Vaudevillian
Active Member
Re: Lui Tuck Yew asks Singaporeans to ‘thank’ COI members for their ‘hard work’
I wonder wth Lui is smoking to get this high.
I wonder wth Lui is smoking to get this high.
Lui Tuck Yew asks Singaporeans to ‘thank’ COI members for their ‘hard work’
- Thread starter cwoon
- Start date
Re: Lui Tuck Yew asks Singaporeans to ‘thank’ COI members for their ‘hard work’
The Committee of Inquiry (COI) tasked to look into the two major train disruptions on the North-South Line last December, concluded that both incidents were related and could have been prevented.
In the 358-page report made available to the public on Wednesday, the COI cited shortcomings in SMRT's maintenance regime and checks done.
It said effective maintenance by SMRT would play a critical role to prevent the incidents from happening again.
The COI believes the first disruption on 15 December 2011 was triggered by a defective fastener that is part of the third rail assembly, located between City Hall and Dhoby Ghaut stations. The fastener had a latent crack.
The third rail supplies electricity to power the trains.
The defect caused the claw supporting the third rail to dislodge and the rail to sag.
The insulators on two adjacent assemblies were also defective.
With further vibration from passing trains, the claws of these assemblies also dislodged.
This caused the third rail to sag further beyond its tolerance limit.
As trains passed the sagged rail, their collector shoes became damaged. These "shoes" draw power from the third rail.
This explains why trains stalled after passing the incident site as they could no longer draw sufficient power.
Over time, three more claws dropped. As a result, a 40-metre stretch of rail collapsed onto the tracks, making the area impassable to all trains.
The report did not ascertain if the first claw had dropped during service hours on 15 December itself.
The COI believes the defects in question had taken time to develop before the first disruption.
The COI said it was regrettable that these were not identified and remedied under SMRT's maintenance regime.
It noted that there were no specific work instructions for the assemblies to be checked by staff. If this had been done, the COI said the disruption could have been averted.
The COI concluded that the second disruption two days later could also have been avoided.
It said the SMRT in its haste to resume services on 16 December, did not conduct a thorough check, particularly on "shoes" of all trains during engineering hours after the first disruption.
Evidence also showed that not all collector shoes broke off as they were supposed to in order to prevent further damage to the third rail. This indicated that personnel could have over-tightened the bolts.
So trains with undetected damaged shoes continued to "agitate" the third rail on 16 December.
On the same day, a claw on the south-bound track between Newton and Orchard stations dislodged, causing the third rail to sag.
The COI said the Multi-function vehicle (MFV) should have been able to detect the sag before the start of revenue service on 17 December.
But the MFV's dated software had failed.
A cracked mirror on the MFV also suggested that the MFV had come into contact with the sagged third rail.
The unusual occurrence was reported in a routine manner.
This contributed to the third rail problem going undetected.
The Committee of Inquiry (COI) tasked to look into the two major train disruptions on the North-South Line last December, concluded that both incidents were related and could have been prevented.
In the 358-page report made available to the public on Wednesday, the COI cited shortcomings in SMRT's maintenance regime and checks done.
It said effective maintenance by SMRT would play a critical role to prevent the incidents from happening again.
The COI believes the first disruption on 15 December 2011 was triggered by a defective fastener that is part of the third rail assembly, located between City Hall and Dhoby Ghaut stations. The fastener had a latent crack.
The third rail supplies electricity to power the trains.
The defect caused the claw supporting the third rail to dislodge and the rail to sag.
The insulators on two adjacent assemblies were also defective.
With further vibration from passing trains, the claws of these assemblies also dislodged.
This caused the third rail to sag further beyond its tolerance limit.
As trains passed the sagged rail, their collector shoes became damaged. These "shoes" draw power from the third rail.
This explains why trains stalled after passing the incident site as they could no longer draw sufficient power.
Over time, three more claws dropped. As a result, a 40-metre stretch of rail collapsed onto the tracks, making the area impassable to all trains.
The report did not ascertain if the first claw had dropped during service hours on 15 December itself.
The COI believes the defects in question had taken time to develop before the first disruption.
The COI said it was regrettable that these were not identified and remedied under SMRT's maintenance regime.
It noted that there were no specific work instructions for the assemblies to be checked by staff. If this had been done, the COI said the disruption could have been averted.
The COI concluded that the second disruption two days later could also have been avoided.
It said the SMRT in its haste to resume services on 16 December, did not conduct a thorough check, particularly on "shoes" of all trains during engineering hours after the first disruption.
Evidence also showed that not all collector shoes broke off as they were supposed to in order to prevent further damage to the third rail. This indicated that personnel could have over-tightened the bolts.
So trains with undetected damaged shoes continued to "agitate" the third rail on 16 December.
On the same day, a claw on the south-bound track between Newton and Orchard stations dislodged, causing the third rail to sag.
The COI said the Multi-function vehicle (MFV) should have been able to detect the sag before the start of revenue service on 17 December.
But the MFV's dated software had failed.
A cracked mirror on the MFV also suggested that the MFV had come into contact with the sagged third rail.
The unusual occurrence was reported in a routine manner.
This contributed to the third rail problem going undetected.
Red_Bean_Bun
Well-Known Member
Re: Lui Tuck Yew asks Singaporeans to ‘thank’ COI members for their ‘hard work’
- The board of directors made a decision to move into retail
- BOD hired the best retail specialist that they could find at that time to lead that idea
- She executed their retail plans
- Trains broke down
- She had to quit
- Board of directors convene an internal enquiry
- Enquiry led by a board member (sic !!)
- Results are that they have maintenance issues (like who doesn't know)
- BOD fully intact and are collecting their director's fees for the decisions they made
Corporate governance starts with the BOD driven by the desire to enhance shareholder value. Executives are hired by the board to execute (thus they are called executives). The leader of the executives is usually the Chief Executive Officer.
The BOD chose the CEO to execute a plan they conceived. If the BOD chose an engineering person to be the CEO and P&L is weak or if they chose a sales person to lead and the engineering focus is misaligned - Is it the CEO's fault or the BOD's ?
The BOD's nominations and audit committee have oversight into such matters. Were they overseeing ? And where are the independent directors in all these except to lead an internal inquiry into a decision they made themselves.
The BOD has legal obligations to the business entity (CEO does not) - So where is the accountibiity of the BOD ?
kenntona;845369 said:
- The board of directors made a decision to move into retail
- BOD hired the best retail specialist that they could find at that time to lead that idea
- She executed their retail plans
- Trains broke down
- She had to quit
- Board of directors convene an internal enquiry
- Enquiry led by a board member (sic !!)
- Results are that they have maintenance issues (like who doesn't know)
- BOD fully intact and are collecting their director's fees for the decisions they made
Corporate governance starts with the BOD driven by the desire to enhance shareholder value. Executives are hired by the board to execute (thus they are called executives). The leader of the executives is usually the Chief Executive Officer.
The BOD chose the CEO to execute a plan they conceived. If the BOD chose an engineering person to be the CEO and P&L is weak or if they chose a sales person to lead and the engineering focus is misaligned - Is it the CEO's fault or the BOD's ?
The BOD's nominations and audit committee have oversight into such matters. Were they overseeing ? And where are the independent directors in all these except to lead an internal inquiry into a decision they made themselves.
The BOD has legal obligations to the business entity (CEO does not) - So where is the accountibiity of the BOD ?
DrK
Well-Known Member
Re: Lui Tuck Yew asks Singaporeans to ‘thank’ COI members for their ‘hard work’
One word to describe this. NEGLIGENCE!
Whose fault? It has to go to the ex CEO and her board of directors.
When will our companies ever learn to take the rap like those truly international MNCs and banks? Look at the recent saga of Barcap as an example. CEO's head roll immediately regardless of whose fault. If the ship has any indication of sinking, the captain must answer the call of duty to quit. Why was her removal pro-longed for so long?
I will only thank the COI and Phuck Yew if they set up an independent committee to grill Saw and her directors publicly. To question what went wrong and where were the contingency actions when needed. She must come out and face the music, i.e. bonus clawback.
Until then, everyone high up there (including this zero ministar) is just paying lip service and putting up a farce show. What is the point of an independent review resulting in 365 pages of report (tonnes of taxpayers' money + precious 'thank yous') BUT no one to held accountable for these mistakes?!!
ac323;845773 said:
One word to describe this. NEGLIGENCE!
Whose fault? It has to go to the ex CEO and her board of directors.
When will our companies ever learn to take the rap like those truly international MNCs and banks? Look at the recent saga of Barcap as an example. CEO's head roll immediately regardless of whose fault. If the ship has any indication of sinking, the captain must answer the call of duty to quit. Why was her removal pro-longed for so long?
I will only thank the COI and Phuck Yew if they set up an independent committee to grill Saw and her directors publicly. To question what went wrong and where were the contingency actions when needed. She must come out and face the music, i.e. bonus clawback.
Until then, everyone high up there (including this zero ministar) is just paying lip service and putting up a farce show. What is the point of an independent review resulting in 365 pages of report (tonnes of taxpayers' money + precious 'thank yous') BUT no one to held accountable for these mistakes?!!
Re: Lui Tuck Yew asks Singaporeans to ‘thank’ COI members for their ‘hard work’
Thank God/Allah the perfume lady is not put in-charge of SIA or SIA Engineering or most of us may not be around to be internet heros....
Thank God/Allah the perfume lady is not put in-charge of SIA or SIA Engineering or most of us may not be around to be internet heros....
DrK;846065 said:
One word to describe this. NEGLIGENCE!
Whose fault? It has to go to the ex CEO and her board of directors.
When will our companies ever learn to take the rap like those truly international MNCs and banks? Look at the recent saga of Barcap as an example. CEO's head roll immediately regardless of whose fault. If the ship has any indication of sinking, the captain must answer the call of duty to quit. Why was her removal pro-longed for so long?
I will only thank the COI and Phuck Yew if they set up an independent committee to grill Saw and her directors publicly. To question what went wrong and where were the contingency actions when needed. She must come out and face the music, i.e. bonus clawback.
Until then, everyone high up there (including this zero ministar) is just paying lip service and putting up a farce show. What is the point of an independent review resulting in 365 pages of report (tonnes of taxpayers' money + precious 'thank yous') BUT no one to held accountable for these mistakes?!!
Dinosaur hunter
Well-Known Member
Re: Lui Tuck Yew asks Singaporeans to ‘thank’ COI members for their ‘hard work’
Who said nobody paid for the mistakes!!! Tax payers paid for it!!!
Who said nobody paid for the mistakes!!! Tax payers paid for it!!!
Re: Lui Tuck Yew asks Singaporeans to ‘thank’ COI members for their ‘hard work’
One wise man once told me....
Telling a hungry person the reason he is hungry is because he havent eat doesnt help at all...
Sigh....Think our country have too much surplus....give money to let some1 tell us we r hungry...
One wise man once told me....
Telling a hungry person the reason he is hungry is because he havent eat doesnt help at all...
Sigh....Think our country have too much surplus....give money to let some1 tell us we r hungry...
Centurion9990
Well-Known Member
I just read that 40% of Singapore's population are foreigners.. Bloody competitive for the next generations..
