The dismal state of Thai education – one Acharn’s point of view.

To those unfamiliar with the Thai education system especially at the university level, the term “Acharn” is the equivalent to “sensei” in Japanese – i.e., a teacher or professor. The difference is that here in Thailand the term carries an honorific connotation especially if one is associated with the more prestigious state universities.

What qualifies me to criticize the state of Thai education? Do I have motives other than to shed light on the problem, or do I have any ulterior motives, perhaps an axe to grind to avenge some injustice that may have been visited on me as a foreign lecturer?

I have been involved in the Thai University education system in one form or another as a ……. for nearly 9 years, in both undergraduate and graduate level in two of the top most state universities of the country. Moreover, I had also been involved in academic administration at the professional training level in an institute that is closely associated with universities locally and abroad.

I can assure you that the purpose for writing this piece is primarily to document and lay bare my thoughts that have grown from my frustration both as a father seeing my Thai daughters’ innate curiosity and sense of wonder progressively and irreversibly ebbing over the years and as a foreign Acharn struggling to earn his keep and finding the purpose of life within the Thai educational system. It is hoped that these thoughts can make a tiny contribution to the debate on how to improve the dire state of Thai education.

Many foreigners who have taught in Thailand have witnessed the weak educational backgrounds of students, their poor English skills and more importantly, their inability to think and think critically. In my view, the inability to think critically and engage in discussion is attributed wrongly to poor English skills. A deficiency in English language skills is used as a convenient excuse for not being able to understand the subject matter at hand. I wish to argue however that the inability to grasp a concept is not dependent solely on language skills if the curious and adept mind had been trained to think in its native language. Absent that, no amount of catching up in Western languages (through expensive tutoring) will have an impact in facilitating the raising of intellectual standards.

I am not a linguist, but I have been assured that trying to understand Buddhist Dhamma as it is written in Thai would require no less a concentrated effort to comprehend at an intellectual level (much easier I suppose than actually practicing its tenets in life) as would trying to make sense of a philosophical treatise by a Western philosopher. From experience, the problem of Thai students going one evolutionary step above the basic literacy tenets of “read and write” to “grow, to develop some intellectual sinew” (Templeton, 2007:283) stems much deeper than having an acceptable or high level of English skills. Even if Thai students chose to use Thai these same students cannot demonstrate that they can clearly formulate their thoughts, much less write intelligibly. This is not a jaundiced observation of a foreigner who may have felt wronged or imagined receiving shabby treatment by Thai superiors (another story) but was in fact told so by an esteemed Thai colleague in a prestigious university. Writing and thinking can be honed independent of the language chosen to express thoughts in the mind.

Another unforgettable experience I’ve encountered in a reputable graduate program was to discover that most Thai graduate students would take an hour to read a single page from an assigned article in an English journal, taking a protracted amount of time referring back and forth to a dictionary as if word for word translation could facilitate comprehension of concepts that they were ill prepared to grasp (even at the basic minimum level) in the first place. The argument that the weakness in thinking skills among Thai students is somehow related to poor English language skills further loses its cogency when I ask students from other nationalities in class. For example, whenever I ask Vietnamese students whose English skills are as rudimentary as their Thai counterparts, they are able to formulate an intelligible answer either with the assistance of their compatriots who fill in the missing English words that they are at a loss or through their persistent attempts to find the English translation of their thoughts created in their native language from the dictionary. It is clear from the “keywords” in the ensuing translation that their thinking went through a “processing phase” rather than merely information recognition that would have at best regurgitated the information back to the lecturer. The latter would have been identifiable with my Thai graduate students who were likely to have perfect recall of the passage (even its text location) but could not explain what it meant. Thai students were more often than not at a loss to interpret the meaning, the interrelationship(s) of the idea(s) with prior concept(s), and/or its significance for the subject matter at hand. In plain terms, Thai students seem to be unable to make the rich mental connections that would “connect the dots” into some recognizable pattern. Of course this does not prove that Vietnamese students are brighter than Thai students. We would have to control the selection (& admissions) process for that in order to say something more definitive than this reporting. And we would also have to consider the rare exception among Thai graduate students who show motivation and originality, which does indeed occur though rarely.

It is even more frustrating when I teach undergraduate students who are less mature than those in graduate school. Few show interest while others sit impassively or doze off in class where the lessons require conceptual understanding, analytical thinking and synthesis. It is therefore the kind of class that is the complete opposite of what they have been traditionally exposed to, namely rote learning* that produces a state of mind that is more accustomed to superficiality (mai tong kit lerk, mai tong lai la eyat) that is then expressed in a demeanor that is the closest incarnation of Kundera’s “unbearable lightness of being”. I honestly suspect that this quintessential Thainess remains as one of the most incomprehensibly disarming traits that intrigue the jaded and cynical farangs who first arrive on this land of smiles. I require the students to bring a dictionary so that we can consult it together for new words that come up during discussion. When a new English word comes up however, most take a lackadaisical approach to opening the dictionary evoking what appears as total disinterestedness in the task at hand. During discussions, students are visibly distracted by a lethargy that in this type of university would be inconceivable to attribute to malnutrition. On the contrary, I am convinced more than ever that it is strong evidence of malnutrition of the mind.

*Can one ask a critical question in a Law School exam?
That the practice of asking critical questions (in relation to critical thinking) is supremely alien to the experience of Thai students is aptly demonstrated in this vignette. Some law students from Thammasat University complained to the daily newspaper Thai Post that a question that appeared in their final exam on March 11, 2007 made them feel uncomfortable. The seemingly innocuous question that was considered discomfiting asked: "If you are a judge and you were invited by coup makers to work for them for a salary more than you receive now, will you accept the work or not and why?" No doubt the context of such a question was suggestively subversive to those loyal to the military government that deposed the Thai Rak Thai party (TRT) of Mr. Taksin because the question was asked by Pongthep Thepkanjana, a special lecturer in the Law Dept of Thammasat University who no less was also the Deputy TRT Party leader. Were it not for the full backing of the chairman of the Thammasat University Lecturer Council, Kittisak Prokkati on grounds of academic freedom the case would have pushed Thailand to one of its laughable heights of political folly. (Nation, 2007a)

One would surely be guilty of making the foolish conclusion that there is something “inherently” wrong with Thais - that they are unable to carry an intelligent conversation or think in a critical manner. This is pure rubbish. This is clearly disproven by Thai students who are educated abroad as could be typical in the old or new elite families. Indeed, they not only speak English fluently but are equally as able as their western counterparts to hold their own in intellectual discussion, banter and debate. But these are few and far between. It is a rare Thai, student or otherwise who can rise above inane pop culture, their narrow inwardly focused “Thainess”, keep up to date with developments in neighboring countries, and particularly with gray area issues that cannot be approached with absolutist style of thinking (e.g., secret CIA prisons in Thailand, global terror, global warming, peak oil, Iran’s nuclear program, etc.). In short, finding a Thai student with a “going global” mindset is difficult indeed. Again, I wish to make myself crystal clear that this is by no means a derogatory remark on Thais nor is this to suggest inherent inferiority. Similar if not worse cases of ignorance and in the extreme, xenophobia, can be found in other countries, such as America where the minds of many students and the “average” person have been addled and brainwashed by simplistic truisms published by the popular press.

Since the vagaries of keeping body and soul together have led me to a job saddled with the formidable task of forming the minds of future leaders in Thai society the challenge is therefore how to educate Thai students to the level of excellence required for survivability in this intensely competitive global world of the future that is here upon us now. An even greater and seemingly impossible goal is how to stimulate in these young minds a love, passion and an excitement for knowledge; knowledge for knowledge’s sake. The smug belief in Thai exceptionalism and “self-sufficiency” is no longer tenable. Many Thais (rural and urban alike) have already tasted the Promethean fire of capitalist development. It seems increasingly unlikely that a country that has had a long streak of good luck over the last half a century in terms of material development may continue to be providentially endowed with good fortune by beneficent “spirits”. As recent events have shown the underpinning political and social values are far from fully formed or adequate to carry Thailand forward towards a society of self-regulating and self-acting individuals living in a true democracy. The foundations of “democratic literacy” can only be built on solid ground by an enlightened education system that will produce independent thinking and politically mature Thai citizens. As Suthichai Yoon argued (2001), “a civil society can only come about if we get our education policy right.” The way forward can be found through citizenry engaging in debate and discussion without recourse to mindless exhortation to “unity” from above, mob rule or senseless violence as a way out when words and thinking fail to illuminate the path.

Education reform is perhaps one issue that Thai parents agree on and are concerned with. Thai families with the wherewithal have deliberately chosen not to send their kids to the moribund Thai education system. Instead they opt to make invaluable contributions to the educational coffers to the growing number of expensive local private schools and those in Australia, New Zealand and the UK.

We also hear clear expression of concerns from Thai leaders and bureaucrats. For example, on the occasion of the 22nd anniversary celebration of the Ministry for University Affairs’ foundation, Mr. Anand Panyarachun, a former Prime Minister, addressed a large gathering of academics on the question of quality of higher education. Some of the key points raised (Komolmas, 1999):
• low academic standards. lower than those of Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan
• graduates have poor command of the English language
• lack of right understanding of basic concept of democracy among the faculty, staff and students
• faculty members being narrow-minded cannot cooperate together
• though the university is a community of scholars but the faculty have slavish mentality

Nine years later, in March 2008, among the items in the “worrying report” by Ampon Kittiampon, permanent secretary of the National Economic and Social Development Board on the state of Thai society during the fourth quarter of 2007 (October to December) is the quality of education* that continues to fall in the key areas of reading, mathematics and science (Daily Xpress, 2008).

*Low quality education = Low quality politicians
Suthichai Yoon (2001) wrote in an editorial piece the following:

"In 2001, in the heady days of the first term of Prime Minister Taksin, there was much hope in the earnest new education minister, Kasem Wattanachai who declared on his first day of work that that the quota of "privileged" students being allowed to enter primary and secondary schools must be curbed.

We now are saddled with an education system that ignores the vital values of transparency and honesty - that teaches students that creative thinking and imaginative exchanges of ideas are equivalent to risk-taking which should be avoided at all costs. Is there any doubt, then, that the quality of our national politics remains so deplorable? Did it surprise anybody when Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra complained the other day that he had difficulty locating good, qualified candidates for the Cabinet "because we don't have enough of a supply of good and wise people to pick from"? "


In a seminar on education reform sponsored by the Ministry of Education in Pattaya in 2006, caretaker Education Minister Chaturon Chaisang addressing teachers and students from 2,000 schools criticized rote learning and defended the use of open-ended questions (Nation, 2006a). Teachers were told that they should let students explain their selection of reading material and report what it is about, so as to improve their skill in catching the gist of the contents. Reading comprehension was said to be lacking among university students due to limited practice at lower educational levels (Nation, 2006a).

From whence does this state of affairs come from? There are deep historical reasons for the dire state of Thai education that have congealed and solidified into intractable institutional structures that would require strong political will to overturn. Let us not forget that Thailand did not experience the psychic dislocations and humiliations of having been colonized by Western powers. By maintaining its independence the elites and rulers were able to fashion the historical trajectory and development policies of their country with much greater independence than nationalist leaders of newly independent states who carried a heavy psychological, political, institutional and economic baggage from the colonial into the post colonial era. Not having to go through a nationalist anti-colonial movement, there is no equivalent of the momentous breaking-of- chains revolutionary event in Thai mentality. It should come as no earthshaking surprise that one of the accumulated tendencies arising from the continuity in Thailand’s fortuitous history resulted in conservative education policies that sought to reinforce the triumvirate symbols of Thainess – Nation, Religion and King. This meant the continuing stifling influence of the sakdina (feudal hierarchical social structure) mentality combined with the heavily centralized system of government that ensued from the reforms brought about by Chulalongkorn as the last bulwark against invasion by the British and French colonial powers when he run out of buffer concessions. To this day and perhaps for the generations of Thais that lived through the 20th century, mental capacities as well as initiative in terms of independent thinking, reasoning and volition were stunted. Thais were ruled by a succession of paternalistic rulers with varying degrees of enlightenment and ignorance (monarchs, military dictators) who issued edicts, orders and proclamations. In essence, the elites thought for the people. It was not in the rulers’ interest that their subjects had the capacity to think independently for themselves but to accept the natural order of things as foreordained by (wrongful) dhammic interpretations of merit and karma from previous lives. Anything foreign and alien to elite definition of “Thainess” was shunned and considered irrelevant, even dangerous. Subjects listen, obey and willingly accept their fate. The freedom of slaves in the last part of the 19th century was bestowed through an edict rather than fought for in an heroic act of rebellion.

The vestiges of the long tradition of absolute monarchy refused to vanish completely even after it was ended by an elite led rebellion (rather than a popular one). Authority that emanated from righteous rule morphed into an unprecedented form of control by military dictators using the repressive methods of authoritarian militarism. Field Marshal Plaek Phibun Songkram pretentions included large doses of absolutism behind his modernizing façade (remember his cultural edicts?). When the Prapass/Thanom dictatorship took power and restored the monarchy to support their legitimacy, the young monarch was quick to use the opportunity to restore traditional rituals and ceremonies of old to reestablish the preeminent ideological position of the monarchy in people’s mind. This benign, enlightened but paternalistic monarch cultivated its symbolic image to the hilt by righteous rule and adept use of the media that disseminated widely the propaganda that tireless benevolent rule helped improve the lives of the poor in rural areas. The monarch’s moral stature grew rapidly that he is often called upon to intervene at major historical junctures to restore stability whenever the country is pushed to the brink of chaos and bloodshed. He has earned the moral power and authority to bring together the most warring and blood thirsty leaders to compromise for the good of the country.

The seeds of a fledgling democracy fell however on feudal and authoritarian tainted grounds. The response to the refreshing beginning of freedom in the early 70s was unprecedented violence after the liberating manifestation of cathartic release of people’s pent up grievances proved to be a serious threat not only the status quo but also the imperial power of the US that had encroached into Thailand as part of its foolish and costly belief in the domino theory of communism in Southeast Asia.

With this cursory background, it’s no wonder then that it was not in the general interest of the elites to change the education system in Thailand. It benefitted them to have a politically juvenile population of workers and citizens who would not question the status quo nor demand more than their meager share of the profits of a rising industrial economy. Is it any wonder that in the present time the budgetary structure of the Ministry of Education has a highly lopsided almost 80 percent set aside for administrative costs - 15-17 percent goes to teachers' salaries and the rest to construction and the purchase of hardware. Only 3.5 per cent is devoted to actual educational development (Suthichai Yoon, 2006). Is it any wonder why with great frustration I witnessed my two daughters’ natural curiosity and sense of wonder in nursery school grew progressively dimmed as they progressed through elementary and high school (enrolled in one of the best private religious schools in Bangkok)? When their grades were not improving in math and science I inquired if they ask questions in class when they did not understand. Little did I know then about how the Thai system smothers curiosity when I was told “if I ask, the teacher will get angry with me”. Children thus quickly learn to dissimulate by not listening in rapt attention but by distracted talkativeness or mute silence in class. In the process of appearing to understand their sense of wonder of the universe dies. I think this is the intellectual equivalent of “soul murder” that the psychologist Leo Buscaglia referred to when a child is abused emotionally. And since there is no democratic forum in the school for parents to complain (that will cause the responsible to lose “face”) the only coping mechanism is for children who understand precisely that their teachers did not master the lesson plan themselves to internalize the self same methods of teachers – which is by memorization. Now I understand why educational reformists are calling for a change from “teacher centered” to “student centered” education. In my wildest dreams, I may still be proven correct that we should change the “wai kru” (honoring teachers) to “wai naksuksa” (honoring students) ceremony since they are after all the future leaders of this country. Now, that would be truly radical!

It is also no wonder that most Thai teachers place no value whatsoever on critical thinking and keeping an open mind. As Cleary (2007) put it perhaps not too exaggeratedly: “From the first grade, students are taught to "repeat after me", recite a few sums, and believe every word that comes out of their teachers' mouths in quiet obedience. Should one of them even dare to question a teacher, he will be on the receiving end of a boot out the door.” Ignorance is bliss. In my undergraduate classes for example, I get blank expressions when I ask “why” type of questions to stimulate students to think critically. I got slightly less blank expressions but still silence when once I intentionally challenged my students to think that rather than blaming the Burmese (as Thais are wont to do from reading the account of their history books) to reflect instead on whether the sacking of Ayutthaya by the Burmese could have been the result of poor thinking skills and faulty planning by Thai soldiers at that time? The same as the Thai Lao border skirmish in the 1980s where the much better equipped Thai army could not defeat the ragtag Laotian soldiers. I thought I was stirring a hornet’s nest by raising a rather provocative question but received instead cold indifference. It is the same telltale predictable reaction. How do I encourage a love of reading when in an informal poll of students in class only a handful even read the opinion pieces (e.g. editorials) in Thai language newspapers?

The most frustrating part about having to teach undergraduates or graduate students for that matter is the realization that Acharns are on the receiving end of a deeply flawed antiquated education system that begins from day one in kindergarten school. The prospect of having to take the responsibility to repair the damage wrought on students’ minds is overwhelming and can strain the most dedicated of Acharns who by trial and error (& sleepless nights) attempts all kinds of innovations to present an entertaining “dog and pony show” in class so that students don’t lose interest because the subject matter is beyond them. I have already made the decision that I am not going to be a party to the dumbing down of the lessons but instead try to simplify the explanation in the simplest language possible in English. Immaturity plus incompetence in students maybe a surefire formula to inspire challenge among dedicated Acharns but at the same can be a source of great disappointment if no amount of effort on the Acharn’s part can spark the passion for learning in these implacable students.

It has been reported that the real problem originates in the government high schools where it is impossible for any student to fail any subject. The refusal to apply firm standards by teachers in perhaps a misguided wishy-washy manifestation of the Buddhist “middle path” as in the practice of giving students three or four tries at their exams until teachers get frustrated enough to them an easy project and pass them to go to the next level (Bangkok Post, 2004). It would appear that the problem is particularly acute in public high schools in the provinces. According to a report by the Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA) fifty-five per cent of secondary schools across the country, mostly small-scale government-run institutions, have failed national educational standard requirements. The remaining forty-five percent of the schools are either prestigious or located in Bangkok or other urban areas (Nation, 2005). The same report revealed that most students lacked analytical skills and failed to meet requirements in basic academic proficiency: the average score of six graders in mathematics was 44 per cent, 42 per cent in science, and below 50 per cent in Thai. Ninth graders need extra tutorials because they cannot achieve reading comprehension on their own, and vocational school students have to be given basic training by their employers (Nation, 2005).

Additional relevant observations that I have picked up first hand are the following:

• the proclivity of Thai university administration officials to put more emphasis on showy* physical infrastructure investments (i.e., new buildings) and non-essential technology (like high tech library systems) over investments to build first class libraries (replete with books, data bases, electronic journals) and laboratories. In the contest of appearance versus substance, appearance always wins in Thailand (“phak chee roy na”). There is a suggestion that the predilection for these bulky investments are underpinned by the budget approval procedures of the Budget Bureau, although it is also not unknown to hear whispers of lucrative commissions received under the table for huge construction projects (compared to say buying books). There should then be some kind of university ombudsman in the Ministry of Education who is responsible for investigating complaints of wrongdoing by high level university or institute administrators. Still, I cannot help but imagine what the alternative would be like: ordinary buildings but first class libraries – how much difference that would play in nudging the Thai academic illuminati” to stay abreast and make a substantive (not to say the least, original) contribution to advancing the state of the art in their respective fields of study!!! Thailand’s academic world may have leapfrogged the situation in 1964 when Smythe’s (1964) characterized scholarship in Thailand as “arid, stunted and tradition bound” but there is still a yawning gap in terms of achieving a critical mass of “progressive-minded, scholarly oriented” (p.371) academics holding court in a more intellectually open and questioning academia that would fan further the “intellectual fires” (p. 372) more coincident to the level of Thailand’s wealth and democratic opening 44 years later.

• The emphasis on science (in the name of increasing Thailand’s competitiveness) has become so prominent (I would guess even at high school level) that it has, according to Suwanna Satha-anan, a professor of philosophy, suffocated the humanities to a point that is potentially dangerous, trapping people in linear modes of thinking that she describes as “the one truth” (Nation, 2004). The mechanical mode of thinking cannot be ameliorated if reading skills to deepen substantive knowledge of theories and synthesis of conceptual debates leave a lot to be desired. Hence, the default is to undertake quantitative analysis devoid of theoretical content or relevance. I fondly recall an esteemed colleague (also a foreigner who graduated from a prestigious American Ivy League University) who was consulted by a thesis advisee if there was another statistical model that he could use that could improve the R-square (correlation coefficient) of the logistic regression model he was using for his master’s thesis.

• Inadequate reward or incentive system for Acharns in the university. Research funding has improved with the availability of the Kanchanapisek Research Fund, but unless there is a corresponding critical mass of library materials for scholars to read to keep up to date and advance the state of knowledge, research usually gets bogged down in baseline data collection of the rankest empiricist mode devoid of theoretical significance. I remember for example a huge longitudinal survey conducted by our school in which the design of the survey instrument was settled by a “committee” approach that predictably resulted in a meaningless hodgepodge of unrelated questions that had no theoretical framework. My foreign colleague and I promptly withdrew from membership fearful that whatever good name we had might get soiled from this pointless empirical research. This state of affairs unfortunately reinforces the gross disparity in the international research division of labor – local universities conduct the data collection (& earn money) but the interpretation, synthesis and implications for theory (the intellectual valued added) are conducted by their western counterparts abroad.

• Promotion standards must be intimately linked with research rather than administrative experience in organizing seminars or short course training, or obtaining external funds. Those Acharns who excel in and prefer this type of endeavors must be put in an administrative career track rather than an academic career track for the sake of equity.

• Acharns should be expected to show by example that education is a lifelong learning process. Tales of Acharns never again opening a book once they return to Thailand from their Phd training abroad are unfortunately true as borne out by an incident I witnessed of a Thai colleague (a senior Acharn of director level) reading forlornly one of the “Chicken Soup for the Soul” series while waiting in an Australian airport for a return trip to Bangkok. I consoled myself that at least this Acharn was not reading “Reader’s Digest”. This is again directly related to the weak structure of incentives that promote research excellence and the supporting infrastructure of at the very least, a near world class library so that Acharns can keep up to date with the state of the art in their fields.

• One conundrum that works against teaching in English is Thai national pride and a belief in a self-contained country that is able to function without the use of the English language. It is therefore difficult to convince Thai students of the value of using English by appealing to the abstract reality of globalization and fierce global competition without the full support at the highest levels of the Education Ministry and the leaders of the country. This comes at a time when the Sino-Thai tycoons and captains of industry are no longer in the forefront (or have the interest in) of strengthening and deepening Thai industrialization but instead concentrate on the service sector while surrendering the backbone of Thai industrialization to multinationals (Eckardt, 2008). There appears to be little thought given to the putative value of English in the future careers of students, particularly in the instrumental value of the humanities for the future in terms of employability in the coming new structure of jobs (whose configuration will increasingly be determined by multinational investors) as well as the role of the humanities in helping them achieve personal meaning and satisfaction in their lives and careers. Let it be said however, that we should squarely face the possibility that Thailand will end up being a “failed state” if education reform fails.

*“phak chee roy na” – or the fine Thai art of garnishing.
This practice of prettifying is mysteriously ingrained in the Thai psyche. An editorial published in the Nation, entitled “Education reform is the top priority” published Jan 1, 2002 clearly illustrates the foolishness of what may have been good but misguided intentions:

“Nothing sums it up better than the disclosure in a recent international survey - that we have one of the biggest education budgets, only to use the money like fools, wasting it on fences, signs and flag poles.”


So is there any hope for successful remedial effort to reverse the damage wrought by Thai education at the university level? First and foremost, the structural obstacles have to be addressed first by serious political will to overhaul (not simply reform) the educational system which has been paralyzed not only by backward philosophies and standards but also by a “corruption-prone and inefficient bureaucracy” (Yoon, 2001). All the lofty objectives befitting a modern education system more suited to the new millennium have been enunciated in the objectives of the National Education Act of 1999 that “incorporated all of the hopes for the future” (Nation, 2007b). This act provided a roadmap for drastic education reform (Yoon, 2001):

First, enhance learners' quality of life by enabling them to pursue lifelong learning, and to develop their analytical and critical thinking as well as practical work. (italics added)

Second, improve the structure and method of educational administration along with management of resources to better serve people in local communities.

Third, improve the system for teacher training and improve teaching standards.

Fourth, standardise and improve the quality of education through rigorous evaluation and monitoring.”

What will it take to realize the objectives of the National Education Act of 1999? Note however that the first objective presupposes that there is a welcoming environment in place for “critical thinking”. Can reform objectives solve its contradictory goals* with long established authoritarian and paternalistic patterns in Thai culture? It is to be expected that further industrialization will rend asunder the hold of tradition on the minds of people. However continuous attachment to the present Thai model of taking advantage of globalization by providing services to multinationals may eventually find limits in the ability of Thais to exercise effective control of its development direction (Pasuk and Baker, 2008). Absent the “creative destruction” of further cycles of rapid capitalist development, where will the pressure to “modernize” Thai society come from? There is however a real danger that the push for an enlightened citizenry may prove the undoing of the development model of Thailand which has been based on a docile cheap and not-so-cheap anymore labor which do not have a voice in terms of labor rights.

There is little known about nurturing environment that starts in the home where values are engrained (including the love of learning) and those that put into perspective the insistent consumerist advertisements in this age of globalization. We know little of the internal dynamics of Thai families in value formation. How do we spark the interest of students if they come from environments where parents themselves do not have education or were mis-educated by the same system that needs to be changed? What example can parents give to stimulate the love and passion for learning in their children if they themselves do not have it? Can Thais look back to a past that was steeped in scholarship like Vietnam? And what can be done to change the cultural and political milieu so that it encourages a thoughtful and more enquiring citizenry?

I am not an expert on educational reform. The way out of this dismal state of affairs has been argued to require strong, courageous and committed leadership to push for educational reforms (Nation, 2006b). Powerful vested interest with a stake in the status quo will not only resist but attempt to waylay any moves (Surachai Chupaka, 2002). Education reforms were a start-and-stop affair under the Thaksin administration where five education ministers came and went during its five and a half years in power which thus consequently failed to come up with coherent education reform programs (Nation, 2007b). I do know that this is a very complex and difficult objective, where planning strategies must be clear cut and phased realistically from the very beginning to reduce resistance to change, provide adequate resources and prevent the chaos of trying to achieve too much too soon (Nation, 2007c).

*How will contradictions be resolved? By exhortation or revolution in Thai society?

Stephen Cleary (2007) wrote of contradictions in the objectives of education reform in that it goes against the grain of Thai traditional values:

“The education authorities often contradict themselves. An official statement by Onec (National Scheme on Education) in 2002 read: "Thai people shall adopt desirable values and behaviour in accordance with the traditional ways of life". Meaning that not only should Thai students sit down, shut up and obey the teacher, they ought to also instinctively honour their elders and abide by everything they say.”

Let me end with these few tentative thoughts. Because of the complexity of educational reform that is interlinked to many aspects of the political economy and existing power structures of Thailand I am pessimistic about the future. But the undoing of the gains of Thailand in the past half a century of “development” precisely from the failure to improve the educational system is to think the unthinkable considering the social chaos and instability that may result.

I will do my best to persevere in my chosen profession although I must start from the realization and acceptance of my own limitations to alter history, or to change people's attitudes. Galileo’s saying that “you cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself” may be comforting for the present. Try and try as you may - but what if you consistently find that there is nothing?

References:

Bangkok Post (2004), “Lax Standards hurting education”. December 12.

Brimble, P. and Richard F. Doner (2007), University–Industry Linkages and Economic Development: The Case of Thailand, World Development, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 1021–1036.

Cleary, Stephen (2007), “Don't panic, the kids are all right after all”, The Nation, June 23.

Daily Xpress(2008), “Wake up call for Thai Society”, March 11, The Nation

Eckardt, James (2008), “Downfall of the Sino-Thai families”, Nation, July 8.

Komolmas, Prathip M. , “New Trends in Higher Education Towards the 21st Century in Thailand”, www.journal.au.edu/abac_journal/jan99/article1.html

Nation (2002), “Education reform is the top priority”, January 1.

Nation (2004), “Much to learn from the humanities”, August 26.

Nation (2005), “55% of secondary schools fail grade”, November 5.

Nation (2006a), “Kids urged to read a lot”, May 7.

Nation (2006b), An 'F minus for education reform, June 6.

Nation (2007a), “Pongthep backed over coup question”, April 4.

Nation (2007b), “Education reforms must continue”, February 24.

Nation (2007c), Decentralisation key in education reforms, August 1.

Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker (eds.) (2008), Thai Capital After the 1997 Crisis, Bangkok: Silkworm Books.

Smythe, H.H. (1964), “Scholarship in Thailand: Arid, Stunted and Tradition Bound”, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 35, Issue 7, pp. 367-372, October.

Surachai Chupaka (2002) “Education reform is lying in tatters”, The Nation, Jan 23.

Sutichai Yoon (2001), Education reform: Does this gov’t have the Will?, The Nation, Opinion, February 22.

Suthichai Yoon (2006), “Why doesn't education get mega-project priority?” The Nation, June 8.

Templeton, Charles (2007), “A Personal Word”, in Hitchens, C., The Portable Athiest, Da Capo Press, 282-286.