Serious Saw Phaik Hwa and case of defective SMRT trains, waiting for Gay Loong to exp

[Sammyboy RSS Feed]

An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:

Brothers, I present to you the following facts. You tell me whether its a reasonable analysis on my part, or just my being paranoid. But just follow the trail here and see if it makes sense to you.

The year is 2002, and Saw Phaik Hwa (SPH) malaysian born Singapore PR has just been retrenched from her long time job at DFS. For the rest of the year, SPH looks but cannot find another job and was running her own consultancy business. In December 2002, the opening at SMRT came up, and using her connections with classmate and good friend Madam Ho Ching, she secures the position of CEO, despite never ever running any sort of a transportation company before in her life.

In 2009, LTA tenders for new rolling stock to accompany the expansion of SMRT network. as CEO of SMRT, SPH had greater influence in this pick of the winning tender then LTA. More on this later. It was surprisingly was not the lowest bid. In fact, the bids were not revealed if not for the admission of CSR Chairman that his company won the tender for the trains despite not having the lowest bids. The lowest bid was by a SOuth Korean company. The China CSR Sifang bid was in fact the second lowest. No explanation was forthcoming from SPH or SMRT as to why they went with this bid. The China CSR chairman claimed and bragged that it was because SMRT decided that their quality was better. That, as we know now was a blatant lie.

The initial order placed by LTA/SMRT/SPH in 2009 was for 22 trains worth $328 million. At this time, LTA was run by SAF scholar ex RSAF General Yam Ah Mee. As noted in the various reports, problems with the 22 trains cropped up within as early as 3 months after being put into service. The next year, 2010, Yam Ah Mee was removed from CEO of LTA to prepare to be returning officer for the 2011 elections. And in his place, Chew Hock Yong, a career civil servant was appointed as Chief Executive.

Here is where, as they say the twist happens. In 2011, LTA/SMRT/SPH orders a second batch of trains from the same China manufacturer. This time 13 more trains of the same type and model as the first 22. Then in december of that year, SPH quits SMRT. The new CEO of LTA, Chew Hock Yong was on the job for less then a year when the second batch was ordered. He couldn't have had enough expertise and influence to decide what is a good model and what to order. He relied on advice and feedback from SMRT and SPH to make the follow on order. And in 2011, the breakdowns started happening resulting in the infamous COI that seemed to blame everything including high usage by customers instead of where the fault lies, which is the defective trains themselves.

So, the questions are:

1) Why did SMRT request LTA to place a follow on order for 13 trains in 2011, when the breakdowns were already happening, knowing full well the trains were defective from the original 2009 batch?
2) Knowing the trains were so bad, why was another tender not put in the open to source trains from another manufacturer?
3) Why did SMRT and SPH deliberately hide the serious defects in the trains from LTA. Even though the new CEO of LTA, Chew Hock Yong was on the job for less then a year, he would not be stupid enough to order another large batch from the same maker, if he had known the issues with the original batch?
4) Why did SPH suddenly resign in Dec 2011, after having requested LTA make a follow on order for the same trains, months before her resignation?
5) Did SPH know that she was about to be found out and fired for hiding the screw ups from the 2009 batch and requested the China maker give her a private golden parachute by giving them a follow on order in 2011?
6) Because the cover up by SMRT and SPH had been going on for so long, did LTA not have a choice but continue to perpetuate the cover and in the end secretly ship the trains back to China for major overhaul?
7) Did China CSR Sifeng negotiate such unsatisfactory terms for the repairs with SMRT because they knew that if they make a big public scene about it, SMRT and LTA would look like idiots for covering up the whole thing? In other words, did they blackmailed SMRT into accepting poor terms on condition of not revealing the real source of the 2011 train breakdowns, and hence making the COI the mockery that it was?

I hand the ball over to WP now to follow up........................hahhahhaha. that would be wishful thinking.


Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com.