Tembusu Inaugural Dinner 2016
Gallery
Tag: -Past Years-
Student’s Tea with Ms Sia Ching Sian
Click to enlarge
Student’s Tea with Ms Sia Ching Sian (Pink Dot)
Host: tFreedom
Ching is currently a PhD student and teaching assistant at the NUS School of Design and Environment, Department of Architecture. She is also the social media correspondent and universities liaison for Pink Dot. Her job is to manage social media coverage for Pink Dot activities, as well as to respond to any interviews or news directed at Pink Dot. In addition, she is the key person of contact for university LGBT groups comprising the Inter-University LGBT Network.
Ching will be presenting on history of Pink Dot, how it has expanded throughout the years, and the challenges that were faced while organising such large scale events. She will also be covering on some of the controversies surrounding Pink Dot, such as ‘foreign companies interfering with local politics’ and the ‘wear white movement’.
It is hoped that through this sharing session, students can have a better understanding of the LGBT community and the difficulties the community faces. The session also aims to educate students on the social issues with regard to acceptance of LGBT people in society.
23rd Aug 2016, 8pm – 9.30pm
B1 Reading Room, Learn Lobe, Tembusu College
Gallery
The Conservation Conversation
Click to enlarge
The Conservation Conversation
Host: STEER Indonesia EX
Earlier this year, Tembusu College embarked on a 12 day expedition across Indonesia to appreciate the realities and challenges that grapple conservation efforts in the modern day. Not wanting to reserve the experience for themselves, a short film that encapsulates the students’ eye-opening journey will premiere on 25 August 2016 at Ngee Ann Kongsi Auditorium. Prepared to be in awe at the sharks of Lombok and the dragons of Komodo – and be intrigued by the fact that there is more than meets the eye, as the students on the expedition soon found out.
Date: 25th August 2016, 6:45pm – 8:00pm
Venue: Ngee Ann Kongsi Auditorium (ERC Level 2)
tWild Gathers with Kathy Xu
Click to enlarge
tWild Tea with Ms Kathy Xu
Host: tWild
Kathy Xu is the founder of The Dorsal Effect (TDE) which promotes shark conservation via ecotourism. TDE offers shark fishermen an alternative livelihood, which is to bring tourists out for snorkelling boat trips instead of hunting for sharks. She graduated from NUS with a degree in History and English Language. Prior to The Dorsal Effect, she worked as a teacher for seven years, but decided to quit her stable job to make a real-world difference for shark conservation and coral preservation in Lombok, Indonesia. Come join us for a chat with Kathy as she shares her life-changing experience!
17th August 2016, 12pm – 2pm
Level 1 Common Lounge, Tembusu College
Gallery
Professor Tommy Koh: Dinner at the White House
Next Tuesday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will be hosted to a state dinner by US President Barack Obama. The writer recalls the last time a Singapore PM attended such a dinner in 1985.The most important address in Washington, DC is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It is where the White House is located. It is both the official residence and office of the president of the United States. Every president since John Adams, the third president, has lived in the White House. In 1814, the White House was burned to the ground by British troops and it had to be rebuilt. This occurred during the now-forgotten war between England and the United States which began in 1812.
A White House state dinner is a grand occasion, combining pomp, elegance and symbolism. US President and Mrs Barack Obama will host a state dinner in honour of Prime Minister and Mrs Lee Hsien Loong on Tuesday, Aug 2. PM Lee is on an official visit to the US from July 31 to Aug 5. The last time a Singapore prime minister was hosted to a White House state dinner occurred in 1985 when President and Mrs Ronald Reagan hosted a state dinner in honour of Prime Minister and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew.
During his eight years as president, Mr Reagan hosted 35 state dinners. In contrast, President Obama has hosted only 12 state dinners to date. The reason is that he prefers to entertain at lunch and have dinner with his two teenage daughters. The state dinner on Aug 2 is, therefore, very significant. It reflects the high regard which the President of the US has for the Prime Minister of this small country.
LEE KUAN YEW’S 1985 VISIT
I was the Ambassador of Singapore in Washington, DC in 1985. I would like to share some reflections about Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s visit that year, about the elegant dinner at the White House and about his address to a joint meeting of the US Congress. I would also like to compare and contrast the political situations in the US in 1985 and 2016.
Mr Reagan and Mr Lee Kuan Yew were mutual admirers. This surprised many people because they seemed so different. Mr Lee was cerebral, Mr Reagan was intuitive. Mr Lee was a workaholic, Mr Reagan was not. People forget, however, that they were similar in some important ways: they were strong leaders with vision and conviction and they trusted each other.
In 1985, I advised Mr Lee to fly from Singapore to London and from London to Boston before going to Washington. I wanted Mr Lee to overcome his jet lag by spending the weekend at Harvard University. I arranged for several professors to brief him on aspects of America that he was interested in. It also gave him an opportunity to reconnect with several professors he had befriended during his sabbatical at Harvard in 1968.
Mr Lee and his delegation flew from Boston to Washington on Monday, Oct 7, 1985, in a US aircraft, landing at the Andrews Air Force Base. That evening, Mr Lee’s good friend, Dr George Shultz, the US Secretary of State, hosted him and his delegation to an early dinner on a boat. We cruised along the Potomac River and had a beautiful view of the city and its monuments.
THE BIG DAY
Tuesday, Oct 8, was the big day. The ceremonial welcome for Mr Lee took place on the lawn of the White House with President Reagan and Prime Minister Lee standing on a dais. It was a beautiful autumn day with a clear blue sky and very comfortable temperature and humidity. There were some celebrities at the function, including actor Sylvester Stallone. I had to explain to Mr Lee who he was.
Following the ceremony, the two delegations held a meeting. I remember that on that occasion, President Reagan’s mind was focused on only one issue, the crisis in the Philippines over protests against President Ferdinand Marcos. He listened very carefully to Mr Lee’s advice.
Mr Lee’s message to the US Congress is even more important today than in 1985. The US is suffering from another bout of protectionist fever. Globalisation, free trade and trade agreements have become dirty words in America. It is very worrying that the two candidates for the US presidency, Mrs Hillary Clinton and Mr Donald Trump, have declared their opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Secretary of State Shultz hosted a splendid lunch for PM Lee and his delegation at the US State Department. In the afternoon, Mr Lee called on the Vice-President, Mr George H.W. Bush. Mr Bush would succeed Mr Reagan as the 41st President of the United States.
ENTERTAINING IN STYLE
President and Mrs Nancy Reagan liked to entertain and they did it with style and elegance. Mrs Reagan would take personal charge of the dinner, supervising the menu, choice of wine, flower arrangement and entertainment. She had asked whether Mr and Mrs Lee had a favourite singer. Mrs Lee requested Frank Sinatra. He was unfortunately not available and Mrs Reagan chose Peggy Lee to sing for us.
The evening began with cocktails for the Reagans and the Lees at a room on the second floor. At the appointed hour, they came down a spiral staircase and formed a receiving line. All the guests invited to the dinner would be greeted by President and Mrs Reagan and Mr and Mrs Lee before being escorted to their seats in the dining room.
The dinner was attended by a microcosm of the American elite: leaders of government, Congress, judiciary, business and culture. Because President and Mrs Reagan began their careers as actors, there were many guests from the world of entertainment. I remember Mr Lee asking me who were the actor, Michael J. Fox, the singer, Natalie Cole, and the model and actress, Raquel Welch. President Reagan proposed a toast to Mr and Mrs Lee. Mr Lee reciprocated with a toast to President and Mrs Reagan. The toasts were warm, personal and witty.
After the dinner, we adjourned to an adjoining room where we were serenaded by Peggy Lee. The concert ended at 11pm.
Before the dancing began, Mr and Mrs Lee and the whole delegation departed for their hotel, leaving Mr Kishore Mahbubani (at that time Singapore’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York) and me and our wives to defend the honour of Singapore on the dance floor. The party ended at midnight.
Next morning at breakfast, Mr Lee asked me whether it was important for an ambassador to know how to dance. I said it was very important. He was not convinced and asked why. I said that on the previous evening it gave me an opportunity to embrace some of the most powerful women of Washington.
ADDRESS TO CONGRESS
Oct 9, 1985 was a proud day for Singapore. On that day Prime Minister Lee was invited to address a joint meeting of the US Congress.
In 1985 as today, America was suffering from a protectionist fever. Today, China is viewed as the enemy. In 1985, Japan was the enemy. There were over 300 Bills in the US Congress dedicated to protecting the US market.
Showing great courage, Mr Lee argued that free trade contributes to world peace and protectionism will lead to conflict and war. He said: “Protectionism and retaliation will shrink trade and so reduce jobs. Is America willing to write off the peaceful and constructive developments of the last 40 years that she had made possible?”
Mr Lee concluded with the following appeal: “It is inherent in America’s position as the preeminent economic, political and military power to have to settle and uphold the rules for orderly change and progress… In the interests of peace and security America must uphold the rules of international conduct which rewards peaceful cooperative behaviour and punishes transgressions of the peace. A replay of the depression of the 1930s, which led to World War II, will be ruinous for all. All the major powers of the West share the responsibility of not repeating this mistake. But America’s is the primary responsibility, for she is the anchor economy of the free- market economies of the world.”
THE U.S. TODAY
Mr Lee’s message to the US Congress is even more important today than in 1985. The US is suffering from another bout of protectionist fever.
Globalisation, free trade and trade agreements have become dirty words in America. It is very worrying that the two candidates for the US presidency, Mrs Hillary Clinton and Mr Donald Trump, have declared their opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
It is unprecedented for the Republican Party, which has historically championed free trade and globalisation, to choose a presidential candidate who is opposed to both. The future prospects of the world, not just in trade and commerce but also for peace and stability, will be greatly affected by the outcome of the US election in November.
Professor Tommy Koh: The Great Powers and the Rule of Law – A Reply to Graham Allison
Professor Graham Allison is a brilliant scholar. He is currently the Director of the Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Harvard University. He had served previously as the Dean of the Kennedy School. On 10 July 2016, this newspaper published an article by him entitled, “Heresy to say great powers don’t bow to international courts?”
He concluded that:
“It is hard to disagree with the realists’ claims that the Law of the Sea tribunals, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court are only for small powers. Great powers do not recognise the jurisdiction of these courts – except in particular cases where they believe it is in their interest to do so.”
Prof Allison also quoted with approval, Thucydides’ summary of the Melian mantra – “The strong do as they will; the weak suffer as they must…”
We Do Not Live In Thucydides’ World
Thucydides lived in Athens in the 5th century BC or about 2,500 years ago. He wrote masterfully about the Peloponnesian War (431 – 404 BC) between Athens and Sparta. His conclusion that: “it was the rise of the Athens and the fear that this inspires in Sparta that made war inevitable” is often referred to as the Thucydides Trap.
The first point I want to make in response to Professor Allison is to point out that we do not live in Thucydides’ world. We live in the 21st century. The world in which we live is fundamentally different from the world of the ancient Greeks.
Peace of Westphalia
My second point is to refer to an event which has brought about revolutionary changes in the world. I refer to the Peace of Westphalia which took place in 1648. The peace treaties concluded in Westphalia brought an end to 30 years of war in the Holy Roman Empire and 80 years of war between Spain and the Dutch Republic.
The historical significance of the Peace of Westphalia is that it created a new political order in central Europe based upon the concept of the co-existence of sovereign states. A norm was also created against interference in the domestic affairs of another state. We can say that the concept of the sovereign state, which is central to international law and the world order, owes its origin to the Peace of Westphalia.
Founding of the UN and the UN Charter
Third, I wish to refer to the founding of the UN in 1945 and the revolutionary character of the UN Charter. The UN Charter has created a new and a better world. For example, it recognised the right of people to self-determination and independence from their colonial masters. It created an organisation in which all states, big and small, are entitled to one vote. The Charter’s objectives include the development of international law, the protection of human rights, the prevention of war and the promotion of economic and social progress. It prescribed that disputes should be settled peacefully and force can only be used in accordance with the Charter.
The UN is certainly an imperfect organisation. However, it has helped to create a safer and better world. It is a world governed by laws, rules and principles. It is a world in which states, big and small, are held accountable for their actions towards other countries as well as towards their own citizens. Unlike the world of Thucydides, great powers cannot do as they wish and small countries must suffer in silence. It is, of course, true that great powers have often resorted to the use of force to achieve their political objectives. However, even great powers do not want to live in a chaotic and lawless world. They prefer to live in an orderly world. At the same time, they claim to have the right to act against the law of nations when their vital interests are at stake. Life is, therefore, a constant struggle between the rule of law and the rule of might. It is the ambition of small countries to strengthen the rule of law and weaken the rule of might. It is the aspiration of small countries to curb the unilateral use of force by the great powers.
Singapore’s Record
Fourth, as a small country, Singapore has worked with other like-minded countries to strengthen the rule of law. At the UN, Singapore has a consistent record of defending the principles of the UN Charter and standing up against countries which have violated them.
Thus, Singapore opposed Indonesia’s invasion of Timor Leste in 1975, Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia in 1978, the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the US invasion of Grenada in 1983 and Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
Contrary to the Realists’ belief that power and force will always prevail over law and justice, I would point out that in all the five cases, the aggressor failed to achieve its objective and eventually withdrew.
WTO’s Success Story
Fifth, the World Trade Organization (WTO) is a very important international organization. It was founded in 1948 as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Under GATT, dispute settlement was voluntary and not mandatory. In 1995, GATT was reincarnated as the World Trade Organization. Unlike GATT, under the WTO, dispute settlement is mandatory and not voluntary.
The good news from WTO is that in 90 percent of the cases, including those involving the great powers, including China, the losing parties have complied with its decisions. Why do the great powers choose to comply? Because it is in their enlightened self-interests to do so. I personally chaired a dispute panel, in 2000, to consider a complaint brought by Australia and New Zealand against the United States alleging that the latter had violated its obligations under the WTO’s Safeguards Agreement. The panel unanimously found in favour of Australia and New Zealand. The U.S. appealed to the Appellate Body but was unsuccessful. In the end, the US complied with our decision.
Sixth, I will now briefly review the records of France, UK, Russia and the US on their compliance or non-compliance with the rule of law. Let me begin with France.
France
In 1953, France and the United Kingdom brought their dispute over Minquiers and Erehos to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). France lost the case and complied with the court’s decision.
In 1973, Australia and New Zealand brought a case to the ICJ against France to stop its nuclear tests in the South Pacific. The court issued an injunction for France to stop the tests. France carried out 2 more tests before stopping. In 1974, the court decided that it was unnecessary for it to issue its final judgment as France had agreed to stop further testing in the South Pacific.
In 2000, Seychelles brought a case against France to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). The dispute involved the quantum of a bond which France had imposed for the release of a Seychelles-registered ship, Monte Confurco. France had imposed a bond of 56,400 Francs. ITLOS reduced the amount to 18,000 Francs. France complied with the tribunal’s decision.
United Kingdom
In 2001, Ireland unilaterally initiated arbitral proceedings against the United Kingdom regarding a MOX plant. The UK argued that the tribunal had no jurisdiction. The tribunal ruled that it had jurisdiction and the UK did not withdraw from the arbitration. The tribunal ordered the two countries to cooperate, to monitor the risks of the plant to the Irish Sea and to prevent pollution of the marine environment. The two parties agreed to cooperate and Ireland withdrew the case.
In 2015, Mauritius instituted arbitral proceedings against the UK regarding the Chagos Marine Protected Area which the British had proclaimed in the Indian Ocean. Professor Allison has misunderstood the award of the arbitral tribunal. The issue in dispute was not the legality of the Marine Protected Area but the failure of the UK to consult with Mauritius. The tribunal required the two parties to enter into negotiations on the protection of the marine environment in the Chagos Archipelago.
Russia
In 2007, Japan brought a case against Russia to ITLOS for the release of a ship, Hoshinmaru, which had been detained by Russia. Japan complained that the bond imposed by Russia, of 22 million roubles was excessive. ITLOS ruled that the bond should be reduced to 10 million roubles. Japan paid the amount and Russia released the ship.
In 2013, the Netherlands unilaterally initiated proceedings against Russia concerning the arrest of a ship, Artic Sunrise, and the detention of its crew. The Netherlands requested ITLOS to order Russia to release the ship and the crew. Russia rejected the jurisdiction of ITLOS and refused to participate in the proceedings. The tribunal proceeded in the absence of Russia. The tribunal ordered Russia to release the ship and its crew upon the posting by the Netherlands of a bond of 3.6 million euros. Three months after the ruling, the crew was released and the ship was released after another three months. Russia insisted that it was acting in accordance with its domestic law and not the ruling of ITLOS.
USA
At the end of the Second World War, the United States had a vision. It wanted to replace a world of chaos and conflict with a new rules-based world order. The US led the way in the development of international law to limit the use of force, to protect human rights, to promote free trade and an open world economy. The world in which we live, the institutions of governance, the laws and rules are largely inspired by that American vision.
In recent decades, however, several US administrations seemed to have turned its back against its own creation. Invoking the mantra of American exceptionalism, the United States has refused to ratify treaties it has signed, withdrawn from some others and violated some by which it is bound. Unlike his predecessors, however, President Obama has tried to bring the United States back to its historic position of upholding international law.
Professor Allison was right in referring to the Nicaragua Case as an example of how the US had ignored the decisions of international courts and tribunals. He did not, however, mention that President George H W Bush changed his administration policy towards Nicaragua. He instituted an aid package of US$500 million for Nicaragua. Recently, the US paid Iran US$278 million to settle a claim before the Iran-US Claims Tribunal. In 1996, the US paid US$61.8 million to Iran to compensate for the victims of the downing of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1998.
Conclusion
I shall conclude. We live in an imperfect world. All countries, big or small, wish to live in a peaceful and stable world. We all aspire to live in a world governed by law rather than by force. Do the great powers abide by the rule of law? The record is a mixed one. However, it would not be wrong to say that most of the time, they do comply with international law and the rule of law. They do so not because of idealism but because it serves their interests. As great powers they help to shape our institutions and formulate our rules. Their interests are better served by a world of order rather than a world of anarchy. It is therefore incorrect for Professor Allison to say that the international legal institutions for dispute settlement are only for small powers.
. . . . . .
Dr John van Wyhe: Darwin’s discovery: The remarkable history of evolution
The article where Dr John van Wyhe’s work was featured can be found here.
Catelijne Coopmans and Graham Button conferred Distinguished Paper Award 2016 by the American Sociological Association
Click to enlarge
We congratulate Catelijne Coopmans and Graham Button on being accorded the Distinguished Paper Award 2016 from the American Sociological Association, Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis section, for their paper: Coopmans, Catelijne & Button, Graham (2014) “Eyeballing Expertise”, Social Studies of Science, 44(5): 758-785.
Catelijne and Graham began the work on this paper in 2012, during Graham’s semester-long stay at Tembusu College as a Visiting Senior Fellow.
The Award Committee’s citation reads:
This paper offers an ethnomethodological study of the job of classifying eyes, in view of detecting ‘diabetic retinopathy’, at the Singapore Advanced Imaging Laboratory for Ocular Research. The study does not only develop a highly perceptive analysis of diagnostic work at this medical facility, but it does also offer an exemplary demonstration of ‘ethnomethodological respecification’ in and for the field of science and technology studies (STS). It does so by offering an empirical reappraisal of H. Collins’ recent ‘theory of expertise’. Instead of classifying different kinds of possible expertise urbi et orbi (as Collins, in collaboration with R. Evans, does), the paper homes in on how a distinctive set of procedural skills (or ‘technical expertise’) is actually drawn upon in situ. This empirical reappraisal of Collins’ theory – to our knowledge, the first of its kind – is of analytic import for the social study of ‘tacit knowledge’ in EM, STS and beyond. It notably demonstrates the heuristic interest of the shift from a broad theory of ‘ubiquitous expertises’ (sic) and their classification (‘what is expertise?’, ‘who can possess it?’, ‘how should it be classified?’, etc.) to a subtle description of enacted expertise as an ethnomethodological phenomenon, including classification as a constitutive part of a distinctively technical, yet plainly observable practice (‘expert eye grading, in action and interaction’). Thereby, the paper dissolves some of the ‘puzzles’ of Collins’ (and Evans’) ‘normative theory of expertise’, puzzles that appear as technical artifacts of their ‘philosophically oriented social science’ (Collins, Evans 2007:7). In marrying descriptive analysis and conceptual critique, Coopmans’ and Button’s respecification offers an insightful articulation of different strands of ethnomethodological inquiry, which may thus also have paradigmatic implications for related fields, including not only STS but also systems and interface design, if not the social sciences at large.
Professor Tommy Koh: Solving Asia’s water woes by 2030
The United Nations was founded in 1945. Last year, on the occasion of its 70th anniversary, the leaders of the world met at its headquarters in New York. On Sept 25, 2015, the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted a visionary agenda to transform the world. The agenda is called “The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. It contains 17 sustainable development goals and 169 targets, which are to be achieved by the year 2030.
In goal No. 6, the aspiration is to achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water by 2030. Can Asia achieve this goal?
In this essay, I will begin with an overview of Asia’s water challenges, discuss the most important things that Asia should do in order to achieve the goal and conclude with some thoughts on Singapore’s experiences.
ASIA’S WATER CHALLENGES
The first of Asia’s water challenges is caused by the growing gap between urbanisation and the provision of water and sanitation services to the urban population.
It is estimated that by 2050, 60 per cent of Asians will live in cities. At present, about 69 million Asians do not have access to safe drinking water. To reduce this number to zero by 2030 is a formidable task in view of the exponential increase in Asia’s urban population and the inadequate urban infrastructure in many Asian countries and cities.
Another serious problem in Asia is that about 80 per cent of waste water is being discharged into rivers and the sea with little or no treatment. In Vietnam, only 4 per cent of waste water is treated. In India, it is 9 per cent, in the Philippines, 10 per cent, and 14 per cent in Indonesia. The consequence is that the untreated waste water will contaminate the water ecosystem. The UN’s target is to reduce by half the percentage of untreated water by 2030.
The second challenge is that Asia is depleting its groundwater at an unsustainable rate. According to the Asian Development Bank, seven of the 15 biggest extractors of groundwater in the world are in Asia. India, China and Pakistan account for 86 per cent of the total groundwater extraction in Asia. If the current trend continues, groundwater will eventually become depleted. This will have disastrous consequences for food production as well as for human consumption.
The third challenge is Asia’s vulnerability to floods. In 2014 and 2015, Indonesia, Malaysia, Southern Thailand and Sri Lanka were afflicted by serious floods caused by the north-east monsoon. Millions of people were displaced. Another negative consequence of the floods was that they contaminated the potable water. The contaminated water, in turn, caused water-borne diseases. More than 340,600 children under five die annually from diarrhoeal diseases due to poor sanitation, poor hygiene or unsafe drinking water.
Another challenge is the impact of global warming and climate change. Changes in temperature, evaporation and precipitation will have an impact on the region’s water resources, such as on river flows. Climate change has also increased the frequency of both floods and drought. Additionally, many of Asia’s cities and countries are low-lying and will be adversely affected by the expected rise of sea levels. Climate change will, therefore, pose a new challenge to Asia’s water problem.
WHAT MUST ASIA DO?
The most important thing is, surprisingly, not about money or technology. It is about governance. The reason is this. What is lacking in Asia is not money or technology, it is political will and good governance. If the leaders of Asia were to decide that by 2030 no one in their respective countries will lack access to clean and affordable drinking water, and if they would appoint competent and honest people to take charge, the problem will be solved. The present situation is that no such political will exists in many countries and their water utilities or authorities are often both incompetent and corrupt. The bottom line is this: If Phnom Penh in Cambodia can solve its water problem, there is no reason why other Asian cities and countries can’t do the same.
The second necessity is for Asian governments, both at the national and local levels, to appoint a minister or a senior official to be in charge of water. In Singapore, we have a minister in charge of the environment and water. If this is not feasible, then the second-best option is to have a well-coordinated, multi-agency approach to water. Asian leaders ought to put the provision of safe and affordable drinking water to all their citizens as a top national priority. They should then develop an appropriate strategy and execute it consistently and effectively. One lesson that the rest of Asia can learn from the experiences of Japan, South Korea and Singapore is that a good water policy can be an engine of economic growth and national prosperity.
The third requirement is to mould the public attitude towards water by, among other things, getting the price of water right. Although the UN has recognised as a human right a person’s access to clean water, it does not mean that water should be provided for free. Water is a precious resource and, if it is provided for free, the consumers will have an indifferent and wasteful attitude towards it. It is, therefore, essential to charge the consumers for the price of water. The price of water should not be subsidised by the taxpayers. Instead, financial assistance can be given to needy families and individuals to help them pay for their water.
The fourth action is to promote efficiency in the use of water. This applies to domestic consumption, industrial consumption and agricultural consumption. The largest consumer of freshwater in the world is agriculture. The current system of irrigation is centuries old and inefficient. The drip irrigation is much more efficient. We need a revolutionary breakthrough in the use of water in agriculture. In many cities, a lot of water is lost through leakage or theft. To reduce the leakage, old infrastructure should be replaced.
Theft of water can be eliminated by strict law enforcement. Industries can increase their water efficiency by recycling their waste water. Seawater can be used for process cooling where it is available. In cities and places such as Singapore and California, the recycling of water may be a viable option. There are many ways in which water can be used more efficiently.
The fifth requirement is to embrace integrated water resources management (IWRM). What does this mean? It means breaking out of our silos and taking a holistic, system-wide approach to water. In the case of Singapore, it means protecting our water ecosystem, using waste water as a resource, and maximising the use of unconventional resources, such as recycled water, desalinated water and groundwater. By implementing IWRM, Singapore has closed the water loop.
The sixth and final requirement is finance, technology and innovation. Financing for water-related projects is available from the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Private capital is also available because water is a viable industry. There are many new technologies and innovations which will enable Asian countries and cities to reduce the cost of water, to reduce the cost of waste-water treatment and the costs of desalination and the recycling of water.
SHARING SINGAPORE’S EXPERIENCE
Singapore is a small, highly urbanised and water-scarce city. It has a population of over five million and a large manufacturing economy. Water security is, therefore, a strategic imperative for Singapore.
Faced with this dire situation, Singapore has been successful in improving the supply of water, both in quantity and efficiency, on the one hand, and, moderating the demand for water, on the other.
The water leakage in Singapore is 5 per cent. The demand for water has been gradually reduced. In Singapore in 2003, the per capita consumption was 165 litres. This fell to 151 litres by 2015. Our target is to reduce it further to 140 litres by 2030. Our long-term ambition is to emulate cities such as Hamburg in Germany, where the annual per capita consumption of water is as low as 110 litres.
On the supply side, the introduction of Newater in 2003 was a game changer. At present, Singapore’s Newater plants can meet 30 per cent of the nation’s needs. This will go up to 55 per cent by 2060. Complemented by desalinated water and rainfall, Singapore’s water future looks reasonable secure.
CONCLUSION
I support the UN’s goal that by 2030 every person will have access to safe and affordable drinking water. At present, about 269 million Asians do not have such access. To reduce this number to zero in 14 years is a formidable task. I believe, however, that with political will, good governance and sound water policy, the goal can be achieved.
