The letter by KL Yap said many things which should be obvious to any right-thinking person ('Why did Dr M 'fail'?' July 25). However, I'd like to add to a few more points.

There seems to be a high level of confused thinking in the New Economic Policy or whatever other name it goes by. Personally I have no problems on the point that all disadvantaged people be given a helping hand.

The problem is whether the helping hand results in the overall uplifting of the disadvantaged by their acquisition of the tools for betterment of their lives, or does it result in a begging bowl situation.

The realities of the world are very simple. The betterment of life by evolving into the scientific-industrial economy is something which all Third World countries aspire to.

This requires two fundamental tasks - firstly, acquiring the appropriate know-how and secondly, the evolution of one's culture such that the acquired know-how is not only absorbed into one's culture but also used as a launching pad for further development.

So far, the most successful example is clearly Japan. Following closely in some manner or other are Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea. The spotlight now shines on China which is in the throes of evolving into the scientific-industrial economy.

In my opinion, the second fundamental task, i.e. the evolution of one's culture to absorb and further develop and apply acquired knowledge, is the more difficult. The pointed remarks of Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad on the Malay community is relevant to this second fundamental task. If the culture cannot adapt to the requirements of the scientific-industrial economy, such an economy cannot take root.

With regard to the ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia, their success has been due to their being able to throw off the non-applicable aspects of their traditional culture, their high investment in education, and their ability to accept change as it comes and work hard. Because of this the Chinese communities in Southeast Asia have evolved into highly competitive societies, one where skill and ability to achieve are considered desirable traits.

The view point that the Chinese in Southeast Asia were specifically used as middlemen begs the important question why the indigenous people did not take up the challenge to adapt to the demands of the new economy which the European colonialists brought with them! Is it because the indigenous societies could not accept the need to change?

The inability to change results in stagnation - a good example is China at the time of the European incursion. Perhaps our policy makers in the government should reconsider what they really want. In this era where the global economy seems like a tidal wave sweeping around the world, can any peoples survive who do not acquire usable skills and develop competitive spirit?