• 
• 

Published on October 22, 2007

I, after finishing R Richards' letter, was surprised to find him arguing against what I said by saying what I said in my original letter ("English language usage a springboard to learning", Letters, October 11).

As my argument is mainly about the use of English outside of the classroom, I only touched upon English use inside the classroom. It is not the point here. So, not mentioning it would be pretty normal. But haven't I mentioned the need to use English outside class? Well, that's the heart of my letter.

I do not take it for granted that students feel encouraged to use English. Suppose they have the most genuine desire to learn, as R Richards said - something about which I have my doubts. Even then, there are too many things outside of the classroom for kids to busy themselves with and that leads to kids prioritising things. What is considered of primary importance gets done first. If learning English is not made a primary obligation, it will be relegated to a triviality. As a teacher, one needs to sow and nurture the seed of interest in one's students. That way, they learn whatever they can about English, especially when teachers are not around to "encourage" learning.

No such claim as "only the ESL (English as a second language) and not the EFL (English as a foreign language) students have any chance of improving outside" was ever made or even implied in my letter, although that slim chance is due to the fact that English is not used outside classrooms for the most part. This, by no means, means that EFL students do not have any chance of improving outside the classroom. They have ample opportunity to do so if they have the interest.

Identifying students' problem areas and helping them out seems unrelated to a lack of respect. Not doing this is equal to ignorance. A real lack of respect is shown when one disregards students' progress in learning and treats them as if they were already educated. The process is just as important as the end product, if not more so, don't you think?

Unless EFL students put some extra effort in using English outside class, they will learn very little English. This rests on the basic assumption that they do not speak English outside classrooms in Thailand. Do you seriously need a citation on that? Moreover, if you browse bookshelves in the libraries of Thai universities that offer TEFL courses, you will find that there have been numerous studies done on learning strategies focused on Thai students and their use of English outside the classroom. They do not point to the direction that English-language learning outside of the classroom is a possibility.

Pat

Nonthaburi

Proof needed to back up claims on language usage

Re: "Students need practical opportunities to speak", Letters, October 20.

This letter was weak on facts and attention to detail. Frank Lee goes off into making incorrect and generalised claims that need correcting.

First, I am not a proponent of the "ESL gospel", and my previous letter makes that obvious. Second, he writes that "perhaps one Thai in 100 is confident enough to actively seek conversational English practice with foreigners". Really?! What evidence does he have to support that statement?

Lee should remember to check his facts and make sure that he does his homework - otherwise his contributions offer no credible support to any side of any argument.

R Richards

Bangkok

Burma horrors only now getting media attention

In late September, people around the world saw on TV screens how ruthlessly the Burmese military regime, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) responded to peaceful demonstrations by respectable Buddhist monks and ordinary civilians. Although Burmese troops are well known for their cruelty against the people, this time the people could see the reality on TV.

Ethnic nationalities' rights groups, pro-democracy opposition and international organisations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have reported and criticised human-rights violations committed by the regime for several years. They have documented and reported on the regime and their soldiers' involvement in extrajudicial execution, torture and inhuman treatment, arbitrary arrest and detention, conscription and forced labour, enforcement, and disappearance, among other violations. These human-rights advocates have reported these atrocities for a long time but world attention has been limited.

Why did the SPDC resort to violence on the streets openly at daytime? It is very clear the military leaders will not tolerate anyone challenging their power.

Another consideration is that if the SPDC is so cruel on the streets of Rangoon, how do they behave in remote ethnic areas where there are no TV cameras. Accounts of killing suspected rebel supporters, torture of villagers, rapes and other abuses keep pouring in.

After the crackdown, the people's power has been weakened. Protest leaders have been killed or detained. Many of them have faced torture and secret capital punishment. Additionally, soldiers raided monasteries and beat and arrested the monks. How did a peaceful Buddhist country turn into a killing field?

This is a challenge for the international community to push Burma for change. The people's desires (not those voiced at SPDC-organised rallies) are very clear. They need genuine democracy and economic reform. The world community must coordinate and find a way to end bloodshed in Burma. They need to push the junta to start a dialogue. The people in Burma humbly wait for democracy and a better life.

Independent Mon News Agency

Bangkok

China has no right to balk at medal for Dalai Lama

Re: "China summons US ambassador", World, October 21.

President George W Bush's awarding of the Congressional Gold Medal to the Dalai Lama is, for me, the best news to come out of the US for some years.

China has no right to get upset about the Dalai Lama, as Stuart from Australia stated in his letter of the same date ("China can't complain about Tibetan leader") neither in the context of their continuing, inexcusable support for the evil regime in Burma, nor their violent suppression of Tibet.

Along with many thousands of people (but still not enough!), I have seen that repulsive black-and-white film taken by a monk from the balcony of a small Tibetan Buddhist monastery. The Chinese soldiers come rushing into the garden with their rifles and staves, chasing and savagely beating to death 20 or 30 robed monks. Mostly these were old men who spent their lives preaching and practising peace and loving forgiveness.

I was told that the brave monk who took the film met the same fate just moments later, but the soldiers were not bright enough to rip the film from his camera.

Does "modern day" China have anyone bright enough to do anything to rip these ugly, recent, images of Tibet and Burma from our collective memories?

David Hardcastle

Chiang Mai

Sex industry geared mostly toward Thais

Re: "Sex offenders taint country's reputation", Letters, October 22.

Outraged Taxpayer is caught up in the popular tide of righteous indignation aimed at the recent paedophile story which got splashed across the front pages of newspapers.

It's tempting to use the same brush to tar all middle-aged foreigners who visit or reside in Thailand.

Although some foreign men do indeed lust after young sex workers - the overwhelming majority of sexual predators in Thailand are Thai males - they're just more sophisticated and clandestine in their exploits. Add to that, all brothels and most sex venues in Thailand are owned and staffed by Thai men and women.

Ken Albertsen

Chiang Rai

Send us your views in an instant

E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to

the Editor' in the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com