As an Australian university academic originating from Malaysia who has experienced life at both sides of the coin, I am rather appalled with the simplistic views expressed in White man rules Down Under based on a nutshell imagination.

In essence, people in Australia are gauged not by race but by merit. Therefore, it is ironic to claim that white Australians behave more superior to anyone else, while the society at large is governed by non-discriminatory policies. May I have SS's definition of superior behaviour?

To answer SS's question to Michael on what courses in which universities are 'all for free', the answer is that all courses in all universities are 'all for free'.

Tertiary education in Australia is funded by the HECS (Higher Education Contribution Scheme), whereby the government provides a low-interest bearing loan to fund an undergraduate's tuition fees. They have up to 30 years to repay the loans.

The cost of the graduate course is also reduced for Australians. For example, a foreign undergraduate pursuing medicine in an Australian university would have to pay the full fee of

A$35,000 while a local pays only A$9,000 which is funded by HECS regardless of race.

As to the myth of SS claiming that Australian state schools are raising funds all year round, I would like to know which specific school in Australia does this? In fact, state schools are funded by the government on the basis of student number.

To better equip itself, a school may raise funds through a talent show or an exhibition once or twice a year. Private schooling is naturally the preference of a minority few to buy more personal attention for their children.

Nevertheless, it doesn't in anyway grant privileges for a university admission. Australia is a free society where everyone is equal and measured by merit.

As everywhere else in the world, quality medication is expensive. But then in Australia, 50 to 90 percent of the real cost of compulsory medicine is subsidised by the government. Private healthcare insurance is again an alternative for those who do not wish to go through the public healthcare system which provides service based on 'medical need' rather than 'individual preference'.

SS has portrayed that it is a social sin for the Australian government to give financial benefits to the poor, needy and unemployed. In actuality, unemployment benefit is not a blind handout. It is subject to skills upgrade for employment under the Tafe (Technical and Further Education) programme. Isn't this the epitome of a caring government?

Discrimination is a myth of the past era of 'White Australia'. In reality, meritocracy is the only prevailing force in action. For instance, two-thirds of undergraduates pursuing medical degrees in Melbourne University and Monash University are Australian of Chinese origin from different parts of Asia. Isn't this strong enough proof of Australia's non-discriminatory policy?

Moreover, Asian migrants have excelled in different professions from university chairs to specialist doctors solely on the grounds of their merit. Furthermore, anyone with the substance and the support of voters can become the country's prime minister.

Hence, no one could stop an Australian-born Asian from contesting the office of prime minister in Australia if he aspires to do so. Isn't this a real open society?

Consequently, I would like to remind SS that his/her views of Australia are outdated by 40 years.