Nations have national flags, national flowers, national animals and national costumes. These are symbols for the people to show their patriotism. But what is the rationale behind a national car?

First of all, do we need a national car? This concept of a national car is very alien to business success. It is a 'national pride' so it cannot be allowed to fail or sold off even if market circumstances demand it.

Should patriotism be used to support it even if it is a shoddy product at a high price? Should public money be used to fund it and laws made to protect it? How does a business succeed under such pampering and protection from real market forces?

A business set up to manufacture goods for profit does not deserve such treatment. It should succeed or fail on its own merit, not on the patriotism or sacrifices of the citizens. Of course, some protection is necessary during its starting years for it to get on its feet, but after that it should be treated like any other business.

A company treated like a national asset has few reasons to be efficient and competitive. The concept of a national car, therefore, is fundamentally flawed. The government should realise that protection is not the answer to Proton's woes. No amount of protection will save Proton if structural weaknesses are not corrected.

The bare facts are that Proton is losing market share because of a negative quality perception and a lack of fresh models that the public wants to buy. People don't want to buy the same models that their fathers and uncles bought.

The five-year-old.Waja is the only family sedan that is not yet considered a 'dinosaur' but it is aging fast in a competitive market flooded with the new models of other makes.

Malaysians have paid an extraordinary price for Proton's limited success and we will continue to pay a heavy price until economic considerations take precedence over national egoism. The price we have paid includes:

Loss of foreign direct investment in the auto sector which has gone to other Asean countries.

Paying high prices for low-quality and technologically backward Proton cars while prices of other car are hiked up to make Proton cars seem attractive.

With so much of the peoples' incomes tied to cars which are depreciating assets, less money is available for consumers to spend and drive the economy.

Stagnation in public transport development and improvement for fear that Proton will have less buyers.

Lack of basic safety features in Proton cars like ABS and airbags - which are already compulsory in most other countries - contribute to road fatalities.

Increased environmental pollution due to lack of laws to control auto emission for fear that Proton wouldn't be able compete.

Are we protecting national interests or one man's huge ego? Why can't we do the sensible thing and admit that Proton is no longer viable instead of the whole nation bearing a huge burden to prop up Dr Mahathir Mohamad's flawed vision?