As usual, we see this kind of good letter published online. Where got people read man ?
they afraid stupid voters to become cleverer next GE.
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Online+Story/STIStory_403096.html
ST Forum > Online Story
Water conservation tax hard to swallow
I REFER to last Saturday's letter ('Need for water conservation tax') by Mr Chan Yoon Kum, assistant chief executive of national water agency PUB, in response to my letter ('Shouldn't we pay less for consuming water?') on July 8.
Mr Chan did not address the crux of my question, which was this: After many decades of conscientiously and successfully pursuing water conservation measures, is it necessary to continue using a hefty pricing mechanism to penalise consumers for some incremental reduction?
What is the ideal limit of water consumption in our hot and humid climate without compromising basic hygiene that would convince the PUB to remove the water conservation tax and waterborne fees?
According to a study in 2003, 'The water issue between Singapore and Malaysia: No solution in sight?', by Dr Lee Poh Onn, a Fellow of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore produced 1.3 million cubic m of water per day. The PUB revealed that by last year, the daily capacity had increased to more than 1.4 million cubic m, of which domestic households consumed half and the rest was sold for commercial revenues.
The report quoted that our raw water processing cost was 25.3 cents per cubic m. Dr Lee summarised the production cost of imported water at 26 cents, Newater at 39 cents and desalination water at 78 cents (exchange rate of S$1 to RM$2.08 in 2003).
By 2011, the PUB will be producing 1.33 million cubic m of water (0.68 million cubic m from catchments, 0.4 million cubic m from desalination and 0.25 million cubic m of Newater).
Based on the 2003 study, the average cost would be 41.5 cents per cubic m. With a 20 per cent increase, the cost is about 50 cents per cubic m.
There is hardly any justification for responsible consumers to pay $2.21 per cubic m of water quoting Mr Chan's example. The water tariff in Johor Baru is 36 cents (90 Malaysian sen), while that in Hong Kong is HK$4.15 (80 Singapore cents) per cubic m.
Is it logical or reasonable for Singaporeans to pay over four times the recovery cost of drinking water - a basic human need?
While it is laudable that Singapore proudly and unselfishly helps solve the water dilemma by sharing its drinking water technology with the world, the country's citizens should also share the benefits of Singapore's water success.
It took us a long time to get to where we are now; where we are self-sufficient with less imported water if needed on a sustainable basis.
Tax revenues and sanitary fees should cover the maintenance cost of the sanitation system. Hence, the water conservation tax and waterborne fees have lost their intended purposes. They can only become an extra burden on citizens.
Paul Chan
they afraid stupid voters to become cleverer next GE.
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Online+Story/STIStory_403096.html
ST Forum > Online Story
Water conservation tax hard to swallow
I REFER to last Saturday's letter ('Need for water conservation tax') by Mr Chan Yoon Kum, assistant chief executive of national water agency PUB, in response to my letter ('Shouldn't we pay less for consuming water?') on July 8.
Mr Chan did not address the crux of my question, which was this: After many decades of conscientiously and successfully pursuing water conservation measures, is it necessary to continue using a hefty pricing mechanism to penalise consumers for some incremental reduction?
What is the ideal limit of water consumption in our hot and humid climate without compromising basic hygiene that would convince the PUB to remove the water conservation tax and waterborne fees?
According to a study in 2003, 'The water issue between Singapore and Malaysia: No solution in sight?', by Dr Lee Poh Onn, a Fellow of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore produced 1.3 million cubic m of water per day. The PUB revealed that by last year, the daily capacity had increased to more than 1.4 million cubic m, of which domestic households consumed half and the rest was sold for commercial revenues.
The report quoted that our raw water processing cost was 25.3 cents per cubic m. Dr Lee summarised the production cost of imported water at 26 cents, Newater at 39 cents and desalination water at 78 cents (exchange rate of S$1 to RM$2.08 in 2003).
By 2011, the PUB will be producing 1.33 million cubic m of water (0.68 million cubic m from catchments, 0.4 million cubic m from desalination and 0.25 million cubic m of Newater).
Based on the 2003 study, the average cost would be 41.5 cents per cubic m. With a 20 per cent increase, the cost is about 50 cents per cubic m.
There is hardly any justification for responsible consumers to pay $2.21 per cubic m of water quoting Mr Chan's example. The water tariff in Johor Baru is 36 cents (90 Malaysian sen), while that in Hong Kong is HK$4.15 (80 Singapore cents) per cubic m.
Is it logical or reasonable for Singaporeans to pay over four times the recovery cost of drinking water - a basic human need?
While it is laudable that Singapore proudly and unselfishly helps solve the water dilemma by sharing its drinking water technology with the world, the country's citizens should also share the benefits of Singapore's water success.
It took us a long time to get to where we are now; where we are self-sufficient with less imported water if needed on a sustainable basis.
Tax revenues and sanitary fees should cover the maintenance cost of the sanitation system. Hence, the water conservation tax and waterborne fees have lost their intended purposes. They can only become an extra burden on citizens.
Paul Chan
