QUOTE (tommy83 @ Jul 11 2005, 09:12 AM)
Can you tell me which leader at that predict the economic crisis would strike ? I am no fan of DR M but your seem to regard Dr M as Superhuman being which can predict everything. Malaysia economy recover quickest compare other country and most of the important thing is that we did not borrow money from IMF.
A good leader may not know when currency speculators will strike but he would know it is possible and would have taken pre-emptive measures to prevent it from even occuring. All Mahathir ever needed to do was to secure the Ringgit at a fixed rate early on, just to make sure no one can change it; but he didn't.
QUOTE (tommy83 @ Jul 11 2005, 09:12 AM)
I am not sure about your school. The history textbook I learn 5 years ago are different from you mentioned about malacca(Javanese mercenaries ). I never learn about that portugal conquer malacca because they are much larger and white. Can you give me the textbook names?
What I'm saying is :
Our history books never teach us exactly why Malacca lost.
Whatever was said about the defeat give students the wrong impression that Malaccan Malays were inferior to Portuguese.
Did our history books tell students that the battle lasted forty days and was lost only because Javanese mercenaries betrayed their employers ?
Did our history books tell us Portugal had a population of 2 million while Malaccan empire had only a few hundred thousand ?
Did our history books teach us that the initial Portuguese force of 19 ships and nearly 2000 men was further reinforced by thousands of Indian and Chinese sailors and their ships ?
Those lousy Portuguese and their Asian allies were still no match for Malaccan defenders.
Thats why in the first half of the 40 day battle they easily pushed back the attackers.
Even if those Javanese had openly crossed over to the Portuguese side to fight the Malays they still would have been no problem because right from the beginning of the battle they already proved to be the weak link in Malacca's defence. Had they left the Malaccan lines to join the Portuguese they would have been considered good riddance but unfortunately they did not.
Those worthless Javanese stayed on with the Malays until the middle of the 40 day war when the Malaccans were actually still winning. THE BIG PROBLEM arised only when the Javanese literally shot and stabbed the trusting Malays,Iranians and Turks from behind.
Malays were clearly superior to all of those races who were involved in the battle but they made the mistake of trusting the Javanese. History has proven that no matter how superior you are to your enemy, you WILL lose if your trusted ally betrayed you.
I'd like to add that after the defeat of Malacca, there was no more sign of Javanese mercenaries in any Malay armies throughout SEAsia. Malays quickly learned how weak and treacherous the Javanese are.
Keep in mind that the Portuguse only managed to cling on to Malacca simply because they were not the strongest power in the region. Acheh was. Thats why the Portuguese managed to form alliances with other Malay states like Johor for their common interest. Had there been only a two way fight between Portuguese Malacca and a Malay power those Portuguese wouldn't have stood a chance. Just look at what happened to their fortress in Ternate, Indonesia.The same fate befell their other colonies in east Africa, the Persian Gulf and Bengal.
The Acenese were not free from blame. They made a mistake of using their jihad force raised with money contributed by Muslims (for the purpose of fighting the Portuguese) to attack their Muslim commercial rival Kedah too. After that blunder no Malay state looked at Aceh the same way again and they were more willing to form defence pacts with the Portuguese.
QUOTE (tommy83 @ Jul 11 2005, 09:12 AM)
As my professor tell me, what do we need all these F-18s for ? use against our people ? Why do India, china and Australia are Malaysia enemy ?Actually, many of us in malaysia actually critizes DR M why spent so much money on these fancy weapon. You are probably the a few in malaysia to say that we need a lot of those fancy weapon. If you visit some military forum here and read the janes defence, Russia Su-30 the cheapest fourth generation fighter far superior than most fighter in ASEAN . We have disagreement with Australia but does that mean we are going to war with them ? or are you saying that Malaysia should enter the arm race with Australia just like the cold war ?
As long as we are neighbours there will always be a possibility of military
conflict.Australia's prime minister has repeatedly hinted he would launch air strikes on SEAsian countries.
Having military inadequacies not only embolden our neighbours to issue threats but will also erode the confidence of big investors. If big time investors think the Chinese,Indians or Australians can succesfully attack Malaysia or take a chunk of her territory, they will be less likely to make billion dollar investments here.
The question is not "if we have a disagreement with our neighbour" or not but what we can do about it if it happens.
As we have seen all over the world, air superiority is the decisive factor in winning any conflict; and air superiority is actualy determined by radar detection and radar jamming capabilites. A Sukhoi may be superior to a Super Hornet in a dogfight but in real engagements they will not even be allowed to get close to a Hornet.The superior American electronic countermeasure equipment of an F-18 would jam the Sukhoi's radar and at the same time will send a medium range AMRAAM missile right through the Sukhoi.
Compared to China, Malaysia is fortunate to be a democratic ally of the US and this allows us to buy some of their most advanced fighters but we have so far squandered this advantage. China's inferior Russian fighters could still overwhelm our eight F-18s by sheer numbers.
Even if the govt add another 20 or so Super Hornets like they are planning to ,this amount is still too small to guarantee effective air defence against Australia, China or India. Australia has around 70 F-18s and soon India will decide whether to take up George Bush's offer to sell them 126 F16s or F-18s. If Malaysia doesn't buy at least 40 Super Hornets,we will always be seen as vulnerable by these neighbours and big time investors will shun us.
Whats the use of having 75 billion Dollars if we don't spend some of it on the most basic need of a nation ?
40 Super Hornets will only cost roughly USD 4 billion.A defence deal of this size usually allows the buyer to demand an offset investment of around 30% the value of the contract.
Since Malaysia has been trying to develop her biotech industry, I think the govt should ask the entire offset investment to be channeled towards biotech manufacturing plants.Imagine a USD 4 billion fighter deal fetching USD 1.2 billion worth of biotech manufacturing investments. Such a desision will not only secure Malaysia's sovereignty but fulfill Malaysia's biotech aspirations as well.
Thats why I have been wondering, what is our Prime Minister still waiting for ?!!!
BTW I would like to add that I'm not too concerned with India because they will always be too ocupied with Pakistan. They may even capitalize on their soon to be new-found air superiority over China to retake some of the Himalayan territories they lost in 1962.