Why is the cost of producing water never ever disclosed?
Protected July 8th, 2018 | Author: Contributions
I refer to the article “PUB focuses on squeezing more value out of each drop of clean water produced” (Straits Times, Jul 4).
It states that “A significant chunk of the $435 million that has gone into water research and development (R&D) here has gone into making water treatment processes less of a drain on electricity.
But both these water treatment methods require plenty of energy. Between five and 17 times more electricity than that used to treat rainwater is needed to produce water through desalination or treatment of used water. The latter also produces sludge, which is ultimately landfilled.”
As to “PUB said that meeting future water demand with today’s technology will see PUB’s electricity requirement go up four times to 4,000 GWh a year, with the amount of sludge generated doubling to 600,000 tonnes a year by 2060.
“It’s thus more sensible to invest in making these taps more efficient and cheaper for both domestic and commercial water users here” – why is it that arguably, a very significant piece of information may be missing – what is the cost of producing water and what are the financials?
When the 30 per cent increase in the price of water was announced in Parliament last year – there was also no financial information, like cost, revenue, profits, etc.
Leong Sze Hian
continue reading here :
MOE to collect $8-10 million a year from car parking charges
By Jewel Stolarchuk -
July 9, 2018
In responding to Mr Leon Perera’s question, the Education Minister revealed that his Ministry expects to collect $8-10 million a year from car parking charges.
Mr Perera a non constituency member of parliament asked the Minister for Education what is the estimated annual revenue that will be derived from the imposition of parking fees for teachers in schools.
The Minister, Mr Ong Ye Kung responded in writing saying:
“The estimated revenue from car park charges collected by our 360 primary schools, secondary schools and junior colleges is estimated to be $8-10 million a year. The revenue will be retained by the schools.”
A huge public uproar ensued after Ministry of Education (MOE) reviewed its carpark policy for schools. With the review, teachers at all national schools and junior colleges will have to pay when they park their vehicles on the school premises starting from 1 August.
To park in uncovered lots, teachers will have to pay for $75 a month during the school term and $15 a month during the school holidays in June, November and December. While, those who wish to park in sheltered lots, have to pay for $100 a month during the school term and $20 a month during school holidays.
For motorcyclists, they will have to pay $13 a month at uncovered carparks during school term and $2 during school holidays. While they have to $14 during school term and $3 during school holidays to be able to park their vehicle in sheltered carpark.
continue reading here :
Workers’ Party takes down ‘misleading’ video which impllied PUB had S$5.3b surplus
09 Jul 2018 10:46PM (Updated: 10 Jul 2018 10:25AM)
SINGAPORE: The Workers’ Party (WP) has taken down an online video which it said had given the impression that national water agency PUB holds a S$5.3 billion surplus, after Second Minister for Finance Lawrence Wong said in Parliament on Monday (Jun 9) that the video was misleading.
On Jun 4, WP had put up a video on the rising cost of living in Singapore. The video had text which stated that PUB’s capital reserve “increased from $3b in 2007 to more than $5b in 2016”, WP secretary-general Pritam Singh said in a Facebook post on Monday.
“The video and the text create the impression that the PUB hosts a $5.3b surplus. Minister Lawrence Wong has clarified this is not the case. I have instructed that the video be taken down in view of Minister Wong’s clarification,” wrote Mr Singh.
In replying to a parliamentary question filed by MP for Holland-Bukit Timah Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Wong had explained in Parliament on Monday that the capital reserve in PUB’s account does not represent surplus funds it has at its disposal.
Instead, the capital reserve is money that is already invested in the water agency’s property, plant and equipment.
Mr Wong noted that WP’s video had questioned why the water price increases were necessary when PUB’s capital reserve had gone up from S$3 billion to S$5.3 billion over the last decade.
He said that the party interpreted the capital reserve as a hoard of cash surplus that the Government is keeping in PUB’s account. This, Mr Wong said, is “completely inaccurate and demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of accounting fundamentals”.
“I hope this clarification will set the record straight. I also hope the Workers’ Party will refrain from distorting the facts to mislead the public,” said Mr Wong.
Read more at
Lawrence Wong whacks Workers’ Party for distorting facts to mislead the public about PUB’s capital reserve
By Jewel Stolarchuk -
July 9, 2018
Lawrence Wong on Monday set the record straight about Workers’ Party’s allegations about PUB’s capital reserve. Wong, who is the Second Finance Minister said WP showed a “basic misunderstanding of accounting fundamentals” and that the national water agency’s capital reserve does not represent surplus funds at its disposal.
Wong pointed to a video the opposition party had posted on its Facebook page asking what was the necessity for the water price hike when the PUB’s capital reserve had gone up from $3 billion in 2007, to $5.3 billion in 2016.
The Minister explained that PUB invests most of its capital reserve in property, plant and equipment (PPE) — such as the upgrading of waterworks, expanding water reclamation plants and investments in water treatment and that the increase in capital reserve must be seen in conjunction with the agency’s growing asset base.
Pointing to how its PPE account had grown from $3.9 billion to $7.1 billion over the same time period, Wong said the “Capital reserve” on a firm’s balance sheet refers to funds reserved for long-term capital investment projects, or other large and anticipated expenses that will be incurred in the future.
“The Workers’ Party and Mr Singh have interpreted the PUB’s Capital Reserve as a hoard of cash surplus that the Government is keeping in PUB’s accounts,” Wong said. Adding: “But this is completely inaccurate, and demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of accounting fundamentals.”
New WP chief, Pritam Singh, in May had questioned the “future capital investments in water supply and transmission cohere with the large capital reserves” of PUB. The Minister explained that the capital reserve had not been sufficient to cover PUB’s investments, and the agency has had to borrow from the capital markets.
Wong then whacked the WP saying: “In short, there is no surplus cash in PUB. It is completely disingenuous to link the water price increase with the PUB’s Capital Reserve, and there is absolutely no basis to do so.
continue reading here :
http://theindependent.sg/lawrence-wo...pital-reserve/
Instead of slapping the driver , the co-driver got slapped by the driver instead . The co-driver tried to act smart . why can’t the co-driver asked the PAP about the mrt breakdowns , the new water tariffs that Singaporeans were charged ; the cost of living and unemployment ???
The real question is why PUB needs to make these “investments” in the first question
Published on 2018-07-10 by Ghui
I note that Second Finance Minister Lawrence Wong has chided the Workers’ Party (WP) for misunderstanding “basic accounting fundamentals” by querying why there is a need for the Public Utilities Board (PUB) to increase the price of water. According to reports, he said:
“PUB invests most of its capital reserve in property, plant and equipment (PPE) — such as the upgrading of waterworks, expanding water reclamation plants and investments in water treatment, said Mr Wong. The increase in capital reserve must be seen in conjunction with the agency’s growing asset base, said the minister, pointing to how its PPE account had grown from S$3.9 billion to S$7.1 billion over the same time period.”
This is in response to MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, Liang Eng Hwa’s question to the Minister of Finance, asking if he will clarify the $5.3 billion of “Capital Reserves” in PUB’s accounts and whether this represents surplus funds that are at the disposal of the Government or PUB.
What Mr Wong doesn’t appear to have addressed on behalf of the Finance Minister, is why there was a need to increase its PPE by so much in the first place? Is the PUB investing correctly and efficiently? What are the investments they have made and why? Are Singaporeans benefiting from the PPE increase?
Secondly, had the WP not raised the question, would this issue of PPE increase even be explained to the public? Mr Pritnam has noted that he had earlier raised the topic of PUB’s capital reserve in his speech at the President’s Address in May, but his point was not discussed at the debate back then.
“the question of the quantum of the surpluses and the prospect of alternate revenue streams and future surpluses of many Government-Linked Companies and statutory boards to better cushion price hikes on Singaporeans needs to be looked at very closely and debated before prices go up. For example on the 30% water hike, how do future capital investments in water supply and transmission cohere with the large capital reserves of the national water agency which have increased consistently from around $3b in 2007 to more than $5b in 2016?” - Pritam Singh in his May speech
The opposition parties have a duty to question policies and shine spotlights on areas where explanations are needed. In turn, it is the duty of the government to account and be transparent. It seems odd that Lawrence Wong is chiding the WP for doing their job. The point Wong has failed to address is why the PPE needs to be increased in the first place. Instead, he has chosen to evade the real question by trying to make the WP look stupid. The issue here is not accounting fundamentals. Rather it is why such investments have to be made and whether too much has been spent on PPE.
Wong has lamented that the capital reserves are insufficient to cover PUB’s investments. Why then is the PUB making investments that it cannot afford?
Financial commenter, Chris Kuan has written that while WP got it wrong but he would have asked for the projected expenditure to see if PUB’s Capital Reserve is overfunded.
continue reading here :
S’pore govt can file police report against oBike for withholding deposit refund
Really call mata.
By Joshua Lee | July 9, 2018
The Singapore government would consider filing a police report against bike-sharing operator oBike, if it fails to refund the deposits it owes, according to Senior Minister of State for Transport Janil Puthucheary.
He was replying to a question by Member of Parliament Lim Biow Chuan in Parliament on July 5, 2018, saying that such a step is “possible” if oBike does not return its deposit to its customers.
Lim said filing the report will ensure a “proper accounting of the funds” that should be with oBike, but are no longer available to refund consumers.
The bike-sharing company was in the news recently after it decided to close its operations in Singapore.
“This issue falls under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, which is overseen by the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and the short answer to the member’s question is yes,” said Puthucheary, before advising Lim to file a question with MTI to get a better understanding of the processes required.
oBike’s founder, Shi Yi, previously stated that the company owes its Singapore users S$6.3 million in deposits.
continue reading here :
SDP brings opposition parties together to hear Pakatan Harapan experience
Published on 2018-07-10 by The Online Citizen
Below is a blog post by Singapore Democrats
The SDP held a forum this afternoon where opposition parties came together to hear how the Pakatan Harapan (PH; Alliance of Hope) achieved its historic victory in the recent Malaysian elections.
The guest speaker was Mr Chua Tian Chuang, former Malaysian member of parliament and Chief of Information of Parti KeAdilan Rakyat (PKR; People’s Justice Party). The PKR is headed by prime minister-in-waiting Mr Anwar Ibrahim.
In describing how the PH came to be, Mr Chua said: “It’s been a long process that required a lot of patience and compromises. It wasn’t always easy but in the end we came together and managed to present a united front.
“The parties and politicians were initially reluctant to come together, but it was the people’s demand to see a coalition that helped bring about Pakatan Harapan.”
The PH comprises a coalition of four parties: The PKR, Democratic Action Party, Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia, and Parti Amanah. It defeated the BN after 61 years of one-party rule in Malaysia.
The victory of the PH has brought renewed hope for democracy in Singapore with Singaporeans calling for the opposition here to also form a united team for the next elections.
Some of the attendees cautioned, however, that there are significant differences between the Singaporean and Malaysian political scenes that make a replication of PH-like success in Singapore improbable in the immediate term.
Nevertheless, all agreed that the process of putting together a unified opposition that can present a credible alternative to the PAP must begin.
continue reading here :
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...an-experience/
What I truly hope the opposition will do is to come out with a reliastic action plan on how they would govern Singapore . What are the things they plan to and how they can help improve Singaporean lives .
Dr. Koh Poh Koon warns Parliament about dangers of wages outstripping productivity. What about Ministers?
Published on 2018-07-12 by Kwok Fangjie
Speaking in Parliament on Wednesday (11 Jul), Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry Dr. Koh Poh Koon said that the growth in wages of resident workers have outstripped productivity growth. In turn, this could have a negative effect on the economy.
The 4G leader said that this was as a result of a labour market tightness in industries such as construction and other services and may not be sustainable. From 2011 to 2017, real wages for resident workers rose by 1.9% per annum compared to productivity increases of 1.1%.
“If real wage growth outstrips productivity growth for an extended period, businesses will be at risk of losing their competitiveness and potentially be forced to scale back or close their operations”.
Dr. Koh added that the government had placed emphasis on increasing. For instance, the Industry Transformation map would encourage businesses leveraging on technology so that business can make better profit margins while controlling their costs.
Concluding, he said that the government “is committed to continue to work with businesses and the unions to help businesses improve their productivity and ensure that the productivity gains are shared with workers through higher wages.”
Do the million-dollar wages of PAP ministers match their productivity?
In 1994, the late Lee Kuan Yew argued the case for higher Ministerial salaries.
“If this salary formula can draw out higher quality men into politics, whatever their motivations, I say, let us have them. I make no apologies for collecting the most talented team I could find. Without them, none of you would be enjoying life today in Singapore”.
Yet things seemed to have changed some 20 years later.
In a 2015 interview with Bloomberg, Associate Professor Michael Barr said that “The current Cabinet [in Singapore] is really a Team B.” Last month, columnist Justin Hugo opined in an opinion piece on the News Lens that the high ministerial salaries for PAP leader cannot be justified given their mediocre performance.
Noting that the Ministerial Salary formulae states that the salaries of office holders “should also be linked to the individual performance.. and the socio-economic progress of Singapore Citizens”, Hugo asked if Singapore’s socio-economic progress has been stellar thus far.
He highlighted that Singapore’s “spending on social protections among the lowest in developed countries”. This led him to ask why “the government [is] intent on lining its own pockets rather than putting that money to work, [since] as many as 35% of Singaporeans living in relative poverty?”
Hugo also noted that Singapore’s economic growth or standing is not impressive. For instance, the IMF projected Singapore’s economic growth for 2018 to be a mere 2.9% while Luxembourg’s economic growth at was projected at 4.3%.
Concurrently, the Global Power City Index of 2017 - which evaluates and ranks the world’s major cities in relation to their ability to attract businesses and individuals – ranks London as the first, followed by New York and Tokyo. By comparison, Singapore was ranked fifth.
The columnist then asked: “Is it fair that Xavier Bettel is presiding over a country forecast to grow 1.5 times faster than Singapore, yet [Lee Hsien Loong] pays himself nearly six times the salary? [Why is I that Lee Hsien Loong] earns more than six to 12 times that of the London mayor, the New York City mayor and the Tokyo governor?”
continue reading here :
Are citizens getting more unhappy and openly critical towards PAP?
Published on 2018-07-13 by Correspondent
On Thursday (12 Jul), there were 2 photos which have gone viral on social media.
First, a photo emerged whereby a middle-aged man was seen at a provision store wearing a T-shirt with the words “F*** PAP”. On the same day, another picture emerged with a man on the MRT wearing a T-shirt which asked for the return of his CPF monies.
A tongue-in-cheek message accompanied the latter T-shirt, where the demands to return the CPF were passed from Lee Kuan Yew to Goh Chock Tong to Lee Hsien Loong. The caption accompanying Lee Hsien Loong’s image was “you ask me, I ask who. You wait long long lah”.
According to an opinion piece by socio-political commentator Devadas Krishnadas, “the fundamental source of unhappiness of CPF members… is the perception that the ‘goalposts’ are arbitrarily being changed by Government”.
Earlier this year, the CPF minimum sum was increased to $181,000 for those turning 55 in 2020 while monthly annuity pay-outs now start at 70 unless one requests to receive the monies at 65. More recently, Careshield was introduced as a compulsory disability insurance even though the criteria for pay-outs has been too stringent.
Besides the CPF issues, it also appears that residents are unhappy at the general price hikes and costs of living.
Starting 1 July, prices of water and electricity tariffs have increased by 15% and 6.9% respectively even though the PUB has been making a profit of close to $1 billion a year on average for the past 13 years. As a result, many Singaporeans are looking to tighten their belts over utility bills increase.
continue reading here :
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...l-towards-pap/
Come election day what will YOU do ?
Opinion: Opposition alliance “on the cards”; are Tan Cheng Bock & WP the key to unity?
By Andrew Loh -
July 15, 2018
Opposition unity. That term has epitomised the hopes of many Singaporeans for decades. In recent times, the call for the opposition to come together has gotten louder as the ruling party marches on with landslide electoral victories.
That hope of an opposition coalition in Singapore was revived last Saturday at a private talk held by the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP).
The SDP, seen as the biggest opposition party here after the Workers’ Party (WP), had invited the former two-term Malaysian MP, Tian Chua, to share his experiences as an opposition politician up north.
Mr Tian Chua is also the vice president of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), which is part of the Pakatan Harapan coalition which swept to victory in the recent general elections. Mr Tian Chua was barred from contesting the May elections because the Election Commission ruled that his earlier conviction for insulting a police officer disqualified him from defending his Batu parliamentary seat.
Mr Tian Chua is a well-known political activist even in his younger days, having been disqualified in 1999 as well, after he was arrested for protesting the arrest of Anwar Ibrahim, who is now the Prime Minister-in-waiting in Malaysia.
Mahathir & Anwar coming together in Pakatan Harapan
Pakatan Harapan was led by Mahathir Mohamed, the former Malaysian Prime Minister who has once again resumed his post after the victorious election. The leadership of Mahathir and Anwar has been the catalyst for the fall of Najib Razak and UMNO, the ruling coalition.
We will come back to what Mr Tian Chua said at the forum later.
Some in Singapore see the events in Malaysia as an omen of what is to come in Singapore. The expectation is that the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) here will be similarly toppled, if only the opposition parties here would form a union like their counterparts in Malaysia.
This hope, however, is misguided, as several commentators have pointed out.
On Thursday, for example, Banyan Tree executive chairman Ho Kwon Ping described such thinking as a “foolish mistake”. He was speaking at a OCBC forum titled, “Singapore Politics and Business in an Age of Disruption”.
According to the TODAY newspaper, Mr Ho said there is a “huge and critical difference” between the two countries.
Mr Ho explained that what brought down the last government was “the unbridled, egregiously blatant and massively enormous corruption of the Najib government…”
Such blatant corruption, apparently, is not the case here in Singapore.
Indeed. To expect a similar fall of the Lee Hsien Loong government here would be delusional.
However, as Mr Ho also said, there are “unnervingly close parallels” between Singapore and Malaysia, and the lessons the PAP should learn from this. He cites “quasi cronyism amongst cliques of elites” as one example.
continue reading here :