Malaysia does not impose 47% tariff on US imports
KUALA LUMPUR: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has refuted the United States's (US) claim that Malaysia has imposed a 47 per cent tariff on US imports into Malaysia.
He said the calculation was based on the simple ratio of the US trade deficit with Malaysia to its total imports from Malaysia in 2024.
Anwar said this claim was used as the basis by the US to impose a retaliatory tariff of 24 per cent on Malaysia, which is a 50 per cent reduction on the 47 per cent tariff that Malaysia is said to have imposed on imports from that country.
'We believe this calculation does not reflect the actual tariff level and is not based on sound economic theory. The fact is that, on average, tariffs imposed on US imports into Malaysia are only 5.6 per cent.
'This was acknowledged by the Office of the United States Trade Representative in the report '2025 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers of the President of the United States on the Trade Agreements Program' published on March 31, 2025,' the prime minister said during the Special Parliamentary Meeting on the US tariffs today.
Anwar said that the government takes the US's imposition of retaliatory tariffs seriously.
'Therefore, taking into account the importance of the US as Malaysia's largest export destination and source of foreign investment, the government believes that any challenges to trade relations must be addressed pragmatically and based on national interests, while maintaining good relations with all of Malaysia's trading partners,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
an hour ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Why target netizens over comments on PKR polls, says Rafizi
Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli claimed that the actions taken against the social media users were a form of intimidation. PETALING JAYA : Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli has questioned the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) and police for taking action against several netizens who had commented on PKR's recently concluded party polls. Rafizi said he received numerous complaints from members of the public, who claimed they were being subject to various actions by the MCMC after posting comments on the PKR elections on social media. He said some of them were told that their content breached the law, while others were approached by MCMC and police officers for a 'meeting'. Some were also formally notified that they were under investigation and had their smartphones as well as SIM cards confiscated. Rafizi, who lost his PKR deputy presidency in last month's elections, claimed that most of the content under probe were simply people's personal views on the party polls, and did not breach any law. 'After going through these complaints, my view is that this is a form of intimidation to pressure the public so they would refrain from posting content on the PKR elections. 'I believe Prime Minister (and PKR president) Anwar Ibrahim and communications minister Fahmi Fadzil did not issue such an order. 'Perhaps there are certain characters, using the names of ministers, who ordered the MCMC or police to pressure the public, just because they had different views on the party elections,' he said in a statement. Rafizi, the Pandan PKR chief, urged the authorities to cease from carrying out any further action against the netizens involved. He said several lawyers have volunteered to represent the social media users pro bono to challenge the actions taken by the authorities. Rafizi had lost the PKR deputy president's post to Nurul Izzah Anwar last month, and later resigned as economy minister. He is currently on leave and will officially vacate his minister's post on June 17.
Free Malaysia Today
2 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Fahmi Reza to sue government over ‘travel ban'
Graphic artist and activist Fahmi Reza yesterday claimed an immigration officer informed him that Bukit Aman had denied him clearance to travel overseas. (Bernama pic) PETALING JAYA : Graphic artist and activist Fahmi Reza says he will sue the government after being barred from travelling abroad, despite there being no official travel ban against him. Fahmi made the decision after Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Razarudin Husain today said there was no travel ban on Fahmi, who was prevented from flying to Singapore yesterday. Fahmi yesterday claimed an immigration officer informed him that Bukit Aman had denied him clearance to travel overseas. 'No one in the government has taken responsibility for restricting my right to travel,' said Fahmi in a statement today. 'You say there was no official ban — but I was still prevented from leaving the country. My time and money were wasted, and now you're passing the buck.' Fahmi criticised the authorities, saying they are quick to prosecute citizens but unwilling to be held accountable themselves. 'This time, the people will take the government to court,' he added. Earlier today, Razarudin clarified that the police did not issue a travel ban against Fahmi and said the incident was the result of a 'misunderstanding' during a border check. Separately, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said he had instructed the police to investigate the matter, adding that the government supports individual freedom — as long as national security and laws are not compromised. Fahmi, known for his politically charged illustrations, was stopped at KLIA Terminal 2 yesterday while trying to board a flight to Singapore to attend a punk rock concert.
Malaysian Reserve
5 hours ago
- Malaysian Reserve
Nobody is above the law, says High Court
Anwar filed his application on May 23, asking whether a sitting PM has limited immunity from civil lawsuits under Articles 39, 40 and 43 of the Federal Constitution by FARAH SOLHI THE Kuala Lumpur (KL) High Court's dismissal of Prime Minister (PM) Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's application to refer a constitutional question to the Federal Court — specifically on procedural immunity from civil liabilities — strongly affirms that no one is above the law. Judge Roz Mawar Rozain ruled that Anwar's claim of being deprived of personal liberty, based on the assertion that the suit filed against him was vexatious and politically motivated, is untenable. In delivering her brief judgement on June 4, the judge held that none of the Federal Constitution articles cited in Anwar's application gave rise to any real, substantial or justiciable constitutional questions. Roz Mawar said Anwar had not demonstrated that he is being denied legal protection afforded to others, or that any legal provisions operate unequally against him. 'The questions posed are speculative (and) not necessary for the disposal of this case, nor do they concern the interpretation or validity of any constitutional provision. 'From a judicial perspective, the proposed questions do not appear to meet the threshold of genuine constitutional controversy,' she said, while also awarded former research assistant Mohammed Yusoff Rawther RM20,000 in costs. Anwar also questions whether courts are constitutionally required to protect public officials from lawsuits when no crime is proven (pic: Media Mulia) Roz Mawar further ruled that constitutional supremacy demands all persons, including public office holders, be equally subject to the rule of law, and that not every question touching or quoting the Federal Constitution warrants referral, as the Federal Court is not a forum for speculative advisory opinions. She added that Anwar's affirmed readiness to proceed with the trial, as submitted by his counsels during the application hear- ing on June 3, indicated no evidence that the suit impairs his ability to perform his constitutional duties. The trial will proceed as scheduled on June 16, as the court found no special circumstances warranting a postponement. Constitutional Questions Raised in Anwar's Application Anwar filed his application on May 23, questioning whether a sitting PM has qualified immunity from civil suits under Articles 39, 40 and 43 of the Federal Constitution. This pertains to alleged private acts committed prior to his appointment, where the continuation of such litigation, he argued, would impair the effective discharge of his executive functions and undermine the constitutional separation of powers. Anwar also questioned whether the High Court's decision to allow the civil suit, based on private allegations but pursued in a political context, would violate the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law under Article 8(1) which relates to the fundamental rights to equal treatment. Anwar also questioned, under Article 5(1), whether a sitting PM should be protected from lawsuits that are politically motivated or poorly timed, particularly if they relate to actions taken before assuming office, lack clear legal merit, but could damage reputation and hinder the ability to govern. He further raised the issue of whether courts are constitutionally required to shield public officials from such lawsuits when no crime has been proven. In response, Roz Mawar said Article 5(1) does not extend to mere inconvenience, reputational risks or constitutional burden arising from civil proceedings, noting that Anwar's rights were not violated as he remains at liberty, with no restrictions on his movement or legal capacity. 'The act requiring a defendant to respond to a claim, however politically sensitive, does not implicate Article 5(1), and no precedent has extended its ambit to encompass exposure to civil litigation,' she said. She also found Anwar's questions regarding Article 8(1) to be without merit, saying that the provision serves as a shield, not a sword for immunity, it guarantees equal legal treatment, not exemption from the law, as established in precedent cases. 'The defendant has not shown any discriminatory conduct by the courts or the law. The plaintiff's (Yusoff Rawther's) suit was filed under the same procedural and substantive law applicable to all Malaysians and foreigners alike in this country,' she added. Roz Mawar said while Article 39, which pertains to executive authority, is a structural allocation of powers and does not confer any personal immunity on the PM or Cabinet ministers. It does not suggest, either expressly or implicitly, that executive authority includes protection against personal civil liability. She also said Anwar's arguments contending Article 43 were flawed, as no immunity is implied under the said article. This provision, she added, pertains solely to appointments and tenure, and does not prescribe or imply immunity from judicial proceedings. 'No clause in Article 43 shields a sitting PM from accountability for private acts committed prior to assuming office,' she said, adding that constitutional silence does not equate to immunity. The judge also said that the mind map produced by Anwar's legal team, intended to illustrate their theory of constructive harm to the office, has no textual or jurisprudential basis, nor does any provision in the Constitution imply immunity for the PM from civil litigation. 'The defendant's legal team could not clearly anchor this proposed doctrine to any particular article or legal test. The argument, at best, may be rooted in policy concerns rather than constitutional law,' she said. While Article 39, which pertains to executive authority, is a structural allocation of powers, it does not confer any personal immunity on the PM or Cabinet ministers Is Seeking Immunity a Violation of Constitutional Rights? Senior lawyer Datuk Seri Rajan Navaratnam said every individual, including the sitting PM, who feels aggrieved is entitled to approach the courts for determination of a subject matter. However, there are certain limitations to matters raised, as courts are bound by precedent decisions and administration of justice is subject to specific rules and procedures. 'It is for the courts to determine whether such an action (of raising legal questions) has merit or otherwise. 'Article 8 of the Constitution states that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law. In other words, no one is above or exempt from the legal framework,' he told The Malaysian Reserve (TMR). However, the Constitution does not afford immunity from court proceedings to any individual, except under Article 183, which provides that no action can be initiated against the Yang diPertuan Agong or a State Ruler without the consent of the Attorney General (AG). Therefore, it can be said that even Article 183 does not provide absolute immunity, as the discretion lies with the AG. Meanwhile, senior lawyer Datuk Seri Dr Jahabardeen Mohamed Yunoos, affirming Rajan's view, said there are various legal mechanisms in place to weed out frivolous suits and those that attempt to abuse the judicial process. He noted that the law does accord certain forms of immunity, but these are limited — primarily to judges or individuals acting in a judicial capacity, as stipulated under Section 14 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. This provision states that judges and others performing judicial functions cannot be sued for actions taken in the course of their duties, even if those actions exceeded their authority, provided they genuinely believed they had such authority at the time. Yusoff Rawther (centre) is currently under police detention after being charged under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for allegedly trafficking 305g of cannabis What's Next? Anwar's counsel, Datuk Seri K Rajasegaran told TMR on June 5 that they have filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Court immediately following the High Court's decision. However, he confirmed that his team is still awaiting a date or case management notice from the Appellate Court. He added that they will file a notice of urgency together with an application to stay (postpone) the High Court's proceedings. Pending any decision by the higher courts, the High Court will proceed with the matter, following Roz Mawar's dismissal of Rajasegaran's oral application for postponement on June 4. Yusoff Rawther filed a suit against Anwar in July 2021, claiming he was sexually assaulted by the latter on Oct 2, 2018, at Anwar's residence. He made a statutory declaration and lodged a police report regarding the incident in 2019. However, he was later accused of attempting to damage the PM's political career and reputation through the police report. The plaintiff, who was Anwar's research assistant, stated in his affidavits that the allegations had affected his mental health. He is seeking general, aggravated and exemplary damages, along with interest, costs and other relief the court deems appropriate. Yusoff Rawther is currently under police detention after being charged under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for allegedly trafficking 305g of cannabis found in his vehicle near the mosque at the police contingent headquarters on Sept 6, 2024. He was also charged under Section 36(1) of the Firearms Act 1960 for possession of two imitation firearms. The High Court is scheduled to deliver its decision at the end of the prosecution case on his charges on June 12. This article first appeared in The Malaysian Reserve weekly print edition
