I refer to the letter Why Obama will be bad for us.

There are certain points that I disagree with. First of all, there is no relationship between the war in Iraq and the international war against terrorism. The Bali bombers, London Tube bombers, the Madrid train bombers, the Sept 11 hijackers etc., did not originate from Iraq.

Neither were they trained or financed by Saddam Hussein. In fact, statistics have shown that terrorism has gotten worse as a result of the invasion of Iraq - a total opposite of the desired effect.

I disagree that ending the invasion of Iraq will cause skyrocketing oil prices. In fact, the increase in oil prices has more to do with market speculation and manipulation and not shortages of supply.

We remember how currency traders caused harm to many Third World countries such as Thailand and Malaysia. Oil prices are not determined by the forces of demand and supply. This was recently proven when Saudi Arabia increased production by around a billion barrels a day, yet oil prices climbed up and not down.

Drilling for oil in Alaska as well as in the Artic and Antartic is not done due to logistical reasons. Cold weather clogs pipes. Thin ice makes the building of railways impossible and roads for truckers can only be used at certain times of the year when the ice is thick enough.

Oil tankers will have to maneuver through a maze of icebergs. The cost of oil exploration in the polar regions is too expensive although global warming and the melting of the polar ice caps may make this a possibility in the not too distant future (50 - 200 years ahead).

I disagree with the comment that bio-fuels are responsible for the shortage of food in the world. It has more to do with unequal distribution of income which results in high rates of obesity in developed countries and the opposite, starvation in third world countries.

Poverty in Third World countries is due to many factors such as corruption (Nigeria), cronyism (Burma), dictatorship (North Korea), wars (Afghanistan) , political instability (Columbia) , sanctions (Zimbabwe) and large population (Indonesia).

Remember that the US spends three trillion dollars annually on its defence budget, a figure which many have said would feed all the children in Africa.

I believe the Kyoto Agreement is a good thing. Japan - which is the second largest industrialised nation in the world - has signed it, so why can't other countries do so? India refuses to sign it on the basis it will hinder its economic growth.

Yet, economists have shown that India's economic growth is actually lopsided with wealth centred in the hands of a small number of millionaires but the level of poverty in India has actually worsened.

Finally, the writer claims that Obama's plan for farm subsidies will cause Malaysia to lose its competitive edge. How? The US plants wheat, corn and soya. Malaysia plants palm oil, pineapple, rubber, rice and coconut.

In fact, subsidising crops is a good thing because it will make food cheaper and affordable for all, while farmers continue to make good profits. It is a win-win situation much like the buying of surpluses during a bumper crop harvest to ensure that the crops are not destroyed and wasted just to maintain prices.

I believe that Barack Hussein Obama is a pragmatic leader who will lead the free world to peace, security and prosperity.