Gimfil James' articulation on the gross benefits of the New Economic Policy/New Development Policy makes a dangerous assumption. First, he assumes that all views expressed in the vibrant correspondence related to emigration alluded to the NEP/NDP.

This is inaccurate and erroneous as not everyone had done so. For example, my principal complaint had been the continued existence of non-level playing fields - not the NEP/NDP.

A non-level and slippery playing field with moving goal posts is not unique to Bolehland. In fact, it is everywhere where there are crafty human beings. The only difference about Bolehland (and those countries which ape its strategies), however, is that there are no mechanisms for those aggrieved to realistically address this fairly short of voting with one's feet (that is, leaving the country).

Many probably do not understand that the non-level playing field has become the hallmark of the NEP/NDP without it having to be in force by virtue of statute but by tradition or custom.

And others have capitalised on this. By this I mean that an unfair advantage has been deliberately created not only amongst the bumiputeras but also amongst those who support the continuously ruling government of the Barisan Nasional, i.e the crony culture.

It has become clear that bumiputeras who do not support the BN do not appear to benefit or are unlikely to benefit from the NEP/NDP although token attempts had been made to make this appear otherwise.

This is because a very sophisticated system of vetting, political patronage and support exists at all levels for favours throughout the network. This is well-maintained and continues unabated in the form of Public Service Department scholarships to the children of those who have demonstrated allegiance to the BN, i.e. top civil servants and so on.

It appears that when these individuals qualify from abroad they literally walk into reserved or newly-created jobs without any competition. And, this has nothing to do with the NEP/NDP.

Where else can this happen? Bolehland's crony developing countries in darkest Africa and underdeveloped Asia which elect to ape this modus operandi!

This, together with the direct effects of the NEP/NDP presumably, continue to fuel the winds of emigration. But it is unlikely to stop and as a Malaysian solicitor friend aptly paraphrased: 'Bolehland is a great place for it is completely unrestricted for those who can do - for they will have the power, influence and ability to do all things (literally), unregulated (usually) and unchecked, or cursorily checked with scant accountability.

'It is also a great place for those who cannot do - for they will always be conferred a 'can do' status by the authorities.' So, Malaysia would be the place to be for people who either choose to be in or are already in these two groups.

Those who are dissatisfied and who would not be in either group - like myself - could always choose to leave if we find we cannot tolerate it and many do with, of course, the 'good riddance' accolade accompanying us.

For some of us, the spirit of discovery, adventure, fair competition and globalisation dominates our minds and ambitions and we seek greener pastures to satisfy these. I agree that the NEP will continue to benefit greatly those who are and who have been socially disadvantaged but in its present form, these presumably will more likely be only BN supporters.

But, sadly, it has also created an ugly culture of chronic dependents - from all races - relying on taxpayer-funded handouts even in its subtlest forms. And what do they most likely do when times get tough? They indulge in Bolehland's currently most frequently reported crime handbag snatching.

Personally, I do make flitting visits to Bolehland to meet relatives and friends but actively try to spend as little as possible as soap, shampoo, uncooked food provisions and even professional services etc. are much cheaper Down Under.

This is because greed is rarely a motive in the retail of these essential goods. If James thinks I am going to waste a couple of thousand of ringgit lounging about in Borneo, repeating the previously gratis experiences of my youth, then there are certainly other competitors in the form of other developing countries both within and outside Asean!

It is noble to believe that certain policies may indeed help boost the plight of the oppressed and poor, but again there are other more empowering alternative approaches. My point is this - all able citizens of any free country should be free to choose where they wish to work and live and it is up to competing countries to attract them with the most optimal conditions, not only materially but in the form of quality of life, personal dignity, personal freedom, minimal paternalistic control and so on.

If a person chooses (or is chosen) to be semi-able and dependent when this is not so, then this too is his or her right although ethically this may then be considered as a deception or 'tipu'.

Even in the social welfare states of the West, 'tipu' people exist in reasonable numbers but they have learnt to skillfully short-circuit the system whereas some Bolehland locals have not.

As James himself has previously stated , humans will always migrate but if a person's own country cannot actively retain its own skilled and semi-skilled sons and daughters, then, the government of that country really ought to look hard at itself in the mirror and ask why that is, if it really cares about its citizens.

And if these migrs excel, such source-countries should never shamelessly claim credit for their origins (or the 'country's cause' as James puts it) when in truth, these people had actually been driven away by the conditions in their countries of their birth in the first place.

So, perhaps, now with the dawn of an era of increasing transparency and accountability, I now ask (tongue in cheek): 'How about a royal commission on reducing emigration?'