Water conservation tax hard to swallow

July 15, 2009

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

[Lots of facts and figures. Save for reference. Basic flaw in argument: reducing price would encourage water use and water wastage. So prices have to stay at current rate.]

Wealthy and yet unhappy

July 9, 2009
Wealthy and yet unhappy - how come, Singapore?

IT IS disturbing to read that Singapore ranked 49th in the Happy Planet Index 2.0 survey conducted by the New Economics Foundation ('Costa Ricans the 'happiest worldwide'', Monday).

This is even though it was ranked fourth highest per capita income in the world by the International Monetary Fund last year, and third by the World Bank in 2007.

By all counts, we are a materially wealthy nation, so why are Singaporeans not happy with their lot? Singaporeans have access to the best of everything, yet they seem to indicate that they are not happy.

I wonder if this is why we often see grim faces on buses and the MRT. Are Singaporeans stressed out? Do they yearn for more, without finding it? Why are we, as a nation, not as happy as our poorer neighbours like Vietnam, for example, which ranked highest in Asia? Does our education system stress material success over achieving internal peace and happiness?

Curiously, Vietnam, with less material success than Singapore, ranked fifth in the index, and Costa Rica topped the survey.

At the same time, the wealthy and technologically advanced nations we like to emulate, such as the United States and Britain, ranked 114th and 74th respectively, even worse than Singapore. This clearly shows that material success does not guarantee happiness.

It is time that we made an effort to re-establish our priorities, learn to relax, appreciate what we have, smile, and be happy.

Anil Bhatia

July 11, 2009
In this meritocracy, there's no time to smell the roses

I REFER to Thursday's letter by Mr Anil Bhatia, 'Wealthy and yet unhappy - how come, Singapore?'

There is a systemic flaw in our meritocratic system where we strive to be the best in everything, in meeting wants, in careers, in infrastructure. In the process, our human capital is put through various stress tests from a young age until retirement and even the grave.

The young are put to a stress test the minute they start formal education at primary level with homework and remedial classes. School holidays are filled with more lessons, remedial classes and co-curricular activities for upper secondary students. To gain entry to top junior colleges or polytechnics, students must achieve an aggregate score of eight points or less, compared to 10 to 15 points years earlier. How not to be stressed out?

Young adults struggle with work from demanding bosses who expect 24/7 due diligence from employees. Many in this age group struggle to acquire material wealth at the expense of pro-family, procreation activities. Mature workers worry about job security and those who are retrenched often remain chronically unemployed for a long while. Many in this age group (45 to 55) are most vulnerable, with massive expenses to take care of, such as children's education, housing loans, elderly parents' medical bills and retirement expenses. How to be happy?

The elderly are also vulnerable as their children may fall into the mature age group who are either struggling to maintain their livelihoods or unemployed.

With little financial support from their children, many are forced to work as cleaners or do other manual work with their limited skills. Retirees who have exhausted their Central Provident Fund savings are forced to go back to work with limited scope of employment in the current economic climate.

There is hardly any stage in the human cycle where we can slow down and make an effort to smell the roses in society.

Roland Ang

[Read this article:
http://www.helium.com/items/329527-the-link-between-money-and-happiness

High on Per capital Income, low on happiness? Nothing new there. Countries richer than Singapore are ranked unhappier.

However the most unhappy countries are those that are the poorest. When starvation and death are staring you in the face you would be insane to still be happy.

As for why the rich are unhappy, the helium article proposes that the answer lies in the opportunity cost hypothesis; or the spoilt for choice hypothesis.

A rich man simply has more choices open to him than a poor man. However actually making a choice means giving up all the other choices and foregoing the opportunity to enjoy those other choices. Hence the lament of the rich: "I've got nothing to wear!" "There's nothing to do!"

There is also another reason, and that is that happiness is relative. If your neighbour's situation is as bad as yours, you would be less unhappy - The "Everybody's in the same boat" hypothesis.

However if your neighbour is better off, then you realise your lack, and you feel unhappy.

Another possible explanation is that people measure happiness differently in different countries. This is somewhat related to the above. With higher income comes development, comes globalisation, comes news and information, and suddenly your "neighbourhood" extends to the entire developed world or first world. Then you wish your human rights was as good as the US, your social welfare as good as the Netherlands, your industry as innovative as the Japanese, your customer service as good as Hong Kong, your engineering as good as the German.

But if you're puttering around in your little farm in a Costa Rica, with no knowledge of the wider world beyond your island, you'd be happy when the rain comes on time, the wind cools you down, and the sun comes out when you need your harvest to ripen. Your world is smaller, more manageable, and you are more content.

The saying, "ignorance is bliss" applies in these case. The happiest people are those who do not know of other alternatives (or do not care).

So what is the solution for Singapore? Become ignorant? Stop chasing development and the almighty buck?

Or decide that Happiness is over-rated?

Or understand that a Happy Costa Rican may not be comparable to an unhappy Singaporean?

Or understand that happiness = contentment = satisfaction = things stay status quo = no development = no improvement.

And the next time someone makes a stupid simplistic comparison about happiness and wealth, we take him out and shoot him for being an angsty whiny complainy twit?]

Citizen-to-population ratio important for survival

June 23, 2009

I REFER to The Straits Times online article, "Spore's population is 4.84m", on Wednesday.

Judging from the statistics, citizens and permanent residents (PRs) account for 75.3 per cent of the population while citizens account for 65.4 per cent of the population. In other words, for every three residents, there is one foreigner, and for every two citizens, there is one PR/foreigner.

The influx of foreigners has increased significantly since 2005, while the citizen to population ratio has steadily declined. These trends are alarming to me, but first, I would like to say that this letter is not about foreigner bashing.

It is about pursuing sane, sound policies so our society will not become fragile in the face of crisis, and it raises the question: How many foreigners is too much?

I suspect that at the rate we are courting foreigners, our citizens to total population ratio will reach 50:50 very soon, and I am of the view that the current trend must be stopped. There must be a minimum level of citizens to the total population. The question is: How small is too small?

Our strategic vulnerabilities have been well touted. Even in current relative stability, if there is a determined influential force in the region, the situation can turn drastic within six months to a year. In such a situation, we can expect that the PRs and foreigners would return to their home countries, and only the citizens would stay.

If one-third of the population leaves in times of crisis, the remaining two-thirds have to shoulder the burden.

In times of war, if you do not count the national servicemen and those in the civil defence or police force, in essence, we will be left with very little of the population to keep the essential services going.

If the population decreases further, say by 50 per cent, perhaps due to starvation, lack of medical services, a pandemic or poor sanitation, we become very vulnerable. A serious study to determine how many foreigners is too much is in order.

I agree with the reasons to welcome foreigners, but we must do this while maintaining a minimum citizen to population ratio. If, in order to maintain such a ratio, we must compromise economic growth, so be it. It would be better to have a robust infrastructure, than one that cannot be rebuilt - or would take decades to rebuild - after a crisis.

Teo Chun Sang

[MM Lee has said the same, so you can be sure the Govt is aware of the problem. The last thing the Govt wants is the AWARE saga played out on the National and sociological stage.]

Low taxi ridership: Take a look at the surcharges

June 23, 2009

THE Land Transport Authority's letter on Saturday, "3 aims of $1m fund", on its rationale for setting up the fund to promote taxi ridership, reflects its lack of appreciation for the reasons some commuters cut down on their use of taxis.

The recent drop in taxi ridership is perhaps a sign that the various surcharges have resulted in overall taxi fares rising to a level beyond what many commuters are prepared to pay. The situation is not helped by the practice of some errant taxi drivers who park their empty cabs and wait for phone bookings.

Without addressing these concerns among commuters, LTA's intention to fund more campaigns and install more taxi stands at major events will not encourage more commuters to take taxis more often.

Instead of ploughing public funds into promoting taxi ridership, LTA should encourage taxi companies to react to market forces and reduce the various surcharges, and start clamping down on bad practices which distort the supply of available taxis on the road.

LTA should also consult consumer bodies such as the Consumers Association of Singapore to get a sense of consumer sentiment and ensure that its future policies continue to be relevant and representative of the needs of all stakeholders in the market.

Liew Chin Wen

[Incoherent letter. On the one hand, he acknowledges that there are some taxi drivers who will wait for phone bookings. On the other hand, he claims that surcharges are too high. Phone bookings come with booking charge. Taxi drivers like that. People obviously are willing to pay for that otherwise the drivers will wait in vain.

And obviously the writer has not read the LTA's explanation carefully. The infrastructure is aimed at supporting major events, so it is irrelevant to general taxi ridership. As for the campaigns, these would be Taxi companies' initiative and LTA will fund up to 1/3 of the costs - presumably on approval. The other part is to improve service and training.

It is not clear from LTA's letter if the fund is actually called "fund to raise taxi ridership", but based on its objectives, it should be called, "fund to improve Taxi Service".

As for low ridership, I don't think there is low ridership. Taxi drivers may have fewer passengers than before the last fare increase, but their income has not suffered according to some survey. This is good for the taxi driver.

Another "let me use the issue of the day to push for my own agenda, which is basically getting things cheaper or better still, free" letter. ]

Lift three-quarter tank rule to send positive signal to KL

June 19, 2009

I AM encouraged to see the recent renewal of strong ties between Singapore and Malaysia. With Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak's visit to Singapore, and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's reciprocal visit to many parts of Malaysia, I sense a genuine desire to establish new levels of diplomatic relations and economic ties.

I strongly support MM Lee's call for cooperation between the two governments to be wide-ranging, consistent and stable. Such a level of solidarity cannot be achieved overnight, and may even take years. Both governments should try to take the initiative, and not wait for the other side to start. They could work on things that are relatively easy to implement, which will yield results of mutual benefit.

As a sign of our sincerity in achieving stronger ties, I urge Singapore to take the lead. In line with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's call to shun protectionism and embrace free trade (especially among Asean member countries), I wonder if we could lift the three-quarter petrol tank rule now.

I believe the timing is right for this decision. It would send a positive signal to the Malaysian government. I also believe many Singaporeans would welcome this decision.

Danny Lee

[Many online comments savaged this letter-writer. Glad to see Singaporeans can be critical and intelligent. Some of the comments included, lifting the rule would mean more Singaporeans taking advantaged of subsidised fuel in M'sia - which would irk the M'sians more. Enterprising Singaporeans will fit additional or larger fuel tanks in the car. Or even bring jerry cans to top up. The cynical noted that the Govt would not allow a drain on their coffers (petrol tax).

In any case, the whole point of the 3/4 tank rule was mainly to support the tax policy to disincentivise car usage. It therefore does not make sense to remove the rule now, when the policy to discourage car use is still in place.

A side effect of lifting the rule, would be that jams to JB will increase even more.

And in any case, the whole cooperative mood has been dashed by the Johor Sultan rejecting a third link and the UMNO Youth chief rejecting any possibility of selling sand to Singapore.]

Make Causeway crossing akin to Changi Airport experience

June 3, 2009

I HAD an unpleasant and uncomfortable experience driving from Singapore to Johor Baru, via the Woodlands Checkpoint, last Saturday.

I just could not believe that this could happen in Singapore, after experiencing so many pleasant and smooth journeys through the beautifully organised and well-managed terminals at Changi Airport.

I left my home in Upper Changi and arrived close to the Woodlands Checkpoint in 30 minutes - a smooth and beautiful drive.

Then the shock.

A traffic snarl formed about 1.6km from the checkpoint. There were about four to five lanes converging into two as we neared the checkpoint.

There were no road signs giving advance warning about converging lanes, resulting in the criss-crossing of vehicles dangerously fighting for space and squeezing into lanes.

As darkness approached, the lighting was inadequate and road signs became difficult to read.

Upon approaching the line of immigration booths, I could not believe the concrete jungle of a checkpoint, with insufficient greenery and no decorative features, so very different from the scene at Changi Airport's terminals.

Immigration staff were also very different in personality and attitude from those at the airport terminals.

When it came time to pay the car exit fees, I had to remove the CashCard from the in-vehicle unit and insert it into a slot in order for the barrier to be lifted.

It took 90 minutes to cross the Singapore checkpoint and get on the Causeway, and another hour thereafter to arrive at and clear the immigration and customs counters at JB. The return journey was a little less unpleasant, but it also took 90 minutes in all. We spent six hours on the road that evening to attend a two-hour wedding function in JB.

I am confident that creative short-term solutions can be worked out on the Singapore side to enhance public safety and convenience, shorten waiting times and make visitor travel so much more comfortable and pleasant.

For the medium to longer term, a possible integration of systems and processes may be explored for the mutual benefit of all travellers and staff on both sides of the Causeway. Let us try to make this border crossing an experience similar to that at Changi.

Amarjit S. Wasan

[The land crossing is a different class of experience and I hope that the wishes in this letter may come to pass. But I think there are severe constraints on these wishes. Most of the smuggling are via the land crossing, and so is the drug trafficking. At the same time there isn't a lot of revenue from the causeway operations as compared to the Airport (with airport tax etc). So this is a problem of money.]

Don't let traditions and festivals vanish

June 3, 2009

I AM in my late teens and am upset that many youth these days take various customs and festivals lightly.

Festivals under the lunar calendar, such as the Hungry Ghost Festival and Mid-Autumn Festival, go unnoticed by youth. Some do not even know their history.

In the past, people would pray to the deceased throughout the month during the Hungry Ghost Festival. There would also be getai performances.

But times have changed and youth do not bother to carry on the tradition. They also do not support getai performances.

During the Mid-Autumn and Dragon Boat Festivals, they know only that it is time to eat mooncakes and dumplings. A few days before the Dragon Boat Festival, I overheard a group of secondary school students saying: "There's no need to celebrate such things. We are not in China. Just eat dumplings."

With such a mindset, I fear that Singapore's youth will not only lose their traditional beliefs, but also forget the history and significance of such festivals.

My suggestion is to have exhibitions at various locations in Singapore where youth hang out.

The Education Ministry should promote such traditions in schools. If not, in a decade's time, such activities and traditions will be wiped out from the lives of Singaporeans.

Tan Shao Ken

[I just wanted to comment that Singapore and "nan yang" Chinese probably have a better grasp of traditions and customs, especially those with religious or semi-religious overtones. The Communist cultural revolution and a disdain for religion under the communist regime meant that many of these traditions were suppressed.

As with all traditions, the importance and the meaning will evolve with the times.]