Industry Overview

8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW 8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (Prepared for inclusion in this Prospectus) 6 SEPTEMBER 2013 The Board of Directors Drewry~~,’Westports Holdings Berhad Lot 6.05, Level 6, KPMG Tower 8 First Avenue, Bandar Utama 47800 Petaling Jaya Selangor Darul Ehsan Malaysia Dear Sirs/Madams, Executive Summary of the Independent Market Research Report on the Port Industry in Malaysia and Southeast Asia for Westports Holdings Berhad (“WHB”) We, Drewry Maritime Services (Asia) Pte Ltd (“Drewry Maritime Services”), have prepared the Executive Summary of the Independent Market Research Report on the Port Industry in Malaysia and Southeast Asia (“Report”) for inclusion in WHB’s Prospectus dated 19.9.2013 (“Prospectus”) in relation to the initial public offering and the listing of and quotation for the entire issued and paid-up share capital of WHB on the Main Market of Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad (“IPO”). We are aware that this Report will be included in the Prospectus and we further confirm that we are aware of our responsibilities under section 214 of the Capital Market and Services Act, 2007. The market research process for this study has been undertaken through secondary or desktop research, as well as detailed primary research, which involves discussing the status of the industry with leading industry participants and industry experts. The research methodology used has been developed by Drewry and it is refined time to time as per changes in market dynamics. Quantitative market information could be sourced from interviews by way of primary research and therefore, the information is subject to fluctuations due to possible changes in the business and industry climate. We acknowledge that if we are aware of any significant changes affecting the content of this Report between the date hereof and the issue date of the Prospectus, we have an on-going obligation to either cause this Report to be updated for the changes and, where applicable, cause WHB to issue a supplementary prospectus, or withdraw our consent to the inclusion of this Report in the Prospectus. Drewry Maritime Services has prepared this Report in an independent and objective manner and has taken adequate care to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the Report. We believe that this Report presents a true and fair view of the industry within the limitations of, among others, secondary statistics and primary research, and does not purport to be exhaustive. Our research has been conducted with an “overall industry” perspective and may not necessarily reflect the performance of individual companies in the industry. Drewry Maritime Services shall not be held responsible for the decisions and/or actions of the readers of this Report. This Report should also not be considered as a recommendation to buy or not to buy the shares of any company or companies as mentioned in this Report or otherwise. For and on behalf of Drewry Maritime Services (Asia) Pte Ltd:
. vL ~k-Krishna Manager

LONDON I DELHI I SINGAPORE I SHANGHAI Drewry Maritime Services (Asia) Pte. Ltd., 15 Hoe Chiang Road, #13-02 Tower Fifteen, Singapore 089316 t: +6562209890 f: +6562208258 e: enquiries@drewry.co.uk www.drewry.co.uk 8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d)
This market research was completed on August 26, 2013. Save for inclusion of this study in the Prospectus issued by WHB and in such presentation materials prepared by or on behalf of WHB in relation to the IPO, no part of this research service may be otherwise given, lent, resold, or disclosed to non-customers without our written permission. Furthermore, no part may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without our permission. For further information, please contact: Drewry Maritime Services (Asia) Pte Ltd 15 Hoe Chiang Road, #13-02 Tower Fifteen Singapore 089316
LONDON I DELHI I SINGAPORE I SHANGHAI Drewry Maritime Services (Asia) Pte. Ltd., 15 Hoe Chiang Road, #13-02 Tower Fifteen, Singapore 089316 t: +6562209890 f: +65 6220 8258 e: enquiries@drewry.,o.uk www.drewry.co.uk 8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
All the information and data presented in this section, including the analysis of the Southeast Asian/Malaysian containerlconventional port market has been provided by Drewry Maritime Advisors, or Drewry. Drewry has advised that the statistical and graphical information contained herein is drawn from its database and other sources. In connection therewith, Drewry has advised that: • Certain information in Drewry’s database is derived from estimates or subjective judgments;
• The information in the databases ofother maritime data collection agencies may differ from the information in Drewry’s database;
• While Drewry has taken reasonable care in the compilation of the statistical and graphical information and believes it to be accurate and correct, data compilation is subject to limited audit and validation procedures; and
• This section also contains forward looking statements which are based on simplifying assumptions and current and expected market dynamics. The actualfigures may vary as the market dynamics is ever changing. Drewry cannot be held liable for the realisation ofits forecasts.

Drewry’s methodologies for information and data collection, and therefore the information discussed in this section, may differ from those ofother sources. MARKET OVERVIEW Summary • Over the last two decades, world container port throughput has grown more than six times over at a compound annual growth rate (“CAGR”) of10%
• The Far East region (as defined herein) has emerged as the dominant region in global container trade with a share of39% in 2012, out ofwhich 66% oftraffic is contributed by China. The share ofSoutheast Asia (“SEA”) in global container trade was around 14% in 2012
• The Far East and SEA regions are each expected to add more additional twenty-foot equivalent units (“TEUs ”) between 2012 and 2015 than any other region in the world
• 11 out ofthe top 15 container ports are in Asia, ofwhich six are in China and two are in the SEA region, namely Singapore and Port Klang
• Thefinancialperformance ofcontainerportoperatorshasbeenfairlystablecompared to that ofcontainer shipping lines, which underwent extreme volatility during the recent economic downturn. Port operators have been able to maintain operating margins by virtue of long term contractual rates and through cost reduction while shipping lines havefacedfreight volatility and rising costs

 

8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) History and development Containerisation as a mode of transportation started in late 1950s. Due to the convenience and cost effectiveness both in terms of time and cost, this mode of transportation was widely adopted throughout the world in a short span of time and specialised ports with specialised cargo equipment were built to handle containers. Both semi-finished as well as finished goods are shipped by these containers via road, rail and sea without reshuffling the actual goods inside the containers at transit points between the various modes of transportation with minimal time and cost. Coverage of containerisation has expanded to a wide spectrum of products including industrial products, chemicals, agricultural commodities, raw materials, certain liquids, refrigerated goods and project cargo. Container trade originated from the general cargo sector. However, in present times it has also made its presence in some bulk commodities as it has an edge over other modes of transportation in terms of convenience, cost, flexibility, efficiency and the productivity of the entire supply chain. Container market development As illustrated in Figure 1 below, global container throughput increased at a CAGR of 8.4% from 2000 to 2012 and is the fastest growing sector of international shipping. Until 2008, global container trade showed continuous growth. The global economic downturn in late 2008 and 2009 adversely affected trade, resulting in a year-on-year decline in global container throughput of 9% in 2009. Nevertheless, the market recovered in 2010 and global container throughput improved by 15% and 4% over 2009 and 2008 respectively with volumes continuing to grow since. Figure 1: Historical andforecast global container port throughput 1990-2015 (million TEUs)

8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) Principal container trade flows Global container trade volume is classified into two broad groups -inter-regional trade and intra-regional trade (e.g. intra-Asia trade). Depending on the movement of merchandise, inter­regional trade is further divided into East-West and North-South trade. The East-West trade is the largest in terms of container flow, accounting for 32% of global loaded container movement in 2011. Major trade routes within East-West trade are the Transpacific, Transatlantic, Far East­Europe and Asia-Mediterranean trade routes. Intra-Asia trade has grown to become the single largest regional trade in the world. At the country level, China alone accounted for 26% of global container traffic in 2011 compared to just 12% in 2002. Figure 2 below illustrates the principal container trade flows in terms of million TEUs (“mteu”). Figure 2: Principal container tradeflows (2011) 4.27 mteu 1.80 mteu ~ .’ Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors In terms of global container trade, the Far East region has emerged as the leading activity centre. As shown in Table 1, the Far East region’s share of global port container throughput has increased over time, reaching 39% in 2012. The share of SEA has remained constant around 14% since early 1990s, growing at a similar rate to global container trade. On the other hand, the share of developed regions like Western Europe and North America is on the decline; the share of Western Europe declined from 21% of global container throughput in 2002 to around 15% in 2012. Similarly, the share of North America has declined from 12% of global container throughput to 7.6% over the same period. Global container throughput is projected to grow at 5-6% per annum from 2012 to reach 678.2 million TEUs by 2014. Growth is projected to slow thereafter with global container throughput reaching 716.8 million TEUs by 2015, though growth will be driven primarily by the Far East and SEA regions; we expect that these two regions will contribute more additional TEUs to global container trade than any other region in the world between 2012 and 2015. Drewry~l~ !Company No.: 262761-A I
8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cant’d) Table 1: Global container throughput by major region (million TEUs)
North America  34.2  37.5  40.8  44.5  46.9  47.9  45.8  39.9  45.4  46.2  47.3  48.6  50.2  52.2  3.3%  3.3%  Western Europe  57.7  63.1  70.9  75.5  81.0  90.3  91.2  78.7  86.5  92.4  94.7  98.9  97.7  100.7  5.1’%  2.1 ‘Yo  Far East!’)  89.5  104.2  122.8  138.2  158.3  181.0  194.0  178.7  210.2  231.2  243.6  257.0  272.5  290.4  10.5%  6.00;;,  SEA(i)  41.4  45.9  51.8  55.1  59.9  68.0  71.8  67.4  76.3  82.7  87.2  91.6  96.6  102.0  7.7%  5.4%  Middle East  13.8  16.5  20.1  22.4  24.5  27.5  32.6  31.2  34.5  36.5  39.4  41.0  43.3  45.8  11.1%  5.2%  Latin America  19.3  21.5  25.2  27.9  32.0  35.4  37.4  34.6  39.8  43.9  46.3  48.0  50.5  54.0  9.1%  5.3%  6.0  6.5  7.3  7.5  7.9  8.7  9.4  8.9  9.5  10.2  10.5  10.8  11.3  11.7  5.8%  3.7%  South  6.6  7.3  8.6  9.8  11.5  13.6  14.8  14.0  16.8  17.6  17.6  17.9  18.3  19.1  10.3%  2.8%  Africa  9.0  10.8  12.1  13.9  15.6  17.6  21.0  21.1  23.7  25.2  25.4  26.1  27.4  29.4  10.9%  5.0 ‘Yo  Eastern Europe  1.9  2.4  3.1  4.3  5.4  7.2  8.1  5.1  6.7  8.3  9.0  9.6  10.4  11.5  16.8%  8.5%
World~ 279.4 315.7 362.7 399.1 443.0 497.2 526.1 479.6 549.4 594.2 621.0 649.5 678.2 716.8 8.3% 4.9% Source: Dr<;Wry Maritime Advisors Notes: (1) Far East includes Guam, Hong Kong, Japan, China (People’s Republic oj), Russia (Sea ofJapan coast), South Korea and Taiwan
(2) SEA includes Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma), Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam
(3) Oceania includes Australia, New Zealand, New Caledonia, Samoa Tahiti, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Papua N<;W Guinea
(4) South Asia includes India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka
(5) Global container throughput includes transhipment and empties
(6) 2013-2015figures represent estimates

Drewry4l,~ 129
8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) Drivers of container trade A strong relationship exists between economic growth and container trade; changes in economic activity change the volume and spatial distribution of global container trade. As illustrated in Figure 3 below, the historical relationship between gross domestic product (“GDP”) at cunent prices and global container shipping volume suggests that every percentage change in GOP at cunent prices has led to a 3% change in global container shipping volume over the period 1980 to 2012. Figure 3: Historical and forecast world economic growth and container trade growth (% change year-on-year) 25% ,—————————————-,
-15% ..L-_
-GDP growth o Container trade growth Sources: International Monetary Fund (“IMF”) & Drewry Maritime Advisors Table 2: Key drivers ofcontainer trade
1980-1990 Trade liberalisation (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade): container trade CAGR 8% predominantly between developed nations. 1991-2000  Greater global integration in container trade. New and emerging markets.  CAGR 10%  2000-2008  China becomes World Trade Organisation member in 200 I and United States  CAGR II %  recession
2009 Global financial crisis Container trade declined by 9% 2010-2011 Recovery: container volumes increase in several regions and major ports. CAGR 8% Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors Drewry~~
8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) Types of container traffic Container terminals handle two categories of container traffic. The first category includes containers originating from and destined to the ports’ hinterland; this type of cargo is termed “local”, “ImportlExport” or “gateway” traffic as the port/terminal acts as a gateway, interfacing between the container market abroad and the domestic hinterland. The second type of traffic is transhipment cargo; for this type of cargo, the concerned port/terminal acts as a transit point between the origin and the destination ports located either in the same country or in a different country. This cargo is transhipped from one vessel to another vessel in order to reach its destination. Transhipment was initially used as a means of serving small ports at which main line vessels were not able to call; feeder vessels were used to carry containers to the regional hub port in the region and from there the main line vessels carried the containers to their destination ports or to another hub port in the destination region. In order to increase the markets served and to reduce overall network costs, shipping lines have increased the use of transhipment since the 1990s. As illustrated in Figure 4 below, these trends have led to an increase in the share of transhipment globally from 18% in 1990 to an estimated 31 % of total container port throughput in 2012. Going forward until 2015, the share of transhipment in total container trade is expected to remain consistent with current levels. Figure 4: Rising incidence ofcontainer transhipment
Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors Primary models of transhipment of containers As far as transhipment of containers is concerned, there are two primary models followed globally, namely a) Hub and spoke; and b) Relay. As shown in Figure 5, in hub and spoke transhipment, one port acts as a transhipment “hub” with many smaller ports around it called “spoke” ports. Main line vessels call on the hub port and load/discharge containers destined for or originated from the smaller spoke ports located around this hub port. The container movement between the hub and the spoke ports is undertaken by feeder vessels.

8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) Figure 5: Hub and Spoke Transhipment Model
Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors Within the transhipment market, the nature of competition varies. Hub and spoke transhipment relies on the proximity of the hub port to spoke ports, usually requiring the ability to make a round trip with a feeder vessel in a week. As shown in Figure 6 below, relay transhipment involves two main hauVmain line vessels that tranship at a port at which both vessels call. The container is discharged by the first main haul vessel at the way port and same container will be relayed by the second main haul vessel bound for the final destination. Figure 6: Relay Transhipment Model
Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors Note: Wayport is defined as a port where one mainline vessel unloads containers. Subsequently other mainline vessel carries the same container to the final destination. Port Klang is also used as a relay hub by many shipping lines to tranship containers originating from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, China, Middle East, Egypt, Japan, Korea, and the Indian sub-continent.

8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) Market dynamics Most ports in the world are built and operated by a mechanism which involves both public and private players; a public authority invites expressions of interest from private investors to build and operate the container terminal for a fixed time period. Different statutory/regulatory requirements must then be met before any container terminal operator starts construction of and operation at the container terminals, including environment clearances, security clearances etc. Apart from the statutory/regulatory barriers, container terminal operators must also consider the potential and connectivity of the port’s hinterland if the goal is to create a gateway port. For a transhipment terminal, the locational factor matters the most; proximity to the main trade lane is seen as beneficial. The cases in point could be Westports, Port of Singapore or Port of Tanjung Pelepas (“PTP”), which are all located in the Straits of Malacca along the major East-West trade lane and thus all benefit in terms of transhipment volume. Container port operators and shipping lines Container ports and shipping lines share the same containers as part of their respective operations but are structurally very different. Shipping lines provide the service of transporting goods by means of high capacity, such as ocean going ships that transit regular routes on a fixed schedule. On the other hand, container terminals are facilities where cargo containers are transhipped between different modes for onward transportation. In terms of market structure, shipping lines operate in an integrated market spread across the globe. Therefore, factors in one local/regional market affect the overall shipping market. On the other hand, as container terminal operators operate in a more consolidated geographical region, factors in one local/regional market have less of an impact on their operations in each individual market (if operating in multiple locations within or outside the country). As a result, shipping lines operate in a highly competitive business environment whereas the container terminal operators operate in a less competitive environment due to immobility of resources. Operating profit margins of the shipping lines are highly correlated to the prevailing charter market. For example, vessels chartered by the shipping lines during a normal or high market, especially under long term charters, will result in very low or negative profit margins for the shipping lines during bearish markets or a recession when the demand for shipment/goods decreases. During the 2009 global financial crisis when container trade volumes dropped by 9%, shipping lines incurred losses estimated at USD15 billion in aggregate. However, as Figure 5 shows, global container port operators were able to maintain profitability. This is due to the fact that container terminal operators have greater flexibility to manage the costs of their operations than that of the shipping lines as well as due to their longer term contracts. While 2010 was better year for the shipping lines, again in 2011, most of the shipping lines incurred losses or had marginal profit levels. Nevertheless, all major container terminal operators generated considerable profit levels even during 2009 and 2011. Drewry\~”
8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) Figure 7: EBIT margin ofselected shipping lines and container port operators
~ Major shipping lines Major port operators 02009 .2010 .2011 02012 g>” 0 =« “0::: :3:::~ “” ~ ~ Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors Note: ICTSI and HHLAAG stand for International Container Terminal Services, Inc. and Hamburger Hafen and Logistik AG, respectively Key container ports and container port operators In 2000, only seven of the top 15 container ports in the world were in Asia. As shown in Table 3 below, of the top 15 global container ports in 2012, 11 are located in Asia. Six of the Asian ports in this ranking are located in China. This shows that over the last decade, container activity has increased substantially in the Asian region. Table 3: Top 15 container ports in the world (2012)
9 United Arab Emirates …….. ;1;;;0′ ..·…. ;:;~~~=~;;:.: ;~;;:.:.~~:.:..,; •••••·•••••·••••••••.••;::;C~’~h1i.~n;al.i~·~’l~” .~ ~ 11 ……………………………………………………. 12  ~……………………………………..  it;}  13.3 ·liJ..i3 ..11 . 10.0  .  13  Taiwan  9.8  14 15  .Hal11bl1~g.  .  8.9 8.6  .
Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors
9  134

8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) A large proportion of the top container ports are operated by international port operators. As shown in Table 4 below, the top 10 international container terminal operators accounted for more than 63% of global throughput in 2011. Table 4: Top 10 global container port operators in the world (2010 and 2011)

TEUs(I)(3) TEUs(I)(3) 11 !1llt<:Ei~o~nI'()rt Hol~il1gs~(“J-II:lH”)(5) ~~______ 72.7 13.2% 71.8 12.1% 2 3 APM Terminals 60.2 11.0% 64.7 10.9% PSA International (Port of Singapore 32 ;\utho~it)’)(4)(5) 64.3 11.7% 57.1 9.6% 4 49.5 9.0% 54.1 9.1% ;:’;:'{:;:::::~~.32j(4j~’~’——————-­48.3 8.8% 9.0%5 6 6:rvtSc:I:r.e~~illflUllyes.!l11f:l1tlci1l1i!e.~Jr.Ilc) ,,__ ,J9.:~_ 3.5% 24.5 4.1% 7 c:Eil1fl~hipJ)illgIe~l11inal r:>e.y.e.1(jpl11,e.ll,t_ 14.5 2.6% 18.8 3.2% 8 7 ._.._. …._.. .. 1,_=2_:._,3__. ._=2.__2,.% ,_” __ __, .2,.,2%__ 9 8.5 I 1.7% 10 8 SSA Marine / 9.1 1.7% 1.6% !()pl~()perator~ __ ,,_ 358.9 65.3% 63.4% 34.7% Total 549.4 100.0%
Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors Notes: (1) Unless stated otherwise figures include total annual throughput for all terminals in which more than 10% shareholding is held as at 31 December 2011 and 31 December 2010, respectively
(2) Cosco includes Cosco Pacific and Cosco Container Line
(3) Due to the method of calculation there is some degree of variation between Drewry’s figures and the terminal operator’s publicly announced results
(4) PSA international, casco Group, Hanjin and SSA Marinefigures are estimated
(5) The HPH figures include HPH Trust volumes; the PSAfigure excludes Hong Kong volumes for January -March 2011 at terminals which became part ofthe HPH Trust

Geographical scope has a big influence on the competitiveness of global port operators as they increasingly compete based on the size and diversification of their portfolios, which enables them to offer global networks to their shipping line customers, who themselves are consolidating and becoming increasingly large. Global supply scenario The growth in the container port capacity varies from region to region. Emerging markets have witnessed faster capacity addition compared to the developed regions. For example, capacity in the Far East region increased by around 12% over the period of 2001 to 2012 while Eastern Europe registered growth of 14% over the same period. Meanwhile, capacity in the Gulf Coast of the United States increased moderately by 5%. Overall port capacity in SEA increased by 7.5% in the same period. Figure 8 shows the growth of global container port capacity for the period 2001 to 2012. Drewry~”
8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) Figure 8: Increasing global container port capacity (million TEUs)
Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors Container port operating efficiency In a competitive market, operating efficiency at the container terminal is one of the major parameters considered by shipping lines, the primary customer ofthe container ports. Quay line performance is a measure of berth utilisation, though high efficiency in this context is not always directly related to profitability. Normally, high berth productivity for a port operator is positive in that more revenue will be generated per metre of quay. Similarly, high crane productivity normally leads to faster vessel turnaround while in port and therefore lowers costs for each shipping line. Trends in container shipping and the impact on container ports The growth of international merchandise trade demands larger vessel sizes to maintain economies of scale and keep unit costs low. With the constant upgrading of technology, vessel sizes are growing; the average container vessel size has grown three-fold in the past two decades. and vessels with a design capacity of more than 18,000 TEUs are now in operation. Table 5 shows the number of new container ships on order by size as of June 2013. Drewry~~
8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) Table 5: Container orderbook by size range -June 2013 Size Range (TEUs)  2013  2014  2015  2016  Total  Current Fleet  % of Current Fleet  <500  – – – 0  113  0.0%  500-999  7  2  – – 9  599  1.5%  1,000-1,499  10  13  4  – 27  819  3.3%  1,500-1,999  35  14  – – 49  927  5.3%  2,000-2,499  6  20  13  2  41  639  6.4%  2,500-2,999  37  – 8  – 45  1,050  4.3%  3,000-3,999  80  19  27  19  145  992  14.6%  4,000-4,999  166  33  – – 199  2,867  6.9%  5,000-5,999  25  42  35  5  107  1,786  6.0%  6,000-6,999  105  20  14  – 139  1,421  9.8%  7,000-7,999  14  – – – 14  357  3.9%  8,000-8,999  163  127  85  53  428  2,109  20.3%  9,000-9,999  94  216  167  9  486  719  67.6%  10,000-11,999  100  90  40  – 230  483  47.6%  12,000+  303  592  367  104  1,366  1,820  75.1%  Total  1,145  1,188  760  192  3,285  16,701  19.7%  Largest vessel to be delivered (TEUs)  18,000  18,400  18,400  18,000
Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors Shipping lines continue to order larger ships although the container shipping market is already over supplied. However, in an effort to drive down slot costs through economies of scale and usage of efficient engines, shipping lines are ordering newer and larger ships. With this change in the container shipping industry, ports too have had to cater to these larger containerships. To be able to accommodate these large container ships, a port or terminal must have cranes with sufficient outreach, berth lengths, berth draft, approach channel draft and a yard and landside operation capable supporting these vessels. Drewry~~ 8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) THE MALAYSIAN & SOUTHEAST ASIAN CONTAINER PORT INDUSTRY Economic overview The container port market in SEA is influenced by a number of key political and economic developments, which have contributed in making the region less susceptible to downturns in the Eurozone and the United States. Gateway demand was previously driven by demand for imported goods from the United States and the Eurozone, but demand is now switching to local goods being exported to new markets in the Middle East and Oceania. Malaysia’s GDP has grown at an average rate of 5% per annum since 2001. As illustrated in Figure 9 below, over the last decade, its growth rate was consistently above the global average except in 2009, as the Malaysian economy suffered from the global financial crisis. The Malaysian economy has however recovered strongly with growth exceeding 5%. Figure 9: Historical and/orecast GDP o/Malaysia 1200 I 8% f\ L 7%,…… 1000 6%.. \ IIi ~–\ It_’ 5% E800 ,” l:! :5, 4%:l ~,e ..0 3%600e , I r..lI , I Iloi I 2% r:l,IIlo r:l 400 , r..l ,1%r..l 4 ,200 , ‘0% ,I ‘oJ -1% or i -2% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20ll 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 _ GDP at Constant Prices (Ringgit Malaysia) -Absolute value -_ -GDP at Constant Prices (% ) grov,1h rate Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors, derivedfrom IMF Shipping and port developments The Straits of Malacca region comprises Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. Total container volume in the Straits of Malacca has grown at a CAGR of 10.4% since 1990 versus a global CAGR of 9.5% over the same period, with Malaysia being the main driver of this strong regional growth. The Malaysian container port market is largely dominated by Port Klang and PTP, which together accounted for over 84.0% of total Malaysian container port throughput in 2012. Westports, located on Port Klang, has increased its market share of total Malaysian container traffic rapidly to 33% in 2012. In terms of transhipment, Westports handles the large majority of traffic in Port Klang (79% market share) and has a 53% market share in terms of import / export in Port Klang. Port Klang is situated on the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia, about 40 kilometres from the capital city, Kuala Lumpur. Its gateway hinterland market consists of Kuala Lumpur and the central part of Malaysia. As Port Klang is located in the Straits of Malacca, its market for transhipment is therefore the same as Singapore and PTP, which are also located in the Straits of Malacca. Drewry~~ 8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) Southeast Asia growth drivers Gateway demand in SEA has historically been driven by demand for goods from the US and the Eurozone. In addition, with the recent downturn in demand from the US and Eurozone, which have traditionally been the main consumer markets, the region has started to export local goods to new markets in the Middle East and Oceania. Hub and spoke transhipment demand in major hubs such as Singapore, Port Klang and PTP continues to grow despite competition; the overall growth in the transhipment market along with the increasing deployment of larger vessels has made it possible for all of these ports in the region to continue to grow. Container ports in SEA tend to be at the cross-roads of major shipping routes, which is critical in terms of driving transhipment throughput. For ports which are focused on the gateway market, the focus is to keep their captive cargo and maintain high margins. For transhipment ports, pricing and productivity are key issues in the competition for cargo. Ports have offered equity stakes to shipping lines in the recent years in order to entrench cargo volumes. As illustrated in Figure 10, the container trades serving SEA have demonstrated growth in terms of containerisation. Drewry estimates that in 2012, around 72% of SEA’s general cargo trade was containerised. This is still lower than West Europe (74%) and North America (86%), but higher than other Asian regions. There is still room for growth in SEA for general cargo to achieve a higher level of containerisation. Figure 10: Regional estimated containerisation level (%) 90%~­85% ••• ! ~~ otdI­~~:~. ~ : ~ +;~ :;=
70% i~~ ~ .,…_. ~ Ii• • .. -..II­::1 :-j=:d-:!::_~_:-..-_…__….–:-.-~­550/< =-~ ………. ­o ..-…… …­50% ……. 45% —,–‘…:…..——————–­G40% -r,–,–,—-,—-.–,—-,—-,—–,–,—–. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ____ North America ……. Western Europe ____ Far East -… SEA -4–Middle East -. • South Asia Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors As shown in Figure 11, container throughput in SEA has experienced a CAGR of 8% over the past decade (between 2001 and 2012) versus a global CAGR of 8.7% over the same period. With SEA being one of the highest growth regions in the world, it is estimated that container activity in the region will continue to grow at around 6%, in line with its estimated economic growth rate, between 2012 and 2015. Drewry~”

8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) Figure 11: SEA growth in the economy and container throughput (%) 20%
—-SEA container throughput grO\vth -ASEAN-5 GDP at constant price growth (right axis) Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors Note: ASEAN-5 is comprised ofPhilippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam Figure 12 below shows that historically, SEA ports have demonstrated capacity utilisation of around 75%. With robust growth expected in the region, as per Drewry estimates, capacity utilisation of container ports in the SEA region is expected to be well above 85%, creating port infrastructure constraints. Figure 12: Historical andforecast SEA throughput and capacity utilisation 85%140 … ~ 120 . Jo ..­80%.13•• -­.. ,&’ .~.. .i’!I” • ….100 ~. ‘&\ .’ ~.-­….~………’ “. ~.’~
75% ~ ~. ••• K!~ ;.1.’ ,.80 ‘. • ~ .&1′ ~,… I .,’fIf :§ c I. .. _iii.’ ,.A “,… –…. ~~. … ‘5 ‘t/-‘ ….. -. ..-. ~..’ 70% ~ E 60 1–• …- os I .-e’ “”­os40 U 65% I 20 J o .~~-~-~-~~-~-~-~-~. 60% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -_ Container port capacity _ • Container port throughput Capacity utilisation (right axis) Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors Drewry~~
8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) Deviation of Straits of Malacca ports from the main trade lane There are four leading container ports in the Straits of Malacca. The deviation of these ports from the main trade lane is shown in table 6 below: . Table 6: Deviation ofStraits ofMalacca ports from the main trade lane P01t of
9
15.~.£I!.g!I.~J.,t!llJ~;.,~~l~pa~
12 620 Source: Netpas Note: Main trade lane is assumed to be the Shanghai-Rouerdam route.
Transhipment hubs must provide deep water berths, cranes that are able to service the largest vessels, immediate access to berths and cranes, and high productivity for main line vessels. Most importantly, they must also be located at a minimal deviation from the main shipping routes and must also have a good geographical location for regular shuttle feeder services to/from key spoke ports. In fact, the lower the deviation, the more suitable is a port’s location to operate as a transhipment hub. Furthermore, the existence of a hinterland market for origin/destination cargo alongside the transhipment business is an added attraction, and this will also influence the distance in which shipping lines are willing to deviate from the main shipping routes in order to call at the port. Straits of Malacca container traffic volumes The Straits of Malacca is one of the busiest waterways in the world. According to the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), at least 50,000 vessels sail through the Straits annually, carrying an estimated 30% of global goods and 80% of Japan’s oil requirements. Total container volumes in the Straits of Malacca have grown at a CAGR of 8% since 2002 versus a global CAGR of 8% over the same period; the growth rate for Straits of Malacca throughput is higher than the Straits of Malacca capacity growth rates for 2010,2011 and 2012, as shown in Figure 13 below. Figure 13: Straits ofMalacca container port capacity and container throughput (million TEUs) 100 84%.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~–r 90 90 90 +-~~~~/–=-=”””,’—-~~~—–79–8-1–r-~87~–r-,—,-,+ 82% 80 +—-/-+-~..,.-‘–6-8-~-rn:—–,=;—–j-r—-11 ~ ~ I 80% P 70 /” 60 ,~” 511 6 ~ 5 < ——uzt l .. ~~ 78% [:J 60 49 /’!-. –48 52 f–r-=-1.7 -76%i:: 0′ “3~ –.•. 1= j .~.I-__….. I–11I/J+ ::: 30 +-II “J-II’,lH-__1″. < -I-….E:” 1/+–11 “+-__ ‘,”1-4 70% I 20 -I’, -f-f–f-,I-r–..IJ-I11rr-t 68% 10 I” -f—-I-I’.-­I”It 66% o +-‘”‘”-“””-,-‘-…..;••J.-,—,,”,”O–‘-‘–.-L….L.,….~’–r-‘—‘-r.-..-‘–r—‘-..-L-L.,….-….c.’-+ 64 % 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 _ Strait of Malacca throughput = Strait ofMaJacca capacity -Capacity utilisation (right axis) Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors
16  141

8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) Malaysia has been the main driver of this strong regional growth, gaining significant market share,fromjust 11%ofregionalcontainerthroughputin 1990tonearly29%in2012.Indonesia has also gained share of the container traffic market, while Thailand’s share has remained stable. Market share of Singapore in the Straits of Malacca declined from 64% of regional container throughput to 44% between 1990 and 2012 despite a strong CAGR of 8.5% in the same period. As shown in Figure 14 below, total container traffic in Malaysia has grown strongly, with a CAGR of 10% since 2001. All the Malaysian ports put together handled over 20.8 million TEUs in 2012, with the container port market largely dominated by Port Klang and PTP, which together account for over 84.0% of total traffic, as illustrated in Figure 15. Between 1980 and 2011, every 1% increase in Malaysia’s GDP at current prices led to 2% increase in container throughout at Malaysian ports.
Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors Figure 15: Malaysia ports market share in 2012 -Total traffic (%)
1.1% 1.1% 0.7% 0.4% 0.2% :!>.~<lo’ ~~~” ‘$;-~ <b~.~~ §’ ~~ +”c; +~ Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors Drewry~~
8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) As shown in Figure 16, total gateway container traffic in Malaysia has grown strongly, with a CAGR of 6% since 2001 reaching 7.4 million TEUs in 2012. The market share of Port Klang for gateway volumes was 50% in 2012, while PTP has only 6% market share of gateway volumes. Penang and Johor are also important ports in the handling of gateway volumes, with a collective market share of over 10%. Figure 16: Malaysia gateway volumes (million TEUs) 8,.——————————-,7.47.2 S7 Ur.1 +——————6.3—­Eo-6.0 6.2 IS 6 +—————-=-=–­EI 5.1 5.2 5.5 6. 5 +-__—-,–,,———-“-..L-_e 4.5 3.9 “1:: 4~=-­… ~ 3 ~ ~ 2 “~.. ‘;l ” o 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors As shown in Figure 17 below, the throughput from 2001 to 2012 in Port Klang grew at a CAGR of 9.3% to 10 million TEUs in 2012, with Westports growing at a faster CAGR of 15%. Figure 17: Port Klang port container volumes (million TEUs)
12.0 -,——————————-, g 6.9 [;:1 10.0 +————————–*’:_-,–,–1,…. .. 5.6 5.0 8.0 +—————-.,…….,–4-‘;———1
4.3 3.7 6.0 +———-.-c,,;——-“-“‘.::L—-j 2.32.01.5 ~ 4.0 +—-1 -; i::8 2.0
3.1.. …. ~ 0.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 .Northport DWestports Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors The only two ports handling transhipment volumes in Malaysia are Port Klang and PTP. As shown in Figure 18, both ports have grown very rapidly since 2001, with CAGRs in excess of 13% and together handle over 84% of total container traffic of Malaysia in 2012. Drewry~l” 8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) 8.0 g ‘” 7.0 f­!c = 6.0 ~.O i 4.0 ;;. 3.0 ‘5 2.0 ~ ;e C
1.0 E ;. 0.0
.PortKlang: oPTP Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors As shown in Figure 19 below, all traffic types (gateway and transhipment) for Westports have grown strongly since 1996 with a total throughput CAGR in excess of 11 %. Furthermore, Westports has rapidly increased its market share of total regional traffic since the terminal began operations in 1996. As shown in Figure 20, it now has a 69% market share of Port Klang’s traffic in 2012 while its market share within the country is also high at 33% of traffic in 2012. In terms of transhipment, Westports handles the majority of traffic at Port Klang with a 79% market share and has a 12% market share of the Straits of Malacca volumes in 2012, as illustrated in Figure 21. c::::::JGateway _Transhipment –Total
Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors Drewry~~ 8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) Figure 20: Westports market share -total traffic (%) 80% 70% i •…..• …………………….
60% ….E ..•…… ~ 50% ..•…..•…..•. ..’! 40%u …………….
30%

~ , …. u :pl’ ~ 20%:0 ….;1′ ! 10% ,” , , 0% –. • 0/0 of SEA -…… %ofStraitofMalacca -… %ofMalaysia ···.··%ofPortKlang Source: Drewry Maritime AdVisors, Westports Figure 21: Westports market share -transhipment (%) 90% i.. 80% [ 70% :E! 60% 1509-u …. 40% ~ 30%”‘<: ~ 20%.. ::E 10% 0% ……..
……………….”‘….•….
………_~
•..a.’ ~ …….
.”.
•__ oil-_ ..–..-_ ..–.. -………t
-… % of Strait of Malacca …….. % ofPort Klang
Source: Drewry Maritime AdVisors, Westports Asset benchmarking Singapore largely dominates Straits of Malacca ports and is 16% larger than the second largest port in the world, namely Shanghai, in terms of port handling capacity. Westports and PTP have annual handling capacity of 9.5 million TEUs and 8.4 million TEUs respectively. Northport is able to handle 4 million TEUs per year. Figures 22, 23 and 24 below compares the terminal utilisation levels, crane productivity and berth productivity (which are the three main parameters used to measure operational efficiency) of container terminals at the main ports and terminals on the Straits of Malacca as well as other major regional ports, respectively. Drewry4\~
8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) Figure 22: Terminal utilisation 100% -,–~90~’l1=o——-~8~9’l7,)–43%————-~ 90%80% f–7-3%-­70% 60%—­50% 40% 30% ~ 20% -I
10%1-­0%, ~~_. ~'” ~<f’ c,’~ Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors Note: Represents 2011 figures Figure 23: Craneproductivity (TEVper craneperyear) 00 ….. ….250,000 -,—————–cc,(‘-‘———­N 200,000 –:-….”.~~-~§~,–~ i :-~ ~ ‘; ,(0) ~ ~ 150,000 i-~–~ -‘ i ! 100.000-1E. I Ui 50,000 ~ Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors Note: Represents 2011 figures 2,500 2,000 ~ 1,500′; ~ :J 1,000 i!.. Q:l Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors Note: Represents 2011 figures
8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) Financial Benchmarking Westports’ financials have been benchmarked with other similar container terminal operators and the results are given below. Figure 25 shows that Westports’ CAGR for the period 2010­2012 was 22%. This is one of the highest rates among the chosen sample and only Port of Tauranga Ltd had a higher rate. The EBITDA margin is illustrated in Figure 26 and shows that Westports had a 53% EBITDA margin in 2012. Westports’ EBITDA margin compares well with the rest of the sample, with only three companies, namely, Bintulu Port Holdings Bhd, Hutchison Port Holdings Trust and Port of Tauranga Ltd having higher margins. This is also highlighted by Westports’ high net income margin, which is one of the highest among all of the companies, as shown in Figure 27.
PTP: Pelabuhan Tanjung Pelepas Sdn Bhd , NCB: NCB Holdings Bhd, BIPORT: Bintulu Port Holdings Bhd. SURIA: Suria Capital Holdings Bhd, ICT: International Container Terminal Services Inc, Shanghai: Shanghai International Port Group Co. Ltd, Lyttelton: Lyllelton Port Co. Ltd, POT: Port of Tauranga Ltd, HPHT: Hutchison Port Holdings Trust Note: Valuesfor PTP reflects 2009 to 2011 financial information as 2012 data is unavailable Source: Drewry Maritime AdVisors, Weslports Figure 26: EBITDA margin -2012 70% 66% ~RO/n”’060% 53% -42% 50% f­4)’1″0 -r-f-­-i.. 40% -os 33% 32%30% -< 30% r-I–I-­~ —–
r–I-­f-Q E-<… Q:I —f-I–I–I–I-­-I–f­20%r.:I -10% l-f–f–f–f-­-f-­I–­f­’­0% -2l c.. ~ :::l .. ‘0; E-< E-<‘C:s t u ‘3 :::l ~~ B 0 Co z C til c; c.. it S::l c ::: ::~ -a a: .t:: ” til ~ Source: Drewry Maritime AdVisors, Weslports Note: Values for PTP reflects 2011 financial information as 2012 data is unavailable Westports ,EBITDA margin excludes construction revenue and managementfees

Drewry\l” 8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d)
Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors, Westports Note: Values for PTP reflects 2011 financial information as 2012 data is unavailable Westports’ net income margin excludes construction revenue and managementfees Container tariff analysis Of all the container handling/moving charges, terminal handling charges is the largest component and is the mainstream revenue for terminal operators. Westports’ tariffs are shown in Table 7 below; these are maximum published tariffs. Table 7: Westports’ container tarifjs (maximum published tarifjs)
20″75 75 4646 40″ 113 113 69 69 >40″ 137 137 78 78 Source: Port Klang Authority Note: Tariffis regulated by Port Klang Authority. Exchange rate: Ringgit Malaysia (“MYR ‘J / United States Dollar (“USD ‘J: 0.3267 The maximum published tariffs for Northport and Westports are the same as they are regulated by the Port Klang Authority. Singapore’s tariff rates for laden gateway traffic are more than double than those ofPTP and Westports. Singapore is more space constrained and benefits from a long-term relationship with most of its customers and can therefore justify higher rates. The two Malaysian ports, Westports and PTP, offer similar rates as each other. For gateway empties, Westports’ tariffs are similar to Singapore but higher by about 30% than that ofPTP. Westports has the lowest transhipment tariffs for all equipment types (various sizes of containers) among the Straits of Malacca ports. On the other hand, Singapore charges higher tariffs for laden transhipment containers as compared to PTP. A comparison of Westports tariffs with other competing ports in the Straits of Malacca is presented in Figures 28 and 29. Drewry~~ 8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) Figure 28: Straits ofMalacca main ports gateway tariffs (in USD) 300 …-,===L=a;;;/j\=en==r~—–;:.=====E=m~Jt:\P=ty====~ 250 <;; V’l2002­:I:’;:.lll 150 >'” iii: ~ 100 l.:l'”50 o [( 271\ { 243 167 135 1’17 ,…. 1’17f–­-
-11311 f–98-‘.,Hi< f­~­i~ UL75 –
~ 59 I-­….. -••..I ~-.~ f–­f­’.’ .l’. –20″ 40″ >40″ 20″ 40″ >40″ OPTP • Singapore DWestports Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors, derivedfrom the respective port authorities
Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors, derivedfrom port authorities CMA CGM GrOUP, China Shipping Line Limited, United Arab Shipping Corporation, Gold Star Line Limited, Compania Sudamericana de Vapores and Emirates Shipping Line DMCEST use Westports as their regional transhipment hub port. Westports’ five largest customers accounted for an average of approximately 40.4% of Westports total revenue over the financial years ended 31 December 2010,2011 and 2012 and the six months period ended 30 June 2013. Drewry\~’ 8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) THE CONVENTIONAL CARGO PORT INDUSTRY IN MALAYSIA Economic overview Conventional cargo accounts for a considerable share of Malaysia’s total trade, including exports and imports. Out of conventional cargo, dry bulk and liquid bulk (crude oil and petroleum products) cargo together made up about 123 million tonnes of export and import cargo for Malaysia in 2011, as per the provisional data collated from the Global Trade Information Services (GTIS). Malaysian bulk trade has risen consistently over tlle past decade, except during the global economic recession period of 2008 to 2009. Total dry bulk and liquid bulk (crude oil and petroleum products) trade volume rose at a CAGR of 4% per annum over the period 2003 to 2011. • Coal is the most significant dry bulk commodity imported at Malaysian ports, with Indonesia being the biggest coal supplier to Malaysia. Fertiliser, cement clinkers, iron ore and grains are the other major dry bulk commodities imported by Malaysia. Among exports, aggregates, forest products and fertilisers are the top commodities exported from Malaysia.
• Malaysia is a net exporter of crude oil, with Australia and a number of Asian economies as its biggest customers. Malaysia also imports crude oil, particularly from the Middle East, and also from Vietnam. Unlike crude oil, Malaysia imports more petro-products than it exports. Singapore is the single largest petro-products trade partner of Malaysia, given the close geographical proximity of the two countries and high level of bunker trade in the region. Also, Malaysia is the world’s second largest producer and exporter of palm oil. Its palm oil exports have witnessed a growth of around 7% per annum between 2007 and 2012. China, Europe, India and Pakistan are the largest importers of Malaysian palm oil.

Total conventional cargo throughput at Westports has increased at a CAGR of 5% per annum between 2007 and 2012, with most of the growth contributed by the increases in liquid bulk volumes and the number of vehicles handled, attributable to the shift in Roll-on Roll-Off (“RORO”) handling from Northport to Westports in 2008. While overall conventional cargo volume handled at Northport has dipped over the years, it has increased steadily at Lumut and Kuantan. The growth in conventional cargo volume has been the strongest in the case of Kuantan at 13% per annum from 2007 to 2011, while it has been lower at 7% annually over the same period for Lumut. The primary hinterland for conventional cargo at Westports mainly consists of industrial zones located in the states of Selangor and Negeri Sembilan, which comprise of a number of manufacturing units for steel fabrication, scrap metal, industrial coils, wood furniture, automobiles, sugar, soya bean, clinkers, cement, gypsum and coal. The Pulau Indah (Port Klang Free Zone) and the Westports areas play host to a number of flour mills, project cargo engineering firms, fertilizer plants, bulk commodity (both dry and liquid) traders and edible oil refineries. In addition, major international oil marketing and refining firms and chemical storage companies operate tank farms in the Westports terminal, accounting for the majority of liquid bulk cargo. The demand for refined oils and petroleum products, finished goods, vehicles, grains, construction materials and fertilisers is also supported by healthy economic activity in Kuala Lumpur (which lies about 40 kilometres east of Westports) and its surrounding suburban areas. Drewry~l~ 8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) Relationship between GDP and Malaysian bulk trade There is a close link between economic activity (GDP) and global trade and as such business cycles have had a profound impact on world trade. This trend is also reflected in the relationship between Malaysian GDP and bulk trade. Figure 30 illustrates the relationship between GDP growth and Malaysian bulk trade from 2002 to 2011. Figure 30: Relationship between GDP and Malaysian bulk trade 70,000  60,000  III 50,000.. I: I: .B 40,000 0 0 ? 30,000  20,000  10,000  _ – -_
….. ,……… …. …. I ,
…. I»’.,.””, …… ” ” -_.. ” ….. .,-” ~ ” ~–”—–;::…..”… -:. ‘.l–:_~.:: “_IJro __….. •••-…….._ ……….'” “.
, ::’ …….
.~ ……. –J;.'” .,. e •• “-, ,: ….
……………… e.’. , I:’ …
‘. , ,. . … , ,: .’­..-…-…. -….. —..::… \-….-f”’-”’ …………
-_.-_. _e-‘ _ ..~ f ……. -.-…… .\ ~-\.,..·f~ ,I \i 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201’ Malaysian Crude oil trade _ • Malaysian Petro-products trade 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% ‘0% 0.0% -‘.0% -20% Malaysian Dry bulk trade -_-Malaysia GOP constant prices, % chg (right axis) ••• -•• World GOP constant prices, % chg (right axis) Source: IMF, WITS, OTIS, Drewry Maritime Advisors Table 8: Malaysia’s bulk trade (imports + exports) and GDP growth
Note: (*) Estimated Competitive analysis Among the ports considered for competitive analysis for conventional cargo, Westports has the longest berth size ofaround 3.0 kilometres. The key port infrastructure for the main ports considered is summarised in Table 9: Drewry~,’ 8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) Table 9: Key port infrastructure at the main ports for conventional cargo
..Bertlll:11/Sth (lnetres) …… . . j’Jo:of,i:tties Maximum draft (metres) ~ “_._,,._._ -0-‘ __” _ bulk(I)(2) Berth length (metres) No. ofbelihs
……………………………………….
.. lvlaximunl draft (Illetres) j’Jo.of cranes,unloa~ers,~is~llargersand conveyors Break bulk(2) . Berth length(lnetres). No. of berths ………………………•……•…………………….
Maximum draft (metres)..•……………•……….•……………………
No. of cranes 1,307 779 1,740 5 48
16 11.5 11.2 1,335 426 nla ………………………
6 2 n/a 15 12 n/a 5 3 n/a …………………………
1,200 1,286 1,073 69 8 15 12.5 11.2 nJa4 3 Source: Publicly disclosed iJl!ormation, Westports Notes: (1) Westports’ dry bulk terminal includes cement terminal
(2) Westports’ dry bulk and break bulk terminals are made up ofboth dedicated and non-dedicated berths
(3) Westports’ liquid bulk terminal is made up ofdedicated berths only

Overview of conventional trade in Malaysia The major non-container commodities handled at the Malaysian ports can broadly be split into four sub-categories, namely dry bulk, liquid bulk, break bulk and RORO. These commodity heads further divide into individual commodities as stated in Table 10 below: Table 10: Major non-container commodities handled at the Malaysian ports
Liquefied Petroleum Gas ClinkerlSlag
Fertiliser Coal Cement Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors MALAYSIAN PORT INDUSTRY REGULATIONS The main laws and regulations governing WMSB’s operation and activities are summarised below. The following does not purport to be an exhaustive description of all relevant laws and regulations of which the business is subject to. The business and operations of WMSB are governed principally by the Port Authorities Act 1963 and the Ports (Privatisation) Act, 1990. The PKA is a statutory corporation established on 1 July 1963 under the Port Authorities Act, 1963 to operate and manage Port Klang. The PKA has the power to do all things reasonably necessary for or incidental to the discharge of its functions. Drewry~~ 8. INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (cont’d) The POlis (Privatisation) Act, 1990 is the principle legislation which regulates the licensing of pOli operators and only operators licensed under the Ports (Privatisation) Act, 1990 such as WMSB, can undeliake or manage p01i operations. All licenses under the POlis (Privatisation) Act, 1990 stipulate terms and conditions under the license including, the duration of the licence, the types of service and facilities to be provided by the licensee, the annual licence fee payable by the licensee, the particular duties of the licensee in respect of the services or facilities and any other conditions as the p01i authority thinks fit.

 

 

Comments are closed