(DRAFT) Reader's Response

Reader's Response to 

"Dubbed 'the best in class': 6 things about Hong Kong's MTR rail system"



In the article “Dubbed the ‘best in class’: 6 things about Hong Kong's MTR rail system”, (Lee, 2015) reported that Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan complimented Hong Kong’s Mass Transit Railway (MTR), claiming that it is the ‘best in class’. Mr Khaw then further stated that Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) and Singapore Bus Service (SBS) transit should adopt Hong Kong’s practices. A few examples as to what contributed to the success of the MTR is Hong Kong government’s privatization of the MTR Corporation(MTRC) in the year 2000, which led to a decrease in budget and an increase in competency of the public transportation. This provided room for the MTRC to allocate 37% of their profits to rail “maintenance, renewals and service improvements”, which is adequate as compared to Singapore’s 19%, as claimed by Mr Khaw. While the MTR has 155 stations across nine prime travelling lines over 221km, maintenance is conducted via a mobile transportation unit that scans for irregularities through “ultrasonic techniques” once every 3 days. This is more extensive than Singapore’s inspection routine despite Hong Kong’s lines being longer. The MTRC also has an Operations Control Centre that monitors the entire system which is paramount to the organisation’s prompt response to emergencies. Therefore, with the enhanced monitoring system, trains in Hong Kong are more effective and efficient than in Singapore.
The article expresses that Singapore’s MRT system would do better by following the methodologies and technologies adopted by Hong Kong’s MTR system. I agree with the writer to a certain extent, that a higher percentage of SMRT’s profits should be allocated towards rail maintenance, renewals and service improvements because that would improve on the stability of the extensive rail system.
While there are many aspects that Singapore can learn from Hong Kong’s MTR systems, Singapore cannot adopt Hong Kong’s business model wholesale as it might not be the most appropriate, or practical.

Firstly, the business models of Singapore’s MRT and Hong Kong’s MTRC are entirely different. MTRC’s business model is coined as what experts like to call “Rail plus property”. This means that MTRC earns additional profits via the development of property, as well as other commercial business ventures. This gives MTRC the extra edge over SMRT, as well as the extra budget which would be allocated towards railway maintenance and improvements. Statistical data shows that Hong Kong had generated up to HK$20.1 billion in operating profits in 2014, HK$7 billion of which came from transport operations (Lim, 2015). With the increased capital, MTRC is able to “implement railway projects relatively quickly because it does not have to compete for public funds” (Leong, 2016). SMRT on the other hand earns their profits from trains, buses and taxi operations. SMRT also dwells in other business ventures such as rental of 36,800 square-metres worth of retail and F&B spaces, advertisements, as well as engineering consultation services. However, these business ventures do not compare to the scale of profits earned by MTRC via their “Rail plus property” business model.

Secondly, Singapore and Hong Kong’s geographies are different. Dr Theseira, a Senior Lecturer from UniSIM states that "If you compare Singapore's case to many other cities in the world, they have a lot more redundancy, but that's not because the designers of the systems had amazing foresight.” The geographies of the cities of Singapore and Hong Kong are different. This results in a lot more redundancies in other countries. Lim further gives an example in his article that in a two-hour disruption in Singapore is very different from one in the London Underground as in London, people can get around the city easier as compared to Singapore.

In conclusion, I feel that while the MTR is the “best in class” as dubbed by Mr Khaw, Singapore should selectively adopt Hong Kong’s methodologies and technologies, as not all of them might be appropriate or practical for Singapore, due to the limited budget SMRT has as compared to MTRC.


References
Lee Min Kok (29 October 2015). Dubbed 'the best in class':6 things about Hong Kong's MTR rail system. Retrieved 15 September 2017, from http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/dubbed-the-best-in-class-6-things-about-hong-kongs-mtr-rail-system#xtor=CS1-10

L. L. (2016, June). The ‘Rail plus Property’ model: Hong Kong’s successful self-financing formula. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-infrastructure/our-insights/the-rail-plus-property-model

Lim, K. (2015, December 20). Singapore's train system: What needs to be done to ensure a smoother ride?Channel NewsAsia. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-s-train-system-what-needs-to-be-done-to-ensure-a-smoot-8246388

"SMRT Corporation Ltd Annual Report 2014" (PDF). SMRT Corporation. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from http://www.smrt.com.sg/Portals/0/PDFs/Annual%20Reports/FA_SMRT%20AR14_040614.pdf

Comments

  1. nachobunny28 September 2017 at 04:58

    Hi Sean, Abby here!
    I think that your reader response was rather well written. However there are some points which you can improve on.
    The second paragraph seem to lack conciseness? Is SMRT being compared to Hong Kong or London? How "redundancy" in a country relate back to why Singapore should not be completely using Hong Kong's MTR as a baseline? As a reader, I am lost in what am I suppose to understand from your second paragraph.
    Maybe for your reader response you can include which "methodologies & technologies" SMRT can adopt. Also for your second paragraph, the citation from the Senior Lecturer is not complete, you should include which article did you obtain the information from.
    Paragraph 1 was well written, maybe at the end you can do a small conclusion because as a reader I felt like the paragraph was left hanging.
    References at the end was well done. Good work in total!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ms. Lim8 October 2017 at 08:38

    Dear Sean,
    Thanks for the upload.
    Please find my comments below:
    The summary adequately covers the key points in the original article, so it is a summary well done. That said, you did not use in-text citations and reporting verbs in the summary, and that is not dissimilar to plagiarising Lee’s work. Hence, you will want to check and ensure that all paraphrases (in the entire reader response, and not just the summary) are properly cited.
    You also need to write concisely. At a glance, the length of the summary seems about a third the length of the response, which is a tad too long.
    The thesis statement is also clear, where a main idea is clearly presented. It would be even better if you could condense it into a statement (rather than spread over two paragraphs). Also, it lacks coherence with the preceding paragraph so you will want to look into that.
    The response and the support you brought in are well put-together. I see good cohesion and coherence, and the discussion put forward is easy to follow. There are minor language problems that you need to work on, and also to provide in-text citations for a few of the support brought in. Check also word choice and relevance, for example ‘methodologies’ and ‘technologies’ (you didn’t touch on the ‘technologies’ part at all in the response).
    You also need to ensure that your reference section adheres strictly to the APA style of documentation.
    Regards,
    Ms. Lim

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Subject: Communication Strengths & Weaknesses Dear Ms. Lim, My name is Sean and I am currently pursuing a degree in Sustainable Infrastructure Engineering (Land) in the Singapore Institute of Technology. I graduated from Singapore Polytechnic with a diploma in Environmental Management and Water Technology. I am writing in to share with you on my strengths and weaknesses in terms of effective communication, as well as what I would like to takeaway from this module. Communication is an integral part of our everyday lives. Apart from the expedition of the process of sharing and exchanging ideas, knowledge and information, it is also paramount in the development and the maintenance of relationships with others. Now I will be talking about my strengths. The communication pipeline goes both ways, and engaged listening is just as paramount as speaking. I feel that that active listening is one of my strong suits, and subsequent to that, I can provide the other party with appropri...
Read more

Analytical Reflection

I felt that the mock presentation was an excellent platform for my team members and I to familiarise ourselves' with our parts, as well as identify our individual flaws of our presentation skills. This allows us to rectify on said problems, so as to ensure that we would present smoothly on the actual day. During the mock presentation, I have come to realise of a few negative aspects of my personal presentation skills via peer review forms. Firstly, I tend to use a lot of filler words such as "um" and "yeah". I realise that I utilise such words whenever I am thinking or processing information, so as to cut down on awkward silences during the presentation. This shows the audience of how unprepared I am, and removes any credibility on what I have to present. Therefore to alleviate this problem, more practice is needed before the day of the presentation. Next, I realised that between my members, the handover/takeover between slides is not well done. Proper thank...
Read more