Zainul Arifin of New Straits Times asks Why deny our children a better future? That is precisely the question I would ask him. In his over enthusiasm to rebut Gerakan deputy president Dr Koh Tsu Koon's statement on the need to evaluate the implementation of using English as a medium to teach Maths and Science subjects in primary schools, Zainul has created unnecessary disagreements over agreements.

First, we agree with Zainul that English language is the lingua franca of international trade and commerce especially when the US and European economies are still the biggest importers in the world. Over the last 500 years, the Western civilisation has contributed significantly towards many scientific and technological inventions, business models, medical advances et cetera. Hence, it is not surprising that knowledge on these fields can be acquired more effectively through a good proficiency in the English language.

Second, therefore, we agree with Zainul that it is necessary to address the decline in English language proficiency amongst our students and working adults in order to enhance our nation's competitiveness and our ascension into the knowledge economy. To address this, it is obvious that we need a policy change which supports the promotion of English language use in schools and workplaces.

Emphasis should not rest only on the usage of English but the quality of proficiency of the language as well. In this regard, we should focus on the quality of our education delivery system which includes the curriculum, trainers and facilities to ensure that an optimal level of teaching is delivered to learners.

However, what we disagree with Zainul is on the need to conduct a periodic evaluation on the implementation of the policy. Here is also where we felt that Zainul and his Umno bosses did not demonstrate a clear and concise understanding of the current debate (either unintentionally or intentionally?).

Koh, the Dong Jiao Zhong, Sedar Institute and many other educationists and institutions do not dispute the importance of English or multilingualism in the midst of globalisation. But these policymakers and educationists want the current implementation methodology to be reviewed in order to ensure that these objectives are achieved: 1) better fluency of the English language, 2) higher achievements in both science and mathematics by world's standards, 3) a balanced and productive environment for learners and, 4) a proper maintenance of mother-tongue education.

The concerns of these policymakers and educationists can be confirmed from several highly established studies conducted worldwide on the use of a second language to teach mathematics and science at the very early stages of primary education.

Studies conducted at George Mason University in Virginia since 1985 have shown that children do better if they get a basic education in their own language. It positively established a direct link between academic results and the time spent learning in the mother tongue.

According to another education analyst, Brad Bell, more and more primary schools are introducing English, a second language, as the language of instruction from very early stages. The decision was taken with the intention to boost the students' fluency in English and to promote better academic achievements especially in science and mathematics.

He concluded in his analysis that the use of a second language prematurely may stunt the development of learners' mother-tongues, impeding the development of their cognitive/academic abilities, promoting negative attitudes towards the first language and resulting in low achievement in conceptual subjects such as science and mathematics.

Children who come to school with a solid foundation in their mother-tongue develop stronger literacy abilities in school language. Children develop concepts and thinking skills faster in their own mother-tongue because majority of children's early childhood is exposed primarily to their own mother-tongue. This is also the case for Malaysia; with the exception of urbanites with access to additional educational support services and facilities for their children.

However, transfer of concepts, language and literacy skills can be two-way if the mother-tongue is promoted in school along side the school language. Moreover, encouraging education in the mother-tongue, alongside bilingual or multilingual education, is one of the principles set out by Unesco.

Hence, both the implementation mechanism and timing and the quality of education delivery system are key determinants of the success of the policy. Amateurish responses to the call to review and evaluate the policy implementation are not doing us any good. Zainul is correct to say that children have the "sponge-like ability to absorb new information" but they do not have a sophisticated analytical mind yet to absorb only the value-added ones and flush out the 'rubbish'. The learners are only as good as the trainers and the contents delivered to them.

In 2003, then Education Minister Musa Mohamed conceded that the complicated bilingual formula that Chinese groups lobbied for to maintain the importance of Mandarin was not working. Teaching the same subject in two languages is difficult due to time constraints. Repeating the same topic in two languages is boring and unproductive especially to the fast learners.

Finally, we agree with Zainul to not politicise this issue. Often the quality of education suffers due to poor political decisions. We do not want to reach a situation where there is a crucial need to rehabilitate our local languages and the education system to avoid a total breakdown.

Perhaps Zainul should stick to research journalism and leave sensationalism to his bosses in Umno.

The writer is the executive director of the Sedar Institute.