Cabotage policy should prioritise local firms with some exemptions, says shipping icon
Datuk Capt Ahmad Sufian Abdul Rashid points out that other countries have similar policies to protect their shipping industries
Malaysia’s cabotage policy has been criticised for causing multinational tech firms to exclude the country from their undersea cable networks. – Bernama pic, October 28, 2021
KUALA LUMPUR – The cabotage policy has long been in place to protect the local shipping industry and should remain as practical as possible, said Malaysian shipping icon Datuk Capt Ahmad Sufian Abdul Rashid.
KUALA LUMPUR – The cabotage policy has long been in place to protect the local shipping industry and should remain as practical as possible, said Malaysian shipping icon Datuk Capt Ahmad Sufian Abdul Rashid.
kt notes: ... and airlines as well
He emphasised that the cabotage policy is not unique to Malaysia, and that it has been practised by countries to protect their shipping and the growth of shipping services, and that local companies should be prioritised when it comes to works within national waters.
“There is nothing wrong with protecting the local industry. However, in the past, and (it should continue), when there is a need for specialised services and an exemption, permission is granted to (foreign) shipping companies that applied for it.
Ahmad Sufian is the former chairman of Global Maritime Ventures Bhd, Alam Maritim Resources Bhd and Malaysian Bulk Carriers Bhd.
Permission should be granted if the need is urgent and foreign companies, such as multinational technology companies that specialise in Internet-related services and products, require it immediately. The cabotage policy should not be overly restrictive, but Malaysian companies should be given preference,” he said.
However, he cautioned that, while cabotage policy should be geared toward protecting locals, the government must ensure that local businesses have the necessary capabilities and assets.
“We don't like local companies that charter foreign services, if we don't have the asset to be deployed, we don't broker it as it leads to higher costs,” he said, adding that “having a rigid cabotage policy can backfire on us.”
Citing the Jones Act of the United States, which is a federal law that governs maritime commerce in the United States, Ahmad Sufian said be it the US, Indonesia or some other countries, they have their ways of protecting the local industry although it might be under different names.
The Jones Act requires that goods shipped between US ports be transported on ships built, owned and operated by citizens or permanent residents of the country.
Meanwhile, Malaysia's cabotage policy, which is hotly debated in parliament, is a policy that governs the transport and shipping of goods or passengers between two places along coastal routes in the same country by a transport operator from another country, and is practised by many nations worldwide, including developed nations.
It is so strictly enforced in some of these countries that no foreign-owned vessels are even permitted to operate in their domestic waters.
This policy was implemented in 1980 with the goal of increasing Malaysian ownership and local shipping in general, while reducing Malaysia's reliance on foreign vessels and the outflow of foreign exchange in the form of freight payments.
It also serves as a springboard for local shipping companies to gradually expand into international waters. – Bernama, October 28, 2021
This guy is talking about shipping (transporting) goods, not repair.
ReplyDeleteQUOTE
Malaysia's cabotage policy, which is hotly debated in parliament, is a policy that governs the transport and shipping of GOODS or PASSENGERS.
UNQUOTE
Where does it even mention repair of undersea cables...?
QUOTE
The Jones Act requires that GOODS shipped between US ports be transported on ships built, owned and operated by citizens or permanent residents of the country.
UNQUOTE
The Jones Act does not cover REPAIR ships.
The tech giants (Facebook and Google) are spending billions of dollars laying submarine cables (Apricot) in Asia. The expensive cables belong to them. They should have the right to say who repairs their cables.
Now without this exemption the Tech Giants choose to lay their cables bypassing our waters. Our Loss.
The loss to us is expected to be 15 Billion. Is our local shipping industry worth that much to save?
QUOTE
Malaysia Digital Economy Corporation chairman Rais Hussin also said in a statement that industry sources indicated that three cables slated to land in Malaysia were now under review, as well as RM12-RM15 billion in data centre investments, which he pointed to as evidence the revocation had hurt investments.
UNQUOTE
If we want to protect local aviation industry.....we have already pumped RM28 billion into MAS over the last 3 decades and it is still bleeding, is our national airline worth that much to save?
The criticism Wee Khat SIAL is facing is not the Entire Cabotage policy, but his dumb and nasty withdrawal of the Harapan Government's waiver of Cabotage approval requirements for specialised foreign fibre optic cable repair ships to enter Malaysian waters.
ReplyDeleteWee KHAT SIAL cancelled the waiver just to spite the previous Harapan Government decision.
It's a Red Herring throw in issues on Cabotage for carrying normal sea freight and bullshiting about Aircraft cabotage, which has never been allowed by Malaysian authorities.
If any of the Malaysian shipping companies can show proof they have invested in, or intend to invest in High-Tech Fibre Optic Cable repair ships, let them speak up, or shut up about insisting on enforcement of Cabotage rules for such ships.
We are scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to justify Wee KHAT Siong's stupid cabotage decision. The Jones Act is an Obscure Law made in 1920 to strangle Puerto Rico....till today.
ReplyDeleteWe must get rid of the Cabotage Policy as it only enriches certain people in the perkapalan industry, mostly from one particular race heh heh heh....like that 51% logistics company share policy that will come into effect soon.....foreign logistics companies like DHL no need to comply but local company must be 51% bumi-owned.....
QUOTE
The Jones Act, the obscure 1920 shipping regulation strangling Puerto Rico, explained
Protectionism and exploitation at its worst.
By Matthew Yglesias
Oct 9, 2017
.....getting goods from the US mainland to Puerto Rico is much more expensive than sending them to Texas or even to other Caribbean islands as a result of a century-old man-made disaster that’s been crippling the island’s economy for a long time.
Meet the Jones Act, an obscure 1920 regulation that requires that goods shipped from one American port to another be transported on a ship that is American-built, American-owned, and crewed by US citizens or permanent residents.
For most Americans, this isn’t a big deal — it enriches a small number of American shipowners while introducing some weird distortions into the overall pattern of economic activity in the United States.
For the residents of the island of Puerto Rico, though, the Jones Act is huge. Basic shipments of goods from the island to the US mainland, and vice versa, must be conducted via expensive protected ships rather than exposing them to global competition. That makes everything Puerto Ricans buy unnecessarily expensive relative to goods purchased on either the US mainland or other Caribbean islands, and drives up the cost of living on the island overall.
UNQUOTE