Is Boosting Ridership Key to Reducing Prasarana’s Deficit?

Few would contend that public transport should be run purely to maximise profit. Yet, as Prasarana Malaysia Bhd continues to operate at a huge deficit every year, scrutiny from the public and policymakers has intensified. Is the problem stagnant fares or an underutilised network of rail lines, buses and demand-responsive transit (DRT) services across the Klang Valley? 

For Prasarana president and group CEO, the solution lies in getting more people to ride its network of rail and bus services. More people on trains and buses would spread the burden of high fixed costs and narrow the deficit. But reliability must improve. 

On Jan 21, Transport Minister Anthony Loke told parliament that Rapid Rail recorded a RM603 million deficit in 2025. The company’s operating costs totalled RM1.324 billion, while unaudited revenue reached RM721.5 million — RM695.2 million from fares and RM26.8 million from non-fare sources. The My50 Unlimited Travel Pass accounted for RM234 million of Rapid Rail’s revenue in 2025, accounting for one-third of the company’s total revenue for the year. To plug the shortfall between revenue and operating costs, Prasarana injected RM700 million in capital into Rapid Rail in 2025. 

Despite the losses, the company’s revenue has continued to grow. Revenue jumped 29.3% to RM839.56 million in 2024, from RM649.4 million in the previous year. Except for 2021, when its revenue fell from the preceding year, Prasarana’s top line has been growing over the five-year period to 2024. 

One of Prasarana’s efforts to minimise operating costs is shifting its procurement of spare parts from original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to original parts manufacturers (OPMs).

 

 

Reducing Prasarana’s deficits is not just a matter of cost management, given its substantial fixed costs. To achieve sustainability, the company must increase ridership, curtail costs and re-structure its business model. 

Monthly ridership has climbed steadily as services improved, rising from a pandemic-era high of 14.47 million in April 2021 to 22.6 million in December 2022, and surpassing 30 million in December 2023. The completion of the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) Putrajaya Line in March 2023 boosted usage further, with monthly ridership across Prasarana’s network in the Klang Valley, Penang and Kuantan reaching 35.5 million in December 2024. In July last year, 38.3 million passengers used the network — the highest monthly figure in five years. 

One way the government has committed to improving public transport services is by ensuring that Prasarana maintains a fleet of buses and vans in top condition to serve the public. The government has allocated RM1.9 billion in 2025 to replace and expand Prasarana’s fleet of buses and vans, strengthening first- and last-mile connectivity in the Klang Valley and Penang. The funding covers 1,660 new buses, comprising 310 diesel and 1,350 electric, to replace ageing vehicles. All diesel units have been delivered. 

In 2025, the government allocated RM200 million for the My50 programme without any cap, meaning that even after the budget is fully used, additional riders can still subscribe. Demand exceeded expectations, creating an RM84 million shortfall that Prasarana absorbed in 2025. When the unlimited travel passes My50 and My100 were introduced in 2018, Prasarana operated two LRT lines, one MRT line, the KL Monorail and Rapid buses in the Klang Valley, Penang and Kuantan. The My100 pass originally allowed passengers to access all Prasarana services, whereas the My50 pass was limited to the bus system, excluding the Sunway Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). At that time, there was only one MRT line. In January 2022, the programme was reorganised into a single My50 pass, offering unlimited travel on all Prasarana-operated services except the DRT. Prasarana now also operates the MRT Putrajaya Line, completed in March 2023. 

Reducing car dependency in the Klang Valley will require a radical shift in how transportation is perceived. Without broader changes in policy and public attitudes, Prasarana’s deficits are likely to continue to grow, unless we restructure Prasarana with an asset company owned by the Government and an operating company owned by an experienced private sector operator. 

So, is boosting ridership the key to reducing deficit? That’s only part of the answer. It is cost, business model, revenue enhancements (including dynamic pricing) and others.

 

 

 

Reference:

Boosting ridership key to reducing Prasarana’s deficit, Kamarul Azhar, The Edge Malaysia, 10 March 2026

Funding the Power and SCEL!

 

When a top banking official recently suggested that the central bank expand single customer limits of banks’ financing of the country’s energy transition, it highlighted a growing funding gap. As Malaysia’s solar projects increase in scale, it is increasingly difficult to get access to the domestic banking sector. This stems largely from the Single Counterparty Exposure Limit (SCEL), which caps how much banks can lend to a single borrower or related group. 

The country’s large-scale solar (LSS) projects, despite being awarded to several companies, all have one common off taker – Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB). Going by SCEL rules, banks cannot have more than 25% of eligible capital exposed to any single counterparty or connected counterparties. TNB and Petroliam Nasional Bhd or PETRONAS are exceptions, with an additional 10% allowance. 

While banks still have headroom, this buffer is narrowing as more large-scale renewable energy (RE) projects enter the pipeline. LSS6 tenders are expected to open soon and will include battery storage requirements. Adding to the challenge are weakening “project economics”. Newer projects are not only larger in scale but are also awarded at relatively low tariffs. This is further exacerbated by rising construction costs, driven by higher solar panel and fuel prices. The rise in diesel price, for example, is having a huge impact on the cost of earthworks, which is the early part of building out a solar farm. 

One obvious alternative to bank financing is the bond market. But bond issuances can be more costly and the issuer needs to get a rating, which means not all can make it, especially smaller newbies.

 

Malaysia is now in its fifth iteration of LSS development, with two tranches – LSS5 and the supplementary LSS5+ – awarded to build larger utility-scale solar plants, with projects typically around 100MW in size, with some projects larger. Taken together, LSS5 and LSS5+ represent roughly 4GW of awarded capacity, marking one of the largest utility-scale solar build-outs in Malaysia. 

Tariffs for LSS5 and LSS5+ projects are understood to range between 13.75 sen and 18 sen per kWh, compared with 17.68 sen to 24.81 sen per kWh under LSS4, reflecting continued downward pressure from competitive bidding. 

This, in turn, suggests that internal rates of return for LSS5 and LSS5+ projects could compress to 5% to 6%, compared with earlier expectations of 7% to 8% – levels which are still bankable but expected to keep domestic banks at the centre of financing, as they typically offer lower funding costs. Private equity, however, is generally considered less suitable for long-gestation infrastructure assets due to its shorter investment horizons. The Asean Catalytic Green Finance Facility (ACGF), led by the Asian Development Bank, as an example of blended finance structures that combine concessional, multilateral and private capital to improve project bankability and crowd in private investment. 

There is a gap and market accessibility to funds. As long as BNM holds firm to SCEL, there is need for third parties to provide Guarantees or Suppliers’ Credit. Without Danajamin, BPMB could step in but they too are constrained by SCEL. Technically, BPMB should be outside of SCEL since it is a development bank! If this is not feasible, then all development institutions should be exempted from this (SCEL) provision. 

Reference:

Funding the Power, Gurmeet Kaur, The Star, 2 May 2026

History Books are “Silenced”?

 

History is taught differently in schools these days (and this is the view of historian Ranjit Singh Malhi). And these includes: 

-Orang Asli Were Here First — But Malaysia’s Textbooks Refuse to Admit It 

-The Original Owners ( Orang Asli ) of Malaysia Completely Erased from Our School Textbooks 

- Parameswara Never Converted to Islam in 1414 

- How Malaysian Textbooks Tried to Delete the Chinese Contribution to Malaysia 

- Yap Ah Loy: The Man Who Built Kuala Lumpur But Was Erased from History 

- Tin Mining, Agriculture, KL — The Massive Chinese Role Malaysian Textbooks Hid 

- 750,000 Indians Died Building Malaysia — But Textbooks Don’t Even Mention Them 

- South Indians Built Modern Malaysia — Why Are They Erased from History? 

- The Forgotten Indian Slaves Who Built Malaysia’s Roads, Rails & Economy 

 

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org 

Unfortunately, since 1996, young Malaysians have been learning a form of ‘government-sanctioned history’. The problem of historical distortion extends beyond school textbooks, beginning with the Form One volume in 2016 and the Form Five volume in 2020. The Form Two school history textbook (2017, page 82) perpetuates the myth that Parameswara converted to Islam in 1414. Several ethno-nationalist historians go further, asserting that Parameswara, upon conversion, adopted the name Megat Iskandar Shah. This claim collapses under the weight of historical evidence. 

As stated by the late Emeritus Professor Tan Sri Dr Khoo Kay Kim in his book Malay Society: Transformation and Democratisation, "It is almost certain that his [Parameswara’s] son succeeded him in 1414, assuming the title of Megat Iskandar Shah." Indeed, the Ming Shih-lu (reliable Ming records) state explicitly that Megat Iskandar Shah came to Emperor Yung-lo’s court on 5 October 1414 and declared that his father, Parameswara, had died. Leading scholars including OW Wolters, CH Wake, Mary Turnbull, and BW and LY Andaya (besides Sejarah Melayu) concur that the first Melaka ruler to embrace Islam in the 1430s was Seri Maharaja, who assumed the name Muhammad Shah. 

The phenomenal role played by Yap Ah Loy in developing Kuala Lumpur has been virtually silenced in our history textbooks. Worse still, two local historians have claimed, despite clear-cut and contradictory evidence, that Raja Abdullah was the founder of Kuala Lumpur and that the town originated and developed as a Malay settlement. Contemporary ‘people on the spot’ – including Frank Swettenham, who later became the Resident of Selangor in 1882, and William Hornaday, an American zoologist who visited Kuala Lumpur in 1878 – tell a different story. So do earlier history textbooks, such as the Form Four history textbook published by Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka in 1979 and Standard Four History textbook published by Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka in 1981. 

Official records, including the 1879 Police Census of Kuala Lumpur and the 1959 Kuala Lumpur Municipal Council publication, together with the works of leading authorities on Kuala Lumpur’s early history such as JM Gullick and SM Middlebrook, all converge on two critical and indisputable facts: 

Kuala Lumpur originated and developed primarily as a Chinese township, and Yap Ah Loy (third Kapitan Cina, 1868–1885) was primarily responsible for its development. 

According to Frank Swettenham, a British colonial administrator, Kuala Lumpur in 1872 was “a purely Chinese village, consisting of two rows of adobe-built dwellings thatched with palm leaves”.  In a similar vein, the 1879 Police Census of Selangor reveals that Kuala Lumpur’s population stood at 2,330, of whom 82 per cent were Chinese. 

Raja Abdullah’s (the district chief of Klang) only claim to being the founder of Kuala Lumpur rests on the incidental fact that he sent 87 Chinese miners in 1857 to mine tin ore in Ampang, which was a different district altogether from Kuala Lumpur. As stated by JM Gullick, Kuala Lumpur grew from the settlement established in 1859 by the first Kapitan Cina of Kuala Lumpur, Hiu Siew, and his business partner Ah Sze, near the confluence of the Klang and Gombak rivers (formerly Old Market Square and now Medan Pasar). Significantly, the Kuala Lumpur Municipal Council celebrated Kuala Lumpur’s 100th anniversary in 1959, not in 1957. 

Perhaps one of the most serious shortcomings of our school history textbooks is their denial of the historical role and significance of the Orang Asli. There is no acknowledgment of them as the original inhabitants or “sons of the soil” of Peninsular Malaysia. 

Nor is there mention of their crucial role in early international trade as collectors of forest produce, their service as porters and guides, their appointment as Penghulus and their role as the fighting force during the Melaka Sultanate, and the historical fact that Minangkabau immigrants in Negeri Sembilan married Orang Asli women to establish land rights through the female line. 

Additionally, Malaya’s Indonesian population (mainly Javanese, Banjarese, Sumatrans, Bugis, and Boyanese or Baweanese) increased from approximately 30,000 in 1901 to about 240,000 in 1931. 

The ‘government-sanctioned history’ also downplays the profound and enduring impact of Hindu-Buddhist influence on Malay statecraft, coronation ceremonies of Malay rulers, language, literature, and customs. As stated by Ismail Hamid in his book Masyarakat dan Budaya Melayu (1988, page 55), “… kebudayaan Hindu telah meninggalkan beberapa kesan dalam setiap bidang kehidupan orang Melayu hingga dewasa ini”. 

The textbooks have also omitted the pioneering role of the Chinese in nineteenth-century commercial agriculture and minimized their central contribution to the development of Malaya’s tin mining industry. A glaring and misleading error appears in the Form Three history textbook (2018, page 140), which states that the British cultivated various commercial crops, including pepper and gambier. In reality, pepper and gambier were cultivated largely by the Chinese in Johor in the mid-nineteenth century. Equally alarming, instead of giving due credit to Chinese entrepreneurs and miners, the Form Three history textbook (2018, page 212) alludes that Long Jaafar, the territorial chief of Larut, was primarily responsible for the Federated Malay States (FMS) becoming the largest tin producer in the world. The undeniable truth is that Long Jaafar died in 1857, whereas the FMS became the world’s largest tin producer only towards the end of the nineteenth century. 

Finally, our history textbooks have largely marginalized the pivotal role of South Indian labour in the development of the rubber industry, which became Malaya’s principal revenue earner from 1916 and remained so for several decades thereafter. Equally glaring is the total absence of any acknowledgment of the indispensable contribution of South Indian workers to the construction of Malaya’s physical infrastructure – its roads, railways, bridges, ports, airports, and government buildings. As noted by Kernial Singh Sandhu, a leading authority on Indians in Malaya, it is estimated that more than 750,000 Indians may have perished in the process of developing modern Malaya and opening up treacherous jungle tracts for rubber cultivation. 

Historical omissions, distortions, and half-truths are not harmless mistakes; they are ‘intellectual crimes’.  Enough is enough. It is time for all right-thinking Malaysians, regardless of ethnicity or background, to stand united and demand better. Our children deserve an education grounded in truth, evidence, and inclusivity. Only by teaching an honest and inclusive history can we build a shared national identity, restore trust in our institutions, and secure a just and united future for our beloved nation. 

May God bless Malaysia – a nation founded on unity in diversity.

 

Reference:

They Silenced Orang Asli, Indians & Chinese – What They Don’t Want Your Kids to Know About Malaysian History, Ranjit Singh Malhi, The Coverage, 6 May 2026

Leadership is Influence!

 

Great Leaders don’t just manage performance—they shape how people experience themselves at work. When someone feels truly seen, heard, and valued, something shifts. Confidence grows. Trust deepens. Ownership rises.

 

People don’t show up at their best because they have to— they show up because they want to. That’s the essence of coaching leadership. It’s not about having all the answers but asking the questions that unlock insight. Not about directing every move but creating space for growth. Not about building dependence but strengthening capability.

 

Leadership, at its core, is influence. And the most powerful influence isn’t control— it’s how people feel about their own ability to succeed. When people feel seen, they contribute more. When they feel heard, they engage more. When they feel valued, they stretch further. When they feel respected, they bring their whole selves. And when this becomes consistent— teams don’t just perform… they thrive. So, here’s the real question:

 

When people leave your team, are they more confident, more capable, and more ready for what’s next… because of you?

 

Reference:

Leadership is Influence, Not Control by Cythia Ooi, post in Linkedin

Happy at Work, Tired at Heart?

 

Most Malaysian workers report feeling happy at work, but that sense of satisfaction is increasingly tempered by stress and burnout. This is according to Jobstreet by SEEK’s latest Workplace Happiness Index. The survey, based on responses from around 1,000 working adults aged 18 to 64, found that 70% of Malaysians feel somewhat or extremely happy in their jobs. A similar proportion said they feel valued, while 68% described their work as fulfilling. However, these positive indicators are offset by deeper concerns about workplace pressure and fatigue.

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org

 

Despite a relatively strong labour market with steady job opportunities and low unemployment, three in 10 workers said they feel either unhappy or neutral about their jobs, highlighting persistent gaps in overall workplace satisfaction. For many Malaysians, happiness at work is rooted in day-to-day fundamentals. The survey found that employees are most satisfied with their workplace environment (69%), colleagues (65%), and daily responsibilities (65%).

 

Predictable routines, supportive teams, and a sense of ownership over tasks contribute significantly to positive workplace experiences. However, stress remains a key issue. Only 36% of respondents said they are satisfied with their stress levels, while 41% reported feeling burnt out or exhausted by their jobs.

 

The data also showed a strong link between burnout and dissatisfaction, with unhappy workers twice as likely to experience burnout compared to those who are satisfied. Among those who are unhappy at work, 71% said improving work-life balance would increase their happiness, second only to higher pay.

 

This suggests that unmanaged stress not only affects individual wellbeing but may also have wider implications for productivity, absenteeism, and employee retention. Jobstreet by SEEK Malaysia managing director Nicholas Lam said the findings point to a deeper dynamic shaping workplace satisfaction.

 

While competitive salaries remain essential for attracting and retaining talent, employees are more likely to remain engaged when they find meaning in their work and feel connected to broader organisational goals. The report also found notable differences across age groups. Gen Z workers reported lower levels of happiness and higher stress, reflecting the pressures of early career development and the need to establish themselves in the workforce. They are also more likely to say that reducing stress would significantly improve their wellbeing, compared to millennials and Gen X employees.

 

Workplace experiences also vary by industry. Employees in Professional Services and Construction reported the highest levels of happiness at 78%, while those in the Public Sector, Industrial sectors, and Retail, Hospitality and Sports recorded lower levels of satisfaction, reflecting challenges related to workload, recognition, and flexibility.

 

The findings suggest that improving workplace happiness will require a more holistic approach. Beyond pay, organisations must create environments that foster purpose, reduce burnout, and respond to the evolving needs of a diverse workforce.

 

Reference:

Happy at work, tired at heart: 7 in 10 Malaysians say they are happy—but burnout persists, Bernie Yeo, Focus Malaysia, 10 April 2026

Battersea is Now Ombak Kerugian!

 

Few annals in development keep on returning to haunt the living than the legacy and legend of the Battersea Power Station project. An iconic London landmark on the banks of the Thames which has sucked some of Malaysia’s premier funds and land companies.

 

The latest in that tragic tale is that the CEO of developer Battersea Power Station Development Company or BPSDC, who has been fired.  This was alleged that it was done because the company had effectively overstated the value of its assets by a “few hundred million pounds”.

It should be noted that in 2013 when the project was announced, it was supposed to have been finished by 2025. But it’s still alive and kicking. That should set sirens screaming louder than an official motorcade in Malaysia.

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battersea_Power_Station

 

The entire development was worth RM53 billion over a decade ago and probably costs a lot more now. And it is owned by three icons from Malaysia, SP Setia and Sime Darby Property (SDP) with a 40 per cent stake each and Employees Provident Fund or EPF with the remaining 20 per cent. To top it up, major stakes in SP Setia and SDP are owned by national unit trust operator Permodalan Nasional Bhd or PNB, which owns some 49 per cent of SP Setia and some 45-47 per cent of SDP according to recent reports.

 

The Battersea project dates back to 2013 when it was launched with much fanfare in London, the opening graced by no less than British Prime Minister then, David Cameron, and London mayor and subsequently British prime minister Boris Johnson who were feted by Liew.

 

Essentially, EPF, SDP and SP Setia are likely to shoulder losses of some RM250 million a quarter or RM1 billion a year from a 5-year rental guarantee at Battersea. The guarantees, reportedly for a period of five years, were given by the Battersea Power Station redevelopment project in London to buyers to encourage sales but the company was saddled with a huge payment for income not met by purchasers. It turns out the guarantee may have been given to a holding company owned 65 per cent by EPF and 35 per cent by PNB which bought the commercial development of Battersea for 1.58-billion-pound sterling. The rest, mainly residential, remained with the development company.

 

The Financial Times reported in March 2026 the CEO was dismissed because he flagged that properties owned by the Battersea development company were overvalued by a few hundred million pounds. The case is now before a London tribunal for wrongful dismissal.  The development company denied the allegations.

 

Quality of assets is a rather subjective matter and different people have different things to say about it. But one may ask why a career professional who has a long and distinguished career in other places will make such serious allegations against Battersea if it is not warranted.

 

Why not do a forensic audit for public consumption? After all, the key investors are pension/investment funds? Otherwise, we have more speculation and less light!

 

Reference:

The ghost of Battersea revisits, P. Gunasegaram, Kinibiz Online, 31 March 2026

Is M40 Invisible?

 

Too wealthy for government subsidised housing yet priced out of the soaring luxury market. Referred to as the invisible middle class, Malaysia’s middle 40% (M40) households form the backbone of the workforce, yet their housing realities are increasingly strained. Within this group, the lower-middle tiers are commonly referred to as M1 and M2. They are also the most financially vulnerable. 

During the pandemic, around 20% of M40 households experienced income declines that pushed many into the bottom 40% (B40) category. Although the M40 makes up 40% of households, it holds only about 38.2% of national income, compared to 45.1% for the top 20% (T20), according to the Statistics Department (DOSM). 

In urban centres such as Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, this pressure is amplified. A large share of income is absorbed by housing, transport and childcare, leaving limited room for savings or upward mobility. They are, in many ways, stuck in the middle. Too qualified for subsidised schemes like Rumawip and Perumahan Rakyat 1Malaysia or PR1MA, yet unable to sustain RM700,000-plus urban housing. 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org

For the average household, the mathematics of property no longer adds up. It is becoming increasingly misaligned with income reality. DOSM reports that the median monthly income for the lower M40 is around RM5,250. Based on the median multiple rule, affordable housing for this group should ideally fall between RM300,000 and RM450,000. 

The Property Market Report 2025 by the National Property Information Centre (Napic) shows the national average house price has risen to RM502,922. In major urban centres, the gap is even wider still. Kuala Lumpur has shot past RM810,000 while Selangor averages RM567,505. Buyers are worried because this mismatch is leading to a structural imbalance that will resonate years down the line. 

Napic data shows a 31.6% rise in unsold completed units as of late 2025. While 52% of transactions are still going strong below RM300,000, new supply is still skewing toward higher-priced, high-density developments with high ownership costs. Monthly maintenance fees today can range between RM300 and RM500 per month, though this can easily rise to over RM700 in luxury developments. This quickly becomes a tipping point between mortgage approval and rejection. For many households, affordability is not only about loan eligibility but about sustaining long-term ownership. 

Many buyers are venturing out from city centres in search of affordability. Locations such as Semenyih, Nilai and Rawang offer good entry points in the RM300,000 and RM400,000 range. However, these savings tend to get offset by longer commutes, higher fuel costs and increased vehicle maintenance. 

Budget 2026 expanded the Housing Credit Guarantee Scheme, allocating up to RM10bil to support first-time buyers and gig workers. Developers have also done their part in introducing step-up financing models that reduce any early repayment burdens. These are all done in anticipation of income growth. However, financing is still a problem. 

Recent findings from the Real Estate and Housing Developers’ Association Malaysia (Rehda) show that 72% of developers report financing-related difficulties among buyers, with end-financing loan rejections reaching as high as 31% to 45% for properties priced between RM500,000 and RM700,000. 

Malaysia’s housing market is no longer grappling with oversupply issues alone. For a large segment of the M40, ownership is increasingly filtered through financing barriers, recurring costs and structural affordability constraints. In that sense, the question is no longer whether housing exists for the middle class but whether the middle class still exists within the current housing system. 

Reference:

The invisible M40, Samantha Wong, The Star, 3 May 2026