Categories
Economics

[1996] Of what increased trade surplus due to fallen imports typically means

There are a lot of things to be optimistic about. The recent increased in Malaysian net exports however is not one of them.

The increase is due to fallen imports. That is generally bad and especially so within Malaysian context. So, I will find my blood pressure spikes slightly whenever I read in the news and other writing of a slew of bad things only to read a negating adverb like, ‘however’, ‘nevertheless’, ‘nonetheless’, etc. to introduce the fact that net exports increased due to fallen imports. And it really pains me to see words like ‘fortunately’. There is nothing fortunate about it for heaven’s sake, unless you are a some kind of neo-mercantilists.

Why is it bad?

In the accounting of gross national product, the component imports is subtracted from exports because it is redundant to another component that is consumption. Imported goods, with the exception of intermediary goods which are meant to be reexported, are consumed locally.

For the reexported goods, it would be reflected in the exports component. For the imported and locally consumed goods, it will be reflected in the consumption component.

For the sake of clarity, the simple form of GDP is Gross Domestic Product = (Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + Net Exports), where Net Exports = (Exports – Imports).

Increased net exports due to lower imports, means consumption is suffering. That cannot be good for the economy, with all else being equal.

Categories
Economics

[1814] Of different treatment for different circumstances

It is true that the world is more integrated than ever. Major developments on the other side of the world may affect the local environment. Being one of the top trading nations in the world with an export-driven economy, it is undeniable that a reduced consumption in the economies of our major trading partners — specifically the United States — will adversely affect our export sector and ultimately the Malaysian economy.

As the economic crisis unravels and insidiously spreads globally, it is crucial to keep in mind that the local economic environment is different from that of the US. A problem faced by the US economy may not be the same as that faced by the Malaysian economy.

The integration of the world economy is within the grasp of many Malaysians. It is amazing how many Malaysians are attuned to the economic turmoil in the US. This is a cause for celebration because this demonstrates the existence of the free flow of information. That in many ways is crucial in creating a liberal society with empowered individuals.

The idea of connectedness is enhanced by the fact that many households have access to CNN, CNBC and Bloomberg, among others, which keep them informed with the latest nightmares-turned-real on Wall Street and its counterparts across the world.

But something is horribly wrong with the picture. The centric-ness of perception bugs me.

It has been joked that the world according to a typical American begins with Hawaii and California in the west and ends with the West Coast with a whole lot of red states in the middle. To the north are people who end their sentences with “eh” for some unclear reason while to the south, always there are huddled masses yearning to breathe free trying to break into the US. Anything else beyond the US borders is irrelevant, except for some obscure countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and that one country where French fries supposedly come from and Europe. The perception is that the average American worldview is US-centric.

This is an unkind gross generalization of Americans but to a large extent, it describes the coverage of CNN, CNBC and Bloomberg. These news channels report — especially CNBC and Bloomberg given the fact that these are financial channels — news from the US perspective. It is more likely to give greater coverage over the US economy instead of the local economy. And it does not help when the coverage is biased towards that of the stock markets rather than the real economy.

While many Malaysians are exposed to events outside of our borders, one has to be cautious in taking the US economy as a complete parallel of the Malaysia economy. Yet, here in Kuala Lumpur under the incessant rain, I find Malaysians unreasonably subscribing to US-centrism.

I therefore wonder whether it is possible that some are merely absorbing US-centric commentaries word for word without critically considering their relevance to the local economy? Being informed is great but what use is it when one merely memorizes the lines without comprehending the implication or non-implication in this age of information overload?

This is not another “decoupling theory” which suggests that a particular economy could be isolated from global events. Whenever the US sneezes, the world catches a cold and that world includes Malaysia since the country is not an autarky by any stretch of the imagination. Instead, this only stresses the different issues which Malaysia and the US are facing. Malaysia needs to run a set of policies different from that seen in the US and other countries in crisis.

Despite the importance of the US to the Malaysian economy, the two economies are different. For example, first of all, the main cause haunting the US economy is the deflating of the housing bubble. For Malaysia, there is no housing bubble; even if there was one, it has not deflated it. Secondly, sub-prime lending along with the associated securities are practically non-existent in Malaysia. Even if there was one, that would be dependent on the housing bubble. The closest shave Malaysia saw was probably the one involving AIG. After considering the level of debt, foreign reserve, laws and regulation as well as other important indicators, the difference between the two economies is as clear as daylight.

There may be more close shaves later and if one does hit us, it is likely that the crisis would be exogenous in nature — meaning originating from outside of our borders — instead of endogenous or caused from within. In all likelihood, if a crisis does hit us — knock on wood — it is likely that Malaysia will defend the local economy from exogenous waves rather than protecting the local economy from itself.

The impacts will be different from that seen in the US and the solutions will be different from those employed in the US. Therefore, any effort to stimulate the Malaysian economy will require policies tailor-made to local circumstances rather than cut-and-paste ones.

That requires the relevant authority to keep close tabs on various indicators of the local real economy. These indicators at the moment suggest that issues plaguing the US economy are different from what Malaysia is facing, though the issues are connected in one way or another.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
Economics History & heritage

[1242] Of 1800 years before the construction of the USD7 billion Kedah-Kelantan pipeline

Three firms from Malaysia, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia are cooperating to build a pipeline worth USD7 billion to transport crude oil across the Malay Peninsula, bypassing the busy Straits of Malacca. The chairman of Trans-Peninsula Petroleum expects the pipeline to divert 20% of oil tankers traffic off the Straits of Malacca.

“The savings in using our pipeline to the oil producers, to oil traders, is enough to even pay for one month of storage,” said chairman of Trans-Peninsula Petroleum Sdn Bhd (Transpen), Mohd Kamil Sulaiman.

[…]

Mohd Kamil said the pipeline would help ease congestion in the Straits of Malacca where out of 60,000 vessels that transit the straits, 30 percent were oil tankers.

He said the pipeline would divert about 20 percent of the oil tankers. [Transpen’s US$7 Bln-pipeline To Cut Down Time Taken To Transport Oil. Bernama. May 29 2007]

While the project is huge, this is not the first time northern Malay Peninsula becomes a land bridge facilitating international trade. Not in such gigantic scale of course but still, in my humble opinion, far more significant.

The third century of the common era was a period of economic boom in Southeast Asia. The boom was caused by a civil war in China; the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. The conflict threatened the reliability of the Silk Road, the artery of international trade and soon, the route between China and Rome became unsafe for passage.

Like water, trade seeks the path of least resistance. The unique circumstances encouraged the development of sea routes that ran through Southeast Asia. This is the impetus of the formation of many kingdoms in this region during this period. Three of the kingdoms were Dungsun, Pan Pan and Langkasuka. Another one, although not located on the Malay Peninsula but closely related to the history of the three Southeast Asia kingdoms was Funan.

Funan was a civilization that existed at the mouth of river Mekong. More importantly, it was the gate to southern China which was controlled by the kingdom of Wu. It is probably safe to claim that almost all goods originated or going to southern China went through Funan. Relating to the topic at hand, the three kingdoms at one time or another came under the influence of Funan.

To or fro Funan, depending on the flow of trade, goods would pass through Dungsun, Pan Pan, Langkasuka or by circumventing the Malay Peninsula. There may be other routes but there four are the major ones.

Dungsun was a kingdom located near the Isthmus of Kra. Its strategic location allowed it to connect the Bay of Bengal and the Bay of Siam. Apart from that, not much is known about it and this makes it so mysterious.

South of Dungsun was Pan Pan, centered around the cities of Ligor or Chaiya. It is worth remembering that Chaiya was the regional capital of the Malay empire of Srivijaya later in history. While that is clear, I find Pan Pan a little bit confusing though. Some called Pan Pan as Tambralinga while others recognized Tambralinga as Ligor. Nevertheless, Pan Pan accommodated international trade.

Even farther south was the kingdom of Langkasuka that roughly covered the old Malay kingdoms of Pattani as well as Old Kedah and its surrounding. Over land, goods traveled between Singora and Kedah or Pattani and Kedah. The Pattani-Kedah route in particular ran along Muda River in Kedah and Pattani River on the other side of the Peninsula. Anyway, as mentioned earlier, Funan exerted influence over Langkasuka but among three kingdoms, Langkasuka was the farthest from Funan and hence, Funanese controlled over it was probably the weakest.

About four centuries later, both Pan Pan and Langkasuka were absorbed by Srivijaya. Despite the presence of a new master, these two kingdoms still played the role they played back in the second century. Langkasuka specifically reached its peak between the 7th and the 10th century, coinciding with the Srivijayan golden age. The era made Kedah a very busy port. The archaeologically rich Bujang Valley provides some proofs of the prosperity Kedah once enjoyed.

So, when you ever passby that crude oil pipeline will connect Kedah and Kelantan around 2014, just remember that the idea of trade cutting through the Malay Peninsula went as far back as about 1800 years ago. Beyond Malacca, if I might add.

Categories
Economics

[1186] Of the invisible hand conspires to diversify Malaysian export

The mainstream media is celebrating the strengthening of the Malaysian ringgit against the United States dollar. Through the glory days when a dollar cost roughly only 2.5 Malaysian ringgit is something that many long for, I find the jovial mood caused by stronger ringgit is something awkward. I am in the opinion that the media, through the tight leash put on by the government, is manipulating laypersons’ sentiment. These laypersons unfortunately have little economic education and do not understand what stronger ringgit mean. I have discovered that nationalists with little economic background tend to cite a stronger ringgit as a proof of sunny day. But perhaps, the strong ringgit against the dollar might signal stabler sunny days in the long run.

I have mentioned earlier that stronger ringgit relative to the US dollar would hurt Malaysian export to the US; a large portion of Malaysian export goes to the US. This is on top of the slowing electronics demand in the US. With the USD growing weaker, US citizens would consume more of local product and less of imported goods.

The ringgit is growing stronger compared to the dollar. Analysts are betting the ringgit to hit 3.4 for a dollar in the coming months and yet, still convinced the the ringgit is undervalued almost two years after the ringgit was unpegged from 3.8 to a dollar. Yet, against other currency, the ringgit is remarkably weak.

Malaysia is heavily dependent on the US economy. For this very reason, I expect Malaysia to experience economic slowdown this year, in tandem with the trend — albeit increasingly confusing trend at the moment — in the US. This dependency is caused by us putting our eggs in a basket. If a slowdown is to occur as expected, the important lesson Malaysia needs to learn to diversify.

Indeed, with stronger ringgit against the dollar but weak against almost everything else, the invisible hand is conspiring to push Malaysian export towards diversification. Slower export to the US would be cushion by greater export to elsewhere. New and more baskets are available out there.

Weak currency encourages the local export component to grow while stronger currency encourages the import component. Rationally, given everything else the same, one would expect Malaysian export to start looking into other markets where the ringgit is weak. Some of those places are Australia, India, the United Kingdom and the European Union.

With diversification, we would cushion ourselves from the harsh realities that others face, making globalization a little bit easier to shallow.