I must disagree with Trirat Petchsingh.

I am a specialist in e-learning and have taken numerous courses online, including an English-teaching course, as well as developing and running several face-to-face and online university staff-development courses in the UK on the implementation of learning technologies. I am an extremely enthusiastic proponent of digital technology as a learning tool but also fully aware of the dangers that can result from its inappropriate implementation.

Trirat began with what appears to be a simple distribution of CDs, DVDs and MP3 resources to students but then changed his strategy to providing these resources to teachers "and of course, conduct workshops on their use". Actually, effective implementation of e-learning technologies is far more about the latter than the former. Without very careful contextual training of teachers by competent and experienced trainers, the use of digital technologies can easily fail miserably. Despite a common misconception about e-learning, it is not an easy, cheap or convenient alternative to conventional face-to-face teaching. It does not replace teachers, good or bad, native or non-native. It is much more about providing greater flexibility and enhancing the learning experience. It can also be a vehicle for encouraging independent learning, something that is needed in Thailand but also means more care is needed in its use in this country if it is not to fail.

I fully agree with Trirat, however, that teaching English is more about "proficiency, commitment, empathy and even a knowledge of the local language and culture" than it is the need for native-speaking English-teachers. However, digital technology is only a tool and, like a hammer used to crack a nut, needs a pair of careful hands to avoid doing more harm than good.

John Mottley

Bangkok

-------------------------

A slight misconception about that Thai war declaration

Re: "Ally status was why Japan didn't wage war on Thailand", Letters, June 21.

Clio's attempt to set right a misleading statement on Thailand's historic wartime relations with Japan is certainly refreshing, given all the recent inflated declarations of long and friendly relations with Thailand.

But Clio is lifting the lid on a complex history that still is riddled with myths, and unluckily Clio's letter upholds one of them about Seni Pramoj, the Thai ambassador in Washington, and his refusal to deliver the January 25, 1942, Thai declaration of war to the United States of America.

Bangkok never depended on Seni to deliver the declaration of war to the US. By January 1942, Bangkok considered Seni a renegade ambassador and was recalling him in the strongest possible terms. To bypass Seni, Bangkok had already on January 5, 1942, asked the Swiss government to represent Thai interests in the US. This demand irritated the US, which had not closed down the Thai legation there, most probably because Seni was advocating the existence of an underground movement in Thailand. Nevertheless, on January 19, the US formally gave their consent to Thailand enlisting the services of Switzerland as a channel of communication with them, which, incidentally, fell short of full US recognition of Switzerland as the protecting power of Thai interests.

But to Bangkok, Bern and not Seni was the official diplomatic channel with the US. Accordingly, on January 25, 1942, the Thai government delivered the Thai declaration of war on the Allies by handing it to the Swiss consul in Bangkok, who forwarded it to Bern, from where it was forwarded to Washington and London. Simultaneously, Bangkok broadcast the declaration on short-wave radio. It subsequently was the US that refused to take cognisance of the Thai declaration of war and - different from Britain - decided to consider Thailand a nation under enemy occupation rather than an enemy nation, a position that paved the way for closer post-war US-Thai relations.

Seni's post-war role, when with US backing he narrowly steered Thailand clear of becoming a British protectorate, was pivotal, but the myth about his refusal to deliver the declaration of war had no bearing on Thailand's determination to declare war on the Allies in 1942.

Philip A Baechtold

Bangkok

-------------------------

Locking up criminals is the best tourism inducement

There seems no point in the Tourism Authority of Thailand being given more taxpayer money to waste in wining and dining foreign travel agents in order to persuade visitors to come here. An Australian girl tourist just died after being shot in a restaurant in Kanchanaburi ("Australian shooting victim dies", News, June 23), and there are suspicions that the murderer of two British tourists in the same town in September 2004 may have been secretly freed (" 'Killer cop' loses appeal; absence raises questions", News, June 22).

With such adverse publicity, the tourism industry is likely to decline. It's time for a clampdown on guns in Thailand, not for dubious promotions.

John Meades

Chiang Mai

-----------------------------

New metropolis would be fraught with difficulties

Re: "New metropolis is a dubious proposal", Editorial, June 22.

With the current Thai government's push for a new metropolis that would encompass the new Suvarnabhumi Airport, it is plainly evident the thinking and ideas involved are contrary to common sense in several ways, some driven by non-air-travel considerations, such as land speculation and "tourism" catch-alls, others thinly concealed government openings for old-fashioned graft, cronyism and "insider" corruption surrounding large government outlays for mega-project multi-year budgets and bid-letting. It takes little imagination to foresee how such "honey" would attract some very big bees.

Other considerations have to do with the dubious nature of allowing for massive built-up areas, residential, commercial and retail, that bring large numbers of people into close proximity with the new airport. Best modern views on new airports would point to wanting to keep such areas AWAY from the approaches, both in the air and on the ground, safety being one big reason. A typical modern international jet plane is one huge craft when loaded with fuel at take-off and is at marginal operation levels at low approach and take-off speeds and near-ground altitudes.

Why would you build a new airport, then surround it with overly built-up areas full of people, only to have large aircraft flying low every day and night over them? High and constantly present noise levels are another, devaluation of current built-up Bangkok areas for retail, public transit and associated street grids and utilities undercuts those large private and public capital investments another.

Another consideration has to do with Bangkok's current rainwater run-off areas being directly impacted by any and all of Nakhon Suvarnabhumi's development. All paved surfaces, whether roadways or parking estates or massively roofed water-shedding surfaces, are going to add to this already large run-off problem.

Finally, there is the question of what sense it makes to box in any newly built airport with close-in development when in 15 to 20 years time it may well prove needful to expand that airport's runways, add new runways or create new terminals. A first priority should be to protect such future needs completely from needless litigation resulting from having allowed such currently open areas to be privatised and taken out of direct airport control for future expansion needs or new evolving requirements of aircraft operation.

The current Thai PM has demonstrated some murky blending of private and public interests. It would be a first-rank failure to allow such an approach to foul Suvarnabhumi Airport at its birth. This "airport metropolis" appears to be very short-sighted in vision and support thinking. Turning down such a dubious take on Suvarnabhumi would seem prudent. Or is this honey pot just to tempt the "bees" looking for a "graftopolis" to honeycomb their pockets with?

R Ashen

Phuket

---------------------------

Who better in charge of security than the Army chief?

Why is it so hard to understand why the Army chief would wish to be in charge in the South of the country? Is dedication to duty truly that hard for some to grasp? Security of this great country is his responsibility when an obvious threat arises. When an insurgency starts, who better to deal with it than an Army chief who is also a Special Forces officer? All the questions now being asked are about why he would want it and whether he is being suckered into accepting a can of worms created by someone else. It is a simple answer really: he is a soldier, and duty takes priority over self. For those in the military unable to grasp this, they may wish to consider a different profession.

Major Mark A Smith

US Army (retired)

Bangkok

--------------------------

Riding in back of pickups is too dangerous to be allowed

"A 10-wheeled truck slammed into a pickup packed with students [on Tuesday], killing six children and injuring at least 19 other people" ("Six children killed in crash", News, June 21).

"For the second time this week, the Northeast has seen a fatal collision between a truck and a pickup ferrying students to school. This time a 13-year-old boy was killed and 21 other children injured in a crash in Nakhon Ratchasima's Pak Chong district." ("Boy dies in second school pickup crash", News, June 22).

Seven young Thais died in two days in a situation that would not occur in a developed country.

Somehow I think those in power do not really care about the lives of those who travel in the backs of pickups. I therefore think that sitting in the backs of pickups will be further condoned in Thailand, while the police continue to focus on whether or not drivers are wearing their seat-belts.

Utopia

Bangkok