Bruce1

E-learning is the way of the future and its great that the Thai Govt. is prepared to put funds into it. However, there are some questions about how to do it the best way.

Firstly, these tablets are basically e-readers as I understand them. They're good for reading but not much chop for other internet stuff. They're certainly not up there with an iPad or a laptop.

Secondly, obviously many teachers are not up to speed. Shouldn't computer literacy be a required skill for teachers?

Thirdly, there are competing technologies and its a problem when any government bureaucracy tries to dictate which technology is to be favoured, because they usually get it wrong.

Fourthly, any govt.-dictated content is going to be put of date before its released.

Why is the government bureaucracy being so paternalistic?

Why not simply allow any Thai schoolchild's parents to claim a tax refund for any computer used by the child at school. Let the students decide what works best for them. The bureaucracy could then produce whatever content it wants in common formats, and students could supplement it in any way they choose.

The internet is a wide open place for all kinds of learning. Those who try to control it are doomed to failure. It's no wonder so many Thai middle-class students go overseas to improve their education. Lets encourage innovation, not conformity.

The biggest landowners in Thailand would be the royals and military, wouldn't they?

If the land is in the name of a Thai, what's the problem? If there's a dispute, the Thai owner will win - simple really.

Australia doesn't even have a register of foreign owners, so little concern is there about it there. After all, what are they going to do - put their land in a suitcase and take it away? The Charon Group, for instance, has big investments in Australia, including oil and gas.

The real problem here is confusing ownership with investment. You don't have to own land to invest in a business which makes money.

Most countries have to import cash to fund their development through investments. Investors want some security for their money. Land is the best security. Would a rich Thai invest in a property if they could only own 49%? I doubt it.

The prediction of 29,000 a day sounds far-fetched, especially compared with flying. What will that do to Thai Air?

I wonder how a high-speed rail compares on the list of priorities for taking the LOS forwards. SUrely there would be more important issues to deal with.

How about opening up a land route through Laos to China? Surely a road would benefit transport and tourism more than a high speed rail line to Chiangmai?

I guess we can expect to see some big-ticket spending by this new government to divert attention from its other activities.

So they don't want foreign investment? Other countries are happy to welcome foreign investment, but use the rules to ensure its used productively. However, the Thais just go all paranoid. If there is a problem, its not because of foreign investors - its bevcause of corrupt local officials failing to apply the rules properly so the investment benefits Thailand. They should look in the mirror.

No self-respecting country allows prisoners to vote.

No way I'd check in my bags at Makkasan - fear of theft. Its not just Thailand either - everywhere I go I assume someone will have a go at my bags and never leave anything valuable in them and always put on locks so if anything is slipped into my bag I can prove I had it secured and its been violated.

I see the poll only covered about one-fifth of the total number of constituencies, so how useful is it really?

I'm sure most Thais support the monarchy and HM, but I know for certain that a lot of Thais think the les majeste laws are being abused by people wanting to smear their enemies and many would support a more relaxed attitude.

Backpackers spend quite a lot per head, they just don't spend it on accommodation.

High rollers are unlikely to go to the LOS - they have better options.

Maybe the LOS needs to rediscover the family holiday market.

It certainly needs to get the scams under control and reduce the pollution.

I thought village leaders got together and played off the candidates for the one who made the best offer to benefit their village and then told everyone to vote that way, or is that wrong?

So there must be about 160 countries or so that Thailand doesn't have extradition treaties with, so that leaves plenty of room for Mr T to flit around the world indefinitely.

Actually, its probably better if he doesn't come back. Can you imagine the uproar if he landed? They'd be obliged to arrest him, the Red Shirts would go nuts and it would be chaos. Better for all if he stays away and they fail to catch him. Deliberate incompetence seems the best strategy in this case.

They have more important issues to worry about. For instance The Australian reported yesterday that Australia was sending experts to Thailand to help the authorities at the airport, which is regarded as 'high risk' for bombs being sent through in luggage. Now that's a major issue...

Because some schools block social networking sites. Reasons could be sensible or silly. Actually, if they were using English on Facebook to connect with other English users, it could be a good fun way to practice their English.

Very true. I currently teach multinational young adults and the Thais are among the better students. The Chinese and Arabs are lazy, the Taiwanese are a bit crazy, the Japs are nice and the South Americans are mostly very keen. Nationality has nothing to do with ability though, only motivation.

Auslish, Singlish, Indish, Rushish, Chinish, Malayish etc etc - and don't forget those particularly difficult varieties, Amerish, British, Scottish, Welsish and Irish.

Singapore has shown how to do it, but I doubt if Thailand will copy them. The reason is in Singapore education is in English, but each student also has to learn another language (Malay, Mandarin or Tamil). Thai cultural bureaucrats are too proud of their Thai language and confuse it with their cultural identity to ever accept their education being in English. They would rather be proud Thais, but unable to communicate internationally, which seems a bit strange.

At the very least they could have two official languages, Thai and English, and require everything to be available in both.

They should also require more English TV channels to be broadcast free to air, instead of restricting them to cable. Australia now has 16 free to air channels, they could do the same. Just give each existing operator another frequency, but require all programs to be in English. There are numerous English foreign programs which could be bought in, and would certainly raise the overall quality of TV in Thailand, which is pretty abysmal.

For Thais to become trulty bilingual, they need more exposure than merely a few hours a week in school classes, which just doesn't work.

I thought this airport was already designed for 65 million passengers, similar to Singapore.

Just for the record, the lifts in my building in Brisbane allow 18 people weighing a total of 2224kg. So, if they were tiny Thais, they could probably get about 30 in there.

And I seem to remember about 3-4 years ago a lift in central Bangkok under maintenance plummetted from the top to the bottom, killing several maintenance workers, who hadn't properly secured it.

There are four lifts and there is a maximum weight limit, but I can't remember what it is.

I wonder how a group of people decide if they pass the weight limit. Do they stand there and total up their combined weight before getting in the lift? Hardly.

Re. the Pattaya thing I thought there was a safety brake which was supposed to loock the lift to the shaft if the power went off, or something similar?

Are you sure that's overloading? The lifts where I work have signs stating the maximum load is 18 people.

My Koreans are from the south and are downright gorgeous compared with that greedy XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Don't feel sorry, we have the whole range of dress modes.

Actually, it's a bit of a challenge to get the Saudi women to come out of their shells and contribute to classes, but once they feel 'safe' and get more confident it can be quite interesting. Some wear them by choice you know. For others its just cultural.

Personally, I'm quite fond of Koreans in black tights and shorts.

Actually, I have some students who wear burkhas and it certainly makes you focus on their eyes!(can't see anything else)

I reckon if my daughter had to sit next to a pregnant student she would be LESS likely to get pregnant, not more.

I also notice the current law banning pregnant girls says nothing about the fathers of those babies being made to take responsibility for the results of their actions. That seems discriminatory.

The bill should be passed and girls should not be discriminated against because of reproduction.

Women in burkhas are very mysterious.

I aree with Animatic, as I said above. The problem is over-regulation of dress to the point that the natural desire to present as an individual is stifled and really all they are being left to distinguish themselves is to shorten the skirt and tighten the blouse. Uni students are adults, not children. At that age there is a natural desire to push the boundaries a bit. The tighter the boundary is set, the more they will want to push it. If the dress regulators backed off most girls would dress appropriately and then the ones that went overboard would be more obvious and easy to tell to tone it down a bit.