The purpose of China’s Belt and Road Initiative is not to challenge US-led order

Comments on Hugh White, ANU: “China’s Belt and Road Initiative to challenge US-led order”, 9/05/2017

While there will be strategic implications as White alluded, it would still be a better world if the world cooperates rather than purely and adversely competes.
China has not deliberately excluded any countries from joining that initiative, even though some countries deliberately choose to boycott that initiative and want some others to follow them in doing that.
It is important to have an open mind as opposed to the kind of zero-sum games or even rivalries.

I would interpret China's one-belt and one road initiative as a positive contribution to the world economy inclusive of many countries, as opposed to challenging the existing US-led world order.

Trump unlikely to make any country great

Comments on Abdul Basit, RSIS: “Will Trump make South Asia great again?” 5/05/2017

While it may sound as emotional, it is highly likely that Trump will not make either the America or any other countries great!

For America, it is because he is working against the comparative advantages, both short and long terms, of the USA, period. As a result, he will damage the long-term interests of the USA. It just like to use ice/heroin to improve one’s health, particularly long term effects.

For others, does he have any desire or intention to them great when he campaigned with the slogan ‘make America great again’? Any benefits which any other countries may actually get as a result will be accidental. Alternatively, his attempts to make America great again by working against its comparative advantages may unintentionally benefit its competitors. And many may be considered as such competitors.

Don't correct errors by making errors deliberately

Comments on John Daley, Chief Executive Officer, Grattan Institute and Danielle Wood,

Fellow, Australian Perspectives, Grattan Institute: “Why biased budget forecasts make poor politics”, 5/05/2017

While budget forecast biases are concerning, the authors made like it has been the making of politicians or the Treasurer, as opposed to be a product of the Treasury which are bureaucrats. Unless the authors implied that there has been a conspiracy between the Treasurers and the Treasury staff, the kind of confusing generated by the authors are quite unhelpful in addressing the problems they say wanting to be addressed. Maybe the authors think that the Treasurers should force the Treasuries to make unbiased forecasts, or take some punishing measures if biases are consistent!

Besides, proposing another approach, that is implied by the mentioned conservative approach, is hardly helpful, because that is purposefully making wrong forecasts, as opposed to unbiased forecasts that should be aimed and achieved. Why do you need to do that, purely to cheat yourselves?

Perhaps, the authors of the post should consider having a more independent assessment of Treasury forecasts to see if there have been systematic biases existing, even though there was one assessment done that I suspect may not necessarily completely independent of Treasury if it was commissioned by the latter, or at least some may argue that its independence may have been compromised to some degree given its funding/commission source.

On a personal note, I do have some suspect that it seems there were some systematic biases as the authors pointed out that it was under-estimation and over-estimation of revenues year after year during the Costello and the period followed that respectively. But it needs to be further tested using a robust methodology.

Turnbull may not be any different in approach to US ally relationship

Comments on Tony Walker, Adjunct Professor, School of Communications, La Trobe University: “History can provide many lessons for Turnbull as he prepares for Trump meeting”, 3/5/2017

What you argue is obviously correct, even though it is easy said than done. Apart from some of the unbalanced nature in the relationship between the two countries, there is also an issue of being politically correct that makes few in the government dare to argue for an more meaningful, equal and beneficial relationship between Australia and the USA. This latter point applies to both major parties equally.

Turnbull now embraces Gonski school funding approach

Comments on Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra: “Turnbull announces schools funding and a new Gonski review”, 3/05/2017

While it is understandable to have doubt about and to be cynical at the Coalition government’s turn of event in education, we should give reasonable benefit of doubt that this change of heart and its embrace of Gonski to some degree may be a good thing, given that the two major parties now are all not opposed to Gonski.

If both cooperates with bipartisan support, then it will be a good thing for school education and students in Australia.