There has been a global supply constraint of various kinds for at least a year now. The supply chain disruption was expected by many—I quickly noted the post-war Malayan supply-side crisis as a parallel. Nevertheless, few people expected the constraints would be this tight for so long. I certainly did not.
The tightness has slipped over into the Malaysian consumer market. Chicken, beef, vegetables are the usual suspects.
The waitlists for cars are long due to a persistent global chip shortage: I test drove a Peugeot several weeks back and that experience to me underscores how modern ground vehicles these days are more and more an electronic device than a mechanical one. I knew vehicles had an ever increasing electronics (and electrical) components to them. Several months earlier, I read a report showing how the share of electronic cost relative to total car manufacturing cost has gone up drastically in the past 20 years, from less than 1% to maybe 40%-60%. But there is a difference between reading it, and riding the thing. The dashboard is a computer screen popping more information any older car could show. When I say dashboard, I mean a dashboard full of dynamic data, with customizable menu. The air-conditioning controls are only accessible through a separate central LCD screen, which also controls other aspects of the car. Even the brakes can be controlled by the computer, along with so many other things.
It is not just chip and electronic components are in short supply. Somebody on Twitter jokingly said “oh, this is the chip shortages they were talking about” in reference to shortages of fries at McDonald’s in Malaysia and Japan.
Consumer prices are rising, and it would have risen higher if it was not for price control mechanism and subsidies in place in Malaysia. This is readily observed from the following chart, where consumer prices are not rising as fast as producer prices. The latter is a proxy to global prices.
Nevertheless, despite enjoying the shield, consumers have been complaining about rising living costs. They demand actions. More than a few activists and politicians have demanded the same.
All governments are sensitive to such criticisms and this government, especially as weak, incompetent and clueless as it is, is doubly so. The opposition has been relentless in their criticism. Some Pakatan Harapan supporters have highlighted how their government played a better and proactive role in addressing prices, and go on to claim a Pakatan Harapan government would have been far more effective in managing cost of living problem. And when Pakatan Harapan was in power, Barisan Nasional and Pas, on top of their usual racist rhetoric, also attacked the government for rising living costs regardless of whether prices was actually rising (prices then were actually very stable due to the imposition of an overly generous blanket fuel subsidy).
I dislike politics of prices. While it has its uses in cases when there are monopoly abuses and regulatory hurdles (the drop in broadband prices are a great exception), in the current climate prices are largely out of the government hands. The truth is, if Pakatan Harapan was in power, they too would not be able to do much about it either.
But that does not matter. Such is the politics of prices.
The problem is with the supply itself and the players of politics of prices simply ignore the cause of the problem. Some even go has far as misdiagnosing it as unhelpfully as greed.
A supply-driven crisis like this requires investment to loosen up the supply chain: expansion of ports, new technology to hasten production and delivery, new plants, more workers, etc. Yet, the aversion for price hikes have led to large government subsidies (think fuel), which takes fund away from productive investment purposes that are needed to address the supply chain disruption.
Politics of prices not only ignore the source of price pressures Malaysian consumers are experiencing. They ignore wages. Prices and wages are part of the same coin: wages are prices of labor. Notwithstanding issues relating to income distribution between employees and employers, and technology-driven price cuts among others, the politics of prices suppresses price growth, and through it, risk of suppressing wage growth.
More than once, the politics of prices have led to calls for wage cuts. The targets have been high-paying professionals and ministers (and their unqualified advisors), but too often, it has gone a little bit too far. Mahathir as the 7th Prime Minister for instance, is a fan of pay cuts and that unfortunately set the tone for the whole economy when he was in power. Coupled with his obsession with government debt (government debt and transparency were a problem), and his history with the gold dinar movement, it felt like he wanted a deflationary environment.
All that set the tone for austerity. There was really no austerity in place—government spending went up and the economy expanded—but the narrative set by the PM made it difficult to convince many out there that that was no austerity. And the economy, even as it expanded, took heed of the deflationary sentiment.
