Much has been made of the release of leaked text messages from the Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrisson. They argue what he did was wrong, but let’s look at this from a different perspective. You pull that type of diplomatic stunt and you get called out – it is that simple. 

Emmanuel Macron called Scott Morrison a liar in an international forum, it was Macron who was shown to be a liar when the text messages were released – it killed Macron dead. We know Macron knew that the submarine deal was going bad – they had been informed. A complex contract has a series of escape clauses if major milestones such as cost, quality, time or safety are not being met. The French were well aware that they were not meeting contract requirements, these concerns had been raised and they still did not rectify these issues. What did they think was going to happen, we would just accept this failure ? Fat chance, we are not accepting this. 

Sure, a deal was being negotiated with American and British counterparts for nuclear propulsion. The situation in the Pacific is deteriorating rapidly, Australia requires a bluewater submarine and the American and British designs meet that criteria. The French consortium was not going to meet the requirements of the program, that was clear and Australia was going to be left without a submarine fleet with any type of capability. This is why contracts with performance clauses are signed, if a supplier fails me meet specifications and is in breach of contract, then the project sponsor has the right to seek rectification, and in extreme cases, the contract is void if repeated non-compliance is recored and not rectified. 

I now spend a fair bit of time thinking about my retirement. Is it on track? How much do I need? I need to include my widowed sister who basically has no retirement savings whatsoever. My father who is over 80 and living off his superannuation since age 55 helps her out. I will need to do the same once his finances are diminished and not able to help out. 

To have a comfortable retirement, you need to not only own property, you need to own the property outright. You had better make sure it is in a good state of repair, you should be making the improvements while you have an income to pay for. There is nothing worse than taking a lump sum out to pay a mortgage down, pay for improvements or undertake large scale purchases such as a vehicle, caravan, camper van or medical expenses. There are requirements where lump sums are needed, they need to be carefully planned and costed. 

I don’t believe the 5-star touring around Europe or the United States is necessarily the answer. However, this is people’s money and they are free to spend it on their choosing. I just hate to see people burn up their retirement money too soon then revert to the age pension before they are ready. Based on the ASFA Retirement Standard benchmarks [2021] a single requires $28,179 for a modest retirement and $44, 244 for a comfortable retirement. A couple requires $41,446 for a modest retirement and $63,799 for a comfortable retirement. 

The reissued Tissot Antimagnétique is a cool timepiece, this is a reissue with modern materials and techniques that improves on the vintage design. Now we can have a sapphire crystal, a display caseback and high tech materials in the movement – great.

Based on modern anti-magnetic capabilities, this timepiece doesn’t meet the current required gauss ratings so the old style name is somewhat misleading. However, this doesn’t matter to me, I really will not be using this timepiece in a capacity that requires this level of anti-magnetic capability. 

I really like the ETA hand-wound movement, with the lack of a winding rotor and display caseback, the movement finish is on display. The ETA 6498-1 has 17 jewels, 46 hour power reserve and a frequency of 2.5 Hz, that is 18,000 vph. The movement is viewed through a display caseback, so I can view the movement when I want – it looks pretty good. 

The Antimagnétique was first issued in 1930, this was the first watch with anti-magnetic capabilities. This beat Rolex, Omega and IWC to the market, pretty impressive really. The Antimagnétique ran until the 1950s, this is around the time the Rolex Milgauss was released so I’m guessing the Antimagnétique was discontinued when newer models were released.

I am not a climate change denier, I do not argue that climate change is not an important issue that needs to be addressed. This is of course an important issue and must not be neglected, however, I believe a more pressing issue is placing our planet in peril, that is plastic pollution.

For me, I believe plastic rubbish pollution of our oceans is a more pressing issue than climate change. The invention of plastic would have to be the worst invention ever, plastic wrapping and packaging comes in almost every item sold. Only a generation back, we had paper grocery bags to bring our groceries home, milk was delivered to our doors in bottles, the bottles were washed out at home, left out on the doorstep, then collected a few days later where they were sanitised and reused.

Now every milk container is plastic or cardboard that goes into landfill, now it is sent to recycling but it is not that easy. Firstly recycling rates are way too low, you still see plastic containers on the side of the road or dumped somewhere. Secondly, plastic recycling is not that cheap, it was previously sent to China or some other developing nation where wages are low with little to no environmental regulations or are enforced.

Even then, I am describing developed nations where rubbish collection is a requirement and corruption is low. Many of these developing nations redirect funds to individual bank accounts, the population have no reliable rubbish collection service and therefore just dump their rubbish on the street or into the waterways. For them, the waterway is the best option as the rains take the rubbish away.

Naturally, this plastic rubbish ends up somewhere and it happens to be in the oceans. The third world is polluting the earth, the corruption that hinders these countries’ development is indirectly affecting our quality of life and the health of the world. Plastic is throughout the ocean, plastic rubbish has now been found in the Mariana Trench, the deepest section of the ocean. It is ingested by marine animals and is killing our oceans.

So what do we need to do? This must be tackled by governments, they require legalisation, the ban of single use plastics is a positive step but this needs to go further. Plastic packaging is a problem, recycling initiatives are required, the refund for bottles and plastic is a start, this makes it viable for kids and sporting/social clubs to collect containers for recycling. Governments need to create an environment that is conducive for investment, they require tax breaks, accelerated depreciation and financial incentives to create technologies to tackle pollution and finally fund public service education initiatives.

Grande Marnier is known as a bit of a mixer, this French orange liqueur has some different characteristics than my other favourite orange liqueur – Cointreau. That being said, I prefer my Grande Marnier neat, at the most, I may consider mixing ice in the glass, but normally not. 

The characters of this orange liqueur blend cognac with orange liqueur to produce a much darker liqueur than Cointreau. With the cognac, they are to compound the intensity of orange liqueur for a robust flavoured liqueur. Grande Marnier is 51% cognac and 49% orange liqueur, for me, this is an after dinner drink whilst Cointreau is more of a pre-dinner drink. I do alternate glasses, one of Cointreau and the next of Grande Marnier, normally in a shot glass. 

Created by Louis-Alexandre Marnier Lapostolle in 1880, he learned to distill from his father who was a wine and spirit merchant. Louis-Alexandre Marnier was a distiller of fruit liqueurs, the distillery is based in Neauphle-le-Château, west of Versailles. The idea of Louis-Alexandre Marnier was to blend French cognac with Caribbean bitter orange, I guess outrageous at the time, now it is seen as a brilliant idea. 

Notable cocktails mixed with Grande Marnier are the Mai Tai, Between the Sheets, the El Presidente, Orange Brûlée and the Cadillac Sidecar. I like my Grande Marnier neat, for my tastes, there is no need to mix it as it is already a blended liqueur, just leave it as is, that is the best blend. Whilst a whiskey glass is used for Grande Marnier on ice, a simple shot glass for sipping is my preferred drink. 

The WAY201S.BA0927 is the TAG Heuer answer to the green watch trend, the WAY201S.BA0927 is the outdated version, I prefer this green version over the newer model. The updated WBP208B.BF0631 has a sandblasted titanium case that looks pretty good, yet I just don’t like the shade of green, the cyclops over the date window and the octagonal index markers.  

For the older version, the bezel is aluminum, not ceramic as one would suspect, the unidirectional bezel is a dive feature, although ironically these timepieces are not really used for diving all that much, so it is not without its criticisms. I do prefer the bezel ring of the newer version, the lugs on the bezel are too sharp for me and a little square edged, but I am perplexed as to why the ceramic bezel is not a feature seeing this has been a feature of this series. 

The 25 jewel movement indicates this is an ETA 2824-2, a good solid movement, the Calibre 5 is a self-winding automatic movement. The caseback is stainless steel, the diver’s helmet is engraved on the caseback obscuring the mostly unfinished automatic movement. Beating at 28,800 vibrations per hour, the 4 Hz automatic movement has a 38 hour power reserve that is what you would expect. 

Would I purchase a green Aquaracer? I may consider if I didn’t already have a blue version. But would I consider instead of the black version instead of the reference WAY201S.BA0927, more than likely as I see the green watch trend as a fad. Every watchmaker is busy producing green watches but I wonder if they will still look great in a decade or will it be so 2021? I am not sure and I am not risking it with such an important purchase.

As an employee in the state government, I am well versed in negotiating from a position of weakness. So what are their tactics? Stalling, erecting roadblocks and creating an environment where every issue is blocked. So ok, you know their strategy, but what do you need to do to counter their strategy? I make sure I have a strategy to counter their strategy, it is the only way. 

I always prepare, I never let them call a snap meeting as they have prepared their strategy and you are on the defensive – they are now setting the narrative. Positioning in the meeting is vital, they will try to intimidate you as you are generally outnumbered, so you need to position yourself in the room where you do not feel intimidated – this isn’t easy.

You always bring a witness, the rule is no witness – no meeting. The agenda is paramount, once again, no agenda – no meeting. If they wish to vary from the agenda, then either the matter is suspended or the meeting closed. The issues need to be addressed, preferably in a logical sequence to create incremental escalation, this generates a series of demands ascending in importance where a dismissive attitude creates stronger demands and stress. 

This is how you control the narrative, this also ensures no surprises where you are on the defensive, they have mapped out their strategy – you need to map out yours. Naturally, your witness is the notetaker and records all facets of the discussion, this unhinges them, they can no longer deny knowledge of an issue. 

There are always meeting minutes, I have found they do not keep minutes so you keep your own. That is the whole purpose of the witness, the more detailed minutes you keep, they can not deny points were not discussed. This is one of their tactics, denial and wearing you down, you make your point and reinforce your point. 

A tried and standard response is this was mentioned or discussed – no longer the case now. The next strategy they employ is a failure to comprehend, they will claim you were not clear and they were unsure what you wanted. You make sure your demands are absolutely clear and concise, once again, I have evolved. I have learnt through doing that you need to ensure you have control of the message and you need to communicate that message.    

The next stage is the follow-up via email, this is where you reinforce the main points of the meeting. This then becomes a defacto forum, if the main points you identified are not challenged, then they are considered discussed. Likewise, if they are challenged, you are not discussing the issues in a communication medium that records the discussion taking place, it is very hard to deny knowledge of the issue afterwards when they reply. 

I work on four major principles:

1. Deal only in facts.
2. Do not get emotional. 
3. Never get personal.
4. Send a clear and concise message. 

Adding to the four major principles, I also allow an escape route in negotiations. The purpose of negotiation is to reach a mutually beneficial position; therefore there is no benefit in constantly attacking a position without offering some form of concession. I offer a position to concede certain aspects of a negotiation and save face should they choose to act in a diligent manner. 

Based on state government management practices to try to always crush an opponent, even when they know they are wrong and in a weak position themselves, their answer is always no. They believe they hold the powerful position, you never allow them to get into a decision-making position where they can just say no, a public sector authority has a mandate to use taxpayer funds in an efficient manner and not engage in misappropriation of government funds.

This is where the principle of incremental escalation is important, if the negotiator takes a purely blocking role, incremental escalation adds to their woes and ultimate failure. You ensure your agenda sequence is set beginning at the simplest and most unimportant issue. This sets the tone, if they are unwilling to even concede such points, the ratcheting up of pressure is to their detriment when you begin to introduce the major points – then you have them.

The Straights Times comments section on Facebook is an absolute circus, this is a free for all, the comments section is dominated by wumao and 50 cent commentators. There are many fake accounts, it is almost surreal. Facebook really has to do better here, this is their platform, they need to manage this better.

However, the moderation from The Straights Times is really negligent here, they are the publisher, they are the corporation creating the content. If a corporation such as an newspaper is unable to moderate comments, then they need to lock the comments section, they have a duty to ensure that their comments section is civil and non-threatening. 

What I have noticed is that the comments nearly always come down to race, if a white person is silly enough to post an opinion there, it is a free for all. Yes, I do read the comments section to try to gauge public opinion, this is the domain of the outspoken and the easily outraged. The Straights Times comments section is full of trolls, these are not highly educated Singaporeans, these are angry nasty people looking to drag people into arguments and slanging matches – this is not discourse. 

The Ukrainian military is doing surprisingly well considering they are hugely outnumbered in terms of personnel, equipment and technology. Putin should have been right, the Russian military should have marched into Kiev and taken the city in quick time. 

The Ukrainian tactics have been sensational, sure, they have suffered losses but for the best part, they have acquitted themselves well. We all know they have been supplied military hardware from major powers such as the US, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Latvia, Finland, Estonia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Austria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Czech Republic, South Korea, Japan, Turkey and Poland to just name a few. 

What I am wondering is what military intelligence they are receiving, they have now received heavy artillery and seem to be doing a fantastic job at targeting. I am guessing NATO and the United States are intercepting Russian communications. What we do know is the Russians brought their own mobile phones into the war, Ukrainian authorities worked this out and just shut down Russian phone numbers from their network.

When the Russians worked this out, they started seizing Ukrainian mobile phones from civilians. Ukrainians have reported these seizures to their telco providers and they now intercept these calls for intelligence purposes, they have an idea of troop movements, troop morale, and even troop numbers. The question is, why are the Russians not taking out Ukraine’s telecommunications? I am guessing they are using the network and need it.      

What is known is that US Air Force and Royal Air Force aircraft are flying close to Ukraine, they are not entering Ukrainian airspace. The RC-135 is apparently the most tracked aircraft on FlightRadar24.com. The US is flying Blackhawk helicopters in Poland, RQ-4 drones [Global Hawk] are entering Ukrainian airspace and loitering around. I am guessing the US, the UK and NATO are providing high value intelligence to Ukraine and they are targeting Russian assets effectively. 

In what was an annoying turn of events, I was held responsible for a client complaint despite no evidence of direct or indirect involvement. This was based on the assumption that I am [apparently] a known troublemaker and the complaint was well articulated and referenced – yeah, really. 

My standard response is to neither confirm nor deny that I had any involvement, this is no admission of guilt, this is a standard response. However, my attitude is – then prove it. They can’t prove it and they know it, so instead, they allowed rumour and innuendo to thrive. So when this run of events began, people started asking me if I was the one who made the report and the chatter out of the offices mentioned me as the protagonist – I needed to act. This was the CCC investigation all over again, this dragged on for over five years for no outcome so I wasn’t doing this again – no way.

Well, actually there was an outcome of sorts, they stated there was no evidence to connect me to the CCC report. So my attitude is, a) I either did it and covered my tracks so well they couldn’t trace it back to me, b) I didn’t make the report, or c) they are so bumbling and incompetent that they couldn’t work it out. Since there has been no apology or resolution, they still think I did it – they just couldn’t pin it on me. So, based on this history, I was feeling threatened, so I took to my blog and brought this out in the open, the management had been irresponsible in allowing rumours to continue and they knew it. 

Now, the obvious answer would be to meet with them and sort this out in a face-to-face meeting. They have trained me through their actions that this is not a successful course of action. They will deny knowledge and erect obstacles and it just goes nowhere. Instead, I have learned that the most effective course of action is to threaten to bring this to a public forum without actually doing so. We both engage in a stalemate and we can both withdraw without conceding a loss. 

A matter such as this is either confidential or it is common knowledge, since it was being discussed out loud in an open plan office, it was common knowledge. They were well aware this was being discussed, they also knew my name was being loosely thrown around as the instigator and I had had enough of it. Since they had been holding me responsible, I could either do nothing and go about my business as usual or I could act decisively. As I already knew my employer had been checking out my social media,  as LinkedIn tells you who has accessed your details – I knew what to do. 

I was aware they were reading my blog and searching my social media, so I posted with the intent of signaling them to back off. They were not going to pull me up for my social media use because, a) my employer will always remain anonymous and I never identify them, and, b) they know I will have a strong case for bullying. Instead, they were notified that I had posted and the office gossip was all about this. It was mentioned to me again that they believed I instigated the report and my post was discussed openly in the office as I could hear the chatter. 

This post was even printed out and left on the main table for all to read. This is only the second time this occurred, the one and only other time was when I reposted from January 2015 When talent leaves and non-performers remain. This was about an unnamed individual [due to workplace bullying] who had successfully left a company and been offered a job as a manager. I reposted in 2019 when she moved into an Area Manager role and a bunch of numpties thought I was writing about them – idiots. 

A quick date check would have informed them otherwise but office gossip doesn’t involve logic. Did I mention they are gossiping idiots that defy logical explanations? Of course I did, that is what they are. I was working in Africa at the time but heard all about it from there, so there is absolutely no chance the management didn’t know and they didn’t shut it down – they encouraged it.

So the management had to come out and eventually make an announcement that a complaint had been made, they reiterated that the complaint was well articulated and referenced. They also stated there had been rumours in the office – well yeah. My post had caused them to act, I knew they were reading my blog and checking through my social media accounts. It blew up for a week, people were not talking to me and it was a cold place to work.

I liken it to throwing fuel on a fire, the fire rapidly consumes the fuel and oxygen and the fire burns out. The other option is the fire slowly burns the fuel and if it is burning, it has the potential to flare up again. So yeah, I know they are reading this. This post is for them so they know exactly what is occurring. They know I won’t identify the organisation, so they can remain calm. I will back off, they can back off, then  we will go back to where we were before.