[MALAYSIA] After decades of planning blueprints and headline-grabbing megaprojects, Malaysia’s public transport modal share has remained stuck around 20%. This isn’t a mystery of behavior—it’s a policy signal. As Transport Minister Loke Siew Fook acknowledged this stubborn figure once again, it’s clear that public willpower isn’t the problem. The system is doing exactly what it was designed to do: incentivize car use, sideline buses, and reward sprawl. The stagnation reveals a structural contradiction—one where road-building, fuel subsidies, and transit aspirations all exist in the same breath. Until that contradiction is resolved, Malaysia’s transport future will remain gridlocked.
Context: What the Numbers Hide
Malaysia’s public transport usage has plateaued despite billions spent on rail and infrastructure. The oft-cited 20% modal share figure conceals more than it reveals. In 2024, federal fuel subsidies—though trimmed by diesel rationalization—are still expected to cost RM52.8 billion. These subsidies, combined with low parking fees and financing support for car ownership, make private driving the rational economic choice.
Meanwhile, bus services—essential to a balanced system—are underfunded, irregular, and shrinking in relevance. Rail systems exist, but first-mile and last-mile connectivity remains fragmented or absent. Park-and-ride is limited, pedestrian access is poor, and feeder services are unreliable. Even in areas with transit infrastructure, the surrounding built environment often makes public transport use a hassle rather than a habit.
Malaysia’s National Transport Policy 2019–2030 speaks of sustainability and integrated networks. But on the ground, actions rarely align. Multi-billion ringgit rail lines are rolled out without concurrent investment in bus systems, urban walkability, or disincentives for car use. The result? A mobility regime built around the car—and only nominally disrupted by transit.
Strategic Comparison: What Others Did Differently
Malaysia’s predicament is not unique—but its policy contradictions are particularly entrenched. Compare this with Seoul, which radically transformed its bus system through route rationalization, real-time information, and fare integration across metro, bus, and rail. That shift wasn’t driven by consumer education—it was orchestrated by coherent governance and clear priorities.
Singapore presents a more systemic example. Through its Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system, parking restrictions, and electronic road pricing, it makes car ownership and use an explicit luxury. That’s paired with heavily subsidized, high-frequency public transport services and walkable urban design—managed under a single agency, the Land Transport Authority.
Bogotá’s TransMilenio, though less polished, is another example of strong execution with constrained resources. It prioritized rapid implementation of a bus rapid transit (BRT) backbone, combined with pedestrian integration, even as it fought legacy issues like congestion and pollution.
In contrast, Malaysia continues to straddle incompatible ambitions: expanding public transport while subsidizing driving, calling for transit-oriented development while approving low-density sprawl, and launching megaprojects without resolving the governance gaps in daily operations.
The deeper issue is institutional. Transport planning is often divorced from land use approvals, and local authorities lack incentives—or mandates—to prioritize walkability or transit access. Without a central coordinating body with real enforcement power, Malaysia’s transport ecosystem remains fragmented.
Implication: What Business Leaders and Policymakers Must Reframe
If Malaysia wants to escape its 20% trap, it must start by asking the right question: not why people aren’t using public transport, but why the state keeps subsidizing alternatives that make public transport uncompetitive.
The private sector, particularly in property development and retail, must also shift its model. Instead of valuing proximity to highways and car access, future growth will depend on alignment with rail corridors, walkable neighborhoods, and reduced dependence on private parking.
A real shift will require painful but necessary changes:
- Fuel subsidy rationalization with targeted welfare buffers.
- A national public service obligation (PSO) framework for buses with performance-linked funding.
- Urban planning laws that mandate transit-accessible density.
- Car usage pricing mechanisms—be it through congestion charges, higher parking fees, or restricted zones.
These are not marginal tweaks; they are fundamental realignments. But without them, even the most advanced rail systems will become stranded assets.
Our Viewpoint
The real obstacle to modal share growth in Malaysia isn’t culture—it’s incoherence. When the cost signals, planning regulations, and operational funding all favor private vehicles, expecting behavioral change is wishful thinking. The current system is delivering what it was engineered to deliver. To shift toward a genuinely multimodal future, Malaysia needs to stop treating public transport as a moral virtue or environmental checkbox and start treating it as the core operating system of urban life. That means designing for it, funding it, and governing around it. Until that happens, 20% isn’t just a statistic—it’s a ceiling.
WhatsApp
Instagram
Threads
