!
18 nganadeeleg // Jan 1, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Brow beating might be the only style the father knows – at least he is consistent.
When I say exercise control, I don’t mean controlling everything – he generally lets the children have their way and only intervenes when needed to avoid destructive harm.
19 Teth // Jan 2, 2008 at 12:30 am
Ngan, if I may call you that, your analogy strikes me as being oversimplified and incorrect on a few different levels. First, HMK has no right and no qualification to be the father of the country, no matter how aloof or holy he may act. Bear in mind that he did not ascend the throne as a genius superdad, and if any comparison were to be made with fatherhood, HMK would certainly not be the world’s best or virtuous dad. After all, HMK is more concerned about his own interests than about teaching the child to swim. Of course, you view these ’swimming lessons’ as a sign of benevolence, but what do you base this opinion on? It is nice to come up with an analogy, but I would like to see some supporting evidence of this gentle, benevolent intervention. Oh wait, I think some parts of this intervention involves trying to drown the child. But that’s just me.
With regards to HMK having tried to educate us about critical thinking, I wonder, is he also a superteacher now? Yes, his birthday speeches may be useful occasionally, but how and what else has he taught the nation? Unity, military strength, etc. seems more to be his area of expertise.
And Happy New Year, nganadeeleg.
20 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jan 2, 2008 at 5:25 am
re: nganadeeleg>
How is this belief any different than the classical Marxist belief that under Communism, society would first have to be under the strict control of the Communist Party and then over time it would evolve to be a “stateless” state? Across the world we have seen how successful various countries have been in undergoing such “evolution”. What makes you think “constitutional monarchy with Thai characteristics” is going to be any more successful in this task? Indeed, could there be any objective way to measure electoral responsibility? Or must the citzenry wait for “gifts of liberty” to be handed out through solely through the grace of an “benevolent” monarch, à la the House of Wangchuck?
As for your point about education and critical thinking, I think the father has tried, but he obviously needs to develop alternative teaching styles
When I publish my paper on Thai sociopedagogy, I would be happy to send you a copy. A section is devoted to how the national curriculum is shaped by the Thai government’s goal of “citizenship building” and how certain teaching methodologies which emphasize critical thinking skills are discouraged, downplayed, or ignored by the MoE as they have the potential to upset the hegemonic control of the powers-that-be. However, nganadeeleg, as I’d be employing terms like paideia and praxis, I doubt you’d be interested in reading my work.
21 Andrew Walker // Jan 2, 2008 at 8:35 am
Lleij – if you would like to submit an extract of your work to New Mandala we would be interested. My advice would be to avoid terms like “paideia and praxi”. Why not just say what you mean in plain language?
22 nganadeeleg // Jan 2, 2008 at 9:37 am
Teth & LSS: You seem to think that I was implying one man is controlling everything – I don’t, and repeat what I said in post #18 above (because it has only just appeared on the site at the same time as your posts):
When I say exercise control, I don’t mean controlling everything – he generally lets the children have their way and only intervenes when needed to avoid destructive harm.
Therefore I see no need to address you point, LSS, about classical Marxist belief.
As to your point, Teth, about the right or qualification to be the father of the country, I think you first need to refer to the constitution(s). Secondly, I think it’s more that he gets called upon to do something to sort out the mess created by the children, than being a domineering father.
Thirdly, it’s not for you or me to decide who has that right or qualification, it’s how the Thai people collectively feel that will be the determining factor.
I do, however, have concerns about the way the politicians & the bureaucracy manipulate every utterance of HMK to suit their own ends.
Yes Teth, you may call me Ngan (or even Ngarn or Hobby) and Happy New Year to you too.
LSS: I would be interested in ready a plain language version of your paper, otherwise you guessed correctly.
Happy New Year to you too
23 nganadeeleg // Jan 2, 2008 at 9:41 am
typo above, it should say:
LSS: I would be interested in reading a plain language version of your paper, otherwise you guessed correctly.
24 James Haughton // Jan 2, 2008 at 10:04 am
Nganadeeleg wrote:
Although there are places where meritocracy exists in some fields, I would be interested to know about any place that has it as a system of government.
Well, the British House of Lords is now basically a meritocratic body (I believe a few hereditary peers are still there for sentimental reasons) which reviews legislation according to (hopefully) long-term, enlightenment values rather than short-term ones. Seems to have worked ok so far.
25 nganadeeleg // Jan 2, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Re: Meritocracy – Thanks for the examples, Grasshopper & James.
The examples are not exactly what I was seeking because both countries have elements of democracy, which I do not regard as meritocracy.
However, following up on Happy New Years post #14 above, it sounds like those who are sweating on getting meritocracy would probably be better off going to live in Singapore or England.
26 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jan 2, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Re: Andrew
Once I get my paper in a state where I feel comfortable having others read it, I’d be very happy to submit an extract to NM.
I find comparative pedagogy fascinating, and I hope others reading this blog do as well. In my experience as both a researcher of the Thai educational system and as a teacher at a Thai university, I found many positive aspects to Thai sociopedagogy. For example, I observed that the Thai students seem to have a good sense of “classroom ownership” and Thai educators seem to have a good understanding of the realtionship between affect in the classroom environment and the acquistion of knowledge. However, at the risk of editorializing, at the Ministry level, I also found some things that seemed right out of Disney’s Education for Death.
To answer your question, the terms paideia and praxis have specific meanings in the field of Education and are understood by researchers in that discipline and related ones. It would be hard to fully express the meaning (both semantically and pragmatically) of those two terms in English. To be honest, by bringing up those terms, I was just niggling nganadeeleg a bit, due to his professed disdain of Greco-Roman loan words.
I do admit that in my correspondance with Sidh and nganadeeleg, I have been a bit heavy with the Latin; however, as I explained before, it was to make a point….and to engage in a little niggling, of course
That having been said, as a linguist and language educator, I must admit to being leery of “plain language,” the language in this case being English. For example, I find that George Orwell’s famous essay, (which helped to launch the Plain English campaigns of the 20th century) “Politics and the English Language” to be fundamentally falwed in two ways. The first is that he argues that English is “declining,” from the standpoint of Linguistics, to say a language is improving or declining is utter nonsense. We call such viewpoints as “prescriptivist,” as opposed to the “descriptivist” position of Linguistics. Orwell’s second major flaw is that he argues that to employ unplain English is morally wrong. Again, I find it ludicrious to make a moral value judgement on someone’s choice of diction.
Ancedotally, I have found that those who support “plain language” movements tend to have been raised in a monolingual environment and belong to the majority ethnic group of their nation. Indeed, observe the irony of Thai language policy, where, for example, Issan schoolchildren are admonished not to use certain Tai-origin words (e.g. เมีย, หมา) in favor of “plain (i.e. standard/normative) Thai,” which more often than not have an Indic-origin (e.g. ภรรยา, สุนัข). What I am getting at is, who decides what is “plain”? After all, the terms paideia and praxis are quite plain to anyone who hails from the Hellanic Republic!
Having been raised bilingual myself, having a wife who was raised trilingual, and now raising a (hopefully) quadrilingual daughter, our household is a wondrous Babel of code-switching. If some of that spills over onto this forum, then just take it as the idiosyncrasies of someone who works with and loves languages. Perhaps, due to the cultural associations Latin has, some people took it as a gaudy display of erudition. I ask my fellow New Mandalaians, would you have come to the same conclusion if I code-switched in Yiddish?
27 Poiter // Jan 2, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Schwartzy, by plain language right, you better check out this mate: http://youtube.com/watch?v=L-W-vzELBt8. Remember right, this is Straya, S T R A Y A, Australia. Not like those bloody illuminati whatsits you have over there in the states.
Ganadeeeeeleg mate, what I reckon the problem is right, is that these bloody nitwits don’t know what your sayin’ cause your not sayin’ it all in one hit. You’re not bein plain with them mate. Like I get what your sayin’ mate of course, the King is sort of this fella who has all the power but he doesnt have all of it. Right? Yeah.
James, just leave the British out of it mate, they’re already in enough trouble in the Cricket as it is. You’ll hurt their feelin’s with accusing them Lords or whatever of bein’ a “meritoracassy” as well. I got my feelin’s hurt too once, wasn’t very special I can tell you. This lady right told me yellow flannel was right ugly. She wouldn’t go down to well in Thailand aye, no joke! Haha
Thanks lads,
Poiter.
28 Srithanonchai // Jan 2, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Critical and creative thinking in Thai education: Coincidentally, there was an article on the subject in the latest edition of learning post:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/010108_Learningpost/01Jan2008_lern30.php
LSS: Since I am very much interested in the Thai education system, I would also be interested in reading your paper, but don’t forget to explain important terms. May I ask what the empirical basis of your study is?
29 Srithanonchai // Jan 2, 2008 at 8:33 pm
In addition: There is a new PhD thesis on a number of aspects of the Thai education system: Michelle Tan. 2007. “The Politics of the Decentralisation of Basic Education in Thailand.” PhD thesis, University of Leeds, School of Politics and International Studies. “Decentralisation” here refers to the competing policies of the transfer of schools to local government authorities (Decentralization Act) and the deconcentration of the education bureaucracy, i.e. education service areas and school-based management (National Education Act).
30 Teth // Jan 3, 2008 at 1:10 am
Nganadeeleg, of course I don’t see HMK as the sole figure responsible for all atrocities committed in Thailand for the last 60 years that is simply ridiculous. Its the idea that whenever trouble arises, he is the only one capable or willing to fix them, as embodied in this quote: “When I say exercise control, I don’t mean controlling everything – he generally lets the children have their way and only intervenes when needed to avoid destructive harm.” It assumes benevolence and it assumes an ability to fix the problem. As many have pointed out, a father-child relationship is nothing like a country’s problems, and very certainly the King is no super-statesman. He is only a the crafty political figure pulling the strings of generals and his network monarchy; however, his longevity and influence makes him particularly vital as the keystone of the conservative/military/right wing forces. The vast contradiction and hypocrisy between his image and his actual reality is yet another thing that concentrates particular attention (and hate) towards him. You certainly would expect more from someone who claims to be a genius, a dhammaraja, a statesman, and perfectly virtuous than just petty excuses, would you?
What I mean when I talk about the right for him to rule, is merely an argument against monarchy in general. If his right to rule is based on birth alone, then he has no right to rule, for Constitutions do not make right, especially ones that are as shifty as the Thai constitution.
31 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jan 4, 2008 at 2:35 am
re: Srithanonchai
The data I am using for my study are surveys and interviews with Thai students of EFL, Foreign EFL teachers teaching in Thailand, and Thai teachers of EFL; classroom observations; and MoE policy documents.
Thanks for the link to Dr. Krishnan’s article. I am familar with some of his work. Concerning Thai sociopedagogy, I come to similar conclusions as he does; however I don’t particularly see Asian students’ reluctance to engage in Anglosphere-style classroom discussion and debate as “tiring, frustrating and scary.” Every culture has it’s own culturally appropriate student/teacher expectations and student/teacher interactional style. “Problems” only occur in a cross-cultural setting, such as going to study abroad.
Indeed, so far I have interpreted the data as showing that Thai sociopedagogy can provide students with authentic opportunities to engage in critical thinking; however, the machinations of the Thai bureaucracy, through shaping the national curriculum in its attempts at moral education and citzenship building, tend to be an extrinstic factor that shapes the classroom environment to one that avoids this opportunities. However, it must be noted that there are other factors in play as well! For example, classical Theravadian views of epistemology and pedagogy.
That having been said, in my paper, I only discuss the national curriculum breifly as part of the background to my model of Thai sociopedagogy. My research was more focused on how affect in the classroom is effected by “sociopedagogic mismatch/conflict” between teacher expectation and student expectation, when the teacher and students are of different cultural backgrounds.
32 Srithanonchai // Jan 4, 2008 at 6:49 pm
LSS: Thanks for the additional information; I look forward to reading your paper.
“Every culture has it’s own culturally appropriate student/teacher expectations and student/teacher interactional style. ‘Problems’ only occur in a cross-cultural setting, such as going to study abroad.” >> I am not sure about this point. Merle Wallace, in 2003, saw the Thai teachers’ “cultural dilemma” as having to be both “moral parents and critical thinkers” in dealing with their students. It seems to me that it is not only the ministry that wants to see moral education. Parents also put pressure on the schools hoping that teachers would compensate their own educational deficiencies as well as the increasingly uncontrolled peer-group pressure.
Moreover, both mass schooling and universities in fact are genuinly cross-cultural settings, if we look at their origins. The sociological institutionalists around Meyer et al have looked into the effects this might have on “national” educational cultures. But whether there really is (developing) a “world culture of schooling”, and what it actually entails, remains a controversial issue (see Anderson-Levitt 2003, and the chapter on Thailand therein by Junck/Boonreang).
So, in the Thai context, there is the potential for critical thinking. Can we also hope for cognitive dynamics concerning curiositas? After all, little seem to have changed since Mulder wrote, “[Academics] are curiously incurious, uninquiring, do little if any research, and tend to shy away from discussion.” He related this to the “traditional idea of knowledge [.] exemplified by the three-tiered nagtham courses that constitute the curriculum for formal Buddhist learning.” Is this the same what you mean by “classical Theravadian views of epistemology and pedagogy”?
33 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jan 8, 2008 at 6:22 am
re: Srithanonchai
I see where you and Wallace are coming from, concerning “cultural dilemma”. However, I believe this dilemma is not a uniquely Thai phenomenon. Let’s take a step back and see the origin of this dilemma. Thai education is no longer a group of young (male) noviences, sitting on the floor listening to an elder monk. Like other parts of the world, Thailand has adopted Anglosphere teaching philosophies and practices, and like other countries, Thailand has attempted to intergrate them into their native sociopedagogies. If you look at the history, you can see this “cultural dilemma” is, in Thailand’s case, the result of two radically Western philosophies being implemented at the same time: namely educational essentialism and the “critical thinking movement,” which ultimately stems from Dewey, but also is heavily influenced by Montesssori, Friere, and Postman.
The cause of this educational mish-mash, is that the philosophies were allowed to lay upon one another like geological strata. The first substratum would be indigenous Thai sociopedagogy, the second substratum would be the educational essentialism that was the “current” Western model when Thailand began its first educational reforms. The topsoil is now “critical thinking,” which is currently in vogue in the West.
I argue that this “dilemma” is less potent in the West, as educators are closer (by geographic proxmity) to the forces that shape currently educational philosophy. Not that these dilemma don’t exist (c.f. Hirsch, Adler, and the No Child Left Behind Act), but most educators are willing to sweep away the old to make room for the new. That is Pedagogy as “Science,” and thus, theory drives praxis and methodology is seen as experimentation.
I think so, considering that I believe the Thai sense of classroom ownership is similar to that of Japanese sociopedagogy (Hood, 2001; Schwartz, 2002; Schwartz, 2004). If the Thais are able to find a methodology that melds the student-centered, collectivist classroom magagment that Thais seem to feel comfortable under with authentic Constructivist curricula and instruction, as the Japanese seem to have done, then I think the dynamic might be set in place. All I can say is that, as a coach for a Thai university’s debate team, I observed Thai students derive great สนุก from researching topics of invention as a team task.
Yes, that and sutras like the Iddhipada-vibhanga which can be interpreted as advocating critical thinking or vimamsa (Brown, 2004).
That having been said, I don’t think moral education and critical thinking need to be mutally exclusive, especially in a Buddhist context! Teachers can help students develop morals and ethics through critically examining moral dilemmas. And of course, this is what the MoE claims to do on paper. The reality is much different, thanks to economic stratification and institutional discrimination (do you know any child in Thailand who goes to a government primary or secondary school and is lower middle class or above?)
34 Srithanonchai // Jan 8, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Lleij: I mentioned Wallace as an incentive, not because we share the same perspective or approach. From what you say, I expect that part of your writing concerns a Thai-case concretization of what has been called glocalization (not a nice word) or the global-local interface in other theoretical contexts (Meyer and Kinvall were other incentives).
From a comparative perspective, the situation of education is not principally different from other societal areas, such as politics, science, law, the economy, medicine, and perhaps even intimate relationships. In all of these areas, “Thai” models of behavior have a hard time dealing with “western” models (or what Luhmann calls symbolically generalized media of communication), not to speak of the second tier of western imports consisting of the different programs (theories) westerners have come up with in these areas and within these models over the past decades, leading to what you have referred to as “geological strata.” BTW, we haven’t talked about “analytical thinking” so far.
“do you know any child in Thailand who goes to a government primary or secondary school and is lower middle class or above? >> Probably, this is more common in the provinces and even more so at the district level than it is in Bangkok, simply because there might not be that many opportunities up-country.
35 Mikhun // Jan 10, 2008 at 2:39 am
Andrew & Nick (re. Srithanonchai & LSS):
This is developing into a REALLY interesting & valuable discussion. Perhaps it should be given a new thread…?
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.