Mindset shift needed to address issues at KLIA

THE electricity supply disruption at KLIA Terminal 2 on Aug 28 is a blaring alarm bell signalling a deep-rooted, systemic issue in the management of our nation’s premier gateway.

Along with the repeated aerotrain breakdowns, the incident points to a culture of complacency that demands a complete re-evaluation of the entire electrical infrastructure at KLIA.

It’s time to ask hard questions and demand real, permanent solutions.

1. Where does accountability for system failures lie? While we have full confidence in the technical competence of the airport authorities, a pattern of recurring issues suggests that accountability may be unclear. In a large organisation with many stakeholders, lack of clear ownership for system failures can lead to temporary fixes rather than a top-down overhaul. Establishing a clear line of responsibility is essential to ensure that long-term, strategic solutions are prioritised.

2. Is there a prioritisation issue with capital expenditure? The powers that be must consider if the budget for critical infrastructure is being used appropriately. A world-class airport’s power and transport systems cannot compromise on safety and reliability. A healthy balance must be struck between operational efficiency and the necessary long-term investment in robust systems.

3. Why did a “flash arcing fire” occur? In critical operations, thermal scanning is a standard preventive measure. Using infrared cameras, this technology detects heat signatures that indicate loose wire or terminal connections, which can lead to overheating, arcing and fire. Are such routine, preventive maintenance methods a standard practice at KLIA? Failure to detect a potential fire hazard points to a severe lapse in maintenance protocols.

4. Are maintenance contracts fit for purpose? Given that Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB) outsources some of its maintenance to external vendors, what is the nature of these contracts? Are they structured to incentivise proactive and preventive maintenance? The current contractual model must be examined to see if it leads to a cycle of costly repairs instead of continuous improvement.

5. Are emergency systems truly adequate? The Transport Minister’s observation that escalators failed to function during the blackout despite backup systems reportedly kicking in suggests that the definition of “critical services” for backup power may be too narrow. What good is a backup system if it doesn’t power essential services that ensure smooth passenger flow and safety? A thorough review of what constitutes a “critical service” is necessary to ensure adequate power capacity for lighting, escalators and other vital functions.

6. Is there a clear and timely emergency response procedure? The claim that power was restored within 38 minutes by rerouting from an alternate substation raises questions about the efficiency of the emergency response. Shouldn’t this alternate power supply be part of an automatic process that activates within seconds? Furthermore, it must be asked if emergency procedures are truly in place, whether personnel are empowered to make rapid decisions, and if these procedures are periodically tested through drills to ensure a swift and orderly implementation.

7. Where is the redundancy? The aerotrain’s repeated breakdowns highlight a shocking lack of redundancy. An efficient system should have backups that automatically take over when a component fails. Without this “fail-safe” design, the bus shuttle service may become a semi-permanent feature, turning a world-class airport into a laughing stock.

The core issue is not lack of technical competence but a question of leadership and a mindset that must shift from reactive to proactive, and from addressing the direct cause to the root cause.

As we look towards Visit Malaysia Year 2026, the state of our international gateway is not just a matter of convenience; it is also matter of national pride and economic viability.

CHIN YEW SIN

Shah Alam