Chitchat Water price increase - Pritam stumps Govt.

It is interesting that a pro govt blog wrote this while the press ignored it. Not only that, it also at the end states that they have no idea what govt is doing.



http://mothership.sg/2017/03/in-bud...e-all-want-the-answers-to-about-water-prices/

In Budget debate, Pritam Singh asks questions we all want the answers to about water prices
March 2, 2017
Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli tries his best to answer them.

Jeanette Tan

Why now ah?

That’s the question on most Singaporeans’ minds when we all heard about the pretty big 30 per cent water price hikes announced in this year’s Budget speech.

After all, a hit like this in the economic volatility and instability we’re all now facing is scary — especially for businesses teetering on the brink of extinction that really can’t afford more cost increase burdens.

That said, we say “most Singaporeans”, because not as many would have had as many questions about the how and the why behind the government’s decisions on how much water should cost as Aljunied GRC MP Pritam Singh.

So concerned was he about the price of water and how the government arrives at the number that he put out a public call for suggestions on the topic (hey, that’s indeed representing the people of Singapore, no?). And then on Feb 28, he devoted his entire speech in the Budget debate on the topic of water prices.

His NCMP colleagues, Leon Perera and Daniel Goh, and even Dennis Tan, who spoke in Mandarin, took turns talking about various aspects of the budget, but not Pritam.

It was alll about water for Pritam.

Now, his speech (which you can read in full here) was mostly a long list of questions, but we’ll try to break them down for you nonetheless:

1. The government prices water according to its Long Run Marginal Cost (LRMC), but hasn’t actually explained before how this is calculated.

Now first, we feel the need to explain what this technical term that’s being thrown around actually means — the LRMC is defined as the cost of producing the last drop of water, and in Singapore’s context, the cost of producing desalinated water.

But because that doesn’t entirely make sense to us either, maybe this explanation from economist Donald Low would help better:

So back to Pritam, who posed a number of questions about this — what goes into this cost, when it reviews and evaluates this cost, and also how it determines when to increase the price of water, as well as the impact of changing energy prices on the cost of water, if any.

He also asked what kind of long-term time projections are considered in the computation of the LRMC — in 2061 when our water agreement expires, or when our consumption is expected to double?

2. Between 2002 and 2004, the PUB managed to lower the cost of producing NEWater.

Pritam highlighted various other cost-saving examples — the Tuas Desalination plant, for instance, was in 2003 desalinating water at $0.78 per cubic metre, more affordably than a plant in Israel, and in 2008, Sembcorp built, owned and designed a NEWater plant that would produce water at $0.30 per cubic metre in its first year.

In 2011, the Business Times reported that Singapore will produce the cheapest desalinated water by 2013, Pritam added.

In light of the above, does the LRMC get adjusted accordingly in tandem with these cost savings, he asked.


3. He highlighted a discrepancy in government communications with respect to water supply and prices.

He said that as recently as in 2013, the government’s position was that there would not be a need to raise water prices.

This was, admittedly, before the water levels in Johor’s Linggiu Reservoir started falling quite drastically over the past three years.

However, there appears to have been a discrepancy between the assurances of a PUB official during Singapore International Water Week last year and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’s urgent warning of problems for us and Malaysia if the Linggiu dries out, as Pritam points out.

He also asked if contingency plans have been made should the reservoir drain to zero, as well as if the latest price hike has factored in this scenario.

4. There are other ways to encourage Singaporeans to conserve and save water.

Pritam pointed out a pretty compelling statistic: Singapore’s water usage per capita has actually fallen over the past 12 years — in 2005, it was 162 litres per day; today, it’s 151 litres per day.

He also suggested some alternatives to hiking water prices that may help encourage Singaporeans to save water more:

– tightening regulations on the sale of sanitary appliances like shower heads or taps that discharge more than usual water, or incentivising the sale of water-efficient ones.
– providing rebates for households that successfully reduce their bills year-on-year, like how it’s done in Spain.
– tiering the water tariff to favour households that use substantially less water than others.


Now here’s what Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli said when it was his turn in the debate to speak on Mar 1, partly in response to some of the things Pritam highlighted in his speech:

1. “A strategic issue… a national security issue — we must price water fully.”

From Masagos’s starting comments, it sounds as if prices were adjusted now purely because the government wants citizens to “feel the full price of water” and “the importance of saving every drop possible”.

Costs were adjusted between 1997 and 2000, and then remained stable until now, he said.

“But costs have gone up gradually over the years. At some point, a price revision becomes essential.”

At which point though? We’ll be honest, we’re not sure how they determined when “some point” should be, and that it should be now.

2. He touched on various cost issues, but did not elaborate on how the LRMC is computed due to “commercial sensitivities”.

Masagos said the government is building three new desalination plants — the cost of which are respectively increasing per plant built — over the coming three years, and has to build new and replace old pipelines (at double the rate of building the new, in order to prevent pipe leaks and disruptions to water supply) to transmit water to new housing and commercial developments around the island.

This, in turn, is getting more expensive because our city is becoming increasingly urbanised, he explains, and we have to tunnel below roads in order to minimise inconvenience to everyone — although this costs two-and-a-half times more than conventional pipe-laying techniques.

All these point to the need to update the LRMC, which the 30% price increase has reflected. We are unable to provide details of its computation because of commercial sensitivities. We still need to build more desalination plants and NEWater plants. As more desalination, NEWater and water reclamation plants are yet to be built or expanded, revealing the specifics of the LRMC could prejudice future bids. But rest assured that the LRMC reflects the best the market can offer.

“Right pricing”, therefore, is necessary to moderate demand while also building up more supply infrastructure, he added:

It is the job of my ministry and PUB to plan and build the infrastructure, which we will do, but it is only through right pricing that we can have everyone valuing water as a strategic resource and consciously conserving it. With 30 per cent increase that we have announced, the price will be close to, though still slightly lower than, the price of the next drop or LRMC today. This is the best way to emphasise the scarcity value of water.

All that said and done, though, we must admit we’re still none the wiser on the question of “why now”. Why not two years ago, when the Linggiu reservoir levels started falling? And why not in 2019 or 2020, after the economy has been given a chance to recover?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Since you’re here, how about another article?

My water usage bill, which I had been questioning PUB ( back then) now the current, "whatever", on Waterborne fees, conservancy tariff & appliance fees, which make up a huge part of the bill plus the 7% GST; they had never given me a satisfactory answer.

1. Waterborne Fess?
2. Appliances Fees?

3. Water Conservancy Tax....is based on my average water usage AS COMPARED TO MY NEIGHBOURS..in which I have the smallest family unit around plus most of the time, mostly , most are out at work....is always tax as excess over "average"??...This is pure daylight robbery...

PUB had been making money like water from us for a very long time....plus you check your bill, they estimate the usage the "festive seasons" months...& adjust the average, when your meter is read..& the average is always HIGHER....so for 6 months a year on the average, one is being charge more, plus all the waterborne fees, the conservancy tax, the appliances fees, GST....& they now say...we must pay for? 15% + 15%??

How greedy, can they get?..we deserve it!

peasants shud not question wat ze gahmen is doing as wateva gahmen does is 4 their own gud ...

in fact, peasants shud gif full trust 2 gahmen in evryting ... juz like how dey trust ze gahmen wif their cpf moni ...

scroobal said:

It is interesting that a pro govt blog wrote this while the press ignored it. Not only that, it also at the end states that they have no idea what govt is doing.





Masagos said the government is building three new desalination plants — the cost of which are respectively increasing per plant built — over the coming three years, and has to build new and replace old pipelines (at double the rate of building the new, in order to prevent pipe leaks and disruptions to water supply) to transmit water to new housing and commercial developments around the island.

Click to expand...

simi govt building?

i though govt tender out, private companies invest, build and sell to govt for the cheapest cost per m3?

wow just wow...the breadth of selective narration to try and explain an arbitrary number....

The Big Read: How S’pore’s water conservation message got diluted by recent successes

SINGAPORE — When Singapore decided to shift its immigration and Customs checkpoint away from the old Tanjong Pagar railway station in 1998, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad told a rally in Johor Baru that their country’s “good nature” should not be taken for granted by others.

“Cut, cut, cut,” chanted the crowd, urging their government to cut off Johor’s water supply to Singapore.

The relocation of the checkpoint was one of several sticky points that were part of quid pro quo negotiations during the Asian Financial Crisis, when Singapore sought future water supplies in return for financial aid to Malaysia. This was not the first time Singapore’s northern neighbour had threatened to stop supplying water.

That very same year, a team from the national water agency PUB was sent to the United States to study their water-reclamation projects, hoping to revive an earlier failed experiment with water membrane technology. Within a decade, Singapore launched NEWater in 2002 and built its first desalination plant in Tuas in 2005.

The development of the “four national taps” strategy in the early 2000s, consisting of local water 
catchments, water from Johor Baru, NEWater and desalinated water, marked a big turning point: Singapore had turned its vulnerability into strength and became recognised internationally for its water resource management capabilities. The Republic can, if necessary, become completely self-sufficient after 2061, when the 1962 Water Agreement with Malaysia would expire — a position previously espoused by government leaders over the years.

However, it was during the same time that the message of water as “a strategic issue and a matter of national security” — as several Cabinet ministers took pains to stress during the recent Budget and Committee of Supply debates — gradually became lost on Singaporeans, experts told 
TODAY.

While the recently announced 30 per cent hike in water fee was a necessary “shock treatment”, the authorities would not have to resort to it if the messaging had been consistent and water priced correctly all these years, they argued.

“We should have emphasised that while we gained greater water security as a result of NEWater and desalination, that security comes with a price - higher water prices,” observed Associate Professor Donald Low, a behavioural economist from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP). He pointed out that Singaporeans’ attitudes shifted after the NEWater breakthrough. Prior to that, it was constantly drummed into people’s heads that Singapore is very dependent on the water supplied by Malaysia.

“So when we make a big show and tell of … how we can export our water capabilities, (people think) it must be the case that we have solved our water vulnerability, that we have turned this vulnerability into a source of economic advantage,” he added.

World-renowned water expert Asit Biswas, a Distinguished Visiting Professor at LKYSPP, went so far as to say that Singapore has “become very complacent about water”.

He noted that since Singapore’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew retired from politics in 2011, “water has not received the same priority in the political process”.

Prof Biswas said “it’s one thing to say it’s a national security issue”, but another thing “to follow it up in the public messaging on why it is a national security issue”. He recalled how the late Mr Lee had famously declared at a water event in 2008 that “every other policy has to bend at the knees for our water survival”.

Prof Biswas said: “I don’t think after his departure, we have had the same sense of urgency ... People are taking water for granted. Everyone is saying we are one of the best in the world (at water management).”

The water tariff hike — first announced during the Budget last month — was the first in 17 years. It sparked a huge public discourse, prompting Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Chan Chun Sing to acknowledge: “The fact that we have such an intense discussion reflects that we have left this issue off our national psyche for too long.”

AN ISSUE THAT RUNS DEEP

For so long, water has been an issue intertwined with Singapore’s history, even before independence.

When the Japanese forces captured Bukit Timah Hill in 1942 during World War II, they promptly cut off Singapore’s water supply — a strategic move that contributed to the surrender of the British. Some 20 years later, Singapore faced one of its worst droughts ever, and a water-rationing exercise was conducted for 10 months.

On the very day that Singapore achieved independence, on Aug 9, 1965, Malaysia’s first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman told the British High Commissioner in Malaya: “If Singapore’s foreign policy is prejudicial to Malaysia’s interests, we could always bring pressure to bear on them by threatening to turn off the water in Johor.”

Since then, water was the leverage Malaysia had over Singapore, and the Republic had been reminded of it whenever bilateral relations hit a rough patch.

There are two water agreements between Singapore and Malaysia. The first was inked in 1961 and expired in 2011. The second, signed in 1962, will lapse in 2061. The agreements were guaranteed by the 1965 Separation Agreement, which was registered at the United Nations. This means that any breaches in the water agreements would undermine Singapore’s 
sovereignty.

In the two decades or so after Independence, Singapore focused its attention on water resource and conservation efforts, which sought to drive home the message about the country’s vulnerability. PUB held its inaugural water conservation campaign in 1971, and a year later, it published the Water Master Plan — Singapore’s first long-term blueprint for water resource development. The authorities also started exploring the feasibility of various water sources: In 1974, for example, Singapore built its first experimental water reclamation plant. But the pilot did not work out because the technology then was too expensive and 
unreliable.

In the meantime, Singapore faced threats from Malaysia about cutting off the supply of water from Johor, including in 1986 when then-Israeli president Chaim Herzog made a state visit to Singapore, which was met with protests in Malaysia.

During the Asian Financial Crisis, the two countries held talks over the cost of buying water from Malaysia, and these discussions were tied to a financial recovery package. However, negotiations stalled. In 2002, the talks collapsed, prompting the threats again.

At the turn of the millennium, Singapore began making headway in developing its water resource capabilities. After PUB’s study trip to the United States, Singapore conducted various tests at a water reclamation plant in Bedok. In 2000, it successfully reclaimed water. Two years later, NEWater was officially launched, and soon after, Singapore was exporting its water purification technologies around the world.

A deep tunnel sewerage system was also built to channel used water to a centralised water reclamation plant, and Singapore became fully sewered. “Technically, we can recycle every drop indefinitely. Unless you drink water in Singapore and then catch a flight out, we can take it back, clean it and use it for industry. So with the breakthrough, I tell you, great relief,” then-Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaacob Ibrahim said.

FALSE SENSE OF WATER SECURITY

Singapore’s water story is a classic case of it being a victim of success. “We have assumed that everything is hunky-dory, we don’t have a problem, we have solved our water problem for the next 50 to 100 years,” said Prof Biswas.

Looking back, everyone could have been wiser in making sure Singaporeans did not lose sight of its vulnerabilty, he added. Nevertheless, there was a lack of public messaging, he said.

When water levels at Linggiu Reservoir in Johor fell to historic lows in 2015 and last year, government leaders — including then-Environment and Water Resources Minister Vivian Balakrishnan — took the opportunity to remind Singaporeans of the scarcity of water. Nevertheless, Prof Biswas felt the Government could have gone further, to underscore Singapore’s vulnerability, he said.

Dr Cecilia Tortajada, a senior research fellow at the LKYSPP Institute of Water Policy, added: “But what was missing was the connection. That 50 per cent of our water still comes from outside, PUB has been highly efficient — everything they have been able to do, they have done it — and so it’s now time for the population to (play an) active part — that is to use less (water).”

The Government could have also taken the opportunity to educate Singaporeans about the cost of producing water when it last raised water prices in 2000, Prof Biswas said.

“Singaporeans are not paying for all the costs of water and the Government is not telling them,” he said.

Both Prof Biswas and Assoc Prof Low cited how the Government’s approach to water contrasted with what it does when it comes to other limited resources such as electricity and roads. Unlike water, Singaporeans have grown to accept the price fluctuations for electricity, Assoc Prof Low pointed out.

“People have gotten used to ... the idea that the price of electricity is going to be determined by supply and demand factors,” he said. “With water, for a variety of reasons, that message either hasn’t sunk in or people don’t even realise that Singapore is a price taker.”

Apart from the fact that the electricity market has been privatised, Assoc Prof Low attributed the situation primarily to how the authorities may have unintentionally “created a false sense of security around water”.

There is also a gap between what Singaporeans know about the scarcity of water and actually putting that knowledge into action to conserve water, he noted.

Agreeing, Dr Tortajada noted that there is an abundance of public information about the scarcity of water. Yet, Singaporeans had difficulty linking it to the latest hike in water prices. “(The increase) should not have been a surprise to Singaporeans,” she said.

She noted that during dry spells in recent years, PUB came out to reassure Singaporeans that the water supply will not be affected. “Their statements were, ‘the drought is very serious, but don’t worry, we’re in charge’,” she said, adding that the agency could have been bolder in getting Singaporeans to play their part. “(But) the message should have been, ‘the drought is very serious, we’re in charge and you have to use less’. The communication should have made people aware that they are also responsible.”

Still, some experts noted that the Government faced a dilemma which is common in public communications. “On one hand, you need to shake the audience from their apathy in order to get them to do something, on the other hand, you also do not want to cause panic,” said Dr Tracy Loh, a senior lecturer at the National University of Singapore (NUS) Department of Communications and New Media. In the case of water, the Government has to assure Singaporeans that there is an adequate supply of water, and at the same time, get them to conserve water.

And as far as national campaigns are concerned, PUB’s save water campaigns in recent years and its Water Wally mascot - which made its debut in 2005 - never quite caught on domestically, the experts pointed out.

Dr Loh said: “The mascot and campaign never achieved the publicity and reach of (earlier) campaigns such as the courtesy campaign or the productivity campaign.”

A Water Wally television commercial - featuring a controversial scene where the mascot peeped at a child showering - and the “Shower Dance” drew a negative reception, Dr Loh noted. “All these issues makes it hard for the public to take the message seriously,” she said.

The experts reiterated that the breakthrough in NEWater technology was a key reason behind the shift in public attitudes. Since the early 2000s, the implicit message has been that Singapore has solved its water security, they said.

Since Singapore’s independence, water has been framed as a scarce resource, and a matter of survival and national security, said Associate Professor Shirley Ho from Nanyang Technological University’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information. This was reinforced by images of survival: People queuing for water during rationing exercises, for instance. But the success with NEWater came along, and the message became diluted, she said.

‘NEW APPROACH NEEDED’

While there has been much discussion about the quantum of the latest round of water tariff hike, some experts felt that the move was, in itself, a way to focus the public’s minds on the issue and drive home the water conservation message.

The 30-per-cent quantum was a “short, sharp, shock treatment” to remind Singaporeans of the importance of water and its scarcity, said Associate Professor Toh Mun Heng from NUS Business School. “The fact that it has aroused much attention and discussion is an indication of the success of the ‘campaign’,” added Assoc Prof Toh, an expert on strategy and policy.

At the core, water pricing is the most effective way to regulate demand, LKYSPP water policy expert Eduardo Araral said. “The Government can cry out loud but it will have little effect if the price of water is very low and does not reflect its scarcity value,” he added.

Turning to other countries, Prof Biswas noted that Sao Paulo, Brazil has been facing its most serious drought in the last 40 years. Water is provided for by Sabesp, a water and waste management company owned by the state. Prof Biswas said that while the firm made strides in improving its water efficiency processes, they also reached out to the public, communicated the problem and got them to reduce their consumption. The company also provided discounts to incentivise people to use less water. In a year, the city reduced its per capita water consumption from 146 litres per day to 120 litres per day.

Similarly, Spanish cities Barcelona and Zaragoza also managed to drastically reduce their per capita water consumption by increasing water tariffs, education and managing demand. Their authorities are also “telling their people they have a problem every day, and the people feel the problem”, said Prof Biswas.

Apart from households, Assoc Prof Araral stressed the need to educate other users, which may be less sensitive to higher water tariffs. “They have to take personal responsibility for reducing consumption regardless of the price. There has to be an ethos of conservation and this takes time to develop. The schools would have to reinforce this message regularly,” he added.

Going forward, it cannot be business as usual and the public messaging has to change, the experts said. Singaporeans need to know that even with new technologies, water will remain a scarce resource, said Assoc Prof Ho.

Dr Loh felt that logic alone is insufficient and future campaigns have to incorporate “emotional elements to tug at the heartstrings” in order to change attitudes towards water. “The problem is that people know about the issue at some fundamental level but they are not realising (its) importance... Unfortunately, just by stressing the facts alone or knowing about water scarcity on the intellectual level is insufficient,” she added.

PUB’S WATER CONSERVATION EFFORTS OVER THE YEARS

1970s:
•PUB launched its first national water conservation campaign, adopting the slogan “Water is Precious”
•Community activities showed people the dos and don’ts of using water and the campaign was publicised in newspapers, and on radio and television. A television cartoon series featuring mascot Bobo the Water-Saving Elephant was also created.
•Then-PUB chairman Lim Kim San, who was also Education Minister, stressed that “to save water only when there is a drought is not good enough for us in Singapore. Saving water must become a daily habit with us”

1980s:
•A month-long “Let’s Not Waste Precious Water” campaign was launched on top of water conservation talks in schools
•A Water Conservation Unit was formed to visit large industrial water users and suggest how they can reduce water consumption
•The public was educated on what to do in a water crisis while a water conservation course was introduced at secondary level to help students understand Singapore’s water challenges

1990s:
•Public appeals to cut down unnecessary water use were made after a long dry period. Then-Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Finance George Yeo reminded people that water is a “matter of life and death”.
•Water Conservation Tax was introduced to discourage the excessive use of water and revised in 1997.
•A six-day campaign involving a water rationing exercise was conducted with 30,000 households.

2000s:
•During the 2002 National Day Parade, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, ministers and participants toasted with NEWater to show that it was safe to drink. NEWater Visitor Centre was opened to provide public education on the technology, while PUB embarked on a publicity campaign including mobile exhibitions, briefings, and public talks
•Campaign on Singapore’s water supply strategy of having four “National Taps”
•Water Wally, a blue water droplet, was introduced as PUB’s mascot in 2005
•10 litre Challenge to encourage every individual to reduce daily water consumption by that amount

2010s:
•Outreach on social media platforms such as Facebook and YouTube, with PUB making regular updates to engage online users
•Water campaigns also targeted foreign workers to participate in water conservation efforts. Roadshows were held at areas they frequented while brochures for them were printed in Tamil, Chinese, Thai and Burmese. Educational materials in Bahasa Indonesia, Tamil and Burmese were also shared with training providers for maid agencies

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/price-success-how-spores-water-conservation-message-got-diluted

Tag team article with this from CNA:

New immigrants worry children are getting 'soft' in Singapore

From shovelling dirt to killing chickens, it is a culture shock for three kids who make the journey back to their parents’ homelands to discover their roots. Their stories are featured on On The Red Dot.

SINGAPORE: Growing up in a small remote village in India, Mr Balakrishnan Gopal had to walk to find water every day - a far cry from the urbanised lifestyle that his family of four, who are new Singapore citizens, have embraced today.

But now, this managing director worries that his oldest daughter Priya, seven, is having too easy a life and is taking things for granted.

He said: “When she comes out of the room, she’ll never switch off the fan or light. And when she turns on the tap, it will be full on. So, I tell her, 'you are wasting the water'. When I was young, we used to walk far to get water.”

And so, to give their children a taste of what life was like for them, Mr Balakrishnan and two other immigrant parents from China and the Philippines took their kids back to their old homeland on a revealing journey documented by the programme On The Red Dot.

The four-part special, In My Parents’ Shoes, shows the children, aged 7 to 11, trying their hand for the first time at tasks like plucking fruits, helping to kill a chicken and riding on a motorised tricycle in their parents’ native countries.

The series premieres on Friday (Mar 10) at 9.30pm on Mediacorp Channel 5.

"IS IT SAFE?"

Every year, about 50,000 foreigners make Singapore their adopted home, becoming either citizens or permanent residents (PRs). But some worry their children are too well-adjusted here and know little of their roots.

In India, Priya had to help her father irrigate the fields. Mr Balakrishnan used to help his father with this chore when he was a boy, diverting water to a few hundred banana trees every day.

Priya complained: “It was hard to make the water flow. I had to hold the spade for so long. And I had to dig and bend my body for so long too.” But she was proud that her dad had done this every day as a boy.

Wenxuan, nine, journeyed to her family’s hometown in Hainan, China with her dad, businessman Mo Kaisi, a Singapore PR.

School there was a culture shock for the young Westwood Primary student. With about 50 students crammed into a small classroom, the noise during lessons - where it is normal for students and teachers to shout out phrases being learnt - was almost overwhelming for Wenxuan. She looked confused and distressed.

Nina, 11, travelled to Pililla in the Philippines - a country she left when she was only three months old.

Mother Amy Nora, a Singapore PR, said she was concerned about her two children growing up used to creature comforts in a city “where everything is efficient”. “Hopefully, living in the Philippines, those adverse situations will teach them something else,” she said.

Nina was particularly disgusted when she saw a water tank her grandmother’s house in Pililla, and realised the water they had been drinking came from it.

Making a face, she wondered if it was safe to drink. “No wonder it tastes so weird,” exclaimed the city girl who is used to Singapore’s chlorinated tap water.

THE LITTLE FARMER

But the children learnt, adapted and had fun as well.

Priya and her father spent five days in his hometown and many things were an eye-opener for the seven-year-old. Take the lack of supermarkets, for example, and her discovery that tapioca and onions grew underground, and were grown by the villagers on their own farms.

Priya enjoyed helping them harvest the produce. She was impressed by “how hard farmers work to grow it - I think she has a new respect and regard for them,” said producer Naleeza Ebrahim, who also noted that Priya adjusted quickly, running around barefoot at school with the other children and eating off a plate on the bare floor.

Senior executive producer Susanna Kulatissa said that Singaporeans do not usually get a glimpse into the world of new immigrants here, how they adapt to their new host country, and why they worry that their children may grow up too “soft” living in the city.

She said: “This series hopes to do that, highlighting not only the challenges they face adapting to a new place, but also revealing the dreams they hold in starting a new life.”

Catch the series premiere of In My Parents’ Shoes, on On The Red Dot on Mar 10, Friday, 9.30pm on Mediacorp Channel 5.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news...en-are-getting-soft-in-singapore/3581832.html


The next step from founding fathers to Ozymandias: “Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”

capitalism is a wonderful system,it forces the poor to comsume less while the rich takes all the money from the poor and increase their own consumption.by increasing the cost of living,we increase the rate of flow of wealth from the poor masses to the rich pockets.

take cars for example,a commodity that is easily available even to the poorest peasant in russia,however in singapore the cost of a car is inflated to such astronomical heights that any poor commoner that wishes to own a car will be punished and saddled with debt for up to ten years of his life,while it will barely affect the rich as they have lots of money and can easily recoup their cost in other means like properties rental,investments and businesses.in america 92 percent of the population drives and cars can be gotten as cheap as 500 bucks.

most of the human population are slaves,and capitalism is the best model of slavery,more effective than communism,socialism,pre industrialism,agrarian,religion or any other human economic model.most of us work to stay alive while the rich reaps all the benefits of the poors labour.capitalism solves the problem of human motivation and gives us the illusion that we are all working for our self interest and are free men working for ourselves,however what people fail to realise capitalism is a system just like any others and only a minority can benefit from it at any time,the top 1 percent controls most of the wealth while the rest of us work for next to peanuts.bill gates makes $23,817 a minute or $37 million dollars a day.it will take 150,000 average american families to make what he does in one day.never in the history of mankind has wealth accumulation been so great,the aristocrats and kings of past centuries can only dream of something as powerful as modern capitalism.in the past,the earning powers of the elite were limited by the earning powers of their populations whom were mostly agrarian farmers and peasants who had next to nothing,but capitalism has changed all that capitalism has unlocked the earning potential of each and every individual allowing us to pursue wealth at the same time,while taxes,levies and corporations ensures that a portion of our productivity goes to the top everytime,that coupled with industrialization,all of a sudden the human race exploded into a frenzy of money making.

halsey02 said:

My water usage bill, which I had been questioning PUB ( back then) now the current, "whatever", on Waterborne fees, conservancy tariff & appliance fees, which make up a huge part of the bill plus the 7% GST; they had never given me a satisfactory answer.

1. Waterborne Fess?
2. Appliances Fees?

3. Water Conservancy Tax....is based on my average water usage AS COMPARED TO MY NEIGHBOURS..in which I have the smallest family unit around plus most of the time, mostly , most are out at work....is always tax as excess over "average"??...This is pure daylight robbery...

PUB had been making money like water from us for a very long time....plus you check your bill, they estimate the usage the "festive seasons" months...& adjust the average, when your meter is read..& the average is always HIGHER....so for 6 months a year on the average, one is being charge more, plus all the waterborne fees, the conservancy tax, the appliances fees, GST....& they now say...we must pay for? 15% + 15%??

How greedy, can they get?..we deserve it!

Click to expand...

The straits times 12 march 2017

The rally was organised by former Reform Party candidate in the 2015 general election Gilbert Goh, a career counsellor.

Former Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) candidate Paul Tambyah, an infectious diseases specialist, criticised the timing of the hike at a time of "economic hardship".

He and several others cited comments by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan in August 2015, when he led the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR).

The minister had said labour and equipment costs had risen since the water price was last raised in 2000, but there were also improvements in membrane technology and productivity - and given the state of technology and energy prices, there was no need for a price adjustment at that point.

On Saturday, Dr Tambyah asked what had changed since then, noting that Singapore's per capita water consumption had gone down.

"Is it (the hike) because of the massive population increase?" he said.

Financial adviser Leong Sze Hian said the Government's reasons for the hike "did not hold water".

The 10 speakers spoke on a small stage decorated with buckets and placards with slogans such as "Pay Until Broke", a play on the initials of national water agency PUB.

They sought more transparency and criticised MEWR minister Masagos Zulkifli's comments in Parliament that he could not disclose details of how the price was computed due to commercial sensitivities.

Ms Irene Mortensen spoke on the evils of fluoride in tap water.

Others, who included National Solidarity Party secretary-general Lim Tean and ex-presidential candidate Tan Kin Lian, touched on CPF, living costs, and foreigners.

Aiyah naive Singaporeans.....real reason? It is a form of tax. Temasek is losing money. CPF cannot keep up with its interest obligations to remain solvent and pass an audit. The Singapore government needs to get more revenue. What can they do? Raise GST? Politically not a good move. Raise income taxes? Lagi worse! Raise COE? Uh-uh. Raise ERP? Done that. Sell power stations? Done that. What else does everyone need and uses that the government still owns and sells and can control the price freely? Water. And the spin on the price costs can be easily accepted by the people. Play in the Malaysia card. The usual Singapore is vulnerable sympathy card.

Singapore's coffers are going smaller and smaller due to mismanagement from Temasek.

nayr69sg said:

The usual Singapore is vulnerable sympathy card.

Click to expand...

Bro,
You forgot about the GST...

nayr69sg said:

Aiyah naive Singaporeans.....real reason? It is a form of tax. Temasek is losing money. CPF cannot keep up with its interest obligations to remain solvent and pass an audit. The Singapore government needs to get more revenue. What can they do? Raise GST? Politically not a good move. Raise income taxes? Lagi worse! Raise COE? Uh-uh. Raise ERP? Done that. Sell power stations? Done that. What else does everyone need and uses that the government still owns and sells and can control the price freely? Water. And the spin on the price costs can be easily accepted by the people. Play in the Malaysia card. The usual Singapore is vulnerable sympathy card.

Singapore's coffers are going smaller and smaller due to mismanagement from Temasek.

Click to expand...

the reserves are gone or half gone……
thats why lately propaganda machine in full swing to encourage people to keep their money in CPF in spite of the fucking minimum sum
lately every aspect of life and utility they increase prices,
no need to pity the 70%, they love to be doggie-ed
God bless the remaining 30% local born sinkees

zhihau said:

Bro,
You forgot about the GST...

Click to expand...

I mentioned GST. Politically bad move. After next election.

Tip of the iceberg. With so many economic good news, the Government is ready to increase income tax and GST; in addition to building ERP nationwide. $$$$

They need to, it's about time to increase ministerial salary.

Boliao said:

Tip of the iceberg. With so many economic good news, the Government is ready to increase income tax and GST; in addition to building ERP nationwide. $$$$

They need to, it's about time to increase ministerial salary.

Click to expand...

This is what you get, when there are no check & balances on a government that is run by a party who is in power since 1959...the people, have given them the mandate on what they can do with nobody dare to stop them...& uses their 'grassloots' leaders to sing a song & make a dance about..how caring & good they are.

We have a government who is holding 'hostage' to our money for retirement, in a scheme called CPF & will time & time again, come out with legislation to prevent us from using it....we may wake up one day & read & find out...that what they have in CPF, for every dollar it is only worth..0.05 cents.

That day will come....can you trust people with your hard earn , blood , sweat & tears money?... a few military vehicles could be taken out of their hands for a while ...what more...your money?

We deserve what we get....water tariff increases is just the 'tip of the iceberg'...10% is not something we laugh about, it will occur.

PLEAE DON'T FORGET THE PAP GOVERNMENT HAD NOT RAISED THEIR SALARIES FOR ____ YEARS...soon they will ask for more pay...& that is why, you see the 'iceberg'..

Why complain....just pay!

I got out all my CPF already. Then they wrote to me saying I still have money in it. $42! lol!

CoffeeAhSoh said:

The straits times 12 march 2017

Click to expand...

if it is 100 ST did not sow photo, so it is likely to be in the 1000s

nayr69sg said:

I mentioned GST. Politically bad move. After next election.

Click to expand...

My bad, but think about it, 3 years is a long time- Sinkies will forget all about this hikes come the next election when goodies like ERS, NSS, GST rebates, CPF top ups, etc are dished out. So, if not now, when? Sinkies 死肉 one...

cocobobo said:

simi govt building?

i though govt tender out, private companies invest, build and sell to govt for the cheapest cost per m3?

Click to expand...

Most Sinkies pay PUB by their estimated billing every month!! tHat's very easy to achieved the

month Target set by their CEO (Chief Extortion Officer) So Sinkies are are NOT Paying for the

actual water consumption in fact we are paying a lot more !! I wont be surprise there's a

Graph chart in the CEO office to show their money GAIN/Income by screwing all Pigeon

hole dwellers!!

dwellers!!