WHY THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP IS UTTER RUBBISH 

1. The first article of impeachment, the charge of abuse of power is not supported by evidence during the inquiry. The call transcript showed no quid pro quo. Both Mr Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky have both said “no pressure, no pushing, no linkage whatsoever between security assistance money and any type of an announcement of an investigation”. The Ukrainians did not even know the aid had been held up at the time of the call. Aid money was released to the Ukrainians without them taking any action in starting investigations into the 2016 Russian Hoax or the Bidens. On the contrary, not a single piece of evidence was produced by any witness to support any abuse of power by the President.

2. The second article of impeachment, the charge of obstruction of Congress is legally unsound. President Trump’s assertion that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas requiring the production of privileged material is valid because of his power of Presidential privilege. This is consistent with the separation of powers between the legislature and the executive. But, whenever there is a conflict between Congress, the legislative branch, and the President, the executive branch, the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of such conflicts by way of a final court order. Since Congress did not apply for such a final court order, the President cannot be deemed to have obstructed Congress.

3. The impeachment inquiry in Congress turned out to be contrary to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s own March 11 2019 guideline that impeachment should go ahead only if ”there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan”. As stated in (1), he inquiry hearings did not reveal any evidence of wrong-doing, never mind compelling or overwhelming, and it was strictly a one-party effort by the Democrats.

4. The two articles of impeachment, namely abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are not impeachable offences under the Constitution.  Under the Constitution, Congress has the authority to impeach and remove the President, only if they could determine that he has engaged in “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”.  The two charges most certainly do not qualify.

IS THIS AN IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP OR IS IT OF THE DEMOCRATS?

Let’s see what the articles of President Trump’s impeachment are:

(1) The first allegation is that he exercised the powers of his public office to "obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring or injuring the national interest", by allegedly putting pressure on Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 presidential election.

THE TRUTH: the Democrats abused their powers of Congress to obtain an improper political benefit while ignoring or injuring the national interest by blatantly conducting an impeachment hoax to interfere in the 2020 presidential election.

(2) The second allegation is that "when he was caught, when the House investigated and opened an impeachment inquiry, President Trump engaged in unprecedented categorical and indiscriminate defiance of the impeachment inquiry", thereby obstructing Congress.

THE TRUTH: when the Democrats’ hoax was called out, when not a single shred of evidence was produced in the inquiry to prove wrongdoing, the House continued with their impeachment inquiry, proceeding with their unprecedented categorical and indiscriminate defiance of the constitution thereby obstructing justice and the executive power of the President.

POLITICAL OPINION

THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
The Aftermath

IS TRUMP GUILTY OF QUID PRO QUO?

The short answer is: of course there is “quid pro quo” in the sense that there is an exchange of favours. But that is not saying very much: if Trump is guilty of quid pro quo in this way, so am I and so is everyone else. All of us indulge in exchanges of favours every single day. Also, no country gives aid for free, they want something back! So, the impeachment inquiry should not have wasted its time trying to establish what is already self-evident - that there is “quid pro quo”. But the real question is: what kind of quid pro quo?

First we must realise that there are actually 2 meanings of quid pro quo. 

Originally, quid pro quo ("something for something" in Latin) is a Latin phrase used in English to literally mean an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is contingent upon the other; "a favor for a favor".” This is the COMMON-MEANING quid pro quo and this has no legal liability. This will describe almost all human transactions from the most trivial to the most important warranted government actions between two states. Countries exchange favours all the time in common-meaning quid pro quo. Country A aids Country B to keep Country B in its political sphere of influence against their common enemies as well as cooperate in various ways where such opportunities arise. This innocuous arrangement is purely political and would not be a problem because it is not considered criminal or legally objectionable. 

On the other hand, there is a different LEGAL-MEANING quid pro quo which has legal liability. In common law quid pro quo, it indicates that an item or a service has been traded in return for something of value, usually WHEN THE PROPRIETY OR EQUITY OF THE TRANSACTION IS IN QUESTION. Yes, as in the common meaning, it is an exchange of favours, but it must be an unlawful or corrupted exchange of favours. For example, if Country A provided secret aid or a bribe to Country B disguised as official aid in exchange for Country B’s interference in the domestic politics of Country A, then a crime would have been committed. 

Now, is the quid pro quo that Trump and Zelensky are engaging the common-meaning quid pro quo or the legal-meaning quid pro quo? 

Well, the release of aid to Ukraine and the request for assistance in the investigation of corruption in the 2016 Russian hoax and in Burisma both seem lawful and warranted. That’s because the money Ukraine got is not a bribe paid to its leader , but much-needed funds for fighting Russia and the investigations are necessary and consistent with both Zelensky’s and Trump’s campaign promises to eradicate domestic corruption. So, it looks more like common-meaning quid pro quo.

Yes, if Ukraine’s help uncovered solid evidence of DNC’s hand in the Russian hoax or if the corruption of the Bidens in Burisma is confirmed, then that would help Trump in his 2020 re-election. But given that Ukraine’s help in these investigations is to uncover corruption, not to engage in criminal activity, then their assistance is inherently lawful. The aid provided by Trump to Zelensky is not a secret bribe, but lawful aid already approved by Congress. Contrast this with Joe Biden withholding US$1b in aid to Ukraine to force the firing of their Prosecutor General who was investigating Burisma and his son. Now, that is inherently unlawful and therefore that is legal-meaning quid pro quo.

Let me also address the issue of generic and specific favours. It appears during the inquiry that favours if generic is ok, but not ok if specific. I think there is no difference between the two and it is understandable that, in this case, the favours should be specific because the US is only interested in cases that affect its politics. The specificity of the favours does not affect their criminality.

We definitely can’t say that all quid pro quo of whatever kind are wrong; or else all human transactions of any kind are wrong and that is absurd.

In the final analysis, this whole saga of Trump providing aid, whether delayed or not, with a concomitant promise of help from Zelensky in uncovering corruption by Americans does not qualify as liable legal-meaning quid pro quo. To impeach Trump, quid pro quo is not enough, it must be CRIMINAL quid pro quo. Any political gain Trump gets if both corruption cases are proven is only incidental. It is also deserved because his political opponents have committed crimes and they should be punished both at the law courts as well as at the ballot box.

Democracy’s Fatal Moment

Whichever way we turn,

Old societies crack and burn.

Violent protests here and there,

Disagreement everywhere.

Molotov cocktails, guns and knives,

Conflict becomes our daily lives.

Logic and reason we don’t care,

Fighting a war we won’t declare.

Out there in the streets,

Online and in our tweets,

In Congress and in the Parliament, 

This is democracy’s fatal moment.

IMP PEACH MEN*

They ignore quid pro quo Joe,
But pretend to be Trump’s foe.
Oh sorry, the truth cannot be told,
They are the Hunter of your soul.

Chairman and Speaker full of lies,
Pushing wannabes, leakers and spies.
Doing a circus show only they believe
In a sick parody of Adam and Eve.


*Footnote: The title of this poem “Imp Peach Men” refers to people who outwardly appear excellent, but are, in fact, little devils.

IS THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY FOR REAL?

Lately, we have been bombarded with much publicity about the climate emergency.

However, on 23 Sept 2019, Mr António Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, received a registered letter from a global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields. Led by Dutch engineer, Professor Guus Berkhout, they proclaimed  in a “European Climate Declaration” that there is actually no climate emergency!

They informed the UN that the general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are so immature that they are unfit for their purpose and therefore, they constitute unsound science.  Further, the unrealistic economics behind the unnecessary attempts at mitigation of climate change will result in much harm. Climate change action will squander away trillions of dollars while putting many lives at risk by making affordable energy unavailable to poorer countries.

They also proposed that the UN organise with them “a constructive high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate early in 2020.”

In conclusion, the group made six statements which challenge the position on climate science and climate policy as held by the UN’s IPCC, the mainstream media and young climate activists:

1. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming, but for the most part of Earth’s history, it naturally cooled and warmed.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted, so we are far from understanding climate change.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models which are not plausible policy tools.
4. CO2 is a beneficial plant food, the basis of all life on Earth and therefore is not a pollutant.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters; conversely, some CO2-mitigation measures can be costly and harmful.
6. Climate policy must respect the scientific and economic realities that tell us that there is no climate emergency.

It appears that there is still much diametric disagreement within the climate science community itself over climate change. It will be all the  more difficult for the public to be convinced of the truth and the urgency of the climate emergency especially if the IPCC and its proxy activists are reluctant to confront  dissenting fellow scientists with historical evidence, empirical data and good scientific logic.

THE CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION 

OF JOE BIDEN

                                                                                

        If investigating a presidential candidate         

            is  always  wrong and is  assumed              

                to  be   politically  motivated,                 

                   then the investigation of                      

                       candidate    Trump                           

                           must   clearly                               

                              be wrong.                                  

                                   too                                        

                                     !                                          

                                                                                

Both are presidential candidates.

Both are or were political office bearers.

If investigating Candidate Trump is permissible,

Then investigating Candidate Biden is also permissible.

But, if investigating Candidate Biden is permissible, 

Then President Trump would have done no wrong. 

And if President Trump has done no wrong,

Then President Trump should not be investigated.

Vice-President Biden should still be investigated

Because he still has a case to answer.

THAT UKRAINE PHONE CALL
Trump Exonerated!
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/snippets-from-trumps-conversation-with-ukrainian-president-urging-biden-inquiry

Trump asked for 2 favours:

One is for Ukraine to help provide information to his AG and his personal lawyer, Mr Giuliani, about an alleged incriminating DNC server which the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike failed to seize after their investigations in 2016 and its possible connection to the origins of the Mueller-disproven Russian collusion scam.

The new Ukrainian President, Mr Zelensky, replied that he would investigate, not only as a favour to Mr Trump, but for himself as he expressed the desire to start a new Government that conducts itself openly and candidly and in cooperation with the US.

Trump’s second favour (“the other thing”) is for Ukraine to investigate the truth of the former Vice-President, Mr Biden’s open bragging about himself stopping the prosecution of his son’s alleged corruption, and then to provide information to his AG.

The Ukrainian President replied that indeed he has personal knowledge about Biden’s case. Not only is he going to provide information to Trump’s AG, in turn, he requested Trump to provide any additional information Trump may have to him. He said that investigating this case will help in his own mission to restore honesty in his country by ensuring that justice is administered.

So, this is what the phone call was about. Unlike the Clinton Foundation’s “pay for play” and Mr Biden’s quid pro quo (Quid pro quo is a Latin phrase used in English to mean an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is contingent upon the other; "a favour for a favour".), there is absolutely no such nonsense here. It was about two presidents trying to restore political honesty and integrity in their own countries through open cooperation. No money, goods, services or anything of value changed hands.

It is nothing like what the New York Times’ intentional mischaracterisation of Trump of having “repeatedly prodded Ukraine’s new leader” to investigate his Democratic political rival Joe Biden for political gain. Read the transcript yourself.

STARING AT ...

Staring at the ceiling,

Devoid of pain or feeling.

Wondering as I tilt my eyes -

Will heaven ever sympathise?

Staring at the wall,

Its blank whiteness says it all.

Not a shadow or a sound, 

Just old familiar ground.

Staring at the floor,

Ants crawling I habitually ignore.

Their blood, sweat and tears,

Recklessly trampled over the years.

Staring at of the window,

Waiting for the next blow.

Yet, any illness or disappointment

Won’t deny this golden moment.

IN LOVING MEMORY OF MY MOTHER

17 June 1930 - 29 August 2012 (7th Anniversary)

Final Demolition Of The Ridiculous Climate Change Scam

For CO2 to be a problem, all three of the following statements must be true:
(1) Temperatures must follow CO2 concentrations; in other words, CO2 must ‘drive’ global temperatures. 

Yet, historical records show the opposite: that it is actually CO2 that follows changes in temperatures.

(2) The ice core record of CO2 must reflect what is in the atmosphere at the time stipulated. 

Yet, the ice core CO2 is wrong because it is not consistent with plant stomata CO2 records.

(3) Most or all of the recent CO2 increase must have been caused by us. 

Yet, the fact is that man-made CO2 emissions is only 38 gigatons per year compared to natural CO2 emissions from rotting vegetation and from the oceans of 770 gigatons per year. That works out that only 4.7% of CO3 emissions comes from humans. This coupled with the actual fact that CO2 residence time in the atmosphere is only 5.3 years, means that human contribution to CO2’s alleged effect on temperature rise must be quite negligible! Further, if CO2’s rise from 280ppm to 415ppm in the industrial period by 135ppm is really all caused by humans and the temperature has risen by only 0.8 degree Celsius, then the climate sensitivity to CO2 must be pretty low anyway.

Conclusion

All three statements are false and therefore this whole vicious Global Warming/Climate Change scam must be exposed for what it is.

CLIMATE CHANGE PSYCHOSIS
This is more about the climate of your mind rather than the climate of our planet.

This “climate change” psychosis has reached epic and epidemic proportions. Does anyone with 2 brain cells even stop to think that all this doomsday hysteria is about the alleged elevation of average global temperature of only 0.74 degree Celsius over the last 100 years (https://globalclimate.ucr.edu/resources.html)? Just pause for 2 seconds. Remember that this is global AVERAGE temperature, not a real temperature anywhere on Earth. So, since we are talking about averages, it means, on average, generally, the Earth is warmer by 0.0074 degree Celsius per year. But why look at only the last 100 years? Why don’t we look at the last thousand years, million years or billion years? Over such a long timescale, “average” global temperature would have zigzagged wildly. 

People with political agendas will use data selectively to con the unthinking masses.

HOW TO WIN THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION IN SINGAPORE FROM SCRATCH

According to a report by the Today Newspaper on 15 April 2019, nearly 2.6 million Singaporeans (2,594,740 in exact numbers) are eligible to vote in the next General Election which must be held by early 2021.
https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/nearly-26-million-singaporeans-eligible-vote-next-general-election

This article is to instruct anyone who is interested in winning the next General Election how he or she could achieve that in 3 easy steps:

(1) Set up a  new political party called the Pure and Free Party.

(2) Recruit by whatever legal and ethical method at least 1.3 million members with a token membership fee of $1 per annum.

(3) Issue a simple 3-point manifesto:

(a) The Pure and Free Party is not founded on any particular ideology, philosophy, political, economic, social, cultural, racial or religious belief; but on the principles of having a purity of purpose towards the maximal well-being of all Singaporeans in every aspect of life on our island-state and of the freedom of all members to contribute their mental and physical energies to the fulfillment of that purpose without any constraints from any of the aforementioned particular ideology, philosophy or belief, except for a consistency with Mr Lee Kuan Yew's idea of affirming only "what works". This is to ensure that the Party will not be hampered by dogmatic ideas and ideals, but will be guided by common sense and the ability to change and adapt to new or changing national or global circumstances.

(b) The Party do not have a hierarchical leadership structure, but is ruled by a committee of equals consisting of 11 people directly voted in by its members in an annual party election. Leadership decisions are made based on consensus by majority after they are kept well-informed by all ordinary members who may be in possession of deep insight or expertise in any area of human knowledge. Any of the 11 leaders can represent the Party provided he or she is guided by that consensus on any national or international issue. This form of leadership is to prevent a cult of personality and to make leadership positions dispensable in contrast to its focus on national interest and welfare of the people. Leadership changes are kept frequent to ensure that party policies do not become dogmatic or stagnant, but are always fresh and responsive.

(c) In a General Election, every member of the Party is obligated to vote for representatives of the Pure and Free Party. This, of course, is to ensure that Party will have at least 50% of the popular vote and the Party wants its victory and its margin to depend on votes from non-members so as to reflect its wider support.

If you can control your disbelief and/or laughter, and wish to give this simple idea a try, you are welcomed to do so without any attribution or acknowledgement of credit to this author at any time when you secured political power in Singapore. My only request, in the event of success, is that you should be true to the principles of the Pure and Free Party. I thank you in advance!

OUR SINGAPORE

Singapore’s economic miracle is predicated on 3 factors:
(1) An ideal location between Asia and Europe,
(2) Its decision to take advantage of its colonial links to open itself to the world, and
(3) An unapologetic readiness of its enlightened early leaders to intervene in every aspect of Singaporean life. So, Singapore’s success is no accident; it is the result of meticulous political planning, a populace that trust their political leaders and its ability to continuously reinvent itself in response to external changes.

That formula cannot be easily replicated and our younger leaders should keep that in mind as they take over the reins of power. They must think of new solutions to tackle the challenges of social and economic inequalities and the erosion of purchasing power by the high cost of living as experienced by the majority of its citizens.

TAKING THE HEAT

There’s a hole in my head, 

Tho’ my mind’s far from dead.

There’s a stain in my heart

Asking me to forget my part.

Never we find, no contradiction.

So, no doubt, no persuasion.

Everyone dances to the beat,

Or be ready to take the heat.

Someone turned on the big light.

Oh wow, what a sight!

It’s right here, no surprise.

So, let’s stop rubbing our eyes.

When the poison gas is a flop,

Theft and robbery need to stop.

Having unwisely taken the bait,

We can only sit in perpetual wait.

NO COLLUSION

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/read-mueller-key-findings-doj/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2Fpolitics%2Flive-news%2Frobert-mueller-report-summary%2Findex.html

Independent Special Counsel Mr Robert Mueller’s confidential report, "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election" is out.

Attorney General William Barr stated in his Justice Department summary that “the Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”

Or, in Mueller’s own words: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

So, it must be noted that in the nearly 2 years of independent investigations (almost as long as Trump’s administration so far), the Special Counsel “employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.” It is obviously a very thorough job.

If the Democrats want more investigations, you know that they are merely playing politics and they cannot be taken seriously.

"TERRORISM"

In the shadow of the Christchurch mosque massacres, let's ask ourselves some basic questions about "terrorism":

(1) Is there such a thing as "terrorism" as an enemy, a scourge or a phenomenon which we can fight and defeat? 

No! Terrorism is merely a tactic of deliberate violence and often killing of innocent civilians with a political motive. So, for each act of terror, there is a different primary motive and therefore needs its own way of dealing with it. It's a common means used by different groups for different ends. 

(2) Is "terrorism" the result of hatred between different racial or religious groups and therefore after each act of terror, the most important thing is to demonstrate our empathy and common acceptance of these different groups?

Again no! This is a false narrative seemingly promoted by politicians for their own reasons. Acts of terror are not committed for the aim of killing the victims out of hate, but to send a symbolic message by their perpetrators to their enemies. Their victims are not their intended enemies. Their real enemies are an entirely different group of people, usually a government.

(3) So, can terrorism be eradicated?

Sorry, no. "Terrorism" is a common means used by small, diverse and relatively powerless groups as a tactic of war against their much more powerful enemies for a variety of different grievances and causes. We can fight against the ends that they are pursuing if we find them objectionable or morally unacceptable, but we cannot dictate, persuade or even influence them not to use acts of terror to achieve their aims. As long as there are imbalanced wars between groups of vastly different strengths, "terrorism" will appeal to the much weaker groups as an effective weapon against their much stronger enemies and they will likely continue to use it.

(4) What can we as normal civilian non-combatants do to protect and prevent ourselves from being caught in the cross-fires of such "terrorism"?

Sadly, there is no foolproof way to keep ourselves out of harm"s way. We have to accept that "terrorism" is part of modern living. The only consolation is that the chance of dying in a terror act is infinitesimally smaller than say in a motor accident or a heart attack. If you had not hitherto encountered any terror attack, chances are you never will if you keep to your old routine.

IMPERTURBABLE

She stays, she leaves for another.

Whatever, it’s not a big bother.

Loving one but not the other,

Is a game we all play together.

Fortune rises, fortune falls.

Ignore the knocks and the calls

From crazy men in white overalls.

Stay mute within your four walls.

The cup holds things in equal measure,

Ever so slowly we sip with pleasure.

If we drink it like an eternal treasure,

Sharp sediments will surely injure.

”GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE” CRISIS IS NOW OFFICIALLY RUBBISH

https://youtu.be/kcxcZ8LEm2A

Lord Monckton and his team of mainstream scientists have now proven unchallenged and beyond doubt that the global warming scare (later deviously changed to the “climate change scare” when it was found that there was no actual warming for the best part of the last 2 decades) as pushed by the United Nations’ IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is non-existent.

First, on the grounds of theoretical physics, they discovered that in the standard control theory equation that applies to all dynamical systems, including climate systems, the IPCC climatologists had erroneously omitted to include the sunshine input signal term called the Emission Temperature (heat contributed by the sun). This led to a gross miscalculation of the Feedback Factor. Supposed to be 0.116, the IPCC climatologists had wrongly inflated the number to 0.693. This has a major impact on their final predictions of the elevation of global temperature as the value of the Feedback Factor accounts for 85% of its uncertainty. The widely published average IPCC prediction of an elevation of global temperatures by 3.35K for every doubling of CO2 levels is wrong when the correct prediction should be only 1.15K (which does not present any problem or global threat).

Second, on empirical grounds, Lord Monckton’s team also showed the absence of a tropical mid troposphere hotspot having a warming rate 2-3 times that of the tropical surface 8-12 km below.  The presence of this hotspot is a pre-requisite if, and only if, man is the cause of global warming.

Third, on statistical grounds, based on an objective professional analysis, they proved that they have 95% confidence that their estimate of 1.15K elevation of global temperatures for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels is correct.

So, we can safely reassure everyone that there is no global warming or climate change crisis anywhere that will threaten our planet. Any change in global temperatures or climate may only  be mild and manageable and certainly, natural and not man-made or man-caused. If any authorities were to tell you otherwise, be wary of their political agendas for saying so.

IS THE 1962 WATER AGREEMENT BETWEEN SINGAPORE AND MALAYSIA FAIR?

Should it or can it be revised? 

One may be tempted to sympathise with Dr Mahathir that the price of raw water at 3 sen per 1,000 gallons is ridiculously cheap and outdated given how valuable water is and that the price was set in the Water Agreement back in 1962. 

One shouldn’t.

Water is a naturally occurring resource and it is only valuable if made drinkable and usable through its treatment. Time does not change this fact. Therefore, almost the whole of its value is created through such processing which is currently being done by Singapore.

Nevertheless, let’s examine Dr Mahathir’s case more closely.

If Malaysia sells 1000 gallons of raw river water to Singapore at RM0.03, but buys the same amount of treated water that costs Singapore RM2.40 to process at RM 0.50, then Malaysia would have benefited by RM30,880 daily for the 16 million gallons of treated water that Malaysia buys from Singapore every day. Malaysia also makes another RM7,020 from selling the other 234 million gallons of raw water to Singapore daily. So, the 1962 Water Agreement benefits Malaysia by RM37,900 daily. So, why is Dr Mahathir seemingly unhappy with this arrangement?

Johor sells drinkable water to its own citizens at RM3.95 per 1,000 gallons. Assuming that all 16 million gallons bought at a net cost of RM0.47 per 1,000 gallons is sold at that price, it will earn RM55,680 from its own citizens daily. Again, why is Dr Mahathir unhappy?

I think he is unhappy because Johor actually sells raw water at RM0.50 per 1,000 gallons to Malacca and he thinks that is now the market price for raw water. So, by selling it at RM0.03 per 1000 gallons to Singapore, Malaysia is losing RM109,980 for the net sale of the 234 million gallons at below-market price. If the market price of raw water is really RM0.50 per 1,000 gallons, then Johor will lose RM16,400 daily from its water trade with Singapore and its own citizens.

The trouble with that analysis is that the water transaction between Johor and Malacca is one that is between two Malaysian states and therefore the difference is akin to money transferring  from the left pocket to the right pocket of Malaysia. That is hardly indicative of a true market price.

Also, if Singapore buys raw water at RM0.50 per 1000 gallons from Johor and sells treated water back at the same price, then Singapore would have done expensive water treatment for 16 million gallons of water for free and lose RM38,400 daily. That cannot be. Surely, if Malaysia increases the cost of raw water it sells to Singapore, obviously, Singapore will also have to increase its selling price of treated water given that raw water will now cost RM2.90 per 1,000 gallons to buy and process. 

So, assuming that both parties agree to revise the 1962 Water Agreement, the real question is whether the much higher resultant price of treated water charged by Singapore will be acceptable to both Mr Mahathir and our own Singapore citizens. If the answer is no, it is wiser to leave that Agreement alone.

Yet, Johor’s intention to unilaterally revise the 1962 Water Agreement seems to be motivated by its secret plan to stop its dependence on Singapore for treated water. It appears to have developed its own capacity to treat water. Its suggestion to raise the selling price of raw water to RM0.50 per 1000 gallons appears to be a ploy to move things in that direction. 

Other than crying foul about Malaysia not honouring the sanctity of international agreements, what can Singapore do to ensure its water security and not be at the mercy of the arbitrary pricing of raw Malaysian water? Are water agreements really sacred and truly untouchable?

WALKING BACK A HUNDRED THOUSAND MILES

Where will this road lead us

If we don’t talk and discuss?

We should try not to make a big fuss, 

But to release every drop of toxic pus.

Spare our usual parries and thrusts,

So that we won’t again miss the bus.

If everyone believes and everyone trusts,

We’ll gladly go where that road leads us.

OH GOD, WHAT A BEAUTIFUL WALL!

When love for country and duty call,
It's on his square shoulders that burdens fall.
It doesn't really matter how the enemies stall.
You know, it's going to be a beautiful wall!