Consider the divergence in strategy across ASEAN’s major economies.
Singapore, unable to compete on labour costs and starved for land, long ago stopped trying to be a factory floor. Instead, it designed itself as the region’s command centre – hosting semiconductor headquarters, R&D hubs, commodity trading desks and wealth management towers.
Singapore generally permits 100 per cent foreign ownership across most sectors. It also has deep and liquid capital markets, and possesses an unwavering commitment to the rule of contract.
Thus, Singapore offers something Malaysia struggles to provide: predictability. Decision-makers locate there not because it is cheap, but because they trust the rules will not change after the ground is broken.
Indonesia, with a domestic market of 280 million people and sovereign control over the world’s largest nickel reserves, has pursued a markedly different but equally coherent path.
Jakarta has fused resource nationalism into industrial policy, demanding that foreign investors build battery plants, EV factories and smelters on Indonesian soil as the non-negotiable price of access to its minerals.
Thailand, decades ago, made a strategic bet on industrial depth. By nurturing local supply chains in automotive manufacturing and electronics, Bangkok created an ecosystem in which foreign investors became structurally embedded. Japanese automakers did not merely assemble cars in Thailand; they built a web of local parts suppliers, trained engineering talent and anchored regional procurement networks.
Malaysia, meanwhile, is stuck between models. It is too expensive to compete with Vietnam as a low-cost manufacturing hub. It lacks the domestic market scale and resource leverage of Indonesia. And it never achieved the supply-chain depth and institutional discipline that Thailand used to lock in long-term foreign commitment.
Read the full article here
