I refer to Mr A's letter entitled Three questions on Syabas . And I would agree with Mr A that Puas, not JBAS, 'could have' been a success. If. That is, if:
- Bulk supply rates (BSR) were reduced 5%-15%;
The above three conditions are fundamental to have allowed Puas to succeed. However, Puas is now no more and Syabas is what has since happened.
a) Bulk supply rates (BSR) have been reduced 2%. But the rebundling of the biggest BSR recipient, Puncak Niaga, with Syabas (nee Puas) has reunited revenue with a large portion of the water (product) cost.
b) Tariffs were not increased in 2005 but with a possible 2006 increase of up to 15% which should be given.
c) Puncak Niaga managed to use a combination of its pre-existing financial muscle, its listed status and its status as the largest creditor of Puas to obtain RM2 billion commitments in commercial loans and government soft loans to allow current and future capital expenditure for our water infrastructure and part-pay off existing creditors.
Implicitly, Mr A agreed that water tariffs should be increased by at least 10.25% (two successive 5% increases) to ensure a successful business model for Puas (now Syabas).
The Coalition Against Water Privatisation's (CAWP) main argument is for water tariffs not to be increased while my argument is that it should increase. And it looks like water tariffs would have increased whether it was Puas or Syabas.
Mr A's three questions on Syabas relate more to the legality or the politics of procurement of pipes and water meters hence I have no comment since it has no bearing on my argument to practice productive and careful use of water to ensure future security and quality.
Just use 15% less water. Is it so hard?
