I refer to Petrof's letter A tale of two countries retold . I am not sure why Singapore has been chosen as the ideal reference when the country itself is far from ideal.

Petrof's argument centred on the materialistic. Malaysia fails because of its smaller gross domestic product (GDP) compared with Singapore. We also fail because Malay Malaysians have more affinity for the non-scientific, adding also to it their religious fervour. We are also not successful because we don't do as well industrially.

This notion of success based purely on materialistic viewpoints is quite a distortion in itself as human beings as well as the material around them should also be considered in the final analysis.

Singapore is a materialistic state — pure and simple — where success is measured by numbers and figures. To be fair, there is an aspect of humanity and spirituality prevailing but in truth this is in as much as human productivity is augmented. Man needs spirituality to refresh them for work the next day, the rest of it, well, is superfluous.

Singapore is a tightly controlled society with hardly any freedom for dissent and where you can lose all you have by legal means. That there is no opposition is hardly a surprise as the people are well nourished materially and their simple materialistic view makes it easier to maintain the status quo .

Malaysia is by no means perfect but Singapore is hardly a good example for Malaysia to aspire to. Human aspects of freedom, religion, spirituality and political openness should feature high in any criteria for success of a nation, not forgetting the wealth creation.