Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) in view of recent major MRT service disruptions, whether the Public Transport Council will consider reviewing the fare increase scheduled for 28 December 2024; (b) if not, why not; and (c) whether service reliability in the period leading up to the date of the proposed fare increase can be considered as a factor in the fare adjustment formula to spur improvements in the reliability of bus and train services.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport (a) what caused the train axle box that caused damages and disruptions to the East-West MRT Line to be defective; (b) why was this not detected prior to the incident; and (c) whether LTA is considering a comprehensive review of predictive maintenance capabilities and real time condition-monitoring of rail systems and operating assets at SMRT to identify potential lapses and prevent future occurrences.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the faulty SMRT train which triggered the multi-day East-West MRT Line disruption from 25 September 2024 (a) when was the last time the carriages underwent axle box functionality tests and related inspection and checks; (b) whether any preventive and predictive maintenance was carried out on its axle box and related parts; (c) if so, when was the maintenance last carried out; (d) why was the maintenance inadequate; and (e) what went wrong in the maintenance and checking processes.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the faulty SMRT train which triggered the multi-day East-West MRT Line disruption from 25 September 2024 (a) what was the initial reported fault which caused the cancellation of the service; (b) what was the cause of the dislodgement of the axle box from the train; and (c) what was the time taken by the train’s driver or any personnel in charge of the tow to stop the tow after the dislodgement of the axle box.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will conduct a review of the existing requirements on the maintenance regime and practices of all MRT trains including but not limited to older trains such as the first-generation Kawasaki Heavy Industries trains.
Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport in relation to the six-day shutdown of the East West MRT Line in September 2024 (a) what has been the total capacity of bridging bus services put into effect compared to the average ridership of the stations that are closed; and (b) whether there is a need to mandate better maintenance and servicing requirements for train operators.
The Minister for Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Speaker, Members have filed a total of 31 Parliamentary Questions (PQs) on the East-West Line disruption that occurred from 25 to 30 September. My Ministerial Statement will address Question Nos 1 to 19 for Oral Answer and Question Nos 45 to 48 for Written Answer at yesterday’s Sitting, Question Nos 40 to 42 for Oral Answer and Question No 28 for Written Answer in today’s Order Paper, as well as related questions that have been filed for subsequent Sittings.
Sir, I would like to begin by extending my sincere apologies once again to all affected commuters. The severe disruption to the East-West Line on 25 September affected about 500,000 passenger journeys each day, out of 2.8 million daily train-based journeys, causing significant inconvenience to commuters. It also resulted in severe damage to rail infrastructure which required extensive repairs over more than five days.
I will cover the sequence of events that took place on 25 September and the responses from the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the public transport operators in the subsequent days. I will do my best to address the questions from Members. However, I seek Members’ understanding that as investigations into the incident are still ongoing, some of the details can be determined only after investigations have been completed.
Let me first recap the events leading up to the disruption, including how the incident happened and our responses, based on the information we have gathered.
On the morning of 25 September 2024, at around 9.00 am, SMRT reported a possible fault on train T33, a first-generation KHI train that was travelling eastbound on the East-West Line near Clementi station. There was smoke detected from the train. SMRT stopped the train at Clementi station, alighted the passengers there for their safety and proceeded to withdraw the train to Ulu Pandan Depot so that train services would not be affected. To return to the nearest depot at Ulu Pandan from Clementi station, the train had to travel further east to the nearest turnaround track located at Queenstown station, so that it could change onto the westbound track and head back towards the depot. As the train was travelling west between Dover and Clementi stations, an axle box dislodged from the bogie of one of its cars.
A bogie is the wheel assembly of a train. The KHI train is a six-car train and each train car has two bogies. Each bogie has four wheels on two axles and each axle has an axle box on each end. When one of the axle boxes dislodged from the incident train, it caused the wheels of one bogie to shift to the side of the rail. As the other 11 bogies of the incident train remained on the rails, the train was able to continue travelling for a few minutes on the rails westbound past Clementi. Based on our preliminary assessments, the incident train caused damage to 2.55 kilometres of the track, as well as trackside equipment, including point machines, power cables, running rail fasteners and third rails.
At around 9.25 am, when the train reached the reception track leading to the Ulu Pandan Depot, the significant damage to the trackside equipment caused a power trip along parts of the East-West Line. As a result, the incident train stalled between the reception track and the main line. Four other trains between Clementi and Buona Vista stations also stalled due to the power trip. Three of these were at stations, where commuters could alight at the platforms. One of the trains stalled about 40 metres before the platform at Clementi station. Passengers on this train had to be detrained onto the tracks, guided by SMRT staff, who ensured that all commuters reached the platform safely.
At this point, LTA’s crisis management group was activated. To ensure that commuters could continue their journey, SMRT activated free regular buses within five minutes at around 9.30 am, and bridging buses between Boon Lay and Queenstown stations by 9.50 am. The bridging buses arrived from 9.58 am onwards.
When SMRT staff attempted to restore train service, they realised that extensive damage had been caused to the track and trackside equipment between Dover station and the reception track leading to Ulu Pandan Depot, and it would take time to remove the incident train from the tracks and to carry out the repairs. It would not be possible for trains to pass through this section of the East-West Line before the repairs were completed.
To continue service on the rest of the line, westbound trains coming from the city had to be turned around at Queenstown, where a turnaround track is located. Similarly, eastbound trains coming from Tuas Link had to be turned around at Boon Lay, where there is a turnaround track. To preserve service along as much of the East-West Line as possible, SMRT decided to run shuttle services, which are trains that travel back and forth along the same track. After confirming that the tracks between these segments were safe, SMRT commenced shuttle services between Queenstown and Buona Vista stations, and between Boon Lay and Jurong East stations, at 3.56 pm and 4.11 pm respectively, ahead of the evening peak on 25 September. The shuttle service continued to be supported by bridging bus services that connected commuters between Queenstown and Boon Lay.
Later in the day, when heavier crowds were observed at Buona Vista station, SMRT adjusted bridging bus operations to focus on the critical stretch between Buona Vista and Jurong East stations that was without train or shuttle services. By the evening peak, the number of bridging buses had also progressively increased from 39 before the peak period to 70, with an average interval of three to eight minutes, quicker than the stipulated service standards of 12 to 15 minutes for bridging bus services. To support these services, additional spare buses were deployed and some bus captains on rest days were recalled.
Mr Don Wee and Mr Leong Mun Wai asked whether other bus services were affected. Due to the scale of bridging bus operations, some buses and bus captains had to be redeployed from other lower-demand services. Bus operators determined these redeployments based on ridership and frequencies of their other services, in order to maintain service standards and minimise inconvenience to commuters. In total, about 620 ground staff were deployed at the affected stations on the first day of service disruption, to assist commuters. These included SMRT and LTA staff who provided directions and assisted commuters, traffic marshals who facilitated traffic flow, and Police Officers who helped with crowd management. Caring Commuter Champions – these are commuters who volunteer to help fellow commuters – also assisted by providing directions at some of the bus stops. Priority was given to seniors, people with difficulty walking and students who were sitting for examinations to board the buses and shuttle trains.
Given the scale of the disruption, there was some initial confusion on the ground when the incident first occurred, and shuttle train services and bridging buses had to be activated. Operators and workers quickly adapted and stepped up to respond to the situation to mitigate the impact on commuters. As the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) was due to commence the next day, LTA and the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) discussed and put in place contingency arrangements. There are existing arrangements which students have been briefed on. In addition, SEAB publicly reassured students that they would not be penalised if they were late due to the disruption and would be given the full allotted time to complete their exams.
Meanwhile, LTA and SMRT engineers were assessing the damage and conducting repair works on the track. The engineers determined that some pieces of trackside signalling and power equipment had to be replaced. In addition, 33 severely damaged rail segments, each weighing more than one tonne, had to be replaced. Given the extent of the damage and with heavy rain preventing works at times, LTA and SMRT assessed that more time would be needed to safely complete the repair works. We informed the public at around 9.50 pm on 25 September that train services between Jurong East and Buona Vista would not resume the next day. As a safety precaution, LTA and SMRT checked all the axle boxes of the first-generation KHI trains overnight and ensured that they passed the inspection checks before they were put into service the next day.
On the second day of the disruption, 26 September, free regular buses and bridging buses resumed at the start of revenue services at 5.00 am, with 80 bridging buses deployed during the morning peak. Overnight, SMRT, LTA and other bus operators had set up queue poles, signages and other equipment to better direct commuters to the bridging buses. SMRT and LTA also arranged for chartered taxis to provide free rides for students and teachers travelling to PSLE examination venues from Jurong East, Clementi, Dover and Buona Vista stations. This service was similarly provided for those travelling to their PSLE or GCE “N” level examination venues on 27 and 30 September.
By the evening of Thursday, 26 September, given the extensive damage to the tracks and trackside equipment, LTA and SMRT determined that the repairs could be completed only over the weekend. We informed the public at around 10.00 pm that we aimed to restore services on Monday, 30 September.
For the next two days, Friday and Saturday, the workers continued to carry out the repair works day and night. On Mr Edward Chia’s question about safety for workers, the works were paused during inclement weather. All workers were also equipped with personal protection equipment, provided food and drinks, and followed a shift system to ensure that they received adequate rest.
Repair works were completed on Saturday, 28 September. Stress and loading tests were then carried out in the evening of 28 September to ensure the tracks were functioning safely before resumption of train services. However, 12 new cracks, previously not visible to the naked eye, were detected on 10 unreplaced segments of running rail after these tests. These cracks could be due to the rail segments being weakened earlier by the incident train when it was being moved back to Ulu Pandan Depot. If I may use a Chinese Kungfu analogy, it is like sustaining internal injuries that are not immediately visible from the outside and showing symptoms a while later. The 10 rail segments with these new cracks needed to be replaced before service could safely resume, which meant that an additional day of works was required, including for the thorough testing and inspection after repairs had been completed.
The engineers and technicians from LTA and SMRT continued to work through Sunday, 29 September, to replace the affected rail segments. Comprehensive testing of the rail and track equipment then followed that same night and continued on Monday, 30 September, to ensure the integrity of the repaired systems. Throughout the entire recovery process, safety for our commuters and workers was the team’s top priority and thorough testing and checks were conducted to ensure all safety requirements were met before resuming train services.
Regular train services between Jurong East and Buona Vista stations resumed on the morning of Tuesday, 1 October. For the first few days of operations, SMRT imposed temporary speed restrictions and operated westbound trains at a slower speed of 40 kilometres per hour, rather than the usual speed of up to 80 kilometres per hour, along the stretch of replaced rail segments. This is part of the standard process following rail replacements, to ensure safety for commuters.
Dr Syed Harun asked whether there are concerns about further rail fractures. We have done a comprehensive series of tests, including endurance tests, before resuming train services. After the resumption of service, SMRT stepped up its checks as a precautionary measure. There is also a regular inspection regime in place for other rail segments, including for other Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines operated by SMRT and SBS Transit.
Sir, let me now turn to the topic of investigations. Several Members have asked about the root cause of the incident. We know what caused the lengthy disruption. The severity of this disruption was due to the extensive damage to the track and trackside equipment by the incident train. As to the root cause, including why the axle box dropped, as well as learning points to improve our responses and prevent future incidents, these are issues which the investigations will cover.
Mr Leong Mun Wai asked if the Government would convene a Committee of Inquiry for this incident.
Sir, I have stated at the outset of the disruption that LTA will do a thorough investigation to ascertain what happened and identify areas of improvement. As rail regulator, LTA has the necessary regulatory powers and technical knowledge to investigate serious rail incidents. LTA will conduct a thorough investigation to ascertain the root cause of the axle box failure. It will also examine the fault detection and incident handling procedures to determine if appropriate actions were taken.
To supplement its investigations, LTA will be supported by an Expert Advisory Panel (EAP), chaired by Mr Malcolm Dobell, former Head of Train Systems for the London Underground, and comprising five other local and overseas experts. The Ministry of Transport’s (MOT’s) Transport Safety Investigation Bureau (TSIB) will also be conducting an independent safety investigation. I seek Members’ understanding that more details will be shared when the investigations are completed.
We expect the investigations to be completed in the next few months and the findings will be released publicly. LTA will mete out penalties if the investigations reveal lapses.
There are a few clarifications which I would like to make in response to Members’ questions.
Let me start with the first-generation KHI trains. Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Dennis Tan asked about their operations and maintenance. The structural integrity of the trains was assessed by an independent assessor in 2012, who concluded that the trains have a total service life of 38 years.
The reliability of a train depends on several factors and not only on its age alone. Trains that remain reliable can continue to be used, if they have not exceeded their service life.
Prior to 2016, all the trains were owned and operated by the rail operators. In 2016, LTA began taking ownership of rail operating assets as part of the transition to the New Rail Financing Framework (NRFF). Under the NRFF, LTA is responsible for procuring and building up assets, such as the train fleet, while rail operators are responsible for maintaining, deploying and operating the assets.
In 2018 and 2020, after discussions with SMRT, LTA purchased a total of 106 new R151 trains to replace the North-South and East-West Lines’ earliest generations of trains, including the KHI fleet. The delivery of these trains, however, was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. These trains have been arriving in batches, after rigorous testing.
The first batch of three trains was handed over to SMRT and put into service in June 2023. Since then, LTA has been progressively handing over new R151 trains to SMRT, at a rate of about two trains per month. Thirty-four R151 trains have been handed over to SMRT so far. The plan is to replace all KHI trains with the new R151 trains by end-2026, before they reach their 38-year service mark.
Next, I want to address the questions from Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Hazel Poa about compensation for affected commuters.
Train commuters exiting at stations between Boon Lay and Queenstown stations were not charged for their rail journeys. Bridging bus services and regular bus services along this stretch were also provided at no cost to commuters. SimplyGo has been processing refunds in cases where commuters were charged for two journeys instead of one, due to them exceeding 45 minutes for transfers between train and bus services, or between different bus services. Commuters may approach SimplyGo for assistance if they have specific queries about their fares.
Third, while I will separately reply to questions on the Fare Review Exercise filed by Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Neil Parekh and Ms Poh Li San, I would like to address Mr Gerald Giam’s question about whether this incident and service levels can be taken into consideration in the Fare Review Exercise by the Public Transport Council (PTC). Sir, I understand why Mr Giam and some members of the public have made this suggestion. Please allow me to explain why we should separate service levels and disruptions from how we set public transport fares.
PTC had previously studied whether fare reviews should be linked to service levels and disruptions and decided not to adopt this approach, as there are other measures in place to ensure service standards are met. For service disruptions, LTA would establish the cause and accountability and mete out penalties where necessary. In addition, when operators do not meet reliability targets, they will also not receive payments under our incentive schemes.
The purpose of the annual Fare Review Exercise is to ensure that fares keep pace with changes in operating costs, so that the public transport system remains financially sustainable. PTC would consider changes in cost drivers over the previous year, based on the fare formula. Given the maximum allowable quantum of increase at 18.9% for this year’s Exercise, due to the 15.6% balance carried over from last year, PTC decided to defer most of the maximum allowable fare quantum for this Exercise and raise fares by 6%, or less than one-third of the maximum quantum, to ensure that fares remain affordable for commuters.
Fares are collected for the entire public transport system, including buses and trains, to ensure that the public transport system remains financially sustainable. If our fares are not adjusted to reflect rising operating costs, the persistent shortfall would have a chronic impact on service quality and reliability over time. Or if we want to continue topping-up the shortfall via Government subsidies, it means that taxpayers would have to foot a higher bill.
Finally, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Ms Poh Li San and Mr Sharael Taha asked how the costs of the disruption will be covered.
Sir, regardless of the investigation outcome, SMRT will bear the costs of providing the free bridging buses and regular bus services, the foregone fare revenue during the disruption and the repair works. This requirement applies to both rail operators should they encounter a disruption along their respective lines.
As for Mr Edward Chia’s question about compensation for workers, LTA and SMRT staff that worked overtime will be given overtime payment accordingly.
Mr Speaker, the disruption brought about much inconvenience for many commuters and Singaporeans are understandably concerned about what this incident means for the safety, reliability and resilience of our MRT system. These are also our priorities.
Safety is critical for our MRT systems. We will not compromise safety. There are multiple layers of safety controls.
First, as regulator, LTA imposes stringent safety standards, aligned to international best practices that operators must comply with. Operators who do not meet these standards will be subject to penalties and, where necessary, they will face additional regulatory conditions and monitoring.
Second, to ensure that equipment and systems remain safe and reliable over time, LTA imposes Maintenance Performance Standards (MPS) under the operator’s licence, which set out the requirements that the operator must fulfil in relation to maintenance. There are maintenance audits by independent external assessors to ensure operators’ compliance with their maintenance regime.
Members, including Mr Ong Hua Han and Mr Dennis Tan, have asked about the maintenance regime for trains. In general, regular maintenance activities are both time-bound and dependent on mileage. These can range from regular visual inspections to more elaborate component replacement activities. Ad hoc maintenance activities are also carried out if there are abnormal indicators being picked up in between maintenance cycles.
Mr Louis Chua and Mr Saktiandi asked about predictive maintenance capabilities. Where feasible, operators have installed condition-monitoring systems on the trackside and on trains to detect potential defects. Special vehicles are also used to scan the tracks to pick up issues. These defects are then prioritised for rectification. On Mr Saktiandi’s question of whether these systems could have detected risks leading up to this incident, these are part of the ongoing investigations and I will not comment further at this point.
Third, redundancies are built into systems, where feasible, to ensure safety even during incidents. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about redundancy in our power supply system. The trains are powered by the third rail. There are back-up power sources to supply power to the third rail. If the third rail is damaged and the train cannot move, the on-board battery system will maintain emergency lighting, ventilation fans and public address systems.
Fourth, we have processes in place to respond to incidents. During a breakdown, if the fault cannot be immediately or easily resolved, the top priority is to detrain commuters to ensure their safety. As far as possible, the operator will try to let commuters safely alight at the platform. Where this is not possible, there are procedures in place for detrainment onto the tracks.
Staff onboard the train will deploy the detrainment door and guide all passengers to proceed safely to the nearest station platform. These procedures are consistently applied across all our rail lines. Staff undergo regular hands-on training and exercises so that they are familiar with the procedures and well-prepared to handle emergencies.
Mr Speaker, safety and reliability go hand in hand. In 2012, the mean kilometres between failure (MKBF) for the MRT network, which is a reliability benchmark used by cities globally, was 67,000 train-kilometres. This was in 2012. This increased steadily over the decade as LTA worked with rail operators to enhance their maintenance regimes.
Through the combined efforts of LTA and the operators and supported by our unions and workers, we achieved our MKBF target of at least one million train-kilometres in 2019 and have maintained that since for all MRT lines, including the East-West Line. This is comparable to the most reliable overseas metros.
Mr Dennis Tan asked if we could publish the MKBF figures for our MRT network. Sir, MKBF statistics are tabulated regularly and publicly reported on LTA’s website, on a per-line basis. The MKBF figures up to end-September 2024 have yet to be published, but the estimates show that all the MRT lines have achieved our target of at least one million train-kilometres: the East-West Line, 2.03 million; North-South Line, 1.42 million; North-East Line, 2.05 million; Circle Line, 1.04 million; and Downtown Line, 8.11 million.
Mr Dennis Tan also asked if we utilise MKBF statistics to determine how we exercise oversight over individual lines. While all our MRT lines have met the one million MKBF target, each MRT line has its own characteristics, such as their age and whether they are under- or over-ground. Their systems would also have been commissioned or renewed at different times. Hence, different lines have different MKBF outcomes. But the key is that all the lines have met our target of at least one million MKBF and we are subjecting them to stringent maintenance and operational standards.
These reliability standards are the result of the hard work by our operators and workers over more than a decade. Since 2011, LTA has been working with rail operators to enhance their maintenance regime. LTA has also upgraded signalling and power systems and invested in infrastructure, such as signalling simulation centres, to improve our operators’ ability to diagnose and remedy different faults. The renewal of the six core systems of the North-South and East-West lines is another major project which has helped to improve our reliability standards.
LTA’s monitoring of MKBF and licensing conditions also continue to ensure that operators invest sufficiently in maintenance to minimise disruptions. LTA conducts regular training and information exchange sessions with overseas railway operators and technical experts to ensure that in-house engineering and technical capabilities are aligned with the latest standards and best practices.
LTA and our operators take reliability seriously. While we have made significant progress over the last decade, it continues to be a work-in-progress and where we can do better, we will work together with our tripartite partners to implement the improvements.
Third, on resilience. During service disruptions, we seek commuters’ understanding that travel times will be longer. But we will do our best to keep disruptions to a minimum and offer alternative travel options, where possible. Today, our public transport network, with six MRT lines together with a sizeable fleet of buses, is more resilient and better able to cope with disruptions.
On the whole, the mitigation measures across the six days enabled most commuters to continue with their journeys, albeit with additional travelling time. The system was also able to cope throughout the disruption, thanks to the strong efforts by our bus operators and staff on the ground supporting crowd and queue management.
LTA will press on with the planned expansions in our rail network over the next decade. This will increase our capacity to meet daily commuter travel demand, provide more transport options and further improve our rail resilience. In 2026, when we “close the circle” with Stage 6 of the Circle Line, commuters in parts of the West will have another route to travel to the downtown area. The Jurong Region Line, which will open in three stages from 2027 to 2029, will also improve connectivity in the West and offer more alternative interchanges with the North-South and East-West lines at Chua Chu Kang, Boon Lay and Jurong East stations.
By the early 2030s, the Cross Island Line will significantly improve connectivity among the West, East and North-East regions in Singapore. With almost half of its stations as interchanges, commuters island-wide will have more alternative travel routes. This includes commuters in the West, who will be able to access the Cross Island Line via the Jurong Lake District, West Coast and Clementi stations and connect to every other radial line in our MRT network.
In the mid-2030s, the new Sungai Kadut interchange station between the North-South Line and the Downtown Line will provide commuters in the North-West a more direct transfer to the Downtown Line. These additions to our network will enhance rail connectivity and resilience, especially in the West, and better connect the Western Region to other parts of Singapore.
Members have suggested that buses could be used to improve resilience. Our public bus network plays a key role in complementing our rail network, providing first-mile and last-mile connectivity within towns and bringing commuters to key transport nodes. They provide some resilience and alternative routes during rail disruptions. That is why, even when we need to rationalise bus services, we retain at least one trunk route that runs parallel to MRT lines. We also have the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme, which will further improve bus services, especially to new estates and those located further away from major transport nodes and town centres.
That said, buses cannot fully replace rail capacity in the event of a rail disruption, even with the injection of bridging buses. Rail is still the most efficient mode of public transport. A six-car train on the East-West Line can carry more than 1,000 commuters and runs at a two-to-three minute intervals during peak hours and at speeds of up to 80 kilometres per hour. In contrast, a double-deck bus carries up to 120 passengers and typically runs at much lower speeds, based on traffic conditions.
Hence, even with up to 80 double-deck bridging buses deployed per day, these were unable to match the full capacity of the East-West Line. During the disruption from 25 to 30 September, alternative routes using other MRT lines and regular bus services were necessary too.
Sir, I thank Ms Hazel Poa for her suggestion for the Government to issue advisories to companies during train disruptions, on allowing employees to work from home. Indeed, there was a recent Business Times commentary on how flexible work arrangements can be helpful during major transport disruptions. We will discuss the idea further with employers.
Members would recall that a decade or so ago, we faced significant challenges in the quality and reliability of our MRT service. The entire public transport sector and all stakeholders, including our unions, workers, operators and Government, then came together and worked very hard to significantly improve our MRT connectivity and reliability over the past decade. Sir, we are determined to maintain a high level of reliability, safety and service quality.
While we do our best to avoid disruptions, incidents may still happen from time to time. What is important is how we respond to the incidents and how we learn from them to strengthen our resilience against future disruptions.
Once the scale of the disruption on 25 September was assessed, response plans from LTA and public transport operators were activated quickly, including the deployment of 80 bridging buses and hundreds of additional staff. The safety of commuters was paramount, which was why we took the necessary time to complete the repairs and conduct rigorous testing before safely resuming services.
LTA and the TSIB will conduct thorough investigations. They have the technical expertise to do so and LTA will be further supported by the experience of the EAP. The investigation findings will be shared publicly. We will learn from this episode, remain vigilant and work closely with our tripartite partners to continually improve our public transport system.
Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt appreciation to a few groups of stakeholders.
First, I would like to say a big thank you to our public transport workers and caring commuter volunteers for their hard work and dedication to safely restore full train services, to provide bridging bus services to ferry commuters and to assist commuters on the ground. We greatly appreciate your commitment and professionalism and how many of you went beyond the call of duty and worked together as a cohesive team to overcome the challenges and help commuters with their journeys.
Next, I wish to thank our commuters and the public for their patience and their understanding and for showing care and concern to our staff. It was heartening to know that some of our commuters penned words of encouragement for our workers and brought them food and drinks, which boosted their morale and lifted their spirits. Your acts of kindness were very much appreciated by our workers and our volunteers.
Mr Speaker, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin before I conclude.
(In Mandarin): After the MRT disruption, Shin Min Daily News published a letter describing the spirit demonstrated by Singaporeans during this incident. The letter said: “This MRT disruption was a test for us. But it also gave us the opportunity to recognise the most valuable resource in our city – our people. It is our people, with their grit and dedication, who have made our city what it is today. The next time we are enjoying a convenient ride on the MRT, let us not forget the workers who are toiling silently in the background – it was through their hard work that we built up a strong and resilient nation.”
Mr Speaker, through the close cooperation of the tripartite partners, our public transport system has seen significant improvements over the past decade. However, we know there is still room for improvement. Our team will continue to focus on ensuring that our MRT system remains safe, reliable and resilient.
We will thoroughly investigate the disruption that occurred on the East-West Line on 25 September, ascertain the root cause of the incident, review the incident handling procedures, examine the service recovery efforts and identify areas for improvement. We will work together with our tripartite partners to do our utmost to make our public transport system safer, more reliable and more resilient.
(In English): Mr Speaker, the true resilience goes beyond the number of MRT lines or bus services that we operate; it rests in the strength and resolve of our people.
In the midst of this difficult period, it was heartening to see many Singaporeans stepping forward to encourage our workers and to support one another. In my Mandarin speech earlier, I quoted from a letter published by Shin Min Daily News on 1 October. The unofficial translation reads: “This MRT disruption was a test for us. But it also gave us the opportunity to recognise the most valuable resource in our city – our people. It is our people, with their grit and dedication, who have made our city what it is today. The next time we are enjoying a convenient ride on the MRT, let us not forget the workers who are toiling silently in the background – it was through their hard work that we built up a strong and resilient nation.”
Sir, this is a beautiful tribute to the dedication of our workers and the resilience of our nation. Just as Singaporeans rallied together during previous challenges, once again, as a community and a society, we came together to overcome this challenge.
The public transport community has come a long way in our journey to developing a safe, reliable and resilient rail system. We will not stop here – improving safety, reliability and resilience is a key focus and an ongoing mission for us.
This incident was a setback, Sir, but it will not shake our determination to do better and to make our MRT a safe, reliable and resilient rail system that Singaporeans can be proud of. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): 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 Chee Hong Tat: 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.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): 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.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I am sorry, I do not have the Parliamentary Question No 17 in front of me. But if I recall correctly, it has to do with the causes of the accident. Perhaps, Mr Dennis Tan could clarify.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan, you may want to clarify.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: 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 Chee Hong Tat: 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.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): 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 Chee Hong Tat: 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: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): 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 Chee Hong Tat: 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.
Ministry of Transport
15 October 2024
https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=ministerial-statement-2490
Office of the Leader of the Opposition 