I would like to respond to Casey Lim's letter titled ' Chinese groups wrong in opposing language switch '. I believe that the author has misjudged the intentions of the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, Dong Jiao Zong (DJZ) or those who oppose the teaching of maths and science in English.

The standard of the Chinese language has eroded severely since the conversion of almost all Chinese secondary schools to national-type schools in the 1970s. Today, if Chinese secondary school leavers were to take a standardise pre-university exam of the language, only five percent or so would get an 'A', 10 percent, a 'B' and the rest (75 percent) would get a 'C' or worse. The same apply to the English language. The only way to address the decline of both languages is to raise the level of English and Chinese being taught.

Casey Lim also felt that it is wrong for our secondary school system to switch to Bahasa Malaysia. I would disagree with this. Thirty years ago most English, Chinese or Tamil secondary school leavers could barely speak the national language. Today, every student, even those from the 60 or so independent Chinese secondary, can understand Bahasa Malaysia.

This is due to the fact that Bahasa has been given a pre-eminent position ahead of all the languages; if you get 'P7' in SPM, you automatically get a Grade 2. And you are not eligible to apply for local university unless you re-sit Bahasa and get a credit. The fact that to be in the civil service also requires a credit in Bahasa pretty much sums up the importance of Bahasa to any students.

However, it is the neglect of the Education Ministry that caused the decline of the public school system in Malaysia. By switching LCE to SRP and again to PMR, the standard of all subjects including maths and science, and all languages other than Malay, dropped tremendously. Likewise, changing the 'O' level examination into SPM also had the same effect. Any educationist worth his salt would be alarmed tremendously, but anyone that spoke out would be instantly labelled as chauvinist, anti-nationalist or worst, a communist.

Thus, the standard of education in all national schools dropped gradually through the decades until the sorry state we have today. All elite English schools, convents that were changed to national-type schools, suffered the same fate. A prominent example is the Penang Free School, which was once rated as one of the finest secondary schools in our country. It is currently nothing but a shadow of its former self. This school that has produced our first prime minister, chief minister, current chief justice of Singapore, former Singapore Airlines chairperson and many more is now regarded by many as just another mediocre national secondary school.

Nevertheless, due to the independence and foresight of Dong Jiao Zong, the standard of education in Chinese primary and secondary schools actually improved during the same period. How is this possible? The success of the Chinese schools could be attributed to three main factors:

1) The independence of the schools.

2) The dedication of the teachers.

3) The strong support given by the community to the school board of trustees.

The first factor allows each school to have a slight variation in syllabus, extra-curricular activities, grading, etc. This allows each school to tailor to the needs of the community it serves. Since not all Chinese schools are created equal - some are in the poorer part of a city, a few are elite-type schools, some in rural farming areas - these allow the schools to prepare the syllabus accordingly.

Secondly, the teaching atmosphere and discipline in Chinese schools is totally different. The teachers are promoted on their merits in teaching and academic excellence. In national schools, being politically correct gets you ahead. Teachers in Chinese schools feel they have a sacred mission to perform, while teachers in national schools have been reduced to the roles of civil servants. And like all civil servants, they have been affected by low morale, low pay and a selective promotion policy not based on merits.

Thirdly, being independent also means that national-type schools have a certain price to pay. Since the board of trustees owns the land and school buildings, the government does not pay for the maintenance or expansion of these buildings. The government does pay the salary of the teachers. Although once in a while the government would contribute a new piece of land or building, and this would become a top news event. But this is exception to the norm.

The Chinese schools would not have succeeded without the enormous support given by the community. Currently, all national-type Chinese schools depend on public donation to function. And to be on the board of trustees of an elite school, one has to donate tens of thousands of ringgit a year.

Coincidentally, these three factors also contributed to the success of Ivy League schools in the United States. The biggest fear of most Chinese educationists is the deterioration of the standard of education in these schools. For the past 30 years, they have done an outstanding job of improving it. The failure of most national schools is caused by the haphazard intervention of the Education Ministry. Sadly, this extends to our national universities as well.

The decline of English and Chinese in our public school system is already a fact. Teaching maths and science in English by teachers who are not proficient in the language would make matters worse. This applies to national schools as well. In due time, when the standard of maths and science drops again in national schools, the Education Ministry would no doubt conjure up someone or something else to blame. The Chinese educationists realised this would happen thus they insist upon retaining Chinese language to teach maths and science. However, the 2-4-3 solution is a marginal compromise and an unnecessary drain on the students. Thus, the educationists want to abolish it.

If this is the case, then why don't the educationists state their case to the Education Ministry? But in present day Malaysia, any attempt, however sincere it maybe, to correct the ministers from a mistake would be labelled as an opposition tactic or anti-government. The educationists have no choice but to appeal to the authority by using mother-tongue education as a shield since in segregated Malaysia they can only represent the Chinese community, and not all communities. And whatever their achievement in the field of education can only be praised in the context of 'Chinese education'.

A solid fact that eludes most non-Chinese is that all national-type Chinese secondary schools already use Bahasa as the medium of instruction since their creation in the1970s. Every subject except the Chinese language itself is taught in Bahasa. Except for the three factors that I mentioned earlier, national-type schools are exactly the same as national schools. The national-type schools are Chinese in name only since only five to seven lessons out of 35 lessons per week are conducted in Chinese. The national-type schools are already as Malaysian as it gets. So an earlier attempt by certain quarters to change the name of national-type Chinese schools to that of Chinese secondary schools met a serious backlash from the educationists. All the educationists want is to avoid any mistake that would have grave consequences on our education system. Again, they were unfairly labelled.

For the past 30 years, the Education Ministry is the ministry that received the largest share of the government budget, exceeding that of defence, transport, etc. One can only conclude that money cannot solve problems and only people can. The BN leadership should be thankful that an independent DJZ still exists. The BN-led government that has caused havoc in our public education system should heed their advice on education before committing more blunders.