It is a classic in understatement. The team of experts from Hong Kong’s MTR asked to audit the MRT-3 system submitted a report that described the condition of the facility as “unsatisfactory.”
That team was being extremely polite. Reading the report, it is clear that the system is decrepit. It is a hazard for the hundreds of thousands who use it each day.
Boo Chanco, in his column yesterday, covered much of the report submitted by the HK-MTR team. What really stands out is effort exerted by the DOTC and the MRT management to deny the technical audit team the information they needed to make a full assessment.
Only a month’s maintenance record of the current service provided was opened to the audit team. The audit team requested for five years of maintenance data and a host of other pieces of information. The DOTC ignored those requests, forcing the audit team to resort to merely a visual inspection of the facility.
Among the pieces of information the audit team wanted were: the inventory record of maintenance spares, the rail insulation report, the list of maintenance tools and equipment, a sample of the safety document, a sample of the protection relay setting and several others. None was yielded by the DOTC.
Why is the DOTC so anxious to keep the maintenance records of the MRT-3 from independent scrutiny?
The DOTC’s behavior towards the independent technical audit is nothing short of scandalous. It strongly suggests an interest to cover up for the questionable maintenance service providers contracted by the DOTC without the benefit of a public bidding. Much has already been written about the contracts with PH Trams and APT Global, the companies DOTC contracted.
For the record, it was the private owners of the MRT who contracted the HK-MTR technical audit. They wanted an accurate evaluation of the asset that, after all, they owned. The request for a technical audit was done March this year.
DOTC hewed and hawed, finding every bureaucratic excuse to delay the audit. The DOTC finally relented on August 13, but only after a defective train rammed through the barrier at the Taft station.
Even as the DOTC relented, documents show the department tried to exclude the examination of maintenance records from the coverage of the audit. Why?
Spotty maintenance is at the core of the MRT-3’s woes. The private owners of the system are worried that should this spotty maintenance record continue, the system’s life will be drastically shortened. In short, DOTC incompetence will hasten depreciation of a privately owned asset — apart from threatening the life and limb of commuters, of course.
Even as the technical audit team was reduced to a visual inspection of the system, their findings are shocking. They found vital electrical wiring chafed, grease leaking out of train parts due to failure to replace sealants and accumulated dust in the sensitive control systems. Train panels have not been painted. When it rains, some of the carriages flooded.
Maintenance, which the DOTC did not want audited, is a total failure. Billions were paid the maintenance service providers, and yet they could not even wipe dust off the instrumentation panels!
Faced with the damning report, DOTC Secretary Abaya, in a manner consistent with this administration, blamed the private owners of the facility for the failure. He says this with a straight face even as the DOTC has commandeered the maintenance contracts and awarded it to apparent cronies.
Wrong data
Last month, the Congressional Oversight Committee on the Comprehensive Tax Reform Program convened to review the performance of the revenue agencies and examine the possibility of refining tax policies. As expected, the “sin taxes” became salient and the intense rivalry between the tobacco manufacturers took center stage.
Much of the discussion revolved around tobacco imported for purposes of transshipment. Our biggest cigarette makers produce for export as they do for domestic consumption. On this matter, rival manufacturers accuse each other of evading taxes and duties by erroneous reporting of cigarettes produced for domestic use and those for export.
It turns out, as BIR Commissioner Kim Henares pointed out during the deliberation, the congressional committee relies principally on data from the DTI. These numbers, she says, are mainly based on projections. More accurate data could be provided by the BIR, since these are based on actual transactions.
This is an important point. The BIR should be able to provide lawmakers a more accurate picture of how much cigarettes are produced by which company, how much of each manufacturer uses imported as against local tobacco and how much of the local production of cigarettes are actually sold to the domestic market.
There are revenue bills on the table in both chambers, such as the one proposing a minimum price for cigarettes, one proposing security seals on cigarette packs and another suggesting CCTV cameras be installed on the shop floors of manufacturers. These bills will be more competently considered by our lawmakers if they are informed by more accurate data. More accurate information will likewise help our lawmakers evaluate the actual effect of measures such as the added excise taxes on patterns of domestic consumption.
The problem with monitoring our local cigarette manufacturers is that so much self-serving data is being produced using doubtful methodologies. We cannot even determine the exact market share of each manufacturer.
It must be possible for the congressional oversight committee to gather more accurate information, especially reconciling the numbers from the BIR and Customs. With better data, we might be spared the sweeping and self-serving statements emanating from manufacturers.