Re: Tru*o*`ng So*n Road ...to Mr. Ca

[vuca@envi.env.civil.saitama-u.ac.jp (Vu Thanh Ca)]

Dear Mr. Nguyen N.

At 11:15 PM 97.5.25 -0500, wind015 wrote:
>Dear Mr. Ca
>
>> Regarding the Truong Son highway, I think the first job we
>> should do is conducting a thourough investigation, analysis,
>> and economic forecast before we start constructing the road. The 
>
>I consider the survey, investigation, analysis .. as part of the
>job therefore, no objection to it. But it should not take forever

I did not say that the survey, investigation, analysis should
take forever :)))). Hope this will answer you. 

>and should not be a pretext to do nothing. Looking coolly at the
>situation, what have they done to these days ? Just the preparation
>of the legislation, sounding out where to get the money (which should
>be part of the preliminary study) and some rhetoric from some guys
>who may be used to the old habit of "va^.n ddo^.ng qua^`n chu'ng".
>Is that some thing that need thorough investigation ?

Anyway, a thorough investigation is the best way for "va^.n ddo^.ng 
qua^`n chu'ng". The method of "va^.n ddo^.ng qua^`n chu'ng" now
should be different from that during the war. If you read the
idea in the article we cited when starting this thread, you will
understand that the ideas in the article are not necessarily the
same as your idea. Hope this help explaining my idea.

>
>I think that you agree with me that Tru*o*`ng So*n Road is very
>important for the future development and the question now
>is WHEN. In my opinion, if we just try to invest to make fast money 
>as you suggested, we will just follow the people like Thailand and
>will be condemned to stay behind them forever. In fact that is what
>they did some ten years ago. The profit should be maximized but
>for more extended period and sometimes, to get a better total profit
>in 20-40 years, we have to sacrifice the profit of first 1-5  years.

This is exactly what I want to say, and in order to do it, we need
a thourough investigation and analysis. Of course, the investigation
should not last for ever :)))). We must based on the analysis to judge
that which project we should start first, and then, which project
should follow.

>
>Five years ago, it was not wise to make an investment with no
>foreseeable profit. But now, the economy is growing at nearly 10%,
>should we make it 10.2% with some few more bugs on investment ?

Remember that we have the 10% with very low base. Say, 10% of
300USD/year. And we are fighting to get money to improve 
education, scientific research, health care system, etc.... . And
remember that WB rank us 7th from the bottom (ask anh Vu Hong Lam
to repost the article about WB ranking). And even we are rich, we 
must think carefully about all projects before started. 

>
>You should also notice that I favor this project as a little extra 
>effort and not a all-out, drop-every-thing-else thing. So to minimize
>the impact on the economy, maybe it is better doing it ...really slow !! 

I am gainst "really slow", but I am also against "Great Leap Forward".
Anyway, I understand that you do not like Great Leap Forward also.

>
>> investigation and analysis should be done right now. And,
>> based on results of the investigation, we can decide what is
>> the right time we should start the construction job. If the young
>> soldiers are free,  there will be a lot of jobs for them to do, 
>> including upgrading and expanding the existing 1A highway, 
>> and many other roads. I must frankly say that the 1A highway 
>> is now terribly damaged at many points.
>
>I did not say that 1A road is good. But the volume of traffic for the
>next couple of years may not yet be too heavy though in 20 years the 
>story may be completely different.  Inmediately we need a better road 
>but not a very wide one and for that, the money is already roled out. 
>By the way, upgrading a road needs more qualified workforces than the 
>young soldiers.
> 
>
>> Regarding the national securirty, if we are dirt poor, we can not
>> defense our country with or without XLTS. Once we are rich, we
>> will be powerful.

>How about the stability ? It could become a security problem right ?
>I don't think that anybody could favor this project if because of it
>we will be poor. When I mention security, I referred to the
>problem of planning, i.e. the network-like or the fish-bone-like
>system of national roads.   

Misconception. I am not saying that we will be poor because
of the project. I do not understand why you say about stability here.
The stability does not have any thing to do with my post. When
I mention about security problem, I want to say about our ability
to defend ourself against foreign force. I do not want to see our
islets are occupied, our war ships are sunk by the foreign force.

>
>As a general note, I do not agree with you about making money as quick
>as possible. This is exactly what the foreign investors have in mind
>when they come to Vietnam. I think that they will be very glad to hear
>your view. 

Again, misconception. The foreign investors want to make money
for THEMSELF, AND WE MAKE MONEY FOR ourself.
Thus, my post has nothing to do with the foreign investors.
Your argument is ver ambiguous. First, you want a fast
development, and then, no fast. 
I think we should do asomething just after a careful evaluation.
We can not afford a risky action, since it will affect not just you
but 75 milions people who are living in VN; and the majority  of 
them are poor. This is the only point I stress in my post regarding
your discussion.


>Unlike them, we have to live in our country for life and
>we have the responsibility to the future. If the circumstance permits,
>we should not think like them although the temptation for fast money 
>and big gold rush is difficult to resist sometime. For this a cool head
>as Mr. Tuan Pham suggested would be more than help.

We should make money with a cool head. This is also my idea. I do
not understand how you can misunderstand me to such an extend :-)).


>
>> Regards,
>
>> Vu Thanh Ca.
>
>
>> Ve^` vo^'n lie^'ng, thu+.c chi se~ cao ho+n du+. toa'n nhie^`u. Cha('c ba'c
>> bie^'t gia' tha`nh ddu+o+`ng da^y 500KV. Kho^'i ngu+o+`i gia`u le^n dda^'y,
>> co`n gia' thi` cao ho+n du+. toa'n qua' nhie^`u.
>
>About the 500kV line, I think that it is difficult to image how the development
>of economy in the South without it. However, when it started, a lot of people
>spoke against it. Now they are talking about the 2nd 500kV line, and I have not
>heard any objection so far.

I do not want to say if I hear any objection or not. I just say about the cost.
Can you prove that I am wrong when say something like the above one.

I almost aggree with Chau and others' posts, even your post regarding this 
thread. Even, I enjoy Chau's post very much. Again, I do not understand how 
you can distort my ideas to the extend as that in your post.

Regards,

Ca.


>
>> Ca.
>
>Nguyen N.