Singapore playing Newater card.

Debmey

our newater is cleaner than the water yu get out of your taps, so pls don't be jealous ok?

laksa

looks clean doesnt mean clean.... just think of the origin..... i'll call u mr jealous from now on...

Debmey

tested with sophiscated equipment boss. You must come over and try it yourself before yu say it is dirty.

laksa

mr jealous,.. i've never said that its dirty... i must admit that its clean.. yes its clean.. but when i think of where it comes from.... u nknow what i mean.... thats all... will never drink it even being paid

Originally posted by laksa at 5-2-2004 04:18 PM:
mr jealous,.. i've never said that its dirty... i must admit that its clean.. yes its clean.. but when i think of where it comes from.... u nknow what i mean.... thats all... will never drink it ev ...

so u admit newater is clean, cleaner than ur tap water.
y u worry where it comes from ... even drinking water in KL or Johore comes from river water polluted with waste n shit from men, animals etc..
:stp:

laksa

Originally posted by BobCat at 7-2-2004 09:37 PM:
so u admit newater is clean, cleaner than ur tap water.
y u worry where it comes from ... even drinking water in KL or Johore comes from river water polluted with waste n shit from men, animals et ...

so, stop drinking tap water in SG la... tap water in Sg came from johor also maa.. drink newater instead...

Originally posted by laksa at 8-2-2004 08:30 AM:
so, stop drinking tap water in SG la... tap water in Sg came from johor also maa.. drink newater instead...

we malaysian get 2 drink water from a clean source...not water that come from waste...

feel so sore...right? neber mind, cool down n drink ur tap water...yuks..methink it comes from treating ur filthy polluted river water right?   
wan SG super clean sparkling tap water or newater?  we sell u at...wait a minute...maybe we tok tok price...starting first offer, S$45 u wan ?

sonny~~

89MM89 has gone into hidin with me HARDfacts.  sigh  

Originally posted by 89MM89 at 2004-1-30 04:58 PM:
According to sonny, singapore newater strategy up to 2061 is a good move but, unfortunately, it is also like pointing a "loaded gun" at m'sia. I'm sure he can expand on it if he wanted to

u're confused big guy
when me said its like pointin a loaded gun, the gun is not pointed at msia but at spore's temple.  read me postins in the right perspective

me said if spore is not able to attain self sufficiency with newater by 2061, spore can expect msia pointin a loaded gun aginst spore's temple.  why?  simple.  in the current water deal, wealthiest spore of south east asia is suckin msia's water dry with the PRINCELY 3 SEN price right?  n this suckin gonna last 2061 right?  hence come 2061, its gonna msia's turn to suck spore dry if spore is not able to achieve self sufficiency.  right?  revenge is sweet.  lets hope msia is not gonna stay righteous donkey as it is now

Indeed, I would feel very sorry for singaporeans if, by 2061, SG is still dependent on water from the rivers of Johore. The "loaded gun", as sonny said, would instead be pointed at the temple of s'poreans because, for starters, m'sia should demand 45 or 60 ringgit instead of the infamous 3 sen !

yup for starters msia should demand 45 or 60 ringgit.  but msia bein ever soooooooooo mindful of its neighbour welfare, u know msia's former pm infamous words - somethin like "enrich thy neighour", so no way msia gonna cry over spilled milk.  come 2061, only then msia gonna apply SONNYs infamous sayin "an eye for an eye".  agin lets hope msia is not gonna stay righteous donkey as it is now.  no hard feelin anyone.  its matter of fact speakin  :bg:

peace

[ Last edited by sonny~~ on 6-3-2004 at 11:01 AM ]

Acong

laksa

Originally posted by BobCat at 8-2-2004 10:00 AM:



feel so sore...right? neber mind, cool down n drink ur tap water...yuks..methink it comes from treating ur filthy polluted river water right?   
wan SG super clean sparkling tap water or new ...

wait a minute...... u people in SG still consume water from malaysia right?? so u too drink/use filthy polluted river water right? prove me wrong.....

sonny~~

Originally posted by laksa at 2004-3-13 12:08 PM:




wait a minute...... u people in SG still consume water from malaysia right?? so u too drink/use filthy polluted river water right? prove me wrong.....

sure sporeans r usin filthy polluted water from msia but its treated n its considred hygienically clean.  likewise sporeans r treatin their faeces for drinkin water.  nonethless if sporeans can circulate their faeces, urine etc both from man n animals self sufficiently, then they dont need no water from msia no more.  right?  its gonna be win win situation  

peace   

ariyamusafir

Originally posted by BobCat at 8-2-2004 10:00:



feel so sore...right? neber mind, cool down n drink ur tap water...yuks..methink it comes from treating ur filthy polluted river water right?   
wan SG super clean sparkling tap water or new ...

Sorry lah, we do not need your water, we drink our clean water, unlike, yours have to drink CHEMICALLY treated water poluted with shit and the so. Ours here is clean, treated before we drink. Clean before after treatment and clean after treatment. Before treatment, maybe a little dirty but then, it is ok, unlike yours in Singapore, before treated, water tainted with SHIT and other rubbish. So whos is cleaner and safer??? Whos is not so much having chemical used in thier treatment????

[ Last edited by ariyamusafir on 13-3-2004 at 06:09 PM ]

ariyamusafir

Originally posted by Debmey at 5-2-2004 14:03:
our newater is cleaner than the water yu get out of your taps, so pls don't be jealous ok?

We are not jealous, at least ours is treated with less chemical, way much less and ours is more natural!!! Hahahaha!!! Jealous ah?????

ariyamusafir

This is facts taken from the Information Ministry Of Malaysia:

[quote]Part 1


WATER : The Singapore - Malaysia Dispute - THE FACTS
IN the last few years, water has been the source of too much dissension between Malaysia and Singapore.

It should not. A torrent of rhetoric, allegations and occasional misrepresentation has muddied the central question: Can any person on this earth, in this day and age, truthfully say that three Malaysian sen

ariyamusafir

[quote]Part 2

3. Malaysia had many times agreed on the price of water...

Singapore: "At a meeting between Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Mr Lee Kuan Yew on Aug 15, 2000, the two leaders agreed that in return for Malaysia agreeing to sell water to Singapore beyond the expiry of the current agreements, Singapore would pay 45 sen per 1,000 gallons now." (Singapore Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, 2003 Water Talks? If Only It Could, page 8.)

Malaysia: Singapore's offer was never accepted by Malaysia.

This assertion is supported by an article on the Aug 16, 2000 meeting written by Ms Irene Ng, then political correspondent of Singapore Straits Times, now Singapore Member of Parliament. Headlined "Singapore-KL pact's success hinges on details", Ms Ng wrote: "Like any skeleton, the broad agreement to resolve the outstanding issues between Singapore and Malaysia will not come to life until it is fleshed out properly, and spirit breathed into it.

"The agreement reached by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad last Tuesday is now being filled out by officials.

"The details they have to tackle include the price of water under the current agreement and the ratio of raw to treated water beyond 2061.

"As for spirit, its nature will depend much on such details, where they say the devil often is." (Singapore Straits Times, Aug 16, 2000.) Moreover, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew himself confirmed the lack of agreement on price. In a letter dated Aug 24, 2000, written nine days after his meeting with Dr Mahathir, Mr Lee wrote to then Finance Minister Tun Daim Zainuddin: "To make it easier for us to write to each other, to test various options, all notes or letters I send to you or Mahathir, or vice-versa, will be treated as Without Prejudice: that there is no agreement until all points are agreed and signed by the two PMs." We are unable to understand why Singapore continues to insist that Malaysia accepted its offer to pay 45 sen per 1,000 gallons for raw water on Aug 15, 2000.

So far, Singapore has put many prices on the table. So has Malaysia. No agreement has been reached on a fair price for water. In Mr Lee Kuan Yew's own words, all prices cited or mentioned are "to test options". All prices cited or mentioned are subject to negotiation and agreement by both sides.

4. After agreeing more than once, Malaysia has repeatedly reneged and shifted the goal posts.

(a) from 45 Malaysian sen to 60 Malaysian sen per 1,000 gallons.

Singapore: "Six months later, however, in February 2001, Malaysia backtracked on the 45 sen agreement. Dr Mahathir said Johor believed that 60 sen was fair.

Singapore later offered a compromise: 45 sen for water now, and 60 sen for water after 2011.

In March 2002, Malaysia sent Singapore a shocker. It wanted 60 sen for water now and it wanted the price backdated to 1986 and 1987.

Not only that, it also wanted RM3 for water from 2007 to 2011. From 2011 onwards, the price would be adjusted yearly for inflation." (Singapore Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, 2003 Water Talks? If Only It Could page 8.)

Malaysia: Malaysia has never accepted Singapore's offer of 45 sen per 1,000 gallons. So the question of backtracking does not arise. In his letter dated Feb 21, 2001, Dr Mahathir said Johor believed that 60 sen was a fair price. Nowhere in the letter does Dr Mahathir suggest the 60 sen price should be applicable after 2011.

Dr Mahathir wrote: "Johor is agreeable to revisions in the price of raw water that it now supplies to Singapore and the treated water that it buys from Singapore. The price of raw water that it sells to other Malaysian States should not be a basis for determining the price of raw water. There are elements of subsidies to this supply.

"Johor believes that a fair price would be 60 sen (per 1,000 gallons per day of raw water). The price should be reviewed every five years." It is clear from Dr Mahathir's letter that the proposed price of 60 sen was for now, for the immediate time frame

ariyamusafir

[quote]Part 3

6. Singapore is losing money; Singapore is subsidising Johor

Singapore: "... Singapore loses money when its sells water back to Johor. The water that Singapore sells to Johor is treated water. It costs Singapore RM2.40 to treat every 1,000 gallons of water. By selling it to Johor at only 50 sen, the subsidy Singapore absorbs is RM1.90.

Multiply that by the total amount of treated water that Johor buys from Singapore, and the subsidy adds up to RM70,000 a day and RM25 million a year!" (Singapore Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, 2003 Water Talks? If Only It Could, page 6.)

Malaysia: Based on Singapore's claim that it cost RM2.40 to treat every 1,000 gallons of water, the subsidy borne by Singapore totalled RM21.1 million in 2000, RM23.9 million in 2001 and RM26.5 million in 2002. Singapore says it is "RM25 million a year!". (Note the emphatic exclamation mark).

However one figures it, Singapore's subsidy on treated water is hardly a king's ransom. (Malaysia is pleased to inform the island republic that in the future, this "subsidy" will be no longer necessary. Johor will buy no more treated water from Singapore.) Besides the fact that every year Johor has paid much, much more for the modest amount of treated water it purchased from Singapore than Singapore has paid Johor for the ocean of raw water the island republic receives, guess how much Johor has been subsidising affluent Singapore? Instead of paying RM2.83 million in 2002, if Singapore did not have access to raw water from Johor and if it had to produce NEWater to substitute for the Johor raw water it took, it would have cost Singapore RM478.4 million or S$217.5 million (US$125.9 million) in 2002.

If Singapore was subsidising Malaysia annually to the tune of "RM25 million!", Malaysia has over the last three years (alone) subsidised Singapore to the tune of RM1,258.3 million! (Singapore $572 million or US$333.1 million).

Malaysia's net subsidy to Singapore was RM354.3 million in 2000, RM380.6 million in 2001 and RM451.9 million in 2002! (Perhaps here an exclamation mark might be justified).

7. Payment for operational and infrastructure costs

Singapore: "All these years, Singapore has been paying for the infrastructure, such as dams, pipelines, plants and equipment. It also pays for the operational and maintenance costs. These add up to millions of dollars a year. Johor benefits too as the waterworks also supply water to Johor residents.

The same payment principle was used when Johor signed the Linggiu Dam agreement with Singapore's PUB in 1990: Singapore paid for the construction of the dam. Johor owns the dam, but Singapore pays for all its operational costs. These sums are on top of the RM320 million paid to Johor upfront in 1990 as compensation for the loss of use of land.

All in, Singapore has spent more than S$1 billion on the water projects. This is money that has gone into the Johor economy. The dam has also benefited Johor residents. Would Singapore have invested so much in the project if it knew that Malaysia was going to up the price of water 10 years down the road?" (Singapore Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, 2003 Water Talks? If Only It Could, page 7.)

Malaysia: Singapore Government officials are very smart people. Did they expect the price of 1.4 Singapore cents per 1,000 gallons to last forever? Would they have paid so much money without making sure that Singapore was receiving good value for money? Instead of buying 468.7 billion gallons of water from Johor at three sen per 1,000 gallons from 1997 to 2002, if Singapore has used NEWater as a substitute, the island republic's water bill would have swelled by an additional RM2,376.4 million or S$1,080.2 million.

What this means is that from 1997 to 2002, by supplying water at three sen per 1,000 gallons, Malaysia subsidised Singapore by a total of RM2,376.4 million

ariyamusafir

[quote]Part 4

8. The central issue: a fair price or the process of negotiation?

Singapore: "Being legalistic is not a matter of choice. As a small country, law is Singapore's only protection. For Singapore, the key issue is not how much we pay, but how any price revision is arrived at." (Singapore Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, 2003 Water Talks? If Only it Could, page 10.)

Malaysia: We disagree with Singapore. The central issue is not about how a price revision is arrived at. The central issue is a fair price

ariyamusafir

Sorry guys, this is the same thing for the booklet posted by the Kementrial Penerangan which cost only 3 sen, so to long and I have to split up to few parts before I can post the whole thing. Too long.

[ Last edited by ariyamusafir on 17-3-2004 at 03:05 AM ]

laksa

nice job general tan..... keep up ur good work

ariyamusafir

Originally posted by laksa at 14-3-2004 14:55:
nice job general tan..... keep up ur good work

Thank you thank you!! Thanks for all your support.