There is a sense of crystal-ball gazing in both the comments of Dr JL as well as in the content of his critics in that much of their arguments rely on propositions, probabilities and not terribly reliable or relevant 'facts' as these are referred to in their arguments. An emotionally-charged cynic who raises the spectre of an egotistical former prime minister (his opinion) and the so- called failures of his era.

There are few capital investments that do not carry with it a risk. There are even fewer countries and economies that have not restored to pandering to the fickle-mindedness of a raging consumer society by building tall and larger than life edifices as a demonstration of their economic prowess. Whether it was the Pharaohs in death or the Temple of Solomon or the Taj Mahal, the Empire State building or Taipei 101, their purposes were one. A statement.

These are, after all, a reflection as much as a manifestation of the capitalist economic system we have lived with, inherited and benefitted from. Malaysia not long ago was nothing more than a backwater swamp where people had great ambitions but which were thwarted by the colonials and their apologists at home. It was the daring, the cunning and the risk-takers - not the risk averse 'side show bobs' - that contributed to its progress.

It was the Mahathirs, the Hussein Onns and their coterie that did it with a great deal of cooperation, from yes, the equally inspired masses of Chinese and Indians and Malays who also wanted some pride in what they were.

As a student in England in the 1970s, I, too, dreamed of the day when they would, in places like the UK, show us some respect instead of 'Paki bashing' us and calling us names and writing all sorts of scurrilous articles with impunity about us because our leaders at the time were too timid to respond or to dream.

For all of the progress we have and must strive to achieve for future generations, we must and will make some mistakes and pay a price. However, one must not rely on pettiness of statements such as Indians speaking English (which is today a fallacy as their language skills have dropped, Hindhi having overtaken English as the most widely spoken and understood language in its many forms there ) or Singapore's 'meritocracy' (which to me suggests that only the Chinese have merit).

Singapore, as Mrs Gandhi once rebuked Lee for when he raised the spectre of the same unfair comparison, can be fitted into Bombay alone three times over and still not have as much diversity as Mumbai has bringing with it its attendant problems. Singapore cannot, and should not, be compared with the rest of the world. It is as idiotic as comparing a shopping mall with the local grocer or an apple with an orange. These are two distinctly different cultures, driven by different needs and issues.

Dr JL's point that Malaysia is the world's largest oil palm producer is to a large extent relevant. However, the claim that people rushing to buy shares is an indication of the productivity or profitability of the idea requires some examination.

In such instances, there will always be a premium of hot air often referred to as the speculative element when calculating the value of the shares' rising. When the merger is over and a good deal of time has come to pass, we will know the value of our decisions.

Till then, there is no harm in trying or in risk-taking provided the fundamentals are adhered to.