Content of speech more significant than language skills

Many people praised Tanasak for his good English as he read out a prepared speech at the UN but did not care about the content of his speech.

But, Thai people, notably the well-educated elite in Bangkok, are obsessed with the English ability of their leaders, as they used poor English as a way to attack previous elected leaders and ministers. They look down on every elected politician who is popular among the rural poor and insult them for their poor English.

Role models for Thai leaders are people like former premiers Anand Panyarachun, who was educated at Cambridge, and Oxford graduate Abhisit Vejjajiva, who speaks English fluently. Many say their English is better than a lot of farang.

Indeed, many Thais, including the elite, have an inferiority complex about their English language skills. More than 80 per cent of graduates in Thailand have no proper command of English. It’s not hard to understand why they expect their leader to do better. Thai people feel anguish whenever foreigners say “The poor Asian is speaking like a Thai”.

Many well-to-do Thais judge foreign ministers by their English ability. A foreign minister who cannot speak proper English in public or respond to foreign journalists would be graded as a failure.

Of course, language is a crucial part of diplomatic work and foreign affairs, but English is not an essential one. Many world leaders don’t speak English – they may or may not – but they don’t use English when negotiating with foreign partners or speaking in public.

Unlike the Thai elite, Chinese and Japanese people would be disappointed or even feel shame if their leaders are pretentious enough to speak English to foreign counterparts. All Chinese ministers prefer talking to foreign counter?parts via interpreters, not only for convenience but this gives them time to think carefully while waiting for translators to finish. If something goes wrong in the talks, they can always blame the translators.

Thai ministers and even some senior officials at the Foreign Ministry have made many mistakes in diplomatic work in the past just because they tried to show off their English ability.

Frankly speaking, General Tanasak has no problem with English. As a former military attache, he is familiar with the language. Like many other Thai foreign ministers, he speaks proper English with a Thai accent. Luckily, he escaped from pressure from the elite and mass media to highlight his English language skill.

However Thai people and political observers should stop using language ability to judge leaders or ministers, and look instead at what they say.

The well-written speech at the UN, which General Tanasak did not prepare by himself, said many things that his government is unable to do. He said in his speech that “Thailand is not retreat?ing from democracy”, but what the junta and his government are doing now is not democratic at all.

The minister, who is also a member of the junta, blamed conflicting parties for their failure to break the political impasse before the coup. He was not aware of the fact that his junta is implementing reconciliation process by pick?ing up only one side of opposing parties in the National Reform Council (NRC). People named in the shortlist of NRC members are the same people who protested against the previous government and actively supported the coup. None of the other opposing side was selected to the reconciliation process, so how can this government achieve reconciliation? On the contrary, what the junta has done is deepen the division in the Kingdom.

In the modern world, diplomatic discourses are enforced by what happens in practice. Beautiful language in well-prepared speeches becomes lies if what the government does is different from what they say they will do. The foreign minister can tell the international community that Thailand is building a democracy but nobody will believe this as long as the junta continues to suppress intellectuals and freedom of expression at home. Good English does not help, indeed.