Straits Times Forum 6 Jul 09;
I REFER to Mr David Boey's letter last Thursday, 'Technology still costlier'. Mr Boey noted, quite correctly, that obtaining potable water from waste water or sea water is more costly than importing rainwater from across the Causeway.
He suggested that 'it probably makes more economic and environmental sense for both countries if we buy such surplus water from Malaysia'. He added that 'the price can be much lower if the quantity offered to us is not fixed over an extended period, but is allowed to vary from time to time, so it is really water that is surplus to Johor's needs'.
His proposal assumes many things: that Malaysia will always have a surplus of water; that the definition of surplus will never be open to interpretation; that Singapore can easily find alternative overseas supplies at the drop of a hat (or the fall of a droplet).
Furthermore, by Mr Boey's own logic of cold economic rationality, a seller would charge as much as the buyer can bear. The price of surplus water would be far higher than he claims.
Economics aside, some politicians in Malaysia have opposed selling water to us, even when rainfall in Johor is plentiful. Others have used water to apply political pressure on us. Protracted bilateral negotiations from 1998 to 2002 failed to achieve a package deal on water and other issues.
Consequently, the membrane technology breakthrough that led to cost-effective Newater and desalination was of profound importance. It gave us self-sufficiency. We need not fear dying of thirst, regardless of the political climate in Malaysia.
Water technology will also be a strategic industry and beneficial to Singapore's economy in the coming decades: Water scarcity is likely to feature in the 21st century world, just as oil scarcity shaped the later part of the 20th century.
While recent progress in bilateral relations has been welcome, there may come a day when water is in profound shortage and a Malaysian leader has no surplus water to export. Singapore's self-sufficiency ensures that scarcity will not strain the bonds of bilateral friendship. It is also a bulwark against those who would use water to threaten or intimidate us in the future.
This insurance policy is worth buy-ing.
Dr Tan Wu Meng
Technology still costlier
Straits Times Forum 2 Jul 09;
I REFER to the report on Tuesday, 'Singapore firms score big with water tech deals'.
We may be pleased with the progress we have made - and continue to make - with waste-water reclamation and desalination, which enable us to reduce if not eliminate our dependence on rainfall and imported water. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that obtaining potable water from waste water or sea water is more costly than by conventional means, because of the extensive use of membranes and the energy intensity of the purification processes.
However, we need not incur this higher cost, at least for part of our water consumption. As long as the reservoirs in Johor collect more than enough water to satisfy Johor's own needs, and with our entitlement under existing water agreements, it probably makes more economic and environmental sense for both countries if we buy such surplus water from Malaysia. This will be particularly so when the 1961 water agreement expires in 2011, freeing 86 million gallons per day that Malaysia is obliged to supply to us until then.
Of course, both parties must be willing and the price must be right. The price needs to be lower than the lowest variable cost of producing our own water to a comparable level of purity by reclamation or desalination.
The price can be much lower if the quantity offered to us is not fixed over an extended period, but is allowed to vary from time to time, so it is really water that is surplus to Johor's needs.
We benefit from a lower cost of water and Malaysia benefits from realising some monetary value for a commodity it cannot harvest at the moment. It will not affect our overall trade balance, but it will improve Malaysia's. It will also reduce the impact on the environment.
This does not mean we should revert to being dependent, even partially, on imported water. We should, and must, continue to develop the infrastructure to reclaim and/or desalinate water, but we may want to use these facilities only to the extent that we cannot get imported water at a meaningfully lower cost than the variable cost of doing so ourselves.
David Boey
Make Singapore the water tech capital of the world
Straits Times Forum 7 Jul 09;
I REFER to Dr Tan Wu Meng's letter yesterday ('Technology is an insurance policy') and agree that investing in water technology is worthwhile over the long term, for both strategic and security reasons. One should also bear in mind that, observing global trends, investing in water technology has tremendous economic potential.
In the last century, globally, the rate of increase in water usage was about six times the rate of population growth. Currently, only 0.5 per cent of the earth's water is available for use by more than 6.7 billion people, and growing. (About 97 per cent is sea water, and 2.5 per cent is fresh water frozen in Antarctica, the Arctic and glaciers.)
Rapid urbanisation and industrialisation in countries like China, India, Russia and Brazil, and droughts or low rainfall in Africa and Australia, have increased the value of water so much and so quickly, some experts call it the 'new oil' of the 21st century.
Like building oil rigs and producing pharmaceuticals, water technology can become one of Singapore's niche areas of expertise.
If it develops the know-how to convert massive volumes of sea water to fresh water rapidly and cheaply, so unlocking access to the 97 per cent sea water, such technology can be exported worldwide to benefit mankind and enrich Singapore.
Transforming Singapore into the 'water capital' of the world could be quintessential in demonstrating how innovation can bring about prosperity.
Tay Xiong Sheng
