got this from the malaysian catcha site, it's post by a
Singapore Forummer:
BY: andygan168 ,Posted:2002-09-15 15:41:15 catcha.com.my
Everyone,
I am a Singaporean, but I have relatives that are citizens of many
countries (including Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, USA, China,
Taiwan, Thailand, France, London, Australia, Sweden, Canada)...
just to name a few.
And half of my colleagues are Malaysian, and they are as
technically competent and capable as Singaporeans, if not
better.
In fact, one of my Malaysian relative is a secretary general of a
branch office of MCA in a particular state. And one of my relative
in Singapore was an opposition MP, and one of my cousin was the
classmate of the ruling Lee family in Singapore. So you see, I am
not taking sides with this posting.
So please do not take offence if I happen to quote a few facts that
MAY offend Malaysians & Singaporeans (including my relatives).
I humbly request anyone to correct my mistakes and calculations if
any, so as to have a meaningful discussion.
I hope rational Singaporeans forumers will not take the facts here
to shoot and insult the Malaysian forumers.
If any forumers wish to argue just to win without concise facts and
figures, please go ahead because I will not respond, I will simply
let you "win" the argument.
FACTS AND FIGURES OBTAINED FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE CAUSEWAY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) All agreements (Water Pact, Points of Agreement on RTM land in
Singapore etc) are meant to be binding. Breaches of agreement comes
with damages and compensation, and that is a fact, unless both
parties come to an amicable solution. The Points of Agreement (POA)
on RTM land was legally binding (i.e. RTM must move the CIQ, and
train station to either Bukit Timah or Kranji) by 1997 or 1998
(correct me if I am wrong here), otherwise Singapore can demand
compensation and damages. Being a neighbour (good or bad, depending
on your percption), Singapore withhold the right (but not
relinquishing the right for damages) for compensation instead
opting to discuss the POA together with the Water Agreements as a
package.
2) Every countries & persons do things for their self-interest,
however big or small they are (look at the biggest thug in the
world - USA). So it is part & parcel of negotiation tactics
(just read any book on negotiation tactics), to use just about
everything to off-balance and "win" the negotiation (e.g. NeWater,
ToiletWater, Pee-Water). So all the "heated" messages in the
newspapers in both countries are normal (although it would seem
Malaysian papers are more "heated" than Singapore papers, because I
read papers from both sides).
3) That brings us to rationality of argument put forth by forumers
and editors of newspapers in both countries. Some has political
agendas to advance their parties or patrons, or just to simply
boost the sales of their papers. Therefore all "hot" topics are
fair game. Some editors may just "hate" the other side for some
unknown or historical reasons, and will therefore write unfair or
wrong things (intentionally or otherwise) just to "inflame"
emotions.
4) Here are the details and facts:
a) Singapore buy raw water from Johor at MYR$0.03 per thousand
gallon
b) Singapore treats the raw water at MYR$2.40 per thousand gallon
in Johor with treatment plants build by Singapore with Singaporean
tax-payers money. This includes the building of dams to hold back
water into a reservoir and pipelines to Singapore and Johor
distribution points.
c) Singapore pipes the treated water to Johor and back to
Singapore.
d) Singapore makes a huge loss of MYR$1.90 per thousand gallon of
treated water sold to Johor, because Johor buys at only MYR$0.50
per thousand gallon. In effect, Singapore subsidises Johoreans
drinking water. But it is OK with us since many Johoreans work and
study in Singapore and Singaporeans like to shop and dine in
Johor.
e) Johor buys about 37 million gallons of treated water per day
from Singapore (20 million gallons above the limit as stated in the
Water Agreements). The 37 million gallons of treated water a day
costs Singapore tax-payers about MYR$70,300 per day to
subsidise.
f) Johor buys the treated water at MYR$0.50 per thousand gallon,
meaning Singapore receives from Johor MYR$18,500 per day for buying
of treated water.
g) Singapore is already being a good neighbour by allowing Malaysia
to buy an extra 20 million gallons (i.e. 37 million gallons) of
treated water per day (well above the 17 million gallons stated in
the Water Agreements) out of goodwill and reasons stated in (4e).
So therefore do not accuse Singapore of always following by the
book.
h) Johor resells the treated water to Johoreans at MYR$3.95 per
thousand gallon. In effect, Johor government "earns" from Johoreans
MYR$127,650 per day (just by observing the Water Agreements) after
deducting MYR$18,500 per day in paying Singapore for the treated
water. So all the talks about Malaysia losing money selling raw
water at MYR$0.03 per thousand gallon does not hold water.
i) Malaysia is commited to sell Singapore 350 million gallons of
raw water per day, assuming Singapore buys at the legal limit,
Singapore will pay about MYR$10,500 per day. In reality, Malaysia
does not lose any money from selling water to Singapore (compared
the numbers in 4h and 4i). Of course, MYR$10,500 is not much from
today's standard of living, but imagine the same amount can do when
the Water Agreements was signed long ago in 1927. The same amount
invested with compounded interest could probably allow the Johor
Sultan to buy back parts of Singapore everyday, until he becomes
the biggest real estate owner of Singapore.
5) Here is the big picture:
a) Assuming Singapore buys raw water at full capacity stated in the
Water Agreements for one full year, Johor gets only a meagre
MYR$3.8 million per year.
b) Johor buys Singapore treated water at MYR$6.7 million per
year.
c) Singapore subsidises the treated water at (i.e. at a huge loss)
of MYR$25.7 million per year.
c) However, Johor earns from "Johoreans" at MYR$46.6 million per
year, without spending a "single cent", after deducting the cost of
buying treated water from Singapore.
d) The reason for the Malaysian government wanting to quickly
revise the Water Agreements is due to the fact that Johor has built
its own water treatment plant at a cost of MYR$650 million, and
will be operational in 2003.
e) Being a Singaporean (whom my Malaysian relatives defined as
calculative and opportunistic), I took out my calculator out for a
quick financial analysis. At MYR$650 million building cost, Johor
could actually purchase treated water from Singapore for the next
100 years without spending that money.
f) In fact, Johor stands to gain by not building the treatment
plant, because Johor would "earn" MYR$4.66 billion from Johoreans
for the next 100 years just by selling the treated water supplied
by Singapore (i.e. without building its own treatment plant),
assuming it buys 37 million gallons of treated water per day for
the next 100 years (which is unlikely, meaning Johor will buy even
more as population grows and industries expand).
g) Now applying the calculation in reverse, let\\'s see how much
Johor will "lose" in terms of opportunity cost in building its own
treatment plant. Assuming the treatment plant cost nothing to
maintain per year and Johor needs to treat 37 million gallons of
treated water per day at the same price as Singapore (i.e. MYR$2.40
per gallon assuming no inflation) for the next 100 years. It will
cost Johor MYR$3.24 billion. If we assume Johor sells the treated
water to Johoreans at MYR$3.95 per thousand gallon, Johor will
"earn" only MYR$1.4 billion over 100 years after deducting the cost
of building its own treatment plant. Take a breather to think how
much is Singapore subsidising Johoreans for treated water if the
Water Agreements last for another 100 years to the tune of MYR$2.57
billion!
h) Now everyone knows the true reason for wanting to revise the
price Johor sells the raw water to Singapore, because Johor
treatment plant will be ready for operation in 2003.
i) It should also be clear that why Johor did not revise the price
of the raw water sold and in 1986 and 1987 as stipulated in the
Water Agreements, because in doing so Singapore could also raise
the price of treated water sold to Johor. This inter-dependence on
each other results in Johor building its own treatment plant.
j) However, as shown in (5f & 5g) it seems a financial
mis-calculation to build the treatment plant just to revise the
Water Agreements. Of course, one could argue for Johor water
security and needs for treated water independence from Singapore.
Similarly, Singapore could also argue for water security and needs
for raw water independence from Johor to revise and extend the
Water Agreements.
k) Take a step back and view the big picture, Johor and Singapore
are dependent on each other for many things including water (yes,
Johor has the edge since raw water is on their side). But so what?
If Singapore needs more raw water, just buy more from Johor. If
Johor needs more treated water, just buy more from Singapore. A
"win-win" situation even without revising the current raw water and
treated water price.
6) Conclusion:
a) Other than water security, inter-dependence and politics, ask
yourself who has the most to gain from building and operating the
treatment plants?
b) With the Johor treatment plants in operation, do you think the
Johor government will sell treated water to Johoreans for MYR$3.95
per thousand gallons? If the Johor government wants to "reap" the
same profit (i.e. MYR$4.66 billion over 100 years), the price of
water sold to Johoreans will have to increase by 3 times to MYR$12
per thousand gallons.
c) Therefore can anyone tell me how is Johor or Malaysia losing
"millions" or "billions" by selling raw water to Singapore at
MYR$0.03 per thousand gallons?
Think about what I wrote and shoot sensibly.
If there is a topic on replacing the Causeway with a new Bridge, I
will also give my 2 cents worth on why it MAY be bad for the Johor
economy.
Thanks.
Adios 
Disclaimer: I shall not be liable or anything abover in bold cos
that's not my opinion, it's a cut & paste.
BTW: I remember the reporters asking about the treated water
pricing and stuff and Dr.M decline to comment.......
