- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]While the population almost doubles during this period. What is the FAP doing themselves. It is already an accepted fact that the FAP lacks the so-called helicopter vision the Old Dud kept touting. It is shocking that they could actually be so BLIND and BOCHUP! How could this be possible?!
Under Saw, SMRT did not raise its maintenance budgets for 10 years[/h]
May 13th, 2012 |
Author: Editorial
The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) on 10th May presented data at the Inquiry showing SMRT did not raise its maintenance budgets in nearly 10 years since 2002, despite rising ridership, more frequent train runs and ageing assets.
She said, “We spent $143 million for mid-life upgrade of 66 trains, that’s why you see maintenance and repair costs coming down.”
When it was pointed out to her that the upgrades were mainly for the train cabins and air-conditioning units, Saw then said parts such as wheels and propulsion systems “are changed on a regular basis.”
She was then shown emails sent by board members asking management for an update on the board’s concerns that there had been an increase in the frequency and duration of train breakdowns. Saw replied there was no opportunity for that update as the next board meeting was in January, after she had resigned.
One of the Inquiry panelists, Prof Lim of NTU, cited an SMRT internal report showing a 20% drop in maintenance cost per kilometer operated. Saw replied “that could be wrong numbers” or “errors in the parameters”.
She said the events that triggered the train breakdowns on Dec 15 and 17 were unprecedented. The trains stopped because a section of the electrical ‘third rail’ had dropped off after several support claws were dislodged. No power was being supplied to the trains. She said that nothing like that had happened before. Prof Lim then pointed out that the ‘third rail’ did sag in 2010 and before 2006. Saw said management was not aware of the seriousness of the events because the dropped claws were reinstated. To that, Prof Lim retorted, “You knew the risks, and you didn’t do enough. You implemented cable ties.”
With less money spent on maintenance, SMRT could retain more earnings, which means potentially more dividends for its shareholders.
According to SMRT annual report, SMRT is controlled by Temasek Holdings with close to 55% share in SMRT. Temasek Holdings has 824,400,030 direct shares in SMRT. And according to the dividend payout history, we can roughly calculate how much dividend was received by Temasek Holdings:
Gross dividend per share
<TBODY>
[TD="width: 64"]Year[/TD]
[TD="width: 58"]Total Dividend (cents)[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Temasek Holdings received ($)[/TD]
[TD="width: 64"]FY2011[/TD]
[TD="width: 64"]FY2010[/TD]
</TBODY>
Under Saw, SMRT did not raise its maintenance budgets for 10 years[/h]
Former SMRT CEO Saw Phaik Hwa stoutly defended the SMRT’s maintenance regime. She said SMRT had not only met, but exceeded, maintenance standards set out by rail manufacturers and the Land Transport Authority (LTA). Saw was taking the stand for the first time.
She claimed that money spent on mid-life upgrades for the trains had actually helped in saving maintenance cost.She said, “We spent $143 million for mid-life upgrade of 66 trains, that’s why you see maintenance and repair costs coming down.”
When it was pointed out to her that the upgrades were mainly for the train cabins and air-conditioning units, Saw then said parts such as wheels and propulsion systems “are changed on a regular basis.”
She was then shown emails sent by board members asking management for an update on the board’s concerns that there had been an increase in the frequency and duration of train breakdowns. Saw replied there was no opportunity for that update as the next board meeting was in January, after she had resigned.
One of the Inquiry panelists, Prof Lim of NTU, cited an SMRT internal report showing a 20% drop in maintenance cost per kilometer operated. Saw replied “that could be wrong numbers” or “errors in the parameters”.
She said the events that triggered the train breakdowns on Dec 15 and 17 were unprecedented. The trains stopped because a section of the electrical ‘third rail’ had dropped off after several support claws were dislodged. No power was being supplied to the trains. She said that nothing like that had happened before. Prof Lim then pointed out that the ‘third rail’ did sag in 2010 and before 2006. Saw said management was not aware of the seriousness of the events because the dropped claws were reinstated. To that, Prof Lim retorted, “You knew the risks, and you didn’t do enough. You implemented cable ties.”
With less money spent on maintenance, SMRT could retain more earnings, which means potentially more dividends for its shareholders.
According to SMRT annual report, SMRT is controlled by Temasek Holdings with close to 55% share in SMRT. Temasek Holdings has 824,400,030 direct shares in SMRT. And according to the dividend payout history, we can roughly calculate how much dividend was received by Temasek Holdings:
Gross dividend per share
| 8.50 | 70,074,003 | |
| 8.50 | 70,074,003 | |
| FY2009 | 7.75 | 63,891,002 |
| FY2008 | 7.75 | 63,891,002 |
| FY2007 | 7.25 | 59,769,002 |
| FY2006 | 7.00 | 57,708,002 |
| FY2005 | 6.50 | 53,586,002 |
| FY2004 | 4.50 | 37,098,001 |
| FY2003 | 3.10 | 25,556,401 |
| FY2002 | 2.80 | 23,083,201 |
<TBODY>
[TD="width: 64"]Year[/TD]
[TD="width: 58"]Total Dividend (cents)[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Temasek Holdings received ($)[/TD]
[TD="width: 64"]FY2011[/TD]
[TD="width: 64"]FY2010[/TD]
</TBODY>
