Significant Singapore News

[minority]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3142...-each-day.html

Starbucks 'wastes 23 million litres of water each day'
The American coffee shop chain Starbucks has been accused of wasting more than 23 million litres of water each day because staff are told to leave taps running non-stop.

The bizarre policy, which is aimed at preventing germs developing in the taps in its 10,000 stores worldwide, has outraged environmental groups.
Every Starbucks branch has a cold tap behind the counter providing water for a sink called a "dipper well" used for washing spoons and utensils and the staff are banned from turning the water off under "health and safety rules", an investigation claims.
In a letter to a customer who complained about the waste, a Starbucks executive revealed that a constant flow stops breeding in the taps.
It means that 23.4 million litres of water - enough to fill an Olympic swimming pool every 83 minutes or sustain the population of drought-hit Namibia - is wasted every day.
In the UK alone, where there are 698 branches open for 13 hours a day, it counts for around 1.63 million litres of water wasted.
It raises questions about the Seattle-based company's much-hyped environmental credentials and will embarrass its legion of celebrity patrons.
Water firms say the policy harms the environment, while hygiene experts dismissed the health and safety-motivated policy as "nonsense" and "bonkers".
A spokesman for UK Water, which represents water companies, said it was "wasteful and unnecessary".
"There is absolutely no need to keep taps running," he said.
Peter Robinson, of Waste Watch, the environmental charity, said: "Leaving taps running all day is a shocking waste of precious water. And to claim you are doing it for health and safety reasons is bonkers.
"Tap water comes from rivers and groundwater and wasting it can cause great harm to the environment and wildlife. Big companies should set an example."
Jacob Tompkins, of Water Wise, said that provided the firm was undertaking all the usual cleaning processes, such a step was unnecessary.
"The chance of a build-up in the spout is extremely remote," he said. "And if there is one, they're not cleaning the tap properly."
A spokesman for Starbucks said the company’s water usage adhered to the World Health Organization, United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the European Union directives.
She said: “The dipper well system currently in use ensures that we meet or exceed our own and local health standards.
“Dipper wells use a stream of continuous cold fresh-running water to rinse away food residue, help keep utensils clean and prevent bacterial growth.”
However, she added: “We recognise the opportunity exists to reduce our total water usage. Starbucks’ challenge is to balance water conservation with the need for customer safety.”

[minority]

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com...of-free-water/

When the well’s dry, we know the worth of water.
– Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard’s Almanac, 1746

The problem with water, many economists say, is the fact that it is essentially free.

That may come as a surprise to you if you receive a monthly bill from your local water utility. But the economists are technically correct. In most places in the world, we pay only for the cost of delivering the water to our homes or businesses, i.e., the cost of electricity to push it through distribution pipes, clean out impurities, or to construct a reservoir to store water. The water itself is free. (See Ireland’s shift to charge at least something for water.)

Because the water itself doesn’t cost anything, its price doesn’t go up when water supplies become scarce, such as during the wicked droughts that are now wreaking havoc in the bread baskets of the U.S. and Russia, in the heart of Africa centered around Zaire and Uganda, or across India. In the language of economists, water lacks a “price signal.” (See surprising photos of the drought.)

As a result, our use of water is free of one of the most powerful constraints on human behavior: its expense.

We’ve all witnessed the power of a price signal when the cost of gasoline rises at the local filling station. Gasoline consumption drops sharply. High gasoline prices are so powerful that they can drive up sales of hybrid and other gas-efficient cars.

It’s really painful to pay more for anything these days, but when it causes us to use less it can help everyone get through a shortage.

Lacking a price restraint, water use has spiraled out of control in many parts of the world. In water we are witnessing the “tragedy of the commons” that ecologist Garrett Hardin so presciently foretold in the journal Science in 1968. The tragedy of the commons, wrote Hardin, is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally in their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone’s long-term interest for this to happen.

The result: Once-mighty rivers like the Colorado, the Yellow, the Murray-Darling, and the Ganges are now regularly running dry, and vast aquifers like the Ogallala of the U.S. and the Arabian in Saudi Arabia are being drained rapidly. (See eight mighty rivers run dry.)

Coke’s Hard Lesson

The Coca-Cola Company knows the perils of the tragedy of the commons. It bit the company in the bum in 2004.

That year, local officials in Kerala, India shut down a $16 million Coke bottling plant blamed for groundwater declines that dried up the wells of many poor farmers. In a case that has risen to the High Court of Kerala, the company has argued through extensive documentation, computer modeling, and expert testimony that its use of water played only a small part in the aquifer’s depletion. Regardless of the legal outcomes in this case, anti-Coke protests that spread from India across U.S. and European university campuses certainly tarnished the company’s brand. In response, the company has become one of the world’s most water-mindful companies today, investing heavily in water-protective measures in the watersheds where it operates.

In India and many other countries including the U.S., government subsidies have further weakened any cost constraints on water use. The Indian government heavily subsidizes electricity costs that would otherwise restrain farmers from pumping groundwater unnecessarily. The federal government in the U.S. has subsidized the cost of dams and canals that supply water to western farms, amounting to a subsidy of $440 per hectare per year.

The subsidies on urban and agricultural water are in most cases well intended. We should do everything possible to hold down the price of food and water, particularly for those that can ill afford it. Our water pricing structures should subsidize water costs for those that most need the help.

But we have to do something to arrest the tragedy of the commons in water, and in the absence of other controls we need to better use the one effective lever we’ve got. We need to create new pricing structures for water.

The costs of cheap water are far too high. It has allowed for severe dewatering of the planet’s freshwater sources and caused sea level rise to accelerate. Twenty percent of irrigated food production is at risk due to groundwater overdraft. Water shortages have pushed millions of hectares of farms out of production, and placed a significant chunk of global GDP at risk. Because urban water utilities have not been charging enough to cover long-term maintenance costs, we are facing a trillion dollar debt to repair water infrastructure.

When the well goes dry, the fact that the water was free to begin with does no good for the farmer. Nor the rest of us.
Water Solutions

If you ask an economist for a solution to a problem, you can bet that the answer will have money in it. In his new book on The End of Abundance, economist David Zetland argues for the imposition of a scarcity premium on water pricing – a sliding scale that causes water to become more expensive as it becomes more scarce — as a way to prevent future water shortages.

There are other ways to manage water responsibly and sustainably other than to raise its cost, of course. Governments could manage the allocation of water use such that our use does not exceed its natural replenishment. Your bank doesn’t allow you to spend more money than you deposit. But to date no government in the world has succeeded in controlling its water bankruptcy.

We could ask corporations to offset their water use in their local catchments by helping other water users use less. After all, at least two-thirds of all water use globally flows through corporate supply chains. But to date, very few companies are committing to offset their water use in any way, and even fewer are acting on their commitments.

We could go on enjoying the gift of free water. But you can damn well bet that you won’t be smiling when the debts of unsustainable water use finally come due.

[teddybear]

Forcing of scrapping of cars are so wasteful because COE only valid for 10 years, imagine the amount of pollution caused by scrapping of the cars! When it comes to making money, environment doesn't seem to be a concern anymore!
To save environment, COE should be valid for 20 years instead (which is about the workable life span of a car in Singapore)!

In addition, why should cars of 3 years and 5 years of age need inspection?
In UK, their cars easily travel double the mileage of those in Singapore and they only need inspection from after 7th year, or this is equivalent to after 14th year in Singapore!
Wasteful indeed!

[minority]

Forcing of scrapping of cars are so wasteful because COE only valid for 10 years, imagine the amount of pollution caused by scrapping of the cars! When it comes to making money, environment doesn't seem to be a concern anymore!
To save environment, COE should be valid for 20 years instead (which is about the workable life span of a car in Singapore)!

In addition, why should cars of 3 years and 5 years of age need inspection?
In UK, their cars easily travel double the mileage of those in Singapore and they only need inspection from after 7th year, or this is equivalent to after 14th year in Singapore!
Wasteful indeed!

DONT COME BULL SHIT AGAIN!! CARS ARE Either RE EXPORTED OR PARTS ARE SOLD TO 3rd WORLD COUNTRY!!! SO DONT COME GIVE MOTHER HOOD FAKE SHIT!

OLD CARS ARE ALSO LESS EFFICIENT AND POLLUTE MORE! YOUR USUAL HORSE SHIT CRAP

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ve-air-quality

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/eas...-whenever-smog

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-new...icle-pollution

INSPECTING A CAR WASTE WHAT? WASTE UR BRAIN CELL??? u HAVE BRAIN MEH?

[teddybear]

The same can be said of electricity and oil and gas:
When the oil and gas gets consumed, the world will be in darkness and people may need to eat raw food...........


So is the government in future going to impose another additional electricity tariff of $10 per kWh on electricity just like they planning to impose increase on water (when they are already making a few times profit over costs)?

"The problem with water, many economists say, is the fact that it is essentially free." - That applies to other countries..............
And the problem with water in Singapore, is that Singaporeans have been over-charged by a few times for the past 17 years..............

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com...of-free-water/

When the well’s dry, we know the worth of water.
– Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard’s Almanac, 1746

The problem with water, many economists say, is the fact that it is essentially free.

That may come as a surprise to you if you receive a monthly bill from your local water utility. But the economists are technically correct. In most places in the world, we pay only for the cost of delivering the water to our homes or businesses, i.e., the cost of electricity to push it through distribution pipes, clean out impurities, or to construct a reservoir to store water. The water itself is free. (See Ireland’s shift to charge at least something for water.)

Because the water itself doesn’t cost anything, its price doesn’t go up when water supplies become scarce, such as during the wicked droughts that are now wreaking havoc in the bread baskets of the U.S. and Russia, in the heart of Africa centered around Zaire and Uganda, or across India. In the language of economists, water lacks a “price signal.” (See surprising photos of the drought.)

As a result, our use of water is free of one of the most powerful constraints on human behavior: its expense.

We’ve all witnessed the power of a price signal when the cost of gasoline rises at the local filling station. Gasoline consumption drops sharply. High gasoline prices are so powerful that they can drive up sales of hybrid and other gas-efficient cars.

It’s really painful to pay more for anything these days, but when it causes us to use less it can help everyone get through a shortage.

Lacking a price restraint, water use has spiraled out of control in many parts of the world. In water we are witnessing the “tragedy of the commons” that ecologist Garrett Hardin so presciently foretold in the journal Science in 1968. The tragedy of the commons, wrote Hardin, is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally in their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone’s long-term interest for this to happen.

The result: Once-mighty rivers like the Colorado, the Yellow, the Murray-Darling, and the Ganges are now regularly running dry, and vast aquifers like the Ogallala of the U.S. and the Arabian in Saudi Arabia are being drained rapidly. (See eight mighty rivers run dry.)

Coke’s Hard Lesson

The Coca-Cola Company knows the perils of the tragedy of the commons. It bit the company in the bum in 2004.

That year, local officials in Kerala, India shut down a $16 million Coke bottling plant blamed for groundwater declines that dried up the wells of many poor farmers. In a case that has risen to the High Court of Kerala, the company has argued through extensive documentation, computer modeling, and expert testimony that its use of water played only a small part in the aquifer’s depletion. Regardless of the legal outcomes in this case, anti-Coke protests that spread from India across U.S. and European university campuses certainly tarnished the company’s brand. In response, the company has become one of the world’s most water-mindful companies today, investing heavily in water-protective measures in the watersheds where it operates.

In India and many other countries including the U.S., government subsidies have further weakened any cost constraints on water use. The Indian government heavily subsidizes electricity costs that would otherwise restrain farmers from pumping groundwater unnecessarily. The federal government in the U.S. has subsidized the cost of dams and canals that supply water to western farms, amounting to a subsidy of $440 per hectare per year.

The subsidies on urban and agricultural water are in most cases well intended. We should do everything possible to hold down the price of food and water, particularly for those that can ill afford it. Our water pricing structures should subsidize water costs for those that most need the help.

But we have to do something to arrest the tragedy of the commons in water, and in the absence of other controls we need to better use the one effective lever we’ve got. We need to create new pricing structures for water.

The costs of cheap water are far too high. It has allowed for severe dewatering of the planet’s freshwater sources and caused sea level rise to accelerate. Twenty percent of irrigated food production is at risk due to groundwater overdraft. Water shortages have pushed millions of hectares of farms out of production, and placed a significant chunk of global GDP at risk. Because urban water utilities have not been charging enough to cover long-term maintenance costs, we are facing a trillion dollar debt to repair water infrastructure.

When the well goes dry, the fact that the water was free to begin with does no good for the farmer. Nor the rest of us.
Water Solutions

If you ask an economist for a solution to a problem, you can bet that the answer will have money in it. In his new book on The End of Abundance, economist David Zetland argues for the imposition of a scarcity premium on water pricing – a sliding scale that causes water to become more expensive as it becomes more scarce — as a way to prevent future water shortages.

There are other ways to manage water responsibly and sustainably other than to raise its cost, of course. Governments could manage the allocation of water use such that our use does not exceed its natural replenishment. Your bank doesn’t allow you to spend more money than you deposit. But to date no government in the world has succeeded in controlling its water bankruptcy.

We could ask corporations to offset their water use in their local catchments by helping other water users use less. After all, at least two-thirds of all water use globally flows through corporate supply chains. But to date, very few companies are committing to offset their water use in any way, and even fewer are acting on their commitments.

We could go on enjoying the gift of free water. But you can damn well bet that you won’t be smiling when the debts of unsustainable water use finally come due.

[danguard]

DONT COME BULL SHIT AGAIN!! CARS ARE Either RE EXPORTED OR PARTS ARE SOLD TO 3rd WORLD COUNTRY!!! SO DONT COME GIVE MOTHER HOOD FAKE SHIT!

OLD CARS ARE ALSO LESS EFFICIENT AND POLLUTE MORE! YOUR USUAL HORSE SHIT CRAP

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ve-air-quality

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/eas...-whenever-smog

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-new...icle-pollution

INSPECTING A CAR WASTE WHAT? WASTE UR BRAIN CELL??? u HAVE BRAIN MEH?

Er is there something I am missing why the aggro ah ?

I agree that the inspection frequency is not economical and waste valuable financial resources. Why not impose vehicle breakdown fines better if such is due to poor maintenance and no show of record s of regular servicing

[minority]

Er is there something I am missing why the aggro ah ?

I agree that the inspection frequency is not economical and waste valuable financial resources. Why not impose vehicle breakdown fines better if such is due to poor maintenance and no show of record s of regular servicing

The comparison of personal cost verses economic cost as well as the pollution factor of old and badly maintained cars. Also curb illegal modifications

[teddybear]

What a bullshit!
Curb illegal modifications need to send car for checkup at 3th year and 5th year and every year from 7th year onward?
What is stopping people from illegal modification after checkup?
Might as well say ask people to send their car for checkup every month or every week to curb illegal modification?!

Pollution factor of old and badly maintained cars? Old petrol cars don't pollute as much as old diesel vehicles!
Might as well ASK why ComfortDelgro owned by Government is using old diesel cars that are causing a lot of pollution and they should be using electric cars like Tesla with electricity generated by green energy or gas (rather than from crude and coal)........
Similarly for SBS Transit and SMRT buses also owned by Government why they are still using old diesel buses that are causing so much pollution! They should be using pure electric buses!

The comparison of personal cost verses economic cost as well as the pollution factor of old and badly maintained cars. Also curb illegal modifications

[teddybear]

Sounds great to people, until you dive deeper into the details and FACTs.........

PUB makes a profit thanks only to govt grants: Maliki
PUBLISHEDFEB 27, 2017, 5:00 AM SGT
Pearl Lee

National water agency PUB made a profit of more than $160 million last year only because it received about $200 million in grants.

Without the government grants, PUB would have been operating at a deficit, said Senior Minister of State for Defence and Foreign Affairs Maliki Osman yesterday.

The East Coast GRC MP was responding to a participant who asked about PUB's profitability at a post-Budget dialogue with about 100 Malay residents.


On Friday, socio-political site States Times Review published an article stating that PUB is going ahead with a 30 per cent increase in water prices despite posting a profit of $166 million last year.

But Dr Maliki told residents the profitmust be seen in the context of the subsidy that PUB received from the Government.

As with previous forums, the increase in water prices was a top concern for residents. Some were worried about its impact on consumer goods and the prices of food and drinks sold in coffee shops.

Water prices will increase by 30 per cent in two phases from July butthose living in public flats will receive rebates to help them cope.

Dr Maliki yesterday explained to residents that 1,000 litres of water are now sold at $2.15. With the hike, the price will go up to $2.74. Assuming that amount of water can make 5,000 cups of coffee, the increase in price for one cup of coffee would work out to be a fraction of a cent.
.........................................

[teddybear]

duplicated

[teddybear]

Sometimes when they tried to justify something by showing some "facts", I wonder whether they in turn open a can of "worms"?

For example, some people can now question: Why government need to give grants to PUB? Is it to make their budget surplus looks smaller than they really are???

Another question: Why not increase the grant to PUB such that there is no need to increase the price of water?

Another question: by how much did the total profits exceed the total grants in the last 53 years, since the founding of the PUB?
Public services’ gross price more than private sector?

For the last question, we can find some FACTS:
Actually, from FY2009 and earlier, PUB had been making HUGE INCOMEs before Government Grant! (And it still receive Government Grant!)

Below is a summary of PUB Net Income and Gov Grant:
Fin Year: Net Income before Gov Grant; Gov Grant
2010: NI = -$71.8M (loss); Grant = $185.2M
2009 NI = $47.5M; Grant = $184.5M
2008 NI = $70.7M; Grant = $180.3M
2007 NI = $225.1M (HUGE PROFIT!); Grant = $90.2M
2006 NI = $274.7M (HUGE PROFIT!); Grant = $99.7M
2005 NI = $173.6M (HUGE PROFIT!); Grant = $119.8M

So, from 2007 to 2008, there is a HUGE DROP IN PROFIT from $225.1M to $70.7M!
From 2009 to 2010, there is a HUGE DROP IN PROFIT from $47.5M to a loss of -$71.8M!

Why?
Has the PUB been mismanaged so much so that earlier HUGE PROFITS become losses???
What has changed since then?

May be PUB should do an internal review and see what are causing them to incur so much higher business COSTS in recent years? Could this be due to POOR MANAGEMENT?
If so, PUB should change CEO rather than just take the easy way out and INCREASE WATER PRICE BY A HUGE % OF 30% to cover up their poor management issues???

PUB makes profits thanks to govt grants: Illogical?
February 27, 2017932

By: Leong Sze Hian

PUB makes a profit thanks only to govt grants

I refer to the article “PUB makes a profit thanks only to govt grants: Maliki” (Straits Times, Feb 27).

$160m profit, $200m govt grants last year

It states that “National water agency PUB made a profit of more than $160 million last year only because it received about $200 million in grants.

Without the government grants, PUB would have been operating at a deficit, said Senior Minister of State for Defence and Foreign Affairs Maliki Osman yesterday.

The East Coast GRC MP was responding to a participant who asked about PUB’s profitability at a post-Budget dialogue with about 100 Malay residents.

On Friday, socio-political site States Times Review published an article stating that PUB is going ahead with a 30 per cent increase in water prices despite posting a profit of $166 million last year.”

Without grants – Budget surplus will be very large?

If the Government did not give grants and subsidies for all kinds of things – the Budget surplus would be much higher.

$5.2b surplus, $10.6b grants, subventions & capital injections?

For example, the Budget surplus for FY2016 is $5.2 billion. The “Grants, Subventions & Capital Injections to Organisations” is $10.6 billion.

If not for grants – surplus more than $10b?

If the amount that is for grants and subsidies is just say about half the sum ($5.3 billion) – the Budget surplus may be more than $10 billion ($5.2 + $5.3 billion), without grants and subsidies.

Helps to make already very high surpluses appear lower?

The Government may already be having some difficulty to explain amidst criticism as to why it continues to have such large surpluses in about nine out of very 10 years or so?

So, the grants and subsidies may help to arguably, make the surpluses look lower.

Despite so many grants, subsidies – most expensive city?

Why is it that despite so many grants and subsidies for so many things, the prices of so many things keep going up – and Singapore is the most expensive city in the world, according to The Economist?

Increase PUB grant so that no need to increase water price?

Why not increase the grant to PUB such that there is no need to increase the price of water?

Profits exceed grants?

By the way, by how much did the total profits exceed the total grants in the last 53 years, since the founding of the PUB?

Public services’ gross price more than private sector?

As to “But Dr Maliki told residents the profit must be seen in the context of the subsidy that PUB received from the Government” – the gross price (before subsidies subject to eligibility) of many public services (such as dental) may arguably, already cost more than the private sector.

Subsidies: Really?

So, is the subsidy reflected in the bill – really a subsidy?

The logic of 1,000 litres of water to make 5,000 cups of coffee?

With regard to “Dr Maliki yesterday explained to residents that 1,000 litres of water are now sold at $2.15. With the hike, the price will go up to $2.74.

Water is not just used to make coffee?

Assuming that amount of water can make 5,000 cups of coffee, the increase in price for one cup of coffee would work out to be a fraction of a cent” – this may be a flawed argument because water is not just used to make coffee – it has to be used by businesses in many areas – such as the washing of the cups, saucers and spoons, etc for coffee, washing the premises, flushing the toilets, making everything else that is being sold, etc.

“If the establishments can justify the (price) increase … “?

As to “He told residents that the authorities cannot stop coffee shops and hawker centres from raising prices, if the establishments can justify the increase … But the price increase should not be solely due to the hike in water prices, he said” – since the Government has not disclosed historical and projected costs, revenues and profits’ figures to justify the subject water price increase – how does it expect ordinary Singaporeans to figure out “if the establishments can justify the increase”?

Report businesses that can’t justify price increase?

With regard to “He also urged residents to inform the authorities if they find cases of unjustified price increases” – what will the Government do when residents report unjustified price increases, and what has the Government done in this regard in the past?

Sounds great to people, until you dive deeper into the details and FACTs.........

PUB makes a profit thanks only to govt grants: Maliki
PUBLISHEDFEB 27, 2017, 5:00 AM SGT
Pearl Lee

National water agency PUB made a profit of more than $160 million last year only because it received about $200 million in grants.

Without the government grants, PUB would have been operating at a deficit, said Senior Minister of State for Defence and Foreign Affairs Maliki Osman yesterday.

The East Coast GRC MP was responding to a participant who asked about PUB's profitability at a post-Budget dialogue with about 100 Malay residents.


On Friday, socio-political site States Times Review published an article stating that PUB is going ahead with a 30 per cent increase in water prices despite posting a profit of $166 million last year.

But Dr Maliki told residents the profitmust be seen in the context of the subsidy that PUB received from the Government.

As with previous forums, the increase in water prices was a top concern for residents. Some were worried about its impact on consumer goods and the prices of food and drinks sold in coffee shops.

Water prices will increase by 30 per cent in two phases from July butthose living in public flats will receive rebates to help them cope.

Dr Maliki yesterday explained to residents that 1,000 litres of water are now sold at $2.15. With the hike, the price will go up to $2.74. Assuming that amount of water can make 5,000 cups of coffee, the increase in price for one cup of coffee would work out to be a fraction of a cent.
.........................................

[teddybear]

Once the carbon tax has been implemented in Singapore to reduce carbon emissions, it is time for the Singapore Government to remove petrol excise duty, which is now charged at $0.56 per litre for 92- and 95-Octane rated petrol, and $0.64 for 97-Octane and above rated petrol.

There is no reason to have double taxation for the same thing, namely: carbon emissions!

http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...arbon-tax1.htm

The Benefits of Carbon Tax

The primary purpose of carbon tax is to lower greenhouse-gas emissions. The tax charges a fee on fossil fuels based on how much carbon they emit when burned (more on that later). So in order to reduce the fees, utilities, business and individuals attempt to use less energy derived from fossil fuels. An individual might switch to public transportation and replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). A business might increase energy efficiency by installing new appliances or updating heating and cooling systems. A utility company might use wet scrubbers, low NOx-burners or gasification to reduce their emissions (see What is Clean Coal Technology?). And since carbon tax sets a definite price on carbon, there is a guaranteed return on expensive efficiency investments.

Carbon tax also encourages alternative energy by making it cost-competitive with cheaper fuels. A tax on a plentiful and inexpensive fuel like coal raises its per British Thermal Unit (Btu) price to one comparable with cleaner forms of power. A Btu is a standard measure of heat energy used in industry. One Btu is the energy necessary to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit.

And don't forget about all the money raised by the tax. It can help subsidize environmental programs or be issued as a rebate. Many fans of carbon tax believe in progressive tax-shifting. This would mean that some of the tax burden would shift away from federal income tax and state sales tax.

Economists like carbon tax for its predictability. The price of carbon under cap-and-trade schemes can fluctuate with weather and changing economic conditions. This is because cap-and-trade schemes set a definite limit on emissions, not a definite price on carbon. Carbon tax is stable. Businesses and utilities would know the price of carbon and where it was headed. They could then invest in alternative energy and increased energy efficiency based on that knowledge. It's also easier for people to understand carbon tax.

[minority]

Sometimes when they tried to justify something by showing some "facts", I wonder whether they in turn open a can of "worms"?

For example, some people can now question: Why government need to give grants to PUB? Is it to make their budget surplus looks smaller than they really are???

Another question: Why not increase the grant to PUB such that there is no need to increase the price of water?

Another question: by how much did the total profits exceed the total grants in the last 53 years, since the founding of the PUB?
Public services’ gross price more than private sector?

For the last question, we can find some FACTS:
Actually, from FY2009 and earlier, PUB had been making HUGE INCOMEs before Government Grant! (And it still receive Government Grant!)

Below is a summary of PUB Net Income and Gov Grant:
Fin Year: Net Income before Gov Grant; Gov Grant
2010: NI = -$71.8M (loss); Grant = $185.2M
2009 NI = $47.5M; Grant = $184.5M
2008 NI = $70.7M; Grant = $180.3M
2007 NI = $225.1M (HUGE PROFIT!); Grant = $90.2M
2006 NI = $274.7M (HUGE PROFIT!); Grant = $99.7M
2005 NI = $173.6M (HUGE PROFIT!); Grant = $119.8M

So, from 2007 to 2008, there is a HUGE DROP IN PROFIT from $225.1M to $70.7M!
From 2009 to 2010, there is a HUGE DROP IN PROFIT from $47.5M to a loss of -$71.8M!

Why?
Has the PUB been mismanaged so much so that earlier HUGE PROFITS become losses???
What has changed since then?

May be PUB should do an internal review and see what are causing them to incur so much higher business COSTS in recent years? Could this be due to POOR MANAGEMENT?
If so, PUB should change CEO rather than just take the easy way out and INCREASE WATER PRICE BY A HUGE % OF 30% to cover up their poor management issues???

AS USUAL SKEWED AND TALK COCK... TAKE AWAY THE GOVERMENT GRANT AND PUB WILL BE NEGATIVE. ITS THE GRANT KEEPING THEM A FLOAT!

PUB DONT INCREASE THE PRICE OF WATER AND PEOPLE DONT VALUE IT! MEANS MORE GRANT IS NEEDED?? SO WHO PAY ULTIMATELY TAX PAYERS HAVE TO PAY!!!

SO WHY NOT THE PEOPLE PAY ANYWAY BUT UNDERSTAND AND VALUE THE USE OF WATER!!

SO DONT COME BULLSHIT THE PROFIT!! ITS POSTIVE BECOZ OF THE GRANTS!

BUILDING THE WATER PLANTS NO NEED $$$??? MAINTAINING THE PLANT NO NEED $$$$

[teddybear]

Didn't I already provided FACTS regarding HUGE PROFITS made even before Gov Grant as below?:

..................

For example, some people can now question: Why government need to give grants to PUB? Is it to make their budget surplus looks smaller than they really are???

Another question: Why not increase the grant to PUB such that there is no need to increase the price of water?

Another question: by how much did the total profits exceed the total grants in the last 53 years, since the founding of the PUB?
Public services’ gross price more than private sector?

For the last question, we can find some FACTS:
Actually, from FY2009 and earlier, PUB had been making HUGE INCOMEs before Government Grant! (And it still receive Government Grant!)

Below is a summary of PUB Net Income (before Gov Grant) and Gov Grant:
Fin Year: Net Income before Gov Grant; Gov Grant
2010: NI = -$71.8M (loss); Grant = $185.2M
2009 NI = $47.5M; Grant = $184.5M
2008 NI = $70.7M; Grant = $180.3M
2007 NI = $225.1M (HUGE PROFIT!); Grant = $90.2M
2006 NI = $274.7M (HUGE PROFIT!); Grant = $99.7M
2005 NI = $173.6M (HUGE PROFIT!); Grant = $119.8M

So, from 2007 to 2008, there is a HUGE DROP IN PROFIT from $225.1M to $70.7M!
From 2009 to 2010, there is a HUGE DROP IN PROFIT from $47.5M to a loss of -$71.8M!

Why?
Has the PUB been mismanaged so much so that earlier HUGE PROFITS become losses???
What has changed since then?

If you really CANNOT READ, you should JUST SHUT UP YOUR BIG MOUTH!

And by the way, Singaporeans have been over-charged for past 17 years! (no wonder don't need to increase water price!) Otherwise how to explain huge profit from Year 2009 and earlier??? To think that PUB is a government body and is supposed to be a NON-PROFIT organization but end up sucking HUGE PROFITS from Singaporeans!

AS USUAL SKEWED AND TALK COCK... TAKE AWAY THE GOVERMENT GRANT AND PUB WILL BE NEGATIVE. ITS THE GRANT KEEPING THEM A FLOAT!

PUB DONT INCREASE THE PRICE OF WATER AND PEOPLE DONT VALUE IT! MEANS MORE GRANT IS NEEDED?? SO WHO PAY ULTIMATELY TAX PAYERS HAVE TO PAY!!!

SO WHY NOT THE PEOPLE PAY ANYWAY BUT UNDERSTAND AND VALUE THE USE OF WATER!!

SO DONT COME BULLSHIT THE PROFIT!! ITS POSTIVE BECOZ OF THE GRANTS!

BUILDING THE WATER PLANTS NO NEED $$$??? MAINTAINING THE PLANT NO NEED $$$$

[minority]

Didn't I already provided FACTS regarding HUGE PROFITS made even before Gov Grant as below?:



If you really CANNOT READ, you should JUST SHUT UP YOUR BIG MOUTH!

And by the way, Singaporeans have been over-charged for past 17 years! (no wonder don't need to increase water price!) Otherwise how to explain huge profit from Year 2009 and earlier??? To think that PUB is a government body and is supposed to be a NON-PROFIT organization but end up sucking HUGE PROFITS from Singaporeans!

What a LOAD OF BULLSHIT!!!

PUB HAVE A GEARING RATIO OF 33%. GOVERNMENT FUNDING TO ENSURE IT REMAIN VIABLE TO OPERATE AND BUILD NEW PLANTS. HOW THE HELL CAN IT BE NEGATIVE AND STILL BE VIABLE TO OPERATE ! AND WHAT OVER CHARGE 17YRS !

YOUR ANAL LOGIC IS THE MOST TWISTED FU*K SHIT. NEVER RAISE PRICE YOU CAN TWIST THE SHIT TO OVER CHARGE!!!!

PLANTS AND PIPES AND INNOVATION FALL FROM THE SKY????? USE YOUR FARKING PEA BRAIN!!!

AND PLS SHOW US THE STATICS YOU HAVE SELECTIVE PRESENTED! WHEN ARE THE TIME LINE THE PLANTS ARE BUILD!!! WHAT IS THE GEARING AND THE FINALICAIAL LIABILITIES THAT PUB NEED TO PAY UP IN THOSE YEARS?? SO DONT COME CHERRY PICK INFORMATION AND TWIST YOUR BULLSHIT INTO IT!

[minority]

Didn't I already provided FACTS regarding HUGE PROFITS made even before Gov Grant as below?:



If you really CANNOT READ, you should JUST SHUT UP YOUR BIG MOUTH!

And by the way, Singaporeans have been over-charged for past 17 years! (no wonder don't need to increase water price!) Otherwise how to explain huge profit from Year 2009 and earlier??? To think that PUB is a government body and is supposed to be a NON-PROFIT organization but end up sucking HUGE PROFITS from Singaporeans!

OH!!! So u mean u post means it REAL??? SHOW US THE ANNUAL REPORTS FOR ALL THE YEARS! SHOW US THE REFRENCES TO BACK YOU BS!!!

BECOZ YOU QUOTE SOME SHIT WE MUST BELIEVE YOUR SHIT!!!???

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!

[teddybear]

Wow! minority the Bloody epic LIAR come again!

You cannot read is it?
then it is useless to show you anything!

If you can read, then you will be able to read the financial reports of PUB here:
https://www.pub.gov.sg/ourlibrary/pu...s/annualreport

It is clear that PUB are making HUGE PROFITS by itself (before including Government Grant) in 2009 and all the earlier years!
Why HUGE PROFITS? Because they OVER-CHARGED people!

So we have to question why HUGE PROFITS become losses after 2010?
We have to address whether PUB has been poorly managed?
Or there are changes to accounting methodology which causes the seemly losses? (like accrued net income loss (due to very large and faster depreciation of revalued inflated assets) but large cash profit).
Before addressing that, water price increase is uncalled for!

OH!!! So u mean u post means it REAL??? SHOW US THE ANNUAL REPORTS FOR ALL THE YEARS! SHOW US THE REFRENCES TO BACK YOU BS!!!

BECOZ YOU QUOTE SOME SHIT WE MUST BELIEVE YOUR SHIT!!!???

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!

[teddybear]

Wow!
Like that I think future people who want to make money from CBT would know how to reduce their sentences, by not pocketing the sum of money directly(!) and use following methods to gain from the CBT sum of money!:

(1) Use that sum of money as career advancements for himself and his wife and family (so "no person gain" in terms of pocketing the money directly!)

(2) Use that sum of money to pay out as HUGE salaries to his wife and family members and friends (So that he has "no personal gain", so sentences reduced!)

(3) Put that sum of money with others (e.g. sham bonds), dictate lower interest etc to that person so that that person can "kick-back" in other ways, like buy a penthouse for him to live in (or may be pay for half of that penthouse), pay for his other expenses...

(4) Use that sum of money for their luxuries, like fly 1st-class in flights, stay at US$28,000 p.m. rented mansion, stay in luxurious 5-star or even 6-star hotels, eat at expensive and luxurious restaurants, all charged to that sum of CBT sum of money!

(5) .... (What else)??? ...

City Harvest appeal: Verdict could affect future criminal breach of trust cases

Selina Lum
PUBLISHEDAPR 7, 2017, 8:59 PM SGT
FACEBOOK75TWITTEREMAIL
SINGAPORE - A key aspect of the verdict in the City Harvest Church case could have wider ramifications for future criminal breach of trust (CBT) cases, said lawyers.

CHC founder Kong Hee and five other church leaders had their sentences reduced because - while they were found guilty of criminal breach of trust (CBT) - they were cleared of the more serious charge of committing CBT as "agents".

In reaching this conclusion, the High Court broke away from a legal position that has prevailed in Singapore for the past 40 years. Till now, directors who misappropriate the property of the company which they are entrusted with are liable for the more serious offence of CBT as agents, under section 409 of the Penal Code.

Being a director of a company or society does not render a person to be "in the business of an agent", said Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin.

This has significant ramifications. "It will impact the way company directors who commit criminal breach of trust of company funds are charged in future," said Mr Lee Teck Leng, a former district judge and prosecutor who has practised criminal law for more than 20 years.

Compared to plain CBT under section 406, aggravated CBT "as agents" under section 409 carries heavier punishments; the maximum imprisonment term is more than double that of offences for plain CBT.

This has been the existing legal position since a High Court ruling in the 1970s.

In the City Harvest case, six church leaders including Kong were charged - and initially convicted - under section 409 for engaging in a conspiracy to commit CBT by an agent.

Section 409 makes it an offence for a person who misappropriates property that is entrusted in him "in the way of his business as a banker, a merchant, a factor, a broker, an attorney or an agent".

But on Friday, two judges out of a three-judge High Court panel ruled that directors such as the CHC leaders cannot be considered "agents" under section 409.

The majority interpreted the provision to mean that in order to be found guilty under section 409, the accused must be "in the business of an agent" at the time the property is entrusted to him.

Justice Chao said the provision applies only to a "professional agent" who offers his services as an agent or makes his living as an agent.

"While a director undoubtedly holds an important position in a company or organisation, it cannot be said that a person by becoming a director has offered his services as an agent to the community at large or that he makes his living as an agent," he said.

In addition, the relationship between a director, who is entrusted with the property, and the company, which is the one entrusting the property, is an internal one.

This stands in stark contrast, he said, to the external nature of the relationship that "a banker, a merchant, a factor, a broker (or) an attorney" shares with his customer who entrusts the property with him.

The second judge on the panel, Justice Woo Bih Li, agrees with him. The third, Justice Chan Seng Onn, disagrees.

...

Mr Lee, of Lee Chambers LLC, said that as there are now two conflicting High Court decisions, the matter could go up to the Court of Appeal by way of a criminal reference on a question of law of public interest.


...

[august]

The judge's logic sounds to me like the one that goes something like "The person who is inside a polling station cannot be said to be within a radius of 200 metres of a polling station." LOL

[teddybear]

There are 2 main reasons given by the 2 (out of 3) judges as to why they are given lesser charges:
(1) The accused did not benefit from the "transactions".
(2) There was no loss to the church.

However, if we delve into details, the answers are the opposite (and these are the views of the 3rd judge if I am not wrong):
(1) The accused did benefit from the "transactions"!
(2) There is a real loss to City Harvest Church!


(1) The accused benefits from the "transactions"!
Why so?:

(1a) KH is the main conspirator and "director" to misappropriate the funds to channel to his wife's 'career advancement project'.

(1b) The transactions benefited Kong and his wife, Ms Ho Yeow Sun, in turns of HUGE SALARIES paid to Ho, her lavish life-style, live in a US$28,000/month Hollywood hills mansion, money spent on 1st-class flights, expensive hotels, meals in luxurious restaurants etc, wasting millions dollars to make her album and using more funds to buy her unsold albums to try to prop up her chart/fame, these are personal gains aren't they (be it himself or his family members where he will indirectly benefit)?

(1c) Who would go to such length to try to conceal these money transactions, just like as though they are doing money laundering, and if they don't benefit in some way why do so much and even continue doing it when they know they may be infringing the law for what?


(2) There is a real loss to City Harvest Church!
Why so?:

(2a) Firstly, the $24M used for Crossover project, they are SPENT without the consent of church donors! They are spent, mostly gone into smoke! So how can people conclude that there is "no real loss to the church"? Where is that $24M now if it has not been lost?

(2b) Secondly, the $24M, they could have been invested and earn good returns, and still existed NOW rather than SPENT and gone into smoke!

(2c) Thirdly, there was opportunity costs lost from the sham bonds, taking super high risk yet getting a return much less and not commensurate with the risk taken, so CHC did suffer from poor deal and real loss (opportunity cost lost)!

(2d) The other $26M used to cover back was immaterial to conclude that the church has no real losses, because these are again new money donated by church donors! Whatever they do, the initial $24M seems to have gone into SMOKE!

Wow!
Like that I think future people who want to make money from CBT would know how to reduce their sentences, by not pocketing the sum of money directly(!) and use following methods to gain from the CBT sum of money!:

(1) Use that sum of money as career advancements for himself and his wife and family (so "no person gain" in terms of pocketing the money directly!)

(2) Use that sum of money to pay out as HUGE salaries to his wife and family members and friends (So that he has "no personal gain", so sentences reduced!)

(3) Put that sum of money with others (e.g. sham bonds), dictate lower interest etc to that person so that that person can "kick-back" in other ways, like buy a penthouse for him to live in (or may be pay for half of that penthouse), pay for his other expenses...

(4) Use that sum of money for their luxuries, like fly 1st-class in flights, stay at US$28,000 p.m. rented mansion, stay in luxurious 5-star or even 6-star hotels, eat at expensive and luxurious restaurants, all charged to that sum of CBT sum of money!

(5) .... (What else)??? ...

City Harvest appeal: Verdict could affect future criminal breach of trust cases

Selina Lum
PUBLISHEDAPR 7, 2017, 8:59 PM SGT
FACEBOOK75TWITTEREMAIL
SINGAPORE - A key aspect of the verdict in the City Harvest Church case could have wider ramifications for future criminal breach of trust (CBT) cases, said lawyers.

CHC founder Kong Hee and five other church leaders had their sentences reduced because - while they were found guilty of criminal breach of trust (CBT) - they were cleared of the more serious charge of committing CBT as "agents".

In reaching this conclusion, the High Court broke away from a legal position that has prevailed in Singapore for the past 40 years. Till now, directors who misappropriate the property of the company which they are entrusted with are liable for the more serious offence of CBT as agents, under section 409 of the Penal Code.

Being a director of a company or society does not render a person to be "in the business of an agent", said Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin.

This has significant ramifications. "It will impact the way company directors who commit criminal breach of trust of company funds are charged in future," said Mr Lee Teck Leng, a former district judge and prosecutor who has practised criminal law for more than 20 years.

Compared to plain CBT under section 406, aggravated CBT "as agents" under section 409 carries heavier punishments; the maximum imprisonment term is more than double that of offences for plain CBT.

This has been the existing legal position since a High Court ruling in the 1970s.

In the City Harvest case, six church leaders including Kong were charged - and initially convicted - under section 409 for engaging in a conspiracy to commit CBT by an agent.

Section 409 makes it an offence for a person who misappropriates property that is entrusted in him "in the way of his business as a banker, a merchant, a factor, a broker, an attorney or an agent".

But on Friday, two judges out of a three-judge High Court panel ruled that directors such as the CHC leaders cannot be considered "agents" under section 409.

The majority interpreted the provision to mean that in order to be found guilty under section 409, the accused must be "in the business of an agent" at the time the property is entrusted to him.

Justice Chao said the provision applies only to a "professional agent" who offers his services as an agent or makes his living as an agent.

"While a director undoubtedly holds an important position in a company or organisation, it cannot be said that a person by becoming a director has offered his services as an agent to the community at large or that he makes his living as an agent," he said.

In addition, the relationship between a director, who is entrusted with the property, and the company, which is the one entrusting the property, is an internal one.

This stands in stark contrast, he said, to the external nature of the relationship that "a banker, a merchant, a factor, a broker (or) an attorney" shares with his customer who entrusts the property with him.

The second judge on the panel, Justice Woo Bih Li, agrees with him. The third, Justice Chan Seng Onn, disagrees.

...

Mr Lee, of Lee Chambers LLC, said that as there are now two conflicting High Court decisions, the matter could go up to the Court of Appeal by way of a criminal reference on a question of law of public interest.


...

[Arcachon]

Wow!
Like that I think future people who want to make money from CBT would know how to reduce their sentences, by not pocketing the sum of money directly(!) and use following methods to gain from the CBT sum of money!:

(1) Use that sum of money as career advancements for himself and his wife and family (so "no person gain" in terms of pocketing the money directly!)

(2) Use that sum of money to pay out as HUGE salaries to his wife and family members and friends (So that he has "no personal gain", so sentences reduced!)

(3) Put that sum of money with others (e.g. sham bonds), dictate lower interest etc to that person so that that person can "kick-back" in other ways, like buy a penthouse for him to live in (or may be pay for half of that penthouse), pay for his other expenses...

(4) Use that sum of money for their luxuries, like fly 1st-class in flights, stay at US$28,000 p.m. rented mansion, stay in luxurious 5-star or even 6-star hotels, eat at expensive and luxurious restaurants, all charged to that sum of CBT sum of money!

(5) .... (What else)??? ...

City Harvest appeal: Verdict could affect future criminal breach of trust cases

Selina Lum
PUBLISHEDAPR 7, 2017, 8:59 PM SGT
FACEBOOK75TWITTEREMAIL
SINGAPORE - A key aspect of the verdict in the City Harvest Church case could have wider ramifications for future criminal breach of trust (CBT) cases, said lawyers.

CHC founder Kong Hee and five other church leaders had their sentences reduced because - while they were found guilty of criminal breach of trust (CBT) - they were cleared of the more serious charge of committing CBT as "agents".

In reaching this conclusion, the High Court broke away from a legal position that has prevailed in Singapore for the past 40 years. Till now, directors who misappropriate the property of the company which they are entrusted with are liable for the more serious offence of CBT as agents, under section 409 of the Penal Code.

Being a director of a company or society does not render a person to be "in the business of an agent", said Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin.

This has significant ramifications. "It will impact the way company directors who commit criminal breach of trust of company funds are charged in future," said Mr Lee Teck Leng, a former district judge and prosecutor who has practised criminal law for more than 20 years.

Compared to plain CBT under section 406, aggravated CBT "as agents" under section 409 carries heavier punishments; the maximum imprisonment term is more than double that of offences for plain CBT.

This has been the existing legal position since a High Court ruling in the 1970s.

In the City Harvest case, six church leaders including Kong were charged - and initially convicted - under section 409 for engaging in a conspiracy to commit CBT by an agent.

Section 409 makes it an offence for a person who misappropriates property that is entrusted in him "in the way of his business as a banker, a merchant, a factor, a broker, an attorney or an agent".

But on Friday, two judges out of a three-judge High Court panel ruled that directors such as the CHC leaders cannot be considered "agents" under section 409.

The majority interpreted the provision to mean that in order to be found guilty under section 409, the accused must be "in the business of an agent" at the time the property is entrusted to him.

Justice Chao said the provision applies only to a "professional agent" who offers his services as an agent or makes his living as an agent.

"While a director undoubtedly holds an important position in a company or organisation, it cannot be said that a person by becoming a director has offered his services as an agent to the community at large or that he makes his living as an agent," he said.

In addition, the relationship between a director, who is entrusted with the property, and the company, which is the one entrusting the property, is an internal one.

This stands in stark contrast, he said, to the external nature of the relationship that "a banker, a merchant, a factor, a broker (or) an attorney" shares with his customer who entrusts the property with him.

The second judge on the panel, Justice Woo Bih Li, agrees with him. The third, Justice Chan Seng Onn, disagrees.

...

Mr Lee, of Lee Chambers LLC, said that as there are now two conflicting High Court decisions, the matter could go up to the Court of Appeal by way of a criminal reference on a question of law of public interest.


...

Only can say Singapore "Golden Tap Theory" and the pay is "Peanut".

[teddybear]

See the link for the full Justice Chan Seng Onn's view, and the extract below:

However, Justice Chan Seng Onn held a different view: When directors are entrusted with the property, it is done so in accordance with their role and office. He said that he did not see how a director’s dealings with the entrusted property could be considered a “casual role”, as opposed to a professional agent.
Thus, directors of a company or an organisation fall within the class of persons under Section 409 and should be liable for a more aggravated CBT offence.
For the former CHC leaders who were entrusted with the control of the church’s property due to the positions they hold, they would be liable under Section 409, Justice Chan said.

The judge also held a different view from Justice Chao and Justice Woo on the mitigating factors considered by the court. Unlike what the other two judges had found – that there was no personal gain on the leaders’ part – he said the impugned transactions in question involved “elements of benefit” to Kong and his wife, Ho Yeow Sun.

Justice Chan said it was clear that Ms Ho had obtained a direct financial benefit when the misappropriated funds were used to fund her music career. She was also contractually entitled to a substantial financial benefit when she signed an artiste management agreement with Xtron. Likewise, Kong would have benefitted indirectly through Ms Ho’s income and when his family did not have to fund her music career, he added.

There are 2 main reasons given by the 2 (out of 3) judges as to why they are given lesser charges:
(1) The accused did not benefit from the "transactions".
(2) There was no loss to the church.

However, if we delve into details, the answers are the opposite (and these are the views of the 3rd judge if I am not wrong):
(1) The accused did benefit from the "transactions"!
(2) There is a real loss to City Harvest Church!


(1) The accused benefits from the "transactions"!
Why so?:

(1a) KH is the main conspirator and "director" to misappropriate the funds to channel to his wife's 'career advancement project'.

(1b) The transactions benefited Kong and his wife, Ms Ho Yeow Sun, in turns of HUGE SALARIES paid to Ho, her lavish life-style, live in a US$28,000/month Hollywood hills mansion, money spent on 1st-class flights, expensive hotels, meals in luxurious restaurants etc, wasting millions dollars to make her album and using more funds to buy her unsold albums to try to prop up her chart/fame, these are personal gains aren't they (be it himself or his family members where he will indirectly benefit)?

(1c) Who would go to such length to try to conceal these money transactions, just like as though they are doing money laundering, and if they don't benefit in some way why do so much and even continue doing it when they know they may be infringing the law for what?


(2) There is a real loss to City Harvest Church!
Why so?:

(2a) Firstly, the $24M used for Crossover project, they are SPENT without the consent of church donors! They are spent, mostly gone into smoke! So how can people conclude that there is "no real loss to the church"? Where is that $24M now if it has not been lost?

(2b) Secondly, the $24M, they could have been invested and earn good returns, and still existed NOW rather than SPENT and gone into smoke!

(2c) Thirdly, there was opportunity costs lost from the sham bonds, taking super high risk yet getting a return much less and not commensurate with the risk taken, so CHC did suffer from poor deal and real loss (opportunity cost lost)!

(2d) The other $26M used to cover back was immaterial to conclude that the church has no real losses, because these are again new money donated by church donors! Whatever they do, the initial $24M seems to have gone into SMOKE!

[GreenBayPluit]

Talk cock! as usual mis quote n lie. how much is the GST she pay which u say burden low income???? You are the MTF kpkb GST burden the poor. I say NO!!!!! its covered from rebate.!! which u show here VOUCHERS + CASH! low income get VOUCHERS they don't pay GST!! on top of that they get GST REBATES on Utilities , medical and cash!!! SO!! DONT LIE AND BULLSHIT ABOUT GST is a burden! Without GST where the Government get $$$ to help fund these rebates and vouchers!!!

ONLY RICH SELFISH People like you keep KPKB GST coz u CONSUME MORE And are too bloody STINGY to pay GST!!!!

Agree with u!!

[teddybear]

**** Why PUB needs to increase water price by 30%?
No idea, considering that they have made so much profits over the years (before Government grants), not to mention the huge cash coffers after including government grants!


**** PUB has not increased water price for past 17 years, BUT are they making lots of money for past 17 years?
Now, PUB mentioned that they have not increased water price for past 17 years, so it seems reasonable and justifiable for them to increase water prices? Have not increased water prices for past 17 years mean automatically they are justified to do it?
If PUB has indeed been making huge profits, they are already sort of over-charging Singaporeans, considering that it is supposed to be a non-profit government stat board right?
Or they always think that all the government stat boards should always MAKE HUGE PROFITs from their people?


**** How much has PUB profited actually over the past 17 years?
So How much has PUB profited actually over the 17 years that they said they have not increased water price?
To answer the above questions, Let's dig out some FACTs - Look at the Net Operating Cashflow before Working Capital Changes (NCFBWCC) (Note that this is before including the Government Grants!)......

For YE Mar 31 NCFBWCC Gov Grant Total Cash available for CE Total Cash on Balance Sheet
2016 $303.8M $270M $573.8M $830M
2015 $302.2M $277M $579.2M $780M
2014 $292.5M $296M $588.5M $1089M
2013 $300.8M $216M $516.8M $889M
2012 $284.3M $199M
2011 $466.8M $185M
2010 $503.7M $185M
Above You can refer financial reports from here: https://www.pub.gov.sg/annualreports/

You may ask: Why look at "Net Operating Cashflow before Working Capital Changes" and not "Net Income"?
Well, when you ask this question, it obviously shows that you are ignorant about accounting!
Net Income includes deduction for "Capital Expenditure, Amortization etc", which are not real cash expenditure made during that year! They form what is called "Accrual Accounting"!
If you want to know what are the Cash Profits available for spending on additional capital expenditure etc, obviously you look at NCFBWCC, which are the cash they can pocket (without minusing the Capital Expenditure etc which has already been paid/spent YEARS ago using CASH the company previously owned/has in their account!)

So, you can see that PUB has been making HUGE CASH PROFITS (Net Operating Cashflow before Working Capital Changes (NCFBWCC)) over all these years up till 2016 before adding Gov Grants!!!!!!!!!!!!


**** PUB needs to spend $4 Billions over next 5 years?
Now, according to the news, read here:
http://www.straitstimes.com/politics...t-depreciation
It said that "PUB intends to invest $4 billion on additional water infrastructure in the next five years."

Ok, so Capital Expenditure (CE) is $4B needed over 5 years means they need $800M cash p.a. to cover the expenses.
First Question: why need so much over 5 years?
Don't forget, PUB only has $6.8B of "Property, plant and equipment" on Balance Sheet accumulated over past >50 years (or an average of $136M per year if you assume their expenditure on capital expenditure (which forms the "Property, plant and equipment" on balance sheet) is the same every year over the past 50 years)!
Suddenly they need to spend so much over 5 years, which costs about 58.9% of $6.8M "Property, plant and equipment" that they had accumulated over >50 years?
Like that is seems that they can spaced out the capital expenditure over say 10 years or even 20 years right?


**** PUB can easily raise funds through BONDs since they have so much CASH PROFIT to pay interest?
Even then, PUB could raise funds via issuing bonds and pay interests to finance the capital expenditure, since don't forget, they are earning ~$300M in CASH every year! Why they need to pocket so much CASH?
Even then, with Gov Grant, they have >$570M every year to spend on capital expenditure!

Now, assuming that water prices increases by 30% by 2018, what will their cash profits be? We should be able to make an educated estimate:

For YE Mar 31 Revenue NCFBWCC
2016 $1,201M $303.8M
Additional revenue of $360.3 will fall to cash profits.
So, now PUB will earn say:
2018 $1,561.3M $664.1M

Now, after 5 years, when the capital expenditure needed has been spent, PUB will still continue to earn about $664.1M. So what is PUB going to do with their HUGE PROFIT?
Are they going to return these money back to the Singaporeans?
What say you?
If not, is there a real need to rise water prices?
Well, NOT WHEN PUB is still MAKING SO MUCH MONEY (before Gov Grant) right?!

Or they can raise all these money through bonds, since for YE 2016 Mar 31, PUB only has total debt to equity ratio = (2796M) / (5145M) = 54%!

If you look at other big companies, e.g. Olam (majority controlled by Temasek):
Olam in FY2016 has total debt to equity ratio = (17,835M) / (5,634M) = 317%!

Now, if PUB raises their total debt level to 317% (like Olam), they would be able to borrow additional = $(3.17*7941M) - (2796M) = $22,377M, i.e. they can easily sells BONDS up to $22.38 BILLIONS!
Hei, if you add in the cash, that is MUCH MUCH MORE THAN the $4 BILLIONS capital expenditure money needed by PUB over next 5 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!


**** What is PUB going to do with HUGE CASH PROFIT of $664.1M per annum they are earning 5 years later?
And what is PUB going to do with HUGE CASH PROFIT of $664.1M per annum 5 years later when they have no need to spend so much CAPTIAL EXPENDITURE any more?

Why should raising awareness of preciousness of water and encouraging water conservation and efficiency become an excuse for PUB to earn even more PROFITS from Singaporeans (akin to "milking" Singaporeans)?

So honestly, are they going to cut water prices and return the HUGE CASH PROFITS to Singaporeans or they are going to keep them?


**** CONCLUSIONS?
The rest, I leave you all to figure out why the figure of expenditure is so incredible over such short period (like need $4B over 5 years) that far exceeds historical level (when their "Property, plant and equipment" is only $6.8B over past 50 years or like only average of $136M per year)!
Even then, the capital expenditure of $4B could be spreaded out over longer years (so don't need to rise water price)!

Conclusion: Looks like rising water price is an internal decision made to rise profits for PUB, regardless of the necessity of doing it?

Wow! minority the Bloody epic LIAR come again!

You cannot read is it?
then it is useless to show you anything!

If you can read, then you will be able to read the financial reports of PUB here:
https://www.pub.gov.sg/ourlibrary/pu...s/annualreport

It is clear that PUB are making HUGE PROFITS by itself (before including Government Grant) in 2009 and all the earlier years!
Why HUGE PROFITS? Because they OVER-CHARGED people!

So we have to question why HUGE PROFITS become losses after 2010?
We have to address whether PUB has been poorly managed?
Or there are changes to accounting methodology which causes the seemly losses? (like accrued net income loss (due to very large and faster depreciation of revalued inflated assets) but large cash profit).
Before addressing that, water price increase is uncalled for!

OH!!! So u mean u post means it REAL??? SHOW US THE ANNUAL REPORTS FOR ALL THE YEARS! SHOW US THE REFRENCES TO BACK YOU BS!!!

BECOZ YOU QUOTE SOME SHIT WE MUST BELIEVE YOUR SHIT!!!???

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!

[minority]

**** Why PUB needs to increase water price by 30%?
No idea, considering that they have made so much profits over the years (before Government grants), not to mention the huge cash coffers after including government grants!


**** PUB has not increased water price for past 17 years, BUT are they making lots of money for past 17 years?
Now, PUB mentioned that they have not increased water price for past 17 years, so it seems reasonable and justifiable for them to increase water prices? Have not increased water prices for past 17 years mean automatically they are justified to do it?
If PUB has indeed been making huge profits, they are already sort of over-charging Singaporeans, considering that it is supposed to be a non-profit government stat board right?
Or they always think that all the government stat boards should always MAKE HUGE PROFITs from their people?


**** How much has PUB profited actually over the past 17 years?
So How much has PUB profited actually over the 17 years that they said they have not increased water price?
To answer the above questions, Let's dig out some FACTs - Look at the Net Operating Cashflow before Working Capital Changes (NCFBWCC) (Note that this is before including the Government Grants!)......

For YE Mar 31 NCFBWCC Gov Grant Total Cash available for CE Total Cash on Balance Sheet
2016 $303.8M $270M $573.8M $830M
2015 $302.2M $277M $579.2M $780M
2014 $292.5M $296M $588.5M $1089M
2013 $300.8M $216M $516.8M $889M
2012 $284.3M $199M
2011 $466.8M $185M
2010 $503.7M $185M
Above You can refer financial reports from here: https://www.pub.gov.sg/annualreports/

You may ask: Why look at "Net Operating Cashflow before Working Capital Changes" and not "Net Income"?
Well, when you ask this question, it obviously shows that you are ignorant about accounting!
Net Income includes deduction for "Capital Expenditure, Amortization etc", which are not real cash expenditure made during that year! They form what is called "Accrual Accounting"!
If you want to know what are the Cash Profits available for spending on additional capital expenditure etc, obviously you look at NCFBWCC, which are the cash they can pocket (without minusing the Capital Expenditure etc which has already been paid/spent YEARS ago using CASH the company previously owned/has in their account!)

So, you can see that PUB has been making HUGE CASH PROFITS (Net Operating Cashflow before Working Capital Changes (NCFBWCC)) over all these years up till 2016 before adding Gov Grants!!!!!!!!!!!!


**** PUB needs to spend $4 Billions over next 5 years?
Now, according to the news, read here:
http://www.straitstimes.com/politics...t-depreciation
It said that "PUB intends to invest $4 billion on additional water infrastructure in the next five years."

Ok, so Capital Expenditure (CE) is $4B needed over 5 years means they need $800M cash p.a. to cover the expenses.
First Question: why need so much over 5 years?
Don't forget, PUB only has $6.8B of "Property, plant and equipment" on Balance Sheet accumulated over past >50 years (or an average of $136M per year if you assume their expenditure on capital expenditure (which forms the "Property, plant and equipment" on balance sheet) is the same every year over the past 50 years)!
Suddenly they need to spend so much over 5 years, which costs about 58.9% of $6.8M "Property, plant and equipment" that they had accumulated over >50 years?
Like that is seems that they can spaced out the capital expenditure over say 10 years or even 20 years right?


**** PUB can easily raise funds through BONDs since they have so much CASH PROFIT to pay interest?
Even then, PUB could raise funds via issuing bonds and pay interests to finance the capital expenditure, since don't forget, they are earning ~$300M in CASH every year! Why they need to pocket so much CASH?
Even then, with Gov Grant, they have >$570M every year to spend on capital expenditure!

Now, assuming that water prices increases by 30% by 2018, what will their cash profits be? We should be able to make an educated estimate:

For YE Mar 31 Revenue NCFBWCC
2016 $1,201M $303.8M
Additional revenue of $360.3 will fall to cash profits.
So, now PUB will earn say:
2018 $1,561.3M $664.1M

Now, after 5 years, when the capital expenditure needed has been spent, PUB will still continue to earn about $664.1M. So what is PUB going to do with their HUGE PROFIT?
Are they going to return these money back to the Singaporeans?
What say you?
If not, is there a real need to rise water prices?
Well, NOT WHEN PUB is still MAKING SO MUCH MONEY (before Gov Grant) right?!

Or they can raise all these money through bonds, since for YE 2016 Mar 31, PUB only has total debt to equity ratio = (2796M) / (5145M) = 54%!

If you look at other big companies, e.g. Olam (majority controlled by Temasek):
Olam in FY2016 has total debt to equity ratio = (17,835M) / (5,634M) = 317%!

Now, if PUB raises their total debt level to 317% (like Olam), they would be able to borrow additional = $(3.17*7941M) - (2796M) = $22,377M, i.e. they can easily sells BONDS up to $22.38 BILLIONS!
Hei, if you add in the cash, that is MUCH MUCH MORE THAN the $4 BILLIONS capital expenditure money needed by PUB over next 5 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!


**** What is PUB going to do with HUGE CASH PROFIT of $664.1M per annum they are earning 5 years later?
And what is PUB going to do with HUGE CASH PROFIT of $664.1M per annum 5 years later when they have no need to spend so much CAPTIAL EXPENDITURE any more?

Why should raising awareness of preciousness of water and encouraging water conservation and efficiency become an excuse for PUB to earn even more PROFITS from Singaporeans (akin to "milking" Singaporeans)?

So honestly, are they going to cut water prices and return the HUGE CASH PROFITS to Singaporeans or they are going to keep them?


**** CONCLUSIONS?
The rest, I leave you all to figure out why the figure of expenditure is so incredible over such short period (like need $4B over 5 years) that far exceeds historical level (when their "Property, plant and equipment" is only $6.8B over past 50 years or like only average of $136M per year)!
Even then, the capital expenditure of $4B could be spreaded out over longer years (so don't need to rise water price)!

Conclusion: Looks like rising water price is an internal decision made to rise profits for PUB, regardless of the necessity of doing it?

WOW THE TALK COCK FAKE NEWS BULLSHIT IS BACK!!!! WHY U DONT COUNT THE GOVERMENT GRANT!! CAN YOU SHOW WHAT IS THE BALANCE SHEET WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT GRANT??

SO DONT COME BULLSHIT LAH!!!!

COCKERNARDEN LIAR!!!!

I CHALLENGE U TO SHOW US THE YEAR BY YEAR BEAK DOWN ON THEIR ANNUAL REPORT!!! DONT JUST TAKE THE SUM AND COME UP SOME BULLSHIT LIE!!!

[minority]

how come u never say PUB operating income is negative in 2014 , 2015? NEGATIVE 57M and 69M ? if not for the 270M grant???? then they are positive?

WAT A LOAD OF LIES YOU FAKE NEWS BULLSHIT LIAR!!!

[teddybear]

Add Gov Grants? PUB don't even need Gov Grants!
PUB is already earning so much money that it is almost DEBT free!
Did you see Temasek owned companies like Olam or SPH having as little debt as PUB?

Why?
Because there is no other shareholder to tell PUB not to hoard so much cash?????

WOW THE TALK COCK FAKE NEWS BULLSHIT IS BACK!!!! WHY U DONT COUNT THE GOVERMENT GRANT!! CAN YOU SHOW WHAT IS THE BALANCE SHEET WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT GRANT??

SO DONT COME BULLSHIT LAH!!!!

COCKERNARDEN LIAR!!!!

I CHALLENGE U TO SHOW US THE YEAR BY YEAR BEAK DOWN ON THEIR ANNUAL REPORT!!! DONT JUST TAKE THE SUM AND COME UP SOME BULLSHIT LIE!!!

[teddybear]

minority,

If you don't know what is the difference between "Net Income" and "Cash Profits", you can read my post again here:
http://forums.condosingapore.com/sho...347#post525347

Don't come bullshitting here without even having any basic accounting knowledge......

And may be you can tell us why in your "pub.jpg", why if PUB is losing money and why it needs to pay $34.3 MILLIONS in TAXES for FY2016 on its income (or rather, "LOSSES" as you claimed)?
Ha ha ha! Lies BUSTED!

how come u never say PUB operating income is negative in 2014 , 2015? NEGATIVE 57M and 69M ? if not for the 270M grant???? then they are positive?

WAT A LOAD OF LIES YOU FAKE NEWS BULLSHIT LIAR!!!

[minority]

minority,

If you don't know what is the difference between "Net Income" and "Cash Profits", you can read my post again here:
http://forums.condosingapore.com/sho...347#post525347

Don't come bullshitting here without even having any basic accounting knowledge......

And may be you can tell us why in your "pub.jpg", why if PUB is losing money and why it needs to pay $34.3 MILLIONS in TAXES for FY2016 on its income (or rather, "LOSSES" as you claimed)?
Ha ha ha! Lies BUSTED!

Done come and bullshit lah..

2016 nett income 1.257B operating expenses 1.239.3B Finance expenses 87.6M negative 69.3M

What bullshit you want ? DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT IS GCF??? ITS GCF & TAXES 34.3M !!! so dont come and omit the GCF!!!

BLOODY LIAR!

[teddybear]

minority,

You said PUB loses $69.3M.
Then you now telling us PUB needs to pay GCF & TAXES for its' losses???? What a JOKE!
May be you can tell us which other company in Singapore reported LOSSES in Income and still NEED to pay TAXES?

Done come and bullshit lah..

2016 nett income 1.257B operating expenses 1.239.3B Finance expenses 87.6M negative 69.3M

What bullshit you want ? DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT IS GCF??? ITS GCF & TAXES 34.3M !!! so dont come and omit the GCF!!!

BLOODY LIAR!