I hear you all guys. Nick's got 101 discussion topics to avoid criticizing local governments or using some "unnecessary" language. Now, I think that we should differenciate a criticizm from a constructive criticizm, and then we should look at the goals of our programs we facilitate. If it comes to some "oral English" at a language training center where students are only to practice what they've learnt and so improve for their own purposes such as their local office work where they need English to communicate with some prospective clients from abroad, or at the local unis where "oral English" programs serve as an attraction only. Really, if the local students have got their big goals to study in western higher education, how do we expect them to perform in their future unis group discussion? Topics such as Global Warming, Smoking, Business Ethics, Gap between Rich and Poor etc, could possibly put mainland students at risk of losing to the western more outgoing and talkative students. I've had a youngster who choked on an easy question; How would you reduce the gap between rich and poor in your country? Again, facts, students views and their local experiences should be used and encouraged to classrooms discussions and opening these youngsters minds/mouths will only increase their chances of success at their wester unis. Or, am I wrong? Should I just let them wait to learn it all abroad? Should I allow that "opportunity" for culture shock? Am I not moral? Am I just a big western mouth leading some propaganda on mainland? Am I really interfering in the locals' affairs or truthfully preparing them and possibly reducing their future culture shocks abroad. Am I not increasing their chances to graduate from their future unis abroad?
Cheers and beers to the holy cow that I am killing here :)