MSA First Joint Exercise

50 Comments

1. 2023 keeps giving! Do you now think there is the possibility of a contract signing for the LMS II at this years LIMA, Marhalim?

2. Exercises are one way to use up ammo & munitions that we otherwise would not get to fire in anger. We risk them getting expired rather than a shortage of supply so we should do more exercises. Do it every month if possible, rotate between the 3 main services, that way we can consume enough munitions to make local manufacturing profitable and recurring business.

3. I am not sure really

4. Tom Tom – ”2023 keeps giving! ”

   Doesn’t say a lot considering that there were many years that didn’t ”keep giving”; that what we are getting is long delayed and insufficient in numbers.

5. Joe – who is going to pay for the replenishment of used ammo?

6. The taxpayers, who (theoretically) would gain in the economic benefits from a profitable & recurring defence industry, thus it (theoretically) becomes a cycle. Make ammo become another FMCG product.

7. Most of the ammo expended during OSTEASTEX were imported. Even the flares were imported. The only exception will be the 7.62mm ammo of the GPMGs.

8. That’s because we hardly give business to SMEO anymore…

9. Joe – Then the question is how will it be paid? Or to frame the question differently, from where will or should the money come from? More taxes? From the healthcare budget? From the education budget? Reducing subsidies? From the LMS batch 2 budget? Or perhaps just print more money?

10. Any plan from the navy to upgrade the scorpene to fuel cell aip like INS Kalvari?

11. ”That’s because we hardly give business to SMEO anymore…”

    Because it’s often cheaper and faster to buy from SME which has to import all the components/ingredients used for the manufacture of ammo and paid for in foreign currency.

    kel – ”Then the question is how will it be paid?”

    No idea what answer you desire or the answer you think should be given but the funds are from a budget already allocated to the services. Also, not every exercise involves live fire and the live firings of certain weapons routinely take place out of exercises [will elaborate more if asked]..

12. Nope

13. @Kel
    “Then the question is how will it be paid?”
    The same way as we always pay for all our ammo & munitions.

    “Because it’s often cheaper and faster to buy”
    Yes it doesn’t matter if its made by SMEO or CIS or Denel or any other nation’s local arms maker, it is always cheaper to buy from established players but the point of all of them was never about getting things cheaper or faster or value for money.

    The point is, its Marketing 101. To sell a product(local defence industry) one has to create a demand(the need from the Armed Forces) and if you only sell that product one time that is a business failure as the need has been fulfilled(during peacetime). So to able to sell on regular recurring basis, one must create a constant demand(constant consumption) and its either thru artificial demand(emptying lotsa rounds during exercises, giving ammo away, selling) or a real demand was created (going to war or being threatened by one).

    Obviously artificial demand is tricky and needs a lot of human engineering to make it work over and over again, like how Apple or Samsung keeps promoting for people to yearly buy new phones and consume the new technologies in them. The same, to create a defence industry that can continue to sell and sell, the Armed Forces have to be compelled to keep consuming a lot, enough to make it profitable. If there is no longer demand or it drops to become unprofitable then that business is in trouble. This is also the problem facing the USA juggernaut defence industry/war machine.

14. ”it is always cheaper to buy from established players ”

    It’s not so much about ”established players” [whatever that means] but ”players” who are currently producing; can start production in a short period; have the needed components in hand or have existing stocks which can be exported.

    ”So to able to sell on regular recurring basis, one must create a constant demand”

    Which goes back to something I’ve long harped on : economics of scale. If SME could export in quantities then the lack of large orders domestically wouldn’t be much of an issue. If Deftech was able to export AV-8s then the lack of any follow on orders from the Malaysian government in the short term could be alleviated. As I’ve long reminded souls who make direct comparisons to Turkey and South Korea; both countries have a large domestic demand.

15. The question was, where will the extra money come from? As is there is not enough money to get all the assets required. So to support a local industry, go do more live fire exercises so can buy more ammo from a local supplier? The government wont suddenly say because you want to do more live fire exercise i shall increase your budget. The government also wont say, to support local industry, i shall give you more money to conduct more live fire exercises so you can buy more ammo.

16. Kel – ”The question was, where will the extra money come from? ”

    – There are extra stocks of various [not all] things stockpiled and they do cater for the fact that ammo will be expended during exercises or live firings.
    – There is such a thing as a ”war reserve”; ammo that can’t be touched.
    – Not all live firings occur during exercises and various things are also routinely expended when no exercises are being conducted; i.e. the firing of ship main gun and small arms ammo occurs during routine patrols at the CO’s discretion. He has a stock which he can use and a stock which can only be used in times of emergency.

17. I wonder if the mindef ever think of bringing all the local defence industry players under one big roof. Like a merge in banking industry. Airod, deftech, ctrm, gading, boustead all under one holding company. Appoint one very experienced CEO from overseas for example from Swedish or Korea and learn from them how to properly manage a complete defence driven company. Like what Proton did with Geely 🤔

18. Show me the money..

19. Technically PM-X did announced consolidation of various companies currently operating under various ministries/agencies/GLC but doing the same thing in the budget speach.

20. @Kel
    “As is there is not enough money to get all the assets required.”
    Ahhh, and that’s where the fully committed part comes in.
    The Govt has to budget for the inefficiencies of local manufacturing so let’s say an 5.56mm bullet cost RM1 outside but here cost RM2.50 so the Govt has to up the budget by 2.5X more than currently if we’re to make locals profitable (cuz we’re not gonna ask them to sell at RM1.50 each or they will make loss) and at the same time we can’t cheapen out and get lower quantities to fit into our puny budget (if we need 100k ammo we must get 100k).
    And then to justify that 100k “regular” replenishment of course we have to be using them, can’t just buy and buy and keep until they rot -the beancounters won’t wear it-, so we have to expend them and if not during a war so of course will be in live firings.

    “The government also wont say, to support local industry, i shall give you more money”
    They have to, if they want the local industry to stay alive.

21. All the rebranding and restructuring in the world will acccount for nothing as long as we lack the key fundamentals. That is something people still can’t grasp.

22. Qamarul ..”I wonder if the mindef ever think of bringing all the local defence industry players under one big roof. Like a merge in banking industry. Airod, deftech, ctrm, gading, boustead all under one holding company. Appoint one very experienced CEO from overseas for example from Swedish or Korea and learn from them how to properly manage a complete defence driven company. Like what Proton did with Geely 🤔” Not workable because the Pie must be shared by lots of people .. under one roof means one person will conquer all and the pie will be gobbled up by one individual …

23. Mofaz – “Not workable because the Pie must be shared by lots of people .. under one roof means one person will conquer all and the pie will be gobbled up by one individual”

    Not workable mainly because the industry is one giant mess; various players looking for a slice of an already small cake with little holistic and long term strategic vision on a political level. Putting a single person in charge to ostensibly obversee things does nothing because he doesn’t have much to work with apart from a very flawed rudderless policy.

    Look at what the MIDC achieved. Look at previous attempts to consolidate the industry. Until we start looking at things holistically and politically and make fundamental changes nothing will change.

24. ”established players” [whatever that means]
    ie Nammo

25. ”ie Nammo”

    Can you name me a company which is in the ordnance business but which is not ”established”? It may be small and has a low turn over but may have been in the business long; that would place it in the ”established” category. Many years ago there was a small company with literally a dozen staff; located near Mostar; they have been in the business since the 1960’s when Tito desired to diversify and achieve self sufficiency; in my book this company is/was ”established”.

26. Can you name me a company which is in the ordnance business but which is not ”established”?
    SMEO

27. ”SMEO”

    Based on what; that it’s in the shits? Doesn’t make it not ”established”. It’s been around for almost 3 decades and is fairly known within the business. It may not be rolling in cash but so are many other ”established” companies around the globe. Denel is ”established” but is in a poor state. Prior to the Ukraine war there were various East European makers who have been ”established” for decades but were floundering.

28. @joe
    hahaha nice one joe

29. Denel is in poor state, its most lucrative munitions division was sold of to Rheinmetall.

    To have a living local defense industry, the government needs to constantly buy from/give them contracts. Look at japan, they constantly buy ships and submarines from their shipyards, retiring existing ships at relatively young age instead of refitting them. Similarly to south korea, to sustain its local helicopter manufacturing, 20 year old Blackhawks will be retired and replaced by Surions.

30. Darren,

    Way before that there must be a clear holistic and apolitical plan in place. An accurate assessment of what’s intended to be achieved.

31. “Based on what;”
    Age could be one, 30 years old so what. Igman that we’re getting the new batch of ammo is 50 years old yeah. They managed to sell ammo worldwide but SMEO could not? They are thriving and trusted in the ammo business but SMEO could not? They are not in the shits that need Govt tongkat but look at SMEO? How can you define SMEO as “established” like Igman? In the past you could say that we got weapons & munitions from Balkan states esp Bosnia due to muslim brotherhood to help them rebuild but now we go to them purely based on tender selection. Why SMEO could not win a tender?

32. I don’t know why SMEO failed. Don’t know why no export demand. But I know three things influence buying decisions other than relationship. 1) Price, 2) Quality, 3) Scale. Perhaps SMEO is too expensive? Perhaps the quality is poor? Or perhaps SMEO doesn’t have the scale to meet minimum orders? Can’t blame the government or MAF for a company’s failure. If a business model is to rely on cable to win overpriced contracts, then the business deserves to fail.

33. ”Based on what”

    What I wrote was pretty self explanatory which leaves no room for doubt as to what I meant or was conveying. Many factors come in play when applying the ”established” designation. A company can be in the financial shits but still be ”established” in the proper sense of the word. Being ”established” doesn’t mean a company /is was in a sound position. Royal Ordnance; Santa Barbara and quite a few others I can think of at the top of my head are/were all ”established” but were in a very unsound position…

    ”How can you define SMEO as “established” like Igman?”

    I clearly wasn’t comparing SME to Igman on strengths of merits and this is obviuos from what I wrote. BTW Igman has benefited immensely from orders in recent years from Various Gulf state countries for ordnance intended for non state anti Assad groups in Syria; as well as for use in Libya and Yemen; prior to that it was heavily in the ”shits”… Same goes with Prentis; atone stage they were close to collapsing but are still – barely – holding on; in the past like Igman it had a whole country to supply to when it came to the domestic market; now only Bosnia.

    ” Why SMEO could not win a tender?”

    A theoretical question or one you really need answered? If it’s the latter I’ve alluded to the reasons on multiple occasions.

34. And what I have compared is pretty self explanatory. Like Apple vs Vivo, people generally knows which brand is more established. You can hem & haw that SMEO should sit on the same table as Igman & Nammo but ammo buyers know which suppliers they prefer to get from.

35. “. Like Apple vs Vivo, people generally knows which brand is more established”

    Now the conversation is on who’s more “established”? Was that the crux of the discussion? I merely said that a company can be in the shites but still be “established”‘. Self explanatory you say?

    “You can hem & haw that SMEO should sit on the same table as Igman & Nammo but ammo buyers know which suppliers they prefer to get from”

    When did I say that? “Hem and haw” you say? Wow… Yippe yee yaw. You seeing things which aren’t there? I made no direct comparisons between SME and Igman.

36. Do notice that most of the country which have a Defence industry also have a single procurement agency. And most have either have a single defense contractor. Heck even the US only have 3 major supplier.

    Our procurement are a mess because there’s just too much chefs in the kitchen. A consolidation of defense industry & creation of a single defense procurement agency is a no brainer but no one that in position of power are willing to do so because It’s not profitable for them to do do on a personal level be it by political ‘contributions’ from the firms or golden parachute jobs post retirement. Which is probably why we have 3 different gov and every single one of them had failed to make public the defense industrial policy paper.

    Or maybe the defense industrial policy paper is indeed unfinished as there’s always the potential unsuitability of the proposal from the local player that great for them but against the operational needs of the military. If a country want to be a part of an alliance or partnership then the last thing they wanted is a small arms & customize one off varient weapons factory.

    Because If the military want to fight war by accessing other willing countries stockpiling then they won’t have a need for a lot of bullets, missiles nor stockpile thus the idea of building a bullet & missiles making factory is completely pointless.

    I think perun post a very interesting slideshow on defence economics in YouTube. Which basically argued defense industry a country need is based on the defense posture the country is having. A total defense posture by conscription mean small arms factory makes sense. If a country want a A2/AD bubble then they should invest in missiles & rocket industry. But if a country want to be in an alliance or partnership then their defense industry should be become a part of the alliance/partnership supplies chain.

37. Zaft – Don’t know where the idea that US only has 3 major supplier comes from. Your big three is likely Lockheed Martin (LMT), General Dynamics (GD), and Raytheon. But what about Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), Northtrop Grumman, Boeing, L3 Harris, General Atomics, Oshkosh, BAE Systems, Textron, Aerovironment, General Electric, Ficantieri, etc.? There is a tendency to try and complicate logic when there are only 3 reasons why the US builds a big defense industry – 1) Reliability (self-sufficiency think WW2 and Global Power status), 2) Control (over technology and foreign policy think F35), 3) Money (its just business).

38. “You seeing things which aren’t there?”
    Can you hear anything but yourself back there? Please continue with your delusions that SMEO could be as good as Igman or Nammo or any other established ammo maker.

    @Zaft
    Too many cooks spoils the soup but one lousy cook can do just as ‘well’ the job. A good cook will know to refuse the job if given substandard resources, insufficient tools, and incapable helpers.

    Here we have half past 6 cooks who thought they were masters and overpromised too much, a kiamsiap owner(Govt) who gives bare minimum or less resources but expects a wonderful menu, middling staff that could not comprehend a Michelin level menu so they kept failing & failing, all these while burning money which was not even enough, and oblivious customers who are super critical with their food but thought they could get Michelin level food for cheaps.

    Even Gordon Ramsay would tear out all his hair at such imbecility but this is our defence-national project way of working.

39. “Can you hear anything but yourself back there”

    Dear me and this coming from the likes of you. Wow wee..

    “Please continue with your delusions that SMEO could be as good as Igman or Nammo or any other established ammo maker”

    You want to make a point at least shoot the right calibre. As I unequivocally said in language which is easily understood I was not comparing SME to Igman and nothing I said indicated as such yet here you insisting on something which was never there. You smoking something because the discussion was clearly centered on something else and not the merits of SME compared to anything else. Yet you mentioned “delusions”.

40. Zaft – “notice that most of the country which have a Defence industry also have a single procurement”

    No. Most countries have a defence industry of sorts but only a handful have a procurement agency. Look it up, this is not a personal belief [to parrot you] but a fact.

    Zaft – “even the US only have 3 major supplier.”

    A fact or another assumption? A select handful of companies dominate the market in.Various fields but there are dozens and dozens of other smaller players who play a no less important role in various nice sectors.

    Zaft – “Our procurement are a mess because there’s just too much chefs in the kitchen”

    Start from the basics; one needs a holistic and realistic long term plan with a clear understanding of what is intended to be achieved. We don’t even have the fundamentals in place.

    Zaft – “maybe the defense industrial policy paper is indeed unfinished”

    Do you not understand the simple fact that there is no sound policy? Only hubris. Have you been around long enough to observe and understand that various restructuring and review exercises have been done over the years? What has the MIDC and all the grest strategic blueprints achieved?

    Zaft – “If a country want a A2/AD bubble then they should invest in missiles & rocket industry”

    Actually give some though before hitting the keypad or does enthusiasm overtake things? One can desire and achieve an anti denial/access capability without ” invest in missiles & rocket industry”. Think and indulge in objective and thorough research.

    Zaft – “basically argued defense industry a country need is based on the defense posture the country is having”

    And this is an earth shattering revelation to you? That a country’s strategic calculus determines what and how it goes about various things?

41. Zaft – “notice that most of the country which have a Defence industry also have a single procurement”

    No. Most countries have a defence industry of sorts but only a handful have a procurement agency. Look it up, this is not a personal belief [to parrot you] but a fact.

    Zaft – “even the US only have 3 major supplier.”

    A fact or another assumption? A select handful of companies dominate the market in.Various fields but there are dozens and dozens of other smaller players who play a no less important role in various nice sectors.

    Zaft – “Our procurement are a mess because there’s just too much chefs in the kitchen”

    Start from the basics; one needs a holistic and realistic long term plan with a clear understanding of what is intended to be achieved. We don’t even have the fundamentals in place.

    Zaft – “maybe the defense industrial policy paper is indeed unfinished”

    Do you not understand the simple fact that there is no sound policy? Only hubris. Have you been around long enough to observe and understand that various restructuring and review exercises have been done over the years? What has the MIDC and all the grest strategic blueprints achieved?

    Zaft – “If a country want a A2/AD bubble then they should invest in missiles & rocket industry”

    Actually give some though before hitting the keypad or does enthusiasm overtake things? One can desire and achieve an anti denial/access capability without ” invest in missiles & rocket industry”. Think and indulge in objective and thorough research.

    Zaft – “basically argued defense industry a country need is based on the defense posture the country is having”

    And this is an earth shattering revelation to you? That a country’s strategic calculus determines what and how it goes about various things?

42. “I was not comparing SME to Igman and nothing I said indicated as such”
    Wow wee… this is what you said “Doesn’t make it not ”established”. It’s been around for almost 3 decades and is fairly known within the business.” So who is smoking here?

43. “So who is smoking here?”

    I smoke a lot mind you…

    Also, since you missed it; the discussion was on what constitutes an “established” company and what I said was in reference to SME and clearly wasn’t a comparison with Igman.

    Yes SME has been around for decades and is known in the business because at one point it supplied quite a bit of 9mm, 7.62mm and 12 ammo to the U.S. civilian market; thus it is “established” in the truest sense of the word but there was no comparison to Igman at all. One can be “established” but still be in financial trouble; Royal Ordnance comes to mind. By your definition prior to getting Saudi and Emerati orders intended for Syria, Libya Yemen:Igman wasn’t “established” because it wasn’t in a sound opposition but now that it’s in a better financial position it’s “established”?

    Perhaps the next time around I’ll lay it out in a much much simpler way so you won’t face challenges in fathoming simple things. You can thank me later.

44. Kel – “I don’t know why SMEO failed”

    It’s no mystery which requires deep thinking. As has been explained it doesn’t produce enough to meet its overheads and everything used in the manufacture of ammo; from the brass to the explosives; has to be imported and paid for in hard foreign currency.

    Just like how BNS started as a refit facility; SME was supposed to be in assembly [we assembled the HK-33s at Batu Cantonment] and limited production of key essentials. Then the idea came that it should venture out; the theory went that it could survive on meeting domestic needs and eventually get in the export business.
    Problem is domestic production wasn’t sufficient and although at one time SME became known for the export of ammo; orders dried up due to a highly competitive market and less than ideal marketing. Then there’s the AUG and other sagas which I won’t get into.

    Kel – “Can’t blame the government or MAF for a company’s failure”

    Says you but when the government makes promises but can provide local companies with revenue then what are local companies to do? Survive on hope and hubris alone? There are various companies who offer sound products and solutions but then the government fails to make the needed commitments.

45. “thus it is “established” in the truest sense of the word”
    Wow wee… next you might be telling us that BNS is also an “established” naval shipbuilder on par with NAVAL. Or that Deftech is also an “established” military vehicle maker on par with FNSS.
    Please stop or at least reduce the strong stuff, its not good for your health; both mentally & physically.

    “offer sound products and solutions but then the government fails to make the needed commitments.”
    There are no commitments because there was not enough consumption. Like the 12.5million 5.56mm ammo buy, how long will it take us to use up all? 1 year? 5 years? If it only takes 1 year to make, what are the factory & staff gonna do the next 4 years? The Govt can only buy what is being requested by the enduser, and of course it will try to leverage for a local production but if businesses are sensible and stay away it will give a strong message to the Govt that the private sector will not play ball with such whimsy demands.

46. “Wow wee… next you might be telling us that BNS is also an “established” naval shipbuilder on par with NAVAL. Or that Deftech is also an “established” military vehicle maker on par with FNSS.”

    Wow wee. As clearly explained “established” means it’s been in the business for a while and is known. It doesn’t mean it’s doing very well in comparison to others and that has been made clear; yet for want of anything else you’re still repeating the same tune and giving the false impression I’m comparing SME to anything which I never did.

    Like I said; shoot the right calibre. There was never any direct comparison with anything and you know it. Who’s being a silly bugger now.

    “Please stop or at least reduce the strong stuff”

    Out of everyone here you would know wouldn’t you.

    ” There are no commitments because there was not enough consumption”

    There were and I can give examples which you would know if you’ve been observing things for a while.

    I wasn’t talking about ammo or other consumables but certain niche non highly competitive but essential areas. Company A does some research/R/D then approaches MINDEF who in turn shows interests and gives encouragement and promises some level of backing but later fails to follow it up even when the said company has made promising progress.

    One of the most successful local companies [it wasn’t “established” because it was new – note the key distinction] started of with no official backing because what it was promised failed to materialise and actually sold to a number of countries [including a couple of NATO ones] before it got local attention.

    Others have come up with prototypes which after testing get positive reviews and are promised funding to take things to a new level but nothing happens due to inertia and bureaucracy; the result is the company shuts.

    That’s what I meant…

47. “Like I said; shoot the right calibre.”
    Interesting from someone who is shooting blanks…

    “Out of everyone here you would know wouldn’t you.”
    Your the only one here admitting to smoking something…

    “I wasn’t talking about ammo or other consumables”
    No what your talking about is seeking patronage and hoping for Govt tongkats. Did the Govt forced them to R&D something or create something? No. So why do it in the first place? Shiok sendiri?

    If they came out with something substandard but expensive is the Govt beholden to give them taxpayers monies in hopes they can survive and somehow eventually make it worthwhile? Maybe you but I don’t.

    If they came out with something truly innovative and worthwhile it wouldn’t necessarily needs the Govt backing as private & international investors and buyers would been interested, why wait for Govt backing? Take GRAB for instance, if they waited for Govt backing they wouldn’t be the success today.

    A company lives & dies by its own actions not the actions or unwritten promises of another. This is how the private sector operates.

48. “Your the only one here admitting to smoking something”

    A substance with tar and nicotine. Your imagination went wild…

    “No what your talking about is seeking patronage and hoping for Govt tongkats”

    You seem to have a tendency to reach the wrong conclusions. It’s not about seeking “tongkats” but about companies making the effort to be innovative: to offer things that have utility but who receive no backing from the government despite promises. On the other hand there are companies which are not innovative but receive full backing because of patronage.

    “If they came out with something substandard but expensive is the Govt beholden to give them taxpayers monies in hopes”

    I could give you a few examples of things which were not substandard; things which the services were eager for and had promise but ended to nowhere due to inertia, bureaucracy and politics. That’s what I meant and perhaps you should do your own digging to find out. Shoot the right calibre instead of going off tangent.

    “Take GRAB for instance, if they waited for Govt backing they wouldn’t be the success today”

    Thanks for the revelation but we’re taking not about a ride sharing company but companies in niche but not necessarily competitive markets offering stuff which only has one customer and in which a certain level of government commitment [not confined to funding] is needed. Like I said: there are well know examples of lost opportunities but here you are making it sound as if I’m referring to companies which only rely on handouts.
    At times companies don’t seek funding but the needed bureaucratic support to take things to a new level but it doesn’t come despite promises.

    Like I said the most successful local company is one who received no backing whatsoever [I met the owner] but which suddenly received full interest after selling its one and only product to others.

49. “Your imagination went wild…”
    I’m not the one here hallucinating with all that smoke…

    “I could give you a few examples of things which were not substandard; things which the services were eager for and had promise”
    Oh please do. You have a tendency to give such sweeping statements and no real proof of anything. So please tell here.

    “At times companies don’t seek funding but the needed bureaucratic support to take things to a new level but it doesn’t come despite promises.”
    Many prospective companies were in that same situation, many promises from the politicians, MPs, Govt, etc, but came to naught. Companies that survive and thrives are ones that found their other ways and not rely on Govt. Those who waited for Govt help only waited for their doom.

50. “I’m not the one here hallucinating with all that smoke”

    You subconsciously trying to tell us ussomething something about yourself?

    “You have a tendency to give such sweeping statements and no real proof of anything. So please tell here”

    Firstly, my posts here for almost a decade now have been very critical of the local defence industry and the part they play. Thus, your suggestion that I condone patronage is ludicrous but coming from the likes of you is really to be expected.

    I only said that there are companies which do come up with innovative products and services but which do not receive the needed backing to the things to a new level; this is in contrast with other companies who offer nothing innovative but succeed because of patronage – simple English. That is a fact and is well known to anyone who knows anything about the trade here as opposed to those who don’t know but think they know merely to score points.

    Examples would include the company who came up with the IR resistant paint; one who developed with private funding a ESM system and others. These are not “sweeping statements” merely you being oblivious. As I said do your own digging and speak for yourself with regards to “hallucinating”.

    “Companies that survive and thrives are ones that found their other ways and not rely on Govt. Those who waited for Govt help only waited for their doom”

    Since you have problems understanding simple points; let me lay it out for you in simple as possible language that doesn’t challenge/hinder your ability [whether congenital or not I have no idea] to understand.

    Companies need backing from MINDEF and I’m not necessarily referring to financial backing. The problem is due to inertia and politics; companies which are capable and offer products/services which are needed often go nowhere because of the system; patronage and politics.

    Have you ever taken part in a tender or offered something which the prospective end user was very excited about. Conducted presentations and trials and was told that the product was exactly what they needed. Only problem is a few months later you are embarrassingly told that your papers have been “diverted” because a certain crony got wind of it and has at the last minute offered a competing product which is less capable and more expensive but has been selected. Months later after contract signing that company goes bust and the end user still hasn’t the capability. Have you heard about pages which mysteriously go missing from tender documents and about other happenings? About specs which change to ensure only a particular company gets the award.

    Yet you’d insist that you know what you’re talking about and that companies which don’t succeed only have themselves to blame because they expect handouts. Next you’ll spin the comedy that companies which succeed is all due to merit. If that were so we wouldn’t be where we are now. Going to cite Grab again? Why not Durex or Victoria Secret next?