By Datuk Ts Dr. Hj Ramli Amir, former President of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT) Malaysia and Vice-President of CILT International for Southeast Asia
PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE
KOTA KINABALU: Sabah is trying to transform its economy on a fundamentally unstable logistics foundation. Ports, roads, rail, airports, industrial parks and tourism corridors are all being pushed forward, but mostly in isolation.
Each project has its own champion, budget and political narrative, rather than being guided by a single blueprint that says what goes where, in what sequence, and for which supply chains.
What is missing is an integrated logistics and transport masterplan that sets priorities, defines corridor hierarchies and aligns infrastructure with Sabah’s long term economic vision.
Without it, the state is effectively putting the cart before the horse – announcing corridors and “game changer” projects before agreeing on the strategic spine that should organise them. This is not a minor technical omission; it is a structural flaw that quietly undermines directional economic development.
THE INSTITUTIONAL VACUUM NO ONE WANTS TO OWN
The biggest barrier is not technical know how but institutional ownership. Sabah still lacks a clearly mandated, empowered authority that “owns” a logistics and transport masterplan across all modes and all key supply chains.
Many actors touch transport and logistics – ministries, departments, statutory bodies, federal agencies, local authorities, port operators and industrial estate managers. Each holds a piece of the puzzle. Yet none is willing to take responsibility for initiating a document that will inevitably constrain future decisions and expose past inefficiencies.
A real masterplan is not a wish list of projects. It ranks priorities, identifies strategic corridors and nodes, and inevitably tells some stakeholders that their preferred projects must be reshaped, delayed or dropped.
It creates winners and losers in terms of timing and visibility, even if everyone gains from a more coherent system in the long run.
That is politically uncomfortable. In the absence of a clearly empowered “owner”, the safest behaviour is to do nothing – or to talk generically about “plans” and “visions” without initiating a binding, integrated exercise.
The question is no longer “Can Sabah plan?” but “Who dares to initiate planning that will actually bind behaviour?”
MINDET: NECESSARY BUT NOT YET SUFFICIENT
On paper, the Ministry of Industrial Development, Entrepreneurship and Transport (MINDET) looks like the natural home for a state level masterplan. Its portfolio combines industry, entrepreneurship and transport – a logical grouping if Sabah wants logistics infrastructure aligned with industrial clusters and SME growth.
In practice, the transport function within MINDET is still new. The ministry’s culture, staffing and systems are anchored in its original roles. It does not yet have the fully developed technical units, long standing data systems or consolidated statutory reach across all modes that a masterplan requires.
Legacy transport related agencies – public works, the state railway, port authorities, enforcement and planning units – pre date MINDET’s expanded mandate and have their own histories and political relationships. Bringing them under a single strategic framework is complex and sensitive.
Understandably, MINDET has been nudged into incremental programmes and consultations rather than a bold, integrated masterplan that would immediately test the limits of its authority.
MINDET is therefore a necessary part of the solution, but not yet in a position to be the sole initiator of a document that touches every corridor, hub and regulatory interface in Sabah.
FRAGMENTATION AND FEAR
Behind the hesitation lies a deeper truth: an integrated masterplan is a discipline imposing instrument. Once adopted, it can be used to question why certain projects exist, why others are delayed, and whether scarce public funds are spent in line with agreed priorities.
Agencies fear that a masterplan will expose overlaps, inefficiencies and politically driven decisions that are hard to justify under scrutiny. Politicians fear that a long term blueprint reduces their flexibility to announce and adjust projects according to short term political cycles. Some stakeholders are uneasy about the transparency and data-driven assessment that a modern plan demands: hard numbers on freight flows, connectivity, environmental impact, and social access.
It is therefore easier to proliferate semi-coordinated initiatives – individual transport studies, corridor proposals, isolated port upgrades, and scattered industrial parks. Activity is visible, but coherence is absent. Everyone can claim to be “planning” or “transforming” without having to confront the integrative logic of a masterplan that might say certain cherished ideas no longer fit Sabah’s future.
THE ECONOMIC COST OF DIRECTIONLESS LOGISTICS
The cost of this stalemate is real. Without a Sabah Integrated Logistics and Transport Masterplan, high value investors face uncertainty about how ports, rail, roads, and industrial zones will evolve and connect. When future connectivity and reliability are unclear, long term capital is cautious.
Logistics costs remain structurally high because routes, capacities, and regulations are not optimised for Sabah’s main supply chains: food, fuel, containers, agro-products, tourism, and industrial cargo. Different parts of the system may function, but hidden frictions, unnecessary transhipments and mismatched capacities quietly tax economic activity.
Rural and interior communities remain poorly integrated into growth corridors, limiting diversification beyond traditional primary sectors and reinforcing regional disparities. Green and sustainable logistics – rail revival, coastal shipping, lower emission freight – lack a clear policy spine and risk remaining piecemeal.
Put simply, Sabah is trying to achieve directional economic development without a compass. Projects and announcements exist, but they do not add up to a resilient, competitive logistics ecosystem capable of supporting long term, inclusive growth.
WHY IDS SHOULD LIGHT THE FUSE
If ministries are understandably cautious about being the first to initiate a binding masterplan, Sabah needs an institution that can de risk the process. The Institute for Development Studies (IDS) is well placed to play that role.
IDS has long served as Sabah’s intellectual engine for economic and policy reforms. Its mandate and culture align with long term, cross sectoral thinking and evidence based planning, rather than short term manoeuvring. As a research and advisory body, IDS can convene federal agencies, state ministries, local authorities, the private sector and academia without immediately threatening anyone’s turf.
Formally tasking IDS to initiate the Sabah Integrated Logistics and Transport Masterplan would turn a politically sensitive move into a structured, consultative exercise. IDS can lead diagnostics, articulate a multi modal strategy tied to key supply chains, propose governance and legal architecture, and outline financing and implementation pathways. MINDET and other ministries would be core partners throughout, rather than being expected to carry the initiative alone.
Once the blueprint is mature, it can be handed to MINDET and the State Cabinet for adoption, with IDS continuing as an advisory and monitoring partner.
FROM HESITATION TO ACTION
If Sabah is serious about turning logistics into a true engine of growth, three steps would show a shift from rhetoric to action:
I. A clear Cabinet mandate for IDS to prepare a Sabah Integrated Logistics and Transport Masterplan concept and roadmap within a defined timeframe.
II. A high level steering committee, chaired by IDS and anchored by MINDET, finance, key agencies, federal counterparts and the private sector, supported by technical working groups.
III. Using the process itself to design the eventual implementing authority – whether a strengthened transport portfolio in MINDET or a dedicated logistics body – so the plan has a home and enforcement power once approved.
Until Sabah confronts the institutional vacuum at the heart of its logistics strategy, the state will continue to talk about transformation while operating in a fragmented, high cost, low clarity system. The real question is whether Sabah will finally move from comfortable hesitation to decisive action – and let a properly mandated institution light the fuse.
