I would like to plead with HF (No way but assimilation), to open his or her mind to others as well. The writer's facts are at best just part of the picture.

History has shown that forced assimilation has always been disastrous not only to the target group but also by those who carry it out. The writer pointed out the Tibetan problem as a modern day example. Well, to add to that, there's also what the Russians did in the Soviet bloc and of course, not forgetting Nazi Germany.

With today's modern technology, forced assimilation can only be even more disastrous.

I am not against assimilation, but forced assimilation. Most countries have learnt that while one language, culture and curriculum can be favoured officially over the rest, it cannot be forced upon the people.

To the writer's question, not only have I lived in the countries I have cited as examples, but I am also involved in the education business so I can speak with authority when I say that Chinese schools do exist in Thailand and the Philippines, and even in the US, Europe etc.

In the US, there are Yiddish schools, Arabic schools, Japanese schools, Russian schools etc. and most receive some sort of funding from government and NGOs. Funding by the government is limited in poorer countries like Thailand and the Philippines, but at least there are no restrictions on such schools.

Chinese-medium schools have not sprouted everywhere in many countries because the mainstream schools or private schools provided needed education in the past. Singapore Chinese schools have also declined in importance over the years because English-school graduates did better economically.

Malaysian Chinese-medium schools have gained in strength primarily because of the failure of national schools. In recent years, due to the growing importance of China and rise in Chinese businessmen, there is a revival of Chinese schools in Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia but not in Singapore, indicating that what is important in the end are economics and social relevance.

The funding of Malaysian Chinese- and Tamil-medium schools by government is partly historical, partly a bargain between the schools and the government. Under British Malaya, each student was subsidised as much as 50 percent by the government and policy and control was left to each school.

After independence, the government wanted control over the schools and gave more stable funding in return. With that 'precedent', attempts to change the funding formula would only be possible if the government were willing to give up control.

In the US, schools are funded largely from property taxes. While federal and state governments impose requirements, programmes are largely determined by the school-board mostly comprised of elected parents and teachers. The downside is that rich residential areas have good schools while poor ones largely do not. Such a system would work very well for the Chinese-medium schools in Malaysia but it would hardly fly with the ruling government.

I wish to rebut the writer's assertion that, I had said that of all the other Asean countries, only Indonesia treats minority harshly. What I said was, Indonesian is the exception in trying forced assimilation but treats its citizen largely equally under the law. Today, Indonesia has even reversed its policy of forced assimilation and allowed Chinese and English schools, media, etc. Even communist China has learnt that forced assimilation is futile and has in recent years change it policies, allowing Tibetan schools to function and more self-determination in the country.

As to the issue of Singapore, the government is not trying to get rid of the madrasah but is concern about the lack of integration of madrasah system to the rest of Singapore. Students from madrasah tend to end up poor economically. While Singapore has often been a bit high-handed and lacking in sensitivity on this, but it has repeatedly stated that it wants the madrasah to be integrated and keep up with the national system.

At present, these schools can get funds from the government for mainstream education like pre-schools, computer lessons, etc. In the past, all Malay Singaporean students did not pay tuition even in graduate schools. Today, the rate is still much lower and various need-based scholarships and assistance are available.

The handling of mosque properties in Singapore, like any other private property including for temples, churches, has always been heavy handed. However, the government has in recent years funded restoration of a number of historical mosques although land is still hard to come by (for anything, even temples, churches, etc.).

The writer thought Mahathir modified the constitution in 1996 to guarantee the existence of SRJKs in Malaysia. Actually, it was the Education Act. The constitution (supposedly) protects mother tongue education (it does not actually guarantee anything). The constitution is also supposed to guarantee no discrimination based on race, religion etc., but that is another story.

In short, call it what you want - assimilation, integration, etc. The issue cannot be forced. It must be self-determined.