Moved vividly by the experience, that student, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, was later to become Singapore's Prime Minister and then its Senior Minister.

Many months ago, a Singaporean law student stood on a farm in suburban Leicestershire and told his friend: "You know, I envy you British people.

Not only do you have a blind minister, you also make him responsible for your homeland security."

The friend replied: "I didn't notice he was blind. Does it matter? After all, he is qualified for the job, right?"

I was that student.

I asked myself later: "Will Singapore one day have a blind Home Affairs Minister?"

I do not mean any disrespect to SM Lee, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng or British Home Secretary David Blunkett.

My intention is merely to highlight two ideals of society: Civility and equality, lessons enshrined in the above experiences.

The British underwent great "heretical" change to achieve such benchmarks of civility and equality.

Civility came at the cost of two world wars.

Equality came at the expense of racial hatred and other discriminatory practices.

Of course, the extent to which the British today represent civility and equality is arguable.

And so, I see nothing wrong in MP K Shanmugam's "mildly heretical" call for affirmative action in Parliament recently.

He noted in a personal capacity: "I will be mildly heretical. There must be opportunities, without affecting the core principle of meritocracy, for there to be some form of action which will see Malays in important positions in greater numbers than they are now.

"I am suggesting that the principle of meritocracy can be leavened, with some steps which assist the Malay community to have its stars."

I, too, feel "that the principle of meritocracy can be leavened" but the beneficiaries of the MP's bold proposal should not be the perceivedly disadvantaged, as he identified above, but really the literally disadvantaged.

The literally disadvantaged being people with disabilities and special needs.

More heretically speaking, we could do without the affirmative action that the perceivedly disadvantaged already enjoy.

First to go could be Article 152 of the Singapore Constitution, which recognises "the special position of the Malays" as the "indigenous people of Singapore".

Next on the list, albeit radical, could be the unmeritocratic Group Representation Constituencies, which ensure ethnic minorities like me always have a voice in Parliament.

It is ironic that our legislature sees it fit to give ethnic minorities who form less than 10 per cent of Singapore's population a substantial influence in Parliament and yet we deny similar representation to about three out of every 10 Singaporeans across racial lines who desire more non-ruling party voices.

Another practical step could be to remove any reference to race in our NRICs.

The same could apply to all kinds of forms or documents within Singapore.

No one in Singapore should be obligated to provide the race, except for census purposes.

We could also abandon ethnically-slanted thinking by saying farewell to:

• Statutory self-help innovations like the Singapore Indian Development Association;

• Advertisements seeking "Chinese medicine men or women", "Malay drivers" and "Indian laundrymen or laundrywomen"; and

• Rhetoric encouraging the various racial groups to master their respective mother tongues.

Let's just stick to being effectively bilingual (and not necessarily one's "mother tongue") Singaporeans that generally help other human beings in need.

Those in need being the literally disadvantaged.

Well over three decades of focus on economic priorities have not allowed Singapore to give adequate attention to such people.

This is despite the fact that they have brought our country more sporting glory than their able-bodied and privileged counterparts.

It took Singapore some one-and-a-half decades before deciding that these individuals deserve proper access to our world-class transport system.

It is only in recent months that the SMRT Corporation implemented plans to make its stations effectively accessible to such people.

Yet, we remain far from providing them the necessary access to our world-class education system.

For example, last month, I completed an application form for a postgraduate course at a local university.

The form encouraged potential applicants to declare, if any, their respective disabilities and special needs.

However, an accompanying note rather insensitively qualified: "This information will enable the university to develop a complete profile of the applicant ... The university does, however, not guarantee the provision of special aid to any students."

How exemplary is that of a world-class institution of higher learning?

In the University of Leicester, where I am studying, for example, blind students are assigned guide dogs and the university makes a commitment to provide such students with Braille-version lecture notes.

Similarly, the university provides lecture transcripts to deaf students.

Last year, I visited a school for the deaf in Singapore and was appalled to see the facilities the students there enjoy.

To put it rudely, it would never be a school I would go to, if I had a choice.

Clearly, some "mildly heretical" opportunities would enable such disadvantaged groups to better make a difference for Singapore.

The literally disadvantaged require more stars than the perceivedly disadvantaged.

Will Singapore one day have a blind minister or MP? Maybe.

Perhaps, that day, a Singaporean law student will instead stand at the Padang and reflect: "My country is a shining beacon of civility and equality. Here, one enjoys the human right to truly be the best that one can be."

Published: Today (Singapore) on March 4, 2003

Article: A question of equality: How about giving the literally disadvantaged a leg up?

12 February 2003