trade policy – the _

[2985] Malaysia’s EV policy risks running obsolete

The government has been incentivizing electric vehicle purchases and use as a way to boost domestic electrification trend. Those incentives come in the form of zero import duty, zero excise duty, zero road tax and non-tax on EV and/or related equipment, among others.

Whatever the early rationale behind these incentives,[1] changing global conditions are making these policies dated. Rising trade barriers across the world are affecting EVs adversely, especially those made in China. Regardless of the appropriateness of US and more relevantly European policy in response to China’s dominance in the space, these barriers would redirect Chinese EV volume from places with high tariffs to other economies without similar restrictions. These other economies—many of them are small-to-medium sized (like Malaysia)—might be the ones having to absorb oversupply. In other words, there is an EV oversupply coming our way.

Under a scenario where there are downward pressures on EV prices, would Malaysia’s set of incentives still make sense? I would argue no, especially for the retail side of the equation.

There are several reasons for the negative answer.

First, the downward pressures on prices caused by manufacturers’ need to reduce their inventories would likely be good enough to encourage domestic electrification on the road.

Second, the prospects of higher petrol prices caused subsidy rationalization exercise should already be a big incentive enough for road users to migrate from internal combustion engine to EV. This is of course depending on the government going through with the rationalization exercise.

Third, the coming oversupply would be an opportunity for the Malaysian government to shift the burden of encouraging EV from the public towards private manufacturers. After all, these are private EVs we are talking about, not public transport. And even better, the burden would be shifted towards foreign manufacturers, which many of these manufacturers originating from China.

Fourth, the government faces fiscal pressures and the migration towards EV would be a chance for Putrajaya to reap the migration dividend in the form of more duty and levy revenue. This does not mean raising those duties and levies to punitive level. It could mean just normalizing it (i.e. undo the incentives). That additional revenue could be used to either finance electrification facilities, or other pressing needs in education, health or even defense… or finance public transport projects instead of boost private vehicle ownership.

If it were up to me, I would quickly cut short these incentives. Immediate reversal of policy is likely too disruptive to be good and that suggests undoing it by end of 2024 sounds reasonable.

Otherwise, these EV incentives do have sunset clauses. I would recommend letting them lapse. But waiting until 2025 might be too long for Malaysia to benefit for changing global landscape.

Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

^[1] — Given early (still?) focus on luxury electric vehicles and the government being overly focused on retail side of EV supply chain, the policy might have been captured by what I would call hobbyist lobbyists, i.e. rich men who take electric vehicle as a symbol of prestige.

It definitely didn’t help with the perception when early major lobbyist was an association named Malaysian Electric Vehicle Owners Club.

If the policy had not been captured, it would have focused early on the mass market, allowed leeway for cheap but reliable Chinese brands instead of the likes of Tesla, and also would provide better stress on industrial rather than retail.

[2657] Fiscal devaluation mimics currency devaluation

I am a supporter of regionalism. Despite whatever jokes I may have about the euro, I do not want to see its disintegration.

While I have refined my opinion by stressing on the importance of having similar economies coming into a union instead of having a disparate set of economies with wildly different setups and cycles coming together, I do still pretty much in favor of monetary union. I may be in the minority now but I do advocate a single currency for Southeast Asia. Not for all countries in the region but maybe just between Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. These countries were in a union before while Singapore and Brunei are effectively already in a currency union. Furthermore, Malaysian and Singaporean economies are similar in many ways – both are trade-dependent though more so for Singapore. A combination of Indochinese countries can form another separate union. So, I envision at least two monetary unions within Asean (or three with Indonesia and Timor Leste together).

I am still amazed by the fact my trade professor at Michigan showed me. During one winter morning, he showed that trade between New York and Seattle was many times higher than between Seattle and Vancouver, despite the fact that Seattle is much closer to Vancouver than New York. “It appears Canada is located on the moon!” he stressed.

He was demonstrating that monetary union increased trade. As a strong believer of the net benefit of free trade, I was hooked by it. Even now.

And Europe has benefited from its monetary union, even as it is hobbled by troubles right now.

One painful but the obvious solution to the ongoing European problem is for countries in economic recession, indeed, depression, to leave the Eurozone and devalue their currencies. That would have happened in a typical country during a recession. Currency devaluation helps a country regains its competitiveness by making its exports cheaper to the rest of the world. That what happened in Malaysia in the periods after the worst recession the country has ever experienced yet. That was what happened in Asia. It was an export-driven recovery.

For the 17 members of the Eurozone, devaluation is not an option if the integrity of the euro is cherished.

There are alternatives to exit from the Eurozone.

The first was internal devaluation. This pretty much refers to austerity measures. Wages are cut down to make a crisis country more competitive, among others. This a painful because while it does aid competitiveness, it does create a downward spiral that is associated with deflation. People will not spend before they expect prices tomorrow will be cheaper than today. People will not spend because they have less money. While real prices will adjust in the long run, the short term can be really painful.

There is an interesting article on Bloomberg today about fiscal devaluation as proposed by economist Gita Gopinath (of Harvard “Call Me Maybe” recruitment video fame, anybody?).^[1] It tries to mimic the effect of currency devaluation, which makes it very appealing. It includes a hike in value-added tax along with the provision of tax credit. The arrangement discourages imports and support exports. The VAT is imposed on all domestically consumed or used goods but the tax credits are granted to all domestic producers that eliminate the effect of VAT. Exporters benefit from this setup. Importers suffer. The great part is that it is no clear link to price deflation, which makes this arrangement usable in time of recession.

That however does raise the alarm of protectionism. In times like this in Europe, it is tolerable. In normal times, this can be a barrier to free trade. It can give unfair advantages to the home countries that may later mimic the ugliness of currency wars.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — When French President Francois Hollande unveiled a plan in November for a business tax credit and higher sales taxes as a way to revive the economy, he was implementing an idea championed by economist Gita Gopinath.

Gopinath, 41, a professor at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has pushed for tax intervention as a way forward for euro-area countries that cannot devalue their exchange rates. ”Fiscal devaluation” is helping France turn the corner during a period of extreme budget constraints, former Airbus SAS chief Louis Gallois said in a business- competitiveness report Hollande commissioned. [Rina Chandran. Harvard’s Gopinath Helps France Beat Euro Straitjacket. Bloomberg. February 7 2013]