Penang, a gazelle or lion?

Three-time Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman recounted a story about gazelle and lion in his best-selling book, The World Is Flat:

“Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning a lion wakes up. It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death. It doesn’t matter whether you are a lion or a gazelle: when the sun comes up, you’d better be running.”

Friedman was writing in the early 2000s, describing the rising competitiveness in a globalising world.

The inclusion of China into the World Trade Organization in 2001 has significantly reconfigured the global supply chain and redirected the flow of international investments.

The global economic shift has severely affected Penang, with the number of multinational corporations reduced from 63 firms in 1994 to 23 by 2004, with employment plunged by 69 per cent.[1] 

In 2001 alone, more than 12,000 high-tech jobs disappeared from Penang.[2] 

The change of the state government in 2008 has set Penang on a ten-year recovery phase, culminated in the historic high receipt of manufacturing investments of RM16.9 billion in 2019.[3] 

Penang has also emerged consecutively as the top exporting state in the country in 2019 (RM284 billion) and 2020 (RM310 billion).[4]

Nonetheless, every morning, the gazelle and lion have to outrun each other. China will not cease to be a formidable competitor while Malaysia’s southeast Asian neighbours are rapidly joining the ranks.

An obvious example is Vietnam, listed as the eighth best country for investment in 2019, while Malaysia lags behind at the thirteenth place.[5] The World Bank’s Human Capital Index 2020 reported that Vietnam has surpassed Malaysia by 24 positions.[6]

Besides investment incentives and human capital, the availability of vast undeveloped land in neighbouring countries is an advantage over Penang.

Penang is the second smallest state in Malaysia, with more than 50 per cent of the island comprising hilly terrains – unfit for industrial expansion. The George Town heritage zone will not be flattened for industrialisation.

That’s why out of the ten existing industrial parks in the state, only one at the island (Bayan Lepas free industrial zone) with the other nine located at the mainland (Mak Mandin, Perai, Seberang Jaya, Bukit Tengah, Bukit Minyak, Penang Science Park, Penang Science Park North, Batu Kawan Industrial Park 1 and Batu Kawan Industrial Park 2).[7]

The 1,173ha of industrial land allocated in Batu Kawan was left only with 80ha in 2019.[8]  Critics of PSR such as Penang Forum’s Khoo Salma who repetitively say there is plenty of room for industrial expansion at Seberang Perai are either misinformed or ignorant.[9]

With the rising regional competitiveness and the lack of strategic land to attract investors, will Penang return into the dark period of the early 2000s?

Given the geographical constraint, it is only logical for the land-strapped state to embark on the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) project, reclaiming new land bank for industrial, commercial, and residential development.

This strategy has proven feasible for Penang, with 1,120 acres of land reclaimed for industrial expansion and other development along the coast from the Penang Bridge to Batu Maung since the 1970s.[10] 

Foreign investments have generated more than 380,000 jobs in Penang over the past four decades, making up almost half of the state’s labour force.[11] The PSR project is estimated to create more than 300,000 new job opportunities in the following decades to come.

The criticism of the PSR project as a threat to the environment is misguided. There are fancy land reclamation projects for the rich and wealthy, but there are also land reclamation projects for a state’s survival. PSR is in the latter category.

In the same way, there is a difference between mining natural resources to build diesel engines and mining them to manufacture solar panels. Both have environmental impact, but let’s not be misguided by seeing them in the same category.

Development through strategic land reclamation for survival is not only evident in Penang’s own history but also seen in the Netherlands, Denmark, Hong Kong, and Singapore.

In the end, it doesn’t matter whether Penang is a gazelle or lion: when the sun comes up, Penang better be running.

References

[1]Kok, Onn Ting. (2016). How Does The Rise of China Affect Malaysia's Electronic and Electrical Sector? PhD thesis submitted to the University of East Anglia, 2016. Retrieved from https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/59625/

[2]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2001-10-21/has-penang-lost-its-pizzazz

[3https://www.buletinmutiara.com/penang-hits-record-high-investments/

[4]https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/cthemeByCat&cat=488&bul_id=eG1DdElEMDhXUFdvK3RCWHd0b2dvQT09&menu_id=azJjRWpYL0VBYU90TVhpclByWjdMQT09

[5]https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/492507

[6]World Bank Group. (2020). The Human Capital Index 2020 Update: Human Capital in the Time of COVID-19. World Bank. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/34432

[7]https://investpenang.gov.my/penang-strives-to-drive-industry-forward/

[8]https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2019/05/02/with-land-for-industries-running-out-we-sorely-need-3-island-project-says-chow/

[9]https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/letters/2021/05/689811/penang-south-reclamation-who-does-it-serve

[10]https://www.buletinmutiara.com/linear-waterfront-pdc-to-call-for-proposals/

[11]Mahbar, Zabidi. (16 July 2019). Malaysian Investment Development Authority's Deputy Chief Executive Officer II's welcoming speech at Penang Domestic Investment Seminar, 16 July 2019, at Olive Tree Hotel, Penang. Retrieved from https://www.mida.gov.my/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/20190717092147_Welcoming-Speech_Penang-Investment-Seminar-2019Final-1.pdf

PAS, a threat to Penang’s economy and future

Responding to the statements from PAS and Penang Sustainable Natural Heritage Association (Lekas) regarding the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) project, as reported in Free Malaysia Today and The Vibes.

Free Malaysia Today: "State PAS chief Muhammad Fauzi Yusuf said an appeal by fishermen against the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) had yet to be heard and hence, the state government should not arbitrarily announce that it would “start work” in May."[1]

The Vibes: "The Penang Sustainable Natural Heritage Association (Lekas) is the latest group to urge the authorities to defer the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) project, pending an appeal by a group of fishermen."[2]

These two groups have raised the same empty objections against PSR in the past, which is actually expected as Lekas’ chairman Zikrullah Ismail is one of PAS youth leaders in Penang.[3]

It is clear that PAS is going all out to stop sustainable development in Penang, desiring the state to suffer economic deterioration.

When Kedah’s Menteri Besar from PAS threatened to cut off water from flowing into Penang, these PAS leaders in Penang kept quiet.

When Kedah’s Menteri Besar from PAS unveiled the RM40 billion sea reclamation megaproject in Langkawi, these same PAS leaders in Penang went silent.[4]

But when the Penang State Government wanted to proceed with the PSR as part of the state’s efforts to pursue sustainable development, these PAS leaders suddenly became eco-warrior and went all out to criticise the project.

Obviously, these PAS leaders are spinning issues for political mileage at the expanse of the overall economic well-being of Penang and the future of the state.

Penang should not be turned into a backwater state. Penang is different from PAS-led states like Terengganu, Kedah, and Kelantan.

The 2019 GDP per capita of these three states were RM28,890 (Terengganu), RM21,488 (Kedah), and RM13,464 (Kelantan), while Penang’s was RM53,342.[5]

The highest among the PAS-led states is Terengganu, where the mining, burning, and refining of fossil fuel forms a large part of the state’s economy.

In 2016, 65% of Terengganu's economy depended on the oil and gas sector. Terengganu is one of the biggest oil and gas producers in Malaysia, of which 85% of the state's economy comes from the hydrocarbon sector.[6]

Petroleum product (including petrochemical) received the highest amount of investment, at RM542.7 million in 2019, accounting for 84.95% of the state’s total approved investment in 2019 (Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia, Laporan Sosioekonomi Terengganu 2019, p.53).

It is estimated that 63% of Terengganu state government’s revenues and 60% of Kelantan’s come from fossil fuel sector in 2019.[7]

PAS leaders wholeheartedly embrace Terengganu’s and Kelantan's carbon-intensive economy but fervently preach about environmentalism in Penang. Hypocritical political antic?

Penang is pursuing sustainable development through the PSR project that upholds the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards. Sea reclamation is reported as a “mature and effective technology and can provide predictable levels of safety” by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s top authority on climate matters. (The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate: A Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2019).

PSR will help to secure Penang’s economy and future, while PAS continues to spin tales leading to the state’s economic deterioration.

References

[1]https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2021/04/12/stop-penang-from-starting-three-island-project-pas-tells-putrajaya/

[2]https://www.thevibes.com/articles/news/23750/heritage-group-joins-chorus-for-penang-reclamation-deferment

[3]https://web.facebook.com/zikrullahismail/posts/10222692840574049

[4]https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2021/01/20/kl-group-to-reclaim-island-in-rm40-bil-langkawi-project/

[5]https://penanginstitute.org/resources/key-penang-statistics/visualisations-of-key-indicators/penang-gross-domestic-product/

[5]https://www.thestar.com.my/metro/metro-news/2017/09/22/banking-on-tourism-terengganu-targets-sector-to-become-main-contributor-to-states-economy/

[6]https://www.isis.org.my/2020/05/10/malaysias-slick-politics-of-oil/

Sustainable development and Penang South Reclamation (PSR)

I read with surprise the statement by Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) that the implementation of the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) project is akin to destroying the earth:

"In Penang, rather than preserving the Earth, we destroy it, said an environmentalist in conjunction with the Earth Day celebration today. Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) president Meenakshi Ramen said proof of this can be seen in the biggest environmental hazard in the state – the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) project."
(The Vibes, 22 April 2021, https://www.thevibes.com/articles/news/24792/call-off-psr-as-earth-day-gift-to-penangites-environmentalist).

The statement is so alarmist, misleading, and unscientific that it sounds like coming from a doomsday cult rather than a credible NGO.

When discussing sea reclamation with reference to the PSR, it all boils down to what one is advocating and the assumption behind the advocacy?

Is it motivated merely by environmental preservation or sustainable development as climate action?

Both are completely different things. Just as Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) assessment reports, remarked that climate policy is not environmental policy.[1]

Reclamation as sustainable development is not new to the earth, with history going back in centuries around the world.

Reclamation in the Netherlands can be traced back as far back as 800 years ago. It is estimated that the country has reclaimed more than 650,000 hectares.[2]

The Netherlands has recently expanded the Port of Rottendam by 2,000 hectares through reclamation.[3] The country is ranked the 13th in the Global Sustainability Index.[4] The Netherlands is not destroyed and continues to lead in sustainability practices.

Denmark has launched the Holmene project to reclaim nine islands (3.1 million square meter) to attract international investment and to boost the economy.[5] The country had previously initiated massive development on reclaimed land at Ørestad. Not only that Denmark is not destroyed, it is ranked 2nd in the Global Sustainability Index.[6]

Singapore has reclaimed more than 13,800 hectares since 1965. The city-state has planned for another 5,600 hectares of land expansion by 2030. Until today, Singapore still stands and continues to advance as the most sustainable city in Asia.[7]

Penang itself has benefited from various reclamation projects in the past. The state has reclaimed some 1,120 acres of land stretching from the Penang Bridge to Batu Maung for various development and the expansion of the Free Industrial Zone, providing thousands of jobs for Penangites. Karpal Singh Drive, Straits Quay, and Weld Quay are all built on reclaimed land.

The Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu expressway used by thousands of Penangites everyday is built on reclaimed land. The main piers of the Penang Bridge, the main connecting link between the island and the mainland, are built on four artificial islands.

Many reclamation projects around the world and in Penang itself have brought more benefits than negative impact. Reclamation when done right does not destroy the earth. In fact, reclamation is reported as a “mature and effective technology and can provide predictable levels of safety” by the world's top scientific authority on climate change, the UN's IPCC. (The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate: A Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2019)

References

[1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/?sh=7c232e6168a3 and https://www.dailysignal.com/2010/11/19/climate-talks-or-wealth-redistribution-talks/

[2]de Glopper RJ, Smits H. Reclamation of land from the sea and lakes in the Netherlands. Outlook on Agriculture. 1974;8(3):148-155.

[3]https://www.joc.com/port-news/european-ports/port-rotterdam/rotterdam-opens-first-phase-giant-maasvlakte-2-container-hub_20130522.html and https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/news-and-press-releases/maasvlakte-2

[4]https://earth.org/global_sustain/netherlands-ranked-13th-in-the-global-sustainability-index/

[5]https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/denmark-plans-silicon-valley-on-9-artificial-islands-off-copenhagen/

[6]https://earth.org/global_sustain/denmark-ranked-190th-in-the-global-sustainability-index/

[7]https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/government-economy/singapore-ranks-top-in-sustainability-among-asian-cities-second-globally

Misperception clouding Penang Forum’s view of transport plan

The Penang Forum steering committee’s statement about the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP), published by Free Malaysia Today today, has again misled the public by alleging that the project has failed because it involves land reclamation through a joint-venture (JV).

As often announced by Penang state officials, the reclamation is part of the financing method for PTMP.

The federal government has not been forthcoming in offering financial grants to fund the PTMP. The loan guarantee to build the Light Rail Transit (LRT) has also been cancelled by Putrajaya.

In order to build a reliable public transport system in Penang, the state government has to find ways to kick-start the project.

Forming a JV company to begin the planned land reclamation work is a huge step towards realising the PTMP, which unfortunately had been misperceived by Penang Forum.

Nevertheless, misperception is not alien to Penang Forum.

When the PTMP included the LRT line, BRT line, and monorail line to provide a better public transport system at Seberang Perai, the Penang Forum misperceived it as cost inflation.

When the Penang government used request-for-proposal (RFP) to call for tender – the same procurement method employed and recognised as open tender by the United Nations, World Bank, and the World Health Organization – the Penang Forum claimed that the RFP was not an open tender.

When the world’s foremost authoritative organisation on climate change, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported that “land reclamation is mature and effective technology and can provide predictable levels of safety” to fund climate adaptation projects (Special Report On The Ocean and Cryosphere In A Changing Climate), the Penang Forum protested against reclamation, denying it as climate action.

With such a track record of misperception, and in view of Penang Forum’s recent statement on PTMP, one wonders if the group has completely lost it?

Penang’s debt reduction, a tale of prudence

This is in response to the news ‘Don’t proceed with Penang dam project until Guan Eng says sorry, says Najib’ (Free Malaysia Today, 10 January 2021).

Dato Seri Najib Razak claimed that Penang’s debt reduction was due to Barisan Nasional federal government’s giving “free grant for the Mengkuang dam worth RM1.2 billion and converting the state’s debt into annual instalments,” following the federal-state water restructuring deal in 2011.

How the debt conversion works is by requiring the state government to transfer water-related assets to the federal government, and in return the assets are leased back to the state government for annual payment for 45 years.

Najib then casted doubt over the DAP-led state government’s economic prowess and accused former Penang Chief Minister, Lim Guan Eng for propagating “fairy tales of reducing state’s debts.”

This accusation against Penang government is not new, aggressively circulated by BN machinery in 2017, in preparation for GE14.

To know whether who is telling fairy tales is very simple, by comparing Penang with the other six states that participated in the water deal from 2008 to 2016. We just need to compare each state’s debt before entering the water deal and the amount of leftover debt in each state by 2016. Attached is the table for reference.*

As seen in the table, the debt conversion does not guarantee low state debt over a sustainable period. The two obvious examples are Johor and Kelantan.

Johor received the highest debt conversion of RM4,030 million, which was three times more than the state’s debt of RM1,010 million. If the debt conversion guarantees sustained low debt, then Johor shouldn’t have any debt at all. However, by 2016, Johor had accumulated RM413 million of debt. Clearly, the water deal’s debt conversion does not guarantee low state debt over a sustainable period.

Kelantan’s debt was RM1,354 million before the water deal. The state’s debt conversion was RM604 million. Again, if the debt conversion guarantees sustained low state debt, then Kelantan’s debt should be (RM1,354mil – RM604mil = ) RM750 million. But that is not the case. Just one year after the debt conversion, Kelantan’s debt increased by 3% to RM1,396 million. Again, clearly, the water deal does not guarantee low state debt over a sustainable period.

Longer duration in the water deal also does not guarantee high debt reduction and low state debt. Despite being the first to enter into the water deal, Melaka had only managed to reduce debt by 23%. So, clearly, the debt conversion does not guarantee low state debt even over a longer timeframe.

Out of the seven states participating in the federal-state water deal, Penang’s debt reduction rate is the highest, at 91%, over a sustainable period.

So, why is Penang’s debt remaining low over a sustainable period? I think it goes back to the state government’s prudence and economic prowess.

I have already explained this in 2017, but BN still repeating this misleading claim.

Reference

*Data of state debt are taken from Auditor-General Reports: Penyata Kewangan Kerajaan Negeri Dan Pengurusan Kewangan Jabatan/Agensi Negeri Melaka Tahun 2007, p.vi; Penyata Kewangan Kerajaan Negeri Dan Pengurusan Kewangan Jabatan/Agensi Negeri Sembilan Tahun 2008, p.31; Penyata Kewangan Kerajaan Negeri Dan Pengurusan Kewangan Jabatan/Agensi Negeri Johor Tahun 2008, p.34; Penyata Kewangan Kerajaan Negeri Dan Pengurusan Kewangan Jabatan/Agensi Negeri Perlis Tahun 2009, p.xiii; Penyata Kewangan Kerajaan Negeri Dan Pengurusan Kewangan Jabatan/Agensi Negeri Pulau Pinang Tahun 2010, p.32; Penyata Kewangan Kerajaan Negeri Dan Pengurusan Kewangan Jabatan/Agensi Negeri Perak Tahun 2011, p.28; Penyata Kewangan Kerajaan Negeri Dan Pengurusan Kewangan Jabatan/Agensi Negeri Kelantan Tahun 2015, p.xi.

Why Penang needs the Light Rail Transit (LRT)?

Penang is a bustling state without a proper public transit infrastructure. Despite being second smallest and without natural resources, Penang has been punching above its weight by positioning itself as a robust industrial state, remarkably capturing 47 per cent of foreign direct investment in the first half of this year, amidst global lockdown due to Covid-19.

The pattern of post-pandemic mass mobility, with promising vaccine to be delivered in 2021, will very likely return to pre-pandemic proportion. Soon, roads in Penang will once again be packed by numerous users – workers, students, anyone – during peak hours.

The mobility modal split among the 225,000 person-trips taken during peak hours with a population of 1.56 million in a 2013 report was between 89% private vehicles and 11% shared transport services (including factory and school buses). The predominant public transport at that time was buses. When the population increases above 2 million from the current 1.8 million, the projected person-trips will be more than 300,000 while the level of modal split will be the same. (Penang State Government, The ‘Recommended Transport Master Plan Strategy,’ March 2013)

In layman’s term, if Penang remains status quo with just buses to serve the public, the increasing road usage will worsen traffic congestion. This is why Penang needs a reliable, safe, and efficient system – the Light Rail Transit (LRT) – as the main backbone for our public transport infrastructure.

The LRT is a time-tested rail system proven for its safety and reliability. The system is so established that according Asian Development Bank (ADB), one of the foremost authorities with a transport specialist team that has implemented sustainable public transport all over the world, the global trend is to build and expand LRT rather than metro or bus system.

While many cities have opted for the proven system, Penang Forum wanted to introduce a bus system known as Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (ART) or “trackless tram.”

Despite its bombastic appellation, the ART is basically a bus. In fact, to David Levinson, professor of transport engineering at the University of Sydney, the title “trackless tram” is a “silly phrase” because it is actually a bus. The original cost for this bus was priced up to RM10 billion to be implemented in Kuching. Recently, it was announced to be less than RM6 billion.

A comparison study between LRT and ART, conducted by ADB for Penang, has recommended the LRT as a proven technology to be adopted. Penang deserves a time-tested public transport infrastructure which will serve as our main backbone line rather than a multibillion bus.

Of direct negotiations and open tenders

The heated exchange over direct-negotiated projects in the recent parliamentary sitting has once again raised question over the status of “request for proposal” (RFP) as an open tender method.

The criticism over the nature of RFP as open tender stemmed from the ignorance of classification of procurement approaches.

Any procurement method subjected to competitive submission of tender is “open”. This is in contrast with procurement that is directly awarded without involving the evaluation of various submitted proposals.

Open tender can be done in several ways, one of which is RFP. To borrow the classification from biology, open tender is genus while request for proposal is species.

The advantages of open RFP include the early identification of risks and benefits of the different proposals. RFP also allows for creativity and pushes for innovative solution.

Bidders can develop their best proposal for the project, while the project owner gets to evaluate the various counter-plans to choose the most suitable one.

RFP is not only a competition for the best price, but more importantly, a battle for the best solution within the stipulated specification.

In other words, RFP is a multidisciplinary procurement process that takes into consideration a range of factors and various aspects (environmental, economic, social, governance) in the decision-making process.

International institutions such as the World Bank, United Nations, Asian Development Bank, and World Health Organization use the RFP as open tender for their procurement need.

Penang was one of the earliest administrations in Malaysia that adopted the open RFP when the method was rarely practised in the public sector. Academician Goh Ban Lee had remarked the adoption was “new thinking” and “very refreshing.”

The Penang Transport Master Plan is one of the projects planned through open RFP. The tender was advertised and the public was invited to bid. A total of 55 local and international companies responded to the RFP, with six submitting their proposal.

Today, various government-linked institutions such as Bank Negara, Prasarana Malaysia Berhad, Malaysia Digital Economy Corporation, and Penang Port Commission are issuing open RFP to invite bidders to submit their proposal.

Not all procurements can be openly tendered. Items that are required in an emergency, copyrighted or specialised cannot be tendered.

Otherwise, the practice of open tender should be required for public infrastructure projects as much as possible in order to obtain the best solution for the people.

Innovation to develop excellent public transport

If you pay peanuts, you get monkey. The same applies to public transport. An excellent transit system is not cheap. 

However, public transport needs more than funds to achieve excellence. It requires good town planning. 

Here lies the problem - public transport and town planning are often conceived and operated as separate department. Transport experts focus only on mobility while planners on buildings and landscape. 

The result? Billions are pumped into public transport yet the usage of public transport remains dismal. 

The purported 2018 net losses of Prasarana Malaysia Berhad, the country's main operator of public transport, was between RM3 billion to RM5 billion, with estimated impairment of RM30 billion. 

With so many billions spent, how many trips were taken via public transport in Klang Valley? About 21%. At other places, the figure is way lower. In Penang, it's between 3% to 8%.

To complicate matters further, the states in Malaysia have limited control over tax money and automobile trade policies, which means that they don't have much say over public transport infrastructure.

States have more control over land use. Therefore, one solution is to incorporate town planning back into public transport development and vice versa. 

When we do that, then solving transport issues is no longer only about buying more buses or building a Light Rail Transit (LRT). It's about developing a transit city.

A transit city optimises public transport and generates fund through land usage to finance the development, maintenance, and upgrading of the transit system.

This idea, broadly known as 'transit-oriented development' (TOD), may be something new to many and suspicious to the skeptics, but it is time-tested and proven successful in various cities that are different from each other. 

Take Hong Kong's Mass Transit Railway (MTR) as an example. When MTR plan was unveiled with a price tag of HK$3.4 billion in the late 1960s, professor Sean Mackey from the University of Hong Kong publicly criticised the proposal for its hefty cost.

Through an innovative town planning method known as 'Rail + Property', the MTR Corporation has not only managed to pay off the construction cost of the initial MTR line but also recorded a total profit of HK$139.67 billion from 2009 to 2019, with 90% public transport usage.

Singapore's Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) had the same problem. The SG$5.3 billion MRT proposal was criticised by a team of experts led by professor Kenneth Hansen from Harvard University.

The Singaporean government did not back down. They undertook a 'land value capture' exercise to finance the MRT. The total revenue generated during the MRT development period from 1982 to 1987 exceeded SG$12 billion, more than enough to cover the construction cost. Today, the MRT serves as the backbone of Singapore's public transport system with 67% usage.

Other cities such as Copenhagen employs innovative 'profit sharing' method to fund their transit system.  In all sales agreements, the property buyer is required to pay additional fee every year for sixty years, after a metro station is built within 50 meters from the property. Copenhagen's public transport usage is 60%.

Details of these case studies can be found in Penang Institute's recent publication 'Exploring a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Framework for Penang’s Urban Growth.'

Penang is planning to build the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) over the next several decades. This development can explore some of the TOD methods to finance the long-term transport plan.

Only the synergy from the best of transit development and town planning will save our public transport system from being a monkey business.

Orh Kueh, Latte, and Unicorn: Momentum Makes George Town

(Photo: Penang Global Tourism Facebook Page)

George Town was the place for Chinese medicine and orh kueh (yam cake) when I was young. Both shops are not there anymore. Today, they serve latte and cempedak cheese cake.

This year's July 7 marked the twelfth year of George Town's inscription as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. There has been a contest over the interpretation of the inscription, couched in phrases from the humanities.

When new businesses replace under-performing ones, it's labelled "Disneyfication". When properties receive new tenants, it's scorned as "gentrification".  When heritage buildings are being refurbished, it's castigated as "Unesco-cide". 

Marco D'Eramo epitomises this school of thoughts. "UNESCO’s ‘World Heritage’ listing," he writes, "is the kiss of death. Once the label is affixed, the city’s life is snuffed out; it is ready for taxidermy."

Taking a step back, I wonder if this is a form of nostalgia fossilisation? 

I understand the concern to preserve the "identity" of George Town. But can we say that today's collective identity is the progeny of George Town's past? This is iffy, is there such identity in the first place, not least a collective one?

There is sympathy for tenants who are affected by rising rental. But isn't rent-seeking a problem happening elsewhere too, not confined to heritage site? 

Community changes are associated to a string of factors. But when it happens in George Town, enthusiasts labelled it as "gentrification"? What then do we call rent-seeking that occurred in 2007 George Town, before the city was listed by Unesco? 

Like most trades, traditional trades in George Town have no guaranteed immortality. The Chinese medical hall that my family frequented had shut before the Unesco appellation came. As Dr Ang Ming Chee, general manager of George Town World Heritage Incorporated, observed:

“[If] the craftsmen don’t want to produce and the locals do not take these products as a part of their identity, then you’re stuck as well. For it to be sustainable you have to look at it in the long term. There’s supply and demand; and there’s the availability and cost of the raw materials.

“Take rattan weaving for example – it might be harder or costlier to obtain raw materials due to factors such as urbanisation and deforestation. Rattan weaving is a skill, but most of the weavers we interviewed who decided not to continue their craft said it was because weaving is too painful – if you look at their hands, you can feel the pain. They work hard to send their children for higher education so that they don’t have to do physical work; it’s an achievement for them, whereas we want continuity – we are selfish.” (Emphasis added.)

Is the pain of rattan weavers a characteristic of George Town's heritage and must therefore persist? 

Fossilising nostalgia may be a hobby to enthusiasts but George Town gained prominence as a trading port. People from surrounding region came here to trade. New businesses were formed to serve them, and many made their home here as a result. Changes haven't stopped in the past 300 years.

Carving life into stone, suspending momentum that makes George Town what it is today may not be the way forward for the heritage site. 

Instead, can George Town's future be re-imagined as the heart of the 21st century trade? Startups creating unicorn in a 19th century shop?

The potential of the heritage buildings in George Town is not confined only to serving latte and cempedak cheese cake.

High speed rail as catalyst for regional growth

The decision over the High Speed Rail (HSR) project linking Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Melaka, and Johor to Singapore has been deferred to the end of the year. This will be the last extension for Malaysia and Singapore to finalise technicalities before the project's launch.[1]

HSR system is not only a faster and more convenient mode of medium and long-distance travel but a catalyst for urban development and trade growth, as seen in several countries.

The construction of the South Europe Atlantic HSR that began in 2012 and completed in 2017 has created 14,000 jobs, generated €1.6 billion (RM7.6 billion) in production, with added value of €755 million (RM3.6 billion) in the three regions.[2]

After the installation of the HSR line that connects Cologne and Frankfurt since 2001, the GDP of the region had increased 8.5% faster than if the infrastructure had not been built. Provinces in China with HSR have observed 25% more revenues than provinces without HSR.[3]

Due to the immediate and long-term benefits, the United Kingdom has just launched their second HSR project known as HS2, connecting London to West Midlands, the largest infrastructure project in Europe.[4]

In southeast Asia, the two countries currently developing HSR are Thailand and Indonesia.

Thailand’s HSR will link three of their airports, serves as the core infrastructure development for their Eastern Economic Corridor, and an initiative aims to lift the country out of the middle-income trap.[5]

Indonesia’s HSR that connects Bandung and Jakarta is estimated to provide 40,000 jobs and anticipated to begin operation in 2021.[6]

These two immediate neighbours of Malaysia are now constructing the most advanced rail system despite having lower GDP per capita. Malaysia recorded US$10,254 GDP per capita in 2017, higher than Thailand (US$6,578) and Indonesia (US$3,893).[7] Should we be surprised if Thailand and Indonesia overtake Malaysia in the next one or two decades?

The HSR planned to connect the five states in Malaysia to Singapore has a huge role to play in the country’s progress. Not only does it serve the southern states but also be the first phase of a larger pan-Asian HSR network in the peninsula, as envisioned by the Kunming-Singapore rail line.

Seeing the HSR as a mere transport mode is underplaying its potential as a catalyst for the country’s and region’s growth.

References
[1] https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/malaysia-singapore-resume-discussions-highspeed-rail-project-soon-%E2%80%94-azmin

[2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12544-017-0233-0#ref-CR24

[3] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12544-017-0233-0#ref-CR24

[4] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-16473296

[5] https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Transportation/Thailand-puts-high-speed-rail-project-on-track-with-land-pledge

[6] https://www.railwaygazette.com/in-depth/indonesia-making-progress-at-high-speed/55841.article

[7] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=TH-ID-MY

Bus Rapid Transit: Benefits and Limitations

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is not a regular bus service but a systemic optimisation of public transport services by using buses.

Bus is the basic public transport mode that is affordable to most cities and towns. A public bus system can be as skeletal as having just buses, road, and bus stops. That of course means long waiting time, unreliable arrival, slow journey, and turn people away from public transport to favour the use of car and motorcycle.

BRT concept revamps the system from fare collection, road usage, bus features, and bus station design to optimise the reliability and efficiency of bus to drive up people’s desirability to use public transport.

The BRT concept was born in Curitiba, a city in Brazil in 1970s. It was later adopted and expanded into large scale system in big cities like Bogota, Colombia and Jakarta, Indonesia. The BRT in different shapes and sizes can be found in more than 170 cities around the world. Fiona Ferbrache (2019), lecturer at Oxford University, has prepared a simple chart describing various types, BRT Lite, buses with higher level of service (BHLS), and BRT Full:

Source: Ferbrache, 2019, p.3

Malaysia launched the first BRT in 2015, connecting Subang Jaya to Bandar Sunway. It has seven stations serving 16,500 passengers a day. (Chan, 27 November 2019). Johor is implementing a RM2.56 billion large-scale BRT, with 39 stations, to begin operation in 2022. (Free Malaysia Today, 19 May 2019). Sarawak had initially planned for BRT in Kuching but later turned to consider the sleek-looking autonomous rail rapid transit instead. (Borneo Post, 19 November 2019; 4 January 2020). Penang is studying feasibility of having BRT on the mainland.

The government aims to achieve 40% public transport usage by 2030. (Aziz 2019). BRT could help to achieve the target. Authorities need to study the benefits, weaknesses, and best adaptation of BRT for each locality.

Bogota's Transmilenio

One BRT system for planners to study is Bogota’s Transmilenio, the first recipient of the ‘Sustainable Transport Award’ by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP). Transmilenio is a large-scale BRT that started operation in 2000 and managed to shorten average travel time by 22%, reduced air pollutants by 40% and road collision by 79%, increased the city’s GDP by 1%, and won more than 90% of public approval in its opening year. (Centre for Public Impact 2016; The Economist 2020).

The Transmilenio was called “the best bus system in the world” by Bogota’s former mayor Enrique Penalosa, a “success story” by Pertaling Jaya MP Maria Chin Abdullah, and “the world’s most successful BRT” by Penang Forum’s Lim Mah Hui. (Jara-Moreno 2010; Abdullah 2019; Lim 2018). The Transmilenio was crowned the “Jewel of Bogota” and often showcased by think tanks such as ITDP as “model for replication” to promote BRT to policymakers. Hoping to reproduce Transmilenio’s successes elsewhere, think tanks facilitate the implementation of BRT in various cities as they “know the experts and are able to contact and contract them in order to expedite designs and technical studies.” (Nikitas & Karlsson 2015; Ardila 2020).

Then the system started to break. Overcrowding became too frequent. Passengers have to wait up to 40 minutes to enter the station, before another long wait to board the sardine-packed buses. (The Economist 2020). Although BRT buses use dedicated lanes, there are still road space with accident risk, for example, junction, pedestrian path, and merging road. Collision involving Transmilenio buses is not uncommon with an average of six cases per day. The BRT meant to reduce private car usage but daily cars on Bogota streets increased by 153% from 509,000 in 2002 to 1,290,000 in 2012. (McKenzie 2014).

The pent-up frustration against the Transmilenio escalated into public riots in 2012, with five BRT stations destroyed. By 2015, the popularity of the “Jewel of Bogota” fell to 20%. (The Bogota Post 2014). Some are calling it “the worst transportation system implemented in a city”. (Fred 2017). Despite having one of the largest BRT systems on the planet, Bogota was ranked as the world’s most congested city in 2019 Inrix Global Traffic Scorecard, rose from being the third worst in previous year. (Weekes 2020; INRIX 2018).

Curitiba, the birthplace of BRT and lauded by Green City Times (2019) as “the greatest example of sustainable transport in a city,” has its own challenges. Although the Brazilian city has inspired others to implement the BRT to reduce private vehicles on the roads, the number of private vehicles in Curitiba has soared. There were 4.52 people per vehicle in the 1970s. Today, it is 1.33 per vehicle. A study found that 56% of correspondents have shifted from public transport to private vehicles. (Agencia de Noticias da PMC 2015; Martinez et al 2016). Public transport ridership has fallen by 14% from 2015 to 2017, and Curitiba has the highest private vehicle per capita in Brazil. (Silveria et al 2019). As a report by the French Development Agency attested (Agence Française de Développement, 2017):

"While it has a bus rapid transit (BRT) network (a model which Curitiba has "exported" all over the world), it is losing passengers and Curitiba is now the city with the largest number of cars per inhabitant (1.8) in Brazil."

Even the best of the BRTs has pros and cons, like any other transport system. For sure, the BRT fares better than skeletal bus services.

BRT and rail systems

Besides BRT, there are other transport systems such as light rail transit (LRT) and mass rapid transit that are more efficient and pose less traffic problems. Newly developed middle-range magnetic levitated train known as ‘maglev’ has added to the variety.

BRT in general is cheaper than elevated urban rail systems, though there are exceptions such as those in Adelaide and Nagoya (Cervero, 2013). In terms of passenger capacity, speed, and safety, the elevated rail systems fare better than the BRT. As Robert Cervero, professor emeritus of city and regional planning at University of California, wrote (2013, pp.24-25):

"The more economical use of rights-of-way and roadway operations lowers the cost of BRT relative to rail systems, though at the expense of generally lower passenger carrying capacities and slower speeds. [...] Any cost-effectiveness edge of BRT is also curbed to the degree that large-scale rail networks provide greater connectivity and accessibility at faster travel speeds in addition to having stronger city-shaping impacts than more limited range BRT systems. [...] BRT particularly suffers in dense, built-up areas where buses operate on surface streets. [...] BRT's ability to shape urban growth and leverage [transit oriented development] is also questioned by some."

Cervero used Bogota's and Curitiba's BRT as examples (2013, p.29):

"During peak hours, Transmilenio average 6.5 passengers per square meter of bus. The inability of buses to load more passengers and thus leave customers stranded at stations during peak periods has sparked riots and blemished Transmilenio's reputation. Curitiba has also begun to experience the limits of rubber-tire technologies. [...] Extreme overcrowding has prompted many former bus rides to buy cars and switch to driving. [...] Many Curitibanos view (BRT) as noisy, crowded and unsafe. Undermining the thinking behind the master plan, even those who live alongside the high-density rapid-bus corridor are buying cars."

If Malaysia wants to make public transportation a mainstream choice of mobility, we have to start now with the right system, adopt the best practices while anticipate problems with solution.

References

Abdullah, Maria Chin. (2019). Get our bus routes right. The Sun Daily. 20 November. Retrieved from https://www.thesundaily.my/opinion/get-our-bus-routes-right-DD1630317

Agence Française de Développement. (2017). Brazil: The Challenges of Curitiba. Retrieved from https://www.afd.fr/en/actualites/grand-angle/brazil-challenges-curitiba

Agencia de Noticias da PMC. (2015). Aumento da frota particular é problema de saúde e meio ambiente. Retrieved from https://www.curitiba.pr.gov.br/noticias/aumento-da-frota-particular-e-problema-de-saude-e-meio-ambiente/35689

Ardila, Diego Silva. (2020). Global policies for moving cities: the role of think tanks in the proliferation of Bus Rapid Transit systems in Latin America and worldwide. Policy and Society, vol.39, issue 1, pp.70-90. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14494035.2019.1699636

Aziz, Afiq. (2019). Transport policy aims 40% of public transportation usage by 2030. 18 October. The Malaysian Reserve. Retrieved from https://themalaysianreserve.com/2019/10/18/transport-policy-aims-40-of-public-transportation-usage-by-2030/

Borneo Post. (2019). Loke: Sarawak, Johor to have BRT system. Borneo Post. 19 November. Retrieved from https://www.theborneopost.com/2019/11/19/loke-sarawak-johor-to-have-brt-system/

Borneo Post. (2020). CM: Govt aims to have ART public transport system ready in Kuching by 2025.  4 January. Borneo Post. Retrieved from https://www.theborneopost.com/2020/01/04/cm-govt-aims-to-have-art-public-transport-system-ready-in-kuching-by-2025/

Centre for Public Impact. (2016). TransMilenio: renewing Bogotá’s transport system. Centre for Public Impact. 30 March. Retrieved from https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/transmilenio/

Cervero, Robert. (2013). Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): An Efficient and Competitive Mode of Public Transport. Institute of Urban and Regional Development Working Paper Series. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4sn2f5wc

Chan, Mick. (2019). Prasarana daily ridership 1.4 million and growing: CEO. Paul Tan. 27 November. Retrieved from https://paultan.org/2019/11/27/prasarana-daily-ridership-1-4-million-and-growing-ceo/

Ferbrache, Fiona. (2019). The value of bus rapid transit in urban spaces. In F. Ferbrache (Ed.),  Developing Bus Rapid Transit: The Value of BRT in Urban Spaces (pp.1-12). United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781788110907/9781788110907.00005.xml 

Fred [freddyw2]. (2017). What kind of scientist publication you are? Have you ever visited Bogotá? Do U know the worst transportation system implemented in a city? [Tweet] 11 October. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/freddyw2/status/917978023911198720

Free Malaysia Today. (2019). Johor’s RM2.56 bil Bus Rapid Transit to take off in 2022. Free Malaysia Today. 19 May . Retrieved from https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2019/05/19/johors-rm2-56-bil-bus-rapid-transit-to-take-off-in-2022/

Green City Times. (2019). Green City: bus rapid transit and urban planning in Curitiba. Retrieved from https://www.greencitytimes.com/curitiba/

INRIX. (2018). 2018 Global Traffic Scorecard. Retrieved from http://inrix.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Traffic-Scorecard-Infographic-2018_US-FINAL-v5.pdf

Lim, Mah Hui. (2018). An Alternative Sustainable Transport Vision for Penang. Paper presented at Penang Forum Public Forum 9. 25 August. Retrieved from https://penangforum.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/pf-9-ptmp-eng-bahasa-aug-31-mah-hui.pdf

Margolis, Jason. (2015). 8 million people. No subway. Can this city thrive without one? Public Radio International. 21 October. Retrieved from https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-10-21/can-modern-megacity-bogot-get-without-subway

Martinez, Joyde Giacomini; Boas, Ingrid' Lenhart, Jennifer; Mol, Arthur P. J. (2016). Revealing Curitiba's flawed sustainability: How discourse can prevent institutional change. Habitat International, vol.53, pp.305-359.

McKenzie, Victoria. (2014). Accidents on Bogota’s public transportation system triple in 2013: Report. Colombia Reports. 14 March. Retrieved from https://colombiareports.com/increase-bus-public-bus-accidents-colombias-capital/

Nikitas, Alexandros & Karlsson, MariAnne. 2015. A Worldwide State-of-the-Art Analysis for Bus Rapid Transit: Looking for the Success Formula. Journal of Public Transportation, vol. 18, issue 1, pp.1-33. Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jpt/vol18/iss1/3/

Silveria, Thiago C. dos R.; Krainer, Christiane W. M.; Krainer, Jefferson A.; Romano, Cezar A.; Matoski, Adalverto; Santo, Andre L. A.; Moreira, Amacin R. (2019). Does gender influence travel satisfaction with public transport? Revista Espacios, vol. 40, issue 25. Retrieved from https://www.revistaespacios.com/a19v40n25/19402519.html

The Bogota Post. (2014). Bogota’s TransMilenio System: A Painful Route to the Future. The Bogota Post. 9 October. Retrieved from https://thebogotapost.com/bogotas-transmilenio-system-a-painful-route-to-the-future/1177/

Weekes, Sue. (2020). Bogota ranked as 2019's most congested city. Smart Cities World. 9 March. Retrieved from https://www.smartcitiesworld.net/news/news/bogota-ranked-as-2019s-most-congested-city-5096

What is wrong with PTMP and PSI?

I believe the story in South China Morning Post (15 Feb 2020) and letter from Kua Kia Soong have been misinformed regarding Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) and Penang South Islands (PSI).[1]

They are misinformed by a group called Penang Forum, consists of non-governmental organisation (NGO) members and Opposition political leaders from parties such as PAS.

Not all NGOs are against the ruling government but all Opposition leaders are, by the virtue of their political ambition. However, when an NGO has again and again displayed anti-government diatribe, it becomes evident that there is something more beneath the surface.

Penang Forum has evolved over the years from a constructive NGO to an Opposition-affiliated, if not infiltrated, entity. This is most obvious from their protests against almost all of the state-initiated projects in Penang.

While the Penang government, led by Pakatan Harapan coalition, is leading the state into a world-class competitive and high-income city, these NGOs seem to be trying their best to turn Penang into Kelantan.

Apparently, some of these NGOs have lost their eligibility to receive grants from international bodies when Penang in particular and Malaysia in general have emerged out of the ‘Third World’ category.[2] Is that a motivation for those NGOs to see Penang remains in a ‘Third World’ state?

The PTMP and PSI have become these NGOs’ main complaints against the Penang government, so much so that they organised a forum with a string of speakers attacking these initiatives.[3] But, what is wrong with PTMP and PSI?

The NGOs alleged that these projects lack expertise, but what they really wanted was to push for their own view to be regarded as “expertise”.

I once sat in a focus-group session with three transport experts presenting three different proposals to address Penang’s traffic woes. One argued for on-ground tram, one for bus rapid transit (BRT), and another one for Light Rail Transit (LRT). It is therefore wrong for those NGOs to talk as if there is only one expertise view on the matter.

Furthermore, the PTMP’s LRT and PSI have been vouched for respectively by Universiti Sains Malaysia’s Deputy Vice-Chancellor and professor of transportation engineering, Dr. Ahmad Farhan Mohd Sadullah and eminent economist such as the chairman of Khazanah Research Institute, Dr. Nungsari A. Radhi.

Dr. Ahmad has remarked that the LRT “is imperative and urgently needed for Penang,” while Dr. Nungsari has stated that the PSI “is a perfectly rational economic project for a place like Penang.”[4]

These are prominent and experienced experts whom those NGOs, South China Morning Post, and Kua Kia Soong have ignored.

The NGOs have also alleged that the PTMP and PSI are projects that were adopted by state government to benefit developers. This is wrong.

Those projects went through open tender in the form of request-for-proposal, a method used by the World Bank and United Nations. The present PTMP was the result of an evaluation over six different proposals by KPMG and hundreds of stakeholder engagement sessions.

In fact, the increase of the estimated cost for PTMP from RM27 billion to RM46 billion came from those stakeholder engagement sessions that requested transport infrastructures such as LRT, monorail, and longer BRT to be built on the mainland.[5]

By wanting to smear these projects, those NGOs highlight only the cost increase but hide the rationale behind the increment. That’s why the article in South China Morning Post and by Kua Kia Soong make no mention of this – misinformed by the NGOs.

I used to think that such smearing campaign was only carried out by the current Opposition political parties, until I came across Penang Forum.

The open tender method did not end with the PTMP. The PSI is currently going through a master design competition involving various globally renowned planners and architects working hand-in-hand with local firms to provide the best proposal that will benefit Penang in the long-run.

So, what is wrong with PTMP and PSI?

They are definitely not perfect plans, there will be impact, and mitigation measures will need to be in place to address those.

Nevertheless, they are gamechanger infrastructures that will path Penang’s future. And Penang Forum and Opposition politicians will continue to collaborate to do their best to prevent that from happening.

---

[1] https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/article/3050442/fight-save-penang-proposed-mega-projects and https://www.thesundaily.my/opinion/civil-society-groups-protect-democracy-ME2017079

 

[2] https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2020/01/11/consumers-association-of-penang-turns-50-with-a-new-president-but-poorer/1826865

[3] https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/510976

[4] https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2019/09/521306/transforming-penangs-transport-system and https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/mysay-coastal-fishermen-and-public-transport

[5] https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/cost-penang-transport-master-plan-balloon-rm46b-says-project-delivery-partner