I refer to the Malaysiakini report Dr M wants more gov't, less market .

I write in response to Dr Mahathir Mohamad's argument for increased government participation in the economy.

I would like to remind Mahathir (who seems to have an incredibly short memory span these days) that despite its faults, a market-based economy is the reason why most economists believe countries like Singapore have over taken Malaysia in terms of economic strength despite the former’s relative size/resources disadvantage.

A free market economy is also the reason for the post-war boom over the past 50 years that saw an unprecedented rise in living standards across the world.

Despite numerous recessions throughout the years, there were still far more booms than busts. It is also an obvious fact that despite problems with free-economies across the world, most are still far richer than Malaysia is and will be in the foreseeable future.

I would also like to remind Mahathir that most government-linked organisations/corporations in Malaysia are nothing short of a sham. Despite 20 years of trade protection, Proton can barely stand on its own two feet.

While it has made a few cronies incredibly rich, the citizens of Malaysia are being exploited and deprived of high-quality cars at affordable prices while benefitting those well-connected.

Almost anyone would agree that Malaysia Airlines and other companies held by various investment funds of the Malaysian government are severely under-performing, while the select few insiders are becoming richer by the day.

The unequal distribution of wealth is by no means a bad thing - if those who are rich became so by merit (eg, through innovation and hard work) then there's an equal opportunity for all to participate.

But clearly the unequal distribution of wealth in Malaysia by no means falls into the above description.

The final, most damning judge of Mahathir's arguments is his performance as prime minister of Malaysia.

Clearly his methods have not made Malaysia as rich as the free economies of the world. His ‘rich-countries-are-wrong-and-they-should-listen-to-the-poor-countries’ stance would be so much more credible if he had something better to show after two decades of premiership.

Instead we see rampant corruption, an ineffective government, increased cronyism and low national competitiveness.

If he has a clear alternative, workable economic system, I suggest he put it forward. Nobody is suggesting that free market capitalism is perfect, but I honestly do not see the point in ridiculing it unless one has a better alternative.

Right now, his economic arguments, like most of his other views upon retirement, stink of desperate attention-seeking.