Malaysia’s
automotive industry in now in a state of flux after it was reported the
ministry of investment, trade and industry (MITI) imposed
new requirements for BYD’s CKD
local assembly plans, which the
Chinese conglomerate did not agree to. According to The Edge, the
government set a RM200,000 floor price as well as a target of 80% of its
production volume to be made up of exports.
This has
caused progress on the Tanjong Malim plant, due to be operational in the second
half of the year, to ground to a halt. At the centre of the dispute are, of
course, Proton and Perodua, the protection of which was the reason behind these
new requirements.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org
MITI’s
purported RM200,000 floor price for CKD EVs is poor policy at best. Every BYD
model is priced below that mark; even the most expensive Sealion 7 Performance AWD slides under it with RM200 to
spare. Only the company’s premium Denza marque has cars that cost more than that.
MITI could
argue that the floor price for CKD models is significantly below that of CBU
EVs, which is now RM250,000. But if you’re BYD, why would you invest millions,
if not billions of ringgit on an assembly plant. It only gets worse when you
consider that other brands like Tesla and Chery seem to get preferential
treatment. Not only has Tesla been able to continue
selling cars at 2025 prices, but it
has even managed to introduce a new version of the Model 3, the Standard, at under RM150,000.
Will the
RM200,000 floor price also applies to brands like Xpeng, or does this only
apply to BYD? And will Zeekr which, like Proton, Geely owns a stake in – and is
set to utilise Proton’s own Tanjong Malim plant – get special treatment?
And what
about companies that have already begun their CKD operations? Companies like
Leapmotor and MG, the latter of which has only just opened the order books for
the locally-assembled
S5 SUV, complete
with estimated pricing (obviously well below RM200,000). What about Wuling,
which has already started
deliveries of the TQ Wuling Bingo?
We then
come to the other requirement – that BYD has to export as much as 80% of its
Malaysian production overseas. Last year, BYD sold 14,407 vehicles in Malaysia,
and if it wants to achieve a reasonable return on its plant investment, it will
no doubt want to sell more. But even with a conservative target of 15,000
annual sales, it will then have to export 60,000 units to other markets. Even
Proton struggles to export a tenth of that figure, while BMW sent 11,400
vehicles from its plant in Kulim, Kedah to markets such as Thailand and the
Philippines last year.
The spectre
of protectionism has loomed over the Malaysian automotive industry ever since
the idea of a national carmaker was mooted in the 1980s. Still, the government
has long sought to distance itself from such accusations.
The new
requirements were put in place to safeguard Proton and Perodua – claimed to
include over 50% of local content in their cars – as well as the jobs of some
700,000 people within the wider local automotive ecosystem. But that argument
falls on its face upon the slightest scrutiny. It may be true that most of
Proton’s combustion-engined cars have over 50% local content, but the same
cannot be said of its eMas EVs and plug-in hybrids. Just one model out of the
three – the eMas 7 – is currently assembled in Malaysia, and even this is
classified as a semi knocked down (SKD) product, not a completely knocked down
(CKD) one. That means the car is simply assembled in Malaysia without much in
the way in the local content, and right now, Proton’s much-vaunted EV plant
does not even have a paint station.
Proton and
Geely’s advantage are compounded by the fact that their eMas EV models are all
able to be sold at under RM100,000. This includes the eMas 5, which is still
fully imported and benefits from a special CKD bridging programme, allowing
Proton to sell thousands of CBU units at CKD-level pricing, instead of the mere
hundreds that other companies are limited to.
Plus,
Proton is free from any real expectations of exports. While the eMas 7 is
technically exported to small markets such as Nepal and Mauritius, Proton currently exports cars that are made in
China, not Malaysia (although this will soon change). Also, Proton is shut out
from major markets such as Thailand and Indonesia, because Geely operates its
own plants there – contrary to past
promises.
As for
Perodua, it promises that its new QV-E will have 50% of local content early this
year, and up to 70% a full four years from now, in 2030. That’s better than
most Protons, but it’s still a long way off from the company’s usual standard
of around 95%.
Proton and
Perodua do not operate in a vacuum. They are part of a massive global ecosystem
currently undergoing a seismic shift, and even experienced
players are finding it tough out there. Killing off their rivals at home may improve sales in the short term,
but it only seeks to make them less competitive outside of Malaysia. Why do
companies require 35-40 years of protection? Because they are incompetent?
Because they exploit the market as a duopoly? Because they are pure capitalist?
Those
700,000 workers that MITI wants to protect, they all benefit from a vibrant,
thriving economy that feeds off of investment both local and foreign.
Perhaps
most important is the perception that Malaysia is portraying to the world with
these new requirements. It shows that the government is willing to forgo
foreign investment in service of its own agenda, even at a huge cost to itself.
It also shows that this country may not be such a reliable partner.
Reference:
BYD CKD
EV saga – where does the auto industry stand with MITI’s RM200k floor price,
export criteria? Jonathan
Lee, March 30,
2026, paultan.org