Will New Regulations on Fully Imported EV Spur Growth?

 

The Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry (Miti) has announced that all completely built-up (CBU) EV imports will be subject to two key conditions: a minimum cost, insurance and freight (CIF) value of RM200,000, and a revised minimum motor power requirement of 180 kilowatts (kW) and above, down from the previous 200kW threshold. 

Is setting a higher minimum vehicle value for imported EVs to encourage development and strengthen localisation and domestic EV manufacturing in Malaysia? After over 40 years of operation, Proton's impact on developing a self-sustaining Malaysian automotive vendor ecosystem remains mediocre to poor. Proton did bolster vendor confidence, shifting toward high-tech, localized production (e.g., in Tanjung Malim) and increased RM3.2B in local sourcing in 2025 but all these happened post the Geely partnership.

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org

Proton, established in 1983 as Malaysia’s national carmaker, started ahead of China's domestic automotive boom, launching the Proton Saga in 1985. The initial objective for the set up of Proton was for the establishment of a fully competitive, local automotive industry. Since its inception, Proton was protected and had a price advantage that was unfair to the other car manufacturers and importers. That being so, Proton could possibly have felt that it was too strong, too well-placed, too invincible and so became callous in their approach towards long-term marketing. Or for that matter on R&D. 

Proton then drifted off tangent. It did not focus and meet the quality requirements of the market, what the consumers want. The cars it sold had a lot of issues. Realising that they couldn’t do it on their own, they entered a partnership with China's Geely. Geely only started making passenger cars in 1997. 

It has been over 40 years, but Proton has remained a bonsai! It has become common now that if we can’t compete in any industrialisation projects, the government will introduce new regulations to protect the failing project. 

Just take a look at those few big GLC banks and see how they work. Lackadaisical. Yes, they report huge numbers in its profitability, but they are operating in a near `monoplistic’ environment in Malaysia. Open up the banking sector and see how they perform. A service transaction that needs only 10 minutes can take more than an hour! 

Humongous amount of taxpayers monies was poured into to prop up Perwaja, Bank Bumiputra, Proton, MAS and many more. Malaysians are proud of our local products. But how many people have you heard telling others of how proud they are of having bought a local product which was defective? 

Local manufacturers must be proud of the quality of the goods or services that they sell. They need to be committed not only to customer satisfaction but to customer delight. When that happens, the hope for efficient automotive vendor ecosystem that produces world class products will then evolve. And stop this ‘protectionist’ measures for a 40-year-old baby. It is either a bonsai or suffering from “Down Syndrome” (my apologies to those who unfortunately suffer from it). If you want to thrive, you must compete. Ask Geely or BYD. How do they do it? The Chinese government gives them subsidies for R&D and related areas. So, we should support in R&D through a National R&D Fund? 

References:

PMX, do you really believe the new regulations on fully imported EV will spur growth of the local automotive sector? Opinion, FLK, Newswav, 16 May 2026 

Malaysia raises entry bar for imported EVs from July 1, sets RM200,00 minimum price threshold, Syafiqah Salim, theedgemalaysia.com, 6 May 2026

Many IPOs, Little Depth!

 

Behind Malaysia’s impressive initial public offering (IPO) figures lies a far less flattering reality. The local stock exchange is not just producing many IPOs – it is also producing many small or micro-IPOs. Over the past several years, Bursa Malaysia has seen a wave of micro-IPOs raising less than RM50mil. Many companies come to market with fundraising exercises so small they resemble private placements more than meaningful public listings. 

The conversation around Bursa Malaysia has long centred on the lack of mega or “blockbuster” IPOs. That remains a serious issue. Malaysia has not consistently produced the kind of billion-ringgit listings that dominate regional exchanges such as Hong Kong, India or even Indonesia. But the rise of micro-IPOs deserves equal scrutiny because it points to something deeper about the state of Malaysia’s capital markets.

Between March 2025 and May 6, 2026, out of 50 listings on the smaller ACE Market, micro-IPOs represent 29 of them, or 58% to be exact. This partly explains the decline in total funds raised in the IPO space last year, despite an increase in the number of listings (see chart). In 2025, while there were 60 IPOs on Bursa Malaysia, the total funds raised was RM5.96bil, compared to RM7.44bil in 2024 (55 IPOs). This represents a decline of almost 20% in total funds raised. Meanwhile, average funds raised dropped from RM135.3mil in 2024 to RM99.3mil in 2025. 

The number of ACE Market IPOs has increased tremendously in less than a decade. From just six listings in 2017, a total of 44 IPOs were recorded on the ACE Market in 2025. This represents nearly three-quarters of total IPOs on Bursa Malaysia – across the Main, ACE and LEAP Markets combined. With this, Malaysia’s IPO market also topped South-East-Asia by volume. The 2025 performance was notably the highest since 2006. In 2025, the domestic equity market also saw a first secondary listing – UMS Integrated Ltd – as well as the listing of a subsidiary of a South Korea Exchange-listed company in Malaysia. Deloitte Southeast Asia Ltd, in its Southeast Asia IPO Capital Market 2025 report, said the largest IPO of 2025 – Eco-Shop Marketing Bhd – came from the consumer industry. 

In 2024, the largest IPO – 99 Speed Mart Retail Holdings Bhd – was also from the same sector. While Malaysia led the region in terms of listing volume, Deloitte noted that none of South-East-Asia’s four “blockbuster” IPOs originated from the country. The four IPOs, each raising more than US$500mil, came from Singapore, Vietnam and the Philippines. 

A stock exchange cannot thrive on listing volume alone. It needs depth. It needs scale. It needs companies large enough to attract institutional participation, analyst coverage, foreign interest and sustained liquidity. Without these, the market risks becoming crowded with small counters that generate excitement for a few trading sessions before fading into illiquidity. 

The worrying part is not merely the existence of micro-IPOs. Smaller companies should have access to public capital markets, and many successful global firms began as small listings. The issue lies in the concentration of such offerings. When too many listings raise only modest sums, it raises uncomfortable questions about the overall quality and maturity of the pipeline.

In some cases, IPO exercises appear driven more by branding, shareholder exits or short-term valuation gains rather than long-term expansion strategies. The danger is a gradual dilution of market quality. Investors begin viewing IPOs less as opportunities to participate in future corporate champions and more as short-term trading vehicles. Market confidence becomes increasingly dependent on listing pops instead of long-term value creation. 

Malaysia cannot afford that outcome. It risks being trapped in an uncomfortable middle ground where it produces many IPOs, but too few that genuinely move the needle. The irony is that Malaysia does have companies capable of scaling into larger listings. The country has strong ecosystems in semiconductors, healthcare, industrial technology, digital infrastructure and consumer brands. Regulators may also need to actively scout high-quality regional companies for listing in Malaysia. This would require more proactive “door-knocking” efforts, rather than waiting for firms to approach the exchange. 

Reference:

Many IPOs, little depth, Ganeshwaran Kana, The Star, 11 May 2026