Quora Answer: Why Do Singaporeans Believe That Using English is Essential for Their Economic Survival?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Why do Singaporeans believe that using English is essential for their economic survival when several Asian countries, such as Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, have achieved economic success without using English?”

The comparisons are not valid.  Singapore is a multicultural nation, and has been so even before independence.  If we did not have English as the language of business and governance, it would not have survived the racial tensions, since language is a sensitive matter.  None of the main racial groups would countenance the promotion of any one language over theirs.  In contrast, all the other nations and territories cited are culturally homogeneous.  They do not have multiple languages contending with each other for supremacy.

Secondly, Singapore is a trading nation, more so than any of the others mentioned, barring Hong Kong.  English is also widely spoken in Hong Kong.  English is the language of international trade.  All major centres of international trade have people who are competent in English, and English is the language of transactions, including correspondence and documentation.  Without English, we would not have that economic success because, unlike Japan and South Korea, we do not have a population base sufficient to generate growth by itself.  We are not a manufacturing hub.  We are not an agricultural nation.  We are net importers, and we generate our wealth in the entrepôt trade.

Quora Answer: Why is Commercial Shipbuilding Unprofitable or Economically Unfeasible in the US?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Why is commercial shipbuilding not profitable or economically feasible in the US, even though the leading shipbuilding countries in Europe, South Korea, Japan, and Singapore, are all developed economies with high costs of labour?”

That is not strictly true.  As a former navigating officer, I did some vessel deliveries and maiden voyages, out of South Korea and Japan.  Singapore, for example, does not engage in wide-ranging commercial shipbuilding.  The market is geared towards drydocking, conversions and offshore platforms, which is a niche market.

South Korea and China dominate shipbuilding, with more than 75% of new builds coming from these two countries.  China builds are cheaper, but they are not as well finished as South Korean and Japanese builds.  They are catching up, and getting better.  They have the advantage of lower manpower cost.  South Korea and Japan use a lot of automation, which cuts down on costs.  Japanese builds are very expensive, but you are buying a vessel that almost never breaks down.  South Korean builds are not as reliable as Japanese builds, but they are cheaper.  South Korea can lower cost due to economies of scale, and the sheer amount of builds.  Japan has literal production lines for new builds that are kilometres long.  Europe has over 150 yards, but collectively have less than 10% of market share.  They build for their own markets, many of them smaller vessels for littoral waters, or the near abroad.  They build a lot of ferries, luxury yachts, and cruise ships.  This is their niche.

The US does not have a niche for international shipbuilding.  They cannot build container vessels as cheap as China and South Korea, as technically sound and as quick as Japan.  They do not have a foothold on the niche markets of FPSOs, rigs, ferries and cruise ships.  The US outsourced their production lines for the maritime industry in the same way they outsourced them for much of the manufacturing sector.  It would take massive investment to build up that sort of infrastructure to compete, and this might mean importing thousands of workers from developing countries like Singapore does, something that would be unpalatable in the current economic climate.  It might mean competing in hiring trained workers until that domestic base is built up, which will raise costs and cramp margins.  It might mean going head-to-head with established builders in niche markets, markets which may already be protected and have captive clientele.

There is one area of shipbuilding that the US does lead the world.  It is the foremost builder of warships, the largest aircraft carriers, other surface vessels and submarines.  The problem is that the client is solely the US government is most categories.

Quora Answer: How Did Singapore Become More Advanced Than South Korea Despite Having a Tougher Start?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “How did Singapore become far more advanced than South Korea, despite having a much tougher start?” 

There are two assumptions here: that Singapore is more advanced than South Korea, and that Singapore had a tougher start.  Both are disputable. 

Firstly, how did Singapore have the tougher start when South Korea had to rebuild from the ashes of the Japanese Occupation during World War II, and after barely recovering, they had to go through the horror of the Korean War, followed by the partition of the nation, of communities, and families, and the pogroms by successive military dictatorships?  Singapore did not have it easy, from Separation to the Communist insurgency to the Konfrontasi.  But we never had to go through a civil war of the scale and brutality of the Korean conflict.  We only had to rebuild from the Japanese Occupation. 

Secondly, how do we define advanced?  Both economies are structured differently, and took different routes.  Singapore is a trade and finance centre.  South Korea turned to precision engineering and advanced manufacturing.  There is no scope of comparison.  Both countries are advanced developed nations, some of the wealthiest in the world.  Both countries were among the fastest growing economies, reaching developed status in less than half a century.  There, the comparison ends.

Quora Answer: Why are Large Aircraft Carriers Apparently Difficult to Build?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Why are large aircraft carriers apparently so difficult to build, even if they are conventionally-powered with oil, when many countries such as South Korea, Singapore, Japan, and China build hundreds of tankers and container ships that are much larger?”

All the countries mentioned above are quite capable of building aircraft carriers.  In fact, all of them have aircraft carriers in everything but name, designated as landing ship carriers, helicopter carriers, or refurbished aircraft carriers, as China has.

What you are likely thinking of would be the supercarriers that the US Navy has.  Again, from a technology perspective, all these countries have the capability of building them, or acquiring that technology.  The question here is do they need it?  Are the costs of maintaining a carrier and the support group worth it?  Does it fit in with their strategic needs?

China is actively working towards having carrier capabilities, and they have expended money and research into acquiring an indigenous ability to not only build carriers, but carrier-based aircraft.  We can argue that they are between 20 to 30 years behind the US in terms of doctrine and deployment, but they are on the way there.  Currently, China has the same technology gap that Russia has – metallurgy.  They do not know the secrets to the exact metal composition of the landing gear and the engine exhaust.  This means that their landing gear snaps too often, and the engine wear is tremendous, limiting the lifespan of the aircraft.  Both of them have also not managed to bring down the weight of the carrier-borne aircraft, limiting deployment numbers and logistics.

Japan already operates very large helicopter carriers that are small aircraft carriers in all but name.  The constraint for Japan is their post-war Constitution, which forbids Japan having an offensive capability.  An aircraft carrier is not a defensive weapon.  It is meant to project force far away from home and extend the theatre of conflict.  Helicopter carriers, apparently, are “defensive”.  This is despite the fact that the Japanese Self-Defence Force can, and has, put VTOL aircraft on their “helicopter carriers”.  They are actively exploring the deployment of F-35 Lightning IIs.

South Korea has helicopter carriers as well.  They have this balancing act of having deterrence against the North, but not appear as a belligerent since their situation is as much a propaganda as a military conflict in armistice.

The issue, as demonstrated above, is not simply their capability to develop it, but whether it suits their doctrine and force structure.  We must also consider that a full-fledged carrier group, including the logistics elements, is very expensive.  It involves an investment in infrastructure, hardware and manpower.  In a worst-case scenario, the US can survive the loss of a carrier group, no matter how catastrophic it is propaganda wise.  Aside from China, none of Japan, South Korea or Singapore could stomache that sort of loss.  The loss of an aircraft carrier is also the loss of an air wing.  It would be a political as well as military disaster.  None of these nations have the strategic manpower reserve to simply field another naval aviation wing.  This is dangerously putting their eggs in one basket.

For Japan and South Korea, naval aviation is an option to confront Chinese assertiveness in the East China Sea, and to support a possible military operation in the Korean Peninsula.  It is a single theatre operation where naval aviation has a supporting role, not force projection far from home.  There is no need for a full-fledged carrier group since they will operate in the near abroad, within the EEZ.

For Singapore, it makes even less sense considering the RSAF has the operational ability to bomb Beijing and come back, her assets are dispersed from Taiwan to Australia, and she has total naval dominance and air superiority in the region.  An aircraft carrier would be operating in littoral waters, and vulnerable to shore launched anti-ship missiles, or swarm tactics by small craft.  These are cheap solutions to destroy an expensive military asset.  It does nothing to help Singapore’s force projection.  Also, the political cost of starting an arms race in ASEAN would not benefit anyone.