From: iscksc@nuscc.nus.sg (Mr Khoo Siau Cheng)
Subject: Re: Othman's argument
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:39:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.063622.24302@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad) writes:
>Me Mann (mhmann@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
>: 
>: Have it ever come across to you that there are SBC publicity officers that 
>: are  Malay and also fluent only say in English and Malay? You seem to 
>
>It did come across. But I was taling about Malay sensitivities. 

NO, you were not talking about Malay sensitivties; you were talking
about laws and government practices that discriminate against Malay.
Appended at the end of this mail is a copy of what you have written
originally. Othman, please read carefully what you have written, and
stand by your points.

Out of curiosity, I called up SBC to enquire about this position. The
lady at the other end told me that they are looking for someone who
can head the group that is in charge of the publicity and promotion of
both Chinese and English programs. Therefore, knowing Malays is not a
pre-requisite. I hope this clarify everyone's doubt. 

> If you read carefully what I said in earlier paragraphs, some of them
> may be wrong, but which ones?

Yes, you indeed said so in his mail. Again, it is appended at the end
of this mail. However, I think this is a very coward act. You have no
intention of finding and telling the truth. Rather, you make wild
statements, and expect others to find out the truth, or argue with you
based on these statements.

It seems that you are not honestly looking for truth, since you don't
even bother find out what others have said is true or not, and worse
still, you simply take them as facts and use them in discussion. 

Neither are you a conscientious educator nor a helpful friend, since
you don't even bother to teach your friends (those who told your their
experiences) to find out the truth before making their claims. 

In your original mail, you made some speculation about the truth of
the claims (also appended at the end). I am amazed that you resorted
to speculation when truth can sometimes be easily discovered
by simply making a telephone call. Did you inform our Singaporean
Malays about your speculation? I hope that most Singaporeans can
determine to scrutinize your accusations and claims, but, wah-lau,
with you in NTU ......

One interesting point: you mentioned that you suspected some of
the claims are wrong, just like the claims of discrimination by the
chinese. (I assume that you mean Malaysian Chinese.) You then
estimated that 70% of the claims are true. I wonder if this implies
that the claims by the Malaysian Chinese are also 70% true. Of course,
you are always ready to say that the similarity does not apply to your
private estimation ;-)

-- Siau Cheng

Following is what Othman wrote in his original mail about the post of
publicity officer. 
>:
>>:Heng Wei Osbert Tan (fellow@cs.utexas.edu) wrote:
>>: I'll appreciate if Othman can point out ONE law, regulation, or
>>: government practices that may have put our Malay brothers in a
>>: disadvantage situation. 
>:
>: The recent advertisement for a "publicity officer" to be fluent in
>: Mandarin and English is one. If it were for a Mandarin program we
>: can understand but for a Publicity officer?
>: I may be wrong in the exact tittle of the Job so I hope someone can
>: clarify. 
>:	It is not fair in Singapore because there is no requirement in
>: Singapore to study Mandarin unlike Malaysia where everyone is
>: required to study Malay. 
>: 
>: [stuff deleted]
>:
>: I cannot speak based on my experience but only on their experiences.
>: Right or wrong is another matter. Some of them , I suspect are
>: wrong, just like the claims of discrimination by the Chinese. My
>: estimate is that 30% of the claims of discrimination is wrong.
>:	The same level of confidence can be stated for the claims of the
>: Singapore Malays.