Good communications cannot substitute for bad policies

The govt seems to be putting the blame on bad communications as the source of unhappiness in the people. Is that so? The MSM also have been regurgitating that it was bad communications that have resulted in angry voices heard. The assumption is that policies are good and it was all because they were not well articulated to the people that is causing all the problems. It sounds more like the craftsman blaming his tools.
When policies are bad, they are bad. No amount of good communications can make bad policies become good. They could talk it away for a moment but once the people got a few moments to think about them, or when the policies start to hit them adversely, the anger will return.
 
Many salespersons would talk honey coated words to the clients to close a deal. But that is the beginning of the problem if the service or product is not up to specs. How many good or bad policies is there that can be better communicated? There are good policies that can do with better communications. There are many bad policies that no amount of communications can help.
 
Think CPF policies are good and can be explained away? Think the lost of jobs to foreigners are due to good policies? Think the policies on foreigners having a field day in property speculations here are good and only a little communications will make the people happy? Think the money spent on scholarships to foreigner students are good? Think filling up the academia with foreign faculty members are good, the unrestrained employment of foreigners in top jobs, the emptying of our talents in the IT and banking industries are good? The list can be pretty long on bad policies that cannot be explained away.
 
If bad policies can be explained away, it will be like you can bluff people some of the time, some people all the time, but not all the people all the time. That is the art of good communications to sugar coat bad policies at best. Using good communications to deceive the people when policies are really bad is a con job.

Kopi Level - Yellow

Aircraft carriers – The Art of War

Technology and fire power have simplified the Art of War to a game of arithmetic. The Americans have perfected this game for the last 60 plus years to rule the world by its sheer military might. It is a game of I can hit you and you can’t hit me. It is a game of I can drop 100 bombs or 1000 bombs on you and you can’t do anything about it.

The aircraft carriers, other than the nuclear arsenal that could blast this world into dust, are the core of the American war strategy. They are like floating death stars, mobile and can strike at the enemy in every corner of the earth. The only concern of the Americans is the sinking of an aircraft carrier. And to prevent this from happening, the aircraft carriers are protected by several layers of defence, in the air and under the sea and at sea level. The aircraft carriers will be a top priority target and must not be hit.

The aircraft carrier itself is an extremely expensive piece of technology and homes to thousands of soldiers and other war equipment. The supporting force and equipment to protect and defend the carrier are just as expensive, if not more. Acquiring an aircraft carrier is only the beginning of a huge acquisition of hardware and resources before it can go operation. The aircraft carrier is a very destructive and fearsome force. But it can be sunk and would be a priority target to be sunk. A simple example is the deployment of oil rigs in the South China Sea. The oil rigs are like the aircraft carriers, but unarmed, and have become easy targets of the Vietnamese. Hundreds of Vietnamese boats are attempting to ram and sink it. The Chinese responded by cordoning the rigs with hundreds of ships, probably submarines and aircraft to protect the rigs.

So far, there are no enemies of the Americans that are able to pose a threat to an aircraft carrier group. No one has the technology and capability to do so. And this gives the Americans the confidence and eagerness to wage wars, to threaten and attack any country that refuses to tow the line. But this is history. The Chinese purposefully develop anti aircraft carrier missiles, the DF21, to strike and sink aircraft carriers. With a range of more than 3000 nautical miles, it means that any aircraft carrier within that range from the Chinese coast could be sunk by these missiles, a more sophisticated and deadly drone. The DF21s are a cheap way to take on high value targets like aircraft carriers. Each missile would cost only a fraction of the aircraft carrier and China could send a couple of hundreds D21s in waves against a carrier. And it would be very cost effective.

The aircraft carriers to an enemy that is capable of taking it down at long range is just like sitting ducks in a pond. They would no longer be able to deploy their military might, to be able to hit the enemy but not being hit, when the enemy can now hit it first. The formidable floating death stars are floating death platforms and are very vulnerable to attacks. It is still a simple strategy in the Art of War, of I can hit you, you can’t hit me. Now the table is turned. The aircraft carriers cannot be within the range of the DF21s without risking everything on board. It is no longer the untouchable fortress, safe and secure, and extremely deadly.

Technology has caught up with the aircraft carriers. If Iran were to possess enough DF21s, would the Americans dare to move their aircraft carriers into the Indian Ocean or Gulf of Arabia? Would the Americans dare to contemplate sailing the 7th Fleet into the Straits of Taiwan as a show of force to intimidate China?

Anyone thinking of acquiring aircraft carriers must know that the intended enemy will acquire killer drones to sink the carriers. The Art of War is playable from both sides. No one side has the advantage of initiative and military superiority all the time. One can dream on striking the enemy first, preventive and preemptive surgical strikes, so can the enemy. One can keep spending money on more expensive weapons, so can the enemy. The ‘enemy’ will be strategising on every counter moves to defend itself and to strike at the weakest link or most valuable targets of the aggressor.

The enemies are not dead or dumb. What one can do, the enemy will be doing something else to counter every move made. You have aircraft carriers, the enemy will be ready to sink them. The American carrier groups were invincible but no more.

Kopi Level - Yellow

GST Vouchers – Real spending money or smoke screen?

A blogger by the nick of Meng wrote the above article posted in TRE. I quote his first two paragraphs,

‘Something I do not understand on GST Voucher payout to credit off the Utilities Account.
I have a family of 5 staying with me. Looking at the MOF Letter, every family member is given a $180 to offset their household utility bills. So a total of $900. However, I can only deduct $180 for my SP Services. So where did the balance $720 go? Lost into thin air?...’

Assuming that there are 1m households of 5 and each household receiving a total of $900 of GST Voucher for utility bills, technically the govt could declare that it pays out $900m in GST rebates to the people. If every household has the same 5 heads as mentioned by Meng and only one can claim $180, then the actual amount paid out and redeemed by the 1m households is $180m. There is a difference of $720m not claimable. If we have two million households, the amount would be $1.44b while the govt could claim giving away $1.8b.

How much does the Finance Ministry budgeted for and how much it claimed to have spent on the people? Or would it later make a revision to say only 20 per cent was spent?  If so, it would be proper procedure to refund the 80 per cent back to the MOF’s account. Unless of course the payout is actual and not $900m or $1.8b as projected, there is thus no need to account for the difference of $720m/$1.44b.

It is still a very good PR exercise for the govt to claim to have given back $900m/$1.44b to the people. And 4 out of 5 in such a household would have a brief moment of happiness, thinking that the govt is giving them $180 each, only to realise that it was all a mirage. The issue could be just PR, gives out $180m but on paper reflecting $900m. As a paper exercise, there is nothing to it, as no money is lost or not accounted for.

Kopi Level - Yellow

GIC investing in student dormitory

‘Singapore's GIC and Macquarie invest in Australian student dorm developer

Singapore sovereign wealth fund GIC and Australia's Macquarie Capital said Wednesday they have formed a joint venture that bought a majority stake in an Australian student accommodation group.’ AFP. This news was reported about a month ago.

GIC, our SWF, one of the biggest in the world, is investing money to build dormitories for students in Australia. I can’t remember whether it was GIC or Temasek that invested in the ill fated childcare that went bust and burnt a big hole in the fund’s pocket. Oops, apologies, just a tiny hole only, smaller than a kacang puteh.

There are some commonalities in the two investments. Both by Singapore’s world class SWF managed by the finest talents money can buy. Both involved education and students, only difference is one is bigger than the other. Let’s hope and pray that the commonality stops here.

One thing for sure, investing in the education of children is a noble thing to do. And the cost would not be as big as investing in world class banks. So it is a very safe investment and any losses would be kacang puteh at most.

This is prudence at the highest level, small risk investments. May I suggest investing in foodcourts, hawker centres and pasar malams, all national institutions, to the world market? These are low cost investments but with potentials to be Singapore’s Kmart or MacDonald and Kentucky Fried Chicken. Can tap on low cost engineering from India and low cost labour too to make these investments even more competitive.

They said branding makes a world of difference. Brand these products with the names of GIC or Temasek would definitely raise eyebrows and make them great household names.

Oh, talking about dormitory and labour, how about investing in dormitories for our 2 million foreign worker and talent population? There is a critical mass to make the venture worthwhile and also help to solve our social problem of not providing quality living environment for these people that came to help turn Singapore into a world class city.

F35 fleet grounded

A fire on the engine of a F35 has led to the complete grounding of all F35s in service. The US Defence Department has announced that a complete inspection of all the engines will be conducted, and for safety reasons, they will not let the F35s off the ground until they know what is the cause of the problem. A decision to put all 97 aircraft on hold must mean something serious is going on.

The F35 is by far the most expensive multi role fighter aircraft ever produced and will cost about $200m a piece. Singapore was reported to have committed to buy the F35s but the decision has been kept under wrapped given the series of problems facing the aircraft and the many concerns expressed over its ability to perform to specifications. The cost is also a very prohibitive factor and only countries that are very rich and have a lot of money to throw would be able to afford it. Singapore is the only exception as it would be small change to our big coffer.

An American general has publicity announced that Singapore has already made the buy decision. Would this be true and Singapore be acquiring this untested aircraft that is extremely costly and plagued with a host of problems? Under the old thinking, especially the leadership of Goh Keng Swee, Singapore will not touch any aircraft with a 10 foot pole unless the aircraft has been operational and proven in service. Has there been a new thinking, a new adventurism to plough billions of dollars on such an expensive piece of untested equipment that is infamous for all kinds of problems and have not been ruled fit and operational, let alone seen service in the battle field? It is like buying a dinosaur egg with a lot of promises and surprises that we would definitely get the dinosaur we paid for.

Maybe a decision has already been made and all the reservations are of no use. Just name the price and we will pay for it as long as it looks good on paper and the marketing brochures. This will be another great new toy to boot should it ever land on our shore. And with the price tag, it must be really good. It must be value for money. Good stuff doesn’t come cheap except when it is a con job like the few banks that we bought and nearly lost our pants.

Kopi Level - Green