Suttyhudeo Tengur, the notorious trade unionist in the education sector, has announced his intention of going into active politics. The “defender of oriental languages” says he hasn’t chosen a party yet although his choice already looks obvious. “I will become a member of the party, which will restore a dose of competition and elitism into the education system.” The only party that has expressed its intention of doing so is the Labour party.

President of the Government Hindi Teachers’ Union considers that, as a unionist, he works in a limited framework that doesn’t enable him to realise his dreams. “I must go into Parliament to make my vision become reality. Going into the political arena is the only way to achieve this.”

This “engagement” in political life is not surprising, as the unionist has somehow always taken political stands. Whatever battle he was in – the inclusion of oriental languages in the grading for the Certificate of primary education (CPE), his fight against the criteria for the reserved seats in catholic schools before the Privy Council - his behaviour has always looked like that of some well-known politicians.

Though, so far, he always said he has nothing to do with politicians because they follow goals that serve only their own interests, his entrance into the political arena could be expected. In his ‘crusades’, one could sometimes have the feeling that he was serving the interests of a minority.

We can already expect that Tengur will enter a political party only if he is sure that this party will guarantee him a class one ticket for the next elections. Because Sutthyudeo Tengur is not somebody to be content with little, he may insist on being in the public eye to make sure his opinions are heard.

This time, his hobbyhorse will be the abolition of regionalisation and the reinclusion of ranking at the CPE exams. We may as well say that what he intends to implement constitutes a return to the past. The government strived to set up a system that would benefit the majority. But the trade unionist is adamant, “A more coherent and modern political vision is highly necessary.” The question is: how modern can such a reform be if it goes back to an old-fashioned system. A certain number of paradoxes like this one still needs to be clarified…