I would be half-inclined to grant Richard Teo the merits of his arguments if he had tried to present them in a more 'balanced' fashion. As it is, he appears to be guilty of the same myopia that he attributes to the powers-that-be in Malaysia.

I am always fond of using Singapore as a counter-point in these types of arguments, the more so because the republic oftentimes loudly proclaims itself as a true bastion of meritocracy and a hub for global talent.

Borrowing Teo's markers, let us ask who in Singapore are the top civil servants, the commissioner of police, the chief justice, the one, two and three-star generals in the Singapore Armed Forces, and the top CEOs in Singapore's corporate sector. Surely, it cannot be that Singaporean Malays, Indians and Eurasians are incapable of filling such lofty positions?

Or even in the matter of scholarships. The most prestigious scholarships in Singapore are the President's Scholarships and the Singapore Armed Forces Scholarships. Go back any number of years and look at the recipients.

At the very least, if it is claimed that the system in Malaysia is unfair and that the minorities here are suffering under the lash of unbridled affirmative action, then the proponents of such views should have the courage, or at least the intellectual honesty, to look at the situation in other countries - countries which they fondly hold up to be paragons in this regard and ask if they pass the same tests that they claim

Malaysia has failed dismally. Singapore, Australia, the US, Britain, Canada - all the so-called 'melting pots' - can they pass the same tests of minorities occupying the top jobs in government and the private sector?

It must be easier to highlight the so-called obvious fallacies in one's own country instead of comparing them against what prevails in other countries.

To do otherwise would be to forgo the easy whipping boys and critically analyse hitherto sacrosanct 'idols' - which is what Teo and his ilk are significantly reluctant to do.