The benefits and pitfalls of SMRT’s amnesty offer

SMRT’s unprecedented offer of amnesty to its staff to owe up to any wrongdoing without penalty by Nov 3 has been the subject of much debate, even amid the public anger at the Oct 7 flooding incident which caused a massive disruption.

Minister for Transport Khaw Boon Wan weighed in on the issue when he delivered a Ministerial Statement on the incident in Parliament on Nov 7, expressing misgivings about the amnesty and adding that the exercise could cause working relationships to deteriorate if not managed well.

So should SMRT have made the offer? When does an amnesty work, and when does it backfire?

The use of an amnesty is common in many countries and sectors. It is an expeditious way to address problems which have festered for some time and run out of control.

The United States, for example, has a long history of providing amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Closer to home, Indonesia launched a major tax amnesty programme in July last year which gave incentive and immunity to tax evaders who had stashed away their money in overseas tax havens. The results exceeded expectations.

The programme achieved 90 per cent of its 4,000 trillion rupiah (S$400 million) target in just three months. Furthermore, amongst the 600,000 who took up the offer in the first two phases over six months, about 27,000 of them were new taxpayers.

In the transportation industry, during the height of the infamous emissions-cheating scandal in November 2015, Volkswagen offered an amnesty for its unionised workers, excluding top management, to furnish information. Fifty Volkswagen employees came forward and confessed that they had knowledge of the emissions falsification. These were mostly rank-and-file workers and did not include any manager.

Yet, the exercise did not result in any notable breakthrough in the company’s investigation of the scandal.

This suggests that the problem may be deeper and broader.

As Mr Khaw noted in Parliament, amnesties are common in the aviation sector, where safety-related matters are of utmost importance.

In April 2010, the United States Federal Aviation Administration tried to tackle the use of unapproved antidepressants among pilots by issuing a six-month amnesty period for them to own up.

Citing statistics showing that 10 per cent of the population suffered from depression, FAA officials expressed concern that there could be a similar percentage among pilots too. The mental health of pilots is, of course, crucial to flight safety, but many would understandably not wish to own up for fear of losing their jobs.

Eventually, 66 per cent of airlines participated in the amnesty. They did not reveal how many pilots came forward, but only 16 per cent of the carriers used the confidential data for corrective actions internally. This casts doubt on the effectiveness of such amnesty efforts.

In the case of SMRT, it had made the amnesty offer days after its shocking announcement that the crew responsible for the maintenance of the pump system at Bishan MRT Station had falsified records for months without actually doing the work.

This led to the flooding incident responsible for a 20-hour service disruption affecting a quarter of a million commuters.

Following the deadline, SMRT said that it had received submissions from staff in the same maintenance group connected to the falsification of records at Bishan, and was studying them.

While it is unclear what the staff submissions contained, the fact that some of them came forward is likely to help SMRT get a better understanding of the extent of breaches.

This may help the company to address the problem. Yet, one downside of an amnesty in this case is that SMRT may never know whether other errant staff chose not to step forward.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of an amnesty boils down to a classic dilemma of individual decision-making - to own up or not to.

A party at fault will likely base the decision on whether he will suffer so great a reputational loss if he owns up, versus the probability of being found out and thus have to face the consequences.

For the amnesty to be effective, the reputational loss must be mitigated. This often means the company has to assure its staff who step forward that it will protect the confidentiality of their information and even identity.

Yet, in the case of SMRT, there is also public expectation of full disclosure, and the company will have to balance these competing demands.

Further, the chance and consequences of being caught for not coming clean must be high for an amnesty to work.

In SMRT’s case, the issue is further complicated by the fact that its workers operate in teams. So one’s decision may also have to depend on others – what if a person does not own up while others in the team do so just to protect themselves?

Interestingly, while experts note the limited options under the law to bring those responsible for breaches to task, others point out that, should any criminal wrongdoing be uncovered later, SMRT may not be able to indemnify those who have come forward.

Mr Khaw had himself noted in Parliament that an amnesty did not cover instances when an employee committed a crime or deliberate act of sabotage.

Now that the amnesty period is over, SMRT’s audit process has to be rigorous and thorough in flushing out any other lapses or breaches that have gone unreported.

Otherwise, it will not be fair to those who have stepped forward during the amnesty period.

The whole SMRT amnesty issue should also not be seen in isolation.

Any ensuing punishment and further whistle-blowing will have to be sensibly managed, or an unintended outcome may be a drop in morale and hollowing out of talent.

Ultimately, SMRT is a critical steward responsible for a core national function – public transportation. The company and the authorities will have to move beyond the public outrage and focus on the outcome of a better MRT for all.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Lawrence Loh is director of Centre for Governance, Institutions and Organisations at NUS Business School, National University of Singapore. He is also deputy head and associate professor of Strategy and Policy at the school.