Ahead of the 2017 SEA Games, federation president Karim Ibrahim described it as a “fast track” that could help Malaysian athletes achieve better times and stronger performances on home soil.
Coaches praised it, athletes trained on it, and officials promoted it as a world-class facility built to international standards.
Today, the same track sits at the centre of a debate that extends beyond athletics.
The controversy began with a tender to replace the existing surface and install protective flooring at the national stadium.
It has since expanded into a broader discussion about procurement, costs and accountability.
At the heart of the story is a letter sent by Malaysia Athletics to youth and sports minister Dr Taufiq Johari on Feb 23.
The ministry forwarded the letter, signed by Karim who reclaimed the presidency last year, to Malaysia Stadium Corporation for its attention and appropriate action, as the matter falls under its jurisdiction.
The federation urged the government to replace the existing nine-lane track at the national stadium and the eight-lane track at the national sports council’s mini stadium.
In the letter, Malaysia Athletics argued that the current Mondo surface had become too hard, offered poor shock absorption and contributed to injuries among athletes.
It also said the track had deteriorated prematurely and was not well suited to Malaysia’s tropical climate.
The federation proposed three alternative categories of track systems — full polyurethane, silicon polyurethane and prefabricated tracks.
It claimed these options met international standards while costing about half as much as the surface installed in 2017.
That recommendation now carries added significance.
The nearly RM15 million contract to replace both tracks has been awarded to install a China-made JRace prefabricated system. The new surface will replace the existing Mondo tracks at both venues ahead of the 2027 SEA Games.
The issue is not whether the tracks should be replaced as most sports surfaces have a finite lifespan.
It is whether the arguments used to support replacement were backed by sufficient evidence.
A different view of the same track
One striking feature of the letter is how sharply it differs from comments made when the track was first installed.
In 2017, Karim encouraged athletes to take advantage of the Mondo surface. Sprint coach M Balamurugan also said athletes were comfortable with the track and expected strong performances on it.
Sports science specialists explained at the time that harder surfaces often provide greater energy return for sprinters, helping them produce faster times in competition.
That does not automatically invalidate concerns raised in 2026.
Tracks age. Heavy use takes its toll. Maintenance standards also play a role in long-term performance.
However, the letter leaves several gaps.
Malaysia Athletics stated that athletes frequently suffered injuries because of the track’s hardness.
Yet it did not include injury statistics, medical reports or independent studies linking those injuries directly to the surface.
How many athletes were affected? What injuries did they sustain? Over what period were the cases recorded?
The federation also attached photographs showing cracks and surface damage. However, it did not include a technical assessment explaining whether the images reflected abnormal deterioration or normal wear after years of intensive use.
That distinction matters. The national stadium hosts athletics competitions, football matches, concerts and major public events throughout the year. Such heavy use naturally places stress on any sporting surface.
Without supporting technical analysis, photographs alone cannot determine whether the track failed prematurely or simply reached the end of its expected service life.
The timeline also remains unclear.
When did Malaysia Athletics first raise concerns about the track? Were those concerns formally documented before 2026? Did the federation collect evidence over several years, or did the complaints emerge during discussions about replacement?
Malaysia Athletics did not respond to questions from FMT.
The cost argument
The federation’s claim that alternative systems could cost roughly 50% less may prove to be the most significant part of the letter.
On the surface, it appears to be an argument for better value.
Yet the document does not explain how the figure was calculated.
It neither cites comparative studies nor sets out pricing assumptions.
It does not indicate whether installation, certification, warranties, maintenance costs and related works formed part of the calculation.
Nor does it explain whether the comparison involved products with similar specifications.
The replacement project appears to have been budgeted at a level associated with a premium international track system.
Yet the selected product is reportedly a lower-cost alternative.
That raises an obvious question.
If the chosen system costs substantially less than the premium surface it replaces, were those savings reflected in the final contract value?
The issue is not whether JRace meets international standards. The company holds World Athletics class one certification and has so far laid only one track at a university in China.
The issue is whether the pricing, specifications and procurement process remained aligned from the beginning of the project to the final award.
The federation’s letter offers little insight into that aspect of the discussion.
Influence and decision-making
The document also sheds light on the role played by Malaysia Athletics during the early stages of the replacement proposal.
The federation offered to provide technical specifications, supplier information and budget estimates to assist the ministry.
That is not unusual. National sports bodies often advise governments on facilities used by elite athletes.
Even so, several points remain unclear.
Did Malaysia Athletics contribute to the technical requirements used in the tender process? Were its recommendations incorporated into project planning?
Did officials independently verify the claims contained in the letter before moving forward?
Those questions matter because the federation helped establish two key ideas.
First, that the existing track no longer met the needs of Malaysian athletics.
Second, that an alternative could deliver international standards at a much lower cost.
Both arguments may ultimately prove sound.
However, they are also key in a project that now faces scrutiny from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, contractors and industry observers.
The debate over the national stadium running track is no longer simply about surfaces, specifications or brands.
It is about how major public projects are justified, how technical advice is assessed and how decisions involving millions of ringgit are explained to taxpayers.