A Safe, Reliable, and Resilient Rail System

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will not give a speech, Mr Speaker, but allow me this opportunity to join in to thank the "One Transport Family", they have worked together as one transport family, volunteers and staff, as the Minister has mentioned, Singaporeans coming in to join in to help out, over the six days. So, really, thanks to all of them for making sure that it was solved within six days.

I have one supplementary question, Mr Speaker. It is in regard to rail reliability and trying to find the right balance between rail reliability and the cost of maintaining service levels. It is something that I have asked in my PQ slated for tomorrow. I have noticed that there have been comments on social media that the East-West Line disruption occurred because the Chairman of SMRT had claimed in June 2023 that they did not want over-maintenance.

Can I seek the Minister's views on this and if the Minister can also share about our relations, in terms of the One Transport Family with our rail operators? And in summary, how is the balance struck between the cost of over-maintenance and the prevention of avoidable disruption incidents?

Lastly, before I end, I would like to thank the Minister for answering my preventive maintenance question.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank Mr Saktiandi for his words of encouragement to our operators, to our workers. I think they would appreciate it very much.

Sir, after the remarks made by Mr Seah Moon Ming, SMRT Chairman, in June 2023, Mr Seah clarified with LTA that SMRT did not reduce spending on maintenance over the past few years. His main point was about striking a balance between achieving high reliability standards and incurring high maintenance costs, to achieve what he described as "optimal maintenance".

LTA colleagues and I understand where Mr Seah is coming from and we agree with his sensible and balanced approach. There are indeed important trade-offs that we need to look at between achieving high reliability standards while keeping the overall maintenance costs sustainable.

The MKBF for the MRT network was 67,000 train-kilometres in 2012 – I shared this earlier in my Statement. And we achieved our MKBF target of one million train-kilometres in 2019 and we have maintained that since for all the MRT lines. If we look at the East-West Line, its MKBF was 60,000 train-kilometres in 2012. It achieved the one million MKBF target in 2019 and it has maintained this even after accounting for the serious disruption in late September this year.

Sir, with the one million MKBF target in place, SMRT's spending on maintenance for the North-South and East-West Lines has remained steady over the last few years. SMRT has also invested in building up its engineering and technical capabilities under Mr Seah's chairmanship and it has embarked on initiatives using its own resources to further improve rail reliability.

Mr Speaker, I have seen some of these social media posts that Mr Saktiandi mentioned. Allow me to say that these can be rather misleading, because they selectively quoted certain comments rather than reflect the full context and the full story.

In fact, Mr Seah had said, and this was reported by the mainstream media in 2023, that SMRT would, in his words, "never want to under-maintain" because he wanted to avoid the reliability issues of the past.

So, Sir, this is an example to remind ourselves of the importance of understanding the full context, what happened, so that we do not get misled by certain social media posts or comments and then we arrive at the wrong conclusions.

I thank the Minister for his reply to my question. I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, can the Minister explain what the difference is between the approach to investigation that LTA has chosen versus that via a Committee of Inquiry? And secondly, with respect to the damage caused by the fallen axle, such a degree of damage could not have been done silently. There must have been quite a bit of noise. So, can the Minister shed light on why it was not discovered earlier but instead allowed to drag on for over two kilometres of the track?

Mr Speaker, I would like to answer the second question that Ms Hazel Poa raised. I covered it briefly in my Statement earlier, that this was one of the bogies of one of the cars. There are six cars. Each car has two sets of these bogies.

As to exactly why the falling of the axle box and then the bogie shifting off the rails did not result in the discovery earlier, I think that is a subject of the investigations and we will await the investigation findings to ascertain what happened.

Ms Poa also asked about the difference between the different approaches. Sir, of course, there are differences in the way that different investigations are being conducted. For example, the one that is done by TSIB, which focuses on safety investigations, would be different from the one that LTA is doing, because LTA, as regulator, would also have to look at whether there are any lapses and to decide whether any penalties need to be mete out.

So, there are differences in different types of investigations, but what is common across all the different approaches is that they will be thorough, they will be evidence-based and they will focus on finding out what happened, ascertaining what are the root causes and then identifying where are the areas for improvement.

Thank you, Speaker. My clarification surrounds the issue of how we can minimise the inconvenience caused to our commuters. Firstly, whether the Ministry has studied the feedback from affected commuters to improve its response. In this regard, can the Ministry share what are the key feedback received thus far?

The second clarification pertains to, first of all, I think we should applaud those who stepped forward, based on what the Minister has shared about how the crisis management team has come forward to render assistance to our children who are studying for exams, as well as seniors and those with mobility issues. But apart from this category of commuters, whether the Ministry or the LTA's crisis management response teams have also looked into how we should also reach out as soon as possible to mommies who are expecting and those that are accompanied by young children as well, to prioritise reaching out to them and render the necessary assistance at the earliest opportunity?

Finally, this is pertaining to my parliamentary question that I had filed on the same note, which is about whether we should also mobilise our Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) team. In my humble opinion, it is not common for our train system to break down to such a substantive extent, in which it has affected millions of commuters. In fact, it seems to me as a form of national crisis and as what the Minister has said, it has involved multiple stakeholders to come together, united as one Singapore, to reach out and resolve these issues.

So, in this regard, is this an appropriate situation where we should activate and test out the efforts that we have harnessed through our Total Defence and also our SGSecure activities, where communities have previously experienced crisis management exercises, for these stakeholders to also be activated?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank Ms Hany Soh for her three questions. Let me start with her first question on the feedback from commuters. I think certainly this is something that we do regularly, to gather feedback and identify areas for improvement after every incident, whether big or small.

The response to this very serious disruption has incorporated some of the learning points from previous episodes in terms of communications, the announcements, the bridging bus services, the signages.

As I mentioned in my statement earlier, because of the scale of the disruption, on the first day, I think there was some confusion on the ground. But to give credit to the response teams and to the ground officers and volunteers, they saw where these gaps are and then they adapted quickly to improve the arrangements. And on the first day, towards the later part, and the second day onwards, the processes and arrangements got better. So, they incorporated what they learnt from previous incidents and they also adapted to what is happening on the ground during this incident. And I am glad Ms Soh also acknowledged the hard work that our staff have put in and I thank Ms Soh for that.

Ms Soh's second question about different groups of commuters, certainly, that is an area that we will continually finetune and improve. The operating principle that we will render more assistance to commuters who need more help, either because they are more vulnerable like seniors or people with disabilities, who need more help, or like in the case of what Ms Soh mentioned, mummies who are expecting or with young children, who may need more assistance. Certainly, we will look out for this group of commuters to see how we can extend a helping hand.

The third question, I have no doubt that our Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) colleagues are ready and willing to help. That is what they are trained for, to respond to crises. But I am also mindful that unless it is really necessary, we should not take them away from their primary responsibilities of defending the country. And if it is something that we are still able to cope within the transport ecosystem, we should try and do that first. Also because, our officers and our volunteers have gone through regular rehearsals and exercises to train for this type of scenario.

So, when it happens, they are also more familiar with the operating environment. They are also more able to see what the best way is to respond to help commuters. But if we have to activate SAF – touch wood – I do not want that to happen too, I am sure the SAF will be there to support the other Government agencies for the benefit of Singapore and Singaporeans. But this is something that we assess for this particular incident, and I think it was the correct judgement call that we did not have to activate SAF for this. We were still able to assist commuters to complete their journeys.

I thank Minister Chee Hong Tat for the Ministerial Statement. I have two supplementary questions and the Minister has touched on the first one in his response to Ms Hany Soh.

First, train disruptions are often a chaotic and confusing experience for commuters. I had first-hand experiences in the past. Persons with disabilities (PWDs) and the elderly are particularly vulnerable and in need of help, as they may not know who to turn to in unfamiliar situations. Given this, may I ask the Minister to consider additional training for ground staff to better equip themselves to identify and proactively offer support to our more vulnerable commuters?

Second, some commuters were unaware of the train faults until they arrived at the MRT stations. For PWDs and seniors who meticulously plan their commute, this can be quite disruptive. In line of this, will the Government consider expanding the suite of communication channels available to ensure that as many vulnerable persons and their caregivers as possible are promptly notified when train breakdowns occur?

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Ong Hua Han for those two very good suggestions. Certainly, I will take both suggestions back to discuss with LTA and the operators to see how we can do better.

Thank you, Speaker, there are two supplementary questions for Minister.

The first is, can the Minister share details on SMRT's performance against the new maintenance performance standards set up by LTA as part of the new NRFF, which the Minister also mentioned, what these key performance indicators (KPIs) are and whether SMRT has been able to meet all of them? Because I also noticed that if we look at MKBF statistics, it has been consistently lower than that of SBS Transit. Even so, if we consider that the North-East Line, for example, is older than the Circle Line.

The second question is that, can the Minister share the dollar amounts for maintenance-related expenditures for SMRT in the last three years and also as a percentage of its rail fare revenues and how has this trended since the NRFF, especially after comments by its Chairman in June that it does not want both under- and over-maintenance, which Minister also referenced, just so that we can set out the full numbers and context here?

Mr Speaker, I will address the two questions from Mr Louis Chua together.

The maintenance and the overall reliability outcomes as shown by MKBF, I have explained earlier as well that different lines have different ages, different operating environments, run different systems. So, while there is indeed a difference in the MKBF numbers across different lines, including between the different lines operated by the same company – SBS Transit, the two lines that they operate; SMRT, the lines that they operate – I would say the more important thing is this and that was what Mr Louis Chua was trying to drive at: where do we strike that balance between reliability and maintenance? High standards, versus the costs that we need to incur to sustain those high standards?

We have, after doing the international benchmarking comparisons, decided that the target that we want to set is one million train-kilometres MKBF. That will put us in the league of the best-performing metros around the world. You can say, why not two million; why not four or five million? Nothing to stop you from setting that target. But I hope Mr Chua will agree with me that we also have to ask that question: if you were to set that target, instead of setting a target of one million, we raise it to, say, four million, five million, we also got to ask, what is the cost incurred by the system as a whole, which will then translate into cost for commuters, cost for taxpayers, to achieve those standards.

So, that is where the balance needs to be struck. One million, which is our current target and, as I mentioned earlier, even though there are some differences between the different lines, all the lines have thus far maintained above one million since 2019.

It does not mean that we should take that for granted or become complacent. That is not what I meant. We should continue to work hard and if we see that Circle Line, for example, is not doing as well. In fact, among all the lines at the moment, that is the one with the lowest MKBF. There is ongoing work being done to try and improve the systems, to upgrade for the Circle Line, including closing the circle. So, we believe once those works are completed over the next couple of years, it will help to improve the overall reliability for Circle Line as well.

I do not have the numbers with me in terms of the spending. But what I can assure Mr Chua and the House is that if we look at the spending over the past few years by the two operators, both of them have not cut back on maintenance. When we look at the amount that they are spending, they have both continued to focus on maintenance and on building up the engineering and technical expertise, which is equally important. The talent pool. That is something which will remain a priority for LTA and the operators.

Thank you, Speaker. Sir, I join the Minister to thank LTA staff, SMRT staff, the bus drivers and taxi drivers who have been involved in helping our commuters deal with the unprecedented disruption to the MRT line.

Sir, I am surprised that the axle can be dislodged from a bogie if it has been maintained regularly. I am also surprised to hear that there are 12 new cracks found on unreplaced tracks. Sir, I understand an EAP will be putting up its report. May I ask the Minister how long before this EAP puts up the report?

Secondly, to prevent future recurrence of such disruption, will LTA conduct a special audit of the maintenance performance standards to check whether the external assessors have been thorough in their work? This is to prevent a recurrence before the EAP puts up its report.

I do not want to give a deadline for the EAP or for the investigations, because I think we should let the process look through the necessary findings and evidence and for the experts to come to a decision on what they would then put forth to LTA for the investigations. But we have said that the target is to complete the investigations, which will include the views put forth by the EAP, in a few months and that the findings will be released publicly.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan's second point, I just want to highlight that it is not only after an incident that LTA will conduct audits and checks. This is something that is ongoing and for all the lines and for both operators.

But what we did, together with the operator, after this incident was to step up additional checks because when you have a big disruption and you replace the rail, you do need to do some additional checks to ensure safety. Putting aside the additional checks for the affected segments of the rail, the ongoing work to conduct regular checks, that is something that takes place regularly.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would also like to thank all the workers and volunteers and all the ancillary personnel, like drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers, who have helped with the service recovery in the six days during the disruption. I thank the Minister for the answers that he has given to my questions. I just have two clarifications.

I had Question No 17 from yesterday's Order paper. I am not sure whether the Minister has answered that question or is this subject to the outcome of the investigation by the various bodies. Perhaps, the Minister can clarify.

My second clarification, pending the outcome of the investigation by the various committees' personnel, whether any additional interim maintenance measures have been put in place or will be put in place so as to prevent similar incidents from happening in the meantime.

Yes, Mr Speaker, I think it is quicker if I were to just read out the question: To ask the Minister for Transport whether LTA will conduct a review of the existing requirement on the maintenance regime and practices of all MRT trains, including but not limited to the old trains, such as the first-generation KHI trains. I am not asking any follow-up questions on my Parliamentary Questions relating to the cause and the faults, pending the outcome of the investigation.

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his clarification. He filed a number of questions and as he pointed out, some relating to the investigations. I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his understanding that I would not be able to comment on that for now.

On maintenance on the old trains, I did highlight earlier as well, that because the investigations will cover the maintenance regime for KHI trains and see whether that is something that is a possible reason for the incident. Pending the investigation outcomes, I also, likewise, seek Mr Tan's understanding that I would not be able to comment on that.

But the important point is this: we do not wait for an incident to happen, before we do the necessary checks on the systems and the processes together with the operators. So, LTA looks at both what are the outcomes and also whether the systems and processes are in place. These checks are being done regularly for all the lines and it is ongoing work. As I explained earlier in response to Mr Lim Biow Chuan's question, after an incident were to happen, of course, there is heightened alert during that period; you do want to put in some extra checks because you do want to take some additional precautionary measures. But it does not mean that, therefore, we do not do these regular checks on the other lines and on a regular basis.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also would like to join the Minister and other colleagues to thank all the workers and volunteers and also the public for putting in effort to help solve these problems.

My question is, I understand that LTA has mentioned before that it has spent $2.6 billion on the renewal of the North-South and East-West Lines. In fact, I read from the social media that some people have asked why there were still the axle box failures, despite the spending on the renewal the North-South and East-West lines. I also want to ask the Minister, does he expect this amount to be increased further after this incident?

Mr Speaker, the improvements that were made under the LTA's renewal of the North-South and East-West Lines' systems are not related to the incident that happened on 25 September. Please allow me to explain. The renewal of the North-South and East-West Lines' systems started in 2012 and it was substantially completed by October 2023.

Under this programme, we renewed and enhanced six core systems of the North-South and East-West Lines: the rail sleepers, the third rail, signalling, power supply, track circuit and also the purchase of new trains to replace the older trains. So, this renewal programme was needed to ensure that the services on these older lines can continue to operate reliably for years to come.

The 25 September East-West Line incident was caused by the train's axle box falling and then the wheels of one of the bogies shifted to the side of the rail; and this resulting in the incident train causing extensive damage to the tracks and the trackside equipment. So, this was due to a fault that was found on the train itself which is now the subject of investigation. It was not caused by a failure of the core systems which were upgraded under the North-South and East-West Lines' renewal programme. So, I hope that addresses the point that Mr Gan raised.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister, first of all, for his comprehensive replies. I would also like to thank all the engineers and technicians who had worked day and night and sometimes under extremely bad weather to get the East-West Line, west of Jurong East Station operational again. And the bus drivers, public transport workers and volunteers who responded to the call for help.

In order not to subject them to another such incident, it is important that we investigate this incident thoroughly. As a result, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister regarding the COI.

First of all, I think many Singaporeans would like the Minister to explain the difference between this breakdown and the 2011 breakdown when a COI was called, and what made the Minister conclude that these two breakdowns are different, and a COI is not required this time. My second supplementary question: does the Minister think that a new COI for this breakdown as well would be useful for us to confirm that all the findings and the remedial actions recommended by the 2011 COI has been implemented till today, and whether there are any other new factors other than technical and engineering factors, like organisation factors, that we should take into account for the breakdown this time.

Mr Speaker, I have explained earlier that the investigations that will be done by LTA with inputs from the EAP and also the investigations that will be done by TSIB will both be done thoroughly. So, that is the commitment that we have made to the public, that the investigations will be done thoroughly and the findings will be released publicly, and we will identify what are the root causes to the incident and what are the areas for improvement.

Mr Leong asked what is the difference between this incident and 2011 is. Sir, I explained in my Statement earlier that if you look at the operating situation in 2011 versus today, in 2011, the MKBF for our MRT system was 60,000-plus train-kilometres. Today, as I shared earlier, all the lines are above our target of at least one million MKBF.

In 2011, the incident that happened, the context and the situation were not the same. Mr Leong may remember in between 2011 and now, we also had other serious MRT-related incidents: there was a flooding at Bishan; there was an incident at Joo Koon. And for those incidents, we did not convene a COI, but LTA conducted a thorough investigation for each of them and then learned from what happened to see how we can improve.

Mr Leong asked whether the findings from the earlier COI have been put into practice. I would explain to Mr Leong that if we did not implement the recommendations for improvements since that COI due to the incident in 2011, I do not think our overall reliability could have improved from 60,000-plus MKBF in those days to more than one million MKBF for all lines today.

As I mentioned earlier, this does not mean that we think we have arrived and therefore become complacent. Certainly not. There is always room for improvement. This is still a work in progress. We still want to do better. So, this is what we will do. But based on our assessment, LTA has, as regulator, the necessary expertise and powers to conduct a thorough investigation.

Thank you Mr Speaker. I declare I work in a global investment firm that owns one of our rail operators. I have two clarifications. First is, I am glad to hear that the Ministry has outlined the steps taken to address the recent disruptions. But given these disruptions, can the Ministry share whether a comprehensive review of the entire MRT network is deemed necessary at this point in time? And second, how would these breakdowns in services impact on the Government's effort to promote a car-lite society and encourage reliance on rail transport?

Mr Speaker, I think I have explained this in my earlier responses, that the review of all the lines in our network for both operators, that is an ongoing process that we will continue to do. As to whether there are specific areas for further improvements that we need to make in response to this incident, I think let us wait for the conclusion of the investigations to see what the findings and recommendations are.

I also want to reassure Mr Yip that the emphasis on walk, cycle, ride and public transport being the main mode of transport for Singapore and for Singaporeans, that vision, that target remains unchanged. And I shared in my Statement earlier that we are continuing to invest heavily in building up new MRT infrastructure, new lines – the Cross Island Line, the Jurong Region Line – upgrading existing lines, not just the North-South, East-West Lines, but also Circle Line, completing the circle. We still have an ongoing project with Thomson-East Coast Line. We have opened up phase four to Marine Parade area, but there is still some more to go. Eventually, it will connect to the airport, Terminal Five, and to the north, it will link up to the Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link when it is completed.

So, the vision of a car-lite society, walk, cycle, ride, public transport being the main mode of transport, that remains unchanged. And our commitment to providing a safe, reliable and resilient MRT system, that also remains unchanged.

Mr Speaker, I too would like to express my deep appreciation to the rail workers who put in many days, nights and weekends and over time to restore train services for commuters.

Sir, given the higher maintenance costs and failure rates of the first-generation trains, can the Minister explain why they were not replaced earlier and what factors delayed the replacement process? For example, were any of the new trains delivered but not immediately put into service?

Secondly, the Minister has declined my suggestion to link fare adjustments to service reliability. How then will commuters be assured that fare increases will lead to tangible improvements in service reliability? For example, how much of the fare revenue increased is allocated specifically towards improving service reliability?

Mr Speaker, I have explained in my Ministerial Statement earlier that the new trains, the schedule was delayed due to COVID-19, but I also provided the assurance that all of the first-generation, the older trains, will be replaced before they reach the 38-year service mark. So, this is still within their service life, and they will be replaced before that 38-year service mark is reached.

Can we speed up on the new trains to try and catch up on the delays due to COVID-19 earlier? This is certainly something that we will do our best to meet, but I also hope Mr Giam agrees we need to do so without compromising safety. So, the trains that come will have to be tested thoroughly before they are put into service. I do not think there is any disagreement on can we speed up and whether we are able to do so, to do some catching up due to the delays caused by COVID-19, but to do so in a manner which is safe.

The second question from Mr Giam, I think I have explained my reasons. I accept that Mr Giam may have a different view, and I respect that, but I hope Mr Giam understands that we use different tools to achieve different objectives. So, for service reliability, we will keep track of the performance and if the operator were to miss their service quality benchmarks, their reliability benchmarks, they could miss out on receiving certain incentive payments or if there are lapses and investigations are conducted and there are lapses, they could also face penalties.

So, there are incentives for the operator to improve their reliability and to maintain a high level of service quality. If we were to incorporate this element into fares, and as I said, I understand where Mr Giam and some members of the public are coming from. I understand and I respect your point of view, Mr Giam, but there are some downsides to doing that as well. Because if you hold back on the fare increases which are supposed to reflect the overall operating costs facing the public transport system and there is a chronic shortfall over time, that could then further erode service quality and reliability, which I am sure we do not want to see happen.

If you say, "No, let us not do that, let us ask Government to provide a top-up", then effectively we are asking taxpayers to fund the shortfall. So, there are some trade-offs and the PTC, after considering the different perspectives, decided that we will separate the two things, but to hold the operators accountable and to incentivise them to achieve high reliability standards through other ways.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for Transport for his detailed Ministerial Statement and updates.

I want to declare that many Clementi residents living around Clementi MRT station and the affected segment were badly affected. Some were, themselves, transport workers and later on were working late through the night, together with colleagues across Singapore, to restore service. If you looked down from some of the high-rise blocks in Clementi, you could see the workers working through the night. Residents were circulating videos as a message of encouragement to one another to pull together.

I have got two clarifications for the Minister.

The first is, I note that the Ministerial Statement starts out with a very important operative word: safe. A safe, reliable and resilient rail system. Can the Minister continue to assure us that as we review our transport system, safety will continue to be the first priority – safety for passengers, safety for workers, safety for the public?

Secondly, in line with this, can the Minister also reassure us that however the after-action review is conducted, however the investigations are approached, that there will continue to be an environment where every worker feels able to speak up on safety-related issues so that we can keep everyone safe in our transport system?

Mr Speaker, I want to thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for highlighting the importance of safety. Indeed, that is a top priority for all of us in the transport family. When we were doing the repair works, of course, everyone wanted to complete the repair works as quickly as possible. But from the Government agencies to the operators to the unions, I think we are all on the same page, that we should do so safely, ensuring safety for our workers and ensuring safety for commuters and the public. So, if we need to take more time to do thorough testing, to carry out the repair works properly, we will explain to the public why more time is needed, but never compromise on safety.

We are also grateful to the public, to our commuters, for their kind understanding and their patience. Even though we took more time, originally, we were aiming for opening on Monday, 30 September; but in the end, we needed one more day. The public was very understanding. I think people agreed with the point that Dr Tan Wu Meng was making, that safety must come first. Safety for our workers, safety for commuters and the public.

We will ensure that regardless of the outcomes of the investigations, we want to continue to maintain this environment whereby safety is a top priority. We also want to continue to have an environment, together with our tripartite partners, to encourage our workers, as Dr Tan suggested, to speak up when they see that something is not safe, something needs to be changed and improved. We also want to make sure that we involve our workers in making those process improvements and changes.

This entire ecosystem approach, backed by strong tripartite trust and partnership, is something that has enabled our system to improve from the old days where MKBF was over 60,000 more than a decade ago to where we are today; and to go forward if we want to continue to maintain a safe, reliable and resilient public transport system. Those elements are crucial.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his Ministerial Statement. I have two clarifications.

The first relates to a part of the PQ that I filed for yesterday, where I asked, what was the total capacity of bridging bus services put into effect, compared to the average ridership of the stations that were closed as part of this disruption. The Minister mentioned that bridging bus services cannot match the train in terms of speed and capacity, even with 80 buses deployed. We all agree with that. But I am wondering whether he has figures on what was the capacity of the actual bridging bus services that were deployed? That is my first clarification.

The second one relates to safety, which we just talked about. As with other Members of the House, I would like to extend my gratitude to the workers and everyone on the ground who worked hard to get our rail system up and running again. But I wanted to come back to this and ask the Minister, what specific measures were taken during this incident to ensure that the workers working around the clock to effect repairs, including those workers who were working for contractors, were working safely, including not working double or additional shifts beyond what is safe?

Were there, for example, advisories or directives that the Ministry or LTA actually issued to the workers and contractors to tell them what the avenues and measures that are available to them? For example, if they felt that there were some concerns around the working environment for their safety, whether there were any spot checks undertaken to ensure that all rules and safety guidelines were adhered to during the repair process?

Mr Speaker, I want to refer Ms He Ting Ru to what I said earlier in my Ministerial Statement. I do not have a combined number for her, but each double-deck bus can carry up to 120 passengers. We have 80. You can do a simple multiplication and you can compare that with the train capacity during normal operations.

The conclusion is quite clear. Bridging buses alone, even including regular buses, can help to mitigate but not fully absorb the disruption caused by a rail system. This is why the game plan that we have to improve resilience includes an expansion of our rail network so that if there is going to be a disruption on one line, commuters can then switch to a different train line. That will help to absorb a large proportion of the affected load due to the disruption. Then, buses will come in to supplement this, to provide additional capacity.

Buses have their roles because they are more nimble, they are more flexible. But buses alone would not be enough. That is why we need to continue to invest in expanding our rail network, including in the western part of Singapore where there are ongoing projects.

On Ms He's second question, I covered it earlier as well in my Statement. Safety for workers is a key priority and we wanted to make sure that when they work day and night, it is not the same person working day and night, that there are different teams that can take shifts and that they are given rest in between, they are given food and drinks, they are given the proper safety equipment to enable them to work safely.

This is not something that we need to impose because there are already ongoing efforts by the operator, by the unions to, during normal times, emphasise the importance of safety and letting this become part of the culture of the organisation. So, when a crisis happens, those instincts, those muscles kick in very naturally and the support systems are there, the measures are there, to take care of the workers and ensure their safety while they work.

But what was a bonus for our workers was that – we did not plan for this, but it came as a positive, pleasant surprise to our workers – it was the very encouraging support from commuters and members of the public. This was spontaneous, ground-up acts of kindness shown by our commuters and the public to encourage our workers. That really lifted their morale and boosted their spirits.

Sir, in addition to joining the expression of thanks to the staff, the workers, the volunteers, I would also like to thank the Minister for helming this very challenging portfolio and having to manage each of these crises and situations. Having said that, I do have something to ask the Minister.

We know that it will cost more to have a more reliable, resilient and more connected public transport system. The Minister mentioned having more buses that will complement the MRT lines. So, there is a significant role for buses as well, given their agility and reliability. But we also know that there are also competing demands for limited budget resources.

In this regard, can I ask the Minister, who is also the Second Minister for Finance, if the Government would also review the overall Government funding and subsidies for public transport so that we can have a more reliable, more resilient as well as more connected public transport system.

Mr Speaker, certainly, investing in public transport has been and will continue to be a key priority item for the Government. We are not done upgrading and expanding our public transport system.

On rail, I described earlier in my speech some of the ongoing projects – building of new lines, further expansion of existing lines, upgrading of existing lines. These are a big commitment from a Budget point of view, but we are prepared to make these investments because we can see the benefits that these long-term infrastructural investments can bring in improving connectivity, benefiting commuters from different parts of Singapore.

Buses too. We had explained previously in this House that, where there are buses that experienced a significant drop in ridership because they run parallel to MRT lines and these are usually the long trunk routes, we would have to rationalise some of them. But as I explained earlier, we do not rationalise all because we do want to keep some for redundancy. But we do need to adjust and optimise the usage of our scarce resources so that we can redeploy to support the need for new bus services in other areas, including new towns, including new estates in existing towns.

As I explained in this House previously, doing this alone will not be adequate because we have a programme to build more houses in different parts of Singapore, including in some of the new estates, but also in existing estates but further away from town centres and key transport nodes. So, if we only rely on the resources that are re-allocated from bus rationalisation alone, that would not be enough to meet the demand.

That is why the Government, earlier this year, announced that we are introducing the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme, where we will inject up to $900 million over the next eight years. We have already started with some of the initial new bus services to serve different parts of Singapore.

I just want to end off my reply to Mr Liang to reassure Mr Liang and the House that we will continue our investments in our public transport system, both rail and bus. Today, we spend every year, more than $1 billion on buses in terms of subsidies for commuters and more than $1 billion on rail in terms of subsidies for commuters. Every trip that is taken by a commuter carries with it a subsidy from the Government, more than $1.

Why do we do this? Because we believe that public transport, given our very compact city layout, is the preferred mode of transport for the majority of Singaporeans and it is the preferred mode of transport even for people who own cars. You do not have to use your car all the time. For certain journeys, you can actually take public transport.

We want to encourage an increase in the modal share through public transport. That is why we are investing in both rail and bus.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I first declare my interest as the Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU). I therefore thank the Minister and many Members who have stood up to express their recognition and appreciation for our public transport workers, who have worked very hard following the incident.

I would also like to take this opportunity to assure Members that the union takes the safety and welfare of our public transport workers very seriously. We work very closely with the LTA, the Ministry and the public transport operators, to ensure that their safety and their welfare were never compromised.

As the Executive Secretary of NTWU, I can also vouch for the SMRT Chairman, Mr Seah Moon Ming, when he said that there had been no under-investment in maintenance. In fact, our SMRT workers have been working hard, if not harder than ever before, in ensuring that our rail system functions smoothly every day. The MKBF statistics that the Minister has highlighted can testify to the improvements in rail reliability over the years.

So, my question relates to maintenance, in addition to the hefty investments in rail replacement projects, part of the success in maintaining this high MKBF threshold can be attributed to investments in predictive maintenance tools and systems.

During the disruption, some online commentators were understandably concerned that we have swung too far in relying on such predictive tools. So, I would like to ask the Minister if the EAP will review whether our current predictive maintenance systems are performing optimally, especially why it was not able to predict the occurrence of an axle box failure.

And beyond systems, how have LTA and SMRT invested in developing our engineering and technical talent to ensure that our MRT remains safe and reliable for all of us?

Mr Speaker, predictive maintenance, whether that has helped or was that something that was not adequate in this particular incident, I think that it is better that we wait for the investigation to be completed because this is part of the investigations.

But if I may comment, generally, on the approach taken by both operators, not just SMRT, but also SBS Transit, on using predictive maintenance, condition monitoring. The idea there is this: you want to use sensors and analytics to pick up faults that are going to occur, but have yet to occur. In other words, picking them up before they may become problems that will cause disruptions, and then you can intervene early – prevention is better than cure – and then to either replace that part or to carry out some additional servicing.

So, the idea of condition monitoring or predictive maintenance is a correct one. And it will help to improve overall service quality and reliability. But as to whether that was adequate, or that was effectively carried out in this particular incident, as I have explained earlier, we await the findings of the investigation.

Mr Melvin Yong also asked about engineering talent and, Sir, that is crucial. If we do not build up the engineering and technical expertise, you can have good hardware, good systems, whether predictive maintenance or otherwise, you will not be able to make good use of them and you would not be able to keep on improving the processes, and to improve safety, reliability and resilience. So, talent development is a key part of our overall strategy. It is a key priority for LTA and our operators, especially when we need to operate and maintain an expanding and increasingly complex rail system.

So, we adopt a multi-pronged approach towards building up the talent pool and capabilities of our rail sector. SMRT, for example, would train its engineering staff through courses conducted by the original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs. And also they have a SMRT Institute that is set up to conduct the training for their staff.

The training syllabus is constantly reviewed and updated, based on lessons learned and experiences gained during actual operations. The LTA, too, has established the Singapore Rail Academy in 2017. The Academy works together with the Institutes of Higher Learning and they provide relevant training for engineers within the sector in key knowledge areas, such as rail engineering, operations and maintenance.

And in terms of incentives that can help to augment the existing programmes, LTA, together with the rail operators, and also with the unions, NTWU, introduced the Rail Manpower Development Package in 2019, which has three components.

First, incentives that encourage the operators to further expand and accelerate their training programmes in areas, such as data analytics, robotics and automation, and condition-based monitoring. More than 3,000 workers have been trained so far and another 700 workers will undergo similar training this year.

Second, we have scholarships and sponsorships to attract, retain and groom engineering talent within the industry. So far, we have awarded 25 undergraduate and polytechnic scholarships, and more than 100 in-service sponsorships.

And third, there are grants to support investments in training hardware, such as equipment and simulators. These were provided to enhance the training for our workers, make it more realistic, make it more productive for our workers to undergo training.

The staff from LTA and the two rail operators also participate in regular exchanges with overseas operators, including the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway and the Taipei Rapid Transit Corporation, to learn from international best practices. And this is an area, as I mentioned earlier, that LTA will continue to work closely with our tripartite partners to equip our workers, including our engineering and technical workers, with the necessary skills to stay relevant and to stay productive as we expand our rail network.

I just have one question here. Beyond already announced rail projects, when will LTA implement the previously announced West Coast extension, to create more rail resiliency in the West region, where there are fewer rail alternatives compared to the other regions of Singapore?

Mr Speaker, I thank Miss Ong for her question. We are pressing on with plan expansions in our rail network over the next decade. I mentioned some of this in my Statement earlier: Jurong Region Line and the Cross-Island Line. And these will help to enhance rail connectivity and resilience, especially in the West, and it will help to better connect the western region to other parts of Singapore.

Beyond these expansions to the Jurong Region Line and the Cross-Island Line, LTA will continue to plan for the future and to ensure that our rail network is well connected and resilient. One of the projects which LTA has been studying is the implementation of the West Coast Extension. This involves extending the Jurong Region Line to connect to the Circle Line. LTA's studies include working with the relevant planning agencies to assess the demand and implementation timeline of the project, to support further developments in the West. And should the study show that it is feasible to proceed with this extension, it will help to further improve rail connectivity between the western parts of Singapore and the city centre. It will also help to support further developments in the West, and importantly, it will help to enhance the overall resilience of our rail network.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, this is a follow-up on my earlier supplementary question on COI. I was given to understand that under a COI, it allows for the public hearing of inputs from experts, rather than reading about it in a summarised version in a report. So, would the Minister consider allowing such public hearings, because the transparency will be helpful towards building and maintaining public trust and confidence.

Mr Speaker, I have explained repeatedly why I believe that LTA and TSIB are able to conduct the investigations thoroughly and that we will publish the findings publicly. And in the case of LTA, there will also be an EAP, comprising both international and local experts, and they will provide their inputs to LTA for the investigations.

There are different ways to conduct an investigation, but if our objective in the end is to find out what happened, to ascertain the root causes and to identify the areas where we can do better, I am confident that what we have set out through the LTA and TSIB investigations can achieve that purpose.