Water resources and transport have got to be two of the worst ministerial portfolios in the last few months. The former being a tough job because of the flash floods and the number of dead bodies in the Bedok Reservoir and the latter, because of the increasing number of failures of the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT). I personally cannot understand why people can’t use the Bedok Jetty instead of the reservoir for suicide much as I cannot understand how the Circle Line [CCL] – which is in operation for about a year (or maybe less) – suffered more breakdowns this year compared to the older East-West [EWL] and North-South [NSL] Lines (which has operated for some 24 years or so).

I liked the CCL very much. The main reason is I can now head home from Vivocity via Buona Vista to Boon Lay without going to Outram Park, and use it to avoid Raffles Place when I am within 3 stations in either direction of Bishan. Furthermore, if I am travelling from the estates in the north east like Sengkang and Punggol, I can now change to the CCL at Serangoon and then switch to EWL at Paya Lebar which almost certainly guaranteed a seat. Simply put, I now get to travel in better comfort for some distance on the CCL before switching to the always crowded EWL.

But I disliked the CCL trains for its lack of STARiS. Even though the announcements are pretty loud and the name of the next station is displayed in the trains’ LED displays, I find myself checking whether I have over shot my station every now and then. I am also puzzled that the CCL stations are smaller and each train has only 3 cars (compared to the other lines which have 6 cars each). In my opinion, the CCL is more like a crossbreed between the MRT and LRT (Light Rail Transit) and not a full MRT line.

If having just 3 cars a train isn’t bad enough, the CCL is not scalable. If it wasn’t a case where the city planners lacked foresight, it simply reinforced my opinion that everything in our city state is only built with an eye to profitability – which takes precedence over necessity. The lack of scalability of the EWL & NSL – since we can’t lengthen the stations and the trains to deal with the increased load – is a serious flaw. Even the NorthEast Line [NEL] which is built later suffered from the same problem. Had the stations been scalable, the operators could just increase every train by 1 car length and it would have increased capacity by a theoretical 16% per train. Frequency can even be kept constant during off peak hours by running a shorter train. In fact, I suspect the operators don’t even need to crack their heads much or worry about the signal systems since they are technically still running the same number of trains. A friend of mine had joked that the failure to take scalability into consideration for the NSL, EWL and NEL can simply be dismissed as “myopia” [近視眼] (cannot see far), but to build the CCL with even lower capacity is serious “presbyopia” [老花眼] (cannot see clearly).

While I can’t help with the premonition that the CCL will come from behind to beat the Bukit Panjang LRT as SMRT’s biggest fiasco, I do hope things with the CCL will get better while the service at the older lines will not get worse. The recent failures on the venerable NSL which has broken down for almost the entire duration of the evening of 15th Dec, and the morning of 17th Dec until almost 2pm in the afternoon are rather alarming. That’s 2 breakdowns on the same line within 3 days. They happened in such quick succession that it has now impact commuter confidence. If I have to use this line everyday, I would be concerned that there is a possibility I might end up trapped in the tunnels or being late for work.

Personally speaking, I am surprised that SMRT didn’t see this coming with the increasing number of minor disruptions and delays – for e.g. the ever regular train faults that slow trains down to a crawl. I wondered whether anyone is concerned that all of these minor faults may actually be symptoms indicating something more serious maybe on the way. I doubt so because SMRT CEO Saw Phiak Hwa even said she did not see ‘anything significant’ in the number of disruptions and delays just slightly more than 10 days ago. I am sorry I must say (without any offense meant to the affected commuters), this breakdown is a “well-deserved reckoning” for her. In fact, it is one that has been long in coming since a year and a half ago when she said ‘People can board the train – it’s whether they choose to.’ Her callous and uncaring replies suggest a complete lack of understanding of SMRT’s very operations, and reveal her utter disdain of those who used the service. Indeed, it even suggests that she is completely uninterested in her job even though she is the best paid CEO in Singapore (S$1.85 million per annum or S$5,000 per day – 3 times more than Barack Obama). It will be of no surprise if Saw Phiak Hwa is the most hated CEO among Singaporeans who are generally moderate and forgiving in nature. (Then again, she might tie with the CEO of HDB in that.)

MRT window broken for ventilation

For those who might disagree that Singaporeans are moderate and forgiving, get off the Internet and social media feeds and talk to real people. By that, I don’t mean talk with the Twitter or Facebook friends in real life. The reason is that when I brought this matter up at work the day after the first NSL breakdown, 3 of my colleagues (who are not active on social media) unanimously pointed out that SMRT only had a very small window for maintenance – around 1am after the last train moves into depot, and until about 530am before the first train has to leave depot. Some other friends I spoke with are also sympathetic to the station staff caught in the situation and are thankful to those who ensure that the trains will still work while we sleep at night. The matter of the constant fare “adjustments” amidst record profits did not come up at all. Thus, it is logical to say that what we really couldn’t tolerate is simply the uncaring and callous attitude of Saw Phiak Hwa. It is of no wonder why she has become a lightning rod for all the anger and resentment towards SMRT.

While I would still have suggested that she find a katana and use the Padang for her final atonement, I can live with her immediate resignation – when she chooses to do so – because we are Singaporeans and not Japanese. Really, it is high time someone who has a better understanding of train operations be appointed in her place instead. At the very least, appoint someone who is responsive to commuter complaints or feedback, or at least make the effort to appear caring. Even better if the new SMRT CEO would make rides completely free on certain days as a goodwill gesture to commuters when the company make record profits.

This post is getting a lengthy so I’ll round it up soon. First of all, the breakdown pointed out a serious flaw in our transport system. When a major system such as the MRT breaks down, it inevitably causes a strain on the other available modes of transport. Worst of it all, there is no ready alternative available when such an incident occurs. Commuters have to wait for the operators to scramble their feeder buses to deal with the breakdown. That goes to say operators have a fleet of buses on standby for such an eventuality which in effect is a waste of resources since they cannot be deployed for other more profitable purposes. That’s not mentioning the lead time required to get the entire fleet of buses into operation. Yet, it is puzzling that the government often justify the removal of buses running alongside the MRT route because it is a waste of resources. Shouldn’t the priority of the Public Transport Council [PTC] or Land Transport Authority [LTA] be to ensure that commuters arrive at their destination with relative ease at reasonable cost within a reasonable time and not whether transport operators are profitable or not? For the government – which should act in the interest of the people – to argue for operator profitability while government-linked entities (such as Temasek Holdings or the Singapore Labour Foundation [SLF]) are major shareholders in them is a major conflict of interests. More ominously, the people cannot help but felt their interests are sacrificed and left high and dry by those who should represent them!

It would be better to consider a bus service plying the same route as a ready backup in the event of MRT service disruption instead of a waste of resources. In fact, a bus service running alongside the MRT compliments it, since it also served as a built-in mechanism which ‘punishes’ the operator which did not uphold its service standards. It almost ensure that fining an operator for bad service is meaningless since what greater punishment can compare with a competitor benefiting from the breakdown? While I understand the purpose of the law is to ensure that there is a legal framework to punish misbehaving or even rogue operators, its main purpose should be to compensate the aggrieved and aggravated commuters and not into the government’s coffers.