A Safe, Reliable, and Resilient Rail System

1.31 pm

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): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] 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: Order. We will now have clarifications on the Ministerial Statement. Before I call on Members, I would like to take this opportunity to remind Members that pursuant to Standing Order 23, Members may seek clarification on the Ministerial Statement, but there is no debate that should be allowed. So, Members can seek clarification by way of asking questions. I seek Members' understanding to keep your clarifications clear and concise. Please, no mini speeches. Likewise, I also ask the Minister to also keep his answers clear and concise.

There are a total of 21 Members who had filed Parliamentary Questions (PQs) for oral or written answer on this matter. I will give priority to these Members first. Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

2.19 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): 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 Chee Hong Tat: 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.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): 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 Chee Hong Tat: 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.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): 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?

Mr Chee Hong Tat: 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ong Hua Han.

Mr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member): 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 Chee Hong Tat: 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.

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 Lim Biow Chuan.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): 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.

Mr Chee Hong Tat: 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.

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 Gan Thiam Poh.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): 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 Chee Hong Tat: 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: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): 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 Chee Hong Tat: 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Wing.

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): 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 Chee Hong Tat: 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: 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: Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): 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 Chee Hong Tat: 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.

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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): 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 Chee Hong Tat: 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong, I know you have raised your hand for the last 20 minutes, but I had to give priority to all Members who had filed PQs on this first. The floor is yours.

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): 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 Chee Hong Tat: 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.

Mr Speaker: Miss Rachel Ong.

Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): 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 Chee Hong Tat: 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.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

Ms Hazel Poa: 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 Chee Hong Tat: 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.

3.26 pm

Mr Speaker: It has been a good two hours on the Ministerial Statement. Are there any final clarifications? None. Good.

Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bills. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry.