- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Points
- 0
Disclaimer: I am leaving NSP by end of the month and I have nothing to do with this Press Release.
Goh Meng Seng
National Solidarity Party’s Statement Regarding the Recent SMRT Service Disruptions
19 December 2011
The recent spate of breakdowns in Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) services has clearly demonstrated the vulnerabilities of relying on a monopoly for essential services, regardless of how efficient and reliable it has been in the past.
In 1913, Winston Churchill told the British Parliament that on “no one quality, on no one process, on no one country, on no one route, and on no one field must we be dependent. Safety and certainty… lie in variety and variety alone.” He was referring to the supply of oil, but the same principle applies to the supply of any essential goods and services. Had there been alternatives in place when SMRT services broke down, the disruption and distress to commuters would have been reduced, and our public transport system on the whole would be more stable and robust.
Duplication in essential goods and services should not be looked upon as waste, but as a measure of security. The two incidences of vandalism of SMRT trains have already shown us that SMRT is not immune to acts of sabotage. This being the case, building redundancies into the system is a must. The removal of bus services running parallel to MRT routes, for instance, was a mistake which should be reversed immediately. Bus services should also be liberalized to allow more players to enter the market, providing commuters with more options. Further, the operation of SMRT’s train and bus services should come under separate companies for greater competition.
The NSP has the following suggestions to make to the Minister for Transport, Board of SMRT and the potential Board of Inquiry:
Strengthen Emergency Planning
DPM Teo has elsewhere raised the matter so we shall not belabor the point here.
Internal and External Audits
SMRT has stated that it has a strict maintenance schedule that has been adhered to. However, this does not appear consistent with the breakdowns we are experiencing, especially since the damages that caused the breakdowns take time to develop. Has SMRT instituted internal audits on its maintenance programme? Has the LTA conducted external audits on SMRT’s maintenance programme?
Review SMRT’s Priorities
SMRT has appeared to have shifted its focus, in recent years, away from its core functions of efficient and reliable public transport to leasing operations. This is reflected in its choice of a CEO with retail background rather than a candidate with a transport or engineering background.
Although SMRT is not a government agency, it nevertheless provides a vital public service through its operation of what constitutes public infrastructure. Arguably therefore, profit maximization cannot be its sole guiding principle. If providing the vital service of public transportation efficiently and reliably means additional expenditure (with its corresponding effect of eroding profit margins), then this must be done. It is therefore high time for SMRT to relook its approach to allocating its resources.
We are very concerned by the lack of concrete answers from SMRT regarding the causes of the damages to the third rail and the collector shoes, as well as the question of why the metal grips were dislodged in the first place. Additionally, it has also been unable to explain why lighting and ventilation failed in the train cabins. SMRT urgently needs to allocate the resources to further build up its engineering capabilities to ensure the safety of commuters, rather than building up their leasing business.
Review SMRT’s Corporate Culture
Finally, a troubling image of SMRT’s corporate culture has also emerged in the last week. Two instances illustrate this:
First, while commuters were kept in the dark regarding the situation, SMRT lost no time in alerting its stable of taxi drivers to the “income opportunity” arising from the service breakdown. The company has since explained the incident away as a template error. However, in the event of a massive service breakdown, a responsible corporate citizen would have called on its other resources to render assistance and to mitigate a bad situation. An “income opportunity” flash message betrays a culture that is narrowly focused on financial objectives rather than service standards. The difference is not merely semantic; it is significant.
Second, instead of expressing concern and regret over passengers experiencing difficulty in breathing whilst trapped in the trains, SMRT staff issued a statement urging people not to break train windows and to await rescue. This again betrays a disregard for commuter welfare.
These instances suggest that SMRT is losing its sense of responsibility to commuters. A thorough review is overdue.
In conclusion, the NSP would like to reiterate our call to separate SMRT’s train and bus operations to different companies with different ownerships, as well as to liberalise bus services.
Our government has always held that competition begets excellence and quality. It should not shy away from that belief now.
Hazel Poa
Secretary-General
On behalf of the Central Executive Committee
Goh Meng Seng
National Solidarity Party’s Statement Regarding the Recent SMRT Service Disruptions
19 December 2011
The recent spate of breakdowns in Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) services has clearly demonstrated the vulnerabilities of relying on a monopoly for essential services, regardless of how efficient and reliable it has been in the past.
In 1913, Winston Churchill told the British Parliament that on “no one quality, on no one process, on no one country, on no one route, and on no one field must we be dependent. Safety and certainty… lie in variety and variety alone.” He was referring to the supply of oil, but the same principle applies to the supply of any essential goods and services. Had there been alternatives in place when SMRT services broke down, the disruption and distress to commuters would have been reduced, and our public transport system on the whole would be more stable and robust.
Duplication in essential goods and services should not be looked upon as waste, but as a measure of security. The two incidences of vandalism of SMRT trains have already shown us that SMRT is not immune to acts of sabotage. This being the case, building redundancies into the system is a must. The removal of bus services running parallel to MRT routes, for instance, was a mistake which should be reversed immediately. Bus services should also be liberalized to allow more players to enter the market, providing commuters with more options. Further, the operation of SMRT’s train and bus services should come under separate companies for greater competition.
The NSP has the following suggestions to make to the Minister for Transport, Board of SMRT and the potential Board of Inquiry:
Strengthen Emergency Planning
DPM Teo has elsewhere raised the matter so we shall not belabor the point here.
Internal and External Audits
SMRT has stated that it has a strict maintenance schedule that has been adhered to. However, this does not appear consistent with the breakdowns we are experiencing, especially since the damages that caused the breakdowns take time to develop. Has SMRT instituted internal audits on its maintenance programme? Has the LTA conducted external audits on SMRT’s maintenance programme?
Review SMRT’s Priorities
SMRT has appeared to have shifted its focus, in recent years, away from its core functions of efficient and reliable public transport to leasing operations. This is reflected in its choice of a CEO with retail background rather than a candidate with a transport or engineering background.
Although SMRT is not a government agency, it nevertheless provides a vital public service through its operation of what constitutes public infrastructure. Arguably therefore, profit maximization cannot be its sole guiding principle. If providing the vital service of public transportation efficiently and reliably means additional expenditure (with its corresponding effect of eroding profit margins), then this must be done. It is therefore high time for SMRT to relook its approach to allocating its resources.
We are very concerned by the lack of concrete answers from SMRT regarding the causes of the damages to the third rail and the collector shoes, as well as the question of why the metal grips were dislodged in the first place. Additionally, it has also been unable to explain why lighting and ventilation failed in the train cabins. SMRT urgently needs to allocate the resources to further build up its engineering capabilities to ensure the safety of commuters, rather than building up their leasing business.
Review SMRT’s Corporate Culture
Finally, a troubling image of SMRT’s corporate culture has also emerged in the last week. Two instances illustrate this:
First, while commuters were kept in the dark regarding the situation, SMRT lost no time in alerting its stable of taxi drivers to the “income opportunity” arising from the service breakdown. The company has since explained the incident away as a template error. However, in the event of a massive service breakdown, a responsible corporate citizen would have called on its other resources to render assistance and to mitigate a bad situation. An “income opportunity” flash message betrays a culture that is narrowly focused on financial objectives rather than service standards. The difference is not merely semantic; it is significant.
Second, instead of expressing concern and regret over passengers experiencing difficulty in breathing whilst trapped in the trains, SMRT staff issued a statement urging people not to break train windows and to await rescue. This again betrays a disregard for commuter welfare.
These instances suggest that SMRT is losing its sense of responsibility to commuters. A thorough review is overdue.
In conclusion, the NSP would like to reiterate our call to separate SMRT’s train and bus operations to different companies with different ownerships, as well as to liberalise bus services.
Our government has always held that competition begets excellence and quality. It should not shy away from that belief now.
Hazel Poa
Secretary-General
On behalf of the Central Executive Committee
