logo
Analyst: Malaysia leans on quiet engagement to seek favourable tariffs revision

Analyst: Malaysia leans on quiet engagement to seek favourable tariffs revision

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia remains locked in quiet engagement and possibly embracing a deliberate positioning with the United States (US) to lower the 25 per cent tariffs on its exports to the American markets as the Aug 1 deadline approaches.
Unlike other Asean countries, which have struck quick deals with Washington, SPI Asset Management managing partner Stephen Innes said Malaysia's more measured response to the impending US tariffs likely reflects deliberate positioning rather than passivity.
He said that contrary to countries pursuing headline-grabbing diplomacy, Malaysia often leans on quiet engagement and multilateral cooperation to navigate complex trade tensions.
With the Aug 1 deadline nearing, exporters and investors are keeping a close watch on the outcome of these negotiations, which would reshape the cost dynamics of doing business between Malaysia and its third-largest trading partner.
While regional peers such as Indonesia and Vietnam have already struck last-minute deals to reduce their tariffs to 19 per cent and 20 per cent, respectively, Malaysia is still seeking favourable terms that safeguard local industries without compromising national interests.
The proposed tariffs — a revival of protectionist measures introduced during President Donald Trump's first term — have stirred fresh uncertainties across Southeast Asia, where economies are deeply embedded in global supply chains.
Investment, Trade and Industry Minister Tengku Datuk Seri Zafrul Abdul Aziz has described the ongoing talks with the US as progressing well, with emphasis on striking a balanced outcome.
"This low-profile approach fits with Malaysia's broader strategy, namely maintaining economic openness, avoiding entanglement in great power rivalries, and preserving regional alignment within Asean.
"By staying restrained, Malaysia may be aiming to protect its long-term credibility as a stable, rules-based partner," said Innes.
That said, he cautioned that the exposure is real as Malaysia's export economy is heavily tilted toward electrical and electronic goods, precision machinery, and intermediate components, many of which plug directly into US-bound supply chains.
A 25 per cent tariff could disrupt flows, especially in semiconductors, sensors, and specialised modules that are difficult to reroute, he said.
"The pain would be felt most in hubs like Penang, where small and medium enterprises and multinationals are deeply intertwined.
"While some firms could shift volumes elsewhere, the high-tech nature of these exports makes substitution harder than it sounds," said Innes.
The absence of a bilateral Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the US limits Malaysia's negotiating toolkit, but Innes believed it doesn't shut the door entirely.
He pointed out that Malaysia remained strategically important to US firms seeking reliable, non-China supply bases, which provides leverage particularly if Malaysia targets exemptions for specific sectors tied to US industrial or security interests, such as chip packaging or electric vehicle components.
While countries like Indonesia have dangled major purchases to secure tariff relief, Malaysia's options are different, Innes said.
"It is unlikely to buy its way into a deal with big-ticket orders. Instead, it can offer alignment, which is co-investment opportunities in green tech, digital infrastructure, or rare-earth refining," he said.
According to Innes, these would support Malaysia's industrial roadmap while offering Washington something it values: supply chain resilience and diversification, but from a policy standpoint, the trade-off is nuanced.
He noted that offering short-term concessions or budget support might help shield critical sectors from long-term dislocation.
"But any deal must be carefully structured. It should channel benefits beyond just large exporters towards local suppliers, workers, and tech development ecosystems," said Innes, highlighting that if no deal is reached, the impact may not be catastrophic at a national level, but could be meaningful in key sectors.
"Export growth could slow, investment plans may be paused, and employment could tighten in affected industries.
The greater risk is longer-term: losing ground in a global supply chain reshuffle that increasingly rewards agility and alignment. Malaysia still has room to move, but the window is closing," he added.
Meanwhile, Moody's Analytics economist Denise Cheok said Malaysia's economic exposure to the US through value-added trade is more significant than headline export figures suggest.
Citing calculations based on OECD Trade in Value Added (TiVA) data, Cheok said that Malaysian domestic value added embedded in foreign final demand to the US accounted for slightly over 5.0 per cent of the country's gross domestic product.
She noted that this includes not only direct exports of final goods but also intermediate components that eventually reach the American consumers and provide a more comprehensive measure than gross exports alone.
"This compares to over 9.0 per cent of GDP for Singapore, which is highly trade-exposed, and about 2.0 per cent of GDP for Indonesia, which is more domestically focused and not as reliant on exports to the US," Cheok said.
If the full 25 per cent tariff is imposed without any rerouting of supply chains, Cheok estimates the impact could shave up to 2.6 per cent off Malaysia's GDP in 2025, with the effects likely to be uneven across sectors.
"The key manufacturing sector is likely to be hit hard — not only by the direct impact of the tariffs but also by global supply chain disruptions caused by the uncertainty surrounding tariff policies," she said.
Cheok added that Malaysia, like many of its Southeast Asian peers, relies heavily on exports as part of its growth model, and structural changes to this would be difficult, even in the long term.
"The fractured relationship between the US and its trading partners will likely continue beyond the next three years, and Malaysia should continue strengthening its trade relations with other economies, including Asean, as a counterbalance to this," she said. — BERNAMA
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Euro hovers near one-month lows after trade deal, focus switches to Fed
Euro hovers near one-month lows after trade deal, focus switches to Fed

New Straits Times

time20 minutes ago

  • New Straits Times

Euro hovers near one-month lows after trade deal, focus switches to Fed

SINGAPORE: The euro steadied near its lowest in a month on Wednesday, nursing steep losses this week as investors counted the cost of the US-EU trade pact and looked ahead to policy meetings from the Federal Reserve and the Bank of Japan. US and Chinese officials agreed to seek an extension of their 90-day tariff truce on Tuesday, following two days of what both sides described as constructive talks in Stockholm. No major breakthroughs were announced, and US officials said it was up to President Donald Trump to decide whether to extend a truce that expires on August 12. The Sino-US talks come after a framework deal between the US and EU was announced on Sunday. The accord has evoked a mix of relief and concern from Europe, as the agreement was lopsided and skewed towards the United States. "Markets seem to be increasingly interpreting trade agreements as symbolic and tactical rather than structural resolution," said Charu Chanana, chief investment strategist at Saxo in Singapore. "With terms often vague and enforcement mechanisms weak, investors are assigning lower market beta to these negotiations unless backed by concrete detail." The euro was 0.12 per cent higher at US$1.1558 in early trading after dropping for the first two days of the week and hitting a one-month low of US$1.15185 on Tuesday. The euro is up 11.7 per cent since the start of the year but on course for its first monthly drop this year. The single currency has benefited this year from the dollar losing its lustre due to Trump's erratic trade policies, prompting investors to look for alternatives. Sterling was at US$1.3358 and the Australian dollar last bought US$0.6517. The offshore yuan was little changed at 7.178 per US dollar. The Japanese yen firmed a bit to 148.20 per dollar. That left the dollar index, which measures the US currency against six others, at 98.815, hovering near a one-month high. The index is set to record its first month of gains this year. Investor focus will now switch to central bank meetings, with the Fed due to announce its policy decision later on Wednesday. The Fed is widely expected to stand pat, making comments from Chair Jerome Powell crucial to gauge the policy path. The policy decision comes in the wake of Trump's constant demands for rate cuts, which have coincided with an unrelenting campaign of attacks on Powell by the president and administration officials. There is speculation that Governor Christopher Waller and Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman could issue dissents if the Fed on Wednesday holds the policy rate steady for the fifth time since December. "While dissenting isn't uncommon, the dissents at this week's meeting may get more focus because Trump has made it crystal clear that he thinks the FOMC should be lowering interest rates," said Kristina Clifton, a senior economist at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Sydney. "Dissents at this meeting may be judged as political and put a dent in perceptions of the FOMC's independence." The BOJ is also expected to stand pat and the spotlight will be on comments from Governor Kazuo Ueda as investors hope the recent trade deal between Japan and the US paves the way for the central bank to raise interest rates again this year.

Come hell or high water: Cambodia must make peace in an asymmetrical war with Thailand — Phar Kim Beng
Come hell or high water: Cambodia must make peace in an asymmetrical war with Thailand — Phar Kim Beng

Malay Mail

time20 minutes ago

  • Malay Mail

Come hell or high water: Cambodia must make peace in an asymmetrical war with Thailand — Phar Kim Beng

JULY 30 — The Thai-Cambodian border conflict of July 2025, which escalated into a full-scale military confrontation and displaced more than 300,000 people, may have been halted temporarily by a midnight ceasefire agreement. Yet, beneath the apparent calm lies an asymmetrical truth: Thailand, with overwhelming military superiority, can afford to wage a war of attrition. Cambodia cannot. Thus, for Phnom Penh, peace is not merely a diplomatic choice — it is a geopolitical necessity. The ceasefire, brokered at a moment of intense regional and global scrutiny, was welcomed across Asean. Its immediate enforcement on July 28 was a diplomatic feat, especially given the speed at which it was organised. The top brass of both nations' armed forces met within 24 hours at a forward post in Surin Province, Thailand, reaffirming their intention to hold the line. The two sides agreed to halt troop movements, avoid provocations, and establish four-member liaison teams for future coordination. Importantly, both defence ministries backed the plan. Thailand, having called out Cambodia for ceasefire violations earlier in the week, softened its tone after the military-to-military interface. Cambodia, for its part, categorically denied any breaches, claiming it had respected the ceasefire from the very beginning. Yet, no amount of face-saving declarations or tightly scripted meetings can hide the lopsided military equation. Thailand's military, with its F-16 fighters, advanced armoured divisions, and formidable naval power, dwarfs Cambodia's capabilities in every conceivable category. Royal Thai Army soldiers are transported on the back of an army truck in the Thai border province of Si Sa Ket July 26, 2025. — AFP pic Cambodia's only tactical advantage in recent years has been its acquisition of long-range rocket artillery, but even this cannot offset Thailand's dominance in the air, on the ground, and in its command-and-control structures. Any further escalation would expose Cambodia's vulnerabilities in the field, in logistics, and in sustaining a prolonged campaign. Given this reality, Cambodia's best chance at asserting its interests lies not on the battlefield but in the courtroom and the diplomatic chamber. As early as June, Cambodia sought adjudication from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to resolve the long-running territorial dispute. This was a calculated decision — one that aligns with Phnom Penh's historical preference for multilateral arbitration and reflects an understanding of its limitations. Thailand, however, has repeatedly rejected third-party mediation, insisting instead on bilateral talks. This mirrors Bangkok's longstanding aversion to international legal interventions that may lock it into outcomes contrary to its national narrative and perceived territorial integrity. It is precisely here that Cambodia must walk the tightrope. While invoking international law and seeking external legitimacy, it must also engage Thailand on bilateral terms to ensure that diplomacy remains alive. The ceasefire agreement — while commendable — exists in a fragile ecosystem. It is held together by Asean diplomatic activism, threats of high tariffs from the United States, and the blunt warning that trade talks could be stalled completely by President Donald Trump if fighting resumed. For a Cambodian economy grappling with post-pandemic recovery and attempting to wean itself off illicit digital revenues along the border, this external pressure was both timely and decisive. Likewise, Thailand, eager to secure its own economic gains and maintain regional legitimacy as a future Asean Chair, could not afford to appear belligerent in the eyes of Washington, Beijing, or the broader Asia Pacific. Nevertheless, Cambodia's decision to comply with the ceasefire must not be mistaken for surrender. Rather, it should be interpreted as a pivot—toward law, diplomacy, and international solidarity. Hun Manet's government, still under the long shadow of his father Hun Sen, must now articulate a coherent peace strategy that goes beyond ceasefires. That includes pushing for the August 4 General Border Committee meeting to deliver tangible results: demilitarised buffer zones, joint border demarcation teams, and confidence-building mechanisms supervised by Asean monitors, if not neutral third parties. Yet spoilers remain. Wars — especially border wars — attract those who thrive in chaos. There are factions within both militaries who believe victory is the only deterrent, and within civilian power circles who seek to elevate their political stature through brinkmanship. Sun Tzu once wrote that the best victory is one not fought. But Clausewitz warned that war is politics by other means. Cambodia cannot afford to indulge in the latter interpretation. In an asymmetrical confrontation, the stronger party always sets the pace, and the weaker party must navigate with greater wisdom. Cambodia has that wisdom — if it can remain disciplined. It must elevate its diplomatic efforts, consolidate its case at the ICJ, and secure support from Asean's current and future Chairs. Malaysia and the Philippines have already endorsed a peaceful resolution. Now is the moment for Phnom Penh to push for Asean centrality — not in name, but in deeds. This conflict has already cost too much. Border towns on both sides have been shelled. Livelihoods have been destroyed. Trust has eroded. Every new skirmish risks drawing in larger powers, further complicating an already combustible region. China and the United States are watching, not just to prevent war but to test the resilience of Asean as a rules-based regional order. Come hell or high water, Cambodia must make peace. Not because it is weak — but because peace, in this asymmetrical war, is its strongest form of power. * Phar Kim Beng is a professor of Asean Studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

Taiwan investors turn to Europe over US assets
Taiwan investors turn to Europe over US assets

The Star

time41 minutes ago

  • The Star

Taiwan investors turn to Europe over US assets

Over the first half of 2025, Taiwanese investors have also poured 14.1 billion New Taiwan dollars into Europe-focused funds based overseas. — Bloomberg TAIPEI: Taiwanese investors are reassessing their long-held preference for US-dollar assets, shifting their bets to Europe in the latest move by global investors away from the greenback. Taiwanese funds holding European assets have seen an influx of investments recently, pushing their combined value to 13.7 billion New Taiwan dollars (US$463mil) as of the end of June, the highest since 2019, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Over the first half of 2025, Taiwanese investors have also poured 14.1 billion New Taiwan dollars into Europe-focused funds based overseas, according to data from the Securities Investment Trust and Consulting Association (Sitca). At the same time, Taiwan-based funds focusing on the United States saw their combined value fall by 538 billion New Taiwan dollars over the first half of 2025, the largest six-month decline since Bloomberg started compiling the data in 2003. Taiwanese assets in US-focused overseas funds declined by 121.6 billion New Taiwan dollars, the biggest contraction since Sitca records began in 2006. — Bloomberg Trading ideas: FGV, Paramount ,Zetrix, United Malacaa, Jati Tinggit, Focus Point, Camaroe, Bursa, IGBREIT, Chin Teck, Dufu, DXN, Tasco

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store