I refer to the letter Mega-projects merely a symptom .

The writer likened running a government to running a business. In business, one needs to earn enough to pay wages, supplies, etc, and finally have something for the shareholders. And if you borrow, you need to pay interest, let alone repay the principal.

Were our mega-projects planned and implemented in such manner? Why build the KLIA when the Subang Airport was still adequate? What is the cost per square meter of the Twin Towers? Were the projects merely for prestige. Spending colossal sums for prestige would have sunk any business.

Another often heard argument for building big now is that similar projects will cost more in the future. Economics 101 will tell you there is such thing as time value of money. A billion ringgit today at 8% interest will roughly double every decade.

If one were to look for a government run along a business line, Singapore would come to mind. There, there seems to be cost and benefits analysis on projects. Hence, they rejected a bridge to replace the Causeway.

All government land offered for development is auctioned to the highest bidder and the money goes to the state's coffers. If our government is run along similar lines, Malaysia would have been much, much better off than that island republic.