Aussie UMNO


One incident after another, this Labor Government is staking a claim to the title of world champion village idiot…giving UMNO a run for its money

See this: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/nbns-commercial-viability-is-a-joke/story-e6frgd0x-1226506971773

THE government’s ability to deliver surpluses in the short term is in large part dependent on maintaining that the National Broadband Network is a commercial investment and that equity injections consequently can be kept off-budget. This financial year NBN Co will receive $4.7 billion, with a further $6.1bn billion to be injected in 2013-14.

The key to keeping the NBN off-budget is the claim it is a public non-financial corporation, a commercial entity that charges market prices, gets most of its revenues from consumers, not subsidies, and that ultimately generates returns that will allow the government to get its investment back.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics is responsible for granting such status and deemed NBN Co to be a PNFC in early 2010, based on a $25 million McKinsey NBN implementation study. That study said NBN Co could generate a 7 per cent return, slightly more than 1 per cent above the long-term government bond rate.

McKinsey had to crunch the numbers to get that outcome. Documents recently released by the Finance Department under Freedom of Information legislation show that five months into the study, in late December 2009, McKinsey believed the NBN would generate only a 6 per cent return and might need as much as $10bn in subsidies. Finance noted: “The initial (McKinsey) indications are that NBN Co could provide 6 per cent internal rate of return on equity; however, it is critical to note that this rate of return is predicated on a substantial subsidy, which could be several billion dollars, with a resultant impact on the fiscal and underlying cash balances.” In effect, the NBN would show up on-budget.

A couple of months later the study’s numbers were healthier. The study was handed to Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy on February 28, 2010, and after some revision it was finalised on March 17. The rate of return had become 7 per cent and the subsidy eliminated.

The McKinsey study and the initial NBN corporate plan that flowed from it have been the government’s defence against opposition claims that the NBN should be on-budget. The government has used both to argue that the NBN would be commercially viable across a 30-year period.

But the pretence the NBN is commercial is dissolving and the McKinsey assumptions that led the ABS to grant the NBN its off-budget standing are no longer tenable. Much has changed.

The NBN has been utterly incapable of meeting the business case on which the ABS relied. Only 3 per cent of its cumulative target for connections had been achieved by the middle of this year. NBN Co has ready excuses. It claims drawn-out negotiations with Telstra delayed access to the facilities it needed. That is scarcely plausible, given NBN Co had an interim agreement with Telstra on the use of ducts and exchanges that would have allowed it to meet its original rollout schedule.

Second, NBN Co claims delays in finalising construction contracts halted the rollout. In April last year, it called off negotiations with 14 companies amid allegations of collusion and price gouging by bidders. In reality the prices on offer from NBN Co were not commercially viable, given the risks contractors were expected to take. Now the risks have been pushed on to taxpayers and some contracts have been signed but with such small margins that subcontractors are finding it’s not worth taking on NBN work. Hence little rollout of cable appears to be under way.

These failures haven’t stopped NBN Co from paying 10 executives $640,000 in bonuses for the past 12 months. Hardly the mark of a commercial organisation. And the delivery of the few connections that have been established has scarcely occurred

And it’s not just installation contracts that are non-commercial. At Telstra’s behest NBN Co is buying out the Optus cable TV network, which has 400,000 broadband customers, and the price paid per customer is about five times the level in the case of other recent acquisitions of broadband networks.

Most tellingly, the revised corporate plan released in August confirms the original plan was way off the mark. The latter underestimated the size of the fibre network by 14 per cent – about 25,000km.

Curiously, even though the capital costs in the new plan rose by a corresponding 14 per cent, the overall outcome remains the same. To achieve this, numbers have been massaged, and none more obviously than NBN’s financing. To reduce costs, debt will be paid off after 2021, leaving NBN Co with a bizarre debt-equity ratio of 1:10 in 2028; $7bn less will be repaid to the commonwealth from its equity, leaving the NBN just 8 per cent debt funded, with the outstanding equity taking on the characteristics of a grant or subsidy rather than an investment.

The business plan has become a joke, a danger foreshadowed by NBN Co’s chairman Harrison Young, who said mid last year: “This is a 30 or 40-year project. Anyone who tells you he can see that far into the future is speaking metaphorically.”

In a speech to the Institute of Directors, Young also revealed that NBN Co had never been instructed to generate a 7 per cent rate of return, or indeed any rate of return. He said: “Our shareholder hasn’t given us a return hurdle. They’ve given us a task and asked us to keep them posted.”

So much for the NBN being run on commercial lines. Even its pricing is not grounded in commercial reality, given that NBN Co’s advisers inadvertently revealed to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission that prices have been set to “meet the market”, a move designed to eliminate any shock to consumers. Like everything else about the NBN, its prices are driven by political, not commercial, imperatives.

Kevin Morgan was the ACTU member of former ALP leader Kim Beazley‘s advisory committee on telecommunications.

 

The Age moves slowly against Gillard


I was wondering why The Age took such a view of its champion and then realised ith was a piece by Amanda Vanstone. Even then, you might have noticed recently that The Age has played up Rudd and tried to have a go at her. The common driver is to prevent Abbott from getting and traction as the election clock ticks a bit louder each week.

http://m.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/pms-gravitas-deficit-exposed-as-the-boys-demote-wong-20121029-28dqi.html#ixzz2Ad3Ab8A2

Gillard sees herself as a hero of women. So what happened to the senator?

THE role of prime minister carries with it the opportunity to bring dignity and gravitas to your political persona while giving the rest of us a leader to respect.

Whoever occupies the role can use it to increase their power. Julia Gillard has had the opportunity since 2010 to step into the gravitas of her office. If she had done so, the would-be hero of women would have been able to ensure that one of her best ministers, Penny Wong, was not tossed down the Senate ticket by the old-boys’ network in her own party. No gravitas, no power.

It is hard to imagine Whitlam, Hawke, Keating or Howard bothering to take time out on an overseas trip to give their opponent a belting. Yet this is what Gillard did on her recent trip to India.
Instead of staying completely focused on our agenda in India she took time out to have a quick (and I think misplaced) snipe at Tony Abbott over his meeting with President Yudhoyono in Indonesia. When she is representing us overseas she should have better things to do than engage in petty domestic snipes.

This follows a long pattern of Gillard relishing any opportunity to attack Abbott. When there are motions against her or the government in Parliament that other prime ministers might leave to their colleagues to handle, Gillard can’t tear herself away. She should have more important things to do. This behaviour tells us a few things about her.
First, Gillard is a hater. Most people in politics have strong views; it can be a bit rough, and annoyance and animosity are always lurking. But letting the slights become the issue, letting anger become hatred that consumes, means you have lost a focus on why you are there.

Second, Gillard has let Abbott get under her skin.

Third, for her, petty point scoring is more important than policy. Again in India, while I think she was wise to pass up the opportunity to take up a cricket bat, she was unable to resist having a snide little dig at former PM John Howard, who was prepared to have a go but at the time, looked less than a master of his physical universe. The pettiness of it became crystal clear when, trying to master nothing more physically complex than walking across a lawn, she fell flat on her face to enjoy a grass sandwich.

Fourth, Gillard seems more concerned about herself than is perhaps healthy. The debate in which she avoided discussing the fitness of the former speaker to hold office, after his text messages about female genitalia revealed perhaps a true misogynist, is instructive. She chose to continue to support him and to avoid answering for that decision by alleging the Opposition Leader was a woman hater. The line that was delivered with the most vehemence was: ”I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. I will not.”

The excessive use of the first person throughout the speech is telling. The chest-beating ”I am the women’s hero” looked pathetic next to her inaction in protecting the women in the Health Services Union.

There is a trend in Australian politics (and elsewhere) to make it personal rather than public. Politics becomes a debate over whether you like a person’s attributes or religion or views on any number of single issues. We are deluded into thinking that we should vote for whomsoever is ”like us”. Gillard’s behaviour only reinforces this idea.

The proper way to enrich a democratic system and its participants is to debate what would be best for all of us, to make Australia a better place. Not just ideas in the abstract but ideas that we can implement. Ideas in the abstract can be in your head, on a whiteboard or in a well-thought-out essay, but until you can implement them they stay in situ. We only get to the better place when they are put into practice. The PM’s support of the Gonski education reforms, the Murray-Darling Basin reforms and changes to the disability sector remain ideas until the government can so manage itself and the economy as to be able to put them in place.

But even if the PM can stop the nit-picking, contain her negativity and focus on the national interest, she has another problem: her deputy, Wayne Swan.

Are there any serious commentators describing the Treasurer’s latest efforts as anything other than a fiddle of the books? Swan has never heard of the notion of fixing your roof while the sun is shining. The Howard government came into office and progressively paid off debt. Swan has come into office and put us into hock.

It is true that some debt of itself is not inherently bad. It is also true that one should be able to manage one’s money and in good times be saving for the bad. Of this, Swan is simply incapable.

That’s why the Prime Minister is left offering us her commitment to ideas and not delivery.

Amanda Vanstone was a minister in the Howard government.

Her.meneutics: Why the Dinesh D’Souza Scandal Hit Home


Holiness and humility – preconditions to be grasped and ingrained

Her.meneutics: Why the Dinesh D’Souza Scandal Hit Home.

October 23, 2012

Why the Dinesh D’Souza Scandal Hit Home

There’s more at stake in our leaders’ failings than we think.

DineshDsouza.JPG

A classic case of shooting the messenger emerged last week surrounding the revelation of an extramarital relationship of Dinesh D’Souza, one of today’s foremost Christian apologists and conservative thinkers. Blaming the messenger goes back at least as far as Sophocles’ ancient Greek tragedy, Antigone. A guard has to bring King Creon the bad news that one of his orders has been violated. The guard delivers the news after drawing the losing lot, and does so in fear and trembling, knowing full well, he tells Creon, that “no man delights in the bearer of bad news.” In the play, the life of the guard is spared. But not all bearers of unwelcome news are so lucky.

World magazine reported October 16 that the married-but-separated D’Souza had, during an apologetics conference, introduced as his fiancée a female traveling companion. (Denise Odie Joseph is also allegedly married—and younger to an uncomfortable degree—as well as an outspoken, if lesser known, advocate of conservativism.) D’Souza responded the next day by denying marital infidelity in an exclusive interview with Christianity Today. He also published a statement at Fox News that, first, took issue with some of the facts and then turned the tables on World. D’Souza accused the magazine of reporting the story as part of a longtime personal and professional “grievance” and “vendetta” against him, and characterized the article as “viciousness masquerading as righteousness.” (Perhaps not coincidentally, shooting the messenger seems to be the same tactic employed in D’Souza’s most recent work, the documentary film 2016. Based on his earlier book, the film attempts to advance conservative principles by discrediting one of the conservative movement’s leading opponents.)

D’Souza concludes his response to the World story by saying, “Ultimately this is not just about [World editor] Olasky or even World magazine. It is also about how we Christians are supposed to behave with one another. And the secular world is watching.”

On this count, D’Souza is right. However, the secular world is not concerned, as D’Souza claims, with the question, “Is this how [Christians] love and treat fellow believers?” No, the secular world is frothing at the mouth at having yet one more example of hypocrisy from within the traditional marriage/family values crowd. For just one prominent fallen Christian can make secularism’s point far more effectively than can all the arguments of the New Atheists and marriage equality activists combined.

It may be the way of the world to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but as Christians—even fallen ones—we know better. And D’Souza is only arguing himself into a corner by discrediting the messenger. For if the validity of a message hinges on the messenger’s moral character, then D’Souza’s entire career falls with this recent news.

But, fortunately, it is not the case that the truth of the message depends entirely upon the messenger. Indeed, if hypocrisy consists of failing to live up to one’s professed standards, only those who deny any absolute, universal standards are safe from the charge of hypocrisy. (And even these inevitably run up against something they absolutely believe in.) The fact is that in every case—except One—truth is proclaimed by imperfect messengers. Therefore, it is essential when facing disappointment in fallen leaders to remember that, despite its fragile vessels, truth is greater than those who proclaim it. This is what it means to say that truth is objective, that it lies outside ourselves, that truth is not subjective, or found within. The truth of something is not, thankfully, dependent upon the character of the bearer of that truth.

Nevertheless, while objective and absolute in nature, truth is by necessity embodied and lived out in the realm of subjective experience and relationship. We cannot help understanding a message in the context of the messenger. Consider, for example, the message “You are beautiful” given by a father to his young daughter, a message that would, and should, be received quite differently when offered by a stranger at the school bus stop. Both messages are equally true, but represent entirely different phenomenon within two different contexts and from two very different messengers.

Messages matter. And so do messengers.

That such a visible and outspoken messenger of Christian truth has failed to live up to his own message is not that surprising (after all, there is no one righteous, not even one). But the gap between the truth D’Souza proclaims and the truth that he lives will hamper his message. It hits me a little hard. D’Souza’s book Illiberal Education was a lifeline to me as a graduate student living out the very truths described in the book when it was published in 1998. At that time, D’Souza voiced and validated my own experiences of anti-Christian hostility and discrimination (which I’ve written about elsewhere) in a way that was empowering and freeing. I am thankful that such truths are bigger than D’Souza, or me, or any one person. But I am disappointed, deeply disappointed, in his seeming failure to live out the principles he so fiercely advocated.

It is imperative that those of us who dare to proclaim truth—whether we be preachers, poets, politicians, or, Lord help me, professors—strive to be messengers holy and humble, lest by our failures the cause of truth be tarnished.

Light peering through


The dark skies are peeling away at an earlier hour now. I was at Blackburn station this morning and it was the usual time of just before 6. It had been very light till the daylight savings adjustment kicked in. That early light is promising to reappear, with a tinge of pinkish horizon breaking through this morning. It was still colder than expected however. It barely touched 8deg this morning. Although it was a wait of less than a few minutes on the platform, the cold was palpable as I had refused to bring a coat or jumper along for such a small window of exposure. It was going to be in the lower twenties for the better part of the day so it should be good.

 

Hello world!


Welcome to WordPress.com! This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.

Happy blogging!

Happy New Year


Have a Great and Blessed New Year.

Last night we were at Alex and Li Har’s new home, helping them fire up their spanking new barbeque set. No thanks to the 42 degree day, I drank kegs of beer, and couldnt get out of bed till 10am

As Willie Would Say: To All The Friends I Loved Before


I used to have a group of friends and ex-colleagues who emailed me stuff. We basically exchange rubbish, with not much to say but exchanging emails for the sake of keeping in touch, mainly. In my case, I enjoyed it.

Recently however, these have stopped. Maybe I have written stuff in this blog which they have nothing to respond to. Maybe it was because they suggested some of the stuff I had written about was not so good for them or others like them, and I had not taken heed. Maybe I have just drifted away in terms of thought process and values. Maybe they have just been busy. Maybe it is just natural that after a while, the novelty wears off, or the efforts to stay in touch become too much. I know. I have been so guilty of it myself.

To all my mates who found themselves in the above category, I wish you all the best and you would remain in my life, but I need to find and assert my own spot in life.

“So, I commend the enjoyment of life.” (From the Bible – really. Eccl 8:15)

Adieu


Tomorrow, my in laws leave. Would I miss them? Absolutely, just like I miss everyone else in my family in Malaysia. What I wont miss however, are the infuriating traits like

  • Not saying what one wants, but yet expecting to be given what one wants. I need a course on mind reading.
  • Saying only the nice things and not the right things. So everyone remains nice to each other and totally confused about what next.
  • Incessant talk about money.
  • Imposing one’s will on another (I’ll take you where I think you should go, not where you really want to go/be).
  • Judgmental, dismissive way of talking (like “this dish is not good” – in a critical, derogatory manner – instead of “I dont like this dish”).
  • Not accepting what one says (I really do not want another piece of that freaking dim sim, and seeing that freaking piece of dim sim in your bowl the very next moment!).
  • Back seat drivers.
  • 10 persons speaking loudly at each other at the same time.
  • 10 persons speaking loudly at each other at the same time about the same thing for the 10th time.
  • 10 persons speaking loudly at each other at the same time about the same thing for the 10th time and feel insulted if you didnt respond.

But I would miss being with them. Honestly.

Meanwhile, the GPS company has decided to go for another candidate. Not really surprising. Like someone just said to me this morning (on the email), que sera sera.

“So, I commend the enjoyment of life.” (From the Bible – really. Eccl 8:15)

Teetotaler of a Father In Law


This morning, I dropped Theresa, her dad and kiddo off at the Mount Waverley station and they went to the city to catch a few attractions, including the river cruise. It’s a stinking hot day, with temperature expected to hit 37 degrees.

They skipped around various spots in the city, and I met them at Melbourne Central station around 3pm, after I finished my interview at Bourke St. Then we all came back together and I tried getting my father in law to tuck into a cold one but alas, I dont have a drinking companion in him. I had thought this a perfect setting to remove the pennies and usher him into the refreshing bliss of popping open a cold beer, having come in off a very hot day. If this wasnt going to do it, I think I have discharged my responsibilities the best I could. If he never ever tastes a cold one, I cant say I’ve not tried. Look at this wonderful man –– doesnt he look like he could use a drink? Apparently not…

Tomorrow, I have another interview with a firm – the one I met just before Christmas. A third partner called me earlier today, saying the rest of this 6-partner firm want to meet with me. I dont know, I’m starting to feel a little jaded.

“So, I commend the enjoyment of life.” (From the Bible – really. Eccl 8:15)

Birds of Air and Sea…


We waddled down to Phillip Island yesterday, and paid homage to the little penguins. We were there about 1.5 years ago with my mom, my sister Cheng Sim and her son, Stan de Man. It was winter then and the little buggers obliged us early. It’s summer now and they play hard to get, showing up only a little after 9pm. By the time we pushed off, it was past 10pm, and after dropping off my mother in law’s sister, we reached home almost 12am. Theresa and I went out again after dropping off her parents to retire for the day, to re-fuel the car. We had to leave home early this morning, to go pick some blue berries from Olinda.

By the time I crawled into bed, it was almost 1am and as usual, I have trouble sleeping at that hour so I read for about an hour or so. I am now tucked into Harry Lee’s “The Singapore Story”.

As we had to meet at Linda and Leng’s place by 8am today, I had to be up really early for everyone’s brekky to be ready. It was worth it, as I think my in laws had a good time picking the blue berries. They each had to pay $10 for every kilo of berries picked and later, when we stopped at a shop to pick up some honey, we saw these blueys sold for $18.00 a kg, so they’re happy.

We then drove around in the Yarra Valley area before returning to Glen Waverly for lunch. At the valley, we stopped at Grant’s Picnic Point to feed some birds. These cockatoos appear to like my father in law, much to kiddo’s amusement. The 3 packets of bird seeds which Theresa picked up for a buck each, were eaten up in no time.

We’re supposed to meet at Westies for dinner. I dread driving to Maribyrnong…

“So, I commend the enjoyment of life.” (From the Bible – really. Eccl 8:15)