Newspaper Perspectives on the Proposed Ban of English Instruction in Thai Primary Education, 1969–1970 and 1977

Abstract

During 1969–1970 and again in 1977, Ministers of Education from two different governments proposed banning English instruction at the primary level. On both occasions, newspapers featured consistent voices of support and opposition. Supporters of the proposal were grounded in an elitist perspective, believing that English was necessary only for a small segment of the population. Their reasoning was reinforced by utilitarian arguments, which held that teaching English to the majority—who were unlikely to use it—was a waste of educational resources. Additionally, some expressed the view that since English instruction had failed to yield satisfactory results, it should be discontinued altogether. Nationalist attitudes were also present, with the belief that the Thai language was more important and should take precedence. In contrast, opponents of the proposal were driven by an egalitarian perspective, arguing that all children should have the right to learn English. They believed that although most children would not continue their education, they should still acquire a basic knowledge of English to function in contemporary society. Furthermore, they maintained that English instruction in public schools from Grade 5 onward would prevent students who continued their education from being significantly disadvantaged compared to their wealthier peers in private schools, where English was taught from Grade 1. Importantly, neither group rejected the market mechanism or the concept of educational investment. In the present context, as the focus of English education has shifted from access (whether students receive instruction) to quality (whether the instruction is good or poor), acceptance of market mechanisms continues to support a two-tiered education system.