- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]Minister Lui does not understand the roles of LTA[/h]
June 25th, 2012 |
Author: Contributions
Minister Lui riding on a MRT train
Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew was on record saying that the cable fault was difficult to detect and LTA would have to find better ways to check for them.
Well, wrong and wrong.
1. Were these public contracts for the Circle Line and others water-tight? There is no reasonable excuse for them not to be water-tight. Were the projects properly specified? Was there corruption as some have speculated?
2. The cables should have been pre-tested before installation and field-tested after the installation. Did LTA insist on test reports for these important cables? By definition, they are important cables because the failure of just one or two of them affected 27,000 people for 4 hours. Were the test reports consistent with the actual installed cables in terms of the specifications and the quality? Was LTA given inferior products by the contractor?
I would have thought that it is second nature for LTA (and indeed any government agency) to insist on self-declaration for matters too difficult to check, since they do that routinely for citizen-related issues. Just in case.
3. Why was there “ponding” in the same areas with live cables? This is so asking for trouble. In any case, water seepage/leakage in tunnels is never a good sign.
While the minister is correct in that the process of acceptance must change, he has demonstrated a remarkable lack of understanding for the roles and responsibilities of LTA vis-a-vis the contractor in that process.
.
Steve Wu
* Comment first appeared in: LTA findings: Faulty power cable caused Circle Line disruption in Sep 11
Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew was on record saying that the cable fault was difficult to detect and LTA would have to find better ways to check for them.
Well, wrong and wrong.
1. Were these public contracts for the Circle Line and others water-tight? There is no reasonable excuse for them not to be water-tight. Were the projects properly specified? Was there corruption as some have speculated?
2. The cables should have been pre-tested before installation and field-tested after the installation. Did LTA insist on test reports for these important cables? By definition, they are important cables because the failure of just one or two of them affected 27,000 people for 4 hours. Were the test reports consistent with the actual installed cables in terms of the specifications and the quality? Was LTA given inferior products by the contractor?
I would have thought that it is second nature for LTA (and indeed any government agency) to insist on self-declaration for matters too difficult to check, since they do that routinely for citizen-related issues. Just in case.
3. Why was there “ponding” in the same areas with live cables? This is so asking for trouble. In any case, water seepage/leakage in tunnels is never a good sign.
While the minister is correct in that the process of acceptance must change, he has demonstrated a remarkable lack of understanding for the roles and responsibilities of LTA vis-a-vis the contractor in that process.
.
Steve Wu
* Comment first appeared in: LTA findings: Faulty power cable caused Circle Line disruption in Sep 11
