I take umbrage to Arun's response to my criticism of Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad's economic terrorism.

He deduced that I was a Singaporean who had hid my true identity to attack Mahathir.

This is truly despicable because he chose to stereotype me: as a Singaporean (or so he thought), there was really no need to examine what I have to say because Singapore is that rich country that has engaged in unethical business practices at Malaysia's expense.

If I were to use his logic, then, he must be a Malaysian because surely all Malaysians do not have a problem with Mahathir's argument.

I hope Arun realises the stupidity of such assumptions.

I also wish to state that I am a Malaysian with no intention to hide my identity. I had not said so in the first place because I did not see the need to as I was just putting on paper my honest views on the whole affair.

The one attempt Arun made to challenge the substance of my earlier letter was what that 'richer country' had done in luring away the investor from Malaysia amounted to bribery involving hundreds of millions of ringgit. Is this not the same as a country using cheaper labour to attract an investor?

Well, Mahathir did not make the bribery charge, keeping in mind that his economic terrorism argument came from a prepared speech and that he is well-known for speaking his mind. Let me refer Arun to the page-one story in the New Straits Times (Aug 2), in which Mahathir used the word "competition" instead.

But be that as it may. Still, had Arun read my piece without his delusion of me as a Singaporean, he would be able to discern that I don't necessarily disagree with his bribery claim altogether.

As I suggested earlier, a major aspect of capitalism is that it has been viewed, for far too long, as about the pursuit of profits — the larger the better. This can be found in any standard text on economics. It is also a source of unethical practices, including, yes, bribery.

But, like Mahathir, Arun was monumentally baffling as well to blame only the richer country for the "bribery". Again, why not blame the investor (the bribe-taker) instead or together with the richer country (the bribe-giver)?

Should Arun need to understand the law on this, let me refer him again to the same issue of the New Straits Times article mentioned earlier. Next to the page-one story on Mahathir's economic terrorism was a piece on bribery: Former Selangor state executive councillor Datuk Saidin Tamby was found guilty by the Sessions Court "of receiving a million-ringgit bribe".

Clearly, in trying to take his hostility towards Singapore out on me (for the record, it was not confirmed Singapore was that richer nation), Arun made a fool of himself.