On the High-Speed Rail project website, the first sentence says: “HSR is a programme to transform Malaysia into a high-income nation.”

According to the World Bank, a high-income nation is a country that has a gross national income (GNI) per capita of US$12,535 or above.

In short, a high-income nation is when the people of the country begin earning more, with levels of poverty dropping. This would require comprehensive economic strategies to be implemented 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 engage in exploration and production.

O&G companies indirectly created employment for thousands of employees and demanded more students and graduates to venture into high-end technical fields with high salaries. These are part of the steps toward making Malaysia a high-income nation.

However, in contrast, building the Petronas Twin Towers may not be a step in that same direction. There is a contrast between devising an economic strategy and spending.

Similarly, the setting up of Permodalan Nasional Bhd to collect and manage local funds and to make selective investment for high returns, for instance, is another economic strategy in helping Malaysians achieve a high growth income through their savings.

However, an investment becomes a spending if a firm gets involved in the “Battersea Project” in London, for instance, which may not be interpreted as in the same category as a strategic economic investment.

The HSR project, as we are all aware, is not about setting up a new rail industry for the country. Neither will it result in the building of manufacturing plants, producing engineering components or railway equipment of some sort or even designing a new railway system, which will directly generate new economic opportunities, create new employment and bring more dollars into the country.

Unlike European nations such as the UK, France, Germany or even Austria, there is no Malaysian history or tradition in rail engineering and manufacturing. However, three of the newly industrialised countries in Asia started to develop their home-based industries in rail technology decades ago.

Today, Japan, South Korea and China, with their top-notch economic strategy in the rail industry, are among the suppliers of rail technology and have also achieved high-income nation status at the same time.

The HSR project that Malaysia conceived in 2010 during Najib Razak’s premiership has no economic strategy as such. The project is about building a piece of railway 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 the manufacturing and supply of the required materials, then all the funds will flow out of the country.

So, how would Malaysia become a high-income nation simply by building a new track for a HSR to operate, with the technology all imported?

Comparing with low-cost airlines

“The connectivity will enable businesses to be more productive…” says the HSR website. What type of businesses is the HSR referring to here?

Are these businesses different from those that currently benefit from the air shuttles between KL and Singapore? Or are they new business groups altogether?

How does it compare to the low-cost airlines, funded purely by the private sector, which have given rise to many jobs and employment opportunities at a much lower cost of investment?

Is HSR saying that its market will attract other types of business travellers but not the existing air travellers? With such a massive capital outlay to build the permanent rail infrastructure, at what cost per passenger can HSR offer its services? In layman’s terms, how much will the ticket cost per seat or per person be?

Is there a problem with the current capacity for air travel between KL and Singapore that we need to completely revamp the entire network by resorting to build this piece of expensive infrastructure called HSR?

We also have a KTM railway line running between KL and JB and on to Singapore. In fact, we previously had the Tanjong Pagar station plus a long track across to the causeway from it. Recently, the government awarded a contract to double-track the KTM railway lines from Gemas to JB at a cost of more than RM7 billion.

” … and access (to) a broader marketplace … ” continues the website.

The HSR links KL and Singapore, so how is it that travellers on the HSR can access a broader marketplace?

Selling products or services online could lead to better access, by widening or broadening one’s marketplace. But can travelling on the HSR also broaden your market?

Is HSR saying that travellers can connect to international flights out of Singapore, a hub airport that has many more connections compared to KLIA? Is that what the term “access to a broader marketplace” really means?

Socio-economic development issues

The website continues: ” … it is an impetus towards socioeconomic development in Kuala Lumpur and the intermediate cities along the HSR corridor.”

Impetus means a moving force, impulse, stimulus while socio-economic means relating to, or signifying 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 actually play a big role as an impetus towards the socio-economic development of Gemas (and Gua Musang) and the intermediate villages along that corridor?

Look also at the Gerik–Jeli road often referred to as the East-West highway. Is that road a project that provided an impetus towards socio-economic development in Gerik (Perak) or Jeli (Kelantan)?

The North-South expressway is perhaps another notable example that could be used in this context. What socio-economic impetus has happened along this corridor?

Can we be presented with some facts and figures on how the socio-economic wealth of any particular town or village along this North-South expressway has been shown to have improved, and that the poor people in those towns and villages are all now enjoying a high-income?

Do illustrate to us the improved social and economic well-being of these people as a result of such infrastructure moving force, impulse or stimulus. Please offer us some empirical evidence that such benefit has been achieved by past infrastructure projects similar to the one claimed by HSR.

The truth is: the opposite has been the result.

The North-South expressway has alienated and literally “killed” the economic and financial viability of many small towns along the corridor.

Revisit the towns of Tanjong Malim, Kampar, Batu Gajah, Kuala Kangsar or Bagan Serai and see if any of these towns have developed, attracted more people, created more jobs or have better social services, as compared to 20 or 30 years ago.

The North-South expressway has instead drastically reduced the accessibility to most of these small towns and villages.

The HSR corridor is expected to produce similar results. It will alienate and have a negative impact on the smaller towns in Negeri Sembilan, Melaka and Johor. It will make KTM’s double-tracking project between Gemas and JB redundant and irrelevant to future train travel.

Is this what we are planning for? Can we justify the sum of RM65 billion that we plan to spend on it?

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.