If parents really want their children to improve their English, watching movies is not the only way. They can choose to watch the English version of the movies, but having more Cantonese-dubbed movies will not do any harm. The most important thing is the parents' own attitude. If they talk more in English with their children, the higher their children's English standard will be. But having no Cantonese-version movies will not be a hindrance in Hong Kong where most radio and television programmes are broadcast in Cantonese.

When my dad was in junior secondary, he watched the movie version of Romeo and Juliet by Olivia Hussey, fell in love with the actress, the movie - though dubbed in Cantonese - and Shakespeare. Later, he majored in English literature and became a teacher. Recently, he watched the same movie again with some children in school, but this time, dubbed in English. He just could not feel the joys and sorrows of the characters as they spoke in beautiful Shakespearean language. This is why dubbing helps bridge the gap between teenagers and great works of literature.

Toni Ng, Mei Foo

I think it will lower standards. A lot of VCDs or DVDs of English-language films are dubbed into Cantonese, especially animated movies. I prefer to purchase the original English version rather than a Cantonese one.

The overall English standard of Hong Kong students has deteriorated in recent years. It can be proved by the recent results in HKCEE and A-level exams. Students already have few opportunities to expose themselves to English. How about at home? I'm sure most of them do not chat with their parents in English. Even my parents would not do that.

Actually, watching a foreign movie can improve our English-language skills. We can learn how to interact with foreigners, what natural expressions and responses they make when facing certain situations, and their local language and idioms.

Sometimes we can discover the sense of humour on the screen and understand western culture. In fact, Cantonese-dubbed films merely encourage children and teenagers to have an excuse not to study English.

It directly restricts the way and, even worse, wipes out a medium for them to learn English. Reading English books is not the only way to study English. Watching English-language TV shows, films or reality shows can also improve our English. So, I agree that English language standards will worsen by dubbing more movies in Cantonese.

Minnie Wong, Tsuen Wan

On other matters ...

A police officer sexually molesting a five-year-old foster child (yesterday, City) and giving her gonorrhea is bad enough, but I cannot believe the judge handing down a derisory two-year prison sentence because 'the physical and psychological effects on the victim are minimal'.

I do not believe that the effects - and especially the long-term psychological ones - can be so judged. To protect children surely there is a case for a minimum sentence of at least five years for anyone guilty of child sexual abuse, regardless of perceived damage to the poor victim?

I am amazed at the defence barrister's mitigation statement: 'The assault did not involve perverse conduct or violence'. I understand lawyers are not like the rest of us, but surely any sexual contact with a five-year-old is 'perverse conduct', regardless of its physical nature?

David Coates, Admiralty

The defence barrister for the police officer jailed for indecent assault said his client's behaviour 'did not involve perverse conduct or violence'.

Let me ask him some questions. This child now has gonorrhea. Wouldn't his client have had to have very close physical contact with the five-year-old in order for this disease to be transmitted? If this is not perverse, I don't know what the lawyer's definition is.

He described the offence as a 'tragedy'. Is it not a tragedy for this child? He told the court that this police officer is the 'sole breadwinner of the family with two children' and that he may lose his job and his home ... What will this five-year-old child lose, now and in the future?

I hope the lawyer in question is not a parent. His statement tarnishes the legal profession.

Roberta Bush Chiang, Tai Po