Like Khoo Kay Peng ( Quality of delivery system vital for language switch ), I too find Zainul Arifin's opinion piece on the teaching of science and mathematics in English (New Straits Times, Nov 9) wanting.

Zainul's reasoning in support for the move can be summarised as follows: that children have the capacity to absorb much more knowledge than we give them credit for; that practice makes perfect; and that we should not deny children a better future.

Consider his first argument. Even if children have the tremendous capacity to absorb knowledge, there is no reason to shove them an ill-conceived, hastily-implemented policy. There is no doubt children are adaptable and conducive to learning. If a policy is well-planned, then children's capability will be put to good use and success is attainable with less effort. However if a delivery system is flawed, then children's effort will be diverted into compensating for the inadequacies of policy shortfalls and less to actual learning.

To use an analogy, even if an investor can afford to lose money, it is not a valid reason to invest recklessly and hastily, even if the potential return is great. Children's adaptability should not be depended on in lieu of proper investigations before the implementation of an education policy. The policymakers are taking a gamble with our children's and country's future by testing a questionable pilot policy on them.

While I do not deny practice makes perfect, there is also another saying: doing two things at the same time accomplishes neither. Is Zainul so confident of our children's ability to multitask? We would not think of letting seasoned drivers use their cell phones while driving, let alone learners. Why would we subject our children to a different standard? Our children are treated like crash-test dummies of education policies. While the damage to a child's future is less visible than a car crash, the effect to the entire country's future is no less devastating if we multiply it tens of thousands of times.

At university level, students should have mastered English well enough to learn and express in English. The objection is teaching science and maths at the primary-school level before school children have sufficiently mastered English. Even when Malay was touted as the medium of instruction, we never forced primary-school children to learn science and maths in Malay. The solution is worse than the problem.

The language of science and mathematics is largely written in symbols and is independent of language. Learning science and mathematics in English only marginally improves language skills. However, the handicap in learning science and mathematics through a foreign medium

cannot be overstated.

Furthermore, English is far richer than being a medium of dry abstract ideas. How does a student learn to appreciate the intricacies and nuances of English, like grammar, pun, prose, irony, tongue-in-cheek, idioms, satire, wit, humour, etc through science and mathematics?

To suggest objecting to the teaching of science and mathematics in English amounts to denying our children a better future is disingenuous. No one is against improving our children's grasp of English. What people object to is the way it is implemented. Regardless of our stand, the policy should be debated based on its own merits. People should refrain from discrediting a contrary opinion by casting aspersion upon its proponents.

My education history is typical for a middle-class Chinese Malaysian, I went to SRJK(C) and subsequently SMK schools. My English skills did not suffer despite neither type of schools conducting classes in English, except for a "BI" subject, which seems to raise Zainul's ire.

Fortunately, I had excellent English teachers. If the government is serious about improving student's command of English, it should train and hire more well-qualified English teachers, instead of issuing band-aid solutions.

On the issue of not enough teachers proficient in both subjects, Zainul did not provide an answer. It takes years of constant learning, not weeks, to master English, not to mention science and mathematics. Teachers are not ministers whose portfolios can be reshuffled at will and still be expected to perform.

Zainul simply dismissed the observation that many advanced countries in the world do not teach science and mathematics in English. It just shows that he has no valid counter argument. His metaphor of reinventing the wheel does not make any sense. He seems to be suggesting that since the countries are already advanced, they are exempted from teaching science and mathematics

in English.

English was the lingua franca long before many countries became advanced. Neither do those countries currently at various levels of development have any intention of changing their medium of instruction. In fact, there is a trend in the opposite direction. Spanish-medium schools are sprouting in the United States.

There is no denying many people around the world are rushing to learn English. The question is, are they learning science and mathematics through English (or the other way round?) or are they learning English as a separate subject?

English is not the panacea for our moribund competitiveness. Blaming our non-competitiveness on the poor command of our English is a red herring. As long as the wider environment and our universities discourage critical thinking, promote conformity, lack accountability and institutionalise discrimination, universities ranking will continue to slip regardless of the language of instruction.

If everything else remains the same, the improvement of English-language skills if anything, will exacerbate the brain drain. The better the students are educated, the more likely they will leave for greener pastures. A case in point: government-funded doctors who refuse to return home to serve. Irony anyone?