Telcos must buck up or face action

 They should stop making 5G promises if they cannot provide basic connectivity.

From Ashraf Abdullah

The search and rescue operation for a hiker at Gunung Batu Putih in Perak has once again exposed a longstanding problem that Malaysians have been complaining about for years – poor telecommunications coverage and unreliable mobile connectivity.

According to an FMT report, communication difficulties hampered coordination among search and rescue personnel involved in the operation.

In emergency situations, communication is not a luxury, it is a necessity.

Every delayed message, every dropped call, and every failed data connection can affect response times and potentially place lives at risk.

While many may dismiss the incident by arguing that Gunung Batu Putih is located in a remote area, the uncomfortable truth is that poor telecommunications coverage is not confined to forests, mountains, or rural villages.

The same frustrations are being experienced daily in urban centres such as Subang Jaya, Shah Alam, and other parts of the Klang Valley.

It is difficult to understand how residents living in some of Malaysia’s most developed urban areas continue to face situations where their phones struggle to receive even a single bar of signal.

There are locations in housing areas, commercial centres, and even along major roads where calls suddenly drop, internet speeds crawl, and mobile applications become unusable.

My family and I experience connectivity problems when we go to a restaurant at the Boulevard in Denai Alam, Shah Alam, or when visiting relatives in USJ, Subang Jaya. How is this possible? These are urban areas, and this is 2026.

This is happening despite years of promises, endless advertising campaigns, and claims that billions of ringgit have been invested in telecommunications infrastructure.

Malaysians are constantly bombarded with advertisements promoting ultra-fast 5G services, seamless connectivity, and world-class digital infrastructure. The marketing message suggests that Malaysia is rapidly becoming a leading digital nation. Yet, the actual experience on the ground often tells a different story.

Many consumers are asking a simple question: where exactly is this much-publicised 5G experience?

The reality is that many users continue to struggle with weak coverage, unstable connections, and inconsistent service quality despite paying increasingly expensive monthly subscriptions. Consumers are paying premium prices but receiving mediocre service.

What makes the situation even more frustrating is that this is not a new problem.

For years, telecommunications companies have been repeatedly warned by the government and the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) about poor service quality and weak coverage.

On Feb 7, 2023, the communications and digital ministry (as it was then known) publicly warned telecommunications companies that they had until June 2023 to resolve service quality issues faced by consumers. The minister, Fahmi Fadzil, made it clear that service quality complaints had become a serious concern and that telcos were expected to address them promptly. Yet three years later, consumers are still making the same complaints.

The warnings did not stop there.

On March 8, 2024, New Straits Times reported that telecommunications companies could face higher fines for poor service delivery. Fahmi acknowledged that authorities had received numerous complaints about delays in service delivery and poor customer experience. The report highlighted the government’s growing frustration with recurring service issues affecting consumers.

More recently, on April 13, 2025, The Star reported that Fahmi had given telecommunications companies until 5pm on the same day to submit solutions to widespread internet access problems or face stern action. In unusually strong remarks, the minister criticised telcos for being quick to pursue unpaid bills while taking months to respond to customer complaints about poor coverage.

On the same day, Sinar Harian quoted Fahmi as saying he had been patient for long enough, and warned that MCMC would begin enforcement action if comprehensive solutions were not presented.

Just two days later, FMT reported that telcos had been instructed to prepare monthly task lists to resolve internet connectivity issues, following continued complaints from the public.

The question Malaysians should be asking is simple: after all these warnings, deadlines, and threats of enforcement, what has actually changed?

Evidence suggests that the problem remains widespread.

In August 2025, deputy communications minister Teo Nie Ching revealed in Parliament that MCMC had detected more than 1,600 service quality non-compliance issues involving telecommunications providers across the country within just seven months.

The findings were based on nationwide quality audits conducted by MCMC. A total of 1,684 non-compliance issues involving 815 locations were identified.

Even more concerning was the revelation that MCMC had previously issued hundreds of directives to telecommunications companies for failing to comply with mandatory service quality standards. Yet, many cases remained unresolved because infrastructure upgrades and network improvements were still pending.

This raises serious questions about accountability.

• How many warnings must be issued before meaningful action is taken?
• How many more enforcement notices must be sent before consumers see actual improvements?
• And how many more years must Malaysians continue paying premium rates for services that often fail to meet basic expectations?

Telecommunications services today are as important as electricity and water. Businesses depend on them. Students depend on them. Emergency responders depend on them. Families depend on them.

The government cannot continue to rely solely on coverage statistics and corporate presentations submitted by telecommunications providers. What matters is not what appears on a coverage map but what consumers experience in real life.

MCMC should conduct more aggressive independent testing in urban centres, publish detailed performance rankings for each telecommunications provider, and impose meaningful financial penalties on companies that repeatedly fail to meet mandatory service standards.

Consumers deserve transparency. They deserve accountability. Most importantly, they deserve the level of service they are paying for.

Malaysia cannot aspire to become a digital powerhouse while basic telecommunications services remain unreliable.

The time for warnings has passed.

It is time to crack the whip. - FMT

Ashraf Abdullah is former Group Managing Editor, Television Networks, Media Prima Bhd.

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

Asean in a quandary over Myanmar

 Malaysia’s delicate diplomatic effort to get the various factions in the former Union of Burma to the table is a reflection of the regional grouping’s deepening dilemma.

Myanmar remains the single greatest strategic and moral challenge confronting Asean.

More than five years after the military coup of February 2021, the country has descended into a prolonged and fragmented conflict involving the Tatmadaw, ethnic armed organisations and newly formed resistance groups that emerged after the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi.

What initially appeared to some observers as a temporary military intervention has instead evolved into a nationwide struggle that threatens not only Myanmar’s territorial cohesion but also Asean’s credibility as the organisation representing Southeast Asia.

Against this backdrop, Malaysian foreign minister Mohamad Hasan’s recent visit to Naypyidaw after the “bare boned” Asean Summit on May 6-8 in Cebu, carries significance far beyond routine diplomacy.

Coming immediately after the Asean Summit, Mohammad’s visit reflected Malaysia’s attempt to navigate one of the most difficult diplomatic equations in contemporary Southeast Asia.

How to engage Myanmar without legitimising the continued failure of the junta to comply with Asean’s Five-Point Consensus.

That consensus, agreed upon by Senior General Min Aung Hlaing himself, now President of Myanmar, during the special Asean summit in Jakarta in April 2021, called for an immediate cessation of violence, constructive dialogue among all parties, humanitarian assistance and mediation through a special Asean envoy.

Yet five years later, little of substance has materialised.

Instead, violence has intensified. Airstrikes, armed clashes and humanitarian displacement have become deeply entrenched realities across large parts of Myanmar.

The military regime continues to face coordinated resistance from both longstanding ethnic armed organisations and newer people’s defence forces aligned with the broader anti-coup movement.

This explains why Myanmar’s military leadership remains barred from high-level Asean meetings.

Asean’s refusal to invite junta leaders is not merely symbolic punishment. It is an attempt by the regional bloc to preserve a minimum level of institutional credibility.

If Asean were to abandon its own five-point consensus without any measurable implementation, it would undermine the organisation’s standing and weaken its long-held principle that agreements among member states must carry political weight.

At the same time, however, Asean also understands that completely isolating Myanmar may worsen the crisis.

Malaysia’s diplomatic outreach therefore reflects a deeper Asean calculation: engagement must continue even amid frustration. Diplomacy cannot simply cease because progress is slow or inconsistent.

This is particularly true because Myanmar’s instability increasingly threatens the wider region.

The prolonged conflict has generated refugee flows, cross-border crime, arms trafficking and growing humanitarian pressures affecting neighbouring states such as Thailand and Bangladesh.

It has also heightened the risk that Myanmar could become an arena for intensified strategic competition among external powers.

For Asean, this is deeply worrying. The organisation was established in 1967 precisely to prevent Southeast Asia from becoming consumed by proxy wars, ideological confrontation and chronic regional fragmentation.

Asean’s success over nearly six decades has rested on its ability to cushion tensions, maintain dialogue and prevent intra-regional crises from spiralling beyond control.

Myanmar now tests all those assumptions simultaneously.

The regime’s recent criticism of Asean for maintaining the diplomatic snub demonstrates how strained relations have become.

Yet Asean itself is also internally divided over how firmly to pressure Naypyidaw.

Some member states favour stronger isolation measures. Others prefer quiet engagement and pragmatic dialogue.

Countries sharing borders with Myanmar naturally prioritise stability and refugee management over rhetorical confrontation alone. Thailand cannot be blamed for trying to engage Myanmar.

Malaysia, meanwhile, occupies an increasingly important pivotal position in this debate.

Under Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and foreign minister Mohamad, Malaysia has attempted to preserve Asean’s normative position while still recognising geopolitical realities.

The reality is that the likes of China, India and Russia may want to burrow in Myanmar.

Kuala Lumpur understands that no sustainable solution can emerge purely through coercion or diplomatic ostracism. Malaysia has to engage Myanmar too.

But Malaysia has also been careful not to endorse the junta’s political roadmap uncritically.

Elections conducted amid widespread violence, mass displacement and the exclusion of key political actors risk deepening Myanmar’s fragmentation rather than resolving it.

The deeper tragedy is that Myanmar’s crisis no longer resembles a conventional political impasse alone. It increasingly reflects the collapse of national trust across multiple levels of society.

The junta continues to tolerate the existence of scammers in its midst for instance despite claims of massive crackdown.

This makes Asean mediation extraordinarily difficult.

Nevertheless, abandoning diplomacy altogether would be even more dangerous.

Asean therefore requires greater strategic patience, stronger humanitarian coordination and more innovative forms of quiet diplomacy.

Engagement should not only involve the military authorities but also broader stakeholders capable of contributing to eventual national reconciliation.

The longer the conflict continues, the more difficult Myanmar’s reconstruction will become.

For Asean, the stakes extend beyond one member state.

The regional organisation’s long-term relevance increasingly depends on whether it can demonstrate an ability to manage severe internal crises without descending into paralysis.

Malaysia’s engagement with Naypyidaw thus reflects not weakness, but recognition of a painful reality.

That Asean cannot save Myanmar overnight, but neither can it afford to lose Myanmar completely.

The future credibility and stability of Southeast Asia may depend on sustaining that delicate balance. - FMT

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

Why didn’t the system prevent the LRT train from derailing?

 A switch can fail. A sensor can malfunction. But wider operational safeguards are supposed to prevent a single failure from escalating into a derailment.

From Wan Agyl Wan Hassan

A train derailment in the middle of Kuala Lumpur’s rail network should never become an event that Malaysians view as “normal”, because modern rail systems are built with one important assumption: individual components may occasionally fail.

What matters is whether the wider safety architecture is strong enough to prevent that failure from escalating into a dangerous incident.

According to Rapid KL’s official statement, the derailment on the Ampang-Sri Petaling Line near the Chan Sow Lin station occurred after the train encountered a “track switch malfunction” while passing through a switch zone. Thankfully, all passengers on board were safely evacuated without injuries.

Preliminary public explanations suggest there may have been a mismatch between train movement authorisation and track switch alignment.

If investigations ultimately confirm this sequence, the issue would extend beyond a single faulty component to the broader question of operational synchronisation and fail-safe protection.

For ordinary commuters, these technical terms may sound distant or overly engineering-focused. But they matter because every day, millions of passengers step into trains trusting that the invisible safeguards behind the network are functioning exactly as intended.

That trust is the foundation of every modern public transport system.

In railway operations, switch zones are among the most safety-critical parts of the network because they control how trains move between different track alignments. In simple terms, the train, the signal, and the physical track must all “agree” with each other at precisely the same moment.

If that coordination breaks down, the risks increase immediately. This is why rail networks are designed around fail-safe principles and multiple layers of protection.

A switch can fail. A sensor can malfunction. Software can experience faults. But the wider operational safeguards are supposed to prevent a single failure from escalating into a derailment.

After this incident, the more important question might not simply be “What failed?”, but rather “Why didn’t the other protection layers stop the failure from escalating?” This distinction matters because Malaysia’s urban rail ecosystem is becoming increasingly complex as networks grow larger, busier, and more interconnected.

The concern is not that one component may have failed, but whether increasingly complex rail operations are evolving faster than the maintenance discipline, engineering resilience, and operational safeguards designed to contain failures safely.

This challenge is not unique to Malaysia. Singapore’s MRT system underwent major maintenance reforms after the 2011 disruptions exposed the pressures of operating an increasingly dense and ageing rail network.

London Underground continues investing billions not merely to expand its services, but to modernise signalling systems and renew ageing operational assets to maintain reliability under intense daily demand.

Globally, the lesson is consistent: major rail incidents rarely emerge from one isolated issue alone. They usually occur when multiple layers of coordination, resilience, or protection weaken simultaneously.

To the government’s credit, the immediate formation of a special task force and the strong public emphasis on accountability show recognition that this incident cannot be treated as “business as usual.”

But accountability alone is not enough. In my view; Malaysia must now strengthen focus on:

•  systems resilience,
• predictive maintenance,
• signalling and interlocking assurance,
• engineering capability,
• operational redundancy,
• and long-term asset lifecycle governance.

Public confidence in rail systems is not built through announcements or megaproject launches alone. It is built on the belief that even when something goes wrong, the wider network is still resilient enough to protect passengers safely.

Once passengers begin questioning whether those invisible safety layers are still dependable, rebuilding public confidence becomes far harder than repairing tracks or replacing equipment. -  - FMT

Wan Agyl Wan Hassan is the founder and senior adviser of MY Mobility Vision, a transport think tank.

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

UNDERSTANDING CHINA

 

UNTUK ORANG 10X BODOH SAHAJA: EV XIAOMI YU7, 1,548 HORSE POWER, 835 KM RANGE, HARGA US$35,000 (RM139,000 SAHAJA)

 Maklumat ini khusus untuk orang 10X bodoh sahaja.

Atau orang yang mudah diperbodohkan.
Atau orang yang rela diperbodohkan 
Atau orang yang tidak tahu mereka diperbodohkan (DUA KALI BODOH).
Atau orang yang tidak tahu mereka bodoh (BODOH SOMBONG)
Tapi if you do not fall under any of this category then baguslah. Dont worry lah.

Yang berikut adalah video kereta EV Xiaomi YU7 di negara China.  

Kereta ini berkuasa 1,548 HORSE POWER (lagi tinggi daripada Ferrari).
Boleh berjalan 835 KM dengan sekali charge bateri. 
Harga kereta ini di negeri China adalah sekitar US$35,000 (RM139,000 SAHAJA). 

Sila perhatikan video ini (4 minit sahaja).  
Untuk perbandingan, harga kereta Ferrari dalam video ini adalah sekitar RM1.6 JUTA !! (US$400,000).
Harga EV Xiaomi YU7 pula hanya RM139,000 sahaja.

SILA BACA SOALAN CEPU MAS DI BAWAH SEKALI.

If you have more time, sila tengok video ini juga (20 minit sahaja). 

SOALAN CEPU MAS: 
SIAPA SUKA JADI BODOH?
WHO LIKES TO BE STUPID?
SIAPA SUKA DIPERBODOHKAN?
WHO LIKES TO BE MADE A FOOL?
ADAKAH ANDA TERMASUK KATEGORI BODOH?
ARE YOU IN THE BODOH CATEGORY?

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