Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Khoo Kay Kim is a historian and academician, but he is not an expert in Science and Mathematics, or education. Why should we get angry for his “Chinese education system produces copycats” remarks?

The fact that Chinese primary school students achieve better results in Science and Mathematics will not be changed because of his remarks. Why should we fight it since the fact will be proven once students from different vernacular primary schools are enrolled in national secondary schools?

I'm not sure about whether the performance in Science and Mathematics is gene related and it is better to leave the study to experts. But one thing is certain, in addition to intelligence, teaching and training methods, as well as cultural backgrounds are the factors that will affect performance.

It is indeed too arbitrary for Khoo to criticise that local Chinese schools are not able to cultivate scientists. However, we should ponder over his words saying that Chinese school students are lack of creativity because of the rote-learning methods.

It is a fact that Chinese primary school students have a lot of homework, particularly for Mathematics. Mathematics teachers in Chinese schools know it well that other than requiring students to understand, they also ask the students to memorise formulas, repeatedly calculate, prove, do exercises and sit for tests in order to achieve good results.

In other words, Chinese school students are able to achieve good results in Science and Mathematics because they have paid a double effort.

Isn't it a rote-learning method? Isn't it lack of creativity? Isn't it has no fun of learning? Rather than getting angry at other's advert comments, it would be better to have a reflection.

According to a study based on the comparison between Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore are always among the best (China does not participate in the study). However, some criticised that even though East Asian students are good in Science and Mathematics, only a very few of them will actually become great mathematicians or scientists after graduation. Such a view is “quite similar” to Khoo's criticism.

Of course, we can refute Khoo's argument. But it is not convincing enough just to take USB drive creator Pua Khein-Seng as an example.

Of course, we can also ask him that how many well-known scientists have national primary schools cultivated? But what is the point for having such a dispute?

Khoo is not Chinese educated and he is unable to understand the driving force behind the culture. It is meaningless to argue Chinese education issues with him as he can never understand. However, we should take in some of his constructive comments to review the country's education system.

It is a good thing for national primary schools to adopt Chinese school's teaching methods but it should not limited to the teaching of Science and Mathematics.

I agree with Taiwanese scholar Wang Tsai-Kuei that Science and Mathematics should not be the main focus of education. “If Malaysia wishes to become a nation of Science, it should focus on discovering geniuses in Science and Mathematics and gives them special training, instead of keep increasing homework for the average students...too much emphasis on the oppressive education of Science and Mathematics can never make the country a true nation of Science.” (By LIM MUN FAH/ Translated by SOONG PHUI JEE/ Sin Chew Daily)