I do not wish to take sides on the recent controversy that erupted from the Singapore premier's remarks, but I find that if I remain silent I would be indirectly condoning the demonisation of a factually correct statement.

Firstly, the comparison of one's position with another's based on statistics is objective in terms of methodology. Notice that Goh Chok Tong substantiated his views with facts and figures.

What is less credible is the response that Malaysian leaders made to such a finding. Ministers, whose names I would elect not to disclose here in order to protect their privacy and, of course, spare them the embarrassment that would surely ensue, issued a fierce rebuttal with such naive statements as:

"I have a few relatives living in Singapore, therefore I know about the standard of living of the Malays in Singapore."

"Malaysia has a relatively large population of Malays, therefore their living conditions and well-being pale in comparison with their Singaporean counterparts."

By summoning the latter point, the ministers have opened a nasty can of worms. What, if any, has the government done to improve the plight of the less well-off Malay Malaysians?

Throughout the years, we have witnessed, firsthand, the construction of the tallest buildings, largest "palaces" and the grandest (not to mention hopelessly inefficient) airport. We, being fortunate Malaysians, have also seen the massive bailouts of pet projects and strategic "business" partners. It's utterly ironic how some of us fail to realise how the clandestine Petronas has used its gigantic sums of profits accumulated over time. The Umno-dominated government's resolve to deprive a state from rightfully receiving royalty payments due, demonstrates that the ruling powers are even willing to trade development in exchange for some measly political mileage.

I hope readers could reflect on the ways that financial capital could be allocated for purely developmental reasons that take greater precedence over enriching political allies through a subtle patronage system. Should the powers that be continue to pick on some foreign scapegoat for the mess in their own backyard? Postulating such a remark as the second quote above would be implying that the ruling coalition fell short of what it could have achieved had it been more accountable.

Secondly, Dr Mahathir Mohamad recently insinuated that the government of Singapore failed to adequately protect the rights of their Malay citizens. If Goh was unfair in making a comparison between the living standards of the Malays across different geographical regions, it would be equally damaging to blindly lash out at someone without justifying one's stand with substantial evidence. The pugnacious Malaysian prime minister could be sued, if doing so would ever be worthwhile.

Reasoning by simple analogies, I could comment that it was unfair to compare such a football club as Manchester United with Everton, which languishes at the undesirable position of the English Premier League. The former has the financial clout and an enviable portfolio of talents that many club managers can only dream of having. Nevertheless, the Premier league is just that - a table that compares the positions of various football teams after a series of matches. Getting to the very top of the table requires more than skilful management and undying dedication, but the position of a football team reflects performance, nothing more than that.We leave valued judgments to the fans.

In a much similar fashion, the standard of living of certain groups of people could be compared between countries, with the basis of such comparison being made on the availability of reliable statistical data. This form of comparison is justifiable.