If you are teaching Thai people English in Thailand, you would be teaching them English as a FOREIGN language, not as a SECOND language. Therefore you would be an EFL teacher, not an ESL teacher. If you were teaching them English in England then it would be their second language, not a foreign language (because its the local language) so it would be ESL there.

Am I right?

If so, why do so many people get it wrong?

As see it, Thailand is trying to adopt English as a second language.

So if this is the case, English won't be seen as a foreign language but a second one.

They're trying to be like Singapore that has already left Thailand chocking in their economic dust.

Whether the ability to speak English has anything to do with success is highly debatable.

China has its own language. The Philippines claim to be an English speaking country, but its economy is in shambles.

Truth is, it will take a long while before we see the full acceptance of English as a second language here in LOS. Foreign teachers are sweating blood to help at the academic level. Sad thing is, nobody really cares as they are treated more like zookeepers than legitimate educators.

If so, why do so many people get it wrong?

Maybe because it's a bogus distinction?

Agreeing with the opening post. Foreign languages were what we learned in secondary school back home, everything from Latin and Greek to German and Spanish: foreign, in which we never expected to become fluent. When I moved to Latin America, I understood Spanish as a second language, hoping to become fluent.

You teach ESL and EFL differently. Students' motivations are different if it's just a foreign language they may never apply much in real life. They are not immersed in English, as immigrants to the UK and USA are immersed. They needn't learn the traffic laws, pounds-feet measurements, certain cultural points, local dialects, etc. Quite different.

Then there's ESOL, English as Second or Other Language, which sounds remarkably similar to EFL in most applications.

It's EFL in Thailand unless all their classes are taught in English (making an exception for Thai language classes). The best international schools, with boarding privileges, amount to immersion in English.

I don't think the distinction is bogus. The two types of learners have different needs. EFL learners may never or rarely have any actual chance to practice or use their language except in the classroom. ESL learners have all the opportunities for practice they could want, and may desperately need to make progress as quickly as possible.

So, I think we can agree that nearly all English language teachers here are EFL teachers, so can they please get that right?

Thank you.

As see it, Thailand is trying to adopt English as a second language.

So if this is the case, English won't be seen as a foreign language but a second one.

They're trying to be like Singapore that has already left Thailand chocking in their economic dust.

Whether the ability to speak English has anything to do with success is highly debatable.

China has its own language. The Philippines claim to be an English speaking country, but its economy is in shambles.

So what has EFL or ESL got to do with a country's economy?