Any news, especially comments on the pattern of interaction among ethnic and racial groups in Malaysia is always welcome, particularly in the context of national unity and integration. But having said that, it is important to emphasise that such information is only meaningful when the information can help to strengthen unity.

Therefore, it was with surprise and indeed alarm that one reads the findings of the Merdeka Centre for Opinion Research which commissioned the study that was also sponsored by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation. This is because there is absolutely no mention as to the representativeness of the informants.

Anyone familiar with the rudiments of survey research would be aware that the research findings of any survey are only valid and reliable if the methodology in selecting the respondents is based on a suitable sample frame from which a random or random stratified sample (or both) are drawn. This is to ensure that the findings are valid and reliable.

In this instance all we are told is that it was a 'structured survey' which in itself is meaningless unless clearly spelt out in detail. Indeed, apart from the total number interviewed, there is no mention even of the methodology of data collection. Of course, it is well known that opinion surveys do not always follow the strict rules of methodology, but this is often because the topics surveyed range from 'exciting' topics such as customer choice of bras or toilet paper!

In this particular instance therefore, without sufficient caution and qualification of findings, it almost amounts to irresponsibility to say that respondents made such sweeping stereotypes that 'Malays are lazy, Chinese are greedy and Indians are untrustworthy'.

This can do much damage in situations where academics and other professionals are striving hard to identify independent and dependent variables and necessary and sufficient conditions to arrive at and explain causal factors in the pattern of social interaction that emerges.