I refer to QG Rozario's letter, Plantation merger: No gain without risk . I would readily admit that there is a tendency to overreact and to be over-critical of our government in the Internet because of the taste of comparatively more freedom of expression as compared with the controlled mainstream media which is nothing more than the ruling party's propaganda machinery.

Having stated that, without knowing whether Rozario is or was formerly a Malaysian, I just want to enquire (in case he is not) whether he has experienced the feeling of being a citizen in a country run by leaders who can discriminate based on race officially, ignore blatant corruption within the ruling party, bulldoze through mega-projects which are overpriced for obvious reasons, and be arrogant because they have now an over 90 percent majority in Parliament (with just 64 percent of the votes) and control the media!

From the writer's own admission, at least he has experienced being mistaken for a Pakistani in the UK and being 'Paki-bashed' and so he should know what it is like when we were told 'if we do not like it, we can go back to China'. My late father was born in Malaya in 1909 and yet we still feel like second-class citizens.

Rozario seems to have missed my point of criticism over the unduly grand projects which should be seen in the context of a poor sense of priority when we still have schools in dilapidated condition (some still even without electricity), poor public transport (especially in Kuala Lumpur), more cases of criminal activities and modern universities and hospitals but sadly lacking in quality human resources.

To me, it is very obviously the work of someone who took the fast track to be recognised that his country is 'well developed'. He was responsible for the country's 'development' which obviously earned him lots of respect from people all over the world for the biggest this and longest that. Though each time, Petronas was the saviour when there were financial problems.

The examples given of past leaders in other parts of the world and ambitious businessmen making statements with larger than life edifices, to me, are poor arguments against my premise that a leader should be more judicious in managing the limited financial resources of a country. What good is it having the tallest building in the world and a university that looks like Harvard when our people are still having a Third World mentality as admitted by no less than our current PM? As to the university in Terengganu, someone aptly put it as: 'Hardware first, software can come later, or never at all'.

I cannot imagine India could have done well in information technology - especially its well- established business of out-sourcing contracts with large companies in Britain and America - without its English-speaking personnel, regardless of whether India is predominantly Hindi- speaking.

It is regrettable that my example of Singapore for meritocracy to the writer suggests 'only the Chinese have merit' which is uncalled for. There is a reason for citing Singapore, instead of say, the US, simply because it used to be part of Malaysia. The phenomenal development of Singapore since its separation from Malaysia when both our currency values and universities were on par, speaks for itself especially when the former lacks natural resources while the latter has it in abundance. I did not mention India for this comparison on meritocracy, so where do your apples and oranges come in?

Last but not least, I wish to state that it would appear that our leaders continue to be fixated by wanting to be the largest, in this case, to have the largest plantation company in the world. This reminds me of our 'national pride' when we conducted a 'dawn raid' on the London Stock Exchange to take over Guthrie, Dunlop and so forth. As it turned out, the British got a good price from us and invested in Indonesia at much lower cost.

Various reasons have been reported in the press for the plantation merger, like 'market driven', 'bio-diesel potential', 'economies of scale' and so on. I would expect 'market driven' and 'bio- diesel potential'- if as a national strategy - to involve other efficient and experienced plantation companies without a merger. Just think of the perception of foreign investors and minority shareholders - what difference is it from nationalisation?

As to 'economies of scale', it has been suggested by the late Tan Sri Bashir Ismail and plantations consultant Mahbob Abdullah that the optimum size for an oil palm plantation for a manager is 2,000 hectares. With it being labour intensive and difficult for mechanisation, huge plantations are likely to face leakages without quality managers and sufficient workers unless the real motive was to convert the suitable parts of the landbank to property development.

If that is the case with the merger of Guthrie, Golden Hope and Sime Darby, then be truthful about it.