Thailand's education minister won't budge on requiring students to wear casual clothes
Education Minister Nataphol Teepsuwan vowed on Tuesday not to bow to pressure from the “Bad Students” group who want to get rid of compulsory school uniforms and wear casual clothes.
“The campaign that encourages students to choose their own clothes and wear them to class is meant to force me to make a choice,” said Nataphol. “But I will make my decision based on what is right to do, not because of social pressure.”
Despite his personal views, the minister said teachers should not refuse students regardless of what they wear. His comment comes after a school denied entry to some students wearing casual clothes.
Nataphol emphasizes that teachers should not exclude students from attending classes. Certain protocols must be followed when a student breaks school rules.
Some students wore casual clothes on Tuesday at the start of the new semester. With this they protest against the compulsory clothing. The students want to be free in their choice of clothing.
Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha supports the current rules, saying school uniforms allow officials to easily identify students in an emergency. In addition, school uniforms help save on clothing costs.
Source Bangkok Post
The newspaper omits some things, the minister also said that, according to minister Nataphol, there are figures in the background who influence the students (or brainwash them? You often hear that). The students are used, bandied about… All with the aim of undermining the government and the institution…
Abolishing compulsory uniforms would not only reduce discipline, it could even lead to students behaving inappropriately and coming to school naked, according to the minister!
- https://www.thaienquirer.com/21236/education-minister-said-uniforms-necessary-for-a-disciplined-society-blames-forces-behind-students/
And today the minister announced that he will prosecute the Bad Student movement for violation of privacy rules. Publishing the names of schools (and teachers?) that have denied children access to class or school or locked children without uniform would be harmful. Somewhat according to the reasoning that students who report sexual assault and physical violence on the Internet and mention the school in question by name harm the reputation of the school and are therefore wrong. What about this way of thinking?
I can agree with the Bad Students, let it be free whether a student comes in uniform or own clothing. Both uniform and own clothing have advantages and disadvantages. In an opinion piece, columnist Sirinya Wattanasukchai mentions a few. For example, a uniform would make it easier for parents: not having to think about what the children should wear today, and you can quickly see which school someone belongs to. On the other hand, there are people who cannot afford a uniform. The multiple uniforms (school, scout, gym, etc.) plus accessories quickly run into a few thousand baht, before you know it you are approaching 10 thousand baht. That's a whole month's wages for some parents. Poor Thai make do with second-hand uniforms, 'where is the pride in wearing a uniform that is 1-2 sizes too big' she wonders? Or what do the children of simple public schools think when they see the uniforms of elite schools? What about rival student gangs (vocational schools) who beat each other up, sometimes with fatal consequences?
Release the children. Those who prefer to wear a uniform do so, and those who prefer to wear something else do so. Finished…
column:
https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/2028499/uniform-fuss-cant-be-tackled-uniformly
I totally understand Rob.
Some are also wearing goat wool socks and whether that is comfortable in a tropical country I wonder, so I hope that the government will not force this on the residents.
Anyone have any idea why Thailand is such a uniformly horny country? Even the security that helps traffic with the in / out drive has one. Would one really believe that it gives peace, order, unity and discipline?
Hi Rob, Thailand is a hierarchical country, social status is important. You can tell this from a person's clothing. If you dress nicely in Thailand, for example put on a suit, you will also be treated very differently than with shorts and a t-shirt.
A uniform fits in seamlessly with that. You can see that someone is a civil servant or an important crook. Then you immediately know how to estimate him on the social ladder. That makes communication easier.
You can decide for yourself, I'm not Thai.
Thanks for answering my rhetorical question. Now I maybe understand a little better what attracts people who get a hard tampeloeres of ranks, classes and hierarchy. Maybe they could also make white noses wear an appropriate uniform? 🙂
Some find that hierarchy pleasant and clear, which is why they become professional soldiers, for example.
I've always been a professional soldier, and indeed that hierarchy does make it easier.
Now things are not too bad in NL, a lot has changed in the army in recent years.
Same as in the schools in NL, a lot has also changed.
I always thought it was a big advantage that it was easy to pick out clothes in the morning 🙂
Fortunately, the use of suits in Bangkok has decreased considerably in the last 10 years and in some professions and fairs you are overdressed in a suit, so this gives hope to the young people who are not yet in charge and will be in about 15 years. Then they can decide what is good for someone else.
If school children don't have to wear it then it's also nonsense that a sports team, factory workers, police etc. have to wear it or it will have to do with being able to easily distinguish.
Speaking of costs. My son attends a primary school and the cost of clothing is 2500 baht which can be worn for 3 years without looking retarded and from the government there is an annual fee of 600 baht per year, which also includes free pencils and erasers every year. handed out.
The whole story in terms of costs is often different than thought, because would anyone really think that the people as a whole are being abandoned? Stupid question….hhh
Quote:
Then you immediately know how to estimate him on the social ladder. That makes communication easier.'
That's where Khun Peter! You know right away who gives the orders and who you have to obey. It would actually be useful if all Thais put on a uniform, according to position and status. Then everyone will be treated appropriately hierarchically! Sincerely or contemptuously.
I'm not saying I agree with anything.
The easiest would be to link a uniform to the bank account 🙂
As Peter (formerly Khun) has already written, in Thailand the status that you can also acquire through clothing and appearance is very important.
Especially at schools/universities, wearing a uniform prevents the social background of a pupil or student from being immediately visible.
Completely unlike in many Western countries, where a school uniform is not compulsory, there is no expensive and idiotic brand race in these countries, in which many parents cannot participate at all because of their income.
To avoid this race in expensive designer clothes, I don't think wearing a uniform where everyone looks the same is a bad decision for Thailand.
Quote:
'Particularly at schools/universities, wearing a uniform prevents the social background of a pupil or student from being immediately visible.'
Do you really think so? I do not believe it. After two sentences and two minutes, everyone knows and knows the social status of the other, even with uniforms.
Those uniforms, sometimes three types a week, cost half the minimum monthly wage. In my experience, many parents have to borrow money for this.
@Tino,
As the voice of the voice of dissatisfaction, it might be helpful to spend the time educating the people you listen to about responsible spending.
It costs half a month's wages….is 4500 or something?
Far too much for 1 child while there are also cheaper clothes. Do they have to buy the full stuff every year or can it also last 2 years because that saves half?
In the worst case, the clothes cost 13 baht per day and then another thought comes into my mind. Instead of buying a condom to avoid high expenses for children, the choice is made to breed so that the child can act as a sponsor in the older day.
Like me, Tino knows that thousands of girls go to university but graduate with barely a HAVO level where they really can't make their parents' dream come true and it would be a good thing that someone would go through with those dreams. One can have dreams, but a life-sized experience could save you a lot of suffering.
Apart from the fact that something should be done about the high prices for these school uniforms, I maintain that in this way you (immediately) create a social equality that cannot be canceled out with other financial options.
By (immediately) I mean the first impression, which incidentally has nothing to do with the further use of language or the retention of decency rules, which only become visible and audible to some on the 2nd or 3rd glance.
The fact that someone doesn't get a decent 2 sentences in a row, and also doesn't conjugate about decency, certainly doesn't always have to do with the fact that his parents don't have it that wide.
Only by releasing clothing options, in my opinion, you are duping those young people who are not financially fortunate enough to go along with every expensive brand fashion.
In many Western schools, these brands and further materialistic madness have already taken on such forms that many suffer from this dress pressure and prefer to leave school because of mobbing.
That's why I don't think wearing a uniform in a country like Thailand, where social inequality is often very large, is wrong.
At the universities, 1 uniform is worn, and yes, it must also be washed, so you need, say, three pairs. The first set is bought at the university, including pins and ties. After that, the clothing is bought at the local market: the white blouses cost 100 baht and the black trousers or skirt not much more.
And if the uniforms are abolished, people will wear their own clothes and they will cost nothing at all?
Tell me, chris, how much is that first set? Many thanks for your answer.
What Chris says is absolutely correct. Then there is this that students have to take off their shoes and leave them outside the classroom with the result that new shoes are stolen. Happened to my son 2x. He grew like weed and I had to buy uniforms and shoes twice a year.
http://www.suic.su.ac.th/vatel-uniform-arrangement-schedule-2019/
Indeed, when the school year starts, the BigC and Tesco will be full of these clothes.
I put 2 kids through the Thai school system and it cost me tons of money. Fortunately I had / have a Dutch credit card, which is also a form of borrowing, and to which I still pay off. I also pay off my son's study loan, my daughter pays it herself.
The ordinary Thai is therefore also deep in debt, terribly deep.
In a brief meeting, wearing a uniform could still prevent the social background from being visible.
But people are judged and condemned on many more aspects than just their clothing.
Thai pupils, students and colleagues know within a day who has a lot of money to spend and who doesn't.
And why do those uniforms have to be so terribly expensive?
If that were the case, then there would be little to notice in everyday life.
I am pro school uniform.
I think it has something and would like to see it in the Netherlands.
In addition, it is much better than in the Netherlands, where you fall outside the group if you do not wear branded clothing.
Thailand is not the Netherlands, I regularly come to Thailand (not because of Corona right now) and often see youth walking in a school uniform.
I don't think they care or care about that.
Could it be that a group of brawlers in Bangkok are making the headlines?
Incidentally, in my opinion there are things that a Thai is more concerned about.
We look at it with Dutch eyes again and everything is good here, although when I see how the youth here occasionally go to study.
School uniforms that save on clothing costs. Otherwise I think it is on the expensive side, I think almost 1000 baht for a skirt and shirt.
And ordinary decent clothes don't cost money? The poor people even get money to buy second-hand uniforms. Should also be mandatory in Europe. You had no problem with designer clothes.
Abolishing the uniform saves money. Casual clothes can be worn anywhere, a school uniform is only for school activities, If you buy regular clothes instead of buying 2-3 different uniforms you will have a few days extra clothes to wear everywhere. That can just be clothes from the market or department store.
Dear Rob V, Of course you can wear casual clothes everywhere and it would also save families money.
Only when wearing a uniform it is about something completely different, namely the pursuit of equality among pupils and students.
Due to the use of casual clothes, a large part of the school and university youth, who are not so well off at home, should appear in cheap copy clothing from China, while the so-called better circles, by wearing expensive brand clothing, feel even more like can already provide social distancing.
Many who may think this is an exaggeration, I believe, have no knowledge of the conditions that play out here and there in the schools of many Western countries.
Some young people in the latter schools stay because they come from families who cannot participate in this brand fashion madness, remain sidelined, are unfairly less accepted by other students, and unfortunately often also suffer from further mutual mobbing.
All things that don't belong in any school, and can be prevented at least a little by wearing a uniform.
I think purchasing casual clothes is more expensive than the uniforms, because the kids don't want to go to school in the same clothes every day. For me, the uniforms are the best thing until college.
In the years that I stayed in Thailand, I noticed that the uniform for students and children has a close bond and I therefore believe that it should remain as it is otherwise another tradition will be lost “It said so”
instead of complaining about whether or not a uniform should be in place, the minister would do better to improve the quality of Thai education. Level is sadly low
It is good that students are taught a certain discipline. And outside of school everyone can and may see that they are students. Would they do better here?
But what does a uniform add to discipline that ordinary clothing could not? And I consider quality education to be more important than discipline, where students learn to think critically, ask questions, open their mouths, and so on. However, this conflicts with the idea that a large proportion of Thai teachers seem to believe that students must obey, stand in a neat line and so on.
Is there still the argument that a uniform hides the difference between rich and poor, but students will understand that in no time. It's all superficial concealment, good looks. And as far as designer clothes are concerned… I think it fits in well with a lesson in critical thinking: does wearing an expensive outfit automatically make you better or is it just show and display? Let the children decide for themselves what they wear to school, a uniform, regular clothes or expensive designer clothes. I never wore designer clothes, some classmates did, it was never an issue. If children already see through who is poor, middle class and rich despite a uniform, this will also happen if children wear (brand) clothing that may or may not be above their budget. Above all, let them be a nice child and discover themselves by asking a lot of questions and talking about them.
It's about Personal FREEDOM. So own choices, development of your own personality. A uniform is a means of grouping people, enslaving, yes… uniforming, creating an ideal drilled uniform sausage. Easy for authority figures, parents and any obsessive control freak. Then a national sauce over it such as daily flag display, singing the national anthem every day, lining up in rows in the schoolyard and you have a semi-army. Obedience, humility, submission are seen as ideal values here. Social classes maintained by social distancing and compulsory learned to respect. But the children, teenagers here are not asked anything. Puberty, study time, is precisely a period to break out, to break free from coercive authority and conservative thinking; the right of doubt and rebellion. That is called progression, it brings new ideas and helps a country move forward. Yes, that is sometimes accompanied by problems, but it does promote Free thinking; also about how someone wants to be seen or present themselves. In short; I prefer sleepers to uniformed yes-men.
Very good, Rebel4Ever. Those pupils and students protest against those uniforms and a uniform hairstyle because they symbolize an imposed discipline. They also say that in their speeches.
This is what they want. You worded it well.
Nosing about whether or not school uniform is a nice distraction from matters that really matter, such as the quality of education.
Personally, I think those school uniforms have something. This means that students do not seek refuge in designer clothes, as they do in Europe (outside England). And from what I understand from one of the commenters, those school uniforms are not ridiculously expensive, and certainly not equivalent to half a month's wages. Ordinary clothes, apart from designer clothes, also cost money.
I also had to pay for school uniforms for my (step) daughter. I lost faith is 2.500 baht.
So that's great.
In Thailand people have much less tendency to distinguish themselves with clothing. Unlike in the Netherlands, where individualism reigns supreme. The Dutch do not like conforming to group formation. In Thailand people have much less trouble with this, as a result of their hierarchical attitude.
But apparently there are Dutch people again who will tell the Thai that they have to get rid of those school uniforms.
Let's ask the Thai people themselves is my credo, what do the students themselves want? The Bad Student movement and others say: wear what you want, uniform or your own clothes, up to you. I completely agree. However, the minister thinks very differently.
@Rob V.
And how big is the Bad Student movement? Do they represent the vast majority of Thai students? Or is it a number of students who have a whole package of requirements, including freedom of choice with regard to clothing, the reform of the monarchy and the rewriting (for the umpteenth time) of the constitution? The same students who refused to talk to parties in parliament because not all their subjects could be discussed. The all or nothing principle, where they now have nothing. If they had spoken, a few things might have been discussed. So not anymore.
Leo, if you say “…But apparently there are Dutch people again who will tell the Thai to get rid of those school uniforms…” then you make it seem as if Thai are listening to that polder finger of us Dutch people. I can't imagine any of that. So you're exaggerating quite a bit.
The noises about those clothes and shoes that indeed do not cost half a month's wages (I had one from 8 to 18 years old at state school and know what I'm talking about) do come from Thai society. They are not a complaint item in themselves, but are one of the many things that bother the youth and if you do complain, then about everything that bothers you.
I agree with the youth that 'school' clothes etc is just one of the methods to patronize the youth. It is for the protesting youth and that is so stinging, if you follow the protests a bit. That set of disparaging rules is out of date.
Well written, Eric.
Let's talk about the price of a school uniform. My son had to have three kinds, a regular one, that white blouse and blue pants, 2 sets, a sports outfit and something folkloric. And special shoes. That was 4.000 baht together. It is probably cheaper in other schools, 1-2.000 baht.
Let all those who are against casual clothes wear a uniform every day, even those who comment now.
They will soon change their mind.
555
It might be nice to read an article about school uniforms in England where they are almost always compulsory. Not in the rest of Europe, in the US and Canada, but in Asia, Africa and South America.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/05/britain-school-uniform-reinforces-social-divisions-children?fbclid=IwAR3Hgp-n3eBQjYNmMY-cC1z8omz2DK-t26nOyYt4I0qljX7b1zw-YqwRy-I
This article shows that uniforms in England have more disadvantages than advantages. It actually reinforces social differences, the article says. They call it an obsession, which is what it is in Thailand. Quote:
'Uniform policies reinforce gender and racial divisions as well as class ones, as racist hairstyle policies, sexist skirt rules, the sexual fetishisation of girls' uniforms (a third of girls say they have been sexually harassed while wearing their uniforms), and the discrimination faced by trans pupils all illustrate.'
I have also seen pictures of students in the poor mountain villages in the north of Thailand. No uniforms or very old and worn [lunje.
Apart from this whole discussion, I think the school uniforms often look very nice.
What I have not yet read in all the comments is that when I walk into the shopping center at 17 pm, the school uniforms are black. Young and old. If they really hated that uniform so much, they would change it for casual clothes first. In the toilet if necessary, but if you really want it can be done easily.
I've been having discussions about school uniforms for about 14 years now, with my students but even more colleagues and management of my institute: usefulness, details, timing, control, penalties.
Introducing the terms freedom and invasion of privacy into this discussion is, in my opinion, pointless. The flip side of complete freedom is chaos (what to do with kids who come to school like they're going to the disco or dressed like a gay queen?) and I don't believe there's even one employee of an airline, department store, supermarket chain or bank is the most that wearing a uniform at work infringes on his/her privacy.
I tend to approach the theme with the term functionality. What function does the uniform serve? At what times? What details for the uniform and what is the underlying reason for this (hygiene, safety, corporate image, exuding unity, exuding quality, pride)? Who determines the design within acceptable costs (in short: who owns the idea uniform?).
And then what turns out? That there are no problems in hospitality management courses if you talk about it together (including the students) and make decisions.
Both the call to wear uniforms at all times and everywhere in school can be criticized just as easily as the call for complete freedom to wear whatever you want.
Apart from the fact that there are advantages and disadvantages to wearing a uniform, I am in favor of this. Especially in schools and certain professions. I myself have been wearing a uniform for more than forty years and it has left me with nothing. It is only for a certain period of time that the student wears this and I feel that the majority of students have no problem with this. Certainly in Asian countries it is generally accepted and as my wife puts it, I understand it. She thinks this discussion is nonsense. Some things don't need adjustment. In fact, adapting to the situations is a life lesson. It is important not to go too far in this and not to add things that do not apply to it. In everything, freedom has a limit that must be guarded. The rules that apply in Thailand must be supported by the majority of the people and that is the form of democracy that I advocate. In my opinion, it is not a good thing to always push through your own will under the guise of freedom and happiness. I agree with what Chris says about functionality.