Tag: water supply

  • Singapore’s Water Journey Is Far From Over

    Singapore’s Water Journey Is Far From Over

    On a stretch of reclaimed land in Tuas, a water factory is taking shape. Singapore’s third desalination plant, expected to be ready later this year, is one of several infrastructure projects in the pipeline to ensure a nation surrounded by water has enough to meet its needs.

    At two older plants nearby, sea water is already filtered and passed through membranes to remove dissolved salts and minerals, as part of a process to get water fit to drink.

    Singapore’s fourth national tap – desalinated water – is part of a long, and often little-heard, story of this nation’s quest for self-sufficiency in man’s most valuable resource.

    Tap one: Catchment areas were expanded, and new storm drains and reservoirs built over the years.

    Tap two: Imported water, made possible through two agreements with Malaysia that Singapore leaders made sure were guaranteed in the 1965 Separation Agreement.

    Tap three: Newater – high-grade recycled water – launched in 2003 with two plants in Bedok and Kranji. Three more have since opened.

    Tap four was turned on in 2005, with the opening of SingSpring desalination plant in Tuas made possible by advances in technology.

    Today, Newater meets up to 40 per cent of Singapore’s water demand and desalination 25 per cent.

    And plans are under way to boost capacity so both meet 55 per cent and 30 per cent of water needs respectively by 2060, before the second water agreement expires.

    But the cost of operating and maintaining the water system has risen over the years, prompting the Government to review the price of water – and raise it by 30 per cent over two phases, this July and next.

    It is the first price hike in 17 years.

    The previous hike, phased in from 1997 to 2000, saw tariffs go up by 20 per cent to 100 per cent on a scale depending on usage.

    Costs have gone up sharply since then. Last month, national water agency PUB said it cost about $500 million to run the system in 2000. By 2015, this had risen to $1.3 billion. This includes collecting used water, treating water, producing Newater and desalination, as well as maintaining water pipelines.

    As Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat and Environment and Water Resources Minister Masagos Zulkifli reminded Parliament this month, the cornerstone of Singapore’s water policy is the pricing of water on sound economic principles to reflect what is called its Long Run Marginal Cost (LRMC).

    This reflects the cost of supplying the next available drop of water, which is likely to come from Newater and desalination plants, and enabling investments in such plants.

    Mr Masagos noted the first-year price of the first desalination plant, SingSpring, which opened in 2005, was 78 cents per cubic m. By comparison, the first-year price of the latest plant in Marina East, set to open in 2020, is $1.08 per cubic m – an increase of some 40 per cent.

    “It is only through right pricing that we can have everyone valuing water as a strategic resource and consciously conserving it,” he said.

    Understandably, the price hike generated much discussion on the ground, prompting ministers to point out that, in reality, most businesses will see a rise of less than $1 a day, and for most households, a jump of less than $12 a month.

    And at the start of a month-long water conservation campaign, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean pointed out that a 330ml bottle of water costing $1 from a supermarket will pay for 1,000 bottles of clean water from the tap after the full price rise.

    It is a price comparable to that in major cities in developed countries with large rivers to draw from. It is also a price that makes possible considerable investments in the future.

    The years from 2000 to 2015 saw $7 billion invested in water infrastructure – or $430 million a year. PUB expects this to almost double to $800 million every year from this year to 2021, to fund major investments in strengthening the third and fourth taps, and build and repair pipes and pumps. There are also higher costs of manpower, materials and chemicals, and more difficult and expensive developments needed, such as having to dig deeper underground to lay pipelines.

    Less noticed but equally crucial to water management are several intangible aspects of Singapore’s approach to water.

    One is minimising leakage. Only 5 per cent of treated water in Singapore is lost through leakages – a figure bested by Tokyo but ahead of the United States and Hong Kong.

    Some developing cities can lose as much as 60 per cent of their water through leaks, notes water expert Asit Biswas at the National University of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.

    Another not-so-visible reward of Singapore’s meticulous water planning is that two-thirds of the country serves as a catchment area for drinking water supply, among the highest in the world.

    Furthermore, the price of water enables not just the production and delivery of potable water, but also the treatment of sewage and industrial waste water so it can safely go back into the environment.

    One fact not often appreciated is that Singapore has separate systems for drainage and sewage, a more efficient set-up than a system in which everything flows into sewage, such as in London.

    PUB said sudden surges of water caused by stormwater flowing through a combined system will reduce the effectiveness of the microorganisms used for biological treatment in water reclamation plants.

    A Deep Tunnel Sewerage System is also being built to collect, treat, reclaim and dispose of used water from industries, homes and businesses, that will feed into a water reclamation plant and Newater factory, and should be ready by 2025.

    This determination to make every last drop of water matter has seen other countries wanting to learn from Singapore’s experience, and spawned opportunities for home-grown water companies.

    In California, water managers are adapting a technology refined in Singapore – the membrane bioreactor – to treat industrial waste water and use the treated water to directly replenish the water-stressed state’s freshwater aquifers instead of discharging it into the sea.

    They are doing this with the help of international environmental engineering company CH2M, which is designing the new Tuas Water Reclamation Plant. The membrane bioreactor combines filtration with biological breakdown of organic matter by microorganisms.

    Said Mr Peter Nicol, CH2M’s senior vice-president and global director of water: “Singapore has identified the areas it would like to see improvement in, and put challenges out to the private sector to come and work with them aggressively on piloting technologies full-scale. It then shares that information with the global water market.”

    Even as Singapore builds a robust, diversified water supply across its national taps, a key complementary strategy has been to drive home the importance of conserving water. Public education has seen results: Between 2003 and 2015, households cut their water use per person per day from 165 litres to 151 litres. The PUB’s long-term goal is to see this lowered to 140 litres by 2030.

    Observers say there are several cities from whose books Singapore could take a leaf from in the “softer” side of water conservation. In Sao Paulo, which experienced a drought from 2014 to 2015, water use fell 30 per cent in a year, helped by discounts given to people who reduced consumption. Prof Biswas says Singapore could benefit from such financial incentives for reducing water use. “Sao Paulo is growing much faster than Singapore,” he says. “The government went to the people saying: ‘Look, we cannot solve the problem until you change your behaviour.’ People realised water was becoming scarce and they had to do something,” he said.

    Namibia’s capital Windhoek has another lesson. Situated in an arid climate with frequent droughts, it has been treating its waste water and putting it directly back into taps, because it has no other choice.

    CHANGING BEHAVIOUR

    There are other ways to encourage people to value water more and use less of it, such as having multiple tiers in water charging.

    Singapore has a two-tier system of domestic potable water tariffs, with one price per cubic m for the first 40 cubic m and a higher price for anything beyond. PUB says the 40 cubic m limit meets most needs as 94 per cent of households consume less than that volume every month.

    Therein lies the problem, says Prof Biswas, as most people won’t feel the pain of the more expensive tier. He feels the first tier should be much lower in consumption, closer to the reasonable water use expected of an average household, and usage beyond that split into three more tiers to penalise high water usage. “You can use more water, but you have to pay more for it. Society does not owe you as much water as you want,” he says.

    However, PUB said properly multi-tiering the water tariff would require a complicated system to accurately determine the number of people per household and how it changes over time. It would also mean applying different thresholds for different household sizes and this would raise costs, it added.

    One thing is clear: Singapore should not go the way of others and underprice water. Observers cite how India, for instance, has difficulty developing water infrastructure, or Qatar has a hard time cutting consumption as water is free for locals.

    Mr Subbu Kanakasabapathy, CH2M’s regional managing director for the Asia-Pacific, says this has resulted in the poor paying more for water in India than if it were priced properly, because they are forced to buy water at a high price from private water trucks.

    The unreliable water supply also compromises health.

    Which is why Prof Biswas feels if Singapore adds a fifth national tap, it should be a very different kind of tap from the first four – to reduce demand for water, rather than increasing supply as civilisations have been doing for centuries. It can be done, as others have shown.

    The World Health Organisation says only 50 to 100 litres of water are needed per person per day for basic needs. If Singapore cuts its per capita daily consumption from the current 148 litres to 100 litres, it would save 240 million litres every day for a population of five million.

    “Technology is not going to solve our problems as it did in the past. The next breakthrough has to come from the behavioural sciences. The water industry needs more psychologists and behavioural economists,” said Prof Biswas. “We have to try everything.”

    In a primer on water in the Singapore Chronicles series published last year, PUB chairman Tan Gee Paw notes that two big challenges of water management Singapore is likely to face in future are climate change and complacency.

    “In less than a lifetime, Singapore’s efforts at water management have come a long way,” he wrote. “It is the enduring legacy of a small, dry island that such efforts remain unceasing, unrelenting and ever more vigilant.”

    The attention water has had in the headlines in recent weeks is thus a reminder that Singapore’s water journey is far from over, even as it works towards self-sufficiency before the end of the water agreement in 2061.

     

    Source: ST

  • Singapore Can Re-enter Federation of Malaysia to Dilute Malay Race

    malaysia-and-singapore-flags

    Credit: Reuters
    Credit: Reuters

    KUALA LUMPUR: Bumiputera must unite under Umno to stem the rise of opposition party DAP, an Utusan Malaysia columnist wrote today, warning that Singapore could still possibly re-enter the Federation of Malaysia to dilute the community’s majority among the races.

    Cautioning the Malay youth not to be sold on the notions of liberalism espoused by the opposition, Datuk Ahmad Faris Abdul Halim said the country’s largest ethnic group was not certain to always maintain its numerical superiority over the other races.

    He claimed that Article 2(A) of the Federal Constitution allows the inclusion of new states into the federation with a two-third majority vote in Parliament, which he said could open the door for Singapore to re-join the federation that expelled in 1965.

    “If this happens — bolstered by the recent statement by Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew who repeatedly said it was not impossible for Singapore to re-unite with Malaysia under certain conditions — then imagine the ‘implications’ of Singapore with its 87 parliamentary seats,” he said.

    “Therefore, Singapore’s 87 seats included into our country’s 222 parliamentary seats. What would happen to the Malays?”

    Ahmad Faris said this would be the easiest way for a combination of DAP and Singapore’s ruling PAP to dominate the opposition bench here, given the former party’s existing 38 federal seats.

    He also alluded to the increasing dissent from the country’s non-Bumiputera community towards Article 153 of the Constitution and contention against Islam’s position as the religion of the federation.

    Article 153 specifies preferential quotas for the Bumiputera community in the areas of scholarship, education, and civil service.

    He also alleged that the non-Malay community were so strong in their racial culture that they have managed to control nearly 68 per cent of the country’s riches, but he did not elaborate what he meant by the “riches” nor did he state how culture facilitate this purported domination.

    The self-described current issues analyst then said the entire Bumiputera community should unite together with Umno — even if they did not all share the same religion — to demand for their rights as prescribed under Article 153, saying this would cow others from making claims on these.

    Umno, in turn, must adopt the tough measures introduced under former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, and take the lead in defending Islam, the monarchy, and the Malays.

    Singapore joined Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak in 1963 to form what is now known as the Federation of Malaysia, but was expelled in 1965 after a tumultuous period that witnessed large scale race riots in the republic the year before.

    In Election 2013, the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) suffered its worst electoral performance when it managed to win 133 spots in the 222-seat Parliament and lost the popular vote to the opposition Pakatan Rakyat pact.

    Although the rest of BN lost further ground from the previous nadir of Election 2008, Umno grew more dominant as a result of the backing it received from the mostly-Malay rural areas of the country.

    Since then, the party has come under increasing pressure to reward the community and ensure its continued support as the bedrock for the party’s revival or survival in the next general election.

    Source: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/singapore-could-rejoin-malaysia-to-dilute-malay-rule-utusan-columnist-claim

    letters to R1C banner

     

    YOUTUBE: youtube.com/user/rilek1corner

    FACEBOOK: facebook.com/rilek1corner

    TWITTER: twitter.com/Rilek1Corner

    WEBSITE: rilek1corner.com

    EMAIL: [email protected]

    FEEDBACK: rilek1corner.com/hubungir1c/

  • Malaysian Commando Intrusion Into Singapore Missile Complex?

    commando_69_malaysia_1

    THE STALLED WATER TALKS BETWEEN Malaysia and Singapore can now restart only with a meeting of the two Prime Ministers. The two negotiating teams cannot overcome the impasse, for one does not understand the other and the other only too well. For the talks to resume, Singapore must ask for it. But she would not without some guarantees from Malaysia. Singapore botched the talks, in the Malay mind, when she revealed confidential documents in an unresolved issue. And proved she would in future in a regional dispute when she published confidential correspondence between Singapore and Indonesia over trade statistics. Singapore insists the letter of the law must be honoured.

    Malaysia has now released a series of advertisements putting her case public for Singapore to rebut when, if, talks resume. The National Economic Action Council (NEAC) placed the advertisements but behind it is the Prime Minister, Dato’ Seri Mahathir Mohamed’s deft hand. It is brilliant. It tells Singapore what she must resolve before an amicable settlement. It is also pointless. Malaysia need not have to make its case public. For Singapore is painted into a corner. It is all but impossible for the talks to resume until the two Prime Ministers, Dr Mahathir and Mr Goh Chok Tong, meet in Putra Jaya. Both Malaysia and Singapore know this. But Dr Mahathir is on his way out, and it would be Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who would in his place. Would Singapore allow it or send in the deputy prime minister instead? More than the water talks, Dr Mahathir has raised the spectre of, to use the current buzz-word, regime change in Singapore.

    Singapore ignores the historical past. Why did Malaya, as she then was, agree to three cents (the sen came later) per 1,000 gallons in the agreements of 1961 and 1962? Johore had wanted a far higher price, but Singapore was making its case to join Malaysia, and the then Prime Minister, Tengku Abdul Rahman Putra, decided that since the two states would be in the newly formed Malaysia, there was no need for the island state to pay too high a price. But Singapore left the Malaysian federation two years later in 1965. The agreement provides for a review after 25 years, and when the purchasing value of the dollar declines. Singapore does not accept this. She did not in 1986 and 1987, and that was unravelled only when the then Singapore prime minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, came to pay, in the Malay mind, homage to Dr Mahathir. That is how it is view here. Nothing can erase that.

    Singapore goes for broke in talks when there is political uncertainty in Malaysia. In 1986 and 1987, Dr Mahathir was fighting for his political life. UMNO had been declared an unlawful political organisation by the courts, and few concentrated their attention on the water talks. It is an issue now when there would be a new Prime Minister of Malaysia in three months. And stumbled in both because the Malays close ranks when there is an external threat like this, when an outsider tries to take advantage of internal mayhem. If anything, the new Prime Minister, Dato’ Seri Abdullah, must, indeed would, be unbendable in the water talks.

    Malaysia has over the years created an efficient smokescreen with a number of pointless issues, which Singapore saw as proof of Kuala Lumpur’s perfidy. The second bridge, the needless quarrel over the CIQ, the railway land, and others were brought out for the end game. At first I wondered why but it was a deliberate plan of Dr Mahathir’s to seize the advantage in Malaysia’s favour. He has. It would not be easy for Singapore under his successor, or the successor of his successor, to reach agreement without the two prime ministers meeting.

    In the next stage in the talks, over raising the price Singapore pays for water, a similar deadlock has occurred: the Singaporeans insist on its pound of flesh and it is not agreed presses for a public humiliation of Malaysia. All that matters in Singapore is the present, devoid of the historical past, framed in graphs and pie charts. And she cannot understand a Malaysia, for all its commitment to a technological future, is still mired in a cultural and religious mindset. In Malaysia, there is an acceptance that nations, no matter how powerful, blunder through, and that must be taken into account in every matter. Especially in talks.

    Singapore does not understand or accept this. Which is why a think tank in the republic holds a seminar next month on the Malay mind, with two prominent Malaysians, neither Malay, leading it in an attempt find an instant answer. Could cultural forms be understood and learnt at seminars like this if the national mood is to drag the other side’s nose to the ground? When Singapore positions itself, with Israeli help, as a Chinese island in a hostile Malay sea, as Israel in the Middle East, and believes its military might could flatten its neighbours armed might at the onset of hostilities, and conducts its talks with its neighbours as it does, is it not inevitable that many in Malaysia believe that this issue must result in open hostilities? Especially when it was Singapore that began the military arms race with Malaysia when she bought tanks in the late 1960s. And continue to taunt the Malaysian armed forces by her military aircraft straying deep into Trengganu and Kelantan and back into international waters when the RMAF jets scramble from Kuantan.

    Malaysia has quietly shown Singapore over how weak her security is. She has slapped the Singapore armed forces in ways that caused it to come unstuck. The most dramatic was when its commandos invaded its high security air missiles base in Bukit Batok overlooking the Straits of Johore and pasted Malaysian stamps on the missiles and replaced the Singapore flag on the commanding officer’s table with the Malaysian flag. Several Singapore officers resigned or were reassigned or demoted. The major who carried it out, who is known by his nickname, Sam, is still around and in the business.

    Malaysia believes this tough talk on water is to force the issue to be resolved on the battlefield. A book on Singapore’s armed forces suggest it as a way of reinforcing its own security and ensuring the republic gets all the water she needs. When Jordan said she would divert a river from the Lake Galilee for agricultura, Israel warned Amman that would be a cause for war. Malaysian defence planners say that its armoury is outclassed by Singapore’s. But the Malaysian fighting machine after the war is not. Besides, neither Israel nor the United States would rush to Singapore’s aid should hostilities break out. Not after the quagmire of one in the Middle East and engaging another Muslim nation of the other. As one military planner asked: “Would Singapore cut its nose to spite Malaysia’s face? For should war break out. Singapore would be destroyed no matter what happens. Is that the brinkmanship it displays?” The talks are preferable, but it is Singapore which must ask for it.

    Source: http://militaryofmalaysia.net/2008/12/komando-malaysia-intrusion-into-singapore-missile-complex/

     

    EDITOR’S NOTE

    Sometimes, we cannot help but wonder why our neighbours are so mean to this tiny island when we have been very helpful and friendly. Just look at what we did for the Malaysians during the MH370 plane disappearance. We were the first few countries to help. That’s what neighbours are for, we look out for each other.

    This sounds like a nice ‘scary story telling’ session by the Malaysians. But Singaporeans should not take this ‘story’ lightly.

    Hope MINDEF can clarify this matter. This is very serious.

     

     

    letters to R1C banner