I suspect that smuggled into this debate is a few assumptions people are making about Thais, which I think are unjustified: that they can't teach or speak decent English’, and attempts to cut the discussion off with one line ‘its not up to you anyway’ drivel is diametrically opposed to the point of this medium.

'Diametrically opposed to the point of this medium' - please. Can we have that in simple English?

I stand by my comments about unjustified assumptions. I held that belief before I read your post and I am sticking to it.

As I said last time, a school should have the flexibility to choose whoever is better, even if it is the westerner. But to give the job automatically to the westerner, regardless of skills and qualifications, just because he is a native speaker and happens to walk in the door, is something else (and judging by your post, I think you agree).

If parents want to be sure of getting a native speaker they can send their children to an international school, where their children are probably in little danger of coming across a Thai teachng English.

The thread started when someone said he had received posts from an Asian who said English should be taught in Asia by Asians, presumably because they live here, and regardless of talent/qualifications. That's nonsense too, if they're no good at it.

Ah, common ground. We are saying the same thing from opposite ends.

The THAI parents/students deserve the best teacher for the job - period. Politics should not come in to it - except for the obvious budget constraints etc. If the best candidate is Thai (based on ALL criteria) then the cost of hiring him/her should carry the decision anyway. Of course, no reasonable person would expect to be able to walk in to Thailand, or anywhere else, and get the job simply due to the fact that they have the language as their mother tongue. That would be bigoted in the extreame.

Perhaps I got a little defensive, but I took (and still take) exception to being called a racist bigot ~ especially by you mrentoul, who generally I have agreed with in the past.

'Diametrically opposed to the point of this medium' - sorry get very wordy when I get defensive.

Perhaps I got a little defensive, but I took (and still take) exception to being called a racist bigot ~ especially by you mrentoul, who generally I have agreed with in the past.

I am sorry I mentioned that in my reply to your post. I didn't want to suggest you're a racist bigot. In fact, well before your post I suggested something similar: that the ''native speakers are always better'' argument was just a crude attempt by untrained westerners (the back-packer type) to justify their presence as teachers when in other circumstances they would be screened out.

I regret causing any offence.

Of course, no reasonable person would expect to be able to walk in to Thailand, or anywhere else, and get the job simply due to the fact that they have the language as their mother tongue. That would be bigoted in the extreme.

I am pleased we agree.

I object to this smug assumption by westerners that only they know English. In truth, teaching allows westerners to work and live in Thailand, which is otherwise all but closed to outsiders unless they are rich. That's why they advance this argument that only they can teach English, and it's rubbish.

For the record, that's what I said earlier.