To further boost development in Sabah and Sarawak, the government has embarked on the Pan-Borneo Highway project, which will link Kuching and Kota Kinabalu, and provide better access to the interior.
But, access alone cannot act as a catalyst for the immediate development of land and economic activities. To develop an area requires more than just a road linkage. First, there must be resources to attract development. And, this must be complemented by other infrastructure facilities, such as manufacturing or processing facilities, as well as retail outlets for consumer needs, to develop and sustain towns. More importantly is the availability of manpower and facilities to service such needs.
Otherwise, the road linkage would just allow for faster exploitation of natural resources to be processed in big towns. And, once these resources are depleted, temporary settlements would become ghost towns as entrepreneurs search for new resources to exploit mainly for profit.
The Pan-Borneo Highway will track and meander through wilderness and pristine rainforest, which would be in danger of being exploited and depleted. It could accelerate deforestation and the exploitation of natural resources.
It is not just about the building of roads, but also their maintenance and the security that needs to be in place for the protection of commerce and travellers. There also has to be service facilities catering to travellers, and they must be maintained.
Thus, there is the boon and bane of such projects. The authorities must look at the holistic aspect of the project and its viability in generating economic activities, and developing and sustaining township settlements in the wilderness.
The latest projects in connectivity are the High-Speed Rail (HSR) and East Coast Rail Line (ECRL). HSR, the Shinkansen of Malaysia, will run from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore, covering seven stations, namely Bandar Malaysia, Putrajaya, Seremban, Ayer Keroh, Muar, Batu Pahat and Iskandar Puteri, before ending in Jurong East in Singapore. It will cost between RM60 billion and RM100 billion to build this line.
The authorities expect that the completion of HSR will generate economic activities and infrastructural development in the intervening towns. And, some officials are optimistic that these towns will develop into cities that have HSR, such as those in Japan and Europe. One even suggested that with the rail link, Seremban would join the ranks of Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing and Paris. Some touted that property values would appreciate, which would be a boon to owners and developers, but realistically, a bane to the common man, who would not be able to afford such properties.
They have made out HSR to be a cornucopia of projected benefits, from tourism, education, manufacturing and trading to everything else. It is the perception of HSR being a long “magic wand” that transforms everything along its route. Sometimes, it is good to indulge in positive thinking for it gladdens the spirit and soul, but on the other hand, it may camouflage the other side of the equation, which presents a different picture. However, the spirit of bravado may also not be good economic sense; healthy scepticism is.
It must be remembered that the main attraction of HSR is its speed, which will see the travel time between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore being reduced to 90 minutes. It is like saying it takes only 45 minutes to get from Penang to Kuala Lumpur by plane. But, the actual time involved — from leaving the house to be at the Penang airport an hour before departure to retrieving one’s luggage and taking a taxi to one’s destination in Kuala Lumpur — would be between 3½ and four hours, which is about the same time it takes to drive between the two places, without the hassle of security checks and frisking, and the possibility of delayed flights and lost baggage. What more, going to and from Singapore, with the need to go through Immigration control.
The plane ride may take 45 minutes, but the total time taken, from leaving the house to arriving at the destination, may be much longer.
The focus and impact of this fast travel are Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. The other stops will not actually attract outsiders, except for some tourists, but will allow easy access for residents travelling to Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. There will, of course, be travellers taking HSR to and from the intervening towns as a novelty rather than a necessity, as there are equally good alternative modes of transportation, such as cars, buses and the existing rail system, for them to use between stops. What more, if the HSR fare proves prohibitive.
Connectivity alone will not spur economic development. And, to say HSR will increase the gross domestic product for the entire southern corridor may be assuming too much. A lot of other factors must come into play before we can stake such a claim.
ECRL is another connectivity project to be built by a Chinese company at a cost of RM55 billion, loaned by the Chinese government to Malaysia. It may follow the alignment of the existing rail line with, perhaps, some detours to accommodate new stops. But, like the old system, it is subject to the vagaries of the weather and floods, which may disrupt its run. Unless, of course, ECRL is an all-weather passenger and freight train service that is unimpeded by floods or mire.
Again, the prognosis of this project is most optimistic; that ECRL, when completed, will divert and alter regional trade routes to favour Malaysia.
It is envisaged that ECRL will link with the proposed “Silk Route” from China through Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand, offering overland connectivity. It is postulated that products from the Asian mainland would be transported overland through Malaysia to be exported through Port Klang or Tanjung Pelepas, bypassing Singapore, meaning ocean freight would also be affected.
Some detractors may say that such an optimistic prognosis for these two projects is wishful thinking, considering the colossal expenditure that would add to the national debt, which would further burden the people.
Another aspect to consider is the projects’ cost-effectiveness, as well as opportunity costs. Current predictions are speculative. The effectiveness must be weighed against the expected returns, and whether goods from southern Thailand or even the Bangkok metropolitan area would be moved via ECRL, bypassing their own ports, for export from Port Klang or Tanjung Pelepas, or even Penang. Likewise, Vietnam and Cambodia may want to service their own ports.
We cannot simply assume that this will happen. We must ensure that it is economically attractive and viable, and we must also brave the competition of ocean freighting. Then, we need to consider the opportunity costs of such projects. Would not the money be better invested in the upgrading of existing connectivity at a much-reduced cost, which would not burden our foreign debt?
However, those involved in the planning and execution of these two projects are confident in the projects’ viability, as they believe it is based on sound economic prognosis and that the massive expenditure, financed through foreign loans and the sale of local assets, would not be a burden to the people and, in fact, would increase GDP and enhance people’s standard of living.
Let us hope and pray that the agencies handling the projects have undertaken financial risk assessments, as well as cost-effective measures that will prevent a financial haemorrhage.
Unlike the Pan-Borneo Highway, HSR and ECRL do not pioneer connectivity into unchartered territory, but rather, augment the already efficient connectivity matrix in Malaysia.
Dr Mohamed Ghouse Nasuruddin is an emeritus professor of Performing Arts in the School
of Arts at Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang