If I seem to have lost interest in my blog, it isn't so. It's just that as a foreigner, discretion is the better part of valor after witnessing how the Thai government ordered the "blunt hammer" of the Thai Army to shoot demonstrators. The subsequent handling of the government as shown by their ridiculous attempts at "reconciliation" has only ended in what may have been subconciously the Abhisit's government intention in the first place - to forget and deny. The Reds are a non-entity. The Reds are terrorists.
I am more and more convinced that in any society, the kind of education (indoctrination) will be an important indicator of its degree of democratization and determine the length of time it will take for the country to narrow that gap between the first and last scenario asserted by Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
By 2050, 40 years from now, when it is predicted that parts of Bangkok will suffer from innundation from the combination of a 100 year cycle rainfall, and high tides, I am convinced that Thai education system will advance very little. I hope to be proven wrong.
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/10/21/opinion/This-quick-fix-for-schools-is-failing-our-children-30140544.html
This quick fix for schools is failing our children
By The Nation, Published on October 21, 2010
Plan to declare English as second language in classroom ignores real problem: huge class sizes and outdated teaching methods
The debate on whether the Education Ministry should declare English as the second language in schools does not address the root cause of the problems in Thai schools. The real issue is the quality of teaching, not just of English but of all the subjects that students need to learn to be equipped for the future. Thai students already spend several hours on each subject per week in the classroom. What remains highly debatable, however, is whether schools give their students the quality time essential to learning.
The attempt to declare English as the second language in the classroom is an admirable thing and shows we are concerned over the low quality of learning. Knowledge of English undoubtedly broadens students' opportunities for learning. But it does not take a grand ambition to place English as the second language to solve the problem. Educators can tackle the issue effectively if they themselves are willing to learn and remain open-minded.
Every Thai student already studies English, but the average level of proficiency is highly questionable. Many teachers have not received training to improve their skills, or access to new knowledge. Some simply don't have the language skills to teach English. This means that many of our students are stuck with unqualified teachers day in, day out.
Although educators often claim they want to prepare students for the fast-changing world, most Thai schools still operate in the same way as their predecessors half a century ago. Typically, up to 50 students are crammed into one classroom and subjected to robotic learning by rote. Teaching methods have barely changed over the years. One change we can expect to see, though, is a drop in the quality of teachers, as their low pay means that teaching is no longer a coveted profession.
The authorities are scrambling for a quick fix. Instead of getting to the root of the problem, they prefer to announce a big-budget programme under a "sexy" title. But spending money alone will not guarantee satisfactory results. It is a shame that money is being lavished on education but producing nothing for our kids.
Rather than debating the terms of our English teaching, educators should take a direct route to improving learning by, first, focusing on limiting the class size for each subject. This puts the priority on ensuring every student receives sufficient attention from teachers. The method of learning by rote does not inspire students to excel at subjects for which they show aptitude. The current classroom environment fails when it comes to promoting either multidimensional learning or students' self-esteem. Students are often judged simply on their ability to memorise lessons, meaning that those with other talents can feel discouraged and left out.
Teachers should also receive constant training, because we owe it to our students to provide them with the best possible schooling. Improvements could also be made if public schools drew more on the resources of progressive or international schools, which are more up to date with techniques.
Meanwhile, an open-minded attitude is essential among teachers and school principals; learning is a never-ending process. Efforts to get retiree native English-speakers to assist in Thai schools have been unsuccessful largely because of the cold reception from teachers who are more concerned about their turf and ego than their students. These teachers should be sacked.
Teaching our children to become good "global citizens" should also be on the agenda. For instance, they should be taught about conserving energy and the impact they can have on the environment. But responsibility and citizenship are not sufficiently addressed. Instead, youngsters only hear adults asking for their rights but refusing to be accountable.
And most importantly, students should be given belief in their capacity and ability. Rather than promoting youngsters' self-actualisation, schools tend to punish students who don't perform well in the robotic model of learning. Meaningful knowledge is sidelined in favour of teaching students to fit into a mould by achieving good grades.
Thai students need to learn more about their geography and history to see how this physical and cultural background has shaped them. This will then enable them to understand themselves better. In contrast, currently they are usually forced merely to memorise information without learning how to think with it.
Showing posts with label Bangkok floods. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bangkok floods. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The Hegemonic Ways of the Western Scientific Community
I haven’t attended this blog for some time feeling fearful after the unchallenged ascendance of the PAD yellow shirts, who flouted the law with impunity in the occupation of government house and siege of the Suvanabhumi airport and, up till now, with nary a single PAD person arrested, then the case of Harry Nicolaides, who was fortunately released, and more recently, the flight of Giles Ungpakorn to England to escape lese majeste charges.
I recently attended a conference to build adaptive capacity for managing change in Asia’s coastal megacities given the increasing frequency of intense weather patterns (drought, rains, typhoons) in combination with land subsidence and sea level rise. The conference was supported by prestigious scientific groups, well endowed academic institutions and a multilateral bank.
The situation among Asia’s megacities was counterposed to those of small island nations who have made their voices heard in the debate on global warming being under threat of permanent submersion when sea levels rise. On the contrary, Asia’s megacities are found wanting in coming up with an agenda to increase awareness among its citizens and prepare themselves for the worst to come as well as building networks to share expertise and experience in dealing with climate change with other similar cities.
The case of Bangkok was highlighted in one of the first sessions by a representative of the World Bank (WB) who declared that a recent study reported a study that by the year 2050, “30 to 35% of Bangkok will be inundated”. In response to a question from the floor about whether this state would be permanent or temporary, the answer was that it was going to be a permanent state. On the second day, a representative of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) involved in this WB study as well as the technical advisor to the WB study from the Asian Institute of Technology pointed out that the dire scenario assumptions were based on a combination of both high precipitation in the north swelling river volumes, continuing land subsidence in Bangkok and a storm surge. The worst scenarios were divided into two as is usual in planning forecasts, those with no mitigation measures and with mitigation measures in place. There was nothing specific in the presentation about the role of deforestation in the north in increasing runoff in the Chao Phraya river nor an indication that the sea front Amphurs (districts) of Samut Sakhon and Samut Prakarn would be permanently inundated, although maps showed these to be the most vulnerable to flooding.
The message from the organizers appeared ambiguous for the simple reason that present level scientific data of what it is exactly to expect is imprecise since modeling data is based on global/regional variables. In other words, in the case of Bangkok, it is difficult to imagine the worst possible scenario (the big event) in much the same way that no one before 2004 would have believed that a tsunami would hit Thailand (except Smith Dharmasaroj who was called a “mad dog” for his warnings since 1998). Therefore, the ability to persuade Bangkokians to prepare for the worst unseen and perhaps has never yet been experienced before on the shock scale of a “Katrina” will be a major challenge. Bangkok is fortunate enough not to be on the typhoon zone, unlike the case of Manila where flooding risks are exacerbated by the presence of densely occupied slum and squatter settlements and the higher frequency of typhoons. The previous deputy governor of the BMA optimistically described the flood infrastructure improvements of Bangkok such as its network of pumping stations and existing dikes that can protect the city up to a sea level rise of 2.5 meters. The study appears to show that the worst case scenario for Bangkok would be manageable, and would not be in the order of a catastrophic or permanent inundation. Still, it is worth bearing in mind the assumptions of the study which is a combination of high precipitation from the north, land subsidence, and a storm surge. A Japanese expert explained in a conversation that the greatest danger to Bangkok would be a storm surge that would hit close to Bangkok from the western side that would then raise sea levels to more dangerous levels. Projected sea level rise by 2050 (from global warming effects) according to a Thai professor is expected to be within 30 to 35 centimeters from the present mean. The worst case scenario of ice sheets in Greenland melting completely raises that amount to (permanent) 7 meters sea level rise, with Thailand’s coastal population at greatest risk (already at 5 meter sea level rise) compared to other countries.
It seemed apparent from the scientific panel discussing the science of climate change that research agendas are primarily determined by an exclusive club of rich Western countries (including Japan, China and Taiwan). There is no mystery in that; not only was global warming given impetus by the great industrial revolution of the West and the consequent large ecological footprints of its expanding system of cities by virtue of first arrival in the high stakes game of economic development, but the West has also developed the most advanced scientific research infrastructure. The immediate issue that came to mind is whether or not the state of preparedness (and awareness) of these developing countries’ coastal megacities would be better if there had been local scientific validation of western data and determination of specificity of threat to individual coastal cities. Clearly the status quo in the unequal distribution of research infrastructures cannot produce finer scientific data specific to these Asian megacities at present, and as such these megacities are dependent on macro data that may lead to inaccurate or even costly decisions. Asian megacities need to double check the assumptions and question the models used so that a more detailed range of worst case scenarios can be specified with the associated appropriate responses utilizing more efficiently scarce resources.
In sum, the key issue for planners is not to contribute to the denial about global warming. On the contrary, planners need to find ways to communicate these threats to the public without necessarily sounding alarmist (and putting one’s mental state on the line) in terms of the degree of imaginary renderings of calamities that could or could not happen to an equally ignorant public. The agenda of the scientific community remains in my view unclear. Is the purpose to raise general awareness so that more resources are brought to bear in predicting and preparing adequately for these scenarios? In times of economic recession, scarce resources must be utilized efficiently such that anticipatory building of new expensive infrastructure must be appropriate to the specific threat (i.e., not blindly aping the 8 meter sea wall around Tokyo) and will not further hurt the chances for long term economic recovery for these megacities that serve as engines of growth for the country. Perish the thought that infrastructure building than what would be necessary (via loans) could surpass the Obama stimulus package. Alternatively, governance structures of these coastal cities that have not been included in the discussion need to be explored in varying country situations that range from severe organizational weakness to some level of sophistication. Finally, the focus on megacities seemed biased against equally vulnerable smaller cities that by far would have even fewer resources to cope than megacities. There seemed to be an underlying assumption that the burden of coping with migration of people from smaller cities as a result of climate related calamities would fall on megacities, a rather defeatist and irresponsible approach to communities that may very well be able to fashion their own solutions (by starting right now) to mitigate the effects of global warming through careful land use planning.
I recently attended a conference to build adaptive capacity for managing change in Asia’s coastal megacities given the increasing frequency of intense weather patterns (drought, rains, typhoons) in combination with land subsidence and sea level rise. The conference was supported by prestigious scientific groups, well endowed academic institutions and a multilateral bank.
The situation among Asia’s megacities was counterposed to those of small island nations who have made their voices heard in the debate on global warming being under threat of permanent submersion when sea levels rise. On the contrary, Asia’s megacities are found wanting in coming up with an agenda to increase awareness among its citizens and prepare themselves for the worst to come as well as building networks to share expertise and experience in dealing with climate change with other similar cities.
The case of Bangkok was highlighted in one of the first sessions by a representative of the World Bank (WB) who declared that a recent study reported a study that by the year 2050, “30 to 35% of Bangkok will be inundated”. In response to a question from the floor about whether this state would be permanent or temporary, the answer was that it was going to be a permanent state. On the second day, a representative of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) involved in this WB study as well as the technical advisor to the WB study from the Asian Institute of Technology pointed out that the dire scenario assumptions were based on a combination of both high precipitation in the north swelling river volumes, continuing land subsidence in Bangkok and a storm surge. The worst scenarios were divided into two as is usual in planning forecasts, those with no mitigation measures and with mitigation measures in place. There was nothing specific in the presentation about the role of deforestation in the north in increasing runoff in the Chao Phraya river nor an indication that the sea front Amphurs (districts) of Samut Sakhon and Samut Prakarn would be permanently inundated, although maps showed these to be the most vulnerable to flooding.
The message from the organizers appeared ambiguous for the simple reason that present level scientific data of what it is exactly to expect is imprecise since modeling data is based on global/regional variables. In other words, in the case of Bangkok, it is difficult to imagine the worst possible scenario (the big event) in much the same way that no one before 2004 would have believed that a tsunami would hit Thailand (except Smith Dharmasaroj who was called a “mad dog” for his warnings since 1998). Therefore, the ability to persuade Bangkokians to prepare for the worst unseen and perhaps has never yet been experienced before on the shock scale of a “Katrina” will be a major challenge. Bangkok is fortunate enough not to be on the typhoon zone, unlike the case of Manila where flooding risks are exacerbated by the presence of densely occupied slum and squatter settlements and the higher frequency of typhoons. The previous deputy governor of the BMA optimistically described the flood infrastructure improvements of Bangkok such as its network of pumping stations and existing dikes that can protect the city up to a sea level rise of 2.5 meters. The study appears to show that the worst case scenario for Bangkok would be manageable, and would not be in the order of a catastrophic or permanent inundation. Still, it is worth bearing in mind the assumptions of the study which is a combination of high precipitation from the north, land subsidence, and a storm surge. A Japanese expert explained in a conversation that the greatest danger to Bangkok would be a storm surge that would hit close to Bangkok from the western side that would then raise sea levels to more dangerous levels. Projected sea level rise by 2050 (from global warming effects) according to a Thai professor is expected to be within 30 to 35 centimeters from the present mean. The worst case scenario of ice sheets in Greenland melting completely raises that amount to (permanent) 7 meters sea level rise, with Thailand’s coastal population at greatest risk (already at 5 meter sea level rise) compared to other countries.
It seemed apparent from the scientific panel discussing the science of climate change that research agendas are primarily determined by an exclusive club of rich Western countries (including Japan, China and Taiwan). There is no mystery in that; not only was global warming given impetus by the great industrial revolution of the West and the consequent large ecological footprints of its expanding system of cities by virtue of first arrival in the high stakes game of economic development, but the West has also developed the most advanced scientific research infrastructure. The immediate issue that came to mind is whether or not the state of preparedness (and awareness) of these developing countries’ coastal megacities would be better if there had been local scientific validation of western data and determination of specificity of threat to individual coastal cities. Clearly the status quo in the unequal distribution of research infrastructures cannot produce finer scientific data specific to these Asian megacities at present, and as such these megacities are dependent on macro data that may lead to inaccurate or even costly decisions. Asian megacities need to double check the assumptions and question the models used so that a more detailed range of worst case scenarios can be specified with the associated appropriate responses utilizing more efficiently scarce resources.
In sum, the key issue for planners is not to contribute to the denial about global warming. On the contrary, planners need to find ways to communicate these threats to the public without necessarily sounding alarmist (and putting one’s mental state on the line) in terms of the degree of imaginary renderings of calamities that could or could not happen to an equally ignorant public. The agenda of the scientific community remains in my view unclear. Is the purpose to raise general awareness so that more resources are brought to bear in predicting and preparing adequately for these scenarios? In times of economic recession, scarce resources must be utilized efficiently such that anticipatory building of new expensive infrastructure must be appropriate to the specific threat (i.e., not blindly aping the 8 meter sea wall around Tokyo) and will not further hurt the chances for long term economic recovery for these megacities that serve as engines of growth for the country. Perish the thought that infrastructure building than what would be necessary (via loans) could surpass the Obama stimulus package. Alternatively, governance structures of these coastal cities that have not been included in the discussion need to be explored in varying country situations that range from severe organizational weakness to some level of sophistication. Finally, the focus on megacities seemed biased against equally vulnerable smaller cities that by far would have even fewer resources to cope than megacities. There seemed to be an underlying assumption that the burden of coping with migration of people from smaller cities as a result of climate related calamities would fall on megacities, a rather defeatist and irresponsible approach to communities that may very well be able to fashion their own solutions (by starting right now) to mitigate the effects of global warming through careful land use planning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
