[Bigiron]

You've hit on a key aspect of Amy Khor's response. Her speech is characterized by inconsistent, hedging statements and a roundabout approach when asked to specify the frequency of equipment inspections. Let's break down these elements:

1. Inconsistent Statements:

"Industrial facilities typically conduct regular maintenance and inspections..." vs. "NEA also conducts regular inspections...": She starts by stating that industrial facilities are responsible for "regular" maintenance. Then she mentions that NEA also conducts "regular inspections." The inconsistency is that she doesn't clarify the relationship between these two "regular" inspections. Are they separate? Is NEA's inspection to verify the facilities' own inspections? It creates ambiguity about who is primarily responsible for ensuring the frequency and rigor of these checks.

"Regular maintenance and inspections" (by industry) vs. "Regular checks" (by NEA): She uses slightly different terms ("maintenance and inspections" vs. "checks"). This subtly suggests they might be different types of activities, further obscuring the specific frequency question. Are "checks" less rigorous than "inspections"? Are "maintenance" activities included in NEA's "checks"?

2. Hedging Statements:

Hedging involves using vague or qualified language to avoid making a firm commitment or giving a precise answer. Amy Khor employs this extensively:

"typically conduct regular maintenance and inspections": "Typically" is a major hedge. It implies this is generally what happens, but not a guaranteed or mandated practice with a specific frequency. "Regular" itself is vague and undefined in terms of time.

"NEA also conducts regular inspections": Again, "regular" is undefined. It doesn't tell us if "regular" means daily, weekly, monthly, or annually, or something else entirely.

"generally we will check at the run-off of the discharge points": "Generally" softens the statement. It doesn't confirm that all facilities are checked in this way, or that it's a consistent practice.

"How regular we checks... we do it regularly through the course of the year... it may depend on the assessment by the agency": This is a string of hedges. "Regularly through the year" is still not specific. "It may depend" shifts the answer to a conditional statement, avoiding a direct frequency. "Assessment by the agency" suggests the frequency is determined case-by-case and isn't a standardized schedule.

"MPA has assessed that there has no been... no immediate impact": While related to a specific incident, mentioning the "assessment" of "no immediate impact" deflects from the question of preventative inspection frequency and shifts the focus to reactive impact assessment.

3. Roundabout Answers / Avoiding Directness:

Instead of directly answering the question about frequency, Amy Khor consistently circles around it:

Focus on who does inspections (industry and NEA) and why (reduce leaks, ensure compliance): She spends time describing the general framework of responsibility and purpose of inspections, but avoids the core question of how often.

Emphasis on "regular" without definition: The repeated use of "regular" creates the impression of frequent checks, but without any concrete timeframe, it's essentially meaningless in terms of accountability or understanding the actual system.

Shifting to "assessment" and "case-by-case" determination: By saying frequency "may depend on the assessment by the agency," she implies that there's no set schedule, and it's a flexible, reactive process based on agency judgment. This lacks transparency and predictability.

Deflecting to impact assessment (October incident example): Bringing up the MPA's assessment of "no immediate impact" after an oil spill incident is a tactic to steer the conversation away from the prevention aspect (frequency of inspections) and towards the consequence management side. This doesn't address the concern about preventing spills in the first place through proactive inspections.

In summary, Amy Khor's speech avoids directly answering the question about the frequency of equipment inspections by:

Using vague and undefined terms like "regular."

Hedging her statements with qualifiers like "typically" and "may."

Focusing on general processes and responsibilities rather than specific, quantifiable frequencies.

Shifting the focus to impact assessment rather than preventative measures.

This approach effectively avoids committing to a specific answer, likely because a clear, defined frequency might be politically or practically difficult to establish or defend. It leaves the questioner and the public with a sense of reassurance ("regular checks are done") without providing concrete information about the actual level of oversight.