The Independent Committee on Segregation in Schools report claimed there were no personal initiatives by headmasters or education officers to segregate based on race. However, the investigation revealed that 95 percent of the pupils in the 210 national type primary schools were of one race. This means that the parents of other races do not enroll their children in government schools.

So the report did reveal the existence of racial segregation in the national education system except that it is due to initiatives not of headmasters and education officers but parents of the other races themselves.

It is reasonable to attribute this reluctance or refusal to so enroll to negative perceptions of the Education Ministry's educational policies of which it should accept the responsibility of not instilling sufficient confidence, or doing enough by way of public relations, to dispel or correct these negative perceptions.

Had it not been for the so-called false alarm sounded by National Union of the Teaching Profession secretary-general N Siva Subramaniam, the nation would not be aware of the extent of polarisation existing in our education system. Neither would the ministry be aware of the weaknesses for it to resolve to improve IT infrastructure and introduce pupil's own language periods to attract other races and mitigate the polarisation.

Far from calling on Siva to apologise, he should be commended for taking the courageous stand at personal risk on this issue that has caused disquiet among many parents who first raised the racial polarisation problem.

Unlike some other politicians, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, upon his return from a nine-day visit to Russia yesterday, set the right tone when asked whether he thought Siva should apologise by saying he didn't know but he maintained that it was "just a result of confusion" and "a misunderstanding on the part of the NUTP". I read that as saying that one should not make a mountain of recrimination out of a molehill of misunderstanding.

This shows that the PM is not looking for a scapegoat in Siva.

Siva on behalf of the NUTP had raised an issue that disturbed certain segments of the public. It was done in good faith and for public interest with no personal gain though others may argue that he could have selected a more appropriate forum like the parent-teacher association instead of the media.

But had it not been for the media, would an independent committee on segregation in schools be so speedily formed and the public informed of the extent of this racial polarisation in our schools?

Siva was absolutely correct to say, Don't pull people's throat and say 'don't talk'.

This appears to be a dangerous trend emerging in this country and is reminiscent of the Malaysian Muslim Scholars Associations (PUM) complaint lodged with the Conference of Rulers and other religious authorities against some writers and intellectuals for disparaging Islam.

If democracy and free speech were to have any relevance and meaning here, we should eschew any punitive acts of retribution, blame or humiliation being brought to bear on those who speak with bona fide intention for the public good and raise matters of public interest and concern.

We should not instill a culture of fear and silence by hounding those who dare to raise or fight for public issues just because of ill-considered choice of forum to raise these or the fact that they have overdramatised or exaggerated the nature of the problem of concern to the public.

This is because we want more people to speak up on these matters than keep silent for fear of consequences so that the searchlight of public attention may scour every facet of national life and ferret out the festering rot in some corners hitherto unnoticed.

No societies can be vigilant of their rights and rectify bureaucratic blunders if no one dares to speak up for public interest (as distinct from personal) on account of repercussions if they were proven less than absolutely right!

On this score we should commend Siva for his public spiritedness — and not use the findings of the report to demand he apologise or back down as a deterrent against others so equally public-spirited in the future.