I refer to the letter Most retired English teachers are still very fit to teach .

I believe the writer must be living in a city and is very detached from life in the rural areas. First and foremost, when I mention that some of the rural children could not recite the alphabet, I was trying to show how much handicapped the rural children are when they go to school compared to those from the urban areas.

If the writer cares to venture into the rural areas, he would be surprised at the number of disadvantaged children there. Many of their parents spend the whole day slogging for a few ringgit just to put two meals, very basic ones for that matter, on the table.

Do you think that such parents are capable of sending their children to Montessori kindergartens or Smart Learning? And do you think that such children would know the alphabet? The writer did not really grasp what I was trying to get at.

If Science and Maths were to be taught in English, those rural kids with little or no exposure to the language will definitely be at an disadvantage. Let me illustrate with a simple example: A mammal is a warm-blooded animal. For those who know basic English, they would know at least three of the terms, namely warm, blood and animal.

For a student with no basic English, the whole sentence is Greek to him. On this score, is it fair to the poor student? If those two subjects are taught in English, it is just like asking a rural kid to run a 100 metre race without a starting block and a pair of spikes while the urban kid is well-equipped with both of them.

The writer went on to say: ‘But these are the same people who extol the good old days when our ‘standard of English was second to none in this region if not in the Commonwealth. I would like to ask, how many people who benefitted from that period had parents who spoke English? Not my parents'.

I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. My parents, too, spoke no English. But the writer fails to see that times have changed. In those ‘good old days', almost every parent was struggling just to eke out a meagre living. Almost every child, save a few privilleged ones, spent their time flying kites or catching fighting fish.

Kindergarten was unheard of then. Many children did not know the importance of education let alone its aim. As such, almost every one went to school on an equal footing. There weren't much advantages of one over the other. Problems encountered by children then were common to one and all.

Hardly anyone went to tuition classes or had personal tutors , a practice very prevalent among children in the cities nowadays.As a result, practically almost all the children then progressed at the same rate. And those left behind were the really very weak ones

The truth of the matter is, even if we revert the teaching of maths and science to Bahasa Malaysia so that some will not be at a ‘distinct disadvantage' in school, they will eventually be in adult life.

There is no denying that English is the language of science and commerce both locally and internationally. I am fully suportive of of making English a compulsory pass for the SPM or even the STPM. It is the very reason that I suggest that retired English teachers be reemployed to teach the language for a start. Those were the very teachers educated and trained in the said medium.

By now, almost everyone knows that our English standard has gone down the drain and our so-called educationists are directionless. It would be helpful if they could ask for assistance from our sothern neighbour whose standard of English is very high.

Adopt their syllabus wholesale if possible. All we have to do is ask. Teaching English as a subject and science and maths in the mother tongue would do away with any disadvantages. Here, the students would have the best of both worlds.

They would understand the subjects better and by the time they reach upper secondary school, they would be able to write and converse in English as well. Armed with a fairly good command of English then, I believe the students would be capable of understanding science and mathematics in English.

After all, the terminology in those two subjects are universal in nature and the language used is fairly simple. At the same time, they will be prepared for their working life. What would the scenario be like if the present system continues?

The rural kids would lose interest in Science and Maths simply because they cannot grasp what is taught. At the same time, they will also not learn English. Thus, those children would be condemned to doing the same backbreaking jobs as their fathers. A farmer's son would remain a farmer and that of a fisherman would still be a fisherman.

On the other hand, professional courses in universities would remain the domain of children of the rich. I am sure the writer would not like this to happen. And I believe he suscribes to the idea of a level playing field for all irrespective of race or religion.

So spare a thoughts for those not-so-lucky ones. Give them a fair chance to succeed in life.