While I do not take issue with Harun Rashid's overall point of view regarding the possibility (or probability, rather) of a global economic downturn in the near future, many of his criticisms of the government are unwarranted and unreasonable.

He claims in his article Malaysia's manufacturing malaise

(Jan 22) that "the share price of a stock should not reach, much less exceed, the net tangible asset value". This is a ridiculous assertion, and serves only to indicate that the writer has little understanding of stocks, shares and the financial world in general.

It is widely accepted that the market valuation of a company is often higher than its net tangible assets. This is because any business is worth more (often a lot more) than the sum total of all its assets and this is so because a functioning business generates profit. Any first-year student of economics could have pointed this out and it is surprising that you actually allow such assertions to be published on your site.

The he criticises the nation's economic policy, claiming that "the national economic policy is to defer the debt indefinitely, raising fresh cash to postpone the day the piper must be paid". This may indeed be the national economic policy, but then again it is also (and has been for the last few decades) the national economic policy of many major capitalist countries.

The United States, for example is the world's biggest debtor nation. The reality is that borrowing money is a reasonable way to keep a business or an economy running. Without debt, capitalism as we know it would not exist.

If we tried to defer all spending in order to balance the budget we would probably precipitate a massive contraction in economic activity which would push the country into a depression similar to that of the 1930s. A national economy cannot be run according to the same guidelines by which we manage our personal finances. Debt is an integral part of financing an economy.

Again, the comparison with Argentina is fallacious. Argentina maintained the peso at an unsustainable level by maintaining parity with the US dollar. The ringgit on the other hand is reasonably maintained at 3.8 to the dollar.

I am not arguing in support of a fixed exchange rate, but only pointing out that the situation in Malaysia is not identical with that which existed in Argentina. It is therefore illogical to conclude that the Malaysian economy is bound to collapse in the same way that the Argentine one has.

Harun Rashid's obvious anti-government stance is irritating, to say the least, and he should not be allowed to masquerade as a learned commentator on economic matters when his only objective seems to be to criticise the prime minister in whatever way he can.

Criticism can often be a constructive exercise, but let us not have irrational and senseless criticism.