Draft 3 (Summary + Reader Response)

In the news release “Trains on the North-South and East-West Lines Safe for Service” (2016) from The Land Transport Authority’s (LTA) website, LTA explains the faults it has  encountered in its trains on the North-South and East-West lines and announces that the trains are safe for operations. It all started when Kawasaki Heavy Industries and CSR Sifang were contracted to supply LTA with 35 trains. Cracks were found on the draughtscreen of five trains caused by errors during the installation process. LTA also discovered hairline cracks on 26 of the trains. After rigorous assessment by LTA, the cracks, which were caused by an impurity in the car-body bolster material, were found to not have any impact on the operational safety of the trains. An “independent third-party assessor, TUV Rheinland,” agreed (Land Transport Authority, 2016). LTA then decided that the most practical way to rectify the defect was by substituting the whole “car-body shell” (Land Transport Authority, 2016). Thus, the affected trains are being shipped back to their manufacturer for repair works gradually. Out of 26 trains, the car-bodies of five trains have been changed and the sixth one will be completed soon. In accordance with the safety guidelines, LTA and TUV Rheinland will conduct continual inspection to ensure all trains are safe for operation.

However, the lack of information regarding the suppliers and the defects makes the purpose of the article ineffective in enhancing public confidence.

One reason why the news release is ineffective is because the defects were not fully explained. LTA’s news release mentions an impurity in the car-body bolster material but not the severity of it. Tan, a senior transport correspondent, mentions that the impurities may deteriorate the structural stability of the trains over time  (Tan, 2016). An engineer concurred with Tan by saying that “impurities in aluminium-alloy is a catastrophic problem – in any industry” (Tan, 2016). Even though the results of the tests conducted by LTA show that the trains are operationally safe, an engineer’s opinion says otherwise. According to an article by FactWire, a former SMRT worker mentions that the train’s life span is halved. (FactWire, 2016) Thus, not fully explaining the extent of the defect may affect the public’s judgement of the situation. In this case, the engineer’s opinion may cause the article to lose credibility among the public.

Another reason why the news release is ineffective is because of the lack of justification of contracting the suppliers. In LTA’s news release, Kawasaki Heavy Industries and CSR Sifang are only introduced as the suppliers of the trains and are not mentioned much after. Information such as backgrounds of the suppliers is not seen in the news release. An article in Onlinecitizen mentions that Kawasaki Heavy Industries and CSR Sifang were not of the lowest bid and would end up providing 26 defective trains in 2013 (ONLINECITIZEN, 2016). Also, according to the Financial Times, CSR Sifang’s bid to supply for Boston’s subway was eliminated. This was due to Massachusetts transport officials finding that the “technical, manufacturing and quality” of CSR Sifang’s components cannot be guaranteed (Vasagar, Mitchell, & Whipp, 2016). The Independent states that CSR Sifang has a history of issues, such as traction motor issues, problems with bearings, break failures and more (The Independent, 2016). However, the article only mentions the rectifications done by LTA even though the problem stems from the suppliers of the trains.  There is a lack of justification of the continued supply from the contractors and may not enhance public confidence.
 

In conclusion, even though the article shows the competency of LTA in the presence of a fault, it does not acknowledge the root of the problem. As a public listed company, it should be transparent on why the contractors were awarded the contract, given their history, and also the first batch of faulty trains. Being transparent then may enhance the trust and confidence of the public.

References:

FactWire. (2016). China manufacturer for MTR secretly recalls 35 SMRT subway trains after cracks found. Retrieved from https://www.factwire.news/en/MTR-securetly-recall.html

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

ONLINECITIZEN. (2016). People’s Power Party’s statement on defective trains from China. Retrieved from http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016/07/07/peoples-power-partys-statement-on-defective-trains-from-china/

Tan, C. (2016). Nothing routine about MRT cracks. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/nothing-routine-about-mrt-cracks

The Independent. (2016). Even China’s own railway operator condemns CSR Sifang. Retrieved from http://theindependent.sg/even-chinas-own-railway-operator-condemns-csr-sifang/

Vasagar, J., Mitchell, T., & Whipp, L. (2016). Singapore returns faulty trains to China for repair. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/3a618d42-4350-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1