I refer to M Bakri Musa's column titled 'Free market as an Islamic tradition?' (Nov 26).

Islam gives me the impression that it is a religion whose teachings stress on helping and protecting the poor in a communal and socialist manner. The practice of paying zakat is a manifestation of this concern. Thus I cannot understand why the columnist suggests that free market is an Islamic tradition. But I must admit I am not competent to discourse on Islamic affairs. I hope to hear other Islamic viewpoints.

However, the good or bad of the free market is subject to debate even on secular terms. Writing from California, the writer is certainly US-biased. If US wants its capital, goods and services to move around the world freely, it should reciprocally allow for the free movement of labour in the country. It should liberalise immigration policies to accept cheaper labour from China, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Africa. This labour force can work and settle in the United States, competing freely with US workers.

Why only free movements of US capital, goods and services, but not of non-US labourers? Only by allowing all the factors of production to move freely could we call the system free market.

Is the columnist prepared to lobby the US-government to allow unrestricted entry of Chinese, Muslims, Central Asians, Indians and Africans into US. The contrary seems to be true. The Republican US-government is tightening its immigration laws as shown by the stricter visa application requirement for Muslims all over the world.

Moreover, what type of goods and services we are talking about in the free market? Tobacco, gambling, alcohol, and entertainment that glorify violence and degrade women? So, even without indulging in Islamic discourses, we can conclude that free market as advocated by US right-wingers is not the panacea to mankind.

Furthermore, free market is merciless and is devoid of social responsibility to the poor, marginalised and powerless in the developing countries.