Singapore's sand shortage: the hourglass effect

My piece from this week's edition of The Economist:

Seven maids with seven mops might fail, but Singapore gets close

“LOOKING for sea-sand for reclamation project in Singapore. Prompt reply is greatly appreciated.” Many such pleas can be found on Alibaba.com, a popular Chinese trading-website. Malaysia banned sand exports as long ago as 1997. Indonesia followed suit in 2007 on environmental and, some say, political grounds. Ever since, it has become harder for Singapore to secure supplies for its booming construction industry and sea-fill plans.

The ban by Indonesia, its biggest supplier, led to a surge in the price of sand, used in both concrete and land-reclamation. The government averted a short-term crisis by releasing sand from its stockpile and helping contractors find new sources. However, Indonesia’s embargo, followed swiftly by a Chinese ban on sales of sand to Taiwan, set in train a domino effect.

Environmentalists argue that large-scale sand-dredging can deplete fish stocks and cause erosion, risking landslides and flooding. So Singaporean contractors turned to Cambodia, where prices are low and environmental standards almost non-existent. But this May Hun Sen, Cambodia’s prime minister, outlawed exports of sand. Again, environmental pressures were cited, but there may also have been a political motive.

After the Cambodian ban Vietnam’s sand exports surged, achieving volumes seven times as big as last year, with Singapore the main customer. Then last month Vietnam’s construction ministry called for a temporary halt to the trade, to assess its impact on the environment and the local building industry. NGOs in Thailand and Bangladesh have also pressed their governments to reject recent requests to allow sales of sand to Singapore.
 
Sand prices, which peaked at over S$60 ($43) a tonne in 2007, have fallen during the slowdown. Simon Lee, of the Singapore Contractors’ Association, believes a new regulation requiring sand importers to have alternative back-up supplies will help insulate his members from further turbulence.

A spokesman for Singapore’s national-development ministry adds that construction companies have been importing sand from “various” regional countries and claims that “recent restrictions on sand exports have not affected the supply of construction sand to Singapore.”

But global demand for dwindling supplies of sand and other materials is mounting. Critics say that Singapore needs to shift faster from building cheap but resource-intensive concrete structures towards more expensive construction techniques that use, say, more steel and glass.

Relying as it does on low-wage, low-skilled migrant workers from South Asia, Singapore’s construction industry is not yet ready for such a high-tech transformation.

And in the short term there are still plenty of willing suppliers. Tim Sintop, an American whose trading company wants to export sand from Myanmar and has already secured several contracts in Singapore, is upbeat: “The more bans there are elsewhere, the better for us.”

All hail the Myanmar development miracle

Although it is the poorest country in Southeast Asia and is often described as one of the most miserable places on earth, Myanmar appears to have made good progress in improving the quality of life for its people, according to the latest UN Human Development Report.

An analysis of the UN stats by The Economist (disclosure: I sometimes contribute to it) shows that the quality of life in Myanmar (measured in terms of health, education and wealth) has improved at a faster rate since 1990 than in other nations such as Indonesia, South Korea, Brazil, Russia and South Africa.

Myanmar also fares better than you might expect in the UN's overall league table of human development, coming in at 138, ahead of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kenya and Ghana (download PDF of full report here).

It is often said by Burma watchers that, unlike almost any other government in the world, the junta have zero interest in improving the quality of life of their own people (see this editorial, for example, by Alison Vicary and Sean Turnell on why the West should retain sanctions).

So what's going on then? Is the UN data merely a statistical outlier?

Firstly, Myanmar has advanced from a pretty low base in 1990 so the improvement needs to be put in that context. Also, there may be question marks over the reliability of the Myanmar data.

Regardless, it's an interesting anomaly. Anyone care to proffer any alternative theories?

Hat-tip to New Mandala for the sanctions piece. Photo courtesy of Flickr user Tianyake.

Foreign media's "love" for Anwar Ibrahim on the wane

Critics of Anwar Ibrahim, the charismatic Malaysian opposition figure, often argue that he is "loved" by the foreign media - as if popularity among Western journalists is some sort of damning indictment of his credentials.

Well poor old Anwar doesn't seem as loved as he once was. First, The Economist eased the knife in with an extended column suggesting he was something of a chameleon. Now Philip Bowring in the New York Times suggests that Anwar has been "unable to shake off the perception that he is an opportunist telling different groups what they want to hear" (hat-tip to Reme Ahmad).

One UMNO loyalist even suggested to me (semi-jokingly) that Anwar is so concerned about his deteriorating image that he would rather be convicted for sodomy in his upcoming trial so as to give him extra martyrdom points and more support in the West.

It's true to say that Anwar has lost some momentum since the "political tsunami" of 2008, when his loose coalition helped to cut down the government's two-thirds majority. But, in a democracy (albeit an imperfect one), it is inevitable that the opposition struggles to make an impact in the electoral no-man's land between polls.

More than anything else, I think the critical analyses of Anwar penned by The Economist and the NYT are a sign of the plurality of views entertained in the Western media - something that cannot be said for Malaysia's government-controlled press.

Anwar Ibrahim: chameleon or just a good communicator?

The Economist's Banyan column has penned a rather critical profile of Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, which suggests that he is something of a chameleon figure, having undergone a remarkable transition from Islamist student leader to acolyte of the Mahathir regime before his latest re-invention as an opposition icon.

I must say that when Anwar addressed the Foreign Correspondents Association in Singapore in May, I was struck by a similar feeling that Anwar was trying too hard to be all things to all men. His performance was very slick, perhaps too slick, and left me feeling slightly uneasy.

I doubt, for example, that he would have made jokes about which Hollywood celebrities he finds attractive if he had been addressing a group of activists from PAS, the Islamic party that is a key ally in Anwar's opposition alliance, rather than a meeting of mostly Western journalists.

When I raised my concerns about Anwar's smooth-talking style with a Malaysian friend who is a big supporter, she insisted that I was being unfair and that Anwar should not be penalised for having the ablitity to communicate with such a wide range of audiences. His message, that Malaysia needs to embrace democratic, multi-ethnic politics without forgetting the need to help the poor Malay majority, stayed the same even if the manner of delivery differed depending on who he was talking to, she said.

The Economist piece, which differs markedly in its tone from the usual fawning accounts of Anwar produced in the West (see Ian Buruma's recent love-in in The New Yorker), has sparked quite a bit of interest in the Malaysian blogosphere (see here, here, and here, for example).