Causes for Recent MRT and LRT Breakdowns, and Measures to Improve Rail Reliability and Review Financial Penalties

19 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Acting Minister for Transport as regards the two breakdowns on the Sengkang-Punggol LRT in August 2025 (a) when will the final investigation results be released; (b) what safeguards have been put in place for adequate maintenance and safety checks for commuters and rail workers; and (c) what new technology and safety enhancements will be put in place to prevent future breakdowns.

20 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the status of the investigation and the design review by LTA project team following the recent major disruptions of the Bukit Panjang LRT on 3 July 2025 and 19 July 2025; and (b) whether the power trips which were identified as the cause of both incidents could have been prevented.

21 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Acting Minister for Transport in each year over the past five years (a) what is the number of regulatory breaches for each of the rail operators under the New Rail Financing Framework (NRFF); and (b) what are the corresponding financial penalties that have been imposed, including for the failure to provide and maintain an adequate, safe and satisfactory service.

22 Ms Poh Li San asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what improvements has the Ministry made to prevent a recurrence of the North East MRT Line (NEL) and Sengkang-Punggol LRT (SPLRT) disruptions on 12 August 2025; (b) what issues caused the SPLRT disruption to last around ten hours; and (c) what steps will the operator take to respond more quickly to future service disruptions.

23 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what factors resulted in MRT reliability falling to its lowest level since 2020; (b) whether any trend is observed across the spate of MRT and LRT disruptions since August 2025; (c) whether the rail infrastructure needs refreshing; and (d) what will be done to improve rail reliability and sustain achievement of the target of Mean Kilometres Between Failure to meet public expectations.

24 Mr Ng Chee Meng asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether he can provide an update on the investigation into the root causes of the recent breakdown on the Sengkang-Punggol LRT on 15 August 2025; and (b) what remedial actions will be taken by the operator to prevent future occurrences.

The Acting Minister for Transport (Mr Jeffrey Siow): Mr Speaker, I seek your permission to take the following six questions, Question Nos 19 to 24 together. There are total of 18 Parliamentary Questions (PQs) filed on rail reliability for this week's Sittings.

For today, I will respond on this issue more generally before addressing the specific incidents that Members have asked about. And thereafter I invite Members who have filed PQs for this as well as future Sittings to seek clarifications and if sufficiently addressed, Members may wish to withdraw their questions filed for subsequent Sittings.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

Mr Jeffrey Siow: Thank you. Let me begin. Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Yip Hon Weng have noted that our rail reliability, as measured by mean kilometres between failure (MKBF), is at its lowest since 2020. In 2017, then-Minister for Transport Mr Khaw Boon Wan set an MKBF target of one million train-kilometres (km) between delays exceeding five minutes. We surpassed this target in 2019 and we have remained above it ever since. This number for the 12-month period leading up to August 2025 is approximately 1.7 million train-km. This is lower than our peak MKBF of over two million in 2022 and 2023, but still higher than the one million target.

Mr Sharael Taha asked how our MKBF compares internationally. Using MKBF and other indicators where comparisons are available, our Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) remains one of the most reliable in the world. Singapore's MKBF in recent years is higher than Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway's (MTR's), though lower than Taipei Metro's. For the number of service delays exceeding 30 minutes per million train-km, our MRT performs about the same as metros in Tokyo and other Japanese cities. I have asked the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to publish these comparisons regularly, because Singaporeans often compare our MRT to these systems.

Our journey to achieve one million train-km was by no means easy. It was the result of years of hard work by thousands of people, including many engineers, technicians and service staff, who worked day and night to keep our train services running.

I want to thank Ms Yeo Wan Ling for asking about the work hours, safety and well-being of our rail transport workers, many of whom are Singaporeans. Rail operators are required to ensure that workers maintain appropriate rest periods and there are strict controls to prevent excessive overtime. And I assure Ms Yeo that we take the safety and well-being of our rail transport workers very seriously. And I myself have personally visited workers often since I became the Acting Transport Minister. They are part of my One Transport Team and I am committed to taking good care of them.

Should we set an even higher target for MKBF? Mr Sharael asked this. It is a reasonable question, but beyond one million train-km, variations in the MKBF become less meaningful, that is because the number of disruptions per year are very small. Let me give you an example.

For the Downtown Line, the maximum MKBF is about eight million train-km, it achieved it in 2023 and 2024, but just one additional delay halved it to four million. Another drawback of the MKBF indicator is that it does not really measure the length of the disruption, and hence the impact on the commuter. For example, a complete service stoppage is treated the same as more frequent minor incidents, even when trains are moving and passengers are able to carry on with their journeys.

LTA does consider commuter impact in the financial penalties that are imposed on operators for serious disruptions. And to Mr Louis Chua's question, LTA has imposed an average of around four such penalties per year in the past five years.

We also use other measures to track the performance of our rail network. Some of these are published, such as the number of delays of more than 30 minutes, which I mentioned earlier. And there are other indicators, such as the punctuality of trains reaching each terminus station and the proportion of scheduled mileage travelled by revenue trains, and LTA tracks these too.

I have asked LTA to share more of such data publicly, even though they are fairly technical, so that interested commuters and colleagues can have a better and fuller picture of our performance. We will be transparent, because we have a good system and we have nothing to hide.

I want to assure Members that I take every single rail incident very seriously. I am personally alerted whenever there is a train incident, even when it is late into the night or during engineering hours. We want to be accountable to commuters because this means when an incident happens, we will learn from it and we will do our utmost to prevent similar faults from recurring. Accountability is also why I asked LTA last Friday to put out the whole list of incidents that have happened since July this year, with our assessment on the causes and how these problems were or are being resolved.

As Members have also asked questions on these specific incidents, I will cover them very briefly in the interest of time and invite Members to refer to LTA's news release last Friday for further details.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Ms Poh Li San, Mr Ng Chee Meng and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about breakdowns for the North East Line (NEL) and the Sengkang-Punggol LRT (SPLRT) in August. As LTA had explained, two faults occurred at a substation at Sengkang Depot on 12 August, which cut off power to several parts of the NEL and SPLRT. Works to repair the damage commenced that night. Unfortunately, before the repair could be completed, a damaged cable caused a separate power fault on the SPLRT three days later.

Ms Poh Li San asked why it took a longer time to recover service on the SPLRT on 12 August. This was because LTA and SBS Transit (SBST) had to take some time to determine that it was fully safe for the power to be turned on.

The root cause of these faults is still being investigated. The faulty components have been sent to the manufacturer for checks. LTA is also investigating whether there were any lapses in maintenance. If so, this will result in regulatory action.

I want to also assure Members that immediate action has been taken to avoid a recurrence. LTA and SBST have tested cables along the entire SPLRT network and will replace all voltage transformer panels across NEL intake substations. We had already planned to install a secondary power supply source at Sengkang LRT Depot by the end of this year which will provide further redundancy.

Mr Edward Chia and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about our findings on the two Bukit Panjang Light Rail Transit (BPLRT) incidents in July. We have traced both incidents to a malfunctioning network switch. As the switch was intermittently functioning, the defect was only discovered after the second incident.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked if the disruption could have been avoided. As the network switch was well within its design life, the malfunction, unfortunately, was not anticipated. But this defective switch has been replaced and sent to the manufacturer for investigation. LTA and SMRT have also put in additional measures to detect such network instability in the future and to enable the power system to automatically recover in such instances.

Mr Jackson Lam and Miss Rachel Ong asked about incidents on the North South and the East West Lines. The incident on the East West Line on the morning of 6 August was caused by a faulty point machine near Jurong East station, one of our busiest stations. Point machines physically move the rails so that trains can transfer from one track to another. Therefore, for safety reasons, trains had to be slowed down until after the morning peak when the point machine could be fixed. This resulted in more crowding than usual during the morning peak hours.

Mr Jackson Lam asked about our maintenance regime for point machines and whether we could have picked up the fault earlier. Operators do carry out periodic inspections and comprehensive regular overhaul, including functional tests, as per industry best practices. Unfortunately, the fault on 6 August was detected just before the start of service and could not be resolved by the morning peak.

On the separate incident on the North South Line (NSL) on 2 September, this was caused by a stalled train, which had to be physically pushed out to Canberra station to disembark passengers. The problem was traced to a faulty connector, which has since been replaced.

Mr Jackson Lam also asked about the number of signalling-related disruptions on the NSL in the past year. There was only one such delay on 13 June, where the travelling time between Ang Mo Kio and Choa Chu Kang was extended by 15 minutes. And normal service resumed within an hour.

These recent incidents happened across different MRT lines with different causes. But we want to take a harder look to satisfy ourselves that there is indeed no systemic problem. This is why I announced last week that I had tasked the Chief Executive of LTA, Mr Ng Lang, to chair a Rail Reliability Taskforce which will include the Chief Executives of two MRT operators, Mr Ngien Hoon Ping of SMRT and Mr Jeffrey Sim of SBST.

This task force will focus on three areas. First, it will bring forward the renewal of critical components, especially power supply and signalling for the NEL and the Circle Line. Second, it will jointly conduct audits on the maintenance and operations of critical systems, including maintenance processes as well and staff training. Third, it will review service recovery processes, so that we can better support commuters who are caught in a train disruption. And here, the train operators have been informing commuters of service delays in excess of 10 minutes, as required by LTA.

In response to Mr Louis Chua's question, LTA has not had to impose any penalties on this in the past five years.

But this is still only a basic requirement and I think we can do better. For instance, commuters should have more precise information on alternative travel routes and additional travel time, depending on their specific location rather than through generic advisories. They should also be able to get the information at a single centralised location, possibly on a single app, so that they know exactly where to look during a stressful disruption. These things we can improve as well as physical things like directional signs and officers' reactions on the ground.

Mr Speaker, the recent disruptions have inconvenienced many commuters. I understand the frustrations and I want to assure commuters that we are doing our best to improve our performance. We know we can do better because our rail reliability has indeed been better in the last few years. But even with the recent disruptions, our MRT system remains one of the most reliable in the world.

Train delays happen in every system, in every city. Our phones and computers have to be restarted every now and then. Cars will break down too. So will our trains. We want to absolutely minimise disruptions because of the inconvenience to commuters, and we will work doubly hard to do so. But what is equally important is when a disruption inevitably happens, we can support commuters and guide them to continuing their journeys safely, with their understanding and cooperation.

Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): Mr Speaker, while we wait for the assessment from LTA and the Rail Reliability Taskforce, I note that the SPLRT reliability is being closely monitored, and our transport and maintenance workers are working hard to maintain high reliability for our commuters. With an ageing infrastructure and higher commuter demands with the new Punggol infrastructure, like the Punggol Digital District and the Singapore Institute of Technology coming online, how can the Ministry support and resource our operators better on top of creating redundancy systems, as Minister has updated, to implement safety and condition monitoring systems? How can we also ensure that our workers are equipped with the latest skills and knowledge especially with the manpower development package that looks into upskilling our workers come to a funding end?

Mr Jeffrey Siow: I thank Ms Yeo for her question. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been working very closely with the unions and with the rail operators on making sure that we are not just upgrading the hardware of the systems but also the software. We want to make sure that the workers who are working on maintaining train reliability are of the right capabilities and the right skills and also are able to manage the new systems that are coming on board, as we upgrade the systems with new technology and new capabilities are needed. And that is why the fund that Ms Yeo mentioned has been very useful for us to support the workers who are then able to deal with these new systems and to maintain them well.

The operators also have a Rail Reliability Fund and we work with them to try to encourage them, with incentives, to focus on training their workers, building up their capabilities, ensuring that they are able to do the things that they need to do.

So, all in all, I think there is a collaborative effort. We are working very hard with the support of the unions to make sure that the workforce is capable and can do the things that we need them to do every day, every night.

Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, I thank the Minister for sharing on the technical details of the breakdown of the BPLRT. We are all now too familiar with the inherent technical challenges that the BPLRT system has. We do appreciate that it is operating in a pretty challenging ground terrain in Bukit Panjang. So, in that context, I want to ask the Minister whether LTA will consider adding more buses to run parallel to the BPLRT system, as a way to enhance resiliency and also as a measure to cope with the increasing ridership as the town's population is also increasing.

Mr Jeffrey Siow: I thank Mr Liang for his question. Indeed, Mr Liang and I are both very familiar with ins and outs literally of the BPLRT for a number of reasons. We were together, working on transport issues a decade ago. I have as much vested interest if not more, since BPLRT passes both our constituencies.

I want to thank him for his suggestion. The BPLRT's reliability has generally improved, I think, over the years. It is a unique system. It was retroactively fitted in, unlike the SPLRT which was built from scratch. Over the last 10 years, in fact, we have been working on a systemic upgrade of the LRT – the power system, the trains. We are almost complete and I think the results are showing. The reliability has indeed been better.

As for bus services, today, there are already several bus services that run parallel to complement the LRT. For example, I think Service 976 was launched in 2019 specifically to support commuters during the renewal works. And together with Service 974, these services connect Choa Chu Kang and Bukit Panjang Interchanges and serve many of the same neighbourhoods as the LRT. We also have Services 920, 922 and 972 which provide alternative first-mile, last-mile connections within Bukit Panjang.

I would certainly review the Member's suggestion to introduce more parallel-run bus services, but we will have to consider other factors like ridership, availability of bus captains, as you know, which is a key constraint for us, as well as to prioritise these relative to requests for bus services in other areas.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Speaker, two supplementary questions for the Minister.

The first, in relation to the question on the penalties and the incidents specifically, I understand that in relation to last year's East-West Line (EWL) breakdown for about six days, I think the penalty was reduced from $3 million to $2.4 million. I wanted to double check, specifically on the Rapid Transit Systems Act, the operators can be fined to a maximum of higher of $1 million or 10% of the fare revenues. And so, with a reduction in the fine, would the Minister be concerned that the deterrent effect would actually be lessened as a result?

The second supplementary question, in relation to the 15 key incidents that LTA has put out last Friday, for these incidents, I note that the Government will be putting in an additional $1 billion to raise the reliability and maintenance standards. What are the corresponding requirements on the part of each of the operators, in terms of the additional investments that they may have to put in? And at the same time, given the incidents, the Ministry's view on the financial penalties that have been imposed?

Mr Jeffrey Siow: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Mr Chua, for your questions. You have two questions. First, let me take the second one on the financial penalties and the responsibility of the public transport operators (PTOs), in terms of using the $1 billion and what their financial commitment is.

Before I do that, I will briefly explain how LTA assesses penalties. We assess financial penalties for very serious disruptions and we do so by looking at the culpability of the operators in terms of their contribution to that. Sometimes, it is not the PTO's doing. Sometimes, there are situations where it is human error, for example, passengers doing things. It has nothing to do with the operators. They may cause a disruption but it does not affect the operator and therefore, they are not liable to regulatory action.

Insofar as specific incidents, for the systems that are affected, we will look at what solution is required. If it is a hardware upgrade, it is an asset upgrade, the current system is really a joint process between LTA and the operator. LTA, of course, is responsible for asset ownership, in some ways, asset renewal as well. We work closely with the operators on the ground to prioritise some of these things and use the monies accordingly.

For the first question, which is related to the penalties and whether or not, with respect to the earlier incident last September, whether the reduction in the penalties would have a deterrent effect, as the Member pointed out, the penalties are fairly significant. The penalty we have issued is well above the $1 million threshold. It is higher. We had given them a $3 million dollar penalty and we had, after appeal, reduced their penalty to about $2 million.

I think it is a fair decision, one that we have looked at, looking at, again, the respective responsibilities and culpability of the operator. They have made a case to say there were certain decisions that perhaps were out of their remit. We have looked at their case and we have decided to reduce the penalties accordingly. I think it was a reasonable decision. The details of the decision, we have already come out to talk about it. We can give you more information if needed.

Mr Speaker: We are approaching the end of Question Time. I am going to allow the last three supplementary questions for those who have filed PQs on this. So, Ms Tin, Ms Poh and Mr Ng Chee Meng. Starting with Ms Tin Pei Ling.

Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): I have two supplementary questions.

The first one is that I think so far, reports in the media as well as what have been shared in this House seem to suggest that there have been no observed trends or at least systemic factors causing the recent spate of incidents since July. But it would definitely seem like really terrible luck for all of these to happen in such a short span of time.

With more lines to be added to the system, there will be more assets to be maintained, more manpower, more budget that will be needed. How will the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and the PTOs work to assure that our rail performance will continue to be reliable going forward?

Second, given what the Minister had shared earlier about the example of how one disruption can greatly reduce the MKBF and achieving of the target, is this still a fair measurement of rail reliability?

Mr Jeffrey Siow: I thank Ms Tin for her questions. I took a look at the number of disruptions for the corresponding period last year. It was about 13, compared to 15 this year. I was trying to figure out, with the same numbers, why is it that there was so much attention this year. My hypothesis, which I think is probably likely, is that the impact of the individual disruptions was far greater than for the ones that happened last year.

As Ms Tin mentioned, as we expand the rail network and we are in the process of doubling our rail network over 10 years, if we are able to not double the number of train disruptions, actually our rail reliability would have improved.

That is not to say we will not put in effort to minimise the number of train disruptions. We will put in our effort, we will more than double our effort to do so. But this is mathematics, this is reality. I think we have to see what we can do to try our best to improve the standards over time, improve the quality, but it is not possible for us to drive down to zero disruptions.

Therefore, looking at the MKBF, as I mentioned in my speech, it is actually not very meaningful beyond high levels of rail reliability, not meaningful when you have small numbers, single-digit disruptions. What it does help is give a general indicator for two reasons. One, it helps us compare with other systems who also use the same indicator and two, it helps us track our performance over time. To that end, as I mentioned in my speech, LTA does track other indicators. We will put out more of these indicators so that all of us will have a better sense of how our rail performance is.

Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Thank you, Speaker and Minister. I would like to first commend our PTOs and also LTA for keeping our MKBF one of the highest in the world. In light of that, I would like to ask the Minister, under the new rail financing framework, how does LTA ensure that the suppliers are held accountable for the contractual obligations for the train systems' availability and their lifespan? Because at the end of day, the quality of the train at the point of procurement is really important as well.

Mr Jeffrey Siow: I thank Ms Poh for her question. Under the new rail financing framework, LTA is responsible for the ownership and renewal of assets. The operators are responsible for maintenance.

There is no perfect system. Prior to the new rail financing framework, it was the operators that were responsible for the asset renewal. There were similar tensions between the regulator and the operator on who should be doing what. I think what is important is that both the regulator and the operator work together to make sure that we understand the causes of problems in the system, understand how the equipment works, when the equipment should be replaced or repaired, and to be able to do so openly and in a collaborative fashion.

In fact, this is what we have been doing over the last decade and this has in fact been, I think, the main reason why the rail reliability performance has improved.

We will, at the edges, have to try to improve the communications and performance. The operators are on the ground, they have some experience, they know what they are supposed to do and they have certain things that they are supposed to do. The regulator or rather the purchaser, in this case, LTA, of the assets will also have to work with the vendor to make sure that, whatever it is, their responsibilities are properly accomplished.

During the last few disruptions, I have sat in for the crisis management meetings. The vendors were there. In the cases of some of the vendors, they sit in with our operator. They have an office within the depot or the operation centre so that they are able to react more quickly. It is things like that we will continue to do to make sure that the vendors are closely involved with what we do.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ng Chee Meng.

Mr Ng Chee Meng (Jalan Kayu): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his clarifications. I would like to put on public record my appreciation for LTA, SBST and SMRT for the good work on the ground.

Two supplementary questions for the Minister. One is on the expansion of the rail system and therefore, the increasing complexities of maintenance. How would MOT or LTA put in the necessary finances, the necessary engineering time and, equally important, like what my colleague Yeo Wan Ling has asked, the training regimes so that we would be able to maintain an increased network of complexity to serve the public.

On the second supplementary question, more pertaining to Jalan Kayu, we know that the NEL and the SPLRT are very congested systems. While we do the good work to rectify some of the breakdowns, the commuters do face increased inconveniences, especially for Fernvale, Jalan Kayu, where the bus connectivity is somewhat lacking. My supplementary question to the Minister is whether LTA would take proactive action to improve the overall connectivity, especially the bus services in Fernvale, Jalan Kayu so that residents can be connected out to other nodes and not, regardless of different improvements, load the NEL?

Mr Jeffrey Siow: I thank Mr Ng for his question. Maybe I will take the second one first because I am very familiar with the NEL. I have taken the NEL since its inception in 2003. In fact, that is the reason why I took my first job.

I have seen the NEL grow in capacity. In terms of how it has been performing, I have watched it closely. It is an MRT line that we are watching very closely. As the Member mentioned, the congestion is one of the highest in our MRT network. We have been looking to see how to alleviate the congestion and just making sure that the reliability is okay so that the impact is not so great, especially during peak hours.

The ultimate solution is to connect the NEL to more train lines. This is what we are doing. We are building the Cross Island Line, I have to try to make sure things are okay for the next five years, but I think when the Cross Island Line connects to Hougang, it will make the NEL more resilient because commuters will be able to discharge to some other routes on the train network.

In the meantime, we are looking at how to augment the bus network. But buses, ultimately, are not a good solution because the capacity of one NEL train is 1,500 people. That is 15 to 20 buses, end to end. Just for one train. That is not forgetting that each train runs at two-minute intervals currently on the NEL.

So, buses will never be a complete substitute. But at the margins, if it can help, we will try to see how we can augment bus capacity along the NEL corridor.

As for how to support the workers in terms of training regimes, finance and getting them up to speed on the new systems that are available, as I mentioned earlier in my reply to Ms Yeo, we have to work very closely with the unions and operators. I have visited the workers themselves. They not only do the work on the day-to-day basis, they also go for quite a bit of training. I think whenever they engage with new systems, they are actually quite excited. Hydraulics systems, even things like condition monitoring. These are new things that we have been investing in in terms of technology.

In the rest of the world, public transport systems do not tend to be highly advanced because most public transport systems do not get a lot of investments and money. In Singapore, we have invested a lot of money. The operators are doing a lot of things in terms of maintenance on condition monitoring, which they showcase to other systems and other cities at international rail conferences.

So, we are doing what we can. There is no shortage of investment on that front. We will be happy to work with the unions to see whether or not there are other things that we can do to support our workers on upgrading themselves.

1.14 pm

Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills. Acting Minister for Transport.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]