Metis and HW Wong have written in to criticise my letter regarding vernacular schools, implying a lack of research on my part. While I do agree my letter could have made several points clearer, I feel that Metis and Wong imply that I hold certain opinions which I do not.

Metis asks whether I have talked to my Chinese school classmates regarding the issue of Chinese schools. The answer is a resounding yes. I have several friends from Chinese schools, and have discussed Chinese education with them on more than one occasion.

Surprisingly, most of them feel no affinity for Chinese education, and cite discipline as the only reason they would send their children to Chinese schools. As such, it is not surprising I feel that a tremendous opportunity to encourage interaction between students from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds is being squandered.

Unlike the implication of Metis' letter, I never stated that Chinese schools intentionally bring about the attitudes I ascribe to their students. I do not believe Chinese schools intentionally indoctrinate children into avoiding those of other races. Rather, it is a systemic side-effect of the parochial nature of Chinese schools.

When your childhood is spent talking in Mandarin with students of similar beliefs, culture, traditions and worldviews, it is not surprising you would continue doing so well into secondary schools, whether consciously or not.

I do not blame the administrators of Chinese schools for the behavioural patterns I have noticed. They do not intend to cause such polarisation. Nevertheless, I feel that the fact remains that such polarisation indeed does occur. To gauge this, I polled several of my friends, from national as well as Chinese primary schools.

They all agreed that students from Chinese schools have a tougher time relating with Malay and especially Indian students. All of us can recall situations similar to the ones I outlined in my earlier letter.

Wong and Metis are correct to point out that vernacular schools are far from the only cause of racial polarisation. However, this is a straw man; I never indicated I believe our problems with national unity would magically vanish if we eliminated vernacular schools.

However, I firmly believe that fostering interaction between children of many races is a crucial step towards building true national unity. For example, Metis points out children born into families with racist parents will remain racist, regardless of where they are educated.

This is not necessarily so; although it is likely they will retain some stereotypes passed down to them for the rest of their lives. If they attend national schools, seeing flesh and blood Malays and Indians, will bite into the racist propaganda they have been fed. Eventually, it will reach the point where the racist attitude of the family will have completely vanished, diluted over the generations by friendships with those of other races.

And likewise, as I pointed out in my earlier letter, Malays will find it harder and harder to justify the overt discriminatory policies of the government as they build stronger and stronger bonds with those of other races. The rhetoric of Umno politicians will have less and less effect as Malays become unable to stomach such remarks.

I never said eradicating vernacular schools would be a magical panacea for national unity or that the presence of vernacular schools is the one and only factor for the growing divide between Malaysians of different races.

There is never an easy answer to a difficult problem, particularly that of uniting a divided nation. Nevertheless, it is my strong belief that unless something is done to foster interaction and friendship between children (and not just youths) of many races, combating the onslaught of racial polarisation will be a fight that progressively becomes harder and harder to win.