<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Shouldn't we pay less for consuming water?
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->LAST Thursday's report, 'Forget bottled water, tap water as good as it gets' by Professor Tommy Koh and Ms Leong Ching missed an opportunity to discuss the fair price for water consumption.
While I agree that Singaporeans wasted $98.3 million on bottled water (the cost of plastic bottles and the bottling process) in 2007, and that the quality of bottled water may not be as good as that of tap water, I am not convinced that the true cost of one cubic m of water is $1.17.
In fact, the total price consumers pay is $1.93 after factoring in fees and taxes such as the 30 per cent water conservation fee, 28.03 cent waterborne fee and the 7 per cent goods and services tax.
So, we are paying 76 cents - or 65 per cent - more than the listed tariff. A household consuming 35 cubic m a month pays $67.55 for water.
My question is whether Singaporeans are now paying too much for water with the advent of four national taps - local catchment water, imported water, Newater and desalinated water.
Singapore's average daily consumption of 156 litres compares favourably with other First World nations; in fact, it is an excellent achievement given our hot and humid climate. We compare well with Australia (155 litres) and Britain (157 litres), and are far better than Norway (198 litres), Canada (510 litres) and the United States (1,415 litres). Singaporeans have done well to conserve water. Obviously, we should try and further reduce usage to match the Dutch at 140 litres.
Looking at the production cost of potable water, Canada scores the lowest at 40 US cents (58 Singapore cents), while Germany tops the scale at US$1.80 per cubic m. Between 40 US cents and 70 US cents are countries such as the US, Canada, Spain, Australia, Sweden, Ireland, Finland and Italy.
With Singapore's advanced technology to reclaim water by the process of reverse osmosis, the cost has been brought down to about 50 cents per cubic m. A price breaker compared with the reverse osmosis process of the West at about 62 US cents per cubic m.
Now that we are at the forefront of potable water technology and self-sufficient in water supply, national water agency PUB should consider removing the 30 per cent water conservation fee and waterborne fee of 28 cents.
After decades of faithfully serving the national water conservation cause, Singaporeans deserve to start enjoying the benefits of their conscientiousness.
Paul Chan
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->LAST Thursday's report, 'Forget bottled water, tap water as good as it gets' by Professor Tommy Koh and Ms Leong Ching missed an opportunity to discuss the fair price for water consumption.
While I agree that Singaporeans wasted $98.3 million on bottled water (the cost of plastic bottles and the bottling process) in 2007, and that the quality of bottled water may not be as good as that of tap water, I am not convinced that the true cost of one cubic m of water is $1.17.
In fact, the total price consumers pay is $1.93 after factoring in fees and taxes such as the 30 per cent water conservation fee, 28.03 cent waterborne fee and the 7 per cent goods and services tax.
So, we are paying 76 cents - or 65 per cent - more than the listed tariff. A household consuming 35 cubic m a month pays $67.55 for water.
My question is whether Singaporeans are now paying too much for water with the advent of four national taps - local catchment water, imported water, Newater and desalinated water.
Singapore's average daily consumption of 156 litres compares favourably with other First World nations; in fact, it is an excellent achievement given our hot and humid climate. We compare well with Australia (155 litres) and Britain (157 litres), and are far better than Norway (198 litres), Canada (510 litres) and the United States (1,415 litres). Singaporeans have done well to conserve water. Obviously, we should try and further reduce usage to match the Dutch at 140 litres.
Looking at the production cost of potable water, Canada scores the lowest at 40 US cents (58 Singapore cents), while Germany tops the scale at US$1.80 per cubic m. Between 40 US cents and 70 US cents are countries such as the US, Canada, Spain, Australia, Sweden, Ireland, Finland and Italy.
With Singapore's advanced technology to reclaim water by the process of reverse osmosis, the cost has been brought down to about 50 cents per cubic m. A price breaker compared with the reverse osmosis process of the West at about 62 US cents per cubic m.
Now that we are at the forefront of potable water technology and self-sufficient in water supply, national water agency PUB should consider removing the 30 per cent water conservation fee and waterborne fee of 28 cents.
After decades of faithfully serving the national water conservation cause, Singaporeans deserve to start enjoying the benefits of their conscientiousness.
Paul Chan
Not happy ah? Drink your own urine lah! *chey*
