When the prime minister's Chinese adviser Matthias Chang delivered his lecture for 45 minutes to Nanyang Siang Pau editors, leaving the latter with only 15 minutes for their questions ('Resolve issues with Mahathir directly, PM's aide tells Chinese leaders', Aug 21), he set the ground rules and parameters of the interface.

He made it clear that his role as Chinese adviser was not necessarily to advise the PM and mediate on the merits or demerits of the grouses of the Chinese as raised by its spokespersons but to 'advise' the Chinese leaders of the PM's dissatisfaction about the manner by which these grouses were often raised - in a public and confrontational manner through the Chinese press

This is not to say that the PM is not interested in the Chinese Malaysian's grievances. He ought to be, as its electoral support counts. I don't therefore agree with the views expressed by Ming-Hoe Kiu in 'Let down by Dr M's new advisers' (Aug 21).

The writer expressed the opinion that the PM was more interested in controlling the media than listening to the Chinese Malaysian's voice or that the Chinese adviser did not play his role. But the question is, what actually is his (the adviser's) role?

It is however a clear signal that the immediate role of the Chinese adviser is to be a conduit through which private consultations and dialogue may be arranged between the PM and representatives of the Chinese community to resolve conflicts and grievances in a low profile and musyawarah way.

In short, it is a form of 'grievance procedure' without public confrontation that may otherwise incite a counter reaction from representatives, whether self proclaimed or elected of other communities to make such similar demands through the press to the detriment of the fragile fabric of the country's race relations.

His role is not to clarify with the PM the concerns of Chinese community on education and Chinese press or language - that is a role better played by a person recruited from the ranks of Chinese educationists or the Chinese guilds rather than the English-trained Matthias Chang.

Whilst it would be so easy to raise emotional issues in the press that sells on newsworthy and sensational issues, it is not so easy for the champions of causes to personally negotiate them face to face with the PM unless they have thought through all sides of the equations and done their homework with regard to feasibility.

In the event of adversarial negotiations, the Chinese adviser being legally trained can mediate and clarify the issues though it will be naive to think that his partiality would lie in anywhere else other than his boss.

I think that the establishment of a grievance procedure to resolve differences by discussion, consultation and negotiation in which each side can see the points of view of the other isn't such a bad thing at all.

I take it then that it is the spirit and intention of this grievance procedure to foster good relations between the PM and the Chinese community, resolving differences by discussion, consultation and negotiation.

It is still not too late if any difference arising which cannot be satisfactorily resolved for the promoters of their positions, to take them to other forums (like the press), but the party expressing these concerns would have had at least the opportunity of examining the government's position and be better aware of the consequences of taking these issues to such a public forum.