Let’s Look Closely at Thailand’s 20-Year National Strategy

 Let’s Look Closely at Thailand’s 20-Year National Strategy  

By Janpha Thadphoothon

As a concerned citizen of Thailand, I, like many of my fellow Thais, have often found myself reflecting on the direction our country is heading in and the well-being of our people. In today’s fast-paced and interconnected world, it is only natural to wonder whether we, as a nation, are truly prepared to meet the challenges of the future. Beyond the day-to-day political debates and the laws that govern us, Thailand has set its sights on something larger—a long-term plan to guide our country’s development. This plan has been crystallized into the 20-Year National Strategy.

In my opinion, this strategic vision is both ambitious and essential. Thailand, much like many other countries, must anticipate the complex global shifts we are facing—be they economic, environmental, or technological. This 20-year framework is designed to look far beyond the immediate future and to pave a path toward a more stable, prosperous, and sustainable Thailand. The question, however, is whether this vision is truly aligned with the aspirations of the Thai people and whether it can adapt to the unpredictable nature of the world.

The architects of this strategy, mainly the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) and various government bodies, seem to have envisioned a Thailand that is more self-reliant, equitable, and secure. The Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy, championed by the late King Bhumibol, is the bedrock of this plan. It calls for moderation, balance, and resilience in the face of global uncertainties—a philosophy that resonates deeply with me and many others who see the value in sustainable, thoughtful development. 

But, as common sense tells us, no plan is without its flaws or challenges. While it is obvious that a long-term strategy is needed to ensure progress, there are legitimate concerns about whether this strategy, drafted by an unelected body, reflects the true will of the people. Does it offer enough room for innovation and flexibility in an ever-changing world? Or will it prove to be too rigid, locking future generations into policies that may not suit their needs?

I find myself asking these questions not just as a Thai citizen, but as someone who wants to see Thailand thrive—not just survive—in the global arena. Can this 20-year vision truly drive us toward a future where Thailand is both competitive on the world stage and deeply rooted in its cultural values? Will it uplift all segments of society, or will it merely serve those already in positions of power? These are the kinds of questions I feel we need to be asking as we look ahead to what this strategy means for Thailand, its people, and our role in the world.

In the coming years, it will be crucial for us to reflect on how well the strategy is being implemented. Are we moving toward the promised stability, wealth, and sustainability, or are we veering off course? Are our leaders, both present and future, committed to this vision, or will political and economic interests derail it? Only time will tell, but as concerned citizens, we have a duty to keep asking these questions, pushing for transparency, and ensuring that this strategy serves the interests of all Thais—not just a select few.

As we move forward, it is clear that Thailand's place in the world will be shaped by how well we manage the next two decades. In my opinion, if we stay true to the core values of balance and moderation embedded in the Sufficiency Economy philosophy, Thailand can become a beacon of sustainable development not only for ourselves but also for the world. This is not just a dream—it is a real possibility if we engage with the strategy critically, hold our leaders accountable, and adapt it to meet the changing needs of our society.

Let's Look Closely at the Plan

The 20-Year National Strategy (2018-2037) is Thailand's first long-term national strategy implemented under the Constitution of 2017. It was designed with the overarching goal of guiding Thailand toward stability, prosperity, and sustainability, with a strong emphasis on the Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy, a development model rooted in moderation and resilience, proposed by the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

According to the 20-year national strategy draft, which was released to the public, the strategy is divided into 6 areas:

1. Security strategy

2. Strategy for building competitiveness

3. Strategy for developing and strengthening human potential

4. Strategy for creating opportunities for equality and social equity

5. Strategy for creating growth on quality of life that is friendly to the environment

6. Strategy for balancing and developing the public administration system

Origins: Why Was the 20-Year National Strategy Created?

The need for the 20-Year National Strategy arose from Thailand’s struggle with political instability, economic inequality, and environmental challenges. The country has faced military coups, rapid economic changes, and societal divides over the past decades, often leaving its development trajectory fragmented. In response to this, the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), the military junta that took power in 2014, initiated this long-term plan. It aimed to establish a more structured and unified approach to development, one that would transcend political regimes.

The 20-year plan is outlined in the national charter. Section 65 states that the government shall establish a national strategy aimed at sustainable national development, guided by the principles of good governance. This strategy will serve as a framework for aligning and integrating various plans to ensure coordinated efforts towards achieving these goals.

The core idea was to ensure that Thailand's development pathway would remain consistent, regardless of which political party or government was in power. It was a deliberate effort to provide long-term continuity, insulating national priorities from short-term political shifts.  

Who Created It, and For Whom?

The National Strategy Committee, composed of military leaders, government officials, and technocrats, led the development of the strategy. Key figures, such as General Prayuth Chan-o-cha, the former Prime Minister and head of the NCPO, played a pivotal role in its creation. Various government agencies, ministries, and stakeholders contributed to outlining the specific goals within the strategy.

The strategy was designed for the Thai population as a whole, with special attention to economic growth, social equity, environmental sustainability, and national security. It was intended to provide a roadmap for government, private sectors, and civil society to follow.

Criticisms of the 20-Year National Strategy

Despite its ambitious aims, the 20-Year National Strategy has faced significant criticism. Here are a few notable points:

1. Democratic Concerns: Critics argue that the strategy was created by an unelected military government and lacks broad democratic legitimacy. The strategy binds future elected governments to its framework, limiting their autonomy and flexibility.

 2. Rigid Structure: The strategy’s long-term nature can be seen as inflexible. In a fast-changing world where economic, social, and technological landscapes shift rapidly, locking the country into a 20-year plan may stifle innovation and adaptation.

Although it is possible to revise or adjust the national strategy, the process is somewhat complex. While the strategy can be amended, the main challenge lies with the "National Strategy Committee." - Despite assurances from NCPO officials that the strategy is amendable, the National Strategy Act of 2017, Section 11, specifies that the strategy must be reviewed every five years. If, during this period, the strategy is found to be inconsistent with or unsuitable for the global situation or Thailand's needs, amendments can be made. However, such amendments require the "National Strategy Committee" to first seek parliamentary approval before any changes can take effect.

3. Concentration of Power: Some observers believe the strategy consolidates too much power in the hands of technocrats and military leaders. Critics worry that this limits public input and marginalizes grassroots development.

It has been criticized that the National Strategy, once enforced, will require future elected governments to align their policies and propose annual budgets in accordance with its framework. As a result, the National Strategy may take precedence over the policies proposed by political parties elected by the people.

4. Ambiguity in Implementation: While the strategy sets ambitious goals, there have been concerns about how well these plans are being translated into action. Many argue that it lacks clear, measurable objectives and accountability mechanisms.

Can It Be Good for Thailand and the World?

The Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy, which underpins the strategy, advocates a balanced and sustainable approach to development. If successfully implemented, this could lead to more equitable wealth distribution, improved quality of life, and environmental sustainability. Thailand could emerge as a model for other developing nations, showing how long-term planning can address persistent societal challenges.

On a global level, Thailand’s focus on sustainability, in line with UN Sustainable Development Goals, positions the country as a contributor to global environmental efforts. The strategy’s emphasis on climate action, natural resource management, and resilient economic systems could foster international cooperation, particularly with countries facing similar challenges.

However, its success depends heavily on inclusive governance. If the strategy remains rigid and disconnected from the changing needs of society, its potential to benefit Thailand and the world will be limited.

Thailand’s 20-Year National Strategy is a bold attempt at ensuring the nation’s stability and progress. It has the potential to create lasting positive impacts if it embraces flexibility, democratic participation, and accountability along the way. Whether it succeeds will depend on how well it is adapted to the evolving global context.

My take on the 20-year strategy, like many others, is one of perplexity. This strategy represents something Thailand has never seriously implemented before—a long-term national plan. What makes it even more significant is that it has been integrated into the constitution and is overseen by a special committee, making it difficult to modify. There must be reasons why it was incorporated into the constitution.

From an educator’s perspective, the plan feels similar to a national curriculum, like a set track for running horses—a guide to ensure we stay on course and do not veer off. However, we must have confidence that this track is the right one. But how can we know? It requires a great deal of faith and trust. Most importantly, I believe the success of the strategy depends on the Thai people's trust and their ability to recognize the good intentions behind the plan.

References:

Summary of the National Strategy: https://www.bic.moe.go.th/images/stories/pdf/National_Strategy_Summary.pdf

What Exactly is the Dogme Method in ELT?

What Exactly is the Dogme Method in ELT?

By Janpha Thadphoothon  

Hello! I’m Janpha, and today I’m excited to share my thoughts and research on a teaching approach that’s been making waves in the world of English Language Teaching (ELT) – the so-called Dogme Method.  This intriguing name caught my attention the first time I saw it.

So, what do we know about this method?  

Dogme is a communicative approach to language teaching that strips away reliance on textbooks, focusing instead on genuine interaction and conversation in the classroom. It emerged from the work of Scott Thornbury, who suggested that real learning happens when students and teachers engage in authentic communication.  

You may be wondering, what makes Dogme different from other methods? (Certainly different from the Grammar-Translation method and ALM) At its heart, it’s about conversation-driven learning – language unfolds through discussions, not just through rigid lesson plans. You learn the language by talking to people. It’s part of what some refer to as "materials-light" teaching. This means there’s less dependence on traditional resources like textbooks, and more emphasis on student-generated content. Sounds simple, right? But it’s a powerful shift in the way we think about teaching languages.  

The Key Principles of the Dogme Method

Now, let’s take a closer look at the key principles that make Dogme tick. These principles reflect Dogme’s emphasis on communication, learner engagement, and the natural emergence of language in the classroom:

1. Interactivity  

 At the heart of Dogme is interactivity (Michael Long would agree with this, I think) —both between teachers and students, and amongst students themselves. It’s believed that the most direct route to learning happens through these interactions. Real conversations drive the learning process forward, creating meaningful opportunities for students to use language in authentic ways.

2. Engagement  

Dogme encourages students to take an active role in their learning by creating content themselves. When learners are involved in generating the material, they are naturally more invested and engaged in the lesson. This self-created content reflects their own interests and experiences, making it more relevant and meaningful.

3. Dialogic Processes  

Learning is seen as a social, dialogic process. Knowledge isn’t something that is passed from teacher to student—it’s co-constructed through dialogue. As students and teachers exchange ideas and perspectives, they build new understanding together, which leads to deeper learning.

4. Scaffolded Conversations  

 In Dogme, learning happens through carefully scaffolded conversations. The teacher plays a crucial role in guiding these discussions to ensure that new language emerges in a structured way. This scaffolding helps learners build on their current knowledge and push their language skills to the next level.

5. Emergence  

A key tenet of Dogme is that language and grammar emerge from the learning process, rather than being taught in a pre-determined, linear fashion. This approach mirrors how language is learned naturally, with students acquiring vocabulary, grammar, and structures as they communicate and interact.

6. Affordances  

 The teacher’s role in a Dogme classroom is to create and maximize opportunities for language learning. This means being attuned to moments where language naturally emerges and directing students’ attention to those affordances, helping them notice and use new language in real time.

7. Voice

 The learner’s voice is central in Dogme. Their beliefs, knowledge, and experiences are given recognition and space in the classroom. Students are encouraged to express themselves freely, which not only empowers them but also helps the teacher tailor lessons to the learners’ needs.

8. Empowerment  

 Both students and teachers are empowered by the Dogme method. By freeing the classroom from the constraints of textbooks and pre-set materials, Dogme allows for more autonomy and creativity in learning. This empowerment fosters a sense of ownership in students, making them more proactive in their language development.

9. Relevance 

Materials, when they are used, should be relevant to the learners’ lives and interests. Whether it’s a video, a text, or a conversation topic, the content should resonate with the students, making it more likely that they will engage with it on a deeper level.

These principles are what give the Dogme method its unique identity, focusing on interaction, learner autonomy, and language that emerges organically. Each principle works together to create a dynamic, responsive classroom environment where communication is at the forefront.

Criticisms of the Dogme Method

As with any innovative method, Dogme has its critics. Some common points of criticism include:

1. Overly Idealistic
   Critics argue that Dogme’s reliance on spontaneous conversation and emergent language is too idealistic. In many classroom settings, especially with beginners or in exam-driven contexts, students may need more structured input and guidance to succeed.

2. Anti-Materials Stance
   Some view Dogme’s rejection of textbooks and other materials as extreme. While Dogme claims to be “materials-light,” some teachers feel that it unnecessarily limits the use of helpful resources, especially in areas like listening practice, reading skills, or grammar instruction.

3. Cultural and Contextual Bias
   There are concerns that Dogme, which originated in Western contexts, may not work as effectively in other cultural settings where different learning styles and expectations exist. For example, in cultures where rote learning is the norm, Dogme’s fluid, conversation-based approach might clash with established teaching and learning practices.

4. Potential for Teacher Burnout
   The method’s demand for constant creativity and adaptability can lead to teacher burnout. Without the support of textbooks or a structured syllabus, teachers are responsible for generating all the content and managing the learning process on their own, which can be exhausting over time.

Scott Thornbury’s Own Revisions
Even Scott Thornbury, the creator of the method, has revised his stance on certain aspects of Dogme. In a 2020 interview, he acknowledged that the method’s strong focus on conversation might have been overstated, and that incorporating more “text-driven” approaches—both written and spoken—might better serve some learners. This has led some to question the method’s foundational principles.

My Personal Take on the Dogme Method

I personally see the Dogme method as more than just a teaching approach—it feels like a liberal movement aimed at freeing us from the dogma of rigid methods, where educators are expected to strictly follow a syllabus or curriculum. Dogme pushes back against the notion that teaching must adhere to a set, predetermined path, and instead invites more spontaneity, interaction, and learner-driven content.

Despite its liberating stance, the method has faced a fair amount of criticism, with some even laughing it off as unrealistic. However, after discussing the method with my students, I realized it actually fits well with their learning preferences, especially in the age of AI. With artificial intelligence becoming more integrated into education, students now enjoy the freedom to learn anything, anytime, and anywhere. AI agents can engage with them on a variety of topics in different modes, offering the kind of flexibility and personalization that the Dogme method naturally promotes.

My personal take on the Dogme method is also that it emphasizes self-driven learning, placing a strong focus on student autonomy and self-reliance, which aligns well with the core principles of Dogme. By positioning the learner at the center, you're highlighting the importance of self-motivation and the capacity for students to teach themselves—qualities that are especially relevant in the age of AI. This reflects an empowering view of education, where learners take charge of their own progress rather than passively following a structured curriculum. I don't know but this may be a shift towards more personalized, flexible learning, which can be highly effective when supported by AI tools that allow students to engage with content on their own terms.

In this regard, it resonates deeply with the learning in the 21st century - because it fosters independence, allowing learners to engage in self-directed discovery. This not only makes learning more meaningful but also builds skills that are crucial for lifelong learning. As we know and recognize, education should not be about following rules but about encouraging creativity and exploration.

References

Thornbury, Scott (February–March 2000). "A Dogma for EFL" (153). IATEFL Issues: 2. Retrieved 2009-06-23. 

Thornbury, S. (2005). Dogme: Dancing in the dark. Folio, 9, 3-5. Available online at
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://nebula.wsimg.com/22eaea86234146ac3105f57698b06b75?AccessKeyId=186A535D1BA4FC995A73&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Thornbury, S. (2009). Dogme: Nothing if not critical. Retrieved 8 Oct 2024 from https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/professional-development/teachers/knowing-subject/articles/dogme-nothing-if-not-critical

Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Dogme language teaching. Wikipedia. Retrieved October 8, 2024, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_language_teaching#:~:text=Dogme%20is%20a%20communicative%20approach,language%20education%20author%2C%20Scott%20Thornbury

Zhang, C. (2023). A Review of Dogme Approach: Principles and Practices. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 6(7), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2023.6.7.6

Janpha Thadphoothon is an assistant professor of English Language Teaching (ELT) at the International College, Dhurakij Pundit University in Bangkok, Thailand. He holds a certificate in Generative AI with Large Language Models issued by DeepLearning.AI. His research interests include the intersection of language, technology, and cognition.

Death: Void, Silence and Solitudes

Death: Void, Silence and Solitudes

Janpha Thadphoothon

I wrote this article to gauge my existing knowledge and understanding of one of the fundamental human conditions: death and the mysteries surrounding it and what comes after. No one is an expert on death, as we are all equal in facing this natural—if it is indeed natural—cosmic phenomenon.

This article explores the concept of rebirth in Buddhism and compares it to popular beliefs in Thailand. Many Thai people believe in karma and rebirth, believing that their current sufferings are the result of past actions. They strive to do good deeds in this life to achieve a better rebirth in the next. However, Buddhist teachings offer a different perspective on rebirth. In Buddhism, rebirth refers to the cycle of suffering caused by craving and clinging. The ultimate goal is to break free from this cycle through understanding and practicing the right path. While popular beliefs emphasize physical rebirth and the existence of spirits, Buddhism focuses on the internal rebirth of the mind and the cessation of suffering.

Silence & Solitude

The notion of silence and solitude is not explicitly mentioned in the article. However, it is implicitly related to the concept of mindfulness and meditation, which are essential practices in Buddhism for achieving enlightenment.

In Buddhism, mindfulness involves paying attention to the present moment without judgment. This requires a quiet and focused mind, which can be cultivated through meditation. Solitude can also be helpful for meditation, as it provides a peaceful environment free from distractions.

Therefore, while the article doesn't directly discuss silence and solitude, it is closely connected to the core Buddhist practices that promote inner peace and liberation from suffering.

Silence & Solitude in the Age of Social Media

The constant stream of information and social interactions provided by social media platforms can make it challenging for individuals to find moments of silence and solitude.

Here are some of the ways social media can hinder our ability to be alone with our thoughts:

• Constant stimulation: Social media platforms are designed to keep us engaged and entertained. The constant stream of notifications, updates, and messages can make it difficult to focus on anything else.
• Fear of missing out (FOMO): The pressure to stay connected and up-to-date can lead to a fear of missing out. This can make it difficult to disconnect and spend time alone.
• Comparison and self-doubt: Social media can create a distorted view of reality, leading to feelings of comparison and self-doubt. This can make it difficult to appreciate our own experiences and be comfortable with our own company.

Despite these challenges, it's important to recognize the value of silence and solitude. Spending time alone can help us to:

• Reduce stress: Disconnecting from social media can help to reduce stress and anxiety.
• Increase creativity: Solitude can provide a space for creativity and reflection.
• Improve self-awareness: Spending time alone can help us to better understand ourselves and our thoughts.

Here are some tips for finding moments of silence and solitude in the age of social media:

• Set boundaries: Limit the time you spend on social media each day.
• Create a dedicated "no-tech" zone: Designate a specific area of your home or a particular time of day where you can disconnect from technology.
• Practice mindfulness: Mindfulness meditation can help you to focus on the present moment and reduce distractions.
• Spend time in nature: Being in nature can be a great way to disconnect from the digital world and find peace and quiet.

By taking these steps, we can find ways to balance our social lives with the importance of solitude and reflection.

References:

Khamkhong, Y., & Yanatharo, P. S. (2022). Death and Rebirth in Buddhism: Myth and the Ultimate Truth. Manachulagajasara Journal, 13(2), 25-37. 
https://so06.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/gajasara/article/view/259284/175156

Why I Would Like AI to Replace My Tasks

 Why I Would Like AI to Replace My Tasks

Janpha Thadphoothon

As an English teacher, a significant portion of my time is spent marking students’ homework—primarily their writing, grammar, and vocabulary usage. These tasks can often feel daunting and time-consuming. I welcome the idea of AI stepping in to handle this part of the job. Replace me. I’m replaceable!

Imagine how much more I could contribute if I were freed from such repetitive work. I could focus on something more creative and impactful—designing lessons that inspire, developing engaging projects, or simply spending more time with students, helping them grow in ways machines never could.

Teaching English, after all, involves a lot of personalized feedback. While I believe my role as a teacher is important, I am not irreplaceable when it comes to routine tasks. AI, with its ability to analyze and assess, could do this job efficiently, leaving me with more time to connect with my students on a deeper level. Replace me. I’m replaceable!

Unfortunately, as much as I would like AI to replace me, this scenario is far from being a reality. The truth is, my students’ handwriting is often difficult for anyone to read, let alone a machine. Their logic also requires human understanding and interpretation. It turns out that, like coders and programmers, nothing can replace a competent teacher. 

I’ve seen this first-hand. When a publisher I know updated their online platforms, relying on programmers assisted by AI, the results were disastrous. The application is full of bugs and somewhat less effective. The human's works —be it in programming or teaching—remain indispensable. 

I’ve been learning Java and a few other programming languages, and I’ve found the process to be incredibly challenging. I often hear people claim that AI will replace programmers, but I can’t help wondering who came up with such a strange opinion. 

My advice to anyone eager to make rash comments about AI replacing humans is this: try doing it yourself first. Don’t just imagine what it’s like or make assumptions if you don’t truly understand what you’re talking about. And if you’re just fueling the hype, well, that’s irresponsible.

On reflection, I shouldn’t deprive my students of the potential benefits they could gain from AI-enhanced learning. But for now, it’s clear that AI still has a long way to go before it can fully replace the intricate work we do as educators.

Janpha Thadphoothon is an assistant professor of ELT at the International College, Dhurakij Pundit University in Bangkok, Thailand. Janpha Thadphoothon also holds a certificate of Generative AI with Large Language Models issued by DeepLearning.AI.

Time as the Subject: Grammar, Physics, and Philosophy

Time as the Subject: Grammar, Physics, and Philosophy

By Janpha Thadphoothon

As a language educator, I often find myself intrigued by how abstract concepts like time can dominate our lives and, more interestingly, how they can be used as subjects in sentences. Time, as both an intangible and omnipresent force, often takes center stage in conversations, metaphors, and grammatical structures. But what happens when time itself is the subject of a sentence? This question opens up not only a grammatical exploration but also a philosophical reflection on how we understand and communicate the flow of life.

Credit: ChatGPT. (2024). Abstract painting representing the concept of time as a subject [AI-generated image]. OpenAI.

Time as a Grammatical Subject

In English, nouns, proper nouns, pronouns, and occasionally even abstract concepts like time can function as the subject of a sentence. The subject typically indicates what or whom the sentence is about, and when we place "time" in that position, we see how our perception of the world, past, present, and future, can be expressed grammatically.

For instance, consider the sentence:  

"Three years of fighting have made the two sides weaker."

Here, "three years" refers to a specific span of time, and it is the subject of the verb phrase "have made." This simple sentence packs a deeper meaning. It shows how time, through the duration of three years, has produced tangible effects—weakening the parties involved in the conflict.

Similarly, time appears frequently in idiomatic expressions and proverbial sayings such as:

- "Time flies when you're having fun."

- "Time heals all wounds."

- "Yesterday is the past, tomorrow is the future, and today is a gift—that’s why they call it the present."

In each of these, time is either directly or indirectly treated as the subject. Time isn’t just a passive backdrop to our actions; it is an active participant in shaping human experience.

 Philosophical Dimensions of Time as the Subject

When time becomes the subject of a sentence, it often takes on qualities of agency, as though it had its own force and will. This leads to an interesting philosophical observation: Does time act on us, or are we the ones imposing meaning on time?

Consider the sentence:  

"Yesterday is the past."

This sentence, while simple, carries immense philosophical weight. Yesterday, as a concept, encapsulates everything that has already occurred, every action that has already been completed. When we say "yesterday is the past," we are acknowledging the inexorable flow of time and its ability to separate moments into before and after.

But here, we must ask ourselves: Is yesterday merely a product of human categorization? After all, "yesterday" and "today" are labels we assign to certain sections of the temporal continuum. While time may be a universal constant, how we understand and experience it is shaped by culture, language, and individual perception.

This leads to an interesting question: Can time exist without being observed? Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant have argued that time, along with space, is a framework imposed by the human mind. It organizes our experiences into a coherent narrative. Without this structure, life would be a chaotic blur of events. In this sense, when time becomes the subject of a sentence, it represents not just an external phenomenon but also our cognitive attempt to make sense of our existence.

Are We Part of Time?

From a scientific perspective, time is often considered a fundamental dimension of the universe, akin to space. Just as we occupy space, we also exist within time. The theory of relativity, proposed by Einstein, shows that time is relative—meaning our experience of time can change based on factors like speed and gravity, but we are always bound by it. In this sense, humans, like all matter, are part of time, flowing with it, subject to its passage, unable to escape its forward motion.

Our lives are structured by time: past, present, and future guide our actions and thoughts. We measure our existence through time—birth, aging, and death all happen within its framework. This suggests that we are very much a part of time, moving through it, subject to its laws.

Are We the Creators of Time?

From a more philosophical or metaphysical standpoint, some argue that time is a construct of human consciousness. This viewpoint suggests that time, as we understand it, is something we create to make sense of our experiences. Kant, for instance, believed that time (and space) are structures imposed by our minds to organize sensory input. Without a conscious observer to categorize events into a sequence, "time" might not exist as we perceive it.

If we consider that past and future don't physically exist—only the present is ever truly experienced—then one could argue that time is a mental framework. We create time by thinking of it in terms of linear progress, milestones, and measurements. In this way, perhaps we are, in a sense, creators of time in the way we interpret and experience it.

The Interplay of Both

It’s possible that both perspectives hold truth. On one hand, we are undeniably part of time, subject to its passage as an external force. On the other hand, our understanding and perception of time are shaped by human consciousness, culture, and the need to impose order on our experiences. We might not have created time itself, but we have certainly shaped the way we interact with and understand it.

So, in the end, I guess, we are both participants in time’s flow and creators of our individual perceptions of it. The beauty of the question lies in how it invites us to reflect on the mystery of our existence in relation to something as fundamental as time.

The Buddhist Conception of Time

The notion of time cannot be discussed without considering the teachings of the Buddha, in my opinion. The Buddha’s teachings offer a unique perspective on time, which differs significantly from both Western philosophical and scientific understandings. In Buddhist thought, time is not seen as an absolute, fixed entity but is closely tied to the concepts of impermanence (anicca) and dependent origination (paticca samuppada).

Let’s explore how the Buddha’s teachings address the question of whether we are part of time or its creators.

Impermanence (Anicca) and the Nature of Time

As far as I know, Buddhism teaches us that all phenomena are impermanent and constantly changing. This includes both physical objects and mental states. In this view, time is part of the transient nature of existence, but it is not considered a fixed or independent entity. Rather, time is an aspect of the flow of change in the universe.

According to the doctrine of impermanence, everything is in a constant state of flux, and this ongoing process of arising and passing away is what we experience as time. We don’t "move through" time in the sense of a river flowing by; rather, time is a construct that arises from the changing conditions around us. In this sense, we are part of the flow of change, which is closely related to what we perceive as time.

Dependent Origination (Paticca Samuppada)

The Buddha’s teaching of dependent origination explains that all phenomena arise in dependence on causes and conditions. Nothing exists independently; everything is interdependent. This applies to time as well—time is not an entity that exists on its own but is understood in relation to other phenomena.

For example, the concepts of "past," "present," and "future" only make sense in relation to changing experiences and conditions. In this way, our perception of time is shaped by the events and phenomena we experience, rather than being an external force that drives existence. Time is seen as a relative concept, dependent on how we observe change in the world.

Are We Part of Time or the Creator of Time?

In Buddhist teachings, we are part of the ongoing flow of conditions that gives rise to our perception of time, but we do not "create" time as a fixed entity. Instead, time is understood as a mental construct, an abstraction used to describe the continuous process of change.

At a deeper level, Buddhism teaches that the self—our idea of a permanent, unchanging "I"—is also an illusion. There is no fixed, enduring self moving through time; rather, we are a constantly changing collection of mental and physical processes. Since both time and the self are seen as impermanent and interdependent, there is no ultimate separation between the two. We are both part of the flow of time (or change) and participants in the mental constructs that give rise to our experience of it.

The Ultimate Truth: Beyond Time

At the highest levels of Buddhist understanding, particularly in the teachings about nirvana, the concept of time as we know it becomes irrelevant. Nirvana, the state of liberation from the cycle of birth and death (samsara), is often described as timeless. It is a state that transcends the ordinary experience of time because it is beyond change and impermanence.

In this sense, the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice is to transcend the ordinary concept of time. When one reaches enlightenment, they no longer experience the illusion of a separate self moving through past, present, and future. Instead, they realize the truth of the timeless nature of reality.

Practical Implications for Mindfulness

In day-to-day practice, Buddhism emphasizes mindfulness (sati), which involves being fully present in the moment. This practice of mindfulness teaches us to let go of attachment to the past and anxiety about the future, focusing instead on the here and now.

By training the mind to remain in the present, we can see more clearly the nature of time as a mental construct and reduce the suffering that comes from clinging to past experiences or fearing future events.

The Middle Way

In Buddhist teachings, time is not an absolute entity that controls our lives, nor are we the creators of time in the sense of imposing structure on an otherwise chaotic flow. Instead, time is part of the impermanent and interdependent nature of all things. We experience time through the changing conditions of life, and our attachment to concepts of past, present, and future can lead to suffering. Through mindfulness and insight, we can transcend our ordinary experience of time and approach the timeless state of nirvana.

From a Buddhist perspective, then, the answer might be that we are neither wholly part of time nor its creators—we are simply part of the continuous, interdependent process of change that we call life.

Einstein’s Views on Time

It would be incomplete and unbecoming if this discourse omitted Einstein’s views on time.

As we know, his are rooted in his groundbreaking theories of relativity, which transformed how we understand the concept of time. His perspective diverges significantly from both the everyday view of time as linear and absolute, and from philosophical or spiritual views like those found in Buddhism. Let's explore his stance on time and how it fits into the broader discussion.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Time

In Einstein’s special theory of relativity (1905), time is not an independent, absolute entity. Instead, it is linked to space, forming what is called spacetime. Here are some key elements of Einstein’s view:

- Time is relative: According to special relativity, time is not experienced uniformly by all observers. Depending on your speed relative to another observer, time may move faster or slower for you. This is the famous concept of time dilation—for example, a person traveling close to the speed of light will experience time much more slowly than someone standing still on Earth.

- Spacetime continuum: Time is not a separate dimension but is woven together with the three dimensions of space into a four-dimensional framework. Events that occur are not located solely in space or time but in spacetime. This view makes time a dimension we move through, just as we move through space.

- General relativity (1915) further expanded this understanding by introducing the idea that gravity warps time and space. Time passes more slowly in strong gravitational fields, an effect known as gravitational time dilation. For example, time moves more slowly closer to massive objects like stars or black holes.

Time as a Flexible Entity

In contrast to the traditional view of time as an absolute, unchanging flow, Einstein's theories show that time is flexible and dependent on the observer's context. This makes time less like a fixed river in which we float, and more like a variable element that can stretch, shrink, or even bend under the right conditions.

Block Universe Theory: Time as an Illusion?

Einstein’s work also led to a concept sometimes called the block universe or eternalism. In this view, all points in time—past, present, and future—exist simultaneously. Time doesn’t “flow” in a linear fashion as we perceive it. Instead, the universe is like a four-dimensional block where every event exists permanently in spacetime.

This concept suggests that the past and future are just as real as the present, challenging our intuitive sense of time as something that moves forward. In this sense, time could be seen as an illusion created by human perception, echoing certain philosophical and spiritual ideas, though Einstein himself never argued this explicitly.

Einstein’s Personal Views on Time and Death

Einstein is also known for his philosophical reflections on time, especially later in his life. After the death of his close friend Michele Besso, Einstein wrote to Besso’s family, saying:

"Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

As we can see, here, Einstein reflects his belief that the flow of time is an illusion, rooted in his understanding of spacetime. While we experience life as a series of moments, physics shows us that all points in time coexist. This aligns with the block universe concept, where death doesn’t mean a person ceases to exist; they exist eternally in spacetime.

Comparison to Buddhist Teachings

- Relativity of time: Both Einstein’s theory and Buddhist teachings challenge the everyday notion of time as absolute. In Buddhism, time is seen as relative and dependent on conditions, much like how relativity shows that time can be different for different observers depending on their circumstances.

- Illusion of time: Einstein’s idea that time is a persistent illusion echoes the Buddhist teaching that the self and the phenomenal world are also illusory, based on our limited perceptions. Buddhism teaches that our attachment to linear time (past, present, future) leads to suffering, and Einstein’s view that time is an illusion can be interpreted similarly—our belief in the flow of time may shape our experience but does not reflect ultimate reality.

- Timelessness and Enlightenment: While Einstein’s work is grounded in physics, the philosophical implications of a “timeless” block universe resonate with the Buddhist idea of nirvana, a state beyond time and change. For Einstein, the block universe suggests all events in spacetime are equally real and eternal, while in Buddhism, the ultimate truth transcends the temporal world of change.

Einstein’s work on relativity introduced a revolutionary way of thinking about time, showing it to be relative, flexible, and intertwined with space. His personal reflections on time as an illusion resonate with philosophical and spiritual traditions, like Buddhism, that see time as dependent on perception rather than as an absolute reality. 

As we can see, Einstein might not take a spiritual position like the Buddha, but his scientific insights lend support to the idea that time is more complex and less fixed than our everyday experience suggests. Both views challenge the notion of time as a simple, forward-moving force and open the door to a deeper understanding of reality.

Time and Language Learning

For English learners, understanding time as a grammatical subject helps to develop a more nuanced understanding of both the language and the ways we perceive the world. The more one can grasp how time interacts with verbs and other sentence elements, the better one will be able to express ideas about past experiences, current events, and future possibilities.

Take, for instance, the difference between "I will do it tomorrow" and "Tomorrow will bring new opportunities." - Can you feel the difference?  

In the first sentence, the subject is "I," and the verb is in the future tense. Time is simply a reference point for the action. In the second sentence, however, time ("tomorrow") becomes the subject, and it is presented as an active agent capable of "bringing" opportunities. In the latter, time has been created and brought into existence.

For language learners, understanding how time functions as a subject can lead to more accurate and expressive communication. By treating time as a dynamic entity that affects or creates change, students can move beyond simple descriptions of when something happens and start engaging with the cause-and-effect relationships that time enables.

Time in Proverbial Wisdom

Proverbs are another area where time frequently appears as the subject. These short, memorable sayings often convey deep truths about human nature, and they use time as a tool to communicate wisdom across generations. For example:

- "Time waits for no man."  

In this proverb, time is presented as indifferent to human concerns. It moves forward relentlessly, no matter how much we wish otherwise.

- "Better late than never."  

This emphasizes that time, while important, is not the ultimate determiner of success. Even when we miss deadlines or fail to act promptly, there is still value in taking action eventually.

For learners, studying proverbs that use time as the subject can be an excellent way to engage with deeper cultural and philosophical meanings. Each language embeds its own understanding of time within its proverbs, allowing learners to not only improve their language skills but also to gain insight into the worldview of its speakers.

Tense and Time: The Intersection of Grammar and Philosophy

A crucial aspect of English is its tense system, which is inextricably linked to time. English has three basic tenses—past, present, and future—but it subdivides these into multiple forms that convey nuances about when actions occur and how they relate to one another.

For example, the present perfect tense ("I have been studying") expresses an action that began in the past and continues into the present. The simple past ("I studied") places an action firmly in the past, while the future perfect ("I will have studied") projects us forward in time, looking back on an action as though it were already completed.

For language learners, mastering these tenses can be challenging but rewarding. It enables them to express complex ideas about time, including cause and effect, duration, and the relationship between past, present, and future events.

Time is a concept that transcends grammar. It permeates every aspect of our lives, shaping how we think, feel, and communicate. In English, time frequently takes on the role of the subject in sentences, acting as an agent of change, a marker of history, and a predictor of future events. For language learners, exploring the ways in which time functions grammatically and philosophically can deepen their understanding not just of English, but of the human condition itself.

As we continue to navigate through the various tenses and structures that make time a focal point of communication, we are also invited to reflect on the nature of time itself. Is time an external force acting upon us, or is it something we create to make sense of our experiences?

Regardless of the answer, one thing is clear: Time, both in language and in life, is a powerful subject worth exploring.

About the Author  

Janpha Thadphoothon is an assistant professor of ELT at the International College, Dhurakij Pundit University in Bangkok, Thailand. He holds a certificate in Generative AI with Large Language Models issued by DeepLearning.AI.