The national service proposal highlights the insecurities the government has about people questioning their mandate.

Firstly, why is the rakyat (citizens) not allowed to question the National Service Training Bill 2003 when in comes into force? Why can't the ordinary man on the street who is going to be affected by the bill, question the things he doesn't like about the programme?

There have been many excellent questions raised with regards to the national service and the rakyat should be allowed to continuously review the relevance of the act even when it is in force.

Pak Lah has been lashing out at Malaysians for having First World infrastructure but a Third World mentality. Disallowing Malaysians to talk about the bill not only reflects the Third World mentality of the administration but also curtails the freedom of speech. After all, if the rakyat is paying for it, they have every right to question the programme.

Part of the social contract mandates that the government be accountable for spending the rakyat's money and the taxpayer has the right to question this spending. Which part of this social contract does the British-educated defence minister not understand?

Secondly, the initial survey done on Malaysians students showed that there was a good level of support for the national service programme. Why doesn't the government then just allow individuals to participate voluntarily into the programme?

The current government stand to punish Malaysians who do not want to participate in the programme is another classic example of how the Third World mentality is ingrained into the administration. The government must realise that putting something into law and then forcefully punishing the rakyat for not participating, is cruel.

Thirdly, why is the punishment meted out comparable to nations who mandate national service for their citizens? These nations have conscription because it is vital for the defence of their country. Our national service plan aims to aid nation building - not bolster our military might.

Why is a mother who makes her daughter 'unsuitable' for attending a three-month course liable for a 10-year jail term? Even hardcore criminals in this country are sometimes not given sentences which are that harsh.

I have a strong feeling that parties involved in drafting of this bill merely photocopied the legislation of nations who conscript on the basis of protecting national security. The structure of punishment in this bill is ludicrous!

Fourthly, will the full selection criteria ever be revealed? If it is random, will the rakyat be allowed to audit the computer programme to ensure that selections are done in an unbiased fashion?

Merely saying that the criteria for selection will be based on the racial composition of this country does not paint a picture of transparency that is needed for such a programme. Just look at the chaos created by the electronic vote counting software used during the American presidential elections. Computers will always be fair and unbiased. However, people who write the software might have their own agendas.

Lastly, why is the government broadening the age spectrum for national service? How can the government expect a 35-year-old man to take three months off work to attend the programme? Has any study been done to ascertain the economic impact of imposing such a law on working adults?

How will the this affect our competitiveness in the international market? What proof has the government got to show that a 35-year-old man can suddenly be rid of his prejudices after attending this 90-day course? I am willing to wager that the government has failed to take any of the questions I've raised into consideration.

Mahathir has always condemned the United States for not tackling the root causes of terrorism. I'm challenging Mahathir to tackle the root causes of the racial fractionalisation in Malaysia. National service is certainly not the answer.

If the government wants to bridge the gap among various races, it has to re-look the policies that cause that gap. The National Economic Policy (NEP), segregating Malay students in MRSM's and unfair entry requirements into universities imposed on non-bumiputeras are among the classic reasons why the distance between races is getting wider.

If Eric Mudasi's letter is any reference to the living conditions and attitudes in the Malaysia military, I can definitely say that this programme will be just another addition as to why Malaysian society is so badly polarised.

As for the Third World mentality that Pak Lah claims Malaysians have, can you actually blame the rakyat if our leaders suffer from the exact same problem?