Water privatisation: my response to HumbleVoice

Only 3% of the world’s water is potable (drinkable). And only about 1% is surface water. The rest is underground or frozen in the ice caps in the North and South Poles. That means we do not really have a lot of drinking water and this has remained the same for thousands of years although the world’s population is increasing at a rapid pace. One day the world will face a shortage of drinking water. So this very valuable commodity that is crucial to life must be better managed than it currently is.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

1) The proposed Air Nasional Berhad (AINAS) will not materialized out of thin air. The civil society has absolutely no capacity to do this (at this moment), and UMNO will not allow this to happen.

2) If it is to be formed at all, it will be formed by the same masters as those who formed Petronas. It will stink as much as Petronas.

3) RPK proposal that PR state government should not repossess Selangor water resources - is effectively saying the stinking federal government should continue to reign over it.

4) RPK is opposed to PR state government taking control of Selangor water resources. And he is dressing up his intention with a lot of 'facts' about NRW. This bullshit. This is propaganda.

5) Let political analysts, logicians tell me that I am wrong. This piece of writing is not about fact. It is about spinning. (Comment by HumbleVoice)

***********************************************

HumbleVoice is trying to read something sinister or dubious into what I wrote. Maybe I can expand on the issue so that this matter can be discussed without political emotions, as it appears to be happening now.

Let us be clear about one thing. I am not opposed to Pakatan Rakyat taking over the management of the water in Selangor. Even if Barisan Nasional were to rule Selangor I would still say that the federal government and not the state governments should manage the water in all the States.

And this is the reason why.

Water is a strategic industry. It can affect national security. Let us take Singapore as an example. Singapore used to depend 100% on Johor for its supply of raw water. Whenever Malaysia and Singapore disagreed on anything, the ‘war hawks’ in Umno would threaten to cut off this supply of raw water to Singapore. This was their way of holding Singapore to ransom and blackmailing Singapore into bowing to Malaysia’s demands.

Singapore then developed desalination plants to make sure that in the event Malaysia totally cuts off the supply of raw water Singaporeans would not die of thirst, although they would be banned from washing their cars or watering their lawns.

No doubt desalinated water is more expensive to produce. But when life is threatened then cost does not matter.

In Kuwait, when the Iraqis had to retreat, they burned the oil refineries and poured oil into the sea to sabotage the desalination plants, which worked. Hence water can be used as an instrument of war and to bring down a country. Hence, also, I say that water is a strategic industry and crucial to national security.

Only 3% of the world’s water is potable (drinkable). And only about 1% is surface water. The rest is underground or frozen in the ice caps in the North and South Poles. That means we do not really have a lot of drinking water and this has remained the same for thousands of years although the world’s population is increasing at a rapid pace. One day the world will face a shortage of drinking water. So this very valuable commodity that is crucial to life must be better managed than it currently is.

22 years ago in 1990, the federal government was about to give Kelantan a grant of RM600 million to improve the water supply in the state. That would probably be about RM1.5 million or more in today’s money value (considering a BMW in 1990 cost about RM100,000 and now costs more than RM250,000 ). However, because the state fell to the opposition, the federal government held back the money. Hence Kelantan faced a water crisis and the quality of water is so poor that there is high incidence of cholera and other water borne diseases that cost quite a number of lives every year.

Basically, no state can develop or improve its water supply without federal grants. And no state can make money from water, unless the consumer is screwed good and proper. The best run water authority is Penang. And even Penang is non-profitable for the amount of money they have to invest in their water industry.

Water is ‘national service’, like education, health, security, etc. The government has to subsidise these. The government can’t make money from these. Hence it is better that the federal government bear this cost, invest the hundreds of billions required to improve the water supply situation, and sell water at a low and subsidised price to the consumer. 

How can the states do this when all states are running at a loss and depend on federal grants? Without federal grants all the states will go bankrupt. That is the reality of the situation. Hence it is better that the federal government carry this huge financial burden and spare the states the misery of spending money they do not have and which has to come from federal grants anyway.

The other problem is that some states have a lot of water while some are short of water. But because water is a state matter, those states that have no water can’t ‘steal’ raw water from states that have surplus water. If water was nationalised, then states that have no water can be supplied water from states that have surplus water. Just like electricity, states that have not enough electricity can still get electricity due to the National Grid. In fact, if Malaysia runs short of electricity, it can even get electricity supply from Thailand or Singapore due to this National Grid.

As I said, I am not talking about politics. It is not about whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat is running the states. I am looking at 100 or 200 years into the future when water is going to be more crucial than oil. We need to prepare now for the day when Malaysia will be short of water. And that day will come even if not in our lifetime.

Can we just for once discuss a very important issue without including political considerations into the discussion? And, HumbleVoice, where in my article did I ever say that ‘civil society’ should be the one that embarks upon this exercise? Why are you seeing something that is not there?

Charles Santiago is the Pakatan Rakyat (DAP) Member of Parliament for Kelang. If he can think like the ‘waterman’ that he is and not like a politician, he can tell you that this is a genuine issue that needs addressing. And it cannot be addressed by the states due to financial constraints. Hence the federal government has to be responsible for this.

If Selangor were to face a water crisis, the voters would get angry and will punish the state government since water comes under the state government. In this case Pakatan Rakyat is going to suffer. However, if water comes under the federal government, then the people will blame the federal government and not the state government. Hence, on point of political strategy, this is also a sound reason why the state should pass this ‘hot potato’ to the federal government to take over.

Umno tried to bring down the Kelantan state government by denying it money for its water industry. However, they failed mainly because the Kelantanese did not mind digging wells in their gardens or going to the river to bathe and wash even though this resulted in a health problem. Would the Selangoreans do what the Kelantanese are doing?

I doubt it. The Selangoreans would most likely vote Pakatan Rakyat out of office if their taps run dry like in Kelantan. So do you still think there is a hidden agenda or something dubious in what I am saying? That is the trouble when you allow your emotions to rule your head. You start seeing things that are not there.

Now, HumbleVoice, apologise to me.