WHAT time is your usual first cup of coffee?
As part of a new initiative called Bangun KL: Ke Arah Kuala Lumpur Yang Lebih Sejahtera, the government has set its sights on reducing rush-hour traffic congestion in the morning by encouraging motorists to enter the capital earlier.
The approach? Collaborating with Zus Coffee to offer a 30% discount on drinks for customers in Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya purchasing through its mobile app during the allotted time slot. This will see some drinks offered from as low as RM5.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Federal Territories) Hannah Yeoh said the campaign centres around behavioural change, particularly by using incentives and cross-sector collaboration to tackle congestion more holistically.
Yeoh provided some numbers, too. According to her, an estimated 1.2 million vehicles enter Kuala Lumpur each morning, and redistributing even 10% of that traffic to earlier hours could significantly improve overall traffic flow.
On the surface, it seems like it could be a clever idea. Using behavioural “nudges” is relatively cheap and quick to implement. If even a small share of morning commuters head in earlier, peak-hour congestion could ease. In public policy speak, it is a classic “soft intervention” of tweaking incentives rather than imposing rules.
Beyond easing congestion, the initiative could bring some broader benefits. Smoother traffic flow would mean shorter and more predictable commute times, with the added upside of lower fuel use and emissions. A more staggered morning peak could also ease pressure on public transport systems, while businesses in the city centre may see a steadier flow of customers.
But congestion in Kuala Lumpur goes beyond a matter of timing. It is a matter of structure, too.
The reality for many commuters is “leaving earlier” is not a choice but a routine already stretched to its limits. Work hours are fixed, schools begin at set times, and households juggle tightly coordinated routines involving childcare and multiple commutes. Without corresponding shifts in workplace practices and daily culture, the incentive to travel earlier remains weak.
There is also a question of who exactly benefits from such a policy. While it may be well targeted at urban, app-using motorists who are already more likely to drive and pick up a cup of coffee on the way in, it also risks leaving others behind. Public transport users, lower-income workers, and those with little flexibility in their schedules are largely untouched, if not excluded altogether.
More fundamentally, the initiative risks mistaking a symptom for the cause. Congestion in the city centre is a matter of when and how people travel, as well as why they have little choice in the first place. Private vehicles continue to dominate, accounting for roughly 70% of daily commutes, while public transport usage lingers at around 25%, according to Planning Malaysia.
This has, unsurprisingly, become a focal point of discussion, particularly among younger commuters who have been quick to question this incentive. Many have pointed instead to the need to strengthen public transport through increasing bus frequency, reopening deactivated bus routes, and enforcing dedicated yellow bus priority lanes during peak hours.
Others have highlighted the importance of improving reliability across rail networks, especially maintaining LRT and MRT services and reducing disruptions on lines such as the Kelana Jaya line. There is also a growing argument for more flexible work arrangements, including structured work-from-home options, to reduce the need for daily peak-hour travel altogether.
This is not to say the initiative has no value. As a pilot, it may offer useful insights into how commuters respond to behavioural nudges. If it is successful even at achieving marginal shifts in travel patterns, the data gathered can be used to inform more comprehensive strategies.
It is also worth noting that this campaign is only part of a larger, long-term strategy to enhance urban living that will include wide-ranging measures from strengthening governance to improving community access and expanding green spaces.
Ultimately, this is less a question of whether the policy works, and more of how we think about policy itself. Policymaking works best when it reflects how Malaysians actually live and move through their day. Without a firm grip on structural constraints, incentives and behavioural nudges risk leaning into administrative convenience and yielding limited impact.
Equally important is who gets counted in these calculations and who does not. Do our policies meaningfully account for those with the least flexibility, whose commuting choices are often the most constrained?
In a country where young people are increasingly vocal about the systems they inherit, initiatives like this are often read as signals of how seriously their everyday experiences are understood. Incorporating their perspectives early in the policymaking process offers a valuable opportunity to create measures that resonate and build trust.
If nothing else, this initiative should prompt a broader reflection not just on how we ease congestion, but on how we design policies that are both clever in theory and grounded in the lived realities of the people they serve.
Malaysian youth advocate Jonathan Lee Rong Sheng traces his writing roots to The Star’s BRATs programme. The views expressed here are solely the writer’s own.
