Recently, Tony Pua has condenmed the Ministry of Defense proposal on upgrading the military assets of the Royal Navy, saying that the cost is 870% higher than what other countries are paying (Malaysiakini). He stated the price that other countries are paying, such as New Zealand and Israel. Looking at his figures without understanding the nature of millitary asset, one would wonder why our government is paying more. Is there "corruption"? However, one should understand that a ship own by any military organizations is unique, even if they are coming from the same class. The USS Jimmy Carter of the US Navy for example is 30 m longer than two of her sisters, the USS Connecticut and USS Seawolf, although they are belonging to the same class and operated by the same organization (wikipedia). Even a car, if you buy them standard, and then you start modifiying the system, replacing the steel rim to alloy, adding two more disk brakes for your rear wheels, having the windows tinted, adding some more stabilizer and replacing your suspensions with a rally type suspension, then the price will definately be different. Merely comparing the price of a ship is half baked, especially when the other countries were paying for a price of more than 10 years ago. Unless one has the exact data on what are installed in that ship, then a valid comparison can be made. I wonder why Tony Pua did not compare the price of Singapore's ships and Singapore's allocation for millitary assets?
further readings:
1. Pisau.net >>
2. isuhot.com >>
No comments:
Post a Comment