HOW YOU THINK OF TRUMP REFLECTS WHAT YOU KNOW OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE WORLD

“Deep in the shady sadness of a vale
Far sunken from the healthy breath of morn,
Far from the fiery noon, and eve’s one star,
Sat grey-hair’d Saturn, quiet as a stone...”
John Keats, Hyperion

John Keats epic 'Hyperion' is about an epoch changing event, how the pantheon of Olympian gods took over the domain from the Titans. We are living in an epoch-changing time and if you view Trump, like the way most people do, simply as the man that he is, then you have not understood the bigger picture of what's happening in the world. I will be blogging on the what, why, who and how of this epoch transformation and it will become very apparent that far from being a disrupting change agent, Trump is just a cog in the machine. I start off with this post to share the views of some of the thinkers of Singapore and analyse their thoughts. Because if our leaders do not understand, then it's a real concern.

The word "liberal" means many things. You will see "liberal" mentioned often here. In this context, it refers to the western-created epoch after WWII, let's call it the "Liberal World Order". It is based on classical liberalism (as distinct of progressivism) where there was open markets, democracy with political pluralism,  rule of law (both domestic and international), multilateralism (cooperation amongst nations via international institutions - UN, WHO, IMF, WTO etc), human rights and individual liberties, and recognition of national sovereignties.

Trump’s rhetoric is unsophisticated and lacks academic polish for which the artsy intelligentsia assumes as intellectual emptiness. Singapore establishment, with mindset of ivory tower loftiness, risks misreading future US trajectories if they are unable to see the design behind Trump's "madness". Like many global observers, much of the Singaporean establishment continues to describe him as a “disruptor.” This term, while superficially accurate, is analytically shallow. It reduces Trumpism to a matter of personality that is erratic, transactional, and unbecoming of presidential decorum.

But to frame Trump this way is to miss the deeper current he represents — and to underestimate the scale of transformation underway in American politics which will ultimately impact the world around us and Singapore's relationship with the U.S..

Trump is not the cause, but the consequence of long-developing dislocations:
• the economic disaffection of the American middle and working classes,
• the loss of legitimacy in U.S. institutions,
• and a revolt against globalism and elite technocracy.

In this sense, Trump is a cipher: a populist vessel channeling widespread mood swings, economic, cultural, and ideological, that are redefining the American state from within.

This revolution is not yet complete. It is still messy, contested, and uneven. But it is real. Its aftershocks are visible across party lines, within federal agencies, and throughout the think tank ecosystem. Whether in the form of Trump himself or a successor with similar instincts, this post-liberal, anti-globalist, nationalist movement is here to stay.

For countries like Singapore, highly globalized, rules-based, and technocratically governed, it is essential to read the U.S. not only through institutions and treaties, but through the transformation of its political DNA. Trumpism may clash with liberal norms, but it has forced the U.S. to reckon with internal contradictions it had long avoided.

The real question for Singapore is not whether Trump is “good” or “bad,” but how to strategically interpret the structural realignment he represents — and what that means for our posture toward a U.S. no longer guaranteed to operate by yesterday’s rules.

That sets the background for what I try to gauge here - whether Singapore thinkers are able to grasp the enigma of Trump. Across the board, Singapore's political and executive leadership are technocrats. Make no mistakes about it. They are very good at what they do. But thinkers and visionaries are not in abundance. I assemble four of our respected elders here to see what each of them thinks about Trump.

Kishore Mahbubani
Intellectual orientation: Strategic Realist, Civilizational Critic of the West

Mahbubani is a former UN ambassador and Dean of Lee Kuan school of Public Policy. He is a thought leader in Asian exceptionalism, multipolarity, and the Western decline thesis. He is known for the idea that “The West has lost it” — morally and strategically — while Asia is rising.

Both Mahbubani and Lee Kuan Yew drew a lot from British historian Arnold J. Toynbee, best known for his work on the rise and fall of civilisation. Both saw in Toynbee's grand civilisational perspective as useful for understanding global power dynamics and guiding Singapore's foreign policy thinking. It is interesting that whilst both read Toynbee's ideas about civilisational challenge and response, Lee dwells on Life and Mahbubani on the Death aspects. Lee saw from Toynbee's works the insights into the drive and dynamism of nations. Mahbubani saw civilisations' decline not from conquest, but from internal rigidity, hubris and elite failure and so his talks are peppered with Asia's resurgence and the West's intellectual arrogance, a refusal to learn from others.

Here are a few things Mahbubani has said of Trump:

“We should also treat Mr Trump with respect. Living in a small state, we are price‑takers, not price‑makers. Ignore rhetoric and focus on interests.” (2017 op-ed for The Straits Times)
He emphasized that small nations must adapt pragmatically to whoever sits in the White House.

“The kindest thing you can say about Trump is that he has been much better than expected.”(2018 interview with ST)
He credited Trump’s foreign policy with a level of consistency that, to some extent, provided a sense of steadiness.

“Trump is behaving like a rational geopolitical actor in putting what he perceives to be his country’s interests first.” (Mar 2025)
This was in an article "It’s Time for Europe to Do the Unthinkable". Mahbubani urged Europe to follow suit, prioritize their own interests, and then, perhaps, win Trump’s respect. What he is saying here is Western elites misread the global mood. He is diagnostic, realist, non-partisan. He neither condemns nor celebrates Trump, but treats him as a rational actor responding to domestic pressures.

“If Trump can get China to open up its market, then it’s possible to have a win‑win trade deal.” March 2025.
He highlighted Trump’s openness to pragmatic economic negotiations, despite his often aggressive rhetoric.

From these snippets, Mahbubani’s perspective on Trump is :
• He advises pragmatism and respect, especially for smaller countries when dealing with Trump.
• He considers Trump more coherent and predictable than commonly portrayed.
• He views Trump’s actions as rationally US self-interest, aligning with a realist worldview.
• He sees economic opportunity in Trump–China relations, despite friction.

Unfortunately, for our purpose here, Mahbubani has not analyzed Trump in depth as a personality or movement, but has only addressed what Trump reveals about America. To him Trump reflects America’s dysfunction, but also accelerates the decline of Western legitimacy. “Trump’s unilateralism and nationalism have alienated allies, eroded American soft power, and exposed the limits of liberal ideology.” In this regards, Mahbubani has often referred to U.S. middle-class stagnation, inequality and racial dysfunction, the collapse of bipartisan elite consensus and loss of global moral authority. Don't be mistaken. He is not saying Trump is the cause, but that Trump is working out of this environment.

There is an analytical limitation. Mahbubani's gaze is macro, strategic, and civilizational, not institutional or political. He doesn’t dissect the mechanics of Trumpism: administrative war against the deep state, realignment of think tanks, or MAGA intellectual infrastructure. Mahbubani offers a power realist’s reading of Trump’s geopolitical impact, rather than a close analysis of Trumpism itself. Still, his framework helps Singapore de-westernize its assumptions about power, values, and strategy.

Lee Hsien Loong:
Intellectual Orientation: Technocratic realism, Anglo-American liberal institutionalism, Confucian communitarianism

Lee approaches Trump less as a symptom of decline and more as a stress test of liberal-democratic systems. As a technocrat deeply shaped by the Cold War and the Pax Americana, Lee has faith in institutions, rules-based order, and elite continuity.

“The American political system was designed not to work too well, so that the government wouldn’t become too powerful. But when you need decisive government, it’s very hard to make decisions.”(2017 (CNN interview)
“We must be prepared for a U.S. that is more inward-looking, more protectionist, and more transactional.” (2020 (Shangri-La Dialogue, post-Trump trade war)

Trump represents not just a bad leader, but a deeper dysfunction in American political architecture — institutional gridlock, voter polarization, and the loss of bipartisan consensus. He probably thinks Trump contributes to a large part of this. Lee approaches governance through a technocratic managerial lens, valuing competence, order and institutional continuity. He has been diplomatically respectful, but clearly, his style and world view is at odds with Trump's bombastic, improvisational approach. To him, he fears small states like Singapore which thrives under rules-based order, are threatened by Trump's transactionalism and unpredictability.

Strategic Implication for Singapore:
• Maintain hedging: Don’t assume the U.S. will return to “normal” even post-Trump.
• Continue multilateralism, but deepen bilateralism: Lee sees Trump’s era as a wake-up call that small states cannot rely on multilateral norms alone — they must be nimble in bilateral relations, especially with China, India, the EU, and ASEAN.
• Watch for long-term elite degradation in the West — a theme Lee touches on subtly in speeches referencing Western domestic upheavals.

George Yeo:
Intellectual Orientation: Cosmopolitan, civilisational pluralist, Catholic + Confucian communitarian, less technocratic (by PAP standards) more philosophically inclined)

George Yeo approaches Trump not as a politician to be liked or disliked, but as a symptom of declining American elite coherence and a world shifting toward multipolarity. His framing is shaped by Toynbee’s theory of civilizational cycles, the rise of China, and the end of Western universalism.

“Trump is not the disease. Trump is the cough.”
This is perhaps his most cited metaphor. It captures his view that Trump is not an anomaly but a signal — the outward expression of deep social, cultural, and economic malaise in the U.S., especially among the working and middle classes.

"There is a revolt against what is perceived to be the moral arrogance of the liberal establishment. Trump gave that revolt a voice.”
Yeo sees the American liberal establishment as having lost moral and political legitimacy.

On US-China strategy, Yeo suggests Trump, despite the chaos, reset US-China relations in a way no establishment Democrat or Republican could. The decoupling logic, tariffs, and tech containment all began under Trump. Biden has only institutionalized them. (Now Trump 2.0 Trump has re-energised the execution). 

Strategic Implication for Singapore:
Singapore must recognize that the unipolar moment is over, and adapt to a world of competing civilizational states, not assume a liberal internationalist framework will self-correct. Yeo’s advice, implicit and explicit, is to avoid ideological commitments, stay agile, and understand both Trump and China as responses to global system failure, not threats to be dismissed.

Tommy Koh
Intellectual Profile: Liberal internationalist, Legal humanist, Legal idealist, Cultural pluralist)

Renowned for his principled liberalism, commitment to international law, and belief in rules-based global order. Deeply shaped by post-WWII multilateral optimism - UN diplomacy, law of the sea, cultural diplomacy, human rights.

“Trump has damaged the rules-based international order.”
“He abandoned allies, tore up treaties, and undermined multilateralism.”

Consistently critical, but in a moral-legal tone. Tommy, stuck in his liberal globalist worldview, dislikes Trump for his Climate change denial, withdrawal from WHO, Paris Accord, TPP, and disrespect for allies and global norms.

“I worry about the rise of protectionism and economic nationalism in the U.S. and in Europe. … Asia has been able to make enormous progress because of the liberal economic order that the U.S., U.K. and other countries created at the end of the Second World War. And this liberal world order seems to be in jeopardy.” (2017)
“..... engage China and to persuade it to be a responsible stakeholder, cooperate where your interests converge, compete where they diverge and manage differences with respect”.
He urges Trump to continue this bipartisan legacy.

"The problem was that he did not like multilateral institutions and long‑distance travel."
“ASEAN would be affected if President Trump were to carry out his election narrative to impose a 10–20% tariff on all imports and a 60% tariff on imports from China.”

Koh blames Trump squarely that his trade nationalism, such as rejecting the TPP, risked destabilizing the liberal economic system that benefited Asia. Koh criticized Trump’s preference for bilateral deals and U.S. withdrawal from multilateralism. He framed multilateral engagement not just as idealism, but as pragmatic and mutually beneficial diplomacy.

Tommy's analytical weakness is his tendency to view Trump through a 1990s lens. He therefore sees Trump as an aberration from liberal norms, rather than a reflection of their global exhaustion. His critiques rarely engage the socioeconomic drivers or institutional breakdown behind Trump’s rise. Often sounds more like a moral custodian than a systems analyst.

Tommay is not a thinker. He sees Trump purely in a moral and micro legalistic way. He sees only the upper layer and makes no reference to the generally unseen undercurrents that transforms the surface.

Conclusion:
I sum up in one sentence each, how each of them view Trump and whether that view is framed by an understanding of the changing world order or just loyalty to the status quo.

Kishore Mahbubani:
Sees Trump as a disruptive consequence of a decaying liberal world order and urges Western elites to confront their own structural failures rather than blame the messenger.

George Yeo:
Views Trump as an unsettling but necessary force injecting energy into a stagnant global system, reflecting the rise of civilisational alternatives to Western dominance.

Lee Hsien Loong:
Sees Trump with polite concern, but seeing him as a threat to the predictability and multilateralism norms that technocratic small states like Singapore depend on.

Tommy Koh:
Disapproves of Trump's disregard for international law, human rights, and multilateralism, viewing him as a dangerous deviation from the moral architecture of the postwar order.

From my discourse in social media, I get the feeling majority of people are like Tommy Koh - principled idealists trapped in a fading paradigm. Most are the kind of liberal who earnestly promotes the values of a rules-based world, even as the foundations of the world crack beneath them, judging the symptoms without diagnosing the disease.

Only George Yeo sees the positive of Trump in the world. And that's what makes George different, and my favourite, in the current batch of men in white.

In Keats' Hyperion, Saturn, the leader of the Titans, sat on a stone in the shady vale, contemplating their loss. What the bloody hell happened? (60 years later the sculptor Rodin produced his famous work "The Thinker". He never credited Keats for the inspiration.)

Just like Saturn, many in the world today are wondering, what the hell happened. Just like what Mahbubani famously said, "The West has lost it". None of our four thinkers explain why and how the "IT" was lost. I will dive into this in the next few posts. 

The Olympians come with a new essence, more luminous and inevitable. But just like few in the world understands Trump, in Hyperion, only one among the Olympians truly understands the weight of what is happening: The Olympian leader Apollo’s realization of his power is not brash but deeply intellectual and spiritual:

“Knowledge enormous makes a god of me.”

Apollo undergoes an inner transformation — the moment he becomes divine is the moment he fully comprehends the Titans’ legacy and transcends it.

And Trump said:

'THERE IS DESIGN BEHIND MY MADNESS."

Just like Apollo, he understands the legacy of the old order and is trying to transcend it.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

THE NINE LIVES OF CALVIN CHENG THE HIGH ENERGY AND SLIPPERY ONE

I have often quoted "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." This is attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt, but it was more likely Charles Steward (1914) was the origin. I am more interested in public intellectualism, that is, engagement with public affairs, which can include policy issues. This time I make an exception.

So little is known of Calvin Cheng Ern Lee but for the controversies that attach to him so I thought perhaps I fill in some details. He has shown his skill as a slippery operator once too often. He has made two very troubling posts on Facebook regarding the Gaza situation which crossed a line in a sensitive socio-political context. For anybody else, it would have triggered an immediate response by officialdom either in strong rebukes or POFMA, or unseen machinations to get the social media platform to suspend the erring account. But no, not for the Slippery One. In fact, his second post was 'shared' and 'liked' by prominent establishment figures.  The backlash from community groups and public outcry eventually forced the government to discipline him in air quotes — a half-hearted reproach wrapped in affection and denial.

This scene relates to an incident early this year. Having won a civil suit and the right to confiscate defendant's assets over unpaid legal costs, a court process normally conducted quietly by the sheriff alone, or accompanied by plaintiff who needs to access a compound to identify the assets, Calvin arranged to surprise the defendant with maximum publicity for the occasion. The defendant opened his door to find cameras clicking in his face. One wonders at Calvin's power to co-opt state media personnel to participate in what appears to be an illegal act. It did seem there were potential violations of Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) and Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) were committed. We do not know if the Law was concerned and wonder has the Slippery One gotten away unpunished once again.

One wonders at Cheng's pedigree that allows him to 'slip away' once too often, and how he got to be a nominated-MP and a Honorary Consul for Serbia. For a man who likes to bask in publicity, he hides his personal life extremely well. It is impossible to check which prominent Cheng family he belongs to.

A nominated MP is a non-partisan appointment. The idea is to allow non-politicians into parliament and help drive public discourse. At the time of appointment in 2009, Cheng was a PAP card-holding cadre. He had to resign from the party to take up the appointment to which his nonchalance was after all, he was a passive member all along, never collected his card and never attended any party meetings. If that is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then one wonders how his awol status and non-participation in PAP inhouse dialogues, helped the government assess his capabilities to contribute in parliament debates.

Of course, Singaporeans believe leopards can get rid of their spots and the veneer of non-partisanship erases the record of loyalty and leanings in a previous life. And so a PAP member can resign from the party and be a non-partisan nominated MP, heck, they can also be a 'neutral' President. Well, actually President Ong Teng Cheong proved me wrong, but then again, he was made from a different moral mold.

Cheng is an Honorary Consul of Serbia. Due to cost concerns, small countries do not have consuls in every country. They get by having one consul to cover one or more nearby countries. Or they appoint an Honorary Consul, a resident in the country to represent them. Honorary consuls primarily assist a foreign government with consular matters, promoting bilateral relations, and facilitating trade and cultural exchange, all on a voluntary, unpaid basis. Usually, such appointees are someone who already has some association with the foreign country. For example, Andreas Goros, who is Honorary Consul for Greece Cyprus has Greek-Cypriot heritage and has maritime & trading businesses there, and Rosanne Lim Mei Ling, who represents Malta, has trade/investment links in Mediterranean and Europe. But often, these small countries have no connection, relying on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to recommend someone. Prime Minister Ana Brnabić personally anointed Cheng in a ceremony during her visit in November 2022 to attend the Bloomberg New Economy Forum. It was probably the first time the two met.

Again one wonders at Cheng's pedigree that MFA chose to recommend him despite him mired in controversies.

Just for information, Serbia has a large population of Muslims who strongly support the Palestinians in their struggles against Israel. The Serbian government however, recently pivoted in support of Israel, much to the disappointment of the Muslim population.

The World Economic Forum named Cheng a Young Global Leader in 2009. Looking at his records, there was nothing really inspiring by 2009 that justifies that title. Was that because he had attended some WEF lectures. Or once again, one must try to figure out his pedigree? In any case, that WEF title today is more an albatross around his neck than a badge of honour.

In 2012 Cheng was appointed a member of the Ministry of Communications and Information’s Media Literacy Council (MLC). MLC is supposed to “promote civility and responsibility on the Internet”. If anyone has been watching his posts and comments on Facebook, one is quick to see civility certainly is not one of his strengths. So once again, the curiosity is killing. What pedigree has he that opportunity for greatness is constantly thrown at him?  Especially having been found guilty the year earlier for his role in price-fixing in violation of the Anti-Competition Act.

NMP, Honorary Consul, WEF Young Global Leader, MLC member. The great bard would have said: "Some are born great, some have great titles thrust upon them."

Looque Models:
Cheng is known to have started off operating a modelling agency called Looque Models Singapore Pte Ltd. In his own words, he was actually in the business of selling Elite Models franchises. In 2011, the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) found several modeling agencies guilty of colluding on pricing through the Association of Modelling Industry Professionals (AMIP) that resulted in customers paying more, causing an adverse impact on the market. At the time, Cheng was President of AMIP. Cheng appealled which resulted in him facing no personal liability. A total fine of S$361,596 was imposed on the AMIP. Under the Competition Act, the standard approach is to penalize the entity, not the individual unless an individual is directly responsible (e.g., instructing or executing the conduct); and there's a clear case of bid-rigging or tender manipulation involving the individual, distinct from corporate practices. It is noteworthy the CCS put on record that Cheng, as President of AMIP, "played a central role" in orchestrating the collusion and instructing members on how to hide it. Once again, Cheng did his slippery trick.

Retech Technology:
In the same year 2011 Cheng, slipped into China to seek his fortune. Eventually he decided modelling franchise was a business that among other things, he could not scale. He pivoted to the IT business of helping business set up e-training capabilities with a vehicle called Retech Technology Co Ltd, registered in HK. In 2017 he set up a subsidiary company locally Retech Technology Co Ltd, Singapore as holding company for Retech Technology Co Ltd, Australia. In the same year, he took Retech Australia to IPO and a listing on Aussie exchange ASX with a market capitalisation of US$80m. It was too small a company for HK stock exchange, that's why he went down under.

Things seem hazy as some info is hard to come by. I reconstruct what happened to Retech this way:

Retech SG:
* 2020 March -  Cheng joined Retech SG as Independent Non-Executive Director with responsibility as Chairman of Audit Committee.
* 2021 - In respect of y/e 2020, Moore Stephens SG, the auditor of Reteck SG, qualified the accounts due to an issue of S$10.8m suspicious transactions that looked like round tripping and fictitious transactions.
* Cheng signed the qualified account.
* 2022 - In respect of y/e 2021, Moore Stephens told the board it would have to escalate to an “adverse or disclaimer” opinion for FY-2021 unless independent evidence was produced – which never happened.
* Moore Stephens submitted draft management letter (never released publicly) said it was “unable to verify the commercial substance of RMB 46 m of customer contracts” and asked the board to commission an independent forensic review.
* Moore Stephens resigned as auditor as request for independent forensic auditor was not met..
* 2023 June - Cheng resigned from company.
* 2023 July - Grant Thornton HK replaced Moore Stephens.
* Grant Thornton resigned due to inability to obtain information relating to issues raised by prior auditor.
* Retech SG status unknown.

Retech Aust:
* Cheng was co-chairman of Retech Aust, and a non-executive director.
* 2021 - On the basis of Holding Company's draft management letter of auditor, ASX asked for price-querry.questioning the financial integrity of Retech’s reports.
* 2022 September - ASX suspended company for failure to produced audited accounts y/e 2021.
* 2023 August - ASX delisted company due to non-filing of accounts and non-payment of fees.

Retech HK:
* Cheng's official role in Retech HK unknown.
* 29 June 2023 - Cheng resigned (I assume, as director) from company.
* 1 July 2023 - HK Court ordered winding up of company in a creditors' liquidation. Claims of more than HK$40 million, share value = zero.

Cheng's resignation from Retech SG and HK 2 days before court winding up order sure sounds very much like Dr Goh Jin Hian resigning from IPP 4 days before the company filed for Judicial Management.

SGX RegCo, the regulatory arm of the Singapore Exchange, monitors foreign-listed issuers using Singapore audit firms to ensure compliance with listing rules and maintain market integrity. This includes oversight of both the audit firms and the audit partners involved. The regulator asked for clarifications relating to the audit qualification for y/e 2020. Nothing further was filed. 

Everybody knows Singapore is a land of Law and Order.  The regulator immediately tightened up auditing standards in Singapore in early 2021 reflected rising concern over cases like Retech. SGX RegCo reaffirmed their authority to require joint auditors, escalate compliance scrutiny, or mandate forensic reviews when red flags arise. From February 2021, SGX RegCo enhanced rules requiring primary-listed firms to engage ACRA‑registered auditors and gave itself power to appoint independent or secondary auditors under “exceptional circumstances”. 

Other than a good show of putting in more bells and whistles, we have no idea whether the case was referred to the police for criminal investigation. Just as in IPP, it is apparent a commercial crime had been committed. And just like in IPP, it seems no further action was taken. If that is the case, Cheng has once again performed a jolly good show of his slippery prowess.

Web3:
While one venture was tinkering on collapse, Chen turned up in Dubai to establish Calvin Cheng Web3 Holdings FZE, a holding company. The Web3 space is the concept of the next iteration of the internet, characterized by decentralization, user ownership, and privacy. It aims to move away from the centralized control of the current web (Web2) by leveraging technologies like blockchain to empower users with more control over their data and online identities. In May 2022 Cheng secured a provisional virtual asset licence from Dubai's Virtual Asset Regulatory Authority (VARRA). I can tell you it was some fanfare there as Cheng is the first FDI under UAE's new digital assets law. He is the first to launch a regulated NFT/fan-token investment company in Dubai.

So welcome to the wacky techy world of Web3 where the future is always in Beta. It's a decentralised world of Web3 where every digital problem is solved with .... yet another blockchain. It's a thrilling, confusing bazaar of acronyms and promises where you meet "community ownership", "DAOs", "smart contracts", "NFTs", "Metaverse", "the FUD", where self-declared visionaries mint token after token, where wierdos promise to disrupt everything from real estate to the human soul, where if you don't understand, don't worry, the guy standing next to you probably don't too, he's just pretending he knows, and if things don't work out and go belly up, hey it's OK, it's just part of the cycle of innovation.

But one thing is for sure. It's a brave new world where everything is decentralised except the power, the profits and the hype machine.

I won't be lying. Here, me too, I am just pretending that I know stuff.

NFTs: (Non-fungible tokens.)
For those who don't understand, take it as if it is a pass that shows you own some digital asset, or sometimes, access to a metaverse (a digital make believe world of whatever wacko-jacko digital experience), and that pass is registered in a blockchain. It is a unique pass that cannot be changed one for another. 

Wang Leehom
Cheng's first Wang Leehom NFT project took off in 2022 just like the Air India AI171. Prices crashed about 90% post-launch; fans reported losses of $500–$5,000+ per NFT. He has other celebrity teasers like Stefanie Sun and JJ Lin but nothing has materialised. Seems still a mirage. Critics say he used "pump and dump" tactics to sell. Investors accused him of misleading marketing, though he blamed the "crypto winter." Most NFTs offered no real-world benefits, just digital artwork with fleeting celebrity association.

EmberX: (2022)
This is a membership NFT project that grants holders lifetime VIP access to Amber Lounge events. The NFTs are marketed as offering exclusive perks, experiences, and status at Amber Lounge events and beyond. Coverage centers on luxury positioning offering only 1,888 exclusive NFTs offering lifetime VIP access. Cheng is thus using Satoshi Nakamoto's old cat-in-the-bag of creating digital scarcity to booster price.  Some in the broader NFT community express general caution over exclusive, high-priced NFT drops, but nothing specific to Amber X.

Amber Lounge is a high-profile luxury afterparty brand founded in 2003 by Sonia Irvine (sister of former F1 driver Eddie Irvine).It’s famous for its Formula One–themed VIP parties, fashion shows, and celebrity-attended events in Monaco, Singapore, Abu Dhabi, etc. The brand became known for exclusivity, ultra-premium tickets, and association with F1 drivers, royalty, and models.

Ember X NFT holders can attend Ember Lounge's parties and rub shoulders with various celebrities. I believe Cheng has plans to broaden afterevent parties into other celebrity or high profile events, example World Cup, Wimbleton Tennis, etc. In a way, he has gone full circle, from organising celebrity type events with the modelling business, to IT based e-training enabling, and now with EmberX he is putting his experience to good use. Good ideas, but as of now, it's all hype.

CelebX:
This is an NFT-based fan‑engagement platform centered around celebrities, designed to create direct connections between celebrities (models, sports icons, entertainers) and fans, with benefits like exclusive perks (e.g., content access, meetups), digital collectibles, fan‑token utility for voting, rewards, and monetization, etc. Basically, it is about building a regulated, tokenized fan economy for celebrities. CelebX appears to remain in an early development or pilot phase. No official token listings or volumes have been reported yet.

Xeleb:
Think of this like American Idol, instead of calling in your votes, you have an NFT to access an internet platform to vote as well as connect with other people.

It is more than a blockchain voting app. It is a high-engagement, tokenized model designed to blend global entertainment with fan-driven Web3 mechanics. By enabling fans to vote, support, and even earn via participatory tokens, it exemplifies a tokenized media economy. By tokenizing voting power and creating Meme Coins, Xeleb turns passive viewership into active, monetized participation.

Xeleb was first put to use in Miss Charm 2024 event in Ho Chi Minh City (December 21, 2024). The event itself faced several challenges, such as change of venue and logistical issues. But Xeleb itself went without a hitch. It was a successful first use of Xeleb.

Xeleb can be used in connection with many events that can garner hundreds of millions of participants. Its potential is huge.

Cryptos:
Anchored Coins (formerly known as Damoon Technologies):
Company granted membership in Switzerland’s Financial Services Standard Association, or VQF, in early 2023. AC is the issuer of 2 stable coins in Switzerland -  AEUR (100% EUR backed) and ACHF (100% SWF backed).

On 13 Jun 2024 Swiss regulator FINMA opened bankruptcy proceedings against Flowbank SA, an online bank in Switzerland. It's licence was withdrew due to severe undercapitalisation and over-indebtedness. Flowbank is one of the depositories that Cheng use to safekeep the fiat currency EUR reserves that back up the AEUR coins. It is not known how much of the reserves are kept at Flowbank. With Flowbank under liquidation, the issuance and redemption of AEUR coins are frozen until further notice. Authorities indicate recovery from liquidator doesn't look good.

It's tough luck for Cheng here. but one wonders how was due diligence done in selecting Flowbank SA  which had been in operation for barely 2 years when Anchored Coins open account with them. From looking after models to e-training to cryptos, the learning curve is steep.


AI Space:
Wizpresso HK (2017)
This is a platform for automating financial and legal workflowss. It is not generalized AI, but strong applied AI, leaning into Specialized data processing, LLM-driven automation and Practical enterprise use-cases. It's mostly domain-specific application AI -- Generative AI assistants for ESG, knowledge retrieval (e.g., Retrieval Augmented Generation – RAG), and financial analytics, and Natural Language Processing (NLP) applied to unstructured data (e.g., regulatory texts, disclosures). Company has won many awards, Cheng has represented Wispresso and spoken at many forums and workshops. The company has confirmed momentum and sustainable cash flow. Company data shows healthy usage metrics, consistent growth, and enterprise traction.

Conclusion:
To some, Cheng may come across as an attention seeker who indulges in controversial commentaries in a foul-mouthed way, often times in a disrespectful manner. His fans think otherwise, especially his pro-establishment views on politics and his tirades against the opposition. For example, in the Covid-19 pandemic, he has been an avid supporter of the government's push for vaccination. He has on record wished non-vaxxers condemnation, and in May 2021 he insulted in his Facebook post a group of 12 well-meaning medical practitioners who put out a statement for caution in the use of an untested mRNA vaccine.  

His current entry into the Web3 space is indeed brave. We can see he has some vision. With so much going on at the same time, he seems a high energy and driven person. The traction on some projects have not yet taken off.  And there are quiet voices of concern given his past to walk away from challenges that arise. Critics accuse AmberX of being a "ghost project" - used to attract funding without deliverables. There are some suspicion of vaporware projects in his stable and that other ventures are often announced with hype but lack execution. Wizpresso seems on its way to a growth path and Xeleb seems to have a great future. His cryptos are in trouble, not directly his fault but due to failure of the reserves depository bank. The other Web3 ventures are still too early to say. I wish him luck.

His escapades in his career, which includes prima facie evidence of corporate criminal missteps in Retech for which he needs to answer for in his capacity as a director, and the various positions thrusted upon him, makes one wonder who he really is. His private life seems as well-guarded as Ho Ching's salary. Indeed, even his cat asks "What's your pedigree?". 

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

THE OUROBOROS TRAP OF PUBLIC LAND SALE'S MODEL IS WHY SINGAPORE IS WORLD'S MOST EXPENSIVE CITY

Once upon a time there was a man called Mr Lee. He owns 90% of all the rice in the market. Lee saw there were a few boutique grocery stores that own the other 10% of the market who were prospering by selling at much higher prices. These small shops set high prices because:
* they hold limited stocks,
* they cater to premium customers,
* they want to maximise profit.

Lee knew about all those supply-demand gobbledygook he learnt in economics class. With huge supply, he can sell cheap and still make profits on low margins compensated by volume.

Instead of using his huge stockpile to lower prices which ensures the lower income can afford rice, he thought:

"I'll price my rice just like the boutique shops because that's the market price. This ensures fairness and prevents devaluing the rice."

So the price of rice sold in his supermarket goes up, even though Lee has plenty of it. The boutique owners are thrilled because now they can increase their own prices for the wealthy customers.

Meanwhile, the lower income families struggled to buy a basic bag of rice. They thought: "C'est la vie. If I don't buy rice now, I'll never be able to afford it later." And so they grudgingly accepted the new normal.

What about Mr Lee? Well he understands from his economics class about elasticity that measures how sensitive a product is to changes in prices. As rice is a staple, it is inelastic, that is, less sensitive to price increases. He was delighted the boutique shops reacted to his price increase by increasing their boutique prices. Lee thought well, the market prices have increased, therefore I will have to adjust my prices upwards again.

My smarter readers may have understood the story of Lee Supermarket and know where I'm headed. For those who do not understand, this is my pseudo-economist's primer on what ails the Singapore economy. It is a perspective that has never been articulated by any Singaporean, not the least in academia.

Cost-of-living continues on it's upward climb and Singaporeans do not understand the explanations of the government. "The demographic has shifted. The population is growing older and we need to manage higher welfare and medical costs, blah blah blah." Many reasons have been given for the rising cost, but in my humble opinion, no one has explained the quagmire of the Singapore economy.

In order not to be fooled, you need to understand the difference between a "non-structural economic problem" and a "structural economic problem". A non-structural problem is a cyclical problem caused by economic downturns. This is temporary in nature and can be solved by fiscal intervention such as stimulus, rate cuts, temporary subsidies. High unemployment during the Covid-19 shutdown is an example and CDC vouchers etc is a fiscal solution. Structural problems are different. All countries struggle with some structural problems. Most of these problems have commonality across the board, some are rare. Singapore similarly has a few structural problems but we have a problem that is unique only to this little island. It is this unique structural problem that is the focus of this article.

Structural problems are more difficult to overcome. It requires reforms. Sometimes the medicine is extremely bitter with huge political consequences. That is why governments are not wont to take action. 

First, let's take a look at the performance of SGD vs the currencies (31 Dec 1990 vs 21 Jun 2025) of the top countries that we import our goods from:

ccy pair	1990	2025
SGD/RMB	2.9984	5.5851
USD/SGD	1.7400	1.2850
SGD/MYR	1.5478	3.3093
SGD/KRW	413	1,064
SGD/JPY	78	113
SGD/IDR	926	12,765
EUR/SGD	2.38	1.48
SGD/AED	1.8437	2.8570
SGD/THB	14.49	25.52
SGD/TWD	15.41	22.97
SGD/PHP	12.21	44.49

SGD has appreciated remarkably across the board in real effective terms  This is the outcome of MAS' deliberate use of exchange rate as the main tool to control inflation. A stronger SGD is a deflationary force on imported goods and services. Food imports in SGD terms are stabilised. Electronics and machinery imports are cheaper over time.

We are still exposed to oil and energy, global commodity and shipping shocks but the impact is softened by a stronger SGD.

The overaching appreciation of SGD tells us we don't have imported inflation, it is domestic inflation that is the main driver for the rising cost-of-living in Singapore.

Anomaly of most expensive city in the world but there is no inflation!

Singapore has earned the accolade for the most expensive city in the world in various global indexes. All over the island, Singaporeans complain of substantial increase in prices of almost everything. The government shows the general price level holding steady. The CPI (Consumer Price Index shows 2005-2019 ranged 1-3%, occasionally dipping to zero. In 2020 CPI fell to 0-1% due to Covid-19, in 2021-2022 post-Covid recovery pushed CPI to 6.1%. 2023-2024 CPI eased backed to 2.4%. The average Singaporean who has seen prices rose from 30%-100% on his everyday goods cannot comprehend the official CPI figures. Surely they must have left out certain items, such as rent. Well, rent is included in CPI. But with 90% of Singaporeans living in owned homes, accommodation costs for the purpose of CPI is imputed. This is a nuanced and subjective input by someone.

The MAS, who has responsibility for managing the general price level, computes the core inflation figure. This computation ignores accommodation and private transportation costs which are more volatile due to external shocks. The core CPI is more reflective of domestic pressures on inflation. The core CPI tends to be lower. Core CPI : 2005-2019 : 1.2%, 2020 : 1%, 2021-2022 : about 4.1%, 2023-2024 : 2.7%.

The lower core CPI inflation figure, which ignores accommodation and private transportation costs, is what influences major policy decisions  In other words, the two most volatile and the highest cost factors, accommodation and private transportation, are  excluded in various policy decisions.

In the period 2021-2024, ACRA records show business closure totaled 205,305, but new formations outpaced cessations. The government explains away business closures as the challenges of rising wages, AI disruptions, online vs physical presence, new technologies, etc.

In reality, have you heard anyone complaining they close business because of higher wages, or their supply chain cost has gone up, electricity cost has gone up? Or because of inflation? The single complaint of businesses that closed has almost always been RENT!  

What is Rent:
'Rent' in economics is a form of passive income earned because of privileged access, not because of effort or innovation. Examples - 
Land rent is where a landlord earns rental income just by owning a property, 
Monopoly rent is, for example, where a company controls the only telcom network in the country, 
Patent rent is where a company charges  high prices due to exclusive rights.

What is rentier economy:
This is where a large share of national income comes from rent. rather than productive activities like manufacturing, services or innovation.  In a rentier economy:
* Wealth is accumulated through ownership, not creation.
* People or corporates extract income by controlling scarce resources, not by adding value.
A rentier is a person or entity that earns most of their income from owning, not working or producing, example a government that earns from oil reserves.

In this article I want to focus on one aspect of a rentier economy - monopoly rent. Monopoly rent in land ownership is the single core structural problem of the Singapore economy that drives domestic inflation crazy and which the government offers no solution. In fact, the government is the major cause of this problem driven by its land sales policy. 

Private freehold land ownership:
Only 10% of freehold land in Singapore are in private hands, monopolised by
(1) A few large property developers such as Far East Organisation, City Development, Guocoland, CapitaLand, Bukit Sembawang and Ho Bee Land. 
(2) High net-worth individuals and families and foreign investors via trusts or shell companies. 
(3) SME owners (SME founders, doctors, bankers, tech professionals, lawyers, etc) and Professional HENRYs ("High Earners, Not Rich Yet") who are individuals who earn high incomes but haven't accumulated significant wealth. And certainly many of those churned out from the PAP silo.

These are the equivalent of the boutique shop rice owners. 
Group (1) shapes the supply, pricing and land parcel availability.
Group (2) are the generational wealth whose private property holdings reduce further the 10% of private property availability in the market.
Group (3) are the early bird premier customers of the boutique shops.   

Public (State) land ownership:
90% of the land in Singapore is owned by the state through agencies like Singapore Land Authority, Housing Development Board, Urban Redevelopment Agency and Jurong Town Corporation. The government releases land for development via Government Land Sales Programmes. 

And how does the government price the land? Exactly like Mr Lee, the Supermarket operator who owns 90% of rice supply in the market. The land sales programme has pricing tied to private market rates whether in their reserve prices in open auctions, or in their internal sales to JTC, URA or HDB. The state allows the 10% private landowners to effectively "anchor" or "pull up" prices, despite controlling the lion's share of the land. 
The Ouroboros Land Pricing Trap: The government's land sales programme takes into consideration existing market prices and then prices to match. HDP/JTC/URA prices are taken into consideration by the private market which drives their prices higher. Prices of new and resale properties in the private market are adjusted higher. So too the prices of resale private and public properties readjust up. As the overall market recalibrates prices higher, the next next round of government land sales factors in the new price level and again prices to match. This circular pattern of a snake feeding on itself, devouring affordability in the process, tends to perpetuate a rising price scenario. The system feeds on its own rising prices, using them to justify the next rise.

The same scene is similarly played out in the rental market where HDB/JTC/URA are major landlords holding massive inventories.

The Singapore property market is an oligopoly, that is, one of limited competition, shared by a small number of producers or sellers. Just like Mr Lee who holds 90% of the rice supply, the government, having 90% ownership of land, has market power. Which means it is in a position to influence prices.

The greatest anomaly in the Singapore property market is the government, having market power, is a price taker, not a price maker.

In a text-book open-market economy, prices are driven by supply and demand. But in Singapore's real estate market, the government controls the vast majority of the supply, yet it pegs public land sales to private sector benchmarks, effectively outsourcing price discovery to the owners of the remaining 10%. 

Just like Mr Lee who explains the boutique shops' prices are the 'market prices' which he follows, the government professes the same logic. Only the brightest of economists can see the trickery in this. The 'market price' that Mr Lee and the government allude to are inflated by scarcity, speculation, and profit-maximising behaviour of private developers and the other private freehold owners who together controls only 10% of land supply.  It is the 'market price' of the 10%, whose actions are shaped by competition and return on capital, not affordability or social equity. The right market price ought to be shaped by 100% of stakeholders.

The result is a deeply distorted price structure that defies conventional market logic and contributes to runaway land, housing and rental costs. In other words, what we have here is an artificial price structure.

Critically, the government's role shifts - from housing provider to real estate gatekeeper. Land, a public resource, becomes a part of a complex asset-accumulation ladder. Instead of moderating prices in the face of overwhelming demand, the state's hands-off pricing policy allows the private market that controls only 10% of land supply, to set the tone. 

The structural problem of land sales policy:
The bottomline is, the most expensive city in the world earns its title primarily as a consequence of the cumulative impact of high property prices. Property prices impact rental cost which spirals through complex supply chains to hit our pockets in our everyday goods and services. And the spiraling rental cost itself is the result of the Ouroboros trap of our property market. The rising cost is not a normal cyclical problem of an economy. It is a deeply entrenched structural problem that lies in the government's land sales policy.

Structural problems in almost all countries are very difficult to solve. One needs Trumpian resolve to introduce any reforms. If the public land sales policy is not changed, Singaporeans can expect high cost-of-living to be the national staple diet. 

Why public land sales policy will not be changed:

1. Effect on the fiscal engine: Singapore's land sales are not normal fiscal revenue. They are constitutionally earmarked as asset sales with proceeds going into past reserves to be managed by the sovereign wealth funds. They help fund the Net Investment Returns Contribution which covers about 20% of the annual budget. Changing the land sales pricing would reduce future reserves which shrinks investments, in turn lowering future fiscal capacity.  Any reduction in land sales revenue threatens the entire fiscal structure, including how the government funds social spending without raising taxes.

2. Not just a housing policy but a national wealth strategy:  In land scarce Singapore, the government treats it as a strategic national asset, not just a public good. A slow release is to preserve scarcity and long-term value. Selling it high ensures maximum extraction of capital. 99 year leasehold model enables recapture. This model has helped build one of the world's largest sovereign wealth funds per capita. It is also treasured as a yield-generating asset, not a social stabiiliser. To change this doctrine means changing the entire economic operating system of Singapore.

3. Embedded interest of the asset class: This point does not imply or suggest corruption. It is an honest fact to show why there is strong inertia to change because of existence of status quo bias, institutional self-reinforcement, and resistance to redistributive land reform. Singapore's policy makers, by virtue of being long term citizens, senior civil citizens, or high net-worth individuals, are often participants in the asset-based economy. Most own property, often multiple units. They benefit personally from rising land values, as do other rich folks. Many are closely tied to GLCs, real estate firms, or investment entities. This networked and embedded class creates a policy feedback loop where those empowered to reform the system are also beneficiaries of the system. 

4. Land scarcity reform narrative makes reform politically risky: Having successfully cultivated a narrative that Singapore is land-scarce, land value must be preserved for future generation, and undervaluing land erodes national reserves, the government is faced with a problem of arguing against itself. It is politically difficult now to argue for
* lowering land prices for public housing,
* decouple land sales for private benchmarks,
* more aggressive land use for public affordability goals.

5. PAP national social contract:   There is an unwritten social contract of the PAP government with the people of Singapore along these lines :
* CPF-backed home ownership.
* Rising asset values.
* Retirement adequacy through property appreciation.
* Budget surpluses without high taxes.
If the government changes course and makes housing more affordable by pricing land downwards, these are the risks :
* The CPF-housing-retirement loop weakens.
* Household wealth expectations disrupted.
* Government accused of undermining Singaporeans' wealth holdings.
A change in land pricing policy is not just retooling economic strategies, it is a rewriting of the public wealth distribution system.

The land pricing model is extractive and deeply institutionalised. Reform requires more than new policy tools. It demands a renegotiation here of fiscal priorities, intergenerational equity, and the moral purpose of public land.

Conclusion:

What I have laid out is merely scratching the surface of critical tensions in Singapore' s economic model that many do not fully articulate. It is not just a market anomaly, but a structural paradox with real consequences for affordability, wealth inequality and rentier dynamics.

A thousand Leong Munwai's can stand up in parliament and rehash all his points, and all my points, nothing is going to change. Change can only come through the ballot boxes, not from any intelligent discussion of the problems.

Therefore hear ye, all Singaporeans, buckle up for a short ride to a S2.00 cup of Kopitiam coffee

.
Note: I am confining my discussion here to how the government's land sales policy is the root cause for the spiraling property and rental prices which is at the heart of our high cost-of-living, why prices of our everyday goods and services have been rising like crazy despite official low rate of inflation. There is much to talk about how the property market is exploited by the government in their extractive policies at the expense of the people. For those who like to pursue this interesting topic, I recommend you go read Kenneth Jeyaretnam, who has interesting perspectives on Singapore's economic stuff.


.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

THERE CAN BE NO OTHER EXPLANATION FOR AIR INDIA CRASH OTHER THAN A FORCED ROTATION

One June 12, a few minutes after flight AI171 took off from the runway at Ahmedabad Interntional Airport, it 'dropped' out of the sky and crashed into several building causing a casualty count of 241 from the plane and 28 from the ground. 1 passenger had a miraculous escape.

There are basically 4 ways the plane could have caused the crash:
* Mechanical failure
* Pilot mistake
* Birds
* Contaminated fuel
* Maintenance issues
Weather is ruled out as it was a fine day.

The mention of mechanical failure and the condemnation of Boeing cutting corners using cheap Indian labour and resourcing from India takes off. AI171 was a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, one of the safest in the world and less than 11 years old. Talk about pilot mistake and folks start talking about 30 minutes to obtain a flying certification in India. The pilot and co-pilots were both Indians. The captain is a vet with 8,300 years under his belt and co-pilot is 2/3 on his way to a captaincy qualification have had 1,000 hours on long haul flights under his belt. They were well-experienced, but of course, human mistake can happen to anyone. Let's get our biases out of the way and look objectively.

Many experts have put forward their opinions that are well-intentioned and conscious of the fact that a proper investigation will provide the final answers. I culled from the internet for some of the most probables and my own input based on some of the things I suggest from critical thinking. In my previous blog  April 13, 2025 on "Trump's tariffs - the great reset ..." I said the most critical part of a flight is the takeoff and experienced pilots are paid a handsome salary for their expertise in handling that safely.

Three basic things to know to help you understand the problems:

1. Boeing 787-8 is a Fly-by-Wire aircraft:
In simple terms - a high tech plane. In this type of plane, electronic systems replace many traditional manual flight controls (like cables and hydraulics). The pilot's inputs are converted into electronic signals which are interpreted by the Flight Control Computer. A pilot's command goes through electronic layers:

Input - sensors - computer - bus - actuator - control surface

When a driver turns the steering wheel of a motor vehicle, he turns the steering column, which rotates the steering gear, steering moves the tie rods thus converting rotary motion into lateral  motion, the tie rods then push/pull the wheels, turning the front wheels left or right on their pivot. In other words, the driver is directly dealing with mechanical movements.

In a 787, to get the plan to fly up, Pilot pulls the yoke which sends signals for a nose-up command, electronic sensors detect movement and sends signal sent to flight control computers (FCC), computer does the necessary computations, then sends electronic (digital) commands to actuators which drive the elevator surfaces, elevators physically deflect upward which pushes the tail down, this causes a hydraulic system to push the nose up.

The vehicle and plane comparison shows the driver is involved physical movements of mechanical parts, the pilot has nothing to do with any mechanical functions. 

In electrical and software-based systems, each layer is a potential failure point. Built-in redundancies, fault detection and backups are safety features.The more complex the integrated system is, the more failure risks, especially in the case of electrical faults, bus errors or logic bugs.Bottom line is, when a pilot experiences a problem, the fault could actually have been started somewhere else. The cockpit instruments could be reading faulty data, for example.

2. Aviation aerodynamics:
Something basic to understand in aviation aerodynamics is the forces working on a plane in flight:
Downward force - This is Gravity pulling the airplane toward the Earth. Weight is the factor.
Upnward force - This is Lift created by the wings as air flows over them. The aerodynamic shape of the wings cause the air above it to have a lower pressure and the air below with a higher pressure what keeps the plane in the air. The lift counters the weight of the plane.
Forward force - This is the Thrust produced by the engines (jet or propeller). It moves the plane through the air.
Backward force - This is the Drag which is caused by air resistance. It opposes thrust and slows the plane down.

This is the position of a plane flying level to the horizon (ground). A few things to note here and three critical angles to understand - Angle of Attack (AoA), Pitch Angle and Flight path angle.

Relative airflow is the resistant of the air as the plane flies through (the backward force).
The flight path is aligned with the relative airflow but in opposite direction.
Longitudinal axis is an imaginary line drawn from the tip of the nose to the tail dissecting the fuselage in half. This line is not necessarily aligned with the cord line, but they are very close. It is always slightly pitched up (tilted) to the flight path so that the angle of attack is positive.
Horizon is the reference line. It remains in position even if the plane is ascending or descending.
The AoA = angle between chord line and relative airflow.
Pitch angle = angle between aircraft's longitudinal axis and the horizon. (not draw to avoid crowding)

Important points about the wing:
The wing curvature is shaped to give it the aerodynamic properties. It is always curved at the top. The curved shape and angle cause the air to speed up and separate slightly on top. The flow of air on top accelerates faster because of the curve. (Bernoulli principle). Because of this, the air pressure on top of the wings drop in relation to the pressure below the wings, giving the plane the lift or upward force. Simultaneously, the wing is pushing air down (Newton's principle), which increases lift.

Important point about the flap:
When the flap is extended, it increases the curvature, thus providing more lift. That is why when it is speeding down the runway, the flaps are extended to get as much lift as possible for takeoff.

How the plane ascends or descends:

To ascent, the pilot pitches the nose up which will tilt the plane's flight path to incline upwards. To descend, pitch the nose down.
To pitch up, the pilot pulls back the yoke which pushes the elevator up. The elevator is connected by a hydraulic system to the nose. When it is depressed, the hydraulic system physically pitches the nose up. At the same time, the horizontal stabiliser tilts down at the tailgate edge. This double action of the nose and horizontal stabiliser crates an upward force at the nose and a downward force at the horizontal stabilisers and the plane pitches up and increase its flight path angle. The reverse happens when the pilot pushes the yoke forward and the plane pitches downwards.

This drawing shows the aircraft pitched up, in ascend. In this picture it is easier to see the 3 critical angles. 
Flight path angle = angle between flight path and horizon. (Flight path aligns with relative airflow, but in different directions)
AoA = angle between the cord line and relative airflow.
Pitch (or nose) angle = angle between the longitudinal axis and relative airflow.

This is where it gets interesting for our purpose here.

In the drawing above, the ascend flight path is stabilised. That means this is the path selected for the plane to continue ascend to desired heights. Note the relative airflow has changed from the drawing when the flight path was level to the horizon. Note also the horizon does not change. So the ascend drawing is exactly the same as the level drawing, except for the horizon. That means when the ascend is stabilised, the 3 critical angles are exactly the same when the plane was flying in level mode.

Imagine a see-saw, when it moves up and down, it is actually rotating on the fulcrum. For the plane, imagine the part where the landing gears or the wheels are, as the fulcrum. So when a plane is pitching, it is rotating till it reaches the desired pitch, or the flight path the pilot wants. The point here is when the plane is 'rotating', it's angle of attack changes.

Mathematically, the AoA = the Pitch angle - Flight path angle. In ascend or descend, the pilot is trying to get an optimum flight path. But he controls only the pitch angle by pulling or pushing the yoke. So the flight path angle is the variable.

Pitch angle - Flight path angle = AoA.

In level flight:
The flight path angle γ = 0°.
The pitch angle might be, say, 3°.
Therefore, AoA = pitch – flight path = 3° – 0° = 3°.

During the pitch-up to climb:
The pilot increases pitch.
Initially, flight path hasn't changed yet. This is because momentum caries the plane on it's same path for a few seconds.
The flight path angle γ = 0° (flight path hasn't change yet).
The pitch angle might be, say, 5°.
Therefore, AoA = pitch – flight path = 5° – 0° = 5°.
So the AoA temporarily increases, possibly exceeding 3°, maybe up to 4–5°.
This transient increase in AoA gives more lift → nose rises → aircraft climbs.

Once climb is stabilized (steady ascent):
Now the flight path angle γ = 2°. (now stabilised)
So: AoA = pitch – flight path = 5° – 2° = 3° → same AoA as in level flight.

Why the AoA is critical:
The AoA of planes is different for different makes and at different phases of flight. The typical AoA of a jet liner when cruising (level flying) is about 2° to 4°, at takeoff is 5° to 12°, and at landing is 8° to 15°. When the AoA gets below or above the band allowed, disaster strikes.
When AoA is too high:
Within the band allowed for the AoA, the air flows smoothly over and follow the curve surface of the wing. The airflow is called 'attached' or laminar flow. If the AoA is too high, the airflow becomes 'separated', ie does not follow the curvature and becomes disrupted and turbulent. At a certain critical point it becomes 'detached' from the wing surface and swirls chaotically. This is called a flow separation. Lift drops drastically, drag increases sharply, the wing stalls (provides no lift). The plane may pitch down, sink or even go into a spin.
When AoA is too low:
There are 3 scenarios.
1. Where there is still thrust, ie engines still working. If AoA is too low but still positive, it is not causing the airflow to 'attach' to the wings. The wings stall, that is, provide no lift. The thrust compensates for lack of lift. The plane can still fly and may even ascend a bit.
2. When there is no thrust (engines failed), or not enough thrust (power generation problem): The angle of attack is low but still positive. The plane will descend in a power-off controlled glide.
3. When AoA is negative: This happens when it goes into too steep a dive. The cord line is now angled below the relative airflow. The wind is not passing over have the curved surface, so the aerodynamics of life is lost. In fact, as the air flows over the back half of the wing, it in fact creates a down force. The plane descends rapidly, possibly uncontrollably.

In my "Trump Tariff Reset" blog I said in a takeoff, if the plane loses lift and descending, experienced pilot will pitch down, similar to going into a dive, which is against human instinct. Why dive when the plane is dropping. The pilot pitch down in order to regain lift. The Indian Air plane wreckage will most certain to show the plane's nose is down, although it should be up as the plane was taking off. That is, if the pilot had acted correctly to save the plane and the mechanisms had worked accordingly.

Unfortunately, even if the pilot had reacted correctly, there was nothing he could do to save the plane because he didn't have sufficient altitude.

Pilot mistakes on takeoff is usually maxing out the AoA. But in the Air India case, the video shows the descend was exactly in the manner in scenario 2. This suggests the engines were out, there was no lift, no thrust. So far, I have not seen any experts pointing this out, the possibility of pilot maxing the AoA out. If so, the question is why. (Of course the engines are out is confirmed by the May day call).

3. What happens during an aircraft takeoff:
The image below is taken of Flighdata24. I edited to enhance reading of altitude, ground speed, legend, and the time (which I have also converted to local time): Other than the 2 plot lines, the other wordings in the chart are inserted by me for explanation. V1 - The Decision Speed. It is the last chance for the pilot to abort the takeoff without the plane shooting past the runway. Co-pilot calls out the speed as plane nears the V1. E.g "90", "100", "V1" 
Vr - The Rotation Speed. Co-pilot calls out "Vr". The 'rotation' here is the reference to the see-saw mentioned above. This is when the pilot starts to rotate the plane to tilt up. Vr is when the captain pulls back the yoke slowly to nose up for lift off. For Boeing 787-8 the pitch at Vr is about 11.5%. The pilot must pitch up slowly to avoid a tail strike, i.e., the tail hitting the runway. At Vr the liftoff starts.
Positive Rate - This is to confirm the aircraft is actually climbing. The vertical speed indicator  shows a positive rate climb (usually more than 500 fpm). Co-pilot monitoring the instrument calls out "Positive rate". An experienced pilot actually has already sensed he is in positive territory.
Gear up - The pilot calls out "Gear Up' and co-pilot pulls the lever to retract the landing wheels. 
V2 - This is the minimum safe climb speed. This is the speed at which the plane can still takeoff even with only one engine functioning. The co-pilot calls out "V2".

These call outs  are made in the cockpit. The co-pilot monitors the instruments and calls out while the pilot flies the plane. The metrics are different for different planes and computed based on many factors like plane model, weight, weather, etc. These series of call outs occur within 2-4 seconds apart (about 10 knots apart).

The May day call was sent out on local time 15.38.51, outside of this chart. This means it was sent almost immediately after the plane started to descend. All those reports about the May day call received about 36 seconds after takeoff doesn't seem correct. It was more like 3-4 minutes after takeoff and the plane has already started to fall..

The runway issue:
Runway 23 is 3,505m (11,499ft). AI171 backtracked to the runway threshold (start) so it could have a longer takeoff roll. All online expressions of opinions and media talked about the V1 which is in relation to speed. No one talks about V1 in relation to the runway. There must be a safety margin on the runway for the plane to slow down in case of an abort decision. The manufacturer, the airport, and Indian Airlines itself each have their regulatory standards for this safety margin specific to plane model and other variables. The airlines themselves naturally have more stringent standards to play safe. I have no information, so I checked AI bots. That distance depends on who one asks. Considering all variables for a 787-8, ChatGPT says about 500m, Deepseek says generally 700-1,000m, absolute minimum is 500m, and Grok says 550-674m. Let's go with the barest minimum of 500m. 

Based on barest minimum safety margin of 500m, that GPmeans if  AI171 has not reached V1 by the 3,000m mark, it must abort the takeoff. AI171 liftoff at the end of the runway with just a few metres to spare!

This is my educated guess (no one has suggested this):
1. Under normal conditions, a 787-8 should Vr at about the 3,000m mark, leaving 500m safety runway. 
2. The pilot understood from previous flight report the plane has some issues with power, so he needed a long runoff. That's why he backtracked to the threshold. Or the plane had a heavy load and he wanted a longer runoff to play safe. Note - heavy weight is not over-weight..
3. The plane has not achieved V1 at the safety mark of 3,000m. This is the most critical point of the flight. What happened here? The investigation should figure out what happened in the cockpit at this point. Was there a distraction?
4. So at 3,000m the engines did not have the power to provide the thrust needed for rotation (Vr). The pilot took the risk to push the plane a bit more to gain thrust. Past the speed decision point V1, he had no choice but to attempt a takeoff right at the end of the runway. In other words, the plane rotated without reaching the required speed.
5. For the pilot to take the risk to continue at Decision Point 3,000m, it could mean instrument reading must be showing at least it is close to the desired speed so the pilot had confidence to take the risk.

I don't know how far back is the 3,000m mark in terms of time, but looking at the Flightdata chart, let's go back say 3 secs estimated where the 3,000m is, the speed is about 25-50 knots. It would be suicidal not to abort. Depending on load and other variables, a 787-8 should Vr between 135-155 knots. The chart shows the Vr at under 100 knots. The pilot could not have been so reckless. It seems more likely the instruments show a Vr closer to the minimum 135 knots, so he took a risk. It suggests some electronic malfunction.

It is very clear to me the pilot took off on a "Forced Vr". The Vr speed has not been reached but he forced the plane up. Technically, the plane can liftoff. But it is very dangerous with high risk of tail strike and insufficient thrust for an efficient climb for the takeoff. Aviation history has shown several disasters from forced Vr. 

In forced rotation the pilot is anxious for more lift so aggressive pitching (higher angle of attack) is often the case. This leads to distortion of airflow into the engine intakes, causing compressor inefficiency or stall, especially in jets. The engine itself isn’t “strained” mechanically — it’s starved or disturbed aerodynamically. Performance drops, and achieving desired thrust becomes a big problem. 

The AI171 takeoff points to a classic profile of a "marginal liftoff" followed by a performance drop or stall. There was low speed, forced liftoff, and marginal climb. Many experts say video shows a slow takeoff, exactly to be expected from a forced Vr. It made only a marginal climb up to 625 feet, again classic forced Vr. I think the most damning evidence is the first words in the Mayday call. The co-pilot said"Thrust not achieved". It's cryptic - suggesting they did not achieve the required thrust up to that point, confirming a forced Vr. 

The Landing Gear Issue:
By the time the "Gear Up" order was issued, the plane should be about 50 ft off the air. The fact the gear was not up suggests 3 possibilities:

(i) A certain expert Capt Steve explained several possibilities for the crash on the first day. At that time the May day message was not yet known. He leaned towards human error. According to him, when the captain said "Gear Up", the co-pilot mistakenly pulled the lever which retracted the wing flaps. That explains why the wheels were still down. With flaps retracted, the plane losses lift.   
(ii) Hydraulic failure. The wheels could not be retracted. That perhaps explains why the RAT was deployed.( Explained below.)
(iii) My most likely reason - With a forced Vr, the pilot is wary of a tail strike, that's why no "Gear Up" was ordered. Leaving landing gear extended causes drag which slows the climb. So obviously the pilot had to gear up asap. But in a forced Vr liftoff, the cockpit was already in an emergency to maximise lift and thrust.  Gear up was not their focus. They forgot about it.  Cockpit voice record will clarify.

The most likely scenario is (iii). But then this raises the question. It means hydraulic system has not failed. If so, why was RAT deployed? (Explained below)

The wing flap issue:
Flap setting is one of the critical settings in a takeoff because it affects lift. Boeing 787-8 has 8 flap settings. Each setting extends the wing flaps to a certain degree. Flap 20 is for full extension which is used in landing. On takeoff, normally F1aps 5 or Flaps 10 are used.  From the videos, many experts say the flaps were not extended. Actually it is very difficult from the video.

The problem is, if wing flaps were not extended, it is a "Configuration error" for which the 787-8 has several bells and whistles to get the pilot's attention. There is no way for the pilot not to know it when the alarm goes off. This points to 2 possibilities:
(i) There were some logic failures. (Electrical or electronic problems). No alerts were given.
(ii) It could be Flaps 1 was extended which is very minimal so cannot be determined on video. Because a flap was selected, though a wrong one, the system did not send out alerts.

The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) issue:
There is an aviation engineer Jeff Ostroff whose youtube chanel I used to follow. From the very first day, I had seen his video explaining AI171 must have the RAT deployed. That Capt Steve mentioned above had corrected his first video after Ostroff's video three days later. He changed his mind from human error to dual engine fail as confirmed by the May day call. Many caught this RAT thing and started pointing it out on the video. No, I don't think that video showing the plane going down can show the RAT because it is too small. Engineer Jeff Ostroff suggested this from the audio angle.

This is a 2 min clip part of Ostroff's video where he explained the RAT and showed the audio of AI171 and 2 other planes which had RAT deployed. The sound is a mix of jet engine and a propeller plane. The jet engines are still functioning. (Did you catch what I am saying?).

In the case of 787, RAT is auto deployed when (i) some major electrical or hydraulic system failed, or (ii) there was power generator failure. Many experts are pointing to RAT and the Mayday message as ultimate prove it was a case of dual engine failure. There was no engine failure. It was power generation failure. There are not the same thing.

The lone survivor Vishwash Kumar Ramesh said he heard a loud explosion approximately 30 seconds after takeoff. He also said the lights dimmed for a while. Ramesh is an extremely crucial witness here. The sound he heard was RAT being deployed. The lights dimming is usual during a RAT deployment as electrical systems are reset. 30 seconds after takeoff the plane was still in ascend for the next 4 mins. This means the engines were still working when RAT deployed. It means RAT was deployed because there was either (i) hydraulic failure (if gear up order was given and wheels could not be retracted - which we don't know), OR (ii) there was power generation failure which we now know because of Forced Vr and May day call that said "Thrust not achieved".  No one has pointed this out.

RAT does not provide additional power. It only provides electrical and hydraulic systems to support only core services like flight control instruments. However RAT allows pilots to control glide to plane to safety, only if they have altitude. For example in 2001 it allowed Air Transat 236 which lost fuel over the Atlantic, to glide for 19 minutes over 75 nautical miles or 139 km, to land safely in Azores.

The Dual Engine Failure Issue:
Double engine failure in a 787 is extremely rare. That's because they are independently powered and operated, separated physically and systemically, has extreme redundancy built in and fault isolation, subject to strict maintenance standards. The plane was built to be able to fly with one engine in an emergency.

Although extremely rare, dual engine failure is still possible:
1. By fuel contamination - possible.
2. By bird ingestion - it would need a huge flock. Didn't happen. No dead birds found. No sparks from engines.
3. Maintenance error - under investigation.
4. Passing through volcanic ash - didn't happen.
5. Failure of FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) - FADEC is common to both engines. Thus its failure affects both engines.
6. Misconfiguration plus underthrust - 787 is super hitech. Before flying, lots of data are input. If there is a misconfiguration, such as wing flaps retracted, the system warns "Configuration Mismatch". But it can still liftoff safely with minor config errors. But if the config error causes underthrust, then it is very dangerous because it will affect the aviation aerodynamics.

Difference between mechanical engine failure and power generation failure:
Mechanical engine failure - Engine physically damaged, leads to flameout, shutdown or fire. Caused by fan blade loss, compressor stall, bird ingestion, fuel starvation, bearing seizure, etc. Engines produce no thrust and very dangerous. RAT deployment may or may not occur depending on what systems fail  Dual mechanical engine failure is almost impossible.
Power generation failure - Engine still running, but it fails to generate usable electrical or hydraulic power. Caused by electrical bus failures, generator failure, FADEC malfunction, software crash, etc. Engine may still be providing some thrust but not controlled properly. RAT deploys to replace lost electrical power. 

The Mayday message is critical. It said "Thrust not achieved" - implies engines running but underperforming. 

The Maintenance Issues:
The aircraft's insurance coverage was increased recently which is a sign of engine change and other major work. I believe a major scheduled maintenance in April 2025 included an engine change. Investigation is zooming in on technical faults - engine failure, wing flap deployment issues, landing gear malfunctions. It is not known if maintenance included all these.

Other post-maintenance incidents of Air India:
* 2019 - Airbus 320 engine falling off during installation.
* 2008 - Boeing 777 in Mumbai had fuel-leak alerts before takeoff, traced to maintenance shortfalls.
* 2019 - Boeing 777 caught fire in its auxiliary power unit during repairs.
* 2015 - AI619 a technician was killed when his clothes were sucked into a running engine during push back of the plane.
* 1998 - Dornier 228 Crash shortly after takeoff due to horizontal stabiliser actuator failure. Fault - missing hi-hok fasterners.

Post-maintenance incidents of other Indian carriers:
* 2024 - Spicejet took off from Chennai. Returned mid-flight due to tech issues. Landed safely.
* 2023 - IndiGo - plane took off from Delhi. Returned after take-off due to hydraulic system failure.
* 2022 - Hydraulic leak forced one Indigo plane to divert.

Air India has maintenance facilities at Delhi, Mumbai, Nagpur,Hosur, Chennai, Hyderabad, Kolkata and Thiruvanathapuram.

Praful Patel, a former Civil Aviation Minister, questioned why Singapore Airlines, which holds a 25% stake in Air India and is involved in it's maintenance operations, has been "deafeningly silent". He suggested SIA should be held accountable and criticised its lack of public engagement during the crisis. He has even called the silence "suspicious".

SIA is a 25% shareholder in Air India. The two are entirely different legal entities. It is highly inappropriate for SIA to say anything, unless it is the majority owner. Tata is the major shareholder, and it's chairman spoke out in defence of SIA against Patel's comments.

SIA Engineering Co has a 12 year contract signed (2024) with Air India for Inventory Technical Management but for their A320 fleet only. It is currently building a mega MRO base in partnership with Air India. This complex will include widebody and narrowbody hangar along with component repair shops. It marks SIAEC's first maintenance expansion in India in line with Tata-SIA's Airbus orders and fleet growth.

My Personal Opinion:
There was possible config error with wing flaps not properly extended. It was deployed, otherwise warnings would have blasted at the cockpit. It was selection error which bypassed config error detection. Without the proper flap selection, the plane did not have efficient lift. But that is not the cause for the crash.

Either the plane was heavily max out on the load, or there was pre-knowledge of some engine efficiency issues, the pilot backtracks to the threshold of the runway to give more space for runoff to generate the speed needed for takeoff. At 3,000m which should have been the furthest distance on the runway for AI171's Decision Point V1 the Flightdata shows speed of 25-50 knots which is extremely dangerous as 787 needs minimum 135 knots for takeoff. It is mad not to abort. It is possible inherent electrical problems caused instruments to show reading of higher knots, but still not yet 135. So pilot pushes the plane, confident he can hit 135 shortly. He has no choice but to do a forced rotation at the end of the runway with Flightdata showing V1 of about just 100 knots. 

The plane lifts off. What happened seems like a classic case of config mismatch with underthrust. The engines aree running but under performing in power generation, as confirmed by the Mayday call of "Thrust not achieved". So the pilot now has 2 simultaneous issues - not enough thrust from engines, exacerbated by wrong wing flap selection which meant lesser lift.

At liftoff with underthrust, pilot avoids gear up for fear of tail strike. Frantic to gain height, he pitches aggressively, pulling the yoke to the stops and maximising the angle of attack. The already under performing power generator is further strained by a high angle of attack which causes engine wind intake issues that affect the compressors. Dual power generator fails and RAT is automatically and immediately deployed within 30 seconds after liftoff. In a forced liftoff with underthrust, followed by loss of lift due to max angle of attack, and power generation outage, the plane's only hope left is for the RAT to allow it to glide to safety. Unfortunately, there was no altitude for the pilot to play the last card offered by the RAT, so the plane descends in a managed-glide, going down in a controlled manner to its doom.

Lost of power generation is the ultimate factor. It seems the plane could not achieve the thrust for Vr. Investigations may probably lead to maintenance issues. The ultimate fault, however, is pilot error. He was still waiting for Decision Speed V1, but at 3,000m mark on the runway, it was Final Decision Point to ensure a safety margin. He made the decision to continue with the runoff. He made the wrong decision. No two ways about it. However one looks at it, a Forced Rotation is Pilot Error.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.