Let me say I stand firmly behind Mohd Fauzi ('Some bailouts are for national interest', Aug 16) when he says that people shouldn't take a simplistic approach to analysing bailouts.

For starters, the government shouldn't keep dishing out the simplistic argument that if bailouts aren't duly handed out on demand the whole of Malaysia goes down the tubes.

To call the Renong and Bank Bumiputra bailouts a duty in the nation's interest is highly arguable at best. Is it really in the nation's interest to keep doling out bailout after bailout to the same companies headed by the same people over the years? Where do we draw the line when it comes to giving corporate handouts?

Wouldn't the nation be better off digging to the root of why these companies needed to be bailed out so often instead of hiding it from the public?

Why should we hide the truth and the opportunity to solve the real problems at the expense of the billions in bailouts just to save a few 'important' faces?

Since the writer mentioned Chrysler as an example, remember Lee Iacocca was practically dragged over the coals to justify why the US government had to lend him money. He had to pay back every single cent with interest, mind you, and it was a one-time affair.

Renong's Halim Saad, on the other hand, simply snapped his fingers and the billions came raining down from the sky. Again and again.

When guys like him decide not to bother repaying, Danaharta takes over the debts. And all the while some people have the gall to justify these daylight robberies with the simplistic argument that if people like Halim Saad didn't get the money they want whenever they want, the rest of Malaysia will all starve and die!