King Kong , could you just keep to the issue and not become vitriolic? What is there to be gained by bringing up the likes of Lim Kit Siang and company? LKS and company are a group of good and brave people - people who are committed to righting the wrongs that are found in Malaysian society. Lets leave it at that.

What I take umbrage with is the tone of your letter. The stuff about bowing to white masters is totally unnecessary. At least the white masters have drawn up laws and regulations to protect the minorities who stay in their countries. Equal employment means equal employment. That they actually make laws to make life more equitable for immigrants is quite admirable.

On our end, we to bow to the brown masters (to extrapolate from your terminology). If having to pay more for your house when your bumi neighbour pays less is not having to bow to the brown masters then what is?

If expressing your feelings about the inequities in the country is constantly labelled as bumi-bashing, when instead you feel that you are the one being bashed, and then being told to shut up and put up with it is not having to bow to the brown masters, then what is?

I guess I am beginning to vent some vitriol too, and lest I get carried away, I really should return to the crux of King Kong's letter.

Well maybe you feel that those who have left are no loss to the country. But that really sounds like the fox saying that the grapes were sour anyway. Generally speaking, those who have left were the ones who qualified to go to another country. This means that they had the following 'features'.

They were well-qualified as countries that take them in tend to want qualified people. These would be people who can contribute to the economy of the host country. I suppose that there would be some loss for us as the knowledge acquired by these people goes with them when the leave the country.

They were successful in business and have money - and, of course, some of this money is now in the new country and not in Malaysia. I suppose there would be some loss in the form of taxes that could have been paid to Malaysia too.

They were people of resilience for they were willing to take the challenge, to uproot themselves and to face uncertainties when they could have just sat back and relaxed. Going to a new country often means having to start all over once again.

Resilience and industry are two traits that are required for any host country and the loss of such is, at least in the eyes of most of us, a loss.

There are many other 'features' that I could write about. Suffice to say at this moment that the three things that I have stated above are actually very desirable traits to have. That people who have these traits have now left the country is, for me, a loss to the country.

To say that they are no loss, is really being parochial. You seem to have the mind-set that says, 'To hell with them, they are not worth it anyway'. But such a paradigm is usually a reflection of one's own inabilities to come to grips with the fact that there is something systemically wrong and this has been causing people to leave the country.

It can also be taken to reflect the mind-set of one who might have wanted to leave but who, for reasons best known to oneself, was unable to.

I think that instead of being caustic about this matter, instead of pointing fingers, instead of letting off steam, we should look at the matter more objectively and ask ourselves how we can better the situation.

I do believe that the country needs all who are willing, who are able and who are ready to be part of the positive rather than to be part of the negative.