In today’s discussion, we delve into Malaysia’s logistics challenges with Rohit Laila, a seasoned expert in the logistics industry. With his profound experience in supply chain and delivery, along with a passion for technological innovation, Rohit offers insights into the complex dynamics of Malaysia’s transport infrastructure and the pivotal role of rail versus road transport.
What do you believe are the root causes of Malaysia’s current logistics crisis?
The issues plaguing Malaysia’s logistics stem largely from an over-reliance on road transport for heavy goods, which could be more efficiently handled by rail. There seems to be a lack of integrated planning and execution for freight transport, exacerbated by structural inefficiencies in the rail system. This has resulted in overcrowded highways and a heightened risk of road accidents, which are symptoms of a deeper systemic problem.
Why do you think there has been little effort to shift freight from road to rail over the decades?
The inertia in transitioning freight from road to rail may be attributed to the entrenched interests and revenue implications for toll highway operators. Furthermore, there’s been a longstanding emphasis on road infrastructure development which overshadows potential rail investments. This creates a scenario where road transport is perceived as the default option, despite rail offering greater long-term economic and safety benefits.
How do you perceive the impact of toll highway operators on the decision to not prioritize rail?
Toll highway operators undoubtedly have a significant influence on transport policy, often favoring road transport because it directly translates into revenue for them. This vested interest leads to a reluctance in shifting freight to rail, which would reduce toll collections—even if it might result in broader economic benefits for the nation.
What are some of the reasons you think the rail system remains underutilized despite government investment?
Despite investments in double-tracking and electrification, the rail system remains underutilized due to misalignment in strategic planning and operational autonomy. KTMB’s constrained role as merely an operator on infrastructure it doesn’t own or control severely limits its capacity to innovate and expand. The separation of infrastructure and operations hampers efficient freight transport logistics.
What is your opinion on the role of Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB) in the current logistics situation?
KTMB is often unfairly seen as the underperforming party, when in reality, structural limitations fundamentally impede its capability to service the logistics market effectively. It is crucial to view KTMB’s role not as inefficient but rather as constrained by a separation from the infrastructure it relies on, which hinders its ability to respond to market demands.
Can you describe how the separation of KTMB and the Railway Asset Corporation (RAC) impacts the rail logistics system?
The division between KTMB and RAC creates fragmentation in Malaysia’s rail logistics. While RAC owns and controls infrastructure, KTMB is left without direct oversight or incentive to upgrade or plan strategically. This undermines rail operations as it’s not feasible to invest or make key improvements without owning those assets.
What challenges does KTMB face as a rail operator without control over infrastructure and assets?
KTMB faces significant constraints in growing its freight market share due to its lack of infrastructure ownership. It cannot independently invest in upgrades, plan strategically, or expand services, which are all vital elements for competitive rail logistics. This separation effectively diminishes its potential to influence its own operational effectiveness or financial performance.
Why do you believe a unified infrastructure and operations model benefits rail systems, as seen in the EU, Japan, and China?
A unified model enhances efficiency and accountability, where both infrastructure and operations are vested in a single entity. This integration supports seamless decision-making and resource allocation, catering effectively to freight demands. It allows for better service delivery and responsiveness, which are crucial for a thriving rail system, as demonstrated by successful models in the EU, Japan, and China.
How can Malaysia establish a strong policy framework to prioritize rail for long-haul and hazardous freight?
Malaysia needs to implement enforceable policies that mandate the rail as the primary mode for long-haul and hazardous goods. This could involve regulatory strategies, economic incentives, and a restructuring of institutional frameworks to prioritize rail transport. Lessons from successful international rail systems can guide policy development in making this shift.
Could you elaborate on the historical context behind the institutional setup of Malaysia’s rail system?
The institutional setup of Malaysia’s rail system traces back to policies established during Dr. Mahathir Mohamad’s era, influenced by the UK’s rail privatization model. Unfortunately, this framework inadvertently copied a system that proved dysfunctional, creating structural fragmentation that continues to impede effective rail logistics today.
What lessons can be learned from the UK’s rail privatization model, and how does it relate to Malaysia’s situation?
The UK’s rail privatization illustrated the pitfalls of separating infrastructure ownership from operations. Malaysia’s adoption of a similar model without adapting it to local contexts resulted in inefficiencies and a lack of accountability. Learning from the UK’s experiences can help Malaysia reconsider its structural approach to better align interests and coherent rail logistics development.
How crucial is political will in addressing the logistics crisis and improving rail utilization?
Political will is absolutely essential in driving substantial change. Without committed leadership to challenge the status quo of road-centric policies and to innovate for rail priority, inertia will persist, exacerbating existing challenges. Strong political advocacy is necessary to implement strategic reforms and foster a more balanced transport approach.
In your opinion, what are the potential economic benefits if Malaysia successfully shifts freight transportation from road to rail?
Malaysia would enjoy reduced logistic costs, enhanced road safety, and less congestion. Rail transport for freight offers economies of scale, lower emissions, and frees up road capacity for passenger transport. Such a shift promises improved infrastructure investment returns, economic growth, and environmental benefits which are urgently needed.
How can Malaysia balance the interests of toll highway operators with the need for more efficient rail logistics?
It’s important for Malaysia to create stakeholder engagement forums where highway operators, government, and rail authorities collaborate for mutual benefit. Economic incentives, equitable revenue distribution, and joint infrastructure investments can balance interests while pivoting towards efficient logistics solutions that are sustainable for the long term.
What are the most urgent changes needed in Malaysia’s rail logistics to enhance safety and efficiency?
Immediate restructuring of the institutional framework to integrate infrastructure and operations is paramount. Developing enforceable policies for freight shipment, investing in modern rail technologies, and strategic planning tailored to current demand are crucial to elevating the safety and efficiency of Malaysia’s rail logistics.
Do you have any advice for our readers?
Embrace change and innovation in the logistics sector. Understand the benefits of balanced transport modes and advocate for policies that prioritize long-term efficiency and sustainability. Recognize the importance of informed public discourse in driving the political will needed to enhance Malaysia’s logistics infrastructure for future generations.
