The letter to the editor “Waste” (THT, Feb 26) by V P Sayami has taken me by surprise. The writer is of the opinion that teaching the English language to students is a waste of resources.
Further, he also opines that language should be taught to students from class III to Class VIII only. Let me remind Sayami that the world we live in today is ruled by the concept of
globalisation. In order to compete in the global market, language is a must. There are millions of students worldwide (especially in developing countries like ours) who, in spite of having a sound knowledge of their respective fields, suffer because of the language
barrier. So, teaching English (which is an international language) is not wasteful. Rather, it is
The writer also suggests that foreign languages (including English) should be taught as an optional subject. But the international standard of education requires students to take at least one foreign language. Hence, that suggestion also appears impractical. However, the writer’s implication that one of the languages of Nepal should be made compulsory is a welcome one.
Pallavi Koirala, Maitidevi, Kathmandu
This is in reference to V P Sayami’s letter “Waste” (THT, Feb 26). I don’t agree with him. First of all, language is just a medium of communication. In fact, we should put more effort into learning international languages because of the globalisation process taking place.
The English language is one of the widely accepted languages across the globe. So it is good that the government has given it due attention. Where will our children stand in the future if we follow Sayami’s advice? But that does not mean we should ignore our national language.
As a student, the mother tongue, the national language and the international language should be given equal importance. Had Sayami followed his own idea, he himself would not have
been able to express his views in a renowned newspaper like THT.
Amrita Karki, via e-mail
It is distressing that many youths are addicted to gambling, smoking, and using narcotic drugs.
Instead, they should have been occupied with their studies for their better future. If their guardians and elders do not control them, the future that is likely to await them is dismal.
The government should come up with viable plans and programmes whereby the youths can be weaned from the evils and their potential tapped for the good of the country. It will be beneficial not only for the youths concerned but the society as a whole. It is an urgent matter that deserves the attention of all concerned. A strong and prosperous country cannot be built if its youths become prisoners of such evils.
Xiran Varal, TU, Kirtipur
The caption on “Short Takes” (THT, Feb 24) can at best be viewed as a stereotype and at worst, a chauvinistic statement generalising about women. The editors concerned should be more meticulous in ensuring that such a caption does not appear again.
Mohd Zakaria, via e-mail