Debated in Parliament on 7 Nov 2017.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to make this Statement. My Ministerial Statement will address Question Nos 1 to 10 of the Order Paper. It will also address Question Nos 36, 37, 40, 45 and 46 on the Order Paper for the Sitting yesterday. [Please refer to "Measures to Prevent Future Flooding in MRT Tunnel", Official Report, 6 November 2017, Vol 94, Issue No 53, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Mr Speaker, on 7 October at 5.14 pm, an alert SMRT train captain, Mr Choo Ah Heng, reported flooding on the southbound tunnel tracks between Bishan and Braddell MRT stations. At 5.27 pm, the Braddell Station Manager reported the same on the northbound tracks. At 5.30 pm, the SMRT Operations Control Centre (OCC) suspended train services on both bounds between Ang Mo Kio and Toa Payoh MRT stations. Although the flooded stretch was only between Bishan and Braddell, services had to be suspended on a longer stretch, up to stations with crossover tracks for the trains to turn around. By 5.38 pm, SMRT reported that water at the deepest section of track had risen to almost meet the electrified third rail. The system was designed such that power would have cut off automatically if water levels had risen past the third rail. Nevertheless, as a safety precaution, SMRT cut off all traction power to the affected tracks at 5.58 pm after all passengers had been safely de-trained to the station platforms, so no commuters were left in the tunnels.
In an unrelated but concurrent incident, train services were suspended in both directions between Marina South Pier and Newton MRT stations from about 5.50 pm, when the same train captain who reported the flooding, spotted electrical arcing at the trackside between Raffles Place and Marina Bay MRT stations. Electrical arcing occurred because accumulated debris caused a short circuit between an electrified baseplate and a bolt in the ground. The bolt had been left in place after some renewal works many years ago in 2003. It should have been removed but it was not. The short circuit generated sparks and heat, causing the debris to smoulder.
The debris quickly burnt off and the sparks extinguished before the SCDF arrived. However, the service suspension was only lifted at 9.22 pm after SMRT had completed the necessary safety checks.
Although the electrical arcing incident was resolved and services resumed between Marina South Pier and Newton by 9.22 pm, it took multiple agencies working through the night to clear the flood waters between Bishan and Braddell MRT stations. These flood waters were up to one metre deep and covered 100 metres of tracks on both bounds. Hence, train services between Ang Mo Kio and Newton remained suspended until the end of scheduled service that day.
Despite assistance from PUB and SCDF, the waters could not be cleared for normal train service to begin the next morning. The flood waters were only cleared to a safe level at 11.06 am the next day. Train services fully resumed at 1.36 pm, after various safety and operational tests and checks to the tracks were completed.
This flood incident resulted in a cumulative disruption to service of 14.5 hours: seven hours on Saturday and 7.5 hours on Sunday. During the service disruptions, free public buses and bridging buses were deployed along the affected stretches. Announcements on services and alternative transport options were made in stations, on-board trains, on SMRT's and LTA's websites, as well as through mainstream and social media channels.
The two incidents were not related. While there was inconvenience caused to commuters, safety is our top priority. The SMRT Operational Control Centre (OCC) staff did the right thing and handled a difficult situation well. Chief Controller, Mr Tan Kwong Chye, took the decision to detrain the commuters and cut off the traction power to the affected tracks between Bishan and Braddell soon after receiving the first reports of flooding. Train Service Controller, Mr Tan Ming Hui, single-handedly managed both incidents at Bishan and Marina South Pier, ensuring that train services north of Ang Mo Kio continued to run, and train services south of Newton were resumed as quickly as possible by the same evening. As the flooding incident was much more serious, I will focus on it in my Statement.
The tunnel flooding incident was preventable. It should not have happened. It was not due to any inadequacy in the design of flood prevention measures. Neither was it due to an extraordinary storm. Even if it were an extraordinary storm, like what Penang experienced a couple of days ago, the system, if well-maintained, would be able to manage it. It was due to poor maintenance and neglect of duties by the specific SMRT maintenance team responsible for the Bishan storm water sump pump system.
MRT tunnels are fully protected against flooding. They should not flood. The primary flood protection measure is the storm water sump pit. As the name implies, its purpose is to collect storm water. The water is then pumped out to external drains, thus preventing it from flowing into and flooding the tunnels. Engineers size the sump pit and pump capacity at each location based on PUB's estimates for potential rainfall, with a huge buffer.
Specifically, the Bishan storm water sump pit has a capacity of over 5,000 cubic metres. This is roughly the size of two Olympic-sized swimming pools. In comparison, the total rainfall which was cleared from the tunnels was only about 640 cubic metres, not even 700, not even 1,000 cubic metres, much less than the 5,000-cubic-metre capacity. This would have filled 13% of the pit's capacity even if all the three pumps were not working. There is plenty of buffer.
A properly maintained storm water sump pit should be clean, free of sludge, silt and debris, and importantly, empty, in anticipation of the next storm so that it can do its job. It is also not difficult to check if the storm water sump pit is filled up. Any maintenance crew looking through the grating at the top of the storm water sump pit can easily tell whether the pit is full or not. Yet, on the day of the incident, the Bishan storm water sump pit must have been quite full, even before the rain started. As a result, the rain that evening flowed straight into the tunnels, flooding the stretch between the Bishan and Braddell stations.
The anti-flooding system at Bishan has served us well for the last 30 years and is designed with a huge buffer. However, the lack of maintenance, including the failure to check that sub-systems were in working condition, has led to this very sad incident.
While investigations by LTA are still on-going, we know now that all three pumps in the Bishan storm water sump pit were functional, as they could be manually activated after the flooding was discovered. Singapore Test Services has also independently verified that each of the five float switches controlling the pump system were functional in themselves. Why these float switches failed to function normally on 7 October is a subject of the on-going LTA investigation.
SMRT has completed its own internal investigations. They put out a press statement yesterday. Based on their findings, it appears that the Bishan anti-flooding system had not been maintained for several months. Such systems need to be maintained quarterly, and maintenance records were signed off and submitted for December last year, March and June this year − three occasions. However, these records do not match any corresponding logs for track access and pump activation. No track access approvals were issued for preventive maintenance of the Bishan portal sump pumps on these three dates. Pump logs also showed that the pumps were not activated for these same dates, which were required as part of the maintenance procedures. In other words, the maintenance records may have been falsified.
The maintenance team in question comprises a manager, an engineering supervisor and four other crew members. Of these, three have been with SMRT for more than 20 years, including one who was with SMRT for over 28 years. Of the remaining three, one was with SMRT for a little over a year; the other two for six and eight years. The engineering supervisor and four other crew members were directly responsible for maintaining pumps and other facilities in 15 stations from Sembawang to Dhoby Ghaut stations, while the manager is responsible for supervising and ensuring that the work was done. These six have been suspended and are assisting SMRT's investigation. SMRT is in contact with the National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU), and has assured the union that these suspended officers will be accorded due process.
Apart from Bishan, SMRT has also checked the storm water pump systems at four other tunnel portal locations in Redhill, Kembangan, Lavender and Changi. SMRT found that two out of eight pumps at Kembangan and three out of four pumps at Lavender were not in serviceable condition. SMRT is currently conducting investigations into the relevant teams responsible for these pumps under the Building and Facilities maintenance group.
Each portal sump is managed by a separate team. There are altogether five portal sump pits and five different maintenance teams.
This group, the Building and Facilities maintenance group, was headed by Vice President Ng Tek Poo. SMRT has suspended him, together with six other managerial staff, with respect to their discharge of supervisory responsibilities. The six include Mr Ng Tek Poo's predecessor, a Vice President who oversaw the unit in charge of maintaining the pump systems prior to May 2017, as well as the Chief Engineer, a Deputy Director and three Managers.
Apart from the Building and Facilities maintenance group, which makes up one-tenth of the total staff strength of SMRT Trains, SMRT has not found any evidence of falsification or wilful dereliction of duties in the core railway maintenance and engineering groups who are responsible for the maintenance of trains, signalling and communications, tracks and trackside equipment and power.
Nevertheless, SMRT declared an amnesty period for workers to come forward with information on poor work practices. This amnesty period closed on 3 November and will be followed by a series of audits by SMRT's Readiness Inspection teams. As regulator, LTA will also separately assess SMRT's findings on the extent of dereliction of duties and falsification of records.
While investigations by LTA will take a few more weeks to complete, the facts of the 7 October incident are not complicated, and the cause of the incident is clear. My Ministry will, therefore, not be convening a Committee of Inquiry.
Meanwhile, SMRT and LTA have taken a number of immediate steps. First, SMRT has replaced all existing float switches at the Bishan storm water sump pit. Second, LTA has enhanced the resilience of the anti-flood system by replacing the pumps at Bishan with heavier duty ones capable of handling water with more sediments and installing additional parallel float switches. Third, a new radar-based sensor system has been added to independently monitor water levels in the storm water sump pit. Fourth, the sump pump control panel has been relocated away from the tracks, to enable easier manual access to pump operations, if needed, during operating hours. The removal of accumulated sludge, silt and debris in the sump pit is also in progress. For the other portal systems, SMRT has replaced or repaired all the non-serviceable pumps. The float switches were also replaced as a precaution.
SMRT will take swift and stern action to root out any improper practices and prevent a recurrence of this incident.
First, it has reorganised the unit overseeing the maintenance of the flood protection system. SMRT has replaced the Vice President, Mr Ng Tek Poo, with Mr Siu Yow Wee, a senior mechanical engineer with SMRT. Mr Siu is known to be deeply committed and responsible. I expect him to enforce greater discipline and process controls within this group. Mr Siu will report directly to SMRT's Chief Maintenance Officer.
Second, it has increased the frequency of anti-flooding maintenance from quarterly to monthly.
Third, it is tightening the flood recovery plans and intends to strengthen coordination with SCDF and PUB through regular exercises. Additional emergency equipment, such as portable pumps, are also being procured to augment emergency response capabilities.
Fourth, it has invited a team of experts from the Taipei Metro to do a thorough and independent review of its operations, to flush out any gaps and recommend improvements in the areas of system management, engineering and maintenance. I happened to have a meeting with a few top Metro operators about a week after this incident. And amongst the experts was the former Chairman of Taipei Metro. Taipei Metro has done very well, as I have shared in this House before, in terms of achieving rail reliability.
They had plenty of problems, too, in the beginning. This particular gentleman, Prof Tsai, turned around the company. I have great respect for him. I got to know him very well and have met him four times in the last two years that I am in MOT. At the meeting last week, I asked him for help. He said, "Sure". He remembered many years ago, he came here for help when we were still running the system quite well. He said, "饮水思源". He was happy to help. Although he is the former Chairman, he still has huge influence within Taipei Metro. He immediately assembled a team of experts and they are coming in next month. I will be meeting them.
Last but not least, to develop and cultivate a stronger culture of accountability, ownership and open reporting across the whole organisation, SMRT is strengthening internal processes and staff support. This includes staff rotations and renewal, delayering of reporting chains for tighter management oversight, enhancing the supervision of night works, strengthening training and coaching of supervisors, and aligning the bonuses and incentives of senior supervisors to the performance of their teams and audit results.
SMRT's new Chairman, Mr Seah Moon Ming − he is here in the Public Gallery − has publicly stated that his company has zero tolerance for failures in supervision and diligence over maintenance tasks and will be undertaking a comprehensive audit of maintenance records and practices to uncover any lapses or impropriety. He has also shared that the Board will review the remuneration of its senior management, from the CEO through the relevant chain of command. This is as it should be. I commend the Chairman for taking these steps and for emphasising that it is the responsibility of management to set the right culture of professionalism and excellence. It begins from the top. If there is poor work culture, the CEO is responsible. You set the corporate culture.
At a media conference on 16 October 2017, CEO of SMRT Desmond Kuek commented on some "deep-seated cultural issues" within SMRT. In response to a journalist's query, he referred to a recent Organisational Climate Survey done by Towers Watson which found nine in 10 SMRT employees proud of, and engaged in their work. On the remaining one in 10 employees, he elaborated on the need to strengthen the level of accountability by supervisors and the degree of ownership and open reporting by staff.
Let me stress that growing the right culture is the responsibility of everyone ─ from the top leadership down to the workers. I look to the SMRT management to set the right tone of professionalism and excellence to complement the audit systems that are being put in place.
This is our Singapore way. Mr Speaker, workers and management are jointly responsible for the success of their enterprise. When we speak of "culture", we mean the culture of the whole ─ the values and practices of management, as much as the values and practices of the workers. At a senior level, we set the tone, we formulate, we share and then we see to it that the culture is what we have formulated.
I am certain of the new SMRT Chairman's determination and sincere efforts to transform the culture of SMRT as a whole. He was appointed Chairman just barely three months ago, but I have known him for many years. With the support of management and workers across the organisation, I have faith that he will succeed. Let us help him along, give him the time and space for him to do the transformation.
Since the incident, I have received questions about the different roles that LTA has played. For the rail network, LTA has three distinct roles: as a regulator, developer and asset owner. Although these three roles are separate, they are all geared towards achieving our vision of a well-connected, reliable and efficient rail network.
First, as regulator, LTA sets the Operating and Maintenance Performance Standards. It then conducts regular audits of the operators' maintenance regime and on-site inspections to ensure that the standards are complied with. To prioritise its resources, LTA adopts a risk-based approach. It focuses on the most complex areas where failure could have the most severe impact and damage to the rail network and on passenger safety. One example is the signalling system which is the central nervous system of our rail network and is made up of countless interconnected sub-systems located along the tracks, inside the trains, as well as in the stations, depots and Operations Control Centre. These complex and high-risk systems are where we place the most audit effort and regulatory focus.
The anti-flooding systems are considered less risky ─ much less risky ─ compared to other core railway systems because the constructs are simple, they are easy to maintain and they have ample engineering buffers. Nonetheless, during a recent meeting with SMRT on 29 September 2017, just a few days before the tunnel flooding incident, LTA had stressed the importance of maintaining tunnel sump pump systems. All these were recorded in the minutes of the meeting. SMRT, subsequently, agreed to review and surface a list of pumps requiring replacement to LTA. Unfortunately, the incident occurred before this review could be completed.
There has been no shortcoming or lapses in oversight by LTA staff in the present regulatory framework. Going forward, I have asked LTA to partner SMRT and to set up a new Joint Readiness Inspection team to supplement SMRT's own internal audit system. At SMRT Chairman Seah Moon Ming's request, ST Kinetics has released Dr Richard Kwok to head SMRT's augmented audit team. Dr Richard Kwok, who was Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of ST Kinetics, will start work with SMRT next month. His team will report directly to SMRT Board's Audit and Risk Committee. He will also jointly head, with LTA, the Joint Readiness Inspection team which will report to the LTA and SMRT Joint Board Technical Committee. The tighter audit system will help to identify any deficiencies, so that they can be addressed early before faults occur.
However, let us be clear. No regulatory oversight can fully guard against intentional efforts to hide mistakes and negligence, especially if it is by a group. Our operator's efforts to create the right organisational culture of professionalism, excellence and discipline are, therefore, important and they complement the audit systems in place.
Second, as the developer, LTA is responsible for ensuring that our transport infrastructure is appropriately designed with the right specifications. In developing rail lines, LTA undertakes structured engineering reviews and system assurance assessments, including the Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis mentioned by Dr Tan Wu Meng, to ensure reliability and safety.
In this case, the design and construction of our MRT infrastructure has incorporated ample flood-resistant specifications and redundancies. This includes station entrances which are built at least one metre above prevailing flood levels, as well as the provision of ample pump capacity and holding tanks in close consultation with PUB. These specifications are more stringent than those for other building developments. For existing infrastructure, flood barriers have been retrofitted at older MRT station entrances, such as at Tanjong Pagar and Orchard, to protect these underground stations from the risk of flash floods. LTA also works closely with PUB to review the flood protection requirements from time to time, to take into account the impact of climate change and unforeseen weather events on our built-up environment.
In fact, climate change and all these recent freak storms in Asia worry us and Mr Tan Gee Paw, whom I asked to volunteer to be my advisor on rail reliability. Some four months ago, he wrote me a long email, because there were floods in China, Vietnam and India. He is worried that our specifications might not be adequate in this time of climate change and deteriorating weather. That was when he got LTA to start reviewing our anti-flood systems. And we were just in the midst of the review, including looking at existing systems when, unfortunately, this thing happened.
Third, when the North-South and East-West Lines transitioned to the New Rail Financing Framework in October last year, LTA took over the ownership of all rail operating assets and became an asset owner. This is the third role. As part of the asset transfer, LTA will assess the condition of the assets while Ernst & Young was engaged to perform due diligence on their Net Book Value. Payment to SMRT is contingent on the requirement that the condition of the operating assets should befit their age. This process takes several years to complete.
Members can then appreciate the extent of assets that we are taking over and that we have to manage and operate. This is not a simple operation. The process takes several years to complete. We are not even halfway there.
LTA has prioritised the condition assessment of critical or high-value operating assets, such as the trains and signalling system first, with the rest, including the Bishan storm water sump pumps, slated to commence later this year. Of course, we have a payment schedule, we would not pay until we have assessed and it is confirmed by Ernst & Young.
There is also a fourth and unspoken role for LTA, which I have emphasised since I joined the Ministry two years ago. That is, to cultivate a relationship between LTA and the rail operators founded on trust and constructive collaboration towards a common mission of providing reliable rail transport as an essential public service. I started this because, when I took over, I did a lot of visits above ground, underground, day time, night time. I was unhappy with the state of adversarial relationship between the regulator and the regulatee. I told myself, you cannot achieve rail excellence this way.
We may be coming from different entities but, unless you think as one team, one team Singapore, there is no way you can achieve rail excellence, because with that kind of toxic relationship, every time any incident appears, it is finger-pointing. "Not my fault, it is your fault" and he or she says, "not my fault, it is your fault." Then, no way can we solve this problem.
I am used to running hospitals. I do not care where you come from, who is your employer, where you get your salary from. When a problem crops up, it affects our patients, our customers. Let us solve the problem first. Look at it from the customer's point of view, get to the root of the problem and then we settle later who is culpable, who should pay for this, who should pay for that. But service recovery first and, more importantly, learn the lesson so that we can prevent future occurrences. That is the sort of work relationship which I am familiar with, which I think is the only way to achieve any kind of excellence.
So, this fourth and unspoken role is to cultivate this relationship between LTA and the rail operators founded on trust and constructive collaboration towards a common mission of providing a reliable rail transport.
This is especially important now, when our two oldest MRT lines are undergoing major renewal. There needs to be a relationship of trust at all levels so that information and ideas are openly, candidly and freely shared and exchanged. In fact, this helps LTA perform its role as a regulator more effectively as its investigations into any disruptions must always be fair-minded and thorough − having considered all factors like the age of the assets, the effects of weather, design and other extenuating circumstances.
Penalties will be imposed if they are warranted, but, at the same time, they must be calibrated reasonably to ensure fairness and accountability. Such a regulator-regulatee relationship engenders both respect and trust and is critical in our journey towards higher rail reliability.
I have done a lot in the last two years. I have aged five years along the way. I would like to believe that one of my biggest achievements so far in the last two years is building this one team. It is now very different from two years ago.
Looking beyond the North-South Line flooding incident, we remain focused on our larger mission to raise train reliability and to meet the high standards demanded by our commuters. This is a multi-year effort, involving many critical elements, including replacing ageing assets, investing in engineering skills and manpower, as well as exploiting technology for more effective maintenance.
In the past two years, we have strengthened scheduled maintenance based on the criticality, usage and age of the systems. We have also begun to go beyond preventive maintenance to predictive maintenance. Working with LTA, the rail operators will be using real-time condition monitoring and data analytics to track maintenance logs, detect and rectify potential faults before they occur. This is the next major leap in our efforts to improve rail reliability.
As I have told this House before, our maintenance ramp-up in the last two years is producing results. The metric for measuring train reliability internationally is the Mean Kilometres Between Failure (MKBF) of more than five minutes. For our MRT network, it has improved significantly from 133,000 train-kilometres in 2015, that is two years ago, to now 425,000 train-kilometres this year. So, 133,000 train-kilometres to 425,000 train-kilometres.
For years, it could not even reach 100,000 train-kilometres. We were struggling, five digits, cannot even achieve six digits. And that was not too long ago. That is how far we have come in the two years. The improvement is real and significant and is experienced by all the five MRT lines, including the oldest North-South and East-West Lines.
But I know the commuters, especially those using the North-South Line regularly, do not feel so. The MKBF improvements are not what they felt they had experienced. And I understand why, because we do have problems with the changing of the signalling system. In other words, as I have explained in this House, we are doing two major assignments: one, improve the rail reliability of existing systems and, two, we are doing projects. Re-signalling of North-South and, next year, East-West Line is a very major project with its own attendant problems, which I have discussed in this House many months ago. All metros hate changing signalling systems because, in this modern day of social media, you will get flamed because problems are bound to crop up.
That is why we pay particular attention to make sure that when we do re-signalling, we test and test and test again, without passengers, that means, during the early hours of the day, so that the bugs can all be identified and debugged and new software patches put in before we launch passenger service. If you compare it with the experience of London Underground, for our re-signalling project, we are doing very well, although, as I have said, commuters do not understand it. All they know is, every few days, there are some delays here and there. So, when I said we are doing well for re-signalling, what I have in mind is versus the experience of the other metros doing re-signalling.
Back to the North-South Line, because we do have problems with the change of the signalling system, commuters cannot relate with this so-called, from their point of view, improved MKBF and their actual real life experience. And other disruptions, both in the past and now, the flooding on 7 October, have made commuters lose faith. I can understand that. Actually, the problems are being resolved one by one.
Not too long ago, you may remember we had people jumping from platforms. We put a stop to that with platform screens. We used to have all kinds of third rail problems; now, no more, because we changed it out. We had lots of sleeper related problems; now much, much less, as we have also changed it out. The signalling system has to be changed and we have turned the corner for the North-South Line. The same is with flooding, it will not recur. As we keep going in this direction, there will be a major improvement in experience in the near future. I can only seek commuters' patience and understanding. This is not an easy task. If it were so easy, it would have been fixed years ago. I do not have to be in MOT.
To sustain the progress we are making, asset renewal works on our oldest lines must be completed as soon as possible. In the short term, this may cause disruption to commuters, such as during the implementation of re-signalling on the North-South Line. When these asset renewal works are progressively completed and as new rail lines open, they will translate into significant improvements in the resilience of our rail network and commuter experience. Our aim to cross an MKBF of one million train-kilometres by 2020 is within our grasp.
This is despite many challenges, the major one being the limited engineering hours available to us to do so many things each day. Rail operators, and especially SMRT, have to perform both scheduled and corrective maintenance work, and also the implementation of numerous asset renewal works, such as the re-signalling, within the few hours every night when trains are not running. The punishing schedule takes its toll on the workers and forces operators to prioritise between many urgent and important tasks.
So far, we have only been able to shorten train operating hours marginally, for example, on some Sundays, to provide more time for the operators to do their job.
In September this year, I shared with this House our urgent plans to renew the six core components of the North-South and East-West Lines. These are the sleepers, third rail, signalling system, power supply, track circuits and the old train, the first-generation trains. We are about halfway through this multi-year journey, with our final destination in 2024. I will not be in this House.
Metros elsewhere have the option to close down an entire line for a substantial period. We do not. Closing a major rail line like the North-South and East-West Lines to expedite these renewal works would certainly help us get to our destination sooner. Until all these key ageing systems are replaced or renewed, the North-South and East-West Lines remain at risk of major disruptions, even with diligent maintenance. We just got to do it as quickly as we can. It is a little bit like what my cardiologist advised me almost eight years ago, when he tested my calcium score and it ran out of the optimal range. He told me, "I think you have a serious problem. You better do a bypass." I was in denial and said, "I live such a disciplined life. How could it happen to me?" And he said, "No, until you fix this one, you are at risk of anytime falling dead."
As I was saying, we need to speed up the renewal of ageing assets. The limited engineering hours are a significant obstacle to achieving this. I have asked LTA to work with SMRT to see how we can squeeze out more engineering hours for the team. For the re-sleepering project, we shortened operating hours on Sundays but only marginally. But it was a great help. Given the scale of outstanding asset replacement programmes, we will need many more extended engineering hours, perhaps even on weekdays. So, I am serving notice.
Line closures will, of course, inconvenience commuters. I seek commuters' understanding and patience should we decide to do so. We are likely to do so. I hope to get Members' support for such a programme, especially residents living in the North, like Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and myself.
In summary, the 7 October incident should not have happened. The SMRT team responsible for maintaining the Bishan storm water sump pit had neglected their duties, falsified records and failed us. SMRT management has accepted full responsibility over this sad episode. The entire leadership is here, up in the Public Gallery.
We have worked hard to improve train reliability and we have made significant progress. That is why I got upset when people make generalisations that things have gotten worse. It has not. Things have gotten worse because you think it has gotten worse because of the re-signalling project − the new project. If we are not doing any of those new projects, the improvement would have been visible and palpable.
I have interacted with many SMRT staff working on the signalling system, power, trains and track maintenance. They are committed to the goal. They are determined to regain the trust and confidence of our commuters. I know they are just as upset as me that some of their colleagues in charge of maintaining the tunnel portal sump pits have failed us and pushed us back in this multi-year journey. I share their disappointment and also embarrassment, deeply. I have invested so much in this assignment. But we are determined to get back on our feet, back to our work and soldier on.
I am confident that the new SMRT Chairman, Mr Seah Moon Ming, will be able to turn around the company and that we can catch up with the best metros in the world in terms of service reliability. We can. We can do that. We are Singaporeans. The heavy-lifting has to be done by SMRT. But they will not be alone.
The resources of LTA and MOT will be there to support them. That is why my Permanent Secretary is here, too, as well as the CEO of LTA. I handpicked the CEO of LTA. I asked around and I persuaded PSD to post him to me when Mr Chew Men Leong, his predecessor, decided to leave for personal reason. He is fully committed to this cause. So, I think the planets are now very well-aligned − you have me in MOT, Ngien Hoon Ping in LTA, Permanent Secretary Loh Ngai Seng in MOT and Chairman Seah Moon Ming in SMRT.
Other agencies, especially PUB, DSTA, DSO and GovTech, have offered their expertise to help us in this journey. I am grateful for their assistance. This gives me the confidence that we can complete this job of raising train reliability. I have not changed my target of achieving an MKBF of one million train-kilometres by 2020. We just have to lean in, re-double our efforts and work smarter. Thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. I now speak as the Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union.
The demands on our rail workers are much greater than before, particularly for the maintenance staff. Much of their work can only be done when revenue services stop. Many of our rail maintenance workers work hard to ensure that our rail systems are maintained properly, are functioning properly every day, 365 days.
They work in a challenging environment and under very tight time constraints − about three hours every night is the amount of time that they have. I know because I have seen them, I have talked to them in the middle of the night, in the tunnels, on the tracks, at the depots, in the trenches. I hope that the Minister and the Ministry would continue to support our rail workers, especially the maintenance workers, as they have always done.
The union does not condone any action by any worker that would harm fellow workers and commuters or damage the operations of our public transport system. The union will work with SMRT to ensure that due process is given to any worker who has been found not to have done their work properly. I would like to assure the Minister that the National Transport Workers' Union will continue to engage our workers and stand ready to support both SMRT and LTA to ensure that we have better rail reliability.
I thank the hon Minister for his comprehensive Ministerial Statement. I have three supplementary questions.
First, does LTA intend to impose a fit and proper criteria regime on the senior management of rapid transit system operators?
Second, has LTA identified any backlog in maintenance of its rail assets to date and, if so, what action has been taken?
Three, how does LTA ensure that the rapid transit system operators devote sufficient time, resources and money on preventive maintenance of rail assets owned by LTA, so as prevent the premature degradation of these assets, having regard to its life cycle?
Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for the comments, especially that of Mr Melvin Yong. I welcome his statement from the union. I know because, on the ground, Mr Yong is almost always there. Whenever I am in a depot or the trenches, I always find him there − very committed, as a union leader, and motivating the staff towards this common goal.
We still have a lot of work to do, especially by SMRT, forging this relationship between employer and the workers. My advice to them has always been "work with the unions".
When I ran hospitals, I worked with the unions closely. When you have a good bunch of union leaders, you can achieve so much together. Conversely, if there is lack of trust, there will be trouble. That is why I worry a bit when I first read about this amnesty thing because if you do not manage it well, instead of forging trust, in fact, it can cause a deterioration of relationship.
Yesterday, over coffee, Mr Charles Chong was sharing with us the practice in the aviation sector, which I am familiar with. Amnesty is not something unique or unusual but what is different in the case of aviation, they do it all the time. In other words, it is an open system. At anytime, employees are allowed to own up and the employer would then look into the situation and decide. But amnesty does not mean a free pass: if you commit a crime or it is a deliberate act of sabotage, then nobody can help you. But other than that, if for various reasons, you did something stupid and you reflected, you come forward and own up; the employer can be generous in handling this particular case.
In the case of SMRT, this is a new experience for them. All the more, I think, they have to handle it carefully, so that we use this opportunity to build up this strong relationship between employer and employee, and unions will play an important part.
On Mr Murali's various questions, he had three points?
Mr Speaker, may I just quickly repeat?
Mr Speaker : Yes, please.
The first question is: does LTA intend to impose a fit and proper criteria on the senior management of rapid transit system operators? The second question is whether LTA has identified any serious backlog in maintenance of its rail assets to date and, if so, what action has been taken. The third question is how LTA ensures that rapid transit system operators devote sufficient time, resources and money on preventive maintenance of rail assets, so as to prevent premature degradation of these assets.
Just now, I talked about the last two years and some of the things that we have accomplished. One major thing that we have accomplished was the change of the financing system. We call it New Rail Financing Framework (NRFF), whereby we are now owner of the assets. We were facing some difficulties in the past with the company, especially because it was a listed company, sometimes, there is disagreement about when to replace an ageing asset. But now that we have taken over, the decision lies with LTA. When I say I want to change, we will change. We think this would be much better. Because we are the owner, it is of great concern to us now what is the condition of the assets and we have to make sure that it is properly maintained. That is why we are the one; it is LTA who sets the maintenance standards and we will do audits to make sure that it is done.
Another major achievement in the last two years was helping Temasek take back the company, so that it is delisted, it is no longer a listed company, and now, it is a Government-owned company. In fact, that has always been my preferred model which I am much more familiar with. Members know my background: I spent many years running hospitals and the Restructured Hospital Framework or scheme is what I always preferred, probably because of my own experience and background. It has the advantage of commercial discipline but, at the same time, it does not have the other problems of being overly focused on the bottom line with results which may not be totally satisfactory from the rail reliability point of view. Because it is a fully-owned company of the Government, the Board of Directors, the appointment of senior officers are within our control.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister highlighted the work of individuals and agencies behind the scenes. I would like to acknowledge their efforts and that of MOT, LTA in enhancing commuters' experience.
My clarifications are: on these deep-seated cultural issues within SMRT, can the Minister shed some light on the rough make-up of the 10%? For a large workforce, 10% is a large number; it is not a small number. Are there also some in management? As the Minister mentioned, the culture and tone are set by management.
On increasing the frequency of maintenance from quarterly to monthly, it was mentioned in the press conference that the crew has problems getting access to the tracks because of other maintenance. So, by increasing frequency, would other works be compromised?
During the media conference, SMRT had also mentioned that they will be using technology and CCTV to monitor the sump pump area in future. The cause of the sump pump failure is because of no maintenance and not because of lack of frequency. As mentioned, the heavy rainfall would have only filled 30% of the reservoir that day. So, increasing the frequency, is that the way forward?
After the new revelation last week on the falsified maintenance records, would the Ministry review its earlier recommendation of not fining SMRT? How would this also impact the incentive and disincentive framework that is part of the Thomson-East Coast Line contract?
SMRT management has also accepted full responsibility over this sad episode. Can the Minister provide some clarity to this statement as well?
My last clarification is on the faulty pumps found in the other four stations. Is the training provided for the crew sufficient for them to meet their job duties?
As I have explained in my Statement, access was quoted as an issue for the water pump maintenance. But as the Member has heard, the team did not even bother to ask for access. So, it was an excuse which turned out to be not true at all. The shortage of engineering hours to do so many things is, however, real. That is why, wherever we can, using technology or otherwise, trying to improve the productivity of the maintenance staff is key. But no matter what we do, I think if we can squeeze out more engineering hours so that the team can do more work, it would be the best approach, going forward.
As to penalty, I think I do not want to comment on it yet. I did make some comment during the press conference because I was starting from the background of what I related to Members that, two years ago, what I observed was that it was not a conducive working environment between regulator and regulatee. I am worried that if we continue this or restart this adversarial relationship, I think the war is lost. We have worked so hard to achieve this one team that I really would like to preserve this, going forward, or at least until we can stabilise the whole situation and replace all the old assets.
I am not against imposing penalties or providing incentives for extraordinary performance. I am for that. But there is a time to do a certain thing. To me, for North-South Line, East-West Line, I think we are in transition. We are far from stabilising. And until you stabilise, "stabilise" perhaps defined as when you reach one million MKBF, then, maybe, at that time, you can re-introduce this incentive/penalty system to encourage above-average performance, as well as to discourage sub-average outcome. But during this transition, I prefer to preserve this one team relationship between regulator and regulatee.
The other various pumps in the other portals, I have spoken about it. There are five portal storm pits for the North-South, East-West Lines. Bishan storm pit is very unusual by its size. It is huge − 5,000 cubic metres − whereas all the others are tiny. That is why although you heard about many pumps – eight pumps, six pumps – they are not of similar capacity. These are very small pumps; the pits were all above ground. If you have visited − unlikely because this is closed to public − you will find Bishan pit to be very unusual. It is underground and because of the surroundings − the Member of Parliament for Bishan may understand it better − the water just flows all the way down. That is why we require this 5,000-cubic-metre capacity. The other sump pits' capacities are not even 10% that of the Bishan pit.
The cultural thing, I have spoken about, Desmond Kuek mentioned this point. He has mentioned it a couple of times before as well as during the recent press conference. I do not want to put words in his mouth, neither can I speak for him. So, I have quoted what he said during the press conference. I think he meant work culture. I know he has been working very hard to try to change the work culture.
Let me share a little secret. I do not know whether he made it public: 2011 was the last major disruption and then SMRT Board decided to remove their previous CEO. Mr Desmond Kuek volunteered for this job. He volunteered for this job. He was not parachuted in or being asked to go and fix this. He volunteered for this job. As a former Chief of Defence Force, I think his heart is in the right place. He is a proud Singaporean.
We all felt ashamed by these every-now-and-then disruptions in SMRT.
I am an engineer and I have many engineering friends. We really feel embarrassed. For a long time, we compared ourselves with Hong Kong and we said, "We are far ahead of them as engineers". But when their MTR is running much better than our MRT, it is terrible. That is why when I spoke to Mr Tan Gee Paw, he has no qualms. Immediately, he said "Yes, I will help you". He did say, "I am pretty old" and, of course, he is still chairing PUB. But he volunteered, came forward to help us because he felt it was important. This reflects on Singaporeans' reputation overseas.
That is why this revelation that this small group of people falsified records − this is not the Singaporean culture! We are known positively everywhere we go: China, India, people know us. There is a certain trademark of Singaporeans. We are honest, we deliver what we promise. And yet, to have a bunch of people seemingly doing very funny things, it is really odd.
I think some Members asked for the profile of these few people. I think I have briefly described them. Most of them are Singaporeans, some are not. I think four are Singaporeans, three are foreigners. All the racial groups are represented among them. In yesterday's press statement, SMRT went further to suspend their supervisors and former supervisors because this is a failure not just of the small team but, clearly, the managers who were responsible to check and double-check the team were negligent as well. And that is why they are being investigated.
I am sure there will be future updates by SMRT as they make progress in their investigations and take the necessary due process. But I can assure the unions that they are working together to make sure that staff will be fairly treated.
Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for the extensive reply. After the Committee of Inquiry's (COI) Report which was released in the aftermath of the two train incidents on 15 and 17 December 2011, a number of recommendations were actually made to SMRT and LTA. One of which was calling for a profound transformation of the maintenance regime at SMRT. There was a requirement for LTA to impose and implement a maintenance management system audit on SMRT and for SMRT to perform a self-assessment every three to four years.
So, my first question to the Minister is: was this self-assessment actually carried out?
There were a number of other recommendations, one of which was to review documentary and record keeping to ensure a higher level of accuracy and reliability. Specifically, with regard to that recommendation, what did SMRT do which could have actually avoided the issue of falsification even though, I hope, it only involved a small number of staff?
In the aftermath of the COI, of course, there were some operational issues that came up. I think the most tragic was the death of the two SMRT workers. We had an anonymous source quoted in The Straits Times who shared that the train wheels were not grounded as per the maintenance regime. This was revealed only a few days ago. And, of course, the amnesty announcement by SMRT is likely to uncover a few more lapses.
In light of this, can I ask the Minister, with regard to the audits that are going to be carried out by SMRT in the weeks and the months to come, will there be an independent entity overseeing these audits, what will be their nature and will their findings be made public?
The other question I have relates to a speech Minister made on 30 May 2016 with regard to infrastructure maintenance. The Minister spoke of embedding LTA staff in SMRT, specifically audit compliance inspectors, to assist in maintenance. So, can I ask the Minister whether these inspectors could have uncovered some of the lapses that happened post-COI and, more specifically, with regard to the unfortunate flooding incident?
Yes, it was my suggestion and instruction to LTA. One, beef up, get more engineers on board and with the view to also embed quite a number of them in SMRT and it was done. So, quite a significant number of LTA engineers are actually on the ground with SMRT.
I have a couple of reasons for doing so. One was in anticipation of new lines that we would be opening − Downtown Line 3 and the Thomson Line. The whole market needs to grow. I just replied to a Parliamentary Question (PQ). The whole market needs to grow. We need many more people. Through LTA, we recruited as many as possible, so that some of them can then flow out to work for the operators. The embedding of LTA engineers with the operators is an on-going process.
I see them. Every time I visited them, I have to check first, "Where are you from? Are you from LTA?" And often, there will be a mixture. I was happy to see them working as a team, as a group. But as I explained in my Statement, in the last two years, we have been focusing on the most critical areas, which are the trains, the tracks, the signalling. That has always been our focus because those are the most complicated and the most important.
The other parts, which are the water treatment and so on, those are "小儿科" or "simple stuff" that anybody can do. You just need to follow the instructions. We assume it will be done. Because we were focusing on this side, this other part let us down. That is why I was so disappointed and so angry. But never mind, it has happened, we will fix it.
The follow-up on COI, yes, all those things were done. I do not have the details and the information to reply to the Member immediately but those implementations were done. All these happened before my time anyway. And that explains the improvement in the MKBF, especially in the last two years.
I know some Members would choose to ignore it and keep on saying, "We have not improved, we have gotten worse", and quote the glitches with the re-signalling to substantiate their criticism. But it is not so and that would be extremely unfair to the majority of the SMRT staff who are working their guts out.
That was also part of the reason why I reacted how I reacted during one media event several months ago. I was unhappy with some of the reporting on the re-signalling problems. I wanted to explain to the people, to the public, that the re-signalling, yes, has a lot of problems. All these were anticipated and, actually, we have done better.
But I can understand from a commuter's point of view, they cannot relate, because they have not experienced the re-signalling problems in London. So, they do not have a base line. From their points of view, yesterday there was no re-signalling, there were no problems. Today, how come every three days, there are some breakdowns, some delays here and there? To them, they think that the whole system has broken down, when it is not the case.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the residents in Yishun, I would like to thank everyone, especially staff from SMRT who have been working very hard while keeping our trains running on time, most of the time. I am sure the Minister's vision or ambition of having one million MKBF would be achievable soon.
I know Mr Seah Moon Ming and Mr Richard Kwok personally as we have worked in the Institute of Engineers.
I have two supplementary questions. Based on what has been reported so far, I think what is lacking in some of the staff is the pride in their jobs. I think no amount of audit can surface all the lapses or shortcomings. How can this pride in their jobs be instilled? Is the Ministry or SMRT looking into this aspect?
The second question is that we are quite worried about the morale of the existing staff. Once you have audit and you are trying to investigate, the morale of the staff would be affected, but we need them to work hard to keep the trains running. So, how can we help the morale of the existing staff? And for those who really work hard, are we going to reward them? Because over the last few days, we only heard about punishment, taking away their bonuses. How about those who work hard? Are we going to reward them?
I think we need to make sure that the morale of the existing staff is maintained and the pride in their jobs is instilled, instead of more and more audits or instead of "I am trying to catch who are not doing their jobs".
I totally agree with the comments from my favourite Member of Parliament. Indeed, these are the crucial issues. It is a huge organisation. I am clear in my mind all the time. I think I have described in this House two years ago when I took on this job, that this is a multi-year war, we are fighting a multi-year war.
Mr Speaker, you are familiar with the art of war. I am quite sure you have read Sun Tsu's "Art of War". I have. How do we keep morale high all the time is crucial, because along this multi-year journey, there are bound to be disappointments, some defeats and some losses. How we react the day after often determines whether the team is likely to win the war, or it is going to lose. If each time something disappointing happens and then everybody is onto the troop or the general, or worse, calling for a switch of the general, this is a sure strategy for failure.
We should not be blindly loyal to a particular strategy or a particular team. Therefore, we set targets and we observe. So long as they are doing their work conscientiously and the milestones regularly show there are improvements, I think we should lend them our support.
And I think we can help. As Members of this House, you are influential, you determine how you can help influence your residents' perception, particularly for those with residents living in the north, how they respond to each disruption. The more we can help to explain to them about the difficulty of the re-signalling system and explain to them that, yes, akan datang, that better days are coming. And, indeed, in the case of the North-South Line, better days are coming. We have really turned the corner.
Unfortunately, I will soon have to start re-signalling the East-West Line, so Members of Parliament who serve along that corridor, I will need to brief you slowly and carefully, but hopefully, the experience with the North-South Line will help us shorten the learning curve for the East-West Line.
As to pride in staff, that is always crucial. I think I have said in this House several times before, in my previous portfolio. I was comparing people. The Japanese people take pride in their work, even simple work. They may be rank-and-file, but because they take pride, they own the outcome of their jobs. So, the standard that they deliver is quite different. I have talked to some metro operators in Japan. They are finding the new generation not quite the same as the old generation. But in absolute terms, they are still much better than our people.
The Minister responded to my Parliamentary Question (PQ) that we are not holding a COI. My question relates then to the Audit Committee that is being formed. Does the Ministry plan to bring in international experts to augment the team, to put in best practices, for example, that we can learn from?
At the same time, to what extent does the Ministry plan to supervise this audit, in terms of how wide, how deep it has to go?
The second question relates to the technologies being used for the pumps. I understand that some of these are 30 years old, but would the designs be reviewed and relooked, because if we look at the sensors today, we do not need people to monitor that the sump pits are full, for example? Are all these developments being considered?
Yes, I thank the Member. I thought I had mentioned some radar-based sensors that they have already put into the Bishan sump pit to help improve on the system.
As for COI, I have explained why I made the judgement call that there is no need for a COI because this is not a complicated puzzle. But the investigation by LTA continues. The intention is to make public once the investigations are complete so that the public will get to know what happened, what are the causes and how we are fixing them.
As for international experts, I thought I had mentioned it in the Statement that I have invited this Taipei team to come and have a deep dive into our system to see whether there are new things that we can learn from them.
Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister regarding the amnesty. It is stated that staff who come forward would not be penalised. So, does that mean that they will get the same bonus as those staff who were diligently doing their job because this seems to run counter to the principle of fairness and accountability?
The other question I would like to ask the Minister is: is it possible to build more what they call cross-over tracks so that if there is a problem at any point along the track, the train can turn around and we can isolate the fault and we build up the system's resilience?
On the first question on the amnesty and how it will be handled, that has to be answered by SMRT. They are the ones doing this. The amnesty approach is not new. The Member Mr Charles Chong told me that, in the aviation industry, it is quite well developed. If you come forward, you own up on doing something that you should not do or forgot to do or did not do well a few weeks ago, then management will take that into account and, generally, the approach is to be generous.
Whereas when you talk about bonus, a bonus is to reward good performance. It is completely different. How amnesty works is if, for example, you did something stupid and you never owned up and when the inspection team discovers that, then you will get into serious trouble. That is how the amnesty approach works. But as I have said, it is something new for SMRT. They will have to find their way. I will advise them to discuss with the union to find out how best to do it with a view to quickly uncover gaps and, secondly, use the opportunity to forge a closer relationship between employer and the employees.
on track design and are there better ways so that it is more resilient: a couple of years ago, I was quite puzzled how New York Underground was able to run 24 hours. We have engineering hours of three hours and we are already complaining that we do not have enough time. How do they do maintenance with service going 24 hours? And London, too.
When I probed, I found the answer. Even though it was designed 100 years ago − probably that time, land was cheap − they catered for a lot of side tracks and alternative routes so that trains can move to other tracks. So, there are a lot of redundancies. That is why they were able to continue running 24 hours. There are bypasses and alternatives. That is how a well-designed network ought to be like. Unfortunately, we do not have this luxury, I think, mainly because we just do not have the land.
I am going to give a speech in a few weeks' time talking about "a tale of two lines", that is, the North-South Line and the new line which we are building, to show how much differences there were during these 30 years. Technology is one. Secondly, we were very short of cash 30 years ago. Remember the Government took a long time to debate, "Should we or should we not build MRT?" That is why when LTA designed the North-South and East-West Lines, they really cut cost. How?
Members know the North-South Line is a very heavily-used line. The East-West Line is another very heavily-used line. Together, they account for 60-odd percent of the total market. And, yet, for a long time, for 30 years, they were relying on just one depot − the Bishan Depot. Any other line you go and visit, whether it is in Tokyo, London, Taipei, a line like this, sometimes would have two depots or one-and-a-half depots. And for two lines, there should have been three or four depots. But I suppose because of budget constraints, we did not have that luxury. And, now, can we retrofit? Very hard. Unless you close down the lines for a longer period.
I am not giving excuses for our team. But I hope Singaporeans appreciate that it was a very different era when we started. You just look at the new lines − Downtown Line 3, for example − the number of exits per station, whereas the North-South and East-West Lines, with one or, at most, two. And the Hokkiens will say, "Even one, and you will celebrate!"
Sir, I just want to follow up on the Minister's comment on having alternatives in our rail system. Indeed, that was the case. Many of our lines are quite skeletal, we do not have alternative or parallel loops. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider the other alternative of giving up the bus resources, perhaps a "Version 2" of the BSEP to ply through some of these routes where there are limited alternatives and, especially, in some parts of the system where it is still not reliable and we still experience frequent breakdowns, such as the BPLRT, and to enhance their resilience.
For the LRT, it is possible to think about it. For the MRT, the capacity difference is just too wide. For the LRT, in fact, a few weeks ago, I had asked LTA to take a good look at it, especially during off-peaks. I think we should seriously consider shortening the operating hours for LRT and use buses to take care of that. That will then allow a regular fleet of buses and drivers who may come in useful during peak periods should you have a disruption. So, LRT, I think, possible, and we are thinking along that line. For MRT, the capacity difference is just too wide. Even if we have the money to get all the buses and, if we can get all the drivers, the roads will be "choc-a-bloc".
I thank the Minister for his Statement and the leadership with which the Minister delivered it. I have three clarifications focused on SMRT.
The first point is this. SMRT is a line monopolist. It has no competition on the lines it operates, like the North-South or the East-West Lines. No competitors mean a lot more money. Corporate energy should be focused on operational reliability. Yet, we are seeing these maintenance lapses.
The second point is this: SMRT is able to apply to LTA for asset replacement grants for eligible operating assets like trains. So, that gives SMRT even more incentive to use its own revenue for maintenance. Yet, we see maintenance and serious maintenance lapses.
The third point is this: SMRT has a secure customer base. It provides an essential service − public transport. It does not have to advertise "Please take my train instead of my competitors'" because SMRT has operational monopoly over the lines it operates. So, SMRT has line monopoly, taxpayer subsidies and a secure customer base. Yet, we see maintenance lapses. Where a corporate institution provides an essential service, we cannot tolerate corporate complacency.
So, going forward, I have three suggestions for SMRT and I hope MOT will consider these.
First, revamp the fine model for regulating rail transport operators. The highest fine imposed to-date was $5.4 million on SMRT for the 7 July 2015 breakdown disrupting 413,000 commuters. Yet, that money was less than 0.5% of SMRT's total revenue. So, we should move away, in my humble view, from a mere fine model.
Second, we should peg the remuneration of SMRT's management to the overall reliability of SMRT and, where milestones are met by workers slogging it out, working their guts out in the tunnels, reward them with financial recognition. Every 500 hours without injury is a milestone. Every 10,000 kilometres without a breakdown is a milestone. Recognise it within the corporation.
Third, SMRT must be proactive rather than reactive. What does the amnesty tell us or tell me about SMRT? Is it that the top or middle management does not know what is going on in the tunnels or on the tracks? So, my third question is: how is SMRT going to be proactive rather than reactive in troubleshooting?
I think the key is the quality of the leadership. Two years ago, when the Prime Minister asked me to take on this job, I spent the first couple of weeks meeting a lot of people. Among the first few people I met was Mr Lim Boon Heng. He was, and still is, the Chairman of Temasek, and we had a very long chat. And one major topic was leadership. At our level, specifically, we were talking about chairmanship, that is, chairmanship of SMRT.
I was quite clear in my suggestion to him that I think because the former chairman had been there for years, it was time for a change. He took the point and said he had to start hunting. Over the months, I gave him names, including Mr Seah Moon Ming, and that is how Mr Seah Moon Ming is now the new Chairman. My only disappointment is it took so long before we got this done. If this change in leadership had been executed earlier, maybe we could have avoided this.
The Member's comments about SMRT's monopoly and not focusing on the right priority, I think were probably correct for the previous team. I have worked with this current team for two years now. There are a lot of imperfections, but I think they believe in the cause. So, it is not as if they are distracted, that "I am a monopoly, I could not care less and, therefore, I just do as I wish and then you take it or leave it, customer". That is not the attitude.
As I have said just now, let us give Mr Seah time and space for him to turn it around. He has turned around organisations before and I am confident he can do it. But he needs some time.
I would like to ask the Minister when was the last time that LTA conducted any inspection on the pump system at Bishan.
Next, I note that the Minister had mentioned that there was some form of prioritising in respect of the audit by LTA on the different aspects. For example, I think the Minister mentioned that they were focusing more on the bigger rail reliability issues. Would the Minister agree with me that this was, actually, a grave oversight because the smallest of component can cause a train disruption, and a train disruption is a train disruption. It could be caused by a defective door or by a bigger component, a bigger fault in the whole system.
I think the Minister also mentioned, and I agree, the comparison with the aerospace industry. I agree with the Minister because in the aerospace industry, the air worthiness certification is required for even the smallest of components for the aircraft. So, they are very meticulous. The point I am trying to say is that, if you cannot get the small things right, you are not going to get the big things right.
So, moving forward, will the Minister agree that all audit regimes by LTA – or, in fact, by SMRT, – have to be very thorough? It has to cover both the small things and the big things. And, in fact, it was a so-called smaller issue, like the pump. The cause of the pump failure is actually quite small but if you look at the cause of it, the falsification of the records, the conduct of the whole team, it actually points to an organisational issue.
Finally, I am not sure if I have heard the Minister correctly. I believe my colleague Mr Pritam Singh has also asked about how extensive will the internal audit of SMRT or the review by the Taipei experts be. Perhaps the Minister can shed more light on how extensive this can be, and can it, for example, be akin to a forensic audit.
We all only have 24 hours. For some of us, we hardly sleep. Soon after 7 October, I know Mr Seah Moon Ming and I, between the two of us, we probably cumulatively only chalked up 20 hours of sleep. We just do not have so much time to do so many things. When there are so many things to do, we have to set priorities. So, I am not giving excuses for not checking the pumps or other small things the Member talked about. But in the limited time that we have, we focused on the big ticket items which can cause severe problems. That is why we have been focusing our energy on those critical parts. But we were going to get, eventually, to check on these small things, too. Unfortunately, the small things cropped up and we got eggs on our face. But we will fix it.
The experts and the extent of audits, in particular, the inspection team that we are setting up, it will be as extensive as needed. There are separate teams going on. The internal audit teams will be augmented. SMRT is employing Dr Richard Kwok. So, that is SMRT's own assignment. But LTA will be coming in to work together with Dr Richard Kwok to form a joint team. What we have in mind is also to cross-audit the other operators and make use of some of their staff to cross-audit each other so that Operator One can also join in the auditing of Operator Two. And, if needed, we can bring in some of our metro friends from other cities to help us as well.
Firstly, I want to declare my interest as part of the ComfortDelGro Group that operates the North-East Line and Downtown Line.
Secondly, I would like to testify that Minister has been trying very hard to build a collaborative culture between operators and also has exercised strong leadership, particularly with his almost weekly meetings with the top management of the two train operators to improve the MKBF and also to learn from past disruptions, as well as to help other lines not to repeat the same mistakes and improve train reliability.
Thirdly, I would like to clarify with the Minister, what are the main learning points for the project of re-signalling the North-South Line and how can it apply to the East-West Line in reducing the timeframe of project completion, reducing disruptions and making the commuters happy? I would like to emphasise that, if there is, touchwood, a East-West Line disruption, the residents now in the East at least have the Downtown Line to fall back on, but the residents in the West beyond Jurong Point, will have no other lines to fall back on.
The Prime Minister has just reminded me of the need for the Cross Island Line. Unfortunately, it will not happen until 2030s. But we will do our best.
The North-South Line has been a great lesson for us, just as the London Underground experience has been a great lesson for us. The main takeaway for us from the London Underground re-signalling project was, do many more testing without passengers and debug as much as you can. That was why we completely changed the schedule of the timeline of the North-South Line project. Testing was supposed to start in January this year. We pushed it back to 28 May. That, I think, has saved us a lot of trouble and we were able to stabilise the system within a few months rather than the whole year that London Underground took.
For the East-West Line, because the equipment are similar, we believe that the software patches that were put in for the North-South Line ought to be applicable as well. But because every line is different as – the French engineer told me, every train is different – they have personalities. He told me, "You have four generations of trains: old trains, new trains, some new trains and some, just delivered!" So, that is some of the problems that we are facing. Please do bear with us but we will try our very best to minimise disruptions.
Mr Speaker, three points. I thank the Minister for taking the hot seat. For our Jalan Besar GRC, we have just had the construction of the new train line ─ the Downtown Line 3. I think a lot of these projects, the train stations actually are, what I know, engineering feats. I saw a lot of pride in the work by the teams and I just want to thank you for that. And my residents thank you.
A lot of solutions that the Minister has mentioned are to do with technical and operational issues. I wanted to know if the Minister and the agencies involved have gone deep-diving into any of the HR issues. Things like, we say very broadly, cultural issues. But cultures take two to three years to establish and to change. Or even the compensation, the total compensation packages. Those are specifics that I think need to be looked into. I am especially thinking of the 90% of the engaged and good staff that the Minister mentioned in the survey that was done by Towers Watson. So, how do we continue to retain the good staff and to balance the need for accountability, of course, versus the perceived intolerance for mistakes and even blaming should things go wrong? Because that could lead to a lot of fear at the workplace and, in fact, make the culture even more negative.
Secondly, also in view of the larger talent pool that you wish to attract in terms of engineering and technical personnel into the rail industry, what are the HR strategies to make sure that we can continue to attract, especially engineering and maintenance personnel, into the wider pool that is needed? These are the questions that I have.
I thank the Member for the very important comments. The internal HR policies and what changes they need to do, that is for SMRT to follow through. As the Member spoke, I looked at the SMRT leadership at the Public Gallery and they were nodding their heads. So, they know the importance of this.
At my level, it is more about the whole rail industry, how can we make sure that this rail profession remains attractive, especially to young Singaporeans. We do a lot of work together with institutions, doing roadshows. It is a hard slog because engineering as a profession, is itself not so attractive. And specifically to rail, and especially when you read about all these rail breakdowns, why would they want to join the industry?
At the Civil Service level, we have made a lot of changes. Salaries are adjusted, professional status has improved. We have to encourage young Singaporeans to realise that there is a lot of scope and opportunities to deal with very exciting projects. And also to reach out to the females. Each time when I visit the operators, LTA, I am very happy to find young girls joining the industry. And some of them are actually challenged by these problems that they regularly hear about SMRT's breakdowns. And they said, "No, I think I want to make a difference." That kind of passion will translate into very good work practices and pride in their work.
I think we can be optimistic that we can tackle this problem and, at the same time, attract Singaporeans to join this sunrise industry.
I, once again, want to thank the Minister, the team at LTA and also the SMRT new chairmanship for their efforts. There has been talk about the regulator-operator relationship. The relationship between the people and how they work together. I think we also have to think a lot about the relationships within the operator, how people at different levels in an organisation, especially one going through a tough time like this, relate to one another.
So, if I may just share a personal view, as part of clarification, I think it would be very important that staff always feel comfortable highlighting problems upwards to management, especially if the problem cannot be solved at their own level, and that management continues to want to know what the problems are, to try and fix them. Rather than engage in a culture of shaming and blaming, which we know does not work in aviation, neither does it work in healthcare.
Secondly, also a culture where the KPI or the checkbox is not the meaning in and of itself. It is what the KPI and checkbox represent, the work that is actually done. That, again, is the message in aviation as well as in healthcare.
Lastly, also, in addition to condition monitoring and technology for infrastructure and hardware, also using technology to strengthen the "heartware" and help people. So, just as we use technology today to improve audit of corporate finance or of whether tenders are being awarded appropriately in line with appropriate corporate governance, we see this in the corporate sector, likewise using technology to help HR and help workers look for blind spots in their work processes.
Those are all very important points. Both of us came from the healthcare sector and we know, healthcare learnt from the aviation sector on how to manage safety, how to recover from each incident and how to inculcate a culture whereby people come forward, especially to discuss near-misses, because those are important.
For trains or the rail industry, these constitute a new work culture that they would have to learn. Fortunately, there are other players in town who know how to manage those things. Everywhere I go, whether it is health, when I move to a new hospital, I take a "eat humble pie" approach. Do not be shy about asking and you will discover that there are so many people most willing to share their experience and expertise with you.
Conversely, if you are arrogant, you think "I am the greatest, I know what to do and so on", then you are doomed for failure. So, at the end of the day, it is still about leadership, it is still about how we share and propagate that kind of culture and encourage feedback from the workers and work closely with them. In the case of Singapore, work closely with the unions because you will find them extremely helpful and useful to you.
I will take one last question. Mr Sitoh Yin Pin and then the Minister can wrap up.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Minister has used the phrase "小儿科" in discovering the maintenance of those pumps and has also described it as low-risk. I completely agree with the Minister because these are waterpumps, these are not cardiovascular pumps that you put in your heart, which is quite different.
So, with that in mind, I would like to ask the Minister whether it is possible for LTA to work with SMRT to outsource some of these what I would describe as non-core business that we are doing, so that the management of SMRT today can focus on its core competency, its core businesses.
Indeed, I always believe that in every organisation, you must be clear what should be your core competencies, those that you must be able to do very well that distinguish you from your competitors or rivals. Those things you cannot outsource. There are areas which are non-core. Of course, it is good if you have the management bandwidth to also cover these without having to outsource, but when we are so short of time and have so many things to deal with, the quickest way, actually, is to outsource non-core.
In that case, selection of contractors becomes very important. Make sure you identify good chaps, trustworthy companies, vendors and, then, you can outsource to them. And, again, here we can learn from others − water, anti-flooding type of things, PUB will know which are the good contractors in town. Make use of them and consider outsourcing. I am told that the SMRT Chairman is seriously thinking about working on this strategy.
Just one last clarification. Mr Low.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister just now expressed his disappointment that Mr Lim Boon Heng, CEO of Temasek Holdings, took too long to appoint a new Chairman of SMRT. He must not forget that the mission of SMRT is to make money for the Government. I am of the opinion that the multiple problems of the train services, the core of the problem is money. The Government wanted to have the cake and eat it, expecting profit from the train operator and, at the same time, also expected efficiency, tip-top maintenance work.
I note that the Minister was steering the existing framework of the checks and balances between the Ministry, which holds the purse strings, the regulator LTA and the operator, towards one team.
I have two clarifications for the Minister. First, MOT, LTA and SMRT, each has a role to play. How does the Minister ensure that each of them can still play the functional role well when they work as a team and become good friends? The second clarification: hammering everyone to work together to solve the problem now as a team is important but what about instituting the structural system of checks that should be embedded to ensure efficiency, honesty and integrity?
Before I reply to the Member's two clarifications, I think I must disagree with the Member's preamble that SMRT is there to make money for the Government. There are easier ways to make money. We do not have to use SMRT to make money.
It is the same thing with restructured hospitals, which I have a lot more experience with. We need to provide a public service. The reason we restructured is so that we can exploit the financial discipline of the commercial sector, so that in the process of providing this public service, you can get the best cost effectiveness of the operations achieved.
It is the same thing with SMRT. We could have done it as a Government department but I think the decision was not wrong to put it to a corporatised company, fully-owned by the Government. They know and the leadership of such a company must know and Mr Seah knows it that this is, for example, an engineering outfit. Making money is not your objective but you must not lose money. There must be financial discipline. You cannot just anyhow go and spend money – buy this, buy that, gold plate everything – and then, of course, you can have marvellous operations. But at great cost to whom? It will be to the taxpayers.
There is no free lunch, Mr Low. The Member knows it. He runs a Town Council. He needs to balance the accounts, too. And he knows the importance of governance. So, when your team fails you, what do you do?
So, those things are important lessons for everyone. What happens in SMRT has applications for the others as well.
How do you achieve one team and yet be clear of the boundary, that there are different roles we play? I thought I had explained that in my Statement. We are all very clear. As far as LTA is concerned, the three roles and the unspoken fourth role.
But the importance of working as one team − especially at the stage where SMRT is in, whereby you have to renew the assets of North-South-East-West Lines. If you cannot work as one team, I think there will be trouble, as there were troubles in the past. That is why it is so important that they function as one team. So, each time a problem crops up, we settle it as one team. That does not mean that we blur the boundary and, therefore, forget about individual roles and checks and balances. Yes, it may sound to the Member as schizophrenic, but we are quite clear in our mind and it can be done.
Mr Speaker, I must thank the various Members for contributing their suggestions, comments and advice and, importantly, for their encouragement. This has been a difficult challenge but not something that we cannot manage.
My main takeaway in the last two years is, yes, it has cost us, individually, maybe personal health and maybe family life. But I think it is a meaningful job that we decide to take on, whether it is Desmond Kuek or Seah Moon Ming. For us, we have choices. We can do so many other things. But if we can fix this, turn it around, it will be a good public service that will benefit three million, 3.5 million people who make use of our system every day.
We know the responsibilities on our shoulders. What we are asking of commuters is "Please bear with us because a 30-year train system is a very challenging one".
I was talking to the Hong Kong MTR operator. Some of their lines will soon be 30 years old and that is why they are watching what is happening here very carefully because they know, we are all engineers, we know systems will get into trouble. Of course, if you do not need to worry about bottom line, it is straightforward. Thirty years' shelf life, but let us change everything at 20 years. Great cost. The Japanese do that. As a result, very high cost. Are our commuters ready for that?
Look at our fares. Look at the fares elsewhere being charged in other cities. It is no comparison.
These are some of the trade-offs that we have to make. We made it on behalf of Singaporeans. We do our best and within the revenue that we can collect from the people and with the subsidy we get from the Government − that means from the taxpayers − we try to run as good a show as we can.
Yes, we are not perfect. But as I have shared with this House, it is a four-year, five-year journey. We are halfway through. I genuinely believe that we have made significant improvements. The re-signalling is a separate issue but we will overcome that and then I think commuters will be able to experience what the MKBF improvement figures actually show. [Applause.]
Order. End of Ministerial Statement. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
PAPERCUTS