READER RESPONSE FINAL EDIT [LEARNING PORTFOLIO]

In the news release, “Trains on the North-South and East-West Lines Safe for Service”, Singapore Land Transport Authority (LTA) (2016) addresses the problems it faces in regards to the trains that was recently in the media’s spotlight.  It first mentions about the actions taken to resolve the problems and how trains were subjected to tests to ensure their safeness and integrity. The article discusses one episode in which one train's "battery housing" flew open due to pressure. It also mentions that the cracks that were found on the “draught screen” of five of the new trains, were due to faults during the installation process. However, there were no effects on these trains’ operations as these problems were rectified immediately. LTA states that ‘hairline cracks’ that were also found on the car-body shell were caused during the production period. As it was impossible to repair the cracks, affected trains under warranty were sent back for replacement of parts at no cost. With a view to complete the rectification programme, LTA expresses that two trains would be sent for servicing at a time. Nonetheless, this would be dependent on the arrival of new trains along with the current ones which are undergoing re-signalling. As this issue has caught the attention of the public and media, there are several public concerns not addressed by the news release making this LTA news release incomplete.

The first possible concern for the public is the delay in reporting, which might lead the public to think that the authorities are trying to hide any problems with the trains from them. Lim (2016) says that the public only found about this issue after a Hong Kong- based news media (Factwire news) reported about the trains being sent back to China for repair, in secret. In the same article, the transport minister was quoted saying that the reason that the trains being sent back was not publicised was to not cause any unneeded panic for the public. However, the public would rather hear it from the authorities themselves rather than through the first report from Factwire news which said otherwise. Also, the transport minister was also quoted saying that the issue did not go public as it was not a safety problem, otherwise, the authority would have done so immediately. However, in my opinion, despite the problems not being safety issues, the public would have wanted to know about the situation as they are taxpayers and if train operations were affected, it would greatly affect their daily means of transportation.

The second possible concern is the authority awarding a new contract to the same group of suppliers.  In a news release, LTA (2014) announced that the contract for 91 new trains would be awarded to “Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd/CSR Qingdao Sifang Co. Ltd/Kawasaki Heavy Industries (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Consortium.” In another news release, Tan (2016) states that the first hairline crack was found in 2013 and the first train was sent back after the contract was awarded. This meant that despite being aware of the defects, the authority still trusted the suppliers and awarded them with the new contract. In a third news release, Lim (2016) quoted LTA saying that the new contract was awarded to those suppliers mentioned as they had taken the initiative to be accountable for the issue and the offer also had the best “price, quality and life cycle cost”. However, no explanation was given to explain how the quality was the best among the rest since this issue was giving the train’s quality a bad reputation. In turn, the public might think that having the best cost is the biggest factor in this decision instead.

In conclusion, while the article did clearly mention what the problems were and the plans to go about solving them, LTA should have given more details regarding their decisions about the delay in reporting and contracting with the same group of suppliers. This would have helped to dispel any public concerns.

References
Singapore Land Transport Authority. (2014, May 28). Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd/Csr Qingdao Sifang Co. Ltd/Kawasaki Heavy Industries (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Consortium Awarded Prestigious Contract Worth $749 Million. Retrieved September 24, 2016, from https://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=f0b205a6-69ab-49b0-b94d-65384ee5e5c0

Singapore Land Transport Authority. (2016, July 06). Trains on the North-South and East West Lines Safe for Service. Retrieved September 20, 2016, from https://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=0f8b1220-0289-4bef-99c9-b2455f17a66c#_ftn1

Lim, K. (2016, July 12). Going public on train cracks could have caused undue panic: Khaw. Channel News Asia. Retrieved September 24, 2016 from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/going-public-on-train/2950576.html

Tan, C. (2016, July 06). Hairline cracks in 26 MRT trains made in China. The Straits Times. Retrieved September 24, 2016 from http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/hairline-cracks-in-26-mrt-trains-made-in-china