[ad_1]
On the high-speed rail project website, the first sentence reads: “HSR is a program to transform Malaysia into a high-income nation.”
According to the World Bank, a high-income nation is a country that has a per capita gross national income (GNI) of $ 12,535 or more.
In short, a high-income nation is when the people of the country begin to earn more and poverty levels decline. This would require the implementation of comprehensive economic strategies over a period of time.
A Malaysian example of this economic strategy is how Malaysian-owned O&G (oil and gas) companies were created through Petronas oil and gas activities and are engaged in exploration and production.
O&G companies indirectly created jobs for thousands of employees and required more students and graduates to venture into high-end technical fields with high wages. These are part of the steps to make Malaysia a high-income nation.
However, on the contrary, the construction of the Petronas Twin Towers may not be a step in that same direction. There is a contrast between designing an economic strategy and spending.
Similarly, the creation of Permodalan Nasional Bhd to raise and manage local funds and make selective investments for high returns, for example, is another economic strategy to help Malaysians achieve high income growth through their savings.
However, an investment becomes an expense if a company engages in the “Battersea Project” in London, for example, which may not be construed in the same category as a strategic economic investment.
The HSR project, as we all know, is not about establishing a new rail industry for the country. Nor will it result in the construction of manufacturing plants, production of engineering components or rail equipment of some kind or even the design of a new rail system, which will directly generate new economic opportunities, create new jobs and bring more dollars to the country.
Unlike European nations such as the UK, France, Germany or even Austria, there is no Malaysian history or tradition in railway engineering and manufacturing. However, three of the newly industrialized countries in Asia began developing their domestic industries in rail technology decades ago.
Today, Japan, South Korea and China, with their top-tier economic strategy in the railway industry, are among the providers of railway technology and have also achieved the status of high-income nation at the same time.
The HSR project that Malaysia conceived in 2010 during Najib Razak’s tenure does not have an economic strategy as such. The project involves building a piece of rail infrastructure using our hard-earned public funds and the main beneficiaries will be foreign suppliers of equipment, systems, cables, signals, and locomotives.
Unless Malaysians are involved in making and supplying the necessary materials, all funds will go out of the country.
So how would Malaysia become a high-income nation simply by building a new avenue for an HSR to operate, with all the imported technology?
Comparing with low-cost airlines
“Connectivity will allow companies to be more productive…” says the HSR website. What type of business is the HSR referring to here?
Are these businesses different from those currently benefiting from air ferries between KL and Singapore? Or are they completely new business groups?
How does it compare to low-cost airlines, financed exclusively by the private sector, which have created many jobs and employment opportunities at a much lower investment cost?
Is HSR saying that its market will attract other types of business travelers but not existing air travelers? With such a massive capital outlay to build the permanent rail infrastructure, at what cost per passenger can HSR offer its services? In simple terms, how much will the ticket cost per seat or per person?
Is there a problem with the current air transport capacity between KL and Singapore that we need to completely overhaul the entire network by resorting to building this expensive piece of infrastructure called HSR?
We also have a KTM rail line that runs between KL and JB and continues to Singapore. In fact, we previously had the Tanjong Pagar station plus a long track across the carriageway. The government recently awarded a contract for the double track of KTM’s railway lines from Gemas to JB at a cost of more than RM7 billion.
“… and access (to) a wider market …” continues the website.
The HSR links KL and Singapore, so how is it that HSR travelers can access a wider market?
Selling products or services online could lead to better access by expanding or expanding one’s market. But can traveling on the HSR also expand your market?
HSR says that travelers can connect to international flights from Singapore, a hub airport that has many more connections compared to KLIA? Is that what the term “broader market access” really means?
Socio-economic development problems
the website continues: “… is a push towards socio-economic development in Kuala Lumpur and the intermediate cities along the HSR corridor.”
Impetus means a driving force, impulse, stimulus, while socioeconomic means that it relates to, or means the combination or interaction of social and economic factors. This is perhaps best explained in the context of many other similar types of infrastructure that have been built in this country over the years.
Look at the Gemas-Gua Musang railway line. Did that railway line really play an important role in driving the socio-economic development of Gemas (and Gua Musang) and the intermediate villages along that corridor?
Also notice the Gerik-Jeli Highway, often referred to as the East-West Highway. Is that road a project that provided a boost towards socio-economic development in Gerik (Perak) or Jeli (Kelantan)?
The North-South highway is perhaps another notable example that could be used in this context. What socio-economic boost has been produced along this corridor?
Can you give us some facts and figures on how it has been shown that the socio-economic wealth of any particular town or village along this North-South highway has improved, and that poor people in those cities and villages are now enjoying themselves? of a high income?
Show us the improvement of the social and economic well-being of these people as a result of that infrastructure that moves force, impulse or stimulus. Please provide us with some empirical evidence that such a benefit has been achieved through previous infrastructure projects similar to the one claimed by HSR.
The truth is that the result has been the opposite.
The North-South highway has alienated and literally “killed” the economic and financial viability of many small towns along the corridor.
Visit the cities of Tanjong Malim, Kampar, Batu Gajah, Kuala Kangsar or Bagan Serai and see if any of these cities have developed, attracted more people, created more jobs or have better social services, compared to 20 or 30 years ago .
In contrast, the North-South highway has dramatically reduced accessibility to most of these small towns and villages.
The HSR corridor is expected to produce similar results. It will alienate itself and have a negative impact on the smaller towns of Negeri Sembilan, Melaka and Johor. It will make KTM’s double track project between Gemas and JB redundant and irrelevant for future train travel.
Is this what we are planning? Can we justify the sum of RM65 billion that we plan to spend on it?
The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
