BRITS @ THE BAR

The expert panel give their views on English in the workplace. (From left to right) Mechai Viravaidya, David Shaw, Amara Prasithrathsint and Mark Fraser.

“@ the Bar” is the provocative title given by the British Council to their popular monthly public debates on issues ranging from pop music to the role of business in a globalised world. Recently, the topic “English Language in the workplace: a merger of cultures?” attracted over 100 participants made up of UK graduates, business leaders and sundry other people from the world of English language education.

Of particular interest was a survey in the Bangkok Post, which found that 80% of Thai graduates aspire to work for international companies. This isn’t just because of higher salaries. Students also cite being part of an international community as being behind their ambitions, hence the surge in popularity of English language courses over the past few years.

To discuss the issue, a panel was on hand to lend expert opinion and, in the case of popular senator Mechai Viravaidya, provide witty asides to keep the audience entertained.

“We have so much trust in English,” joked Mechai, “but it’s a totally untrustworthy language. It comes from a country without even a written constitution! People talk about their mother tongue. But my mother is Scottish and my father’s tongue is Thai, so what the hell is my tongue?!”

Much is made in the United Kingdom of so-called ‘standard English’. In broad terms, the definition seeks to crystallise a form of English that is ‘right for everyone’, a standard that we can all aspire to, even though we may veer from it in speech or even the written word. The truth is that few people truly understand what ‘standard English’ is. When pressed, you may hear something like “it’s the English used by the BBC!” But even time spent flicking through the various channels our revered corporation has to offer these days will provide scant evidence of any kind of standard form.

All the panelists agreed there should be some room for differences. “English is used as a second language in many countries and also as an international language,” noted Amara Prasithrathsint, Associate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at Chulalongkorn University. “In Asia, we have many varieties including Singaporean English (sometimes known as ‘Singlish’) and Philippine English. We also have Thai English. The more the language is used, the more varieties you will have. English can change through ‘interference’ from local languages but should we accept those varieties of English as native English? Some distinguished scholars might say ‘no’.”

Whatever form of English is used, it should always be clear according to panelist Mark Fraser, a partner of the law firm Johnson, Stokes and Master. He was keen to stress his preference for conciseness over the sometimes convoluted language often found in documentation. Being a lawyer, he should know!

“We need an initiative throughout the world for plain English,” he asserted, “particularly in the law. If you can’t identify your rights and obligations clearly in a way that all the parties to the transaction or case can understand, you can’t make any progress at all.

“I once saw a clause in a document that shows you how complicated people can make English and how simple you can make it as well. The clause stated that ‘this agreement and all benefits and advantages contained herein are personal to the member and cannot be transferred, sold or assigned in any way by the member.’ I think there are 27 words there. You can reduce it to four – ‘membership is not transferable’. That’s where things are going. Although this example relates to law, this point must be relevant in any form of commerce. If we can make English simple and easy to understand, it doesn’t have to be brilliantly grammatically correct. We’re talking about comprehension and understandability. There is a virtue in brevity.”

A fourth panelist, David Shaw, Organisation Development Advisor for Standard Chartered Nakornthon Bank PCL, spoke about the level of English skills required by international organisations if you want to get ahead.

“When we acquired Nakornthon Bank recently, it posed enormous challenges for us as a commercial organisation in terms of language,” he said. “95% of the employees at the time didn’t speak any English. Even today, despite considerable training and investment, only 50% can speak the language. Fair enough, if you work as a teller in Hat Yai, you don’t need to. “On the other hand, as we become increasingly part of the Standard Chartered worldwide network, a lot of our senior people do need to speak English proficiently.”

Students of English often have little confidence in speaking the language because they are overly concerned about being precise. There was some debate as to whether it was more important to be grammatically correct or just plain understandable.

One English teacher spoke from the floor about his take on the issue. “In terms of teaching English,” he said, “there seems to be a tendency to get terribly hung up on the finer points of grammar. What really matters is actually getting the message across, clearly and simply, to the other people who you are trying to convey that message to. People need to be taught English that is relevant to their circumstances and the messages that they need to convey to their customers and clients.”

The Thai perspective came from Khun Mechai: “Grammar is frustrating for Thais because grammar is very straight forward in our language. When you have done something you say laew and when you are going to do something, you say ja. It’s very simple. But in English, you can say ‘I will eat’, ‘I have eaten’, ‘I ate’. In Thai, you can just say ‘I eat already’. It’s very frustrating for Thais to have to change the spellings and words, so maybe we should say that anyone who speaks English with Thai grammar is acceptable. Even in written form it can be understood.”

Indeed, written English seems to be a major obstacle for students, as native speakers tend to be a little less forgiving when it comes to communicating things on paper, particularly with regards to official documentation.

“For our employees, written English is more of a challenge than spoken English,” observed David Shaw. “Whilst many of my Thai colleagues speak excellent English, there are very few who I would trust to communicate accurately in a written report to London or Singapore. I know that’s not unique to Thailand because I’ve worked on all the continents and met people who are virtually fluent in the spoken language but when it comes putting together more than one sentence on paper or on e-mail, it all falls apart.”

Identifying the shortcomings and needs of non-native speakers was the easy part. Suggesting solutions proved to be more of a challenge, although Khun Mechai had a pretty good stab in his own inimitable style.

“We have been very unoriginal in our approach to many things in life, including learning a language,” said Mechai. “There are many people in Thailand who can sing well in English and they can pronounce words precisely and accurately because of music. So why don’t we try and teach and learn English through music? I bet you it would be more fun. If we make it interesting like some kind of ‘edutainment’, then perhaps pronunciation would be clearer and the grammar might be easier to grasp. We always think inside of the box. Let’s start thinking outside of the box.”

Novel approaches to teaching will no doubt improve the accessibility of language courses. However, it was widely agreed that teaching methods should be tailored to improve English-speaking confidence as well with debate as to how non-native speakers, particularly Thais, should be encouraged to employ the language skills they acquire.

“Every year, our organisation hires about 200 graduates around the world,” said David Shaw. “Before they start on a two-year graduate associate programme, we get them all together. This year, we recruited 7 graduates associates from Thailand and all of them had done their tertiary education outside Thailand – in the US, UK or Australia. But when they attended this programme with 200 other graduates from around the world, and despite the fact that they were fluent in English, they still felt very inhibited in comparison to some of our more aggressive graduates from, say, Hong Kong, India or the UK. So, it’s not just language. There’s something else working there which was inhibiting them from contributing to the conversation.”

Mark Fraser has had a similar experience: “We were in the office trying to develop some of the younger lawyers in their presentation skills,” he recalled. “One chap just wasn’t contributing at all which I thought was strange because I knew he could speak English pretty well. When we went to the bar afterwards, he was cracking jokes in English and was the life and soul of the party. But he just had this mindset that when he was involved in that formal type of forum, he couldn’t get involved in speaking English, which was a real shame.”

Whether cultural traits prevent people from speaking out in public is a whole new debate in itself but what about the impact of English use on other cultures? Most of the panel seemed unperturbed by this when asked by learning post if the dominance of English in business might impact on ‘Thainess’.

“I’ve heard this question asked by the National Committee of Thai Identity,” replied Chulalongkorn’s Amara Prasithrathsint. “We borrow a lot of features from English but I don’t think that it is anything to worry about, so long as we don’t shift totally to use English for everything and keep Thai as the main medium of instruction, particularly in business language within the country. I think this is just a process of modernising Thai rather than damaging Thainess.” She also suggested that being exposed to the richness of other languages enables Thais to enjoy many opportunities that would otherwise be closed to them, such as reading great literature or travel, so culturally it can be a good thing.

David Shaw saw it from the perspective of his Thai employees: “I talked to some of our recent graduates and asked if the driving force behind them joining the bank was because they could speak English or because it was international. They said the latter. Language forms ideas but, however much English is used as a language of commerce, I don’t see it affecting the way that my Thai colleagues behave or think.”

Mechai believed that once Thai companies took on western ideals, graduates would soon drift back. “In many international companies, there is a standard of fair play and advancement is based on merit rather than whose boots you lick. As more Thai companies become more professional, I think that graduates will be more than happy to work for them,” he said.

Inevitably, graduates will continue be attracted to international companies as globalisation gathers pace. There was also a feeling amongst debaters that Thailand’s role within the international community will certainly expand and, with it, the necessity for the country’s top people to be able to communicate in today’s language of commerce.