It is indeed with faint amusement that I read the brouhaha over vernacular schools in Chinese being perceived as more superior than the Vision schools. I think the debate should be on the relevance - not perceived superiority - of any language over another.

Ironically, the word 'mandarin' is derived from the Portuguese 'mandar' which means to command and which in turn is derived from the Sanskrit word 'mantra' meaning of 'sounds invoking a higher order' or colloquially 'to rule or command'.

Similarly, in Tamil 'mandar' means supervisor and Malay's 'menteri' or minister is also cognate within this root.

If we look outside Malaysia and even Singapore (Sanskrit for 'lion city'), Sanskrit is recognised as relevant to modern scientific studies. WebMD (Jan 22) reports that '... Sanskrit's context free grammar is so amenable to modern computer languages' (a trait that it shares with Tamil) while neuroscience research has recently shown what the Vedic scholars of ancient India had said that Sanskrit 'is good for the brain'.

Within Sanskrit is the basis of higher order thinking for that is how context-free grammar works. Languages that are pictogram-based are concrete symbol systems and can suffer from context- bound interpretations because they are less abstract and handle ambiguity with lower tolerance.

Is it a coincidence that East Asian societies are less tolerant of diversity and dissent? It appears that higher order thinking and creativity demand more tolerance for ambiguity.

Fast forward to today where India is now already a global hub for information technology enabled services which will hit US$50-77 billion in revenue by 2008. It also far head of China in terms of information technology.

Global consulting firm AT Kearney (2004), says that the number one destination for research and development foreign direct investment - even in manufacturing - is India and not China. More than China, India has world-class, transparent companies and export-driven home-grown entrepreneurs.

And it has done a better job at tolerance and assimilating the rural masses than China. Unlike the rest of East Asia, Indian entrepreneurialism and tech prowess is 'bottom-up" and not 'top down' ie, government-sponsored or led.

The next leap up the cognitive value chain is independent of government intervention, in short it is 'bottom up'. Taking risks, 'out-the-box-thinking', not conforming to convention are associated with higher value added wealth and creativity in the knowledge economy.

The discontinuous shift from agriculture, infrastructure building and low-end manufacturing to a higher value based knowledge economy defies the 'bagaimana acuan begitulah kuihnya' paradigm of top down, template-type cloning or indoctrination inherent in regimented education.

It's also China's vulnerability in low-end manufacturing and dependence on foreign capital and expertise.

Yet India is by no means a more desirable country to live in than Malaysia because of its extreme poverty, challenged infrastructure and noisy anarchy. Its attempt at globalisation hasn't been smooth.

Language and culture can be both a bane and a boon depending on the contexts. For instance, China's cultural revolution didn't work. The key, in actual fact, lies in cultural integrity and integration - not ethnocentric superiority - in a global world where time and space are increasingly collapsed by new media and travel.

Malaysia is a moderated country of pragmatic compromise that always strives for 'balance' in practical terms. Sometimes this compromise may result in a perceived mediocrity. But when you square with the other dimensions of stability, harmony and safety, Malaysia wins hands down compared to its fascinating and awesome Asian neighbours.

Does this mean that we should promote Indian studies or Sanskrit? I leave that to the reader as a matter of personal choice. But we certainly should continue to promote, first and foremost Bahasa Malaysia (for unity in our young nation), then English followed by the mother tongue options.

But to argue that one culture is superior to another smacks of hegemony. Especially if the arguments are couched in 'learn Mandarin or perish' terms as seen in some Malaysian blogs recently.

If the argument is that of economic advantage then yes, because the premise is of relevance - not superiority. I believe the Vision schools must be supported as they are part and parcel of integration in a cosmopolitan country and a globalising world.

Malaysia is a young and vibrant celebration of Asian diversity and of a warm and intrinsically hospitable, assimilative and accommodating Malay culture. We should honour and cherish this.

It is not as old as India or China. But therein lies its promise as it can still be shaped and moulded. English is still relevant for universal communication and even the Chinese are learning this by the droves in China.

Let's refrain from cultural hegemony please. Economic might is not always equal to winning hearts and minds.