Much has been said and written about how successful some of our high-profile projects and policies are. If we look closely, the praises come from a very well-coordinated and subservient media and from foreigners who are only too polite to tell us that we have failed miserably in some of our undertakings.

At the risk of being termed "negative", I would like to highlight a few of our so-called "success stories".

Proton is just an outdated Japanese car using a Malaysian name. Whilst Thailand expanded her automobile industry (much bigger than ours now) by using foreign capital, we decided to have our own brand and finance it on our own. Then we decided not to collect import duty on parts imported from Mitsubishi. If someone were to calculate the aggregate amount of "discounts" the country has given to Proton, the amount will probably shock most of our population.

Now Thailand is asking for compensation because of the delay in opening our automobile market. That will constitute another cost to the country.

And what have we got from all these costs? We have now our own brand, outdated technology and cars whose safety features are not as good as those from Thailand.

We also created EON when we needn't have to. EON only added another chain to the distribution process, and not satisfied with merely getting commission from Proton, EON went ahead and installed unwanted accessories and shoved it down the throats of buyers. They also claimed commission from finance companies, for merely "introducing" the buyers to the companies.

Couldn't Proton sell the cars directly? Other car companies are doing that but we always have to be different. We are even dishonest, by calling the rally cars "Proton" despite common knowledge that it is a 100 percent imported Mitsubishi. Even the design of certain parts like the new engine was done in the UK and just because we sent a group of Malaysians to work at Lotus, can we honestly say that it was Malaysian designed?

And can anyone, with some degree of confidence say that Langkawi is a successful project? Just like Proton, when it was found that Langkawi was lagging behind other resorts, we changed its status to duty-free. Could Langkawi survive without the amendment?

We tell the private sector to be competitive and global in outlook, but when a project such as this falters, we change the law. In other words, the proverbial "goal post" has been moved when we look at Langkawi as a competitor to other resorts in Malaysia.

Then we force everyone to go to Langkawi, and endure all kinds of inconvenience. Just before the 1998 Commonwealth Games, the Selangor Shooting Range was about to be renovated for the event. However, there was this directive that a brand new range should be built in Langkawi.

After spending RM80 million and ending up with a wrongly designed range, we now have a white elephant which is talked about in whispers in sports circles, lest someone up there knows that you are criticising the range. The 2001 calendar for the sport of shooting has come out and not a single event will be held in Langkawi because participants and officials find it extremely inconvenient.

Bernas is a company that was created out of nothing. Just like EON, it did not have to exist because rice has been imported for decades. Suddenly, it would seem, someone submitted a paper to the Economic Planning Unit proposing to take over the importation of rice and presto!... a conglomerate was born. The importation of rice was so lucrative that they got carried away and our own padi planters suffered hugely when the demand for local rice fell. Out of the blue, this group of "food experts" wants to control the food market and is using profits from the importation of rice to buy up companies. I just wonder how much capital these people put in, in the first place, or is it a case of "modal angin".

Oda Saja is very similar to Bernas and EON and it is now reaping the benefits at the expense of the rakyat.

One cannot review projects without mentioning the Petronas Twin Towers. The question is: Would KL or Malaysia, for that matter, suffer so much if we did not have this building? Every time questions are asked as to the need of these towers, the answer that we get is that they were built cheaply and using local materials (though even that is very doubtful), smartly avoiding the question.

And if Putrajaya is a federal capital, why is the Parliament House is not there? Is not the parliament more important and also more symbolic than anything else?

There are many more so-called "successful" projects that are being paid for by the taxpayers and their children and maybe even their grandchildren.