The saga of the forced marriage of Southern Bank Berhad (SBB) and CIMB appears to have come to an end to the delight of all parties concerned but the photo of the two partners in the union did not seem to show it.

One, possibly the groom, showed extreme happiness in finally getting his prized bride, albeit at much higher price. The other, possibly the bride, could only show some signs of some happiness that she got a better dowry.

The forced union raises some pertinent issues. Did SBB get a fair price for the union? Everyone and both parties said they did. But if one party had not much of a choice but to get married, might it not be a situation where only the marriage price - the dowry - and nothing else was left to be discussed?

Did the bride have a choice about not wanting to get married to this particular fellow? The rules were heavily stacked against her. Only if the current suitor went away and lost interest could she be available to consider other suitors, the central bank said. One at a time, it said. No questions about it.

So the poor bride had no choice but to consider this suitor as he just wouldn't go away and lose interest. Meanwhile, two other potential suitors, the grapevine says, with much better dowries and proposals, were prevented from wooing her as the regulatory authorities just wouldn't let them.

So without being able to hear other beneficial proposals and being stuck with only one which wouldn't go away, she had no choice but to make the best of it. Consequently, did the bride get the best deal from all possible suitors or only this deal from this one suitor?

Did the shareholders of SBB get the best possible deal from the market or only the best deal from one party and that party only? Why did the regulatory bodies, especially Bank Negara, prevent the shareholders of SBB from hearing other possible proposals? Is this fair for the shareholders? Were their best interests considered?

In this era of a globalised world, where barriers are fast falling apart, we have a very restrictive and narrow-minded central bank. Free market forces must be allowed to reign and play their part in ensuring a free, fair and optimum market. To say that banks should not be traded like ordinary commodities or companies only confirms a narrow-minded thinking and philosophy.

Did not Public Bank just recently successfully bid for a bank in Hong Kong? Didn't several Malaysian banks successfully bid for several banks in Indonesia? And previously in the Philippines? Didn't UOB successfully bid for OUB Bank against DBS Bank just a couple of years ago in Singapore? All these happened in the progressive and open economies in those countries with pragmatic leaders.

We can only surmise and conclude that Malaysia is still not quite open and ready for globalisation in this area. We remain sheltered and protected and our market will only be worse off for it. It will remain less than optimum.