United States International Trade Commission

Investigation No. 332-511

USITC Publication 4176

August 2010

ASEAN: Regional 

Trends in Economic 

Integration, Export 

Competitiveness, 

and Inbound 

Investment for 

Selected Industries
Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

U.S. International Trade Commission

Robert B. Koopman

Acting Director of Operations

Karen Laney

Director, Office of Industries

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4176 August 2010

ASEAN: Regional Trends in Economic 

Integration, Export Competitiveness, and 

Inbound Investment for Selected Industries

Investigation No. 332-511
This report was prepared principally by the Office of Industries 

Project Leader 

John Fry 

john.fry@usitc.gov

Deputy Project Leader 

Vincent Honnold 

vincent.honnold@usitc.gov

Office of Industries 

Brian Allen, Renee Berry, Laura Bloodgood, Samantha Brady, John Fry, Alberto Goetzl, 

Vince Honnold, Cathy Jabara, Jackie Jones, Deb McNay, and Matthew Reisman 

Office of Economics

Joanne Guth 

Primary Reviewers 

Kate Linton and Walker Pollard 

Administrative Support 

Monica Reed 

Under the direction of 

Michael Anderson, Chief 

Advanced Technology & Machinery Division 
i

Abstract 

This report describes trends in regional integration, export competitiveness, and inbound 

investment for six industries within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations 

(ASEAN): computer components, cotton woven apparel, hardwood plywood and 

flooring, healthcare services, motor vehicle parts, and palm oil. The six profiled 

industries are a subset of 12 priority sectors that ASEAN members identified in 2004 in 

order to promote regional integration. The members created a regional “Roadmap for 

Integration” (Roadmap) for each priority sector, and while these Roadmaps have 

promoted tariff reductions and streamlined certain administrative procedures, their 

success in promoting regional integration has been mixed. In general, economic factors 

and national government policies have had more influence than the Roadmaps over 

regional industrial structures. ASEAN members tend to view each other as competitors 

for inbound investment and jobs, and the members have no legally binding means to 

enforce compliance with the objectives of the Roadmaps. 

The ease of importing and exporting varies widely among ASEAN members. Procedures 

for trading are relatively easy to complete in Singapore, Thailand, and Malaysia, but very 

difficult in Laos and Cambodia. The ASEAN Single Window (ASW) is ASEAN’s most 

visible effort to facilitate trade among members. By enabling the rapid exchange of 

standardized data among members’ customs agencies, it has the potential to bolster trade 

and support the emergence of intraregional supply chains. However, development of the 

ASW has proceeded slowly. 

The quality of logistics services—such as customs brokerage, freight forwarding, and 

express delivery—also varies substantially from member to member. Logistics services 

are world-class in Singapore but poor in Laos, Cambodia, and Burma. In a number of 

ASEAN countries, restrictive regulations hamper the delivery of high-quality logistics 

services. 

While large gaps persist among ASEAN members in e-commerce proficiency, the last 

decade has seen improvements throughout the region. Vietnam, in particular, has made 

significant progress in both e-commerce infrastructure development and legal reform. 

The ASEAN Secretariat has expressed a strong commitment to supporting wider 

adoption of e-commerce in the region and helping members to adopt new e-commerce 

laws, but has contributed less significantly to e-commerce infrastructure development. 

iii

CONTENTS 

Page

Abstract ................................................................................................................................... i

Acronyms ............................................................................................................................... ix

Executive summary ........................................................................................................ xiii

Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 1-1

 Purpose, scope, and organization of the report ....................................................................... 1-1

 Definitions .............................................................................................................................. 1-2

 Economic integration ...................................................................................................... 1-2

 Export competitiveness ................................................................................................... 1-3

 Inbound investment ......................................................................................................... 1-5

 Trade facilitation, logistics services, and e-commerce .................................................... 1-7

 Information sources ................................................................................................................ 1-7

 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 1-9

Chapter 2 ASEAN and selected regional trends and 

improvements ..................................................................................................................... 2-1

 Introduction to ASEAN .......................................................................................................... 2-1

 ASEAN trends in economic integration, export competitiveness, and 

 inbound investment ............................................................................................................ 2-9

 Economic integration ...................................................................................................... 2-9

 Export competitiveness ................................................................................................... 2-15

 Inbound investment ......................................................................................................... 2-18

 Regional improvements in trade facilitation, logistics services, and e-commerce ................. 2-22

 Trade facilitation ............................................................................................................. 2-22

 Logistics services ............................................................................................................ 2-26

 E-commerce ..................................................................................................................... 2-29

 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 2-33

Chapter 3 Electronics: Computer components ..................................... 3-1

 Electronics overview .............................................................................................................. 3-1

 Computer components ............................................................................................................ 3-2

 Key findings ........................................................................................................................ 3-2

 Background ......................................................................................................................... 3-3

 Regional integration, export competitiveness, and inbound investment ............................. 3-5

 Trade facilitation, logistics services, and e-commerce ....................................................... 3-16

 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 3-19

Chapter 4 Textiles and apparel: Cotton woven apparel ................ 4-1

 Textiles and apparel overview ................................................................................................ 4-1

 Cotton woven apparel ............................................................................................................. 4-3

 Key findings ........................................................................................................................ 4-3

 Background ......................................................................................................................... 4-5

 Regional integration, export competitiveness, and inbound investment ............................. 4-6

 Trade facilitation, logistics services, and e-commerce ....................................................... 4-16

 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 4-18
iv

CONTENTS―Continued

Page

Chapter 5 Wood-based products: Hardwood plywood and 

 flooring.............................................................................................................................. 5-1

 Wood-based products overview ............................................................................................. 5-1

 Hardwood plywood and flooring ........................................................................................... 5-2

 Key findings ........................................................................................................................ 5-2

 Background ......................................................................................................................... 5-4

 Regional integration, export competitiveness, and inbound investment ............................. 5-5

 Trade facilitation, logistics services, and e-commerce ....................................................... 5-18

 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 5-20

Chapter 6 Healthcare: Healthcare services .............................................. 6-1

 Healthcare overview ............................................................................................................... 6-1

 Healthcare services ................................................................................................................. 6-4

 Key findings ...................................................................................................................... 6-4

 Background ........................................................................................................................ 6-5

 Regional integration, export competitiveness, and inbound investment ........................... 6-8

 Trade facilitation, logistics services, and e-commerce ...................................................... 6-16

 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 6-18

Chapter 7 Automotive: Motor vehicle parts ............................................ 7-1

 Automotive overview ............................................................................................................. 7-1

 Motor vehicle parts ................................................................................................................. 7-2

 Key findings ...................................................................................................................... 7-2

 Background ........................................................................................................................ 7-3

 Regional integration, export competitiveness, and inbound investment ........................... 7-5

 Trade facilitation, logistics services, and e-commerce ...................................................... 7-17

 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 7-20

Chapter 8 Agro-based products: Palm oil ................................................. 8-1

 Agro-based products overview ............................................................................................... 8-1

 Palm oil .................................................................................................................................. 8-2

 Key findings ...................................................................................................................... 8-2

 Background ........................................................................................................................ 8-2

 Regional integration, export competitiveness, and inbound investment ........................... 8-5

 Trade facilitation, logistics services, and e-commerce ...................................................... 8-16

 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 8-17

Appendices 

A. USTR request letter ................................................................................................................ A-1

B. Federal Register notice .......................................................................................................... B-1

C. Calendar of hearing participants ............................................................................................. C-1

D. Positions of interested parties ................................................................................................. D-1

E. Country profiles ...................................................................................................................... E-1

F. Harmonized System numbers for the priority sectors and selected profiled industries ......... F-1
v

CONTENTS―Continued

Page

Boxes 

1.1 Definitions of foreign direct investment (FDI) and portfolio investment .............................. 1-6

2.1 Timeline of important milestones in ASEAN economic integration ..................................... 2-2

2.2 AEC Blueprint: Goals and measures ..................................................................................... 2-5

2.3 ASEAN-wide free trade agreements, 2010 ............................................................................ 2-7

2.4 What is ATIGA? .................................................................................................................... 2-11

3.1 Computer components: Profile of ASEAN integration ......................................................... 3-16

4.1 Cotton woven apparel: Profile of ASEAN integration .......................................................... 4-8

5.1 Hardwood plywood and flooring: Profile of ASEAN integration ......................................... 5-18

6.1 Healthcare services: Profile of ASEAN integration .............................................................. 6-13

7.1 Automotive industry background .......................................................................................... 7-4

7.2 Automotive: Profile of ASEAN integration .......................................................................... 7-8

7.3 Government automotive policies that have been eliminated ................................................. 7-10

8.1 Palm oil: Profile of ASEAN integration ................................................................................ 8-10

Figures 

2.1 ASEAN trade, by partner, 2005 and 2009 .............................................................................. 2-6

2.2 Intra-ASEAN trade as a share of total ASEAN trade, 2000–09 ............................................. 2-12

2.3 Broadband penetration: Subscribers remained highest in Singapore between 2004 and 

 2008 but increased in all ASEAN countries .................................................................... 2-30

2.4 Internet usage: The majority of people in Brunei, Malaysia, and Singapore used the 

 Internet in 2008, while less than 10 percent did so in five other ASEAN countries ....... 2-31

8.1 Palm oil production chain ...................................................................................................... 8-3

Tables 

1.1 Stages of economic integration ........................................................................................... 1-2

1.2 Export competitiveness factors ........................................................................................... 1-5

1.3 Trade facilitation, logistics services, e-commerce, and competitiveness ............................ 1-7

2.1 ASEAN member states, selected indicators, 2008 .............................................................. 2-5

2.2 Intra-ASEAN imports and exports, share of total, by priority sector, 2004–08 .................. 2-13

2.3 Intraregional trade intensity index, by priority sector, 2004–08 ......................................... 2-14

2.4 Total imports, exports, and intra-ASEAN exports, by priority sectors, 2004–08 ............... 2-15

2.5 ASEAN world market shares, by priority sector, 2004–08 ................................................. 2-17

2.6 Minimum permitted equity limits for foreign investors (within ASEAN) in services, 

 goal under AEC blueprint, selected years ...................................................................... 2-21

2.7 FDI inflows to ASEAN, 2004–08 ....................................................................................... 2-21

2.8 Ease of trading across borders, 2009 ................................................................................... 2-23

2.9 ASEAN in the World’s Bank’s 2010 logistics performance index (LPI) ........................... 2-27
vi

CONTENTS―Continued

Page

Tables—Continued

3.1 Computer components: ASEAN exports to selected markets, by value, 2004–08 ............. 3-10

3.2 Computer components: ASEAN imports from selected markets, by value, 2004–08 ........ 3-10

3.3 Computer components: ASEAN member exports to ASEAN members, 

 by value, 2004–08 ....................................................................................................... 3-11

3.4 ASEAN country tariffs for computer components, 2004, 2008, and 2010 ......................... 3-12

4.1 Certain cotton woven fabrics: ASEAN member imports from ASEAN members, 

 by value, 2004–08 ....................................................................................................... 4-3

4.2 Certain cotton woven fabrics: ASEAN imports from selected markets, by value, 

 2004–08 ....................................................................................................................... 4-4

4.3 Cotton woven apparel: ASEAN exports to selected markets, by value, 2004–08 .............. 4-5

4.4 Cotton woven apparel: ASEAN member exports to ASEAN members, by value, 

 2004–08 ....................................................................................................................... 4-5

4.5 ASEAN country tariffs for cotton woven apparel, 2004, 2008, and 2010 .......................... 4-9

4.6 ASEAN country tariffs for cotton woven fabrics, 2004, 2008, and 2010 ........................... 4-9

4.7 Cotton woven apparel: ASEAN member exports to the world, by value, 2004–08 ........... 4-11

4.8 Certain cotton woven fabrics: ASEAN member exports to ASEAN members, by value, 

 2004–08 ....................................................................................................................... 4-12

5.1 Hardwood plywood and flooring: ASEAN exports to selected markets, by value, 

 2004–08 ....................................................................................................................... 5-5

5.2 Harvesting and/or export bans imposed by ASEAN countries ........................................... 5-6

5.3 Major intergovernmental processes to address legal and sustainable forest products 

 production and trade .................................................................................................... 5-11

5.4 Hardwood plywood and flooring: ASEAN exports to the world, by value, 

 2004–08 ....................................................................................................................... 5-14

5.5 Hardwood plywood and flooring: ASEAN member imports from ASEAN members, 

 by value, 2004–08 ....................................................................................................... 5-14

5.6 Hardwood plywood and flooring: ASEAN imports from selected markets, by value, 

 2004–08 ....................................................................................................................... 5-15

5.7 ASEAN country tariffs for hardwood plywood, 2004, 2008, and 2010 .............................. 5-15

5.8 ASEAN country tariffs for engineered and laminate wood flooring, 2004, 2008, 

 and 2010 ...................................................................................................................... 5-16

6.1 Healthcare services: Healthcare systems of ASEAN countries, latest year available ......... 6-6

6.2 Healthcare services: Number of JCI-accredited hospitals, 2005 and 2010 ......................... 6-8

6.3 Healthcare services: Exports of healthcare services, by estimated numbers of foreign 

 patients, 2004–08 ......................................................................................................... 6-11

7.1 ASEAN country tariffs for motor vehicle parts, 2004, 2008, and 2010 .............................. 7-13

7.2 Certain motor vehicle parts: ASEAN imports from selected markets, 

 by value, 2004–08 ....................................................................................................... 7-14

7.3 Certain motor vehicle parts: ASEAN member exports to ASEAN members, 

 by value, 2004–08 ....................................................................................................... 7-14

7.4 Certain motor vehicle parts: ASEAN exports to selected markets, by value, 2004–08 ...... 7-15
vii

CONTENTS―Continued

Page

Tables—Continued

8.1 Palm oil: Production, by ASEAN country and marketing year ........................................... 8-4

8.2 Palm oil: Exports by ASEAN country, 2004–08 ................................................................ 8-6

8.3 Palm oil: Intra-ASEAN trade, total and select countries, 2004–08..................................... 8-6

8.4 Palm oil: ASEAN exports to select non-ASEAN partners, 2004–08 .................................. 8-7

8.5 ASEAN country tariffs for palm oil, 2004, 2008, and 2010 ............................................... 8-8

8.6 Palm oil: Intra-ASEAN investment, selected activities, 2004–09 ...................................... 8-14

F.1 Agro-based products: Priority sector and profile HS selection ........................................... F-3

F.2 Automotive: Priority sector and profile HS selection ........................................................ F-4

F.3 Electronics: Priority sector and profile HS selection .......................................................... F-5

F.4 Healthcare: Priority sector and profile HS selection .......................................................... F-7

F.5 Textiles and apparel: Priority sector and profile HS selection ........................................... F-8

F.6 Wood-based products: Priority sector and profile HS selection ......................................... F-10

ix

Acronyms 

3PL Third-party logistics service provider 

ACCSQ ASEAN Coordinating Committee on Standards and Quality 

ACDD ASEAN Customs Declaration Document 

ACE ASEAN Competitiveness Enhancement 

ACIA ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement 

ADB Asian Development Bank 

AEC ASEAN Economic Community 

AEM ASEAN Economic Ministers 

AFAS ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services 

AFTA ASEAN Free Trade Area 

AFTEX ASEAN Federation of Textile Industries 

AHTN ASEAN Harmonized Tariff Nomenclature 

AIA Framework Agreement on the ASEAN Investment Area 

AICO ASEAN Industrial Cooperation Scheme 

APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 

APWG Automotive Product Working Group 

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations 

ASW ASEAN Single Window 

ATC Agreement on Textiles and Clothing 

ATFWP ASEAN Trade Facilitation Work Programme 

ATIGA ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement 

B2B business to business 

B2C business to consumer 

BMD Bursa Malaysia Derivatives 
x

C2C consumer to consumer 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CBTA Greater Mekong Subregion Cross-Border Transport Agreement 

CEPT Common Effective Preferential Tariff 

CPC Central Product Classification 

DSM Dispute Settlement Mechanism 

EDI electronic data interchange 

ESCAP Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific 

EU European Union 

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 

FDI foreign direct investment 

FLEGT Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Action Plan 

FSC Forest Stewardship Council 

FTA free trade agreement 

GATS WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services 

GDP gross domestic product 

GMS Greater Mekong Subregion 

HS Harmonized System of Tariffs 

HTS U.S. Harmonized Tariff System 

IAI Initiative on ASEAN Integration 

ICT information and communication technology 

IGA investment guarantee agreement 

IPR intellectual property rights 

ITTO International Tropical Timber Organization 

JCI Joint Commission International 

LEI Lembaga Ekolabel Indonesia (Indonesian Ecolabeling Instititute)
xi

LPI World Bank Logistics Performance Index 

MDF medium density fiberboard 

MFN most-favored nation 

 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

MRA mutual recognition agreement 

MTCC Malaysia Timber Certification Council 

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement 

NAP National Automotive Policy 

NGO nongovernmental organization 

NSW National Single Window 

NTM nontariff measure 

NTR normal trade relations 

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

OEM original equipment manufacturer 

PEFC Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification 

PIS priority integration sector 

QCD quality, cost, and delivery 

REIT real estate investment trust 

RSPO Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil 

SAFSA Source ASEAN Full Service Alliance 

SME small and medium-sized enterprise 

TEL Temporary Exclusion List 

UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development 

VINATEX Vietnam National Textile and Garment Group 

VPA voluntary partnership agreement 
xii

VVF virtual vertical factories 

WTO World Trade Organization 
xiii

Executive Summary 

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established as a regional 

organization in 1967 to accelerate economic growth, promote regional peace and 

stability, and enhance cooperation on economic, social, cultural, technical, and 

educational matters among Southeast Asian countries. The five founding countries—

Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand—were later joined by 

Brunei Darussalem (Brunei) in 1984, Vietnam (1995), Laos (1997), Burma (1997), and 

Cambodia (1999). Located in a region of the world with rapidly expanding economies, 

ASEAN has a combined population of 550 million people largely characterized by rising 

incomes. As such, the ASEAN nations are already an important market for U.S. 

companies, and they represent significant opportunities for expanded trade and 

investment. Trade between the United States and ASEAN countries has grown steadily in 

recent years, and in 2008 it totaled $177 billion. 

This report has been prepared by the United States International Trade Commission 

(USITC, the Commission) at the request of the United States Trade Representative 

(USTR). The report provides an overview of regional trends in Southeast Asia in the 

areas of economic integration, export competitiveness, and inbound investment for 6 of 

12 priority sectors identified in the ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint adopted in 

November 2007; the six sectors are agro-based products, automotives, electronics, 

healthcare, textiles and apparel, and wood-based products. The report also identifies and 

describes an industry within each of these priority sectors that has undergone either 

significant changes in regional economic integration with other ASEAN members, export 

competitiveness, or inbound investment in recent years; in some industries, there have 

been improvements in several of these areas. The six industries analyzed in greater detail 

are computer components, cotton woven apparel, hardwood plywood and flooring, 

healthcare services, motor vehicle parts, and palm oil. Information is provided about each 

industry’s export competitiveness, trade flows, investment, and leading competitive 

factors, including trade facilitation, logistics services, and e-commerce. The major 

findings are summarized below. 

Major Findings and Observations 

ASEAN’s manufacturing exports benefit from high productivity growth, proximity to large Asian 

markets, and free trade agreements, but challenges for future growth remain. 

Low wages, high productivity growth in some countries, diverse production conditions, 

proximity to large Asian markets, and the region’s liberalizing trade policy environment, 

including free trade agreements with a number of countries, have supported the growth of 

ASEAN’s manufacturing exports. Challenges for ASEAN’s export competitiveness 

remain in some countries, however, including a shortage of skilled labor and 

professionals; the lack of a developed system for setting product standards and 

conformity assessment procedures; unsophisticated consumer markets; and inadequate 

physical and institutional infrastructure, such as roads and other transport networks, 

communications, trade facilitation measures (e.g., customs procedures), and intellectual 

property rights (IPR) protection. 
xiv

China is a major competitor to ASEAN for foreign investment and manufacturing jobs, but the 

new free trade agreement between China and ASEAN countries may create opportunities for 

integrating Asian production supply chains. 

China is a major competitor of ASEAN countries in attracting foreign investment and in 

integrating regional production chains. However, ASEAN recently concluded an FTA 

with China. Because China has become an important hub in Asian supply chains, 

ASEAN countries hope the FTA will offer better opportunities to participate in these 

networks. ASEAN offers an alternative production location to China for multinational 

firms wanting to diversify their operations to reduce business and political risks. 

A new ASEAN investment agreement was signed in February 2009, and is expected to offer 

significant improvements for investors. 

The ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA) will enter into force once it 

is ratified by all ASEAN members, at which point it will replace the existing ASEAN 

Investment Area (AIA) and Investment Guarantee Agreement (IGA). Investment in most 

service industries is covered under the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services 

(AFAS). The improvements over the AIA include new investor protections, such as the 

prohibition of performance requirements, more freedom for investors in appointing senior 

management, and a more comprehensive investor-state dispute settlement procedure; 

clear (though nonbinding) timelines for investment liberalization; and benefits extended 

to foreign-owned, ASEAN-based investors. Member countries’ final offers under the 

agreement have not yet been published, so it is not yet possible to fully evaluate the 

ACIA’s expected impact on intra-ASEAN investment. 

The “ASEAN Single Window” could facilitate intra-ASEAN trade, but progress remains slow. 

The ASEAN Single Window (ASW) is ASEAN’s most visible effort to facilitate trade 

among members, by enabling the rapid exchange of standardized data among countries’ 

customs agencies. Currently, the ease of importing and exporting varies widely among 

ASEAN members; procedural requirements are relatively easy to complete in Singapore, 

Thailand, Malaysia, but very difficult in Laos and Cambodia. Although the ASW has the 

potential to bolster trade and foster intra-regional supply chains, the development of the 

ASW has proceeded slowly since its creation in 2005. While there are some indications 

that work on the ASW is accelerating, faster progress and close consultation with 

ASEAN’s business community on its design would ensure that the ASW contributes 

robustly to ASEAN economic integration. 

Regulatory barriers inhibit improvements in logistics services.

ASEAN countries have committed to liberalize trade and investment in logistics services 

by 2013. However, while some members have made reforms, others (notably Indonesia) 

have introduced restrictive regulations that contradict their commitments and the quality 

of logistics services—such as customs brokerage, freight forwarding, and express 

delivery—varies substantially from member to member. Logistics services are worldclass in Singapore, but poor in Laos, Cambodia, and Burma. 
xv

Infrastructure and the legal framework for e-commerce among certain ASEAN members have 

improved.

Technical infrastructure (such as plentiful broadband connections), a sound legal 

framework for electronic transactions, and individuals’ skills in using computers are 

prerequisites for the expansion of e-commerce. The ASEAN Secretariat is committed to 

supporting wider adoption of e-commerce in the region. It has helped members to adopt 

new e-commerce laws, but has contributed less significantly to infrastructure 

development. While large gaps persist among ASEAN members in technical 

infrastructure, legal frameworks, and computer skills, the last decade has seen 

improvements throughout the region. Vietnam, in particular, has made impressive 

progress in both infrastructure development and legal reform. 

The ASEAN Roadmaps for Integration have achieved mixed success in promoting regional 

integration in all six industries. 

While ASEAN Roadmaps for Integration (Roadmaps) have promoted tariff reductions 

and streamlined certain administrative procedures, they have achieved mixed success in 

promoting regional integration. In general, economic factors and national government 

policies have more influence over regional industrial structures. A number of different 

forces have contributed to greater regional integration, export competitiveness, and 

inbound investment in each of the six industries over the last five years, many of which 

came from outside the region. These forces include Japanese multinationals that invest 

and manufacture in more than one ASEAN country (motor vehicle parts), the removal of 

global quotas (cotton woven apparel), and global production sustainability standards 

(palm oil). ASEAN members often still view each other as competitors for inbound 

investment and jobs, and the six Roadmaps include no legally binding means to enforce 

member compliance with their objectives. 

Computer components 

 While the ASEAN region is the world’s second largest exporter of computer components, it 

 faces a major challenge from China. 

Production of most computer components is led by multinational firms, and ASEAN 

countries, especially Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand, have been competitive 

investment destinations for over 30 years. In the past five years, Vietnam has also 

emerged as an important investment destination for the electronics sector, and its role in 

the computer industry in ASEAN is growing rapidly. The ASEAN region’s total share of 

global computer components exports was 21 percent in 2008, the latest date for which 

data are available. But challenges remain from China. China has increased its share of 

global computer components production at the same time it has become the single largest 

assembler of finished computers. Many computer components firms are increasing 

production in China in order to be closer to their customer: the computer assembler. 
xvi

Competition between ASEAN countries hampers efforts to create a more integrated 

regional computer components production base. 

Using financial incentives and government policies, ASEAN countries that produce 

computer components compete to attract export-oriented investment and jobs from 

multinational firms and integrate their economies into the global computer supply chain. 

These incentives and policies are generally not coordinated between ASEAN members 

governments, hampering regional competitiveness. 

Cotton woven apparel 

Tariff reductions have helped facilitate a small but growing amount of integrated 

production of cotton woven apparel among ASEAN countries. However, trade programs 

such as free trade agreements have more heavily influenced regional integration. 

While integrated production of cotton woven apparel among the ASEAN countries is still 

at a low level, it has been growing over the last few years. Intra-ASEAN trade in cotton 

woven fabrics, the primary input in cotton woven apparel, increased by 13 percent, from 

$168.4 million in 2004 to $190.8 million in 2008. To a certain degree, the reduction in 

duties on fabric inputs among member countries, as outlined in the ASEAN Roadmap for 

Integration of Textiles and Apparel, helped facilitate this integration. But in most cases, 

these duty reductions do not provide an incentive for regional integration when the final 

apparel is exported outside of the ASEAN region. Other factors have had a greater 

influence on regional integration in this industry. For example, the ASEAN-Japan FTA 

implemented in 2008 has been a driver for integrated ASEAN production because of the 

rules of origin in the agreement. Also stimulating integration are such factors as the 

increased competition among global suppliers created by the removal of quotas on 

textiles and apparel and the granting by the United States of normal trade relations (NTR) 

status to Vietnam. 

Hardwood plywood and flooring 

Access to legally sourced and sustainable wood supplies is an important competitive factor 

affecting integration, export competitiveness, and inbound investment in the ASEAN 

hardwood plywood and flooring industry. 

To be competitive, ASEAN producers of hardwood plywood and flooring require access 

to wood raw materials that are becoming increasingly scarce, and they need to 

demonstrate to buyers in major markets that wood sources are legal and sustainable. In 

some fashion, each of the ASEAN countries regulates the volume of timber harvesting in 

natural forests, and some have imposed complete or partial bans on exports of wood raw 

materials. Amid mounting pressure to address illegal logging and deforestation, 

government (and other) buyers in consuming countries are increasingly requiring 

assurances that wood products are produced from legal and sustainable sources. ASEAN 

collaboration in responding to these concerns may be helping the industry to integrate in 

some respects, but ASEAN countries are also working independently in other bilateral 

and multilateral processes to protect their global competitiveness. 
xvii

Despite tariff reductions, the region’s competitive focus remains on exporting to major 

industrialized countries. 

Intra-ASEAN trade of hardwood plywood and flooring is small compared with exports to 

non-ASEAN markets; tariff reductions coupled with other trade facilitation measures 

may encourage more intra-regional trade, but the region’s hardwood plywood and 

flooring production is heavily weighted toward exports to Europe, Japan, and the United 

States. Over the past five years, China has become a formidable competitor to ASEAN in 

global markets, despite its own wood scarcity. Other significant challenges facing 

ASEAN hardwood plywood and flooring producers in major markets are product 

standards (such as formaldehyde emissions limits) and procurement policies requiring 

assurances of legal sourcing. 

Healthcare services 

Growth of private healthcare firms in the ASEAN market has generated increased trade 

and investment in healthcare services. 

Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand are the largest exporters of healthcare services, 

treating the largest number of foreign patients within their borders. Private healthcare 

firms from these countries have promoted their services in neighboring countries and 

expanded their presence by investing throughout the region to meet growing regional 

demand. Additionally, as these healthcare firms have grown, they have attracted 

increasing investment from investors outside of the ASEAN region. 

In response to rising regional trade and investment in the healthcare services industry, 

member governments and the ASEAN Secretariat have launched efforts to support 

continued growth. 

Governments of ASEAN member countries are encouraging investment in, and 

promoting exports of, healthcare services through programs that simplify procedures for 

the movement of foreign patients across borders and liberalize investment barriers. 

Similarly, the ASEAN Secretariat has facilitated regional healthcare investment through 

recent negotiations under the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services, and initiated 

efforts to conclude mutual recognition agreements in certain medical professions. 

Motor vehicle parts 

ASEAN has been successful at meeting critical Roadmap targets and facilitating regional 

integration within the automotive sector. Despite these achievements, the regional 

automotive industry and market have yet to fully integrate. 

ASEAN has eliminated duties or reduced nontariff measures for six members (Brunei, 

Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) and implemented the ASEAN 

Industrial Cooperation Scheme (AICO); these initiatives have enhanced regional 

integration, export competitiveness, and inbound investment. Auto and parts 

manufacturers, in particular Japanese firms, have used the AICO system since the 1990s 

to develop an integrated production system in the region. ASEAN, however, has a history 

of national government intervention in support of local automotive industries through 

such measures as national car policies and local-content requirements that have protected 

local industries and encouraged the development of small-country markets. In addition, 
xviii

ASEAN member countries have made limited progress in harmonizing automotive safety 

and environmental standards and improving customs cooperation and coordination. 

Further regional integration is key to improving the competitiveness of the regional motor 

vehicle parts industry by providing economies of scale. 

ASEAN’s large combined market provides it with the size necessary to manufacture 

components cost effectively. This is particularly important for the auto parts industry, 

which relies on production volume to lower costs and to supply auto assembly plants 

from a small number of focused production facilities. 

Palm Oil 

The Roadmap for Integration of Agro-based Products has had far less impact on the 

structure of the ASEAN palm oil industry than have multinational corporations and 

international groups. 

 

Two groups of influential actors have driven ASEAN regional actions in the palm oil 

industry over the last five years: multinational corporations, which produce and refine 

palm oil and process it into downstream goods, and international groups, such as the 

Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), through which the corporations seek to 

influence developments in the palm oil market. Investment and purchasing decisions by 

multinational palm oil producers and consumers are largely driven by the low price and 

abundant supply of palm oil (relative to other vegetable oils) and increasingly by 

sustainability concerns surrounding palm oil production. 

ASEAN palm oil cultivation and initial processing can take place on a large scale in only 

two countries: Indonesia and Malaysia. 

 

Because of climate requirements and the need for milling soon after harvest, palm oil can 

only be a large-scale, commercially viable agro-based industry in Indonesia and 

Malaysia, although small-scale palm oil cultivation exists in several other ASEAN 

countries. The prime growing conditions and developed processing infrastructure in 

Indonesia and Malaysia make them the most important palm oil suppliers to ASEAN and 

the world. The low cost of this vegetable oil, coupled with production that far exceeds 

ASEAN demand, results in most ASEAN palm oil production being exported to large 

markets such as China, the EU, and India. 
1-1 

CHAPTER 1 

Introduction 

Purpose, Scope, and Organization of the Report 

This report provides an overview of regional trends in economic integration, export 

competitiveness, and inbound investment for 6 of 12 priority sectors identified in the 

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Economic Community Blueprint 

adopted in November 2007; the six sectors are agro-based products, automotives, 

electronics, healthcare, textiles and apparel, and wood-based products. The report also 

identifies and describes an ASEAN industry within each of these sectors that has 

undergone either significant changes in regional economic integration with other ASEAN 

members, export competitiveness, or inbound investment in recent years; in some 

industries, there have been improvements in several of these areas. The six industries are 

computer components, cotton woven apparel, hardwood plywood and flooring, healthcare 

services, motor vehicle parts, and palm oil. Information is provided about each industry’s 

export competitiveness, trade flows, inbound investment, and leading competitive factors 

such as trade facilitation, logistics services, and e-commerce. 

This chapter defines key terms used in the report and identifies information sources. 

Chapter 2 provides information on ASEAN and ASEAN’s Economic Community 

Blueprint; trends in ASEAN economic integration, export competitiveness, and inbound 

investment; and regional improvements in trade facilitation, logistics services, and ecommerce. Chapters 3–8 describe these ASEAN regional trends more specifically for the 

six priority sectors. Chapters 3–8 also provide information about the six industries 

selected by the Commission, including (1) industry structure, size, and international 

competitiveness; (2) leading ASEAN exporting countries and major export markets; (3) 

leading ASEAN country recipients of inbound investment, the source countries of this 

investment, and ASEAN investment rules specific to the industry; (4) pairs or groups of 

ASEAN countries that have experienced significant economic integration in industry 

production and/or marketing; and (5) leading competitive factors affecting the industry’s 

regional integration, export competitiveness, and inbound investment. 

This report has been prepared by the United States International Trade Commission 

(USITC) at the request of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).1

 In its request 

letter, USTR noted that the 10 countries that are members of ASEAN have growing 

economies and a combined population of 550 million. As such, they are already an 

important market for U.S. companies, and they represent significant opportunities for 

expanded trade and investment. Trade between the United States and ASEAN countries 

has grown steadily in recent years, and in 2008 totaled $177 billion. ASEAN has a goal 

of achieving full regional economic integration by 2015. As a way to achieve this 

integration, ASEAN identified 12 priority sectors for accelerated economic integration. 

To assist U.S. trade policymakers in assessing progress toward this goal, USTR requested 

the USITC to prepare a report that would provide information about six of the priority 

sectors. 

 1

 A copy of the letter from the USTR requesting this factfinding investigation is provided in app. A. 
1-2 

Definitions 

Economic Integration 

Economic integration generally refers to a staged process through which a group of 

countries gradually coordinate or merge their economic policies over time. This 

coordination may be bilateral or carried out through a multilateral organization such as 

ASEAN. The purpose of economic integration is to lower trade barriers and other 

economic obstacles between countries, thereby expanding markets and trade, lowering 

prices, and improving the competitiveness of trade partners through lower costs and 

economies of scale. For some economic integration arrangements, the ultimate goal is a 

single market in which there is a free flow of goods, services, capital and labor, and 

harmonization of economic and monetary policies.2

 In other cases, member countries 

design the arrangement to be a free trade area, a customs union, or a common market, 

with no intentions to integrate further. The process of economic integration traditionally 

consists of four stages, each building on the other (table 1.1): 

TABLE 1.1 Stages of economic integration 

Arrangement Economic integration actions 

Free trade area or agreement (including preferential 

trade agreements) 

Tariffs among member economies are reduced or 

eliminated, but the members maintain their own 

external tariffs against the rest of the world. 

Customs union A common external tariff is set among members, in 

which the same tariffs are applied to third-country 

nonmembers. 

Common market Labor, capital, persons, and services are allowed to 

move freely within and between member countries. 

Economic and monetary union Monetary and fiscal policies among members are 

harmonized, including the use of a common currency. 

Requires the existence of supra-national institutions 

to coordinate policies. 

Source: United Nations University, “Different Forms of Integration.” 

For the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), the AEC Blueprint (Blueprint) defines the 

goal of economic integration as the free movement of goods, services, investment, and 

skilled labor, and freer flow of capital among member countries by 2015.3

 According to 

the Blueprint, AEC economic integration will create “(a) a single market and production 

base, (b) a highly competitive economic region, (c) a region of equitable economic 

development, and (d) a region fully integrated into the global economy.”4

The net economic benefits of economic integration depend not only on trade created 

between member countries, but also on the economic costs associated with trade diverted 

away from lower-cost nonmember countries.5

 To the extent that economic integration 

arrangements are made between participating countries that are natural trading partners, it 

is considered probable that economic integration will benefit those countries. 

 2

 United Nations University, “Different Forms of Integration.” 3

 ASEAN, “ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint,” November 20, 2007, section I. 4

 Ibid, section II. 

5

 In general, trade creation is larger than trade diversion when the size of the initial tariffs reduced among 

members are large, demand patterns tend to be similar among members (allowing for greater specialization), 

and the tariffs on nonmembers are low. Perdikis, “Overview of Trade Agreements: Regional Trade 

Agreements,” 2007, 88–89. 
1-3 

Participating countries also gain additional long-term economic benefits through 

increased investment and harmonization of economic and monetary policies. 

Studies of the economic integration process have generally focused on intraregional trade 

and investment flows, macroeconomic interdependence, and strong regional economic 

growth as indicators of increasingly integrated economies.6

 The USITC, in an earlier 

study of economic integration in East Asia, examined how economic policies and 

investment patterns in the region contributed to the process of merging the markets for 

goods, services, capital, and labor in East Asia. 7

 The study highlighted the gradual 

convergence of economic policies, reductions in trade barriers, and improvements in 

infrastructure and intellectual property protection as factors facilitating economic 

integration among the regional economies. 

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has developed a number of specific quantitative 

indicators to gauge economic integration. These indicators include growth in regional 

gross domestic product (GDP) among member economies and changes in income gaps, 

intraregional trade and investment shares, production correlation (as a measure of 

macroeconomic linkages), correlation of equity prices, and interregional tourism flows.8

This report calculates two measures that are commonly used to show trends in regional 

interdependence.9

 The intraregional trade share shows a region’s trade with itself as a 

share of the region’s total trade, which in this case is the share of ASEAN’s total trade 

that is intra-ASEAN. The other measure is the intraregional trade intensity, which shows 

the intensity with which a region trades with itself compared with its trade with the 

world.10 It is calculated by dividing the share of intraregional trade in its overall trade by 

the share of its trade in world trade. If the index measures 1, there is no regional bias in 

trade; if it is more than 1, the region’s share of trade with itself is greater than would be 

expected given its importance in world trade. An increase in the index over time indicates 

that regional trade is increasing more rapidly than the region’s share in global trade. 

Unlike the intraregional trade share indicator, trade intensity does not suffer from a size 

bias; that is, it does not rise simply because the region’s relative weight in the world 

economy is increasing. 

Export Competitiveness 

USTR requested that the USITC analyze the export competitiveness of the profiled 

industries in ASEAN member countries. In referring to competitiveness as a concept, 

theorists distinguish between “competitiveness” at the national level (competitive 

 6

 Kim, Lee, and Park, “The Ties that Bind Asia, Europe, and the United States,” February 2010, 1. Note 

that economic growth among regional economies is considered an important indicator of regional integration 

due to the association between trade openness and growth. 7

 USITC, East Asia, 1993. The countries included in this investigation were Singapore, China, South 

Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. The discussion of economic 

integration in this investigation was summarized in Pierson, “East Asia: Regional Economic Integration and 

Implications for the United States,” 1994, 1168–85. 8

 Capannelli, Lee, and Petri, Developing Indicators for Regional Economic Integration and Cooperation, 

September 2009, 2. 9

 For example, see Capannelli, Lee, and Petri, “Developing Indicators for Regional Economic Integration 

and Cooperation,” September 2009, 5; Plummer and Chia, “Assessing the Economics of the ASEAN 

Economic Community: Introduction,” 2009, 8; and ADB, Emerging Asian Regionalism, 2008, 40–41. 10 For more information about intraregional trade intensities, see ESCAP, “Trade Statistics in 

Policymaking,” n.d., 52–53; Capannelli, Lee, and Petri, “Developing Indicators for Regional Economic 

Integration and Cooperation,” September 2009, 6. 
1-4 

economies) and export competitiveness. The former is based on macroeconomic factors, 

such as access to healthcare, education, macroeconomic stability, innovation, 

technological readiness, market size, the efficiency of the goods market, and the 

sophistication of the business and financial markets, that raise long-term economic 

growth rates and standards of living within an economy.11 On the other hand, export 

competitiveness focuses more narrowly on specific industries and the factors that affect 

competition for global market share and exports. For example, in past reports, the USITC 

has defined export competitiveness “as the ability of producers to sell goods in foreign 

markets at price, quality, and timeliness comparable to competing foreign producers.”12

Changes in export competitiveness indicate the relative positions of firms in international 

markets and their potential opportunities for growth and investment. 

To the extent that economic integration results in trade creation and overall gains to 

participating economies, it contributes to the long-term competitiveness of those 

countries. It also contributes to export competitiveness to the extent that firms located 

within the member countries are able to take advantage of economies of scale, improved 

market efficiencies, the creation of larger markets, and other opportunities from 

economic integration to expand exports. 

Export Competitiveness Factors 

A number of common supply and demand factors affect the ability of firms to export and 

increase market share (table 1.2). In general, factors that improve firm productivity and 

lower costs (supply side factors) improve industry competitiveness. Additionally, 

increasing demand or growth in demand for enhanced quality or specific product 

characteristics can also benefit specific firms, including exporters. Macroeconomic 

factors, such as exchange rates, also influence export competitiveness. A change in the 

“real” exchange rate affects the cost competitiveness of all industries in a country, while 

exchange rate volatility could reduce export demand to the extent buyers are faced with 

uncertain prices. These factors and their relationship to ASEAN industry competitiveness 

in the six sectors are discussed more fully in Chapters 3–8. 

 11 These factors, among others, form the basis for the World Economic Forum (WEF)’s Global 

Competitiveness Index. The remaining factors not listed in the text above are institutions, infrastructure, and 

labor market efficiency. WEF, Global Competitiveness Report 2009–2010, 335. 12 USITC, Sub-Saharan Africa, 2009, 1–2. The European Commission (EC), using a definition like that 

of the USITC, defined industry competitiveness as the position of an industry relative to its foreign rivals in 

terms of market shares, volume of trade, and relative cost, particularly in regard to labor productivity and the 

relative cost of labor. See EC, Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, “European Competitiveness 

Report,” 2009, 27. 
1-5 

TABLE 1.2 Export Competitiveness Factors

Demand and competitiveness: 

Growing demand in a group of countries engaged in 

an economic arrangement may benefit imports from 

outside the region. But it may also benefit specific 

exporters located inside the region, to the extent that 

those exporters have an advantage in supplying 

products with specific attributes that consumers value. 

Demand-side factors: 

 Growing demand for final products that 

drives higher demand for intermediate 

products 

 Changes in consumer tastes and 

preferences 

 New standards or quality requirements 

 Consumer concerns, such as the 

environment, fair trade, and labor protections 

 Marketing practices 

 Channels of distribution 

Supply and competitiveness: 

Lower production costs and/or increased firm 

productivity improve the ability of exporters to supply 

specific products at the lowest cost. 

Supply-side factors:

 Production costs (such as purchased inputs, 

labor, and capital costs) 

 Labor productivity 

 Investment 

 Capacity utilization 

 Infrastructure 

 Proximity to the market 

 Product innovation and entrepreneurial 

ability 

 Industry structure (such as concentration or 

vertical and horizontal integration) 

Exchange rates: 

Exchange rate volatility and changes in the “real” 

exchange rate can affect export competitiveness. 

 Exchange rate volatility increases risk from 

exporting and may deter producers from 

entering the export market. It may also 

induce buyers to switch sources of supply. 

 An increase in a country’s real exchange 

rate, observed in changes in the relationship 

between domestic and foreign prices for the 

same goods, means that its exports may 

become more expensive than competing 

products in foreign markets. 

Sources: WEF, Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010; USITC, Wood Flooring and Hardwood Plywood, 

2008, 6-2; other factors compiled by USITC staff. 

Inbound Investment 

According to the AEC Blueprint, “[s]ustained inflows of new investments and 

reinvestments will promote and ensure dynamic development of ASEAN economies.”13

In general, inbound investment is calculated by measuring direct investment (which 

indicates a lasting interest in a foreign business enterprise), as opposed to portfolio 

investment (box 1.1). 

 13 ASEAN, “ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint,” November 20, 2007, section II.A3.
1-6 

Official government FDI statistics are commonly reported as FDI position (cumulative 

investment over time) or FDI flows (new investment recorded during a specific time 

period, generally annually or quarterly). Many ASEAN governments report FDI position 

and flows by country and by industry, but none, unfortunately, report FDI statistics at the 

level of the specific industries needed for the industry profiles discussed in chapters 3–8. 

Therefore, FDI data throughout this report are reported at a higher level of aggregation. 

Direct investment can take place through either “greenfield” FDI projects (new 

investment, such as construction of a new factory) or through M&A (merger with, or 

acquisition of, an existing company). Official data include both types of investment. 

In an effort to estimate FDI in certain specific industries within ASEAN, the USITC 

relies on databases that show particular FDI transactions, either greenfield or M&A 

investment projects. 14 These databases compile available information on particular 

investment transactions. The information can provide insight into the companies and 

countries involved in FDI in particular industries, but it cannot substitute for official FDI 

data, since the transaction values are not compiled in the same way as official FDI 

statistics.15 In particular, FDI position and flows data include three components: equity 

 14 For greenfield FDI projects, the Commission uses the FDIMarkets database provided by the Financial 

Times company. For M&A transactions, the Commission uses the Zephyr database provided by Bureau van 

Dijk. 15 Official FDI statistics are compiled from individual country balance of payments (BOP) data and 

reported by each country to international organizations that report global FDI statistics, including the IMF, 

the OECD, and UNCTAD. IMF guidance for compiling BOP statistics can be found at 

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/bop/bop.htm (accessed April 22, 2010), and guidance on compiling 

international investment position statistics can be found at http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/iip/iip.htm

(accessed April 22, 2010). 

BOX 1.1 Definitions of foreign direct investment (FDI) and portfolio investment 

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has developed the globally recognized 

definition of FDI. This definition is used by both the OECD and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as part of 

their guidance for national statistical offices in the preparation of FDI statistics. 

 Direct investment refers to cross-border investment made by a resident in one economy (the direct 

 investor) with the objective of establishing a lasting interest in an enterprise (the direct investment 

 enterprise) that is resident in an economy other than that of the direct investor. The motivation of 

 the direct investor is a strategic long-term relationship with the direct investment enterprise to 

 ensure a significant degree of influence by the direct investor in the management of the direct 

 investment enterprise. The lasting interest is evidenced when the direct investor owns at least 10% 

 of the voting power of the direct investment enterprise. (OECD, 17) 

Total direct investment in a given company consists of the sum of equity investment, reinvested earnings, and 

inter-company debt. 

Investment in a foreign enterprise that falls below the threshold of 10 percent voting power is defined as portfolio 

investment. The underlying difference between direct and portfolio investment is the investor’s motivation to 

significantly influence or control an enterprise. Portfolio investors “do not generally expect to influence the 

management of the enterprise” and are assumed to be focused on earnings resulting from the acquisition and 

sales of securities, rather than on long-term management control of the enterprise (OECD, 53). 

Source: OECD, Benchmark Definition of Foreign Direct Investment, 2008, 17, 22–23, 48–49, 53. 
1-7 

transactions, reinvested earnings, and inter-company debt. In general, the available 

commercial databases only reflect the equity transactions component of the total.16

Trade Facilitation, Logistics Services, and E-Commerce 

Trade facilitation, logistics services, and e-commerce are specific work plan elements in 

the ASEAN economic integration agenda. Improvements in these activities contribute to 

increased export competitiveness by raising firm productivity and by reducing the cost 

and time to export, as well as communication and information costs (table 1.3). 

Enhancements in these areas involve legal and regulatory reforms; customs 

modernization; improvements to roads, ports, and other infrastructure; and increased 

access to the Internet. These activities are discussed in more detail in chapter 2. 

TABLE 1.3 Trade facilitation, logistics services, e-commerce, and competitiveness

Factor Effect on export competitiveness 

Trade facilitation: 

"The simplification, standardization, and 

harmonization of procedures and associated 

information flows required to move goods from 

seller to buyer and to make payments."a 

Enhances productivity and efficiency, lowering trade 

costs. Reduces risks associated with undue delay and 

loss of goods during shipment. 

Logistics services: 

“A range of related activities intended to ensure 

the efficient movement of production inputs and 

finished products.”b 

More efficient transportation and freight services reduce 

the cost of getting goods to markets. 

E-commerce: 

“The buying, selling, or exchanging of goods, 

services, and information through electronic 

networks.”c

 

High-speed connectivity and the ability to complete 

transactions electronically facilitate communication and 

reduce information costs. 

Sources: a

United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business, cited in Asian Development Bank 

(ADB), Designing and Implementing Trade Facilitation, 2009, 3. b

USITC, Logistic Services, 2005, vii. c

Acoca, Empowering E-Consumers: Strengthening Consumer Protection in the Internet Economy, 2009, 6. 

Information Sources 

Information on ASEAN for this report was obtained from a number of sources, including 

written submissions received in response to the Commission’s Federal Register notice 

announcing the investigation;17 testimony at the public hearing held by the Commission 

in connection with this investigation on February 3, 2010; 18 and interviews during 

factfinding travel to certain ASEAN member countries, including Indonesia, Malaysia, 

Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. 

Key sources of published information on ASEAN were international organizations, 

including the OECD, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade 

Organization (WTO); numerous scholarly and peer-reviewed academic publications; 

 16 As described by the OECD, “Users should be cautious when using the FDI data distinguishing M&A 

type transactions, described in this Benchmark Definition, which are different to what is generally referred to 

as M&A statistics produced by commercial and other sources. The former corresponds only to equity 

transactions that qualify as FDI (covering 10 percent–100 percent of ownership of voting power), while the 

latter represents the total capital of companies.” OECD, Benchmark Definition of Foreign Direct Investment,

2008, 32 and Annex 9. 17 A copy of the Federal Register notice is provided in app. B of this report. 18 A list of hearing participants is provided in app. C of this report. A summary of the positions of 

interested parties can be found in app. D. 
1-8 

business and industry publications; government print documents and information 

obtained from ASEAN and member government Web sites; and reports by U.S. 

government agencies. These sources are cited in bibliographies at the end of each 

chapter. 
1-9 

Bibliography 

Acoca, Brigitte. Empowering E-Consumers: Strengthening Consumer Protection in the Internet 

Economy: Background Report. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

(OECD), November 2009. 

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). “ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) Blueprint.” 

November 20, 2007. http://www.aseansec.org/21083.pdf. 

Asian Development Bank (ADB). Designing and Implementing Trade Facilitation in Asia and the 

Pacific. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2009. 

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Trade-Facilitation-Reference-Book/default.asp. 

Bureau van Dijk. Zephyr database. 

https://zephyr.bvdep.com/version-2010211/cgi/template.dll?product=24 (accessed various 

 dates). 

Capannelli, Giovanni, Jong-Wa Lee, and Peter Petri. Developing Indicators for Regional Economic 

Integration and Cooperation. Asian Development Bank Working Paper on Regional Economic 

Integration, No. 33, September 2009. 

 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1546235. 

European Commission (EC), Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General. “European Competitiveness 

Report, 2009.” EC SEC(2009)1657final, March 2010. 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemlongdetail.cfm?item_id=3908. 

Financial Times. FDIMarkets database. http://www.fdimarkets.com (accessed various dates). 

International Monetary Fund. Balance of Payments and International Investment 

 Position Statistics. http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/bop/bop.htm (accessed April 22, 2010). 

International Monetary Fund. International Investment Position (IIP) Statistics. 

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/iip/iip.htm (accessed April 22, 2010). 

Kim, Soyoung, Jong-Wha Lee, and Cyn-Young Park. “The Ties that Bind Asia, Europe, and the United 

States.” ADB Economics Working Paper 192, February 2010.

 http://www.adb.org/Documents/Working-Papers/2010/Economics-WP192.pdf. 

OECD. Benchmark Definition of Foreign Direct Investment (Paris: OECD, 2008). 

Perdikis, Nicholas. “Overview of Trade Agreements: Regional Trade Agreements.” In Handbook on 

International Trade Policy, edited by William A. Kerr and James D. Gaisford, 82–91. 

Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 2007. 

Pierson, Mary Y. “East Asia: Regional Economic Integration and Implications for the United States.” 

Law and Policy in International Business 25 (1994): 1161–85. 

United Nations University. “Different Forms of Integration.” UNU OpenCourseWare. 

http://ocw.unu.edu/programme-for-comparative-regional-integration-studies/introducing-regionalintegration/different-forms-of-integration/ (accessed February 16, 2009). 
1-10

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). East Asia: Regional Economic Integration and 

Implications for the United States. USITC Publication 2621. Washington, DC: USITC, May 1993. 

———. Logistic Services: An Overview of the Global Market and Potential Effects of Removing Trade 

Impediments. USITC Publication 3770. Washington, DC: USITC, May 2005.

———. Wood Flooring and Hardwood Plywood: Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industries. 

USITC Publication 4032. Washington, DC: USITC, August 2008. 

———. Sub-Saharan Africa: Effects of Infrastructure Conditions on Export Competitiveness, Third 

Annual Report. USITC Publication 4071. Washington, DC: USITC, April 2009. 

World Economic Forum (WEF). Global Competitiveness Report 2009–2010. Geneva: World Economic 

Forum, 2009. http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/index.htm. 

 
2-1 

CHAPTER 2 

ASEAN and Selected Regional Trends and 

Improvements 

Introduction to ASEAN 

ASEAN was established in 1967 to accelerate economic growth, promote regional peace 

and stability, and enhance cooperation on economic, social, cultural, technical, and 

educational matters.1

 The five founding countries—Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, 

Singapore, and Thailand—were later joined by Brunei Darussalam (Brunei) in 1984, 

Vietnam (1995), Burma (1997), Laos (1997), and Cambodia (1999).2

 

Since its founding, ASEAN’s progress on economic integration has been affected by 

various factors. As a largely voluntary, consensus-based institution, 3 with an 

economically and politically diverse membership, ASEAN has generally followed a slow, 

step-by-step approach to building regional cooperation and has progressively entered into 

more legally binding and institutionalized agreements.4

 However, certain external events 

have stimulated faster and deeper progress on integration among member countries: a 

growing international trend toward regionalism and free trade agreements (FTAs), 

especially those involving ASEAN’s important trading partners; the Asian financial crisis 

of 1997; the rise of emerging economies that compete with ASEAN countries, especially 

China and India; and the 2008–09 global economic slowdown.5

 

Although political security was ASEAN’s initial focus, economic cooperation grew in the 

1970s with agreements on joint industrial projects and preferential trading arrangements 

(box 2.1).6

 The first substantial step toward integrating the ASEAN market came in 1992 

when the ASEAN-6 agreed to establish the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA).7

 The 

AFTA provided for the reduction or elimination of tariffs under a Common Effective 

Preferential Tariff scheme (CEPT) and the removal of quantitative restrictions and other 

nontariff measures (NTMs). It also addressed other cross-border measures, such as trade 

facilitation and standards harmonization.8

 ASEAN leaders signed agreements to liberalize 

services trade in 1995 (ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services, or AFAS) and 

 1

 For more background on ASEAN, see ASEAN Secretariat Web site, “About ASEAN,” 

http://www.aseansec.org/about_ASEAN.html (accessed January 5, 2010). 2

 East Timor and Papua New Guinea have shown an interest in joining ASEAN. 3

 Atje, “ASEAN Economic Community: In Search of a Coherent External Policy,” 2007; Soesastro, 

“Implementing the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) Blueprint,” 2007. 4

 ASEAN Secretariat Web site, About ASEAN, http://www.aseansec.org/about_ASEAN.html (accessed 

January 5, 2010). According to one observer, the history and diversity of the ASEAN member states have 

resulted at times in a lack of political will and strong reluctance to cede national sovereignty to accelerate 

regional integration. Chia, “Trade and Investment Policies and Regional Economic Integration in East Asia,” 

April 2010, 8. 5

 See, for example, ADB, Emerging Asian Regionalism, 2008, 22; ASEAN Secretariat, “Fact Sheet: An 

ASEAN Economic Community by 2015,” August 20, 2008; and Petri, “Competitiveness and Leverage: 

Benefits from an ASEAN Economic Community,” 2009, 216–217. 6 Declaration of ASEAN Concord, 1976; ASEAN Secretariat, “Economic Achievement,” n.d. 7

 The ASEAN-6 countries are Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. 8

 ASEAN Secretariat, “Economic Achievement,” n.d. 
2-2 

BOX 2.1 Timeline of important milestones in ASEAN economic integration 

Date Milestone Description 

1967 Bangkok Declaration ASEAN founded by Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, 

and Thailand. 

1977 Agreement on ASEAN preferential 

trading arrangements 

One of the earliest ASEAN agreements to carry some legal 

obligation. Members agreed to apply preferential tariff rates based 

on a margin of preference over MFN rates on basic commodities, 

products of ASEAN industrial projects, and others of interest. 

1984 Brunei joins ASEAN 

1987 Enhanced preferential trading 

arrangements 

Improved the preferential trading arrangements by, e.g., reducing 

exclusion lists, further reducing tariffs, and relaxing ASEAN 

content requirements in the rules of origin. 

1987 Investment Guarantee Agreement 

(IGA) 

The IGA provides investment protections for FDI between ASEAN 

member countries, including compensation in case of 

expropriation; guarantees of an investor’s right to repatriate 

earnings, subject to local laws; and provision for arbitration 

between parties in cases of disputes. 

Jan. 1, 1993 AFTA implemented Members agreed to establish the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) 

and a Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) scheme, 

where 99 percent of product categories will have intra-ASEAN 

tariff rates reduced to 0–5 percent. 

1995 Vietnam joins ASEAN 

1995 ASEAN Framework Agreement on 

Services (AFAS) 

Based closely on the General Agreement on Trade in Services 

(GATS). Aims to eliminate restrictions on trade in services, 

enhance intra-ASEAN services cooperation, and liberalize 

services trade based on the GATS-plus principle. Mandates 

successive negotiations to progressively liberalize services trade. 

1996 ASEAN Industrial Cooperation 

Scheme (AICO) 

Replaced earlier ASEAN industry project cooperation programs. 

Promotes joint manufacturing industrial activities between 

ASEAN-based companies. AICO products enjoy preferential tariff 

rates of 0–5 percent. 

1997 Burma and Laos join ASEAN 

1997 ASEAN Vision 2020 Laid out a vision of ASEAN in 2020, including closer economic 

integration and a commitment to create “a stable, prosperous and 

highly competitive ASEAN Economic Region in which there is a 

free flow of goods, services and investments, a freer flow of 

capital, equitable economic development and reduced poverty and 

socio-economic disparities.” 

1998 Framework Agreement on the 

ASEAN Investment Area (AIA) 

Aims to ensure a free flow of investment (in manufacturing, 

fisheries, forestry, mining, agriculture, and services) by 2020. 

Reservations made by members are scheduled to be eliminated in 

2015 for ASEAN investors and 2020 for non-ASEAN investors. 

The ASEAN-6 countries (original ASEAN members and Brunei) 

agreed to accelerate this process by eliminating reservations in 

manufacturing for ASEAN investors by 2003 and for all investors 

by 2010. 

1998 Hanoi Plan of Action First of a series of action plans to help implement the ASEAN 

Vision 2020. It lays out steps to promote economic integration 

over the period 1999–2004. 
2-3 

BOX 2.1 Timeline of important milestones in ASEAN economic integration—Continued

Date Milestone Description 

1999 Cambodia joins ASEAN 

2000 Initiative on ASEAN Integration 

(IAI) 

Goal is to address the development gap between member states 

through soft infrastructure projects (such as training, technical 

studies, and capacity building) and physical transport and 

communication infrastructure projects, and to mobilize funding 

from international financial institutions and developed countries for 

support. About 258 projects have been completed to date. 

October 2003 Declaration of ASEAN Concord II: 

ASEAN Community by 2020 

(9th ASEAN Summit or Bali 

Concord II) 

Agreed to establish an ASEAN Community by 2020 that consists 

of three pillars or communities based on political and security 

cooperation, economic cooperation, and socio-cultural 

cooperation. The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) is the end 

goal of the economic integration process described in the ASEAN 

Vision. Eleven priority sectors are identified for accelerated 

integration. 

November 2004 Vientiane Action Program Successor to the Hanoi Plan of Action to help realize the ASEAN 

Vision and the ASEAN Community. It covers the period 2004-

2010. 

November 2004 ASEAN Framework Agreement 

for the Integration of Priority 

Sectors 

Includes roadmaps for each priority sector that identify measures 

to be implemented and timelines for their implementation. 

January 2007 ASEAN Community by 2015 Leaders at the 12th ASEAN Summit agreed to accelerate the 

establishment of an ASEAN Community; the target date is now 

2015. 

November 2007 ASEAN Economic Community 

Blueprint 

Leaders at the 13th ASEAN Summit adopted the ASEAN 

Economic Blueprint, which provides the framework for achieving 

the AEC by 2015. 

December 15, 2008 ASEAN Charter implemented Establishes the legal and institutional framework for ASEAN. 

February 26, 2009 ASEAN Comprehensive 

Investment Agreement (ACIA) 

signed 

ACIA adds to investor protections under the AIA in several ways: 

includes comprehensive investment liberalization and protection 

provisions, including prohibition of performance requirements; 

includes an investor-state dispute settlement process; and 

extends benefits to foreign-owned, ASEAN-based investors. The 

ACIA framework is a “negative list” framework; each member state 

also compiles a list of reservations, or exclusions to the 

agreement. 

March 2009 Roadmap for the ASEAN 

Community, 2009–2015 

Consists of the Economic Community Blueprint (approved in 

2007), the Political-Security Community Blueprint, the SocioCultural Community Blueprint, and the Second IAl Work Plan. 

Replaces the Vientiane Action Program. 

May 17, 2010 ASEAN Trade in Goods 

Agreement (ATIGA) enters into 

force 

ATIGA builds on existing initiatives related to trade in goods (e.g., 

CEPT-AFTA, nontariff measures, customs, ASEAN single window, 

mutual recognition agreements, e-ASEAN, integration of priority 

sectors, etc.). Goal is to achieve the free flow of goods to establish 

a single market and production base, making it possible to realize 

the AEC by 2015. 

Source: Compiled by USITC from ASEAN documents, http://www.aseansec.org. 
2-4 

investment flows in 1998 (Framework Agreement on the ASEAN Investment Area, or 

AIA). 

In 2003, ASEAN officials agreed to establish an ASEAN Community by 2020, a goal 

that was subsequently accelerated to 2015. The ASEAN Community consists of three 

pillars: the ASEAN Political-Security Community, ASEAN Economic Community, and 

ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community. To guide the creation of the ASEAN Community, in 

2009 ASEAN leaders published the Roadmap for an ASEAN Community, which included 

blueprints for achieving each of the pillar communities as well as an updated work plan 

for the Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI), a program that aims to narrow the 

development gap between members. 

According to the 2003 declaration on the ASEAN Community, the ASEAN Economic 

Community (AEC) will be the “realization of the end-goal of economic integration ... to 

create a stable, prosperous and highly competitive ASEAN economic region in which 

there is a free flow of goods, services, investment and a freer flow of capital, equitable 

economic development and reduced poverty and socio-economic disparities.” 9 The 

AFTA, as well as the agreements on services trade (AFAS) and investment (AIA), form 

the basis of the AEC.10 Although the AEC is similar to the European Union (EU) in some 

respects, it is a “hybrid” FTA-plus arrangement; it includes some elements of a common 

market, but not a common external tariff.11 

The AEC Blueprint, which was adopted by ASEAN leaders in November 2007, lists the 

steps to achieving the AEC by 2015 and a timeline for their implementation. The 

Blueprint categorizes the AEC goals into four areas (box 2.2). To help form a single 

market and production base, the Blueprint includes a commitment to more rapidly 

integrate 12 sectors: agro-based products, air travel, automotives, e-ASEAN, electronics, 

fisheries, healthcare, logistics, rubber-based products, textiles and apparel, tourism, and 

wood-based products. These so-called priority sectors (with the exception of logistics, 

which was added in 2006) were originally identified for accelerated integration in 2003. 

They were chosen “on the basis of comparative advantage in natural resource 

endowments, labor skills and cost competitiveness, and value-added contribution to 

ASEAN’s economy,” and together accounted for more than 50 percent of intra-ASEAN 

trade.12 In 2004, Roadmaps for each priority sector, outlining the path to full integration, 

were adopted, and country coordinators were selected to oversee progress.13 Today the 

priority sectors are considered the “catalysts” to realizing the goals of the AEC.14 This 

study examines industries within 6 of the 12 priority sectors, as discussed below. 

 9

 ASEAN, Declaration of ASEAN Concord II, October 7, 2003, 6. 10 Atje, “ASEAN Economic Community: In Search of a Coherent External Policy,” 2007, chap. 10. 11 For example, see Guerrero, “Regional Integration: The ASEAN Vision in 2020,” January 2010, 54. 12 ASEAN, “ASEAN Accelerates Integration of Priority Sectors,” November 29, 2004. 13 ASEAN, “Informal ASEAN Economic Ministers Meeting,” January 19–20, 2004. 14 ASEAN, “Joint Media Statement of the 41st ASEAN Economic Ministers’ (AEM) Meeting,” 

August 13–14, 2009. 
2-5 

BOX 2.2 AEC Blueprint: Goals and measures 

Goal Measures/actions 

A single market and 

production base 

Measures to ensure the free flow of goods, services, investment, and 

skilled labor, as well as the freer flow of capital, within ASEAN. Measures 

on the free flow of goods cover tariffs, NTMs, rules of origin, trade 

facilitation, customs integration, and standards and technical regulations. 

A highly competitive 

economic region 

Actions on competition policy, consumer protection, intellectual property 

rights, taxation, e-commerce, and infrastructure development. 

A region of equitable 

economic development 

Actions to develop small and medium-sized enterprises and to implement 

and enhance the IAI. 

A region fully integrated into 

the global economy 

Actions to develop a coherent approach among ASEAN members on 

external economic relations and to enhance participation in global supply 

networks. 

Source: ASEAN, “ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint,” November 20, 2007.

The ASEAN countries differ from each other in a number of important ways, and 

member states recognize that this poses a challenge to implementation of the blueprint. 

For example, member countries vary by size, level of development, political system, 

investment environment, and economic structure. In particular, the last four countries to 

join ASEAN—Burma, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam (often referred to as the ASEAN4)—are at a lower stage of economic development than the other six member countries 

(table 2.1). Consequently, an integral part of the AEC Blueprint is a commitment to 

narrow the development gap among the ASEAN member states, primarily through the 

IAI work program, in order to facilitate regional integration.15 

TABLE 2.1 ASEAN member states, selected indicators, 2008

2004 2008

Brunei 0.4 (a) 0.7 23.0 29.8

Burma 49.6 435 0.6 49.7 53.6

Cambodia 14.6 1,921 0.5 16.7 21.8

Indonesia 237.5 3,824 15.6 20.9 25.6

Laos 6.2 (a) 0.2 74.4 84.4

Malaysia 27.7 13,852 19.8 20.7 25.1

Philippines 92.7 3,457 6.2 18.1 20.3

Singapore 4.8 40,319 27.6 29.5 36.3

Thailand 66.3 8,235 20.6 19.2 19.7

Vietnam 86.1 2,793 8.3 24.1 20.9

Source: Country profiles (1st two indicators), app. E; ASEAN Secretariat.

 a Not available.

Population Intra-ASEAN trade (% global)

(million)

GDP per 

capita, PPP

Share of total 

ASEAN trade (%)

The AEC Blueprint also includes a commitment to global integration, including a review 

of its FTA commitments vis-à-vis ASEAN’s internal integration commitments. Because 

nearly three-quarters of ASEAN’s trade is with external partners (figure 2.1), ASEAN 

has taken a two-pronged strategy to boost its economic performance, namely to foster 

both internal integration and global relationships, and to ensure their complementary 

 15 Roadmap for an ASEAN Community 2009–2015, 2009, 1; ASEAN Secretariat, “Fact Sheet: Initiative 

for ASEAN Integration and Narrowing the Development Gap,” January 12, 2010. For more detailed 

information about the development gap and differences among the ASEAN member states, see, for example, 

Narjoko and Kartika, “Narrowing the Development Gap,” 2009, 180–183; Severino, “The ASEAN 

Developmental Divide and the Initiative for ASEAN Integration,” 2007, 35–44; and ADB, Emerging Asian 

Regionalism, 2008, 66–69, 75–84. 
2-6 

relationship.16 To improve global market opportunities and attract investment, ASEAN 

has implemented FTAs with Australia and New Zealand (in a single FTA), China, India, 

Japan, and Korea (box 2.3).17 Individual ASEAN countries have also implemented FTAs 

with various partners, resulting in an overlapping web of FTAs.18 

FIGURE 2.1 ASEAN trade, by partner, 2005 and 2009

Source: ASEAN Secretariat Yearbook.

Note: ROW = rest of the world; ANZ = Australia and New Zealand; EU25 = Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech 

Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, 

Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United 

Kingdom. Figures may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.

ASEAN, 

25%

Japan, 

13%

EU25, 

China, 11%

9%

United 

States, 

13%

Korea, 

4%

ANZ, 3%

India, 2%

ROW, 

21%

2005

Total trade: $1.2 trillion

ASEAN, 

24%

Japan, 

12%

EU25, 

11%

China, 

11%

United 

States, 

10%

Korea, 

5%

ANZ, 3%

India, 3%

ROW, 

22%

2009

Total trade: $1.5 trillion

 16 See, for example, ASEAN, Declaration of ASEAN Concord II, October 7, 2003, 3; Cordenillo, “The 

Future of the ASEAN Free Trade Area and the Free Trade Areas Between ASEAN and Its Dialogue 

Partners,” n.d. 17 For more information on the status of ASEAN FTAs, see ADB, Free Trade Agreement Database for 

Asia, http://www.aric.adb.org/. ASEAN is involved with other regional projects as well, such as the AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and the ASEAN+3 (with China, Japan, and Korea). 18 See app. E for information on member state FTAs. 
2-7 

BOX 2.3 ASEAN-wide free trade agreements, 2010 

FTA partner Description Status 

Signed FTAs 

Australia and New 

Zealand 

Trade in goods and services; 

investment; economic 

cooperation; and legal and 

institutional issues 

Framework Agreement signed in 

November 2004. 

FTA with Australia and New Zealand was a 

single undertaking (covering goods, 

services, and investment): signed on 

February 27, 2009; implementation on 

January 1, 2010. 

China Trade in goods and services; 

investment; trade facilitation 

measures; and economic 

cooperation in areas of interest 

Early Harvest Programme (EHP) entered 

into effect on January 1, 2004 for ASEAN-6 

and China. Duties for EHP products were 

fully eliminated as of 2006. 

Trade in Goods Agreement signed on 

November 29, 2004; entered into effect on 

July 1, 2005 to reduce tariffs in 2005, 2007, 

2009, and January 1, 2010. 

Trade in Services Agreement and 

commitments under the First Package 

signed on January 14, 2007; entered into 

effect on July 1, 2007. Negotiations are 

ongoing for the Second Package. 

Investment Agreement signed on 

August 15, 2009. 

India Trade in goods and services; 

investment; and economic 

cooperation 

Framework Agreement signed on 

October 8, 2003. 

Trade in Goods Agreement signed in 

August 2009, effective January 1, 2010. 

Negotiations on trade in services and 

investment ongoing (target date of 

August 2010 for conclusion). 

Japan Trade in goods and services; 

investment; rules of origin; 

sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) 

measures; technical barriers to 

trade; dispute settlement 

mechanism; and economic 

cooperation 

Framework Agreements signed on 

October 8, 2003. 

Trade in Goods Agreement signed on 

April 14, 2008; implemented on 

December 1, 2008. 

Negotiations on trade in services are yet to 

commence. 

Negotiations on investment are yet to 

commence. 

Korea Trade in goods and services; 

investment; and economic 

cooperation in areas of interest 

Trade in Goods Agreement signed on 

August 26, 2006; entered into effect on 

June 1, 2007. 

Agreement on Trade in Services signed on 

November 21, 2007; effective May 1, 2009. 

Investment Agreement signed on 

June 2, 2009. 
2-8 

BOX 2.3 ASEAN-wide free trade agreements, 2010—Continued

FTA partner Description Status 

FTAs under negotiation 

European Union Trade in goods and services; 

government procurement; 

competition policy; intellectual 

property rights; industrial and 

commercial property rights; 

sustainable development including 

labor and environmental issues; 

cooperation on trade related 

issues; and dispute settlement 

mechanism 

Negotiations launched on May 4, 2007, on 

a region-to-region basis, but stalled in early 

2009. In December 2009, EU agreed to 

pursue negotiations towards FTAs with 

interested individual ASEAN countries, 

which could become building blocks for an 

ASEAN-wide regional agreement. 

Negotiations with Singapore began in 

March 2010. Vietnam has shown interest in 

a bilateral FTA. 

Source: ADB, Free Trade Agreement Database for Asia (accessed February 2, 2010); WTO, Regional Trade 

Agreements portal (accessed February 2, 2010); European Commission, “Overview of FTA and other Trade 

Negotiations,” April 21, 2010. 

Note: On the implementation date indicated, the ASEAN FTA enters into force only with respect to those 

ASEAN countries that have completed their respective legal procedures. The FTA will become effective with 

respect to the other ASEAN countries once they notify the completion of their respective legal process. 

According to the AEC Blueprint, the ASEAN Economic Ministers (AEM) are in charge 

of economic integration and accountable for the overall implementation of the AEC 

Blueprint. Relevant ASEAN sectoral bodies are responsible for coordinating, 

implementing, and monitoring commitments under their respective purview. The ASEAN 

Secretariat (Secretariat) reviews and monitors compliance of implementation. 19 The 

Secretariat was tasked with developing the AEC Scorecard to monitor progress. 

According to the first AEC Scorecard, which was published in 2010 and covers the first 

two-year period (2008–09), 73.6 percent of AEC targets were achieved, including 

82 percent of the measures and activities included under the goal of achieving a single 

market and production base; 50 percent of measures under that of creating a competitive 

economic region; and 100 percent of measures under the goals of attaining equitable 

economic development and integration with the global economy. Actions that still need 

to be addressed include ratification of various agreements, including the ASEAN 

Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA) and several agreements covering goods 

in transit and air services; implementation of National Single Windows (see discussion 

below); and determination of final tariff reduction rates on highly sensitive products, such 

as rice and sugar.20 

Following a meeting of the AEM in February 2010, the Malaysian Trade Minister, who 

hosted the meeting, reported that there were gaps in the implementation of some 

commitments, particularly in the areas of eliminating nontariff barriers, streamlining 

customs clearance, harmonizing standards, and removing duplication of testing and 

certification procedures. The Minister noted that among the priority sectors, “satisfactory 

 19 ASEAN, “ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint,” November 20, 2007, section III. Unlike the EU, 

which has strong institutions and a large regional bureaucracy, the ASEAN Secretariat is small and poorly 

funded (2010 budget: $14.5 million), limiting its ability to monitor compliance with agreements and 

commitments, collect and synthesize information, and conduct analytical work. Chia, “Trade and Investment 

Policies and Regional Economic Integration in East Asia,” April 2010, 5; ASEAN Secretariat official, e-mail 

message to USITC staff, April 28, 2010. 20 “AEC Scorecard,” March 2010, 12–14. It is difficult to interpret the AEC Scorecard results because of 

the political sensitivity of the process. 
2-9 

progress has been only achieved in the automotive, textiles, air travel and tourism 

sectors.”21

In December 2008, the ASEAN Charter entered into effect, which provides the legal and 

institutional framework for ASEAN to be a more rules-based organization. According to 

ASEAN officials, the Charter strengthens ASEAN institutions and supports ASEAN’s 

community-building and integration efforts by enhancing the formal nature of ASEAN 

integration. 22 To ensure compliance with agreed rules and obligations, the Charter 

provides that “disputes that concern the interpretation or application of ASEAN 

economic agreements shall be settled in accordance with the ASEAN Protocol on 

Enhanced Dispute Settlement Mechanism,”23 which was adopted in 2004. The enhanced 

dispute settlement process includes three stages: advisory, consultative, and adjudicatory. 

As of February 2009, no disputes had been raised for adjudication.24

ASEAN Trends in Economic Integration, Export 

Competitiveness, and Inbound Investment 

Strengthening economic integration, improving export competitiveness, and attracting 

foreign direct investment are all goals of the formation of a single market and production 

base, as envisaged by the AEC. Broad ASEAN trends in these three areas over the past 

five years are presented below. 

Economic Integration 

Between 2004 and 2008, intra-ASEAN trade increased slightly. Although intraregional 

trade is important in each of the six priority sectors covered in this report, none of the 

sectors exhibited a clear trend towards increased integration during this period. 

ASEAN agreements affecting integration 

Efforts to form a single market and production base have met with the most success in the 

area of tariff liberalization under AFTA.25 AFTA is considered a “deep” FTA relative to 

others among developing countries because of its comprehensive coverage, ambitious 

liberalization to zero or near-zero rates, and timely implementation.26 Intraregional tariff 

reductions and eliminations to 0–5 percent rates under the CEPT scheme of AFTA are 

supposed to be completed in 2010 for the ASEAN-6 and in 2015 for the ASEAN-4, and 

by 2018 for the ASEAN-4 on some sensitive products (unprocessed agricultural 

products). On January 1, 2010, the ASEAN-6 reduced intraregional duties on an 

additional 7,881 tariff lines to zero, bringing the total number of intraregional duty-free 

 21 Malaysian Ministry of International Trade and Industry, “16th ASEAN Economic Ministers’ Retreat,” 

February 28, 2010. 22 Pitsuwan, “Progress in ASEAN Economic Integration since the Adoption of the ASEAN Charter,” 

June 29, 2009, 1. 23 ASEAN Charter, article 24. 

24 ASEAN Secretariat, “Fact Sheet: ASEAN Dispute Settlement System,” February 24, 2009. 25 See, for example, Calvo-Pardo, Freund, and Ornelas, “The ASEAN Free Trade Agreement: Impact on 

Trade Flows and External Trade Barriers,” June 2009, 3. 26 Calvo-Pardo, Freund, and Ornelas, “The ASEAN Free Trade Agreement: Impact on Trade Flows and 

External Trade Barriers,” June 2009, 10. 
2-10

lines to over 54,000, or 99.11 percent of all lines.27 About 70 percent of ASEAN-4 

intraregional tariff lines are now free of duty.28 

ASEAN rules governing the free flow of goods are largely contained in the ASEAN 

Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA), which consolidates and builds on existing 

initiatives related to trade in goods to provide a comprehensive legal framework (box 

2.4). ATIGA entered into force on May 17, 2010, and by strengthening the rules 

governing the liberalization and facilitation of goods trade, it provides an important 

foundation for more rapidly achieving the AEC. 

Services trade liberalization among ASEAN countries has been conducted through 

successive rounds of negotiations aimed at progressively higher-level commitments, as 

mandated under the 1995 AFAS.29 Services liberalization is undertaken according to the 

“ASEAN minus X” principle. Under this approach, two or more ASEAN countries that 

are ready may proceed to liberalize a services sector, while others can join at a later 

time.30 To date, seven packages (or schedules) of commitments have been concluded, 

covering trade in a wide variety of services, including business and professional services 

(e.g., accounting, auditing, architecture, and engineering), construction, distribution, 

education, environment, healthcare, maritime transport, telecommunications, and tourism 

services. Negotiations to liberalize financial services and air transport services are 

conducted separately and have resulted in separate packages of commitments for each.31 

To facilitate the flow of foreign professionals in ASEAN, member countries have signed 

seven MRAs on architectural, accountancy, engineering, dental practitioner, medical 

practitioner, nursing, and surveying qualifications.32 

 27 Government official, interview by Commission staff, Singapore, March 1, 2010. 28 Ibid. 

29 ASEAN, “ASEAN Integration in Services,” August 2009. 30 ASEAN, “ASEAN Integration in Services,” August 2009, 10; Thangavelu, “Non-Tariff Barriers, 

Integration and Export Growth in ASEAN,” January 2010, 15. 31 ASEAN, “ASEAN Integration in Services,” August 2009, 13–14. Also, for all general services 

information, see ASEAN Secretariat, “Fact Sheet: ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services,” 

February 26, 2009. 32 “AEC Scorecard,” March 2010, 7. 
2-11

BOX 2.4 What is ATIGA? 

ATIGA builds on the commitments under the following ASEAN economic initiatives: the Agreement on ASEAN 

Preferential Trading Arrangements (1977), the Agreement on the Common Effective Preferential Tariff Scheme for 

the ASEAN Free Trade Area (1992), the ASEAN Agreement on Customs (1987), the ASEAN Framework Agreement 

on Mutual Recognition Arrangements (1998), the e-ASEAN Framework Agreement (2000), the Protocol Governing 

the Implementation of the ASEAN Harmonized Tariff Nomenclature (2003), the ASEAN Framework Agreement for 

the Integration of Priority Sectors (2004), and the Agreement to Establish and Implement the ASEAN Single Window 

(2005). Member states are to agree on the list of agreements to be superseded by ATIGA within six months from the 

date of ATIGA’s entry into force (by November 17, 2010). 

Among the provisions of ATIGA are those covering tariff liberalization schedules and commitments, rules of origin 

(which require regional value content of 40 percent or a change in tariff heading),a

 NTMs, trade facilitation, customs 

procedures, standards and conformance, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and trade remedy measures (as 

provided for in the WTO). To improve transparency, ATIGA requires member state notification of actions and 

measures they intend to take with respect to tariffs, NTMs, standards, SPS, and other measures;b requires publication 

of trade laws, regulations, and judicial decisions in accordance with article X of GATT 1994; and establishes a trade 

repository, which will publish on the Internet all member state trade and customs laws, measures, and procedures, 

including tariff schedules. The trade repository will include a database of NTMs, with a view to identifying NTMs for 

elimination.c Relevant ASEAN bodies are required to review any NTM notified or reported by any other member state 

or by the private sector with a view to determining whether the measure constitutes a nontariff barrier. ATIGA 

specifies deadlines for the elimination of identified nontariff barriers: by 2010 for the ASEAN-5, 2012 for the 

Philippines, and 2015 (with flexibilities to 2018) for the ASEAN-4. ATIGA also seeks to prevent member states from 

introducing new NTMs that are inconsistent with WTO obligations.d

 

ATIGA provides guidance on the development and application of standards, technical regulations, and conformity 

assessment procedures, which are to be transparent and consistent with international standards and practice. It also 

directs member states to develop and implement sectoral Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs) and harmonized 

regulatory regimes. ATIGA includes an MRA on conformity assessment with respect to electrical and electronic 

equipment, and two agreements on harmonized regulatory regimes (for electrical equipment and cosmetics).e

a

 ATIGA, 22. 

b

 See ATIGA, Annex 1. 

c

 According to the Secretariat, there is an outdated list of NTMs, which currently contains 7,378 NTMs, of which 43.9 percent 

are non-automatic licenses. Other categories are automatic licenses, quotas, prohibitions and quantitative restrictions, and tariff-rate 

quotas. Government official, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 1, 2010. The database can be found at 

http://www.aseansec.org/16355.htm. d

 ATIGA, articles 40–42. 

e

 ASEAN economic ministers signed an MRA for pharmaceutical products in 2009. 

 

Intra-ASEAN trade trends 

Two measures are typically cited to show trends in regional trade integration—the 

intraregional trade share and the intraregional trade intensity.33 The intraregional trade 

share for ASEAN shows the share of total ASEAN trade that is accounted for by intraASEAN trade.34 As shown in figure 2.1, intra-ASEAN trade decreased slightly as a share 

of total ASEAN trade between 2005 and 2009, declining from 25 to 24 percent. It 

remains smaller than that of other regional groups, such as the EU-15, the members of the 

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and broader East Asia groupings that 

 33 Capannelli, Lee, and Petri, “Developing Indicators for Regional Economic Integration and 

Cooperation,” September 2009, 5; Plummer and Chia, “Assessing the Economics of the ASEAN Economic 

Community: Introduction,” 2009, 8. 34 Intraregional trade shares are upward biased because of double counting, which results from both 

Singapore’s entrepot role and production fragmentation. 
2-12

include China. The trend and size of ASEAN’s intraregional trade share reflects its 

growing links with China and its continued reliance on trade with outside partners.35

However, an examination of longer-term trends shows that the share of intra-ASEAN 

trade has increased substantially from the 19 percent share it held when AFTA entered 

into effect in 1993. During the first decade of the 2000s, it gradually increased from 

22 percent in 2001–02, to 24–25 percent in 2003–07 (figure 2.2). In 2008, intra-ASEAN 

trade reached its highest share—nearly 27 percent—but it dropped back in 2009, at the 

same time that ASEAN’s shares with each of its other top partners (Japan, EU-25, China, 

and the United States) also declined. The global economic downturn reduced demand 

both absolutely and relatively from ASEAN’s major partners and hurt global production 

networks as well, which likely disproportionately affected intraregional trade.36 In four of 

the past five years, the share of intra-ASEAN exports in total ASEAN exports was larger 

than the share of intra-ASEAN imports in total ASEAN imports, but the difference was 

small (table 2.2).37 

22.0 21.8

22.4

25.1

24.3

24.9 25.1 25.0

26.8

24.2

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Share (%)

FIGURE 2.2 Intra-ASEAN trade as a share of total ASEAN trade, 2000–09

Source: ASEAN Secretariat.

 35 See, for example, Capannelli, Lee, and Petri, “Developing Indicators for Regional Economic 

Integration and Cooperation,” September 2009, 5; ESCAP, “ASEAN and Trade Integration,” April 8, 2009, 9; 

and Guerrero, “Regional Integration: The ASEAN Vision in 2020,” January 2010, 56. It also reflects the 

relatively small size of ASEAN’s economies compared to the economies of the other groupings cited here. 

To compensate for the size bias, a trade intensity measure is also provided below. 36 Plummer and Chia, “Assessing the Economics of the ASEAN Economic Community: Introduction,” 

2009, 3. 37 It is interesting to note that for the broader East Asia region (ASEAN+6, which includes ASEAN and 

China, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and India), there is a large and growing disparity between the 

share of intraregional imports and the share of intraregional exports, where such imports far outpace such 

exports, indicating a growing reliance on outside markets for the region’s exports and a growing reliance on 

the region for its imports. See Chia, “Regional Trade Policy Cooperation and Architecture in East Asia,” 

February 2010, 7. 
2-13

TABLE 2.2 Intra-ASEAN imports and exports, share of total, by priority sector, 2004–08 (percent)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Intra-ASEAN imports

Agro-based products 39.0 28.2 31.7 29.3 31.9

Automotives 17.3 19.6 21.3 23.4 23.6

Electronics 27.9 27.9 26.4 24.3 24.1

Healthcare 15.3 14.0 15.6 16.8 17.6

Textiles and apparel 16.0 16.5 16.7 15.5 14.7

Wood-based products 61.2 60.5 55.0 50.2 50.8

Total, all products 23.8 24.5 25.0 24.6 25.9

Intra-ASEAN exports

Agro-based products 12.6 11.4 11.9 9.9 9.7

Automotives 36.3 35.7 30.9 29.2 31.4

Electronics 25.0 24.7 24.0 23.3 22.6

Healthcare 29.8 23.5 21.6 20.1 24.6

Textiles and apparel 10.8 12.8 13.0 11.9 12.4

Wood-based products 8.2 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.2

Total, all products 24.8 24.0 25.2 25.3 27.6

Source: Specific products: WITS, Integrated Warehouse (accessed March 29, 2010). All products: ASEAN Secretariat.

Note: Brunei, Indonesia, Laos, and Burma do not report trade data for priority sectors, and are not included in productspecific shares. These countries are included in the "all products" shares.

 

The share of intra-ASEAN trade in total ASEAN trade varies by member state, but 

generally measures between 20 and 30 percent (table 2.1). Singapore’s 36 percent share 

reflects its importance as a port and transshipment point. Two member states have 

intraregional trade shares far above the average—Burma and Laos—because of the small 

size of their economies and their small overall level of trade (each accounting for less 

than 1 percent of ASEAN trade). 

The intraregional trade intensity—the intensity with which a region trades with itself, 

compared with its trade with the world—is shown in table 2.3.38 The intra-ASEAN trade 

intensity, ranging between 4.1 and 4.6 percent during 2004–08, indicates that there is a 

regional bias in ASEAN trade (i.e., ASEAN’s share of trade with itself is greater than 

would be expected given ASEAN’s importance in world trade).39 The ASEAN score on 

this index is also significantly higher than for other regional groups, including members 

of NAFTA, the EU-15, and broader Asian groupings, but this could result from the 

greater weight of these other groups in world trade.40 The slight increase in ASEAN’s 

intraregional trade intensity over the past five years shows that intra-ASEAN trade is 

increasing relative to the world’s share of trade with ASEAN, but the change is small. 

 38 For more information about intraregional trade intensities, see chap. 1 of this report. Also, see ESCAP, 

“Trade Statistics in Policymaking,” n.d., 52–53; Capannelli, Lee, and Petri, “Developing Indicators for 

Regional Economic Integration and Cooperation,” September 2009, 6. 39 Taking a longer viewpoint, ASEAN intraregional trade intensity was much higher in the past, reaching 

a peak in the 1960s. During that period, the economies were too small to trade much, and traded 

disproportionately with neighbors. The index declined erratically until the 1990s as these countries grew and 

increased trade with the world. In the mid-1990s, the index began to increase, possibly reflecting the 

implementation of AFTA and the growth of regional production networks. ADB, Emerging Asian 

Regionalism, 2008, 41–42; Capannelli, Lee, and Petri, “Developing Indicators for Regional Economic 

Integration and Cooperation,” September 2009, 6–7. 40 Capannelli, Lee, and Petri, “Developing Indicators for Regional Economic Integration and 

Cooperation,” September 2009, 6. 
2-14

TABLE 2.3 Intraregional trade intensity index, by priority sector, 2004–08 (percent)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Agro-based products 2.1 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.6

Automotives 13.1 12.7 12.8 11.7 10.7

Electronics 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3

Healthcare 13.8 9.9 8.9 8.6 10.2

Textiles and apparel 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.3

Wood-based products 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4

Total, all products 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.6

Source: Specific products: WITS, Integrated Warehouse (accessed March 29, 2010). All products: ASEAN Secretariat, 

IMF Direction of Trade Statistics.

Intra-ASEAN trade trends in six priority sectors 

Table 2.4 shows both intra- and extra-ASEAN trade in the six priority sectors covered in 

this report. The electronics sector is by far the largest in terms of trade. Table 2.2 shows 

the shares of intra-ASEAN imports and exports in each sector. Unlike intra-ASEAN trade 

in all products, intra-ASEAN trade in most of the six sectors is asymmetrical. In both the 

agro-based products and wood-based products sectors, the vast majority of the intraASEAN trade share is accounted for by intra-ASEAN imports, indicating a strong 

reliance on outside markets for their exports. In the automotives sector, the majority of 

the intra-ASEAN trade share is accounted for by intra-ASEAN exports, reflecting the 

continued importance of ASEAN as a market for automobiles and parts. Notably, in the 

electronics sector, both the intra-ASEAN import and export shares steadily declined over 

the 2004–08 period, reflecting China’s growing role in electronics production and 

ASEAN’s increased participation in global electronics production chains. 

The intra-ASEAN trade intensity shows a regional bias in trade in each of the six priority 

sectors, but the index varies widely among the sectors. The index is largest (although on a 

declining trend) in the automotives sector, followed by the healthcare sector, indicating 

these are the most regionally integrated sectors. In the remaining four sectors, the index is 

smaller than the index for all products. The index is very similar and fairly stable during 

2004–08 in the electronics, textiles and apparel, and wood-based products sectors, 

indicating a similar level of regional integration. None of the sectors shows a clear trend 

towards increased integration over the past five years. 
2-15

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Intra-ASEAN exports

Agro-based products 933,008 1,360,040 1,144,436 1,687,945 2,788,211 

Automotives 4,191,755 3,283,824 4,690,222 6,416,477 7,987,317 

Electronics 52,268,178 47,876,167 56,110,336 57,982,542 56,928,581 

Healthcare 987,092 869,375 1,235,436 1,685,250 2,000,350 

Textiles and apparel 1,912,064 1,932,309 2,122,545 2,420,349 2,431,291 

Wood-based products 1,230,734 1,143,053 1,237,746 1,394,430 1,424,370 

ASEAN exports to rest of world

Agro-based products 12,486,983 12,103,978 14,057,296 19,313,273 28,435,800 

Automotives 15,714,044 11,893,715 18,579,336 25,174,340 27,124,044 

Electronics 239,608,257 215,482,996 265,615,439 266,126,413 267,278,788 

Healthcare 5,692,372 3,506,738 8,071,235 10,049,727 10,167,219 

Textiles and apparel 29,279,163 28,252,081 33,140,705 36,301,953 38,527,881 

Wood-based products 16,074,553 14,874,195 17,000,980 18,327,184 17,661,561 

Agro-based products 3,280,498 2,858,852 3,798,554 5,090,003 6,695,704 

Automotives 22,482,370 20,993,758 21,549,767 26,486,024 33,332,207 

Electronics 115,987,928 112,712,493 135,143,296 140,732,507 146,680,531 

Healthcare 6,456,913 5,299,171 7,290,542 8,359,650 9,339,715 

Textiles and apparel 14,690,394 13,597,104 16,692,532 21,385,662 22,541,775 

Wood-based products 989,336 865,724 1,255,923 1,615,914 1,543,718 

Note: Data are based on partner country trade data, rather than reporter country trade data, because Brunei, 

Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Phillipines, and Vietnam do not report trade data in all years. Intra-ASEAN exports 

between these members may be understated.

TABLE 2.4 Total imports, exports, and intra-ASEAN exports, by priority sectors, 2004–08

thousand $

ASEAN imports from rest of world

Source: WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed March 29, 2010).

Export Competitiveness 

ASEAN’s export competitiveness, as measured by its share of global export markets, has 

remained fairly stable over the past five years. During the same period, world market 

shares in each of the six priority sectors have generally increased. The region’s outward 

orientation in trade and investment has been particularly important in driving ASEAN’s 

international trade, growth, and development.41 Although several factors continue to limit 

the growth of ASEAN’s exports to world markets, the AEC was designed to address a 

number of them. 

 41 Plummer and Chia, “Assessing the Economics of the ASEAN Economic Community: Introduction,” 

2009, 9. 
2-16

ASEAN’s openness to international trade and investment has contributed to “vibrant 

export sectors” and the development of regional manufacturing production networks.42

Because ASEAN markets are relatively small, a major goal of the creation of the AEC is 

to reduce transaction costs and attract investment so as to better exploit opportunities to 

participate in global supply networks and serve as a regional production center.43

According to the Asian Development Bank (ADB), ASEAN’s participation in Asian 

production networks has been growing, particularly in the automotive and electronics 

sectors. The share of parts and components in ASEAN’s manufacturing trade increased 

from 35 percent in 1996 to 43 percent in 2006.44 The ADB attributes this increase to 

several factors: 

 As a share of GDP, parts and components trade is among the highest in the world 

in the ASEAN (especially in Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand), 

perhaps because the relatively small size of their economies makes specializing 

in small niches of comparative advantage particularly important. Broadly 

speaking, the success of these economies is based on policies that welcome 

foreign companies, encourage technological upgrading, and build strong 

connections with world markets, as well as on their proximity to Asian neighbors 

following similar strategies.45 

Low wage rates, high productivity growth rates in some countries,46 diverse production 

conditions, proximity to large Asian markets, and the region’s trade policy environment, 

including free trade agreements with a number of countries (box 2.2 and app. E), have 

supported the growth of ASEAN’s manufacturing exports, particularly through global 

production chains.47 However, challenges for ASEAN’s export competitiveness remain, 

particularly in some of the member states. These impediments include a shortage of 

skilled labor and professionals; the lack of a developed system for setting product 

standards and conformity assessment procedures; unsophisticated consumer markets; and 

inadequate physical and institutional infrastructure, such as roads and other transport 

networks, communications, trade facilitation measures (e.g., customs procedures), and 

intellectual property rights (IPR) protection.48 USITC hearing witnesses note that many 

of the member countries continue to implement domestic polices that restrict trade and 

provide an unfavorable climate for foreign investment.49

 42 Malaysian Institute of Economic Research, ADBI, and East-West Center, “Regional Market for Goods, 

Services, and Skilled Labor,” 2009, 32. 43 ASEAN, Declaration of ASEAN Concord II, October 7, 2003; Malaysian Institute of Economic 

Research, ADBI, and East-West Center, “Regional Market for Goods, Services, and Skilled Labor,” 2009, 32; 

and Amin, Hamid, and Saad, “Economic Integration among ASEAN Countries: Evidence from Gravity 

Model,” February 2009, 6. 44 ADB, Emerging Asian Regionalism, 2008, 64. 45 ADB, Emerging Asian Regionalism, 2008, 64. In addition to ASEAN, ADB includes Taiwan in this list. 46 ADB, Emerging Asian Regionalism, 2008, 60. ADB notes that Singapore’s productivity has caught up 

with the OECD average, while Malaysia and Thailand have made significant progress. 47 ADB, Emerging Asian Regionalism, 2008, 60, 78; Petri, “Competitiveness and Leverage: Benefits 

from an ASEAN Economic Community,” 2009, 223. 48 Hiebert, written submission submitted to the USITC, March 10, 2010; Duek, “ASEAN Economic 

Integration: Evolving Patterns of Trade in AFTA,” December 2008, 9–10; ADB, Emerging Asian 

Regionalism, 2008, 78; Soesastro, “Accelerating ASEAN Economic Integration: Moving Beyond AFTA,” 

March 2005, 8; and Soesastro, “Implementing the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) Blueprint,” 2007, 8. 49 See, for example, Hiebert, written testimony submitted to the USITC, March 10, 2010. 
2-17

China is often viewed as a major competitor of ASEAN countries in attracting foreign 

investment and in integrating regional production chains. 50 However, ASEAN recently 

concluded an FTA with China. According to a written submission, because China has 

become an important hub in Asian supply chains, ASEAN countries hope the FTA will 

offer better opportunities to participate in these networks.51 In addition, ASEAN offers an 

alternative production location to China for firms wanting to diversify their operations to 

reduce business and political risks.52

Table 2.5 shows the trend in ASEAN’s share of the world market over the past five years. 

During this period, ASEAN’s share of world exports was fairly stable, but declined in 

2008, probably because of the economic downturn that reduced demand from its top 

markets. In the six priority sectors, world export shares have generally risen over the 

2004–08 period. For more information on export competitiveness in these sectors, see the 

discussion of each priority sector in chapters 3–8. 

Longer-term analysis shows that ASEAN’s world export share grew steadily until the 

1997 Asian financial crisis, and subsequently has remained fairly stable during a period 

when China emerged as a major exporter.53 Within ASEAN, the ASEAN-4 (Burma, 

Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam) have shown the highest rates of export growth. Although 

some studies have shown that the economic rise of China and India has not reduced 

ASEAN’s exports or growth rates,54 ASEAN exporters continue to face stiff competition 

from these countries.55 

TABLE 2.5 ASEAN world market shares, by priority sector, 2004–08

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Agro-based products 8.8 7.9 8.5 10.1 10.4

Automotives 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.6

Electronics 12.3 12.3 12.2 12.7 11.8

Healthcare 1.5 1.9 2.4 2.5 2.1

Textiles and apparel 4.4 3.9 3.9 4.3 4.5

Wood-based products 6.7 6.7 7.1 7.4 7.7

Total, all products 6.2 6.6 6.3 6.2 5.5

Share of world merchandise exports (%)

Source: Specific products: WITS, Integrated Warehouse (accessed March 29, 2010). All products: ASEAN Secretariat; 

IMF, Direction of Trade Statistics .

 

The AEC addresses many of the competitive challenges facing the region. Many ASEAN 

countries still specialize in only a limited number of sectors, and exports are usually 

destined for a few partners.56 Completing the AEC is expected to create opportunities for 

greater industrial efficiency and cost competitiveness in a much broader range of 

products and services, which would benefit ASEAN on the global market.57

 50 Aldaba, Yap, and Petri, “Investment and Capital Flows: Implications of the AEC,” 2009, 143. 51 Aquino, written submission to the USITC, March 3, 2010, 7; ADB, Emerging Asian Regionalism, 2008, 

58, 62, and 75. 52 ADB, Emerging Asian Regionalism, 2008, 75; Soesastro, “Accelerating ASEAN Economic Integration: 

Moving Beyond AFTA,” March 2005, 9. 53 Petri, “Competitiveness and Leverage: Benefits from an ASEAN Economic Community,” 2009, 216. 54 For a list of such studies, see Petri, “Competitiveness and Leverage: Benefits from an ASEAN 

Economic Community,” 2009, 217. 55 Petri, “Competitiveness and Leverage: Benefits from an ASEAN Economic Community,” 2009, 220. 56 Duek, “ASEAN Economic Integration: Evolving Patterns of Trade in AFTA,” December 2008, 9–10. 57 Soesastro, “Accelerating ASEAN Economic Integration: Moving Beyond AFTA,” March 2005, 9. 
2-18

Inbound Investment 

Once it enters into force, the new ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement 

(ACIA) will replace the two existing ASEAN investment agreements. The ACIA offers 

strengthened protections for foreign investors and is likely to contribute to increased 

direct investment between ASEAN members. 

Investment agreements 

The ASEAN Investment Area (AIA) and Investment Guarantee Agreement (IGA) 

As part of its Blueprint, the ASEAN Economic Community calls for “a free and open 

investment regime” that is designed to serve as a crucial step in attracting FDI to the 

ASEAN economies. 58 As of April 2010, the AIA agreement is the vehicle for this 

integration of ASEAN member investment regimes. The AIA was signed in October 

1998 and is still in force, pending the ratification of the new ACIA by all members 

(discussed in further detail below). 

The AIA was the first agreement to promote ASEAN as a single investment area, 

increase regional cooperation on investment issues, and provide guarantees of national 

treatment and transparency in investment regulations to investors. All industries in the 

areas of manufacturing, agriculture, fishery, forestry, and mining and quarrying, 

including services incidental to those sectors, are covered, except as outlined in each 

country’s Temporary Exclusion and Sensitive Lists. A General Exception List also 

excludes industries that remain closed to investment for reasons of national security, 

public morals, public health, or environmental protection.59 Investment in services is 

covered through the separate services negotiations conducted under the Coordinating 

Committee on Services, discussed below.60

The AIA operates in tandem with the IGA, signed in 1987, which provides investment 

protections. The IGA applies only to FDI between ASEAN member countries. The 

agreement offers most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment to investors, but not national 

treatment. 61 It provides for compensation in case of expropriation; guarantees an 

investor’s right to repatriate earnings, subject to local laws; and provides for arbitration in 

 58 ASEAN, “ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint,” November 20, 2007, section II.A3. 59 Under the AIA, items included in the Temporary Exclusion List (TEL) should be opened to ASEAN 

investors by 2010 and to all investors by 2020, for both market access and national treatment. Brunei, 

Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand should have phased out their TEL by 

January 1, 2003, for the manufacturing sector. Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam should have phased out their 

TEL by January 1, 2010. Items on the Sensitive List do not have a hard date for phaseout, but should be 

periodically reviewed by the AIA Council. ASEAN Secretariat Web site, “ASEAN Investment Area: An 

Update,” http://www.aseansec.org/6480.htm (accessed April 22, 2010). The Temporary Exclusion and 

Sensitive Lists are posted on the ASEAN Web site http://www.aseansec.org/20633.htm (accessed 

April 22, 2010). 60 ASEAN, “ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint,” November 20, 2007, section II.A3. Under the 

ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services, member countries schedule commitments on services through 

four modes of delivery. Mode 3 is “commercial presence,” i.e., a services provider establishing an affiliate in 

the host country, which in practice is foreign direct investment. This system of commitments follows the 

model set forth in the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Like the WTO model, 

ASEAN services commitments follow a positive list format, meaning that countries are bound only to the 

particular industries and commitments included in their Schedules of Commitments. 61 Under MFN treatment, a foreign investor is guaranteed to receive treatment equal to that of any other 

foreign investor. Under national treatment, a foreign investor is guaranteed the same treatment as a domestic 

investor would receive. 
2-19

cases of dispute, but does not provide for investor-state arbitration. The latter is 

guaranteed to investors under the recently signed ACIA agreement.62

The ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA) 

Signed in February 2009, the ACIA provides enhanced investor protections as compared 

with the AIA and the IGA. The agreement is organized around four pillars—

liberalization, protection, facilitation, and promotion of investment—and follows 

international standards for investment protection agreements, including the U.S. Model 

Bilateral Investment Treaty and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.63

The ACIA applies to the same list of industries as the AIA, basically covering the entire 

economy except for most services, which are covered under the AFAS, discussed below. 

The ASEAN Secretariat has identified a number of ACIA provisions that mark 

significant improvements in investor protections, compared with the AIA. 

 Comprehensive investment liberalization and protection provisions: 

o Performance requirements are prohibited (Article 7).64

o Member countries may not require investors to appoint senior 

management from the host country, although they may require 

that a majority of the Board of Directors be nationals of the host 

country (Article 8).65

o Investor-state dispute settlement procedures are more 

comprehensive (Articles 28–41). 

 Clear timelines for investment liberalization, although these are not 

binding.66

 Benefits extended to foreign-owned (non-ASEAN) investors, for 

investments that are based in an ASEAN member country, from entry 

into force of the agreement. 

 Preservation of the special and differential treatment granted under the 

AIA for the newer members of ASEAN, allowing those countries to 

delay commitments under the ACIA in deference to their state of 

development (Article 23). 

 A more liberal and transparent investment environment.67

 62 Text of the Investment Guarantee Agreement, available on the ASEAN Secretariat Web site, 

http://www.aseansec.org/6464.htm (accessed April 23, 2010). 63 ASEAN Secretariat, “Highlights of the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA),” 

August 26, 2008. 64 Performance requirements, such as local content targets or export quotas, are imposed as a condition 

for the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, or operation of an investment. Office of 

the U.S. Trade Representative, “Bilateral Investment Treaties,” n.d., http://www.ustr.gov/tradeagreements/bilateral-investment-treaties (accessed July 22, 2010). 65 This holds “provided that this requirement does not materially impair the ability of the investor to 

exercise control over its investment.” 66 ASEAN Secretariat official, telephone interview with USITC staff, March 17, 2010. 67 ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN Investment Report 2008, 16; and text of the ACIA. 
2-20

The provisions of the ACIA agreement apply to all covered investments through a 

negative list framework,68 but each member state also compiles lists of reservations, or 

exclusions to the agreement. Such reservation lists typically exempt certain industries 

considered strategic or in need of protection from coverage by the overall agreement. 

Because the ACIA has not yet entered into force, the reservation lists that will be attached 

to the agreement have not been made public, so it is difficult to assess the final impact of 

the ACIA.69 Like the AIA, the ACIA includes a list of general and security exceptions, 

whereby measures that are needed to protect public morals, public order, the 

environment, protection of national treasures, and national security can be excluded.70

According to a representative of the ASEAN Secretariat, the reservation lists are likely to 

reflect current law in most ASEAN member countries, and to retain most of the 

reservations that existed under the AIA.71 If that is the case, the immediate benefits of the 

ACIA to foreign investors will consist of the expanded protections offered to covered 

investments, such as the investor-state dispute settlement process, but will not expand the 

scope of those covered investments. 

Investment-related Provisions of the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services (AFAS) 

For services industries, other than services incidental to the goods sectors covered by the 

ACIA and its predecessor agreements, liberalization of FDI regulations is also covered 

under the AFAS and is also addressed by successive rounds of negotiations primarily 

under the aegis of the Coordinating Committee on Services. The AFAS recognizes the 

AEC Blueprint’s goal of facilitating the free flow of services within the region by 2015.72

Included in the overall liberalization of services trade are several provisions that apply 

particularly to investment. The AEC Blueprint sets goals under which ASEAN members 

will change their regulations to permit foreign investors to hold a minimum equity 

ownership in investments in certain industries (table 2.6), as well as a broad goal to 

progressively remove, by 2015, other provisions that limit market access to commercial 

establishment in an ASEAN market.73 In addition, the investment protections extended to 

covered investments under the ACIA are also extended to investment in the service 

sectors covered under the AFAS.74 Because the AFAS operates through a positive list 

framework, only services covered under each country’s Schedule of Commitments 

receive these protections. 

 68 Under a negative list system, all sectors except those specifically named as not included in each 

country’s Schedule of Commitments are automatically covered in the agreement. By contrast, under a 

positive list framework, a country must positively include each service sector for which it agrees to coverage 

in its Schedule of Commitments attached to the agreement. In that case, sectors not included in the list are not 

covered by the agreement. 69 ASEAN Secretariat official, telephone interview with USITC staff, March 17, 2010. 70 Text of the ACIA, Articles 17 and 18. 

71 ASEAN Secretariat official, telephone interview with USITC staff, March 17, 2010. 72 This recognition is included in the protocol to implement the seventh package of commitments under 

the AFAS, signed February 26, 2009. 73 ASEAN, “ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint,” November 20, 2007, section II.A2. 74 ACIA, Article 3(5). 
2-21

TABLE 2.6 Minimum permitted equity limits for foreign investors (within ASEAN) in 

services, goal under AEC Blueprint, selected years (percent) 

 2008 2010 2013 2015 

Four priority service sectors 51 70 (a) (a)

Logistics 49 51 70 (a)

Other service sectors 49 51 (a) 70 

Source: ASEAN, “ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint,” November 20, 2007, 

section II.A2. 

Note: The four priority service sectors are air transport, e-ASEAN, healthcare, and 

tourism. 

 aNo change in permitted equity limits. 

Expected effects of ACIA on intra-ASEAN FDI75 

Because the ACIA has not yet entered into force, it is difficult to predict the effects of the 

new agreement on intra-ASEAN flows of FDI in coming years. However, data for 2008 

show that intra-ASEAN FDI flows recorded a substantial increase of 13.4 percent, even 

in the face of overall declines in FDI flows from developed countries into ASEAN. As a 

result, the share of intra-ASEAN FDI flows increased to 18.2 percent of the total in 2008, 

up from 13.5 percent in 2007, and close to the 21.9 percent share of the European Union 

in overall FDI flows to ASEAN (table 2.7). 

TABLE 2.7 FDI inflows to ASEAN, 2004–08 

FDI Inflows 

(million $) 

Share of total FDI Inflows 

(percent) 

Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

European Union 

(EU)-25 8,630 8,187 

 

10,672 

 

18,481 

 

12,942 25 20 

 

19 

 

26 

 

22 

ASEAN 2,804 6,242 

 

7,596 

 

9,462 

 

10,727 8 12 

 

14 

 

14 

 

18 

Japan 5,732 7,235 

 

10,230 

 

8,382 

 

7,157 16 21 

 

19 

 

12 

 

12 

United States 5,232 3,865 

 

3,419 

 

6,346 

 

3,013 15 7 

 

6 

 

9 

 

5 

All other 12,719 15,539 

 

23,063 

 

27,269 

 

25,169 36 40 

 

42 

 

39 

 

43 

 Total FDI 

inflows to 

ASEAN 35,117 41,068 

 

54,980 

 

69,939 

 

59,008 100 100 

 

100 

 

100 

 

100 

Sources: ASEAN Foreign Direct Investment Statistics Database, http://www.asean.org/18144.htm (accessed 

March 25, 2010); ASEAN Investment Report 2007, http://www.aseansec.org/21406.pdf (accessed April 22, 2010).

Note: For 2004 and 2005, EU data reflect the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Germany only, which are believed to 

account for the great majority of total EU FDI inflows into ASEAN. Data for EU-25 are not available prior to 2006, and 

separate data for the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Germany are not available for 2004 and 2005. Investment in 

Burma by U.S. persons is a violation of U.S. law. See U.S. Department of the Treasury, “What You Need to Know About U.S. 

Sanctions Against Burma (Myanmar),” December 5, 2008, 

http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/burma/burma.pdf (accessed July 22, 2010); Congressional 

Research Service, “Burma: Economic Sanctions,” August 3, 2009, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22737.pdf (accessed 

July 22, 2010). 

 75 This discussion of FDI trends reflects total FDI inflows into ASEAN. Data giving additional detail by 

country and industry are not available. 
2-22

The ASEAN Secretariat attributes the rise of intra-ASEAN FDI flows in part to the rising 

confidence of ASEAN investors based on shared cultural and geographic similarities, and 

expects continued growth in intra-ASEAN FDI flows as integration efforts continue. The 

increased share of intra-ASEAN FDI may also reflect the drop in FDI flows from most 

developed countries, particularly the EU and the United States, due to the 2008–09 global 

financial crisis.76

Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Malaysia received the largest shares of intra-ASEAN 

FDI flows in 2008. The largest investors were Singapore and Malaysia, with Singapore 

accounting for 57.2 percent of total intra-ASEAN FDI flows that year.77

Regional Improvements in Trade Facilitation, Logistics 

Services, and E-Commerce 

USTR specifically requested analysis of the impact of trade facilitation, logistics services, 

and e-commerce on regional integration, export competitiveness, and inbound investment 

for the six industries analyzed in this report. The following discussion describes selected 

developments in these three areas that have affected multiple industries and ASEAN 

member countries. 

Trade Facilitation 

Trade facilitation is “the simplification, standardization, and harmonization of procedures 

and associated information flows required to move goods from seller to buyer and to 

make payments.” 78 This report distinguishes improvements in trade facilitation from 

logistics services by treating the former as reforms to policies and procedures for 

importing and exporting, and the latter as discrete services that importers and exporters 

pay for in order to move goods from sellers to buyers. 

The time and cost required to import and export vary widely among ASEAN members. 

The World Bank’s Ease of Trading Across Borders index for 2009 ranked Singapore first 

and Laos 168th among 183 countries, with all other ASEAN members falling between 

them. 79 While importing and exporting in several of the ASEAN countries—led by 

Singapore and Thailand—is generally cheaper, faster, and less complicated than the 

average for countries in East Asia and the Pacific, only Singapore consistently 

outperforms the wealthy nations in the OECD (table 2.8).80

 76 ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN Investment Report 2009, 10–11. 77 Ibid., 11–12. 

78 United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business, cited in Asian Development 

Bank (ADB), Designing and Implementing Trade Facilitation, 2009, 3. 79 There are no data for Burma. 

80 World Bank, Doing Business database (accessed April 20, 2010). For its time and cost estimates, 

Doing Business uses the hypothetical case of a 20-foot container of non-hazardous products that are not 

subject to special phytosanitary or environmental standards. 
2-23

TABLE 2.8 Ease of trading across borders, 2009

Country or Regiona

Global 

Rank (of 

183)

Documents 

to export 

(number)

Time to 

export 

(days)

Cost to 

export 

(US$ per 

container)

Documents 

to import 

(number)

Time to 

import 

(days)

Cost to 

import 

(US$ per 

container)

Singapore 1 4 5 456 4 3 439

Thailand 12 4 14 625 3 13 795

Malaysia 35 7 18 450 7 14 450

Indonesia 45 5 21 704 6 27 660

Brunei 48 6 28 630 6 19 708

Philippines 68 8 16 816 8 16 819

Vietnam 74 6 22 756 8 21 940

Cambodia 127 11 22 732 11 30 872

Laos 168 9 50 1,860 10 50 2,040

United States 18 4 6 1,050 5 5 1,315

East Asia and Pacific (average) 7 23 909 7 24 953

OECD (average) 4 11 1,090 5 11 1,146

Source: World Bank, Doing Business database, accessed April 20, 2010.

 aNo data available for Burma.

ASEAN members addressed trade facilitation to a limited extent in the 1990s,81 but 

increased their focus on it in the next decade82 when they recognized that they would 

need to reduce NTMs in order to enjoy the maximum benefits of tariff liberalization.83

The ASEAN Trade Facilitation Work Programme (ATFWP), adopted in August 2008,84

calls for an ambitious set of trade facilitation measures in areas including customs 

modernization, simplified rules of origin, and harmonization of product standards and 

technical regulations.85 It also includes ASEAN’s most visible effort to facilitate trade: 

establishment of the ASEAN Single Window (ASW).86

ASEAN Single Window 

ASEAN members’ senior economic officials have deemed the ASW “the single most 

important initiative of customs that will ensure expeditious clearance of goods and reduce 

the cost of doing business in ASEAN.”87 ASEAN members signed the Agreement to 

Establish and Implement the ASEAN Single Window (ASW Agreement) in December 

2005. The agreement defines the ASW as “the environment where National Single 

 81 Examples of ASEAN work on trade facilitation in the 1990s include the ASEAN Agreement on 

Customs (1997), the ASEAN Framework Agreement on the Facilitation of Goods in Transit (1998), and the 

Agreement on the Recognition of Commercial Vehicle Inspection Certificates for Goods Vehicles and Public 

Service Vehicles Issued by ASEAN Member Countries (1998). 82 For evidence of this increased focus on trade facilitation, see, for example, the Recommendations of 

the High-Level Task Force on ASEAN Integration (2003), which call for numerous measures related to 

customs and standards. 83 ASEAN Secretariat official, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 1, 2010. 84 ASEAN Economic Ministers, “Joint Media Statement,” August 25–26, 2008. 85 Some of the measures are particularly important for specific sectors examined in this study. Please see 

the profiles of ASEAN industries in chapters 3 through 8 for examples. 86 ASEAN, “ASEAN Trade Facilitation Work Programme 2007–2015, Revised 08 July 2009,” 

July 8, 2009. 87 ASEAN Economic Ministers, “Joint Media Statement,” September 28, 2005. 
2-24

Windows (NSWs) of Member Countries operate and integrate,” and says that National 

Single Windows enable: 

 a. a single submission of data and information; 

 b. a single and synchronous processing of data and information; and 

 c. a single decision-making point for customs release and clearance.88 

Members agreed that the ASEAN-6 (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, 

Thailand, and Singapore) would activate their NSWs by 2008, while the ASEAN-4 

(Cambodia, Laos, Burma, and Vietnam) would do so no later than 2012. The effective 

deadline for completion of the ASW is 2015.89 As of March 2010, Singapore was the 

only member with a fully operational NSW. Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, 

and Thailand had partially completed their NSWs, while Vietnam had completed a 

National Single Window Master Plan and was piloting an “E-Customs” system intended 

to be a core element of its NSW. Cambodia, Laos, and Burma have made much less 

progress.90 

The ASW will enable ASEAN member countries’ customs agencies to exchange 

information required for the ASEAN Customs Declaration Document (ACDD), 

certificates of origin for preferential trade agreements, and other key documents for 

trading and transporting goods. The ASW will use a “federated approach” 91 that permits 

the exchange of information among ASEAN members’ customs agencies without storing 

the information on a central server. Design of an ASW prototype (the ASW Pilot Project) 

is scheduled for completion in fall 2010.92

Private sector representatives consulted for this study were enthusiastic about the ASW’s 

potential to produce significant benefits for companies and member economies.93 For 

example, the director of a multinational manufacturer in Vietnam suggested that the 

ASW, as part of a broader regional program to eliminate barriers to cross-border trade, 

could enable his firm to concentrate production at the most efficient locations and then 

ship the products throughout the region.94

However, firms had a number of concerns. First, many felt that work on the ASW and 

NSWs had proceeded too slowly. Observers attributed delays to disagreements among 

ASEAN member countries over the ASW’s architecture rather than technical challenges. 

Sources suggested that one country in the region feared that the ASW could compromise 

the security of traders’ information and could undermine the competitive advantages that 

the country enjoys due to the strength of its own NSW. 95 Secondly, private sector 

representatives were uncertain whether the ASW would include features that would make 

 88 ASEAN, “Agreement to Establish and Implement the ASEAN Single Window,” December 9, 2005. 

89 The ASW Agreement named no specific deadline for completion of the ASW. However, another 

official document commits members to “accelerate the full implementation of the ASEAN Community’s 

programme areas, measures and principles” with a view to realizing an “ASEAN Economic Community” by 

2015. ASEAN, “Cebu Declaration on the Acceleration of the Establishment of an ASEAN Community by 

2015,” January 13, 2007. 90 Le, “Briefing on ASEAN Single Window,” March 9, 2010; government official, interview by USITC 

staff, Hanoi, Vietnam, March 8, 2010. 91 Le, “Briefing on ASEAN Single Window,” March 9, 2010. 92 Benjelloun, “Technical Instructions,” March 31, 2010, 5. 93 Mealy, written testimony to the USITC, February 4, 2010, 3; industry representatives, interview by 

USITC staff, Singapore, March 4, 2010. 94 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Hanoi, Vietnam, March 8, 2010. 95 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Singapore, March 4, 2010. 
2-25

it maximally useful, such as the ability to file an import declaration electronically from a 

point outside the country of importation 96 or the opportunity to register with an 

“integrated trader database” that would make traders eligible for expedited clearance 

throughout the region.97 Finally, while firms appreciated the opportunities that they had 

had for dialogue with ASEAN member countries and the ASEAN Secretariat, they 

wanted the discussions to occur more regularly, perhaps through a dedicated body 

through which the private sector could provide suggestions for the ASW. They also 

hoped for clearer indications that the dialogue was leading to tangible progress.98

There are signs that these concerns are being addressed. The launch of the 

aforementioned ASW Pilot Project and completion of a recently expanded “ASEAN Data 

Model” specifying standard data elements for key trade documents99 suggest that work on 

the ASW is accelerating. Members are also intensifying their efforts to develop a legal 

framework for the ASW. 100 For example, in August 2009, members adopted a 

memorandum of understanding on the legal terms for the exchange of data through the 

ASW Pilot Project, providing a foundation upon which to base the ASW’s 

comprehensive legal framework. 101 In regard to private sector engagement, ASEAN 

Secretariat staff are increasing their efforts to exchange ideas with the private sector, such 

as through a roundtable discussion with the US-ASEAN Business Council in Singapore 

in March 2010.102 Continued public-private engagement and consistent demonstration of 

progress will be vital to sustaining the business community’s enthusiasm for the ASW.103

Trade facilitation activities sponsored by other entities 

Several ASEAN member countries participate in trade facilitation programs that are not 

coordinated by ASEAN. For example, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam (along 

with China’s Yunnan province) participate in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) 

program, which is sponsored principally by the Asian Development Bank. Its agenda 

includes “hard” infrastructure improvements (e.g., road and rail infrastructure), as well as 

facilitation of the cross-border transport of goods and people. The GMS Cross-Border 

Transport Agreement (CBTA) aims to permit trucks to make a single stop to complete all 

border procedures (as opposed to stopping at multiple agencies’ posts on each side of the 

border). As of 2010, implementation of the CBTA’s single-stop procedures had not 

progressed beyond pilot applications at select locations (e.g., the crossing between Lao 

Bao, Vietnam, and Dansavanh, Laos). Observers noted the challenges of harmonizing 

countries’ regulations and reaching agreement for procedures at the single-stop sites.104

 96 Industry representative, e-mail message to USITC staff, April 7, 2010. 97 Hiebert, written testimony to the USITC, March 12, 2010, 5. 98 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 4, 2010; Hiebert, written 

testimony to the USITC, March 12, 2010, 6. 99 At the time of writing (April 2010), members were reviewing (but had not yet adopted) the expanded 

data model. The model spans 13 trade documents: the intra-ASEAN preferential certificate of origin (CEPT 

Form-D), the ACDD, air waybill, bill of lading, cargo manifest, commercial invoice, fishery certificate, nonpreferential certificate of origin, packing list, phytosanitary certificate, purchase order, trade license, and 

veterinary certificate. Katsiak, “ASW Project Improves ASEAN Capacity,” January 2, 2010. 100 Le, “Briefing on ASEAN Single Window,” March 9, 2010. 101 ASEAN, “Memorandum of Understanding on the Implementation of the ASEAN Single Window 

Pilot Project,” February 5, 2010; ASW Project, “ASW Legal Memorandum of Understanding Agreed,” 

September 27, 2009. 102 US-ASEAN Business Council Web site, http://www.usasean.org/newcalendar/index.php (accessed 

April 14, 2010). 103 Hiebert, written testimony to the USITC, March 12, 2010, 5–6. 104 Government officials, interview by USITC staff, Hanoi, Vietnam, March 9, 2010. 
2-26

The ASEAN Secretariat provides little direct assistance for modernization of member 

countries’ customs agencies because of the Secretariat’s limited financial resources (as 

noted earlier, its total budget for 2010 is $14.5 million).105 Multilateral and bilateral 

donors sponsor most such assistance. Examples include the World Bank’s Laos Customs 

and Trade Facilitation Project106 and Vietnam Customs Modernization Project107 and the 

U.S. Agency for International Development’s Local Implementation of National 

Competitiveness for Economic Growth (LINC-EG) Program for the Philippines.108 

Logistics Services 

Logistics services are “a range of related activities that ensure the efficient movement of 

production inputs and finished products.” 109 Companies that specialize in logistics, 

known as third-party logistics service providers (3PLs), offer services such as supplychain consulting, transportation management (e.g., warehousing, cargo handling, and 

customs brokerage), freight transport, and express delivery.110 Large 3PLs operating in 

ASEAN include firms from outside the region (e.g., DB Schenker, DHL, Kuehne + 

Nagel, and Nippon Express), as well as firms based within it (e.g., Singapore’s APL 

Logistics and Toll Global Logistics).111

In August 2007, ASEAN members named logistics services (like the six sectors 

discussed in detail in this study) a Priority Integration Sector. The Roadmap for the 

Integration of Logistics Services commits members to “substantial liberalization” of 

logistics services by 2013. 112 The Roadmap names specific logistics services to be 

liberalized, including customs brokerage, storage and warehousing, packaging, freight 

forwarding, cargo handling, international freight transport, and express delivery. It also 

lists numerous measures in the domains of “trade and customs facilitation” and “logistics 

facilitation,” including the completion of new ASEAN agreements (e.g., the ASEAN 

Framework Agreement on Facilitation of Inter-State Transport) and implementation of 

existing ones (e.g., the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Facilitation of Goods in 

Transit). 

The quality of logistics services varies substantially among the ASEAN countries. The 

World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index (LPI) for 2010 ranks Singapore second and 

Burma 133rd among 155 countries (table 2.9). Recent research points to a strong inverse 

 105 ASEAN Secretariat official, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 1, 2010; ASEAN 

Secretariat staff, e-mail to USITC staff, April 29, 2010. The ASEAN Charter stipulates that members make 

equal contributions to the annual budget; ASEAN, “ASEAN Leaders Sign ASEAN Charter,” 

November 20, 2007. 106 Laos Customs and Trade Facilitation Project Web site, 

http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=64283627&piPK=73230&theSitePK=40941&men

uPK=228424&Projectid=P101750 (accessed April 28, 2010). 107 Vietnam Customs Modernization Project Web site, 

http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=64283627&piPK=64290415&theSitePK=40941&

menuPK=228424&Projectid=P085071 (accessed April 28, 2010). 108 USAID Philippines Web site, http://philippines.usaid.gov/eg_linc-eg.html (accessed April 28, 2010). 109 USITC, Logistic Services, 2005, vii. 110 Ibid., 1–3. 111 De Souza et al., An Investigation into the Measures, 2007, 9–10. Toll Global Logistics is based in 

Singapore but is owned by an Australian parent company. Toll Group Web site, 

http://www.toll.com.sg/crp_brc.php (accessed April 22, 2010). 112 ASEAN, “Roadmap for the Integration of Logistics Services,” August 24, 2007. The ASEAN 

Economic Blueprint uses stronger language: it says that members will “remove substantially all restrictions” 

on trade in logistics services by 2013. ASEAN, “ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint,” 

November 20, 2007, section II.A2. 
2-27

TABLE 2.9 ASEAN in the World Bank’s 2010 Logistics Performance Index (LPI)

Country or 

Regiona

Global Rank 

(of 155) LPI aggregateb Customs Infrastructure

International 

shipments

Logistics 

competence

Tracking & 

tracing Timeliness

Singapore 2 4.09 4.02 4.22 3.86 4.12 4.15 4.23

Malaysia 29 3.44 3.11 3.50 3.50 3.34 3.32 3.86

Thailand 35 3.29 3.02 3.16 3.27 3.16 3.41 3.73

Philippines 44 3.14 2.67 2.57 3.40 2.95 3.29 3.83

Vietnam 53 2.96 2.68 2.56 3.04 2.89 3.10 3.44

Indonesia 75 2.76 2.43 2.54 2.82 2.47 2.77 3.46

Laos 118 2.46 2.17 1.95 2.70 2.14 2.45 3.23

Cambodia 129 2.37 2.28 2.12 2.19 2.29 2.50 2.84

Burma 133 2.33 1.94 1.92 2.37 2.01 2.36 3.29

East Asia & Pacific (average) 2.73 2.41 2.46 2.79 2.58 2.74 3.33

Source: World Bank, Logistics Performance Index database, accessed April 20, 2010.

 aNo data available for Brunei. b For the LPI aggregate and each component, the range of possible scores is 1 (worst) to 5 (best).

 

relationship between the restrictiveness of the logistics policies of ASEAN countries and 

perceptions of logistics services quality, as reflected in the LPI.113 This finding suggests 

that implementation of the Roadmap could lead to improvements in the perceived quality 

of logistics services in member countries. 

Trade facilitation enables 3PLs to deliver their services more cheaply and quickly—and 

equally importantly, with more consistent costs and delivery times. For this reason, trade 

facilitation is a prerequisite for high-quality logistics services. The wide variation in 

ASEAN members’ LPI scores for efficiency of customs clearance is notable because 

logistics services providers consistently rank customs procedures and inspections as the 

most significant impediments to the delivery of logistics services.114 

Restrictions on foreign ownership also affect logistics services providers’ ability to offer 

high-quality services. For example, if regulations require a foreign company to operate as 

a minority partner in a joint venture, the foreign company may have less power to ensure 

that its standards of service quality are maintained. 115 While the ASEAN Economic 

Blueprint called upon all ASEAN members to allow 51 percent foreign ownership in 

logistics services by 2010 and 70 percent by 2013, several countries have not complied 

with this commitment (see below). The scope for enforcement of the commitments is 

unclear. The AEC Blueprint “recommends” that members use the ASEAN Enhanced 

Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) “in enhancing the implementation arrangement ... 

identified in the Blueprint” but does not specifically state that liberalization commitments 

are subject to dispute resolution. Furthermore, members’ willingness to use the Enhanced 

DSM is questionable. Members have never used the Enhanced DSM since its creation in 

2004, nor did they use the original ASEAN DSM created in 1996.116 

Industry representatives were particularly concerned about foreign ownership restrictions 

in Thailand, the Philippines, and Indonesia. Thailand prohibits majority foreign 

ownership of “domestic transportation” activities, which includes movements of goods 

 113 Hollweg and Wong, “Measuring Regulatory Restrictions in Logistics Services,” May 2009, 27. 114 USITC, Logistic Services, 2005, 3-1; De Souza et al., An Investigation into the Measures, 2007, i. 115 USITC, Logistic Services, 2005, 3-15. 116 Greenwald, “The ASEAN-China Free Trade Area,” 2006, 206–08. 
2-28

within Thailand that may be part of an international shipment. 117 Service providers 

expressed confusion about the rules in the Philippines. While foreign participation in 

logistics services is capped at 40 percent, the service providers reported that the 

Philippine Department of Justice had ruled the limit nonapplicable to air freight 

forwarders. However, when one express delivery firm applied for a license, it was told 

that the application would have to be reviewed in court, where delays of several years are 

common.118 

Indonesia’s 2009 Postal Law defines all logistics services as “postal services” and 

reserves these activities for Indonesians.119 The law allows foreign firms to offer services 

in collaboration with domestic partners in “province[s] or capital[s] with an international 

airport and/or harbour only.”120 The law does not preserve the distinctions made in the 

ASEAN logistics sector’s Roadmap between postal services and other logistics services 

and ignores the liberalization commitments in the AEC Blueprint.121 

Malaysia has long required that a certain percentage of companies’ ownership shares be 

reserved for bumiputera (indigenous Malays) in various industries. In April 2009, the 

government removed those requirements for 27 service industries, including several 

logistics services (e.g., road freight transport and maritime agency services).122 However, 

3PL industry representatives said that the requirement for majority bumiputera ownership 

of customs brokerages, which was not eliminated, prevents some firms from offering 

their standard services.123 

Vietnam and Cambodia liberalized many logistics services as part of their World Trade 

Organization (WTO) accession commitments. In Vietnam, foreign ownership for express 

delivery firms is presently capped at 51 percent; the cap is to be lifted entirely in 2012. 

Road freight transport opened to majority (51 percent) foreign ownership in 2010, 

although Vietnam reserved the right to screen investments using “economic needs 

tests.” 124 Cambodia’s WTO accession package included commitments not to restrict 

foreign ownership for road freight transport and courier services (generally understood to 

include express delivery).125 

The Commission did not find evidence of notable foreign ownership restrictions on 

logistics services in Brunei or Singapore. The latter is recognized as one of the most open 

markets for logistics services in the East Asia and Pacific region.126 Limited information 

was available for restrictions in Laos and Burma. One industry source noted that full 

 117 Conference of Asia Pacific Express Carriers (CAPEC), “Express Delivery Services (EDS): ASEAN 

Regulatory Matrix and International Best Practices,” May 2009. 118 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 4, 2010. 119 Republic of Indonesia, Law Number 38 of 2009 regarding Postal Services, Article 4. 120 Ibid., Article 12. 121 ASEAN, “Roadmap for the Integration of Logistics Services,” August 24, 2007; Law of the Republic 

of Indonesia 38/2009 Regarding Postal Services; industry representative, interview by USITC staff, 

Singapore, March 4, 2010. 122 Prime Minister’s Office of Malaysia, “Liberalisation of the Services Sector,” April 22, 2009, 4–5. 123 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 4, 2010. 124 WTO, “Working Party on the Accession of Viet Nam,” October 27, 2006, 19 and 50. 125 WTO, “Report of the Working Party,” August 19, 2003, 9 and 22. Unlike Vietnam, Cambodia did not 

explicitly state that its commitments in courier services covered express delivery. Industry representatives 

consulted for this report did not cite concerns about this lack of specificity and made no mention of barriers 

to foreign investment in express delivery services in Cambodia. 126 Hollweg and Wong, “Measuring Regulatory Restrictions in Logistics Services,” May 2009, 21. 
2-29

foreign ownership of express delivery service firms in Burma is permitted, but described 

licensing procedures as “restrictive.”127 

E-Commerce 

E-commerce is “the buying, selling, or exchanging of goods, services, and information 

through electronic networks.”128 It occurs through three channels: business-to-business 

(B2B), business-to-consumer (B2C), and consumer-to-consumer (C2C). Use of ecommerce varies by country and industry. Its prevalence depends on a combination of 

factors, including the quality and extent of infrastructure; the existence of a sound legal 

framework; and individuals’ access to information and communication technologies 

(ICTs), facility with the use of ICTs, and willingness to make electronic transactions. 

Broadband service is a critical element of the infrastructure required for e-commerce. 129

People who subscribe to broadband are more likely to shop online;130 the high-speed 

Internet connections enabled by broadband service permit shoppers to complete 

transactions more quickly than non-broadband service. Among the ASEAN countries, the 

number of broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants (broadband penetration) varied 

from 0.02 in Burma to 21.7 in Singapore in 2008. Broadband penetration was far higher 

in Singapore than in any other ASEAN country, but increased in all members between 

2004 and 2008 (figure 2.3). 

 127 Conference of Asia Pacific Express Carriers (CAPEC), “Express Delivery Services (EDS): ASEAN 

Regulatory Matrix and International Best Practices,” May 2009. 128 Acoca, Empowering E-Consumers, December 2009, 6. 129 According to the OECD, “Broadband service is usually understood to be a connection providing highspeed Internet access, that is, a communication service that enables access to the Internet at data transmission 

rates above a specific threshold.” Díaz-Pinés, Indicators of Broadband Coverage, December 10, 2009, 38. 130 OECD, OECD Information Technology Outlook 2008, 2008, 239–40. This report presented evidence 

from several OECD countries showing that individuals in households with broadband access were more 

likely to buy goods and services online than individuals in households with non-broadband Internet access. 
2-30

0

5

10

15

20

25

Broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants

2004 2008

FIGURE 2.3 Broadband penetration: Subscribers remained highest in Singapore between 2004 and 

2008 but increased in all ASEAN countries 

Source: International Telecommunications Union (ITU), ICT Eye database, accessed April 21, 2010.

A sound legal framework for e-commerce gives consumers and businesses confidence 

that transactions are secure and makes compliance with business laws and regulations 

possible without excessive paper-based documentation. ASEAN members have made 

progress in developing their legal frameworks for e-commerce in recent years. For 

example, in 2004, only Brunei, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand had adopted 

laws on electronic contracting; at present, all members have done so except Cambodia 

and Laos.131 Vietnam was particularly active in developing its legal framework for ecommerce during this period. Between 2004 and 2008, it enacted a Law on Electronic 

Transactions, a Law on Information Technology, and 11 decrees and circulars to 

implement provisions of these laws.132 

Nevertheless, getting the legal framework right is challenging for even the most active 

reformers. For example, despite Vietnam’s numerous reforms, businesses there do not 

conduct transactions through electronic data interchange (EDI) systems. 133 Industry 

representatives reported that electronic payments are difficult to implement because 

financial and accounting regulations require companies to obtain many physical 

signatures (e.g., from a company’s chief accountant and its director), and tax regulations 

require paper-based receipts. One multinational automobile manufacturer in Vietnam 

continues to use paper-based payments in Vietnam despite having implemented EDI at 

virtually every other location in the world.134

ICT access, facility with ICTs, and willingness to make electronic transactions are more 

difficult to measure. One proxy for the first two factors is the percentage of the 

 131 Galexia, Harmonisation of E-Commerce Legal Infrastructure, April 2008; ASEAN Secretariat official, 

telephone interview by USITC staff, April 21, 2010. 132 Vietnam E-Commerce and IT Agency (VECITA), Vietnam E-commerce Report 2008, 11. 133 Government officials, interview by USITC staff, Hanoi, Vietnam, March 9, 2010. 134 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Hanoi, Vietnam, March 8 and 9, 2010. 
2-31

population that regularly uses the Internet. In five ASEAN countries—Burma, Cambodia, 

Indonesia, Laos, and the Philippines—less than 10 percent of the population used the 

Internet in 2008 (figure 2.4). In contrast, more than 50 percent of the populations in 

Malaysia and Brunei and nearly three-quarters of the population in Singapore used the 

Internet that year. Growth of Internet usage in Vietnam has been particularly impressive. 

It increased from 7.6 percent in 2004 to 23.9 percent in 2008, moving Vietnam from a 

position well below the global mean to just above it (figure 2.4). 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Internet users per 100 inhabitants

2004 2008

Source: International Telecommunications Union (ITU), ICT Eye database, accessed April 21, 2010.

FIGURE 2.4 Internet usage: The majority of people in Brunei, Malaysia, and Singapore used the Internet 

in 2008, while less than 10 percent did so in five other ASEAN countries 

Willingness to make electronic transactions is a function of the aforementioned factors 

and, more broadly, of the amount of trust one places in electronic transactions and one’s 

openness to changing established business habits. In at least some ASEAN countries, 

trust may be one of the important factors slowing the growth of e-commerce. Returning 

to the example of Vietnam, consumers frequently make travel reservations over the 

Internet, but rarely purchase other goods or services online. 135 One source said that 

consumers mistrust online transactions because they fear that their financial information 

will be stolen.136 Their reluctance may also be a function of established habits: officials at 

the Vietnam E-commerce and Information Technology Agency (VECITA) remarked that 

most Vietnamese Internet users are young people, yet executives of many companies are 

older. They do not often use the Internet and are accustomed to doing business offline.137 

Promotion of e-commerce is embedded in ASEAN’s economic integration agenda. The eASEAN Framework Agreement in 2000 enjoined members to “facilitate the growth of ecommerce in ASEAN” by enacting “laws and policies relating to electronic commerce 

 135 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Hanoi, Vietnam, March 9, 2010. 136 U.S. Embassy official, e-mail to USITC staff, April 27, 2010. 137 Government officials, interview by USITC staff, Hanoi, Vietnam, March 9, 2010. 
2-32

transactions based on international norms.”138 The AEC Blueprint in 2007 called upon 

members to harmonize laws for electronic contracting and dispute resolution and 

reiterated the e-ASEAN Framework Agreement’s call for members to facilitate mutual 

recognition of digital signatures.139 ASEAN members have also committed to regional 

cooperation on ICT infrastructure development. The e-ASEAN Framework Agreement 

says that members will “work towards establishing ... an ASEAN Information 

Infrastructure Backbone.”140

ASEAN’s most significant contributions to the development of e-commerce appear to 

have been in the domain of e-commerce laws. Between 2004 and 2008, the 

Harmonisation of E-Commerce Legal Infrastructure in ASEAN project, sponsored by the 

Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) under the ASEAN-Australia 

Development Cooperation Program, assisted members in developing e-commerce 

legislation in accordance with international best practices.141 The project played a key 

role in helping Indonesia to prepare its draft law (adopted in 2007) and draft laws for 

Laos and Cambodia (awaiting ratification by those countries’ National Assemblies). 

ASEAN Secretariat staff noted that ASEAN has not received donor funds dedicated to 

development of e-commerce laws since the aforementioned project concluded. This may 

limit the Secretariat’s ability to continue meaningful work in this area.142 

Regarding development of ICT infrastructure, ASEAN’s work has mostly been limited to 

facilitating discussions among member countries on topics such as prioritization of ICT 

investments. More recently, the Secretariat has been seeking to promote dialogue with 

private sector partners that are potential sources of ICT investment, such as the World 

Bank’s International Finance Corporation and the U.S.-ASEAN Business Council.143 It is 

unclear whether this outreach has led to any new investments. 

 138 ASEAN, “e-ASEAN Framework Agreement,” November 24, 2000, Article 5. 139 ASEAN, “ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint,” November 20, 2007, section II.B6. 140 ASEAN, “e-ASEAN Framework Agreement,” November 24, 2000, Article 4. 141 Galexia, Harmonisation of E-Commerce Legal Infrastructure in ASEAN, April 2008. 142 ASEAN Secretariat official, telephone interview by USITC staff, April 21, 2010. 143 Ibid. 
2-33

Bibliography 

Acoca, Brigitte. Empowering E-Consumers: Strengthening Consumer Protection in the Internet Economy.

Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), December 2009. 

Aldaba, Rafaelita M., Josef T. Yap, and Peter A. Petri. “Investment and Capital Flows: Implications of 

the AEC.” In Realizing the AEC: A Comprehensive Assessment, edited by Michael G. Plummer 

and Chia Siow Yue, prepared for the ASEAN Secretariat, 2009. 

Amin, Ruzita Mohd, Zarina Hamid, and Norma MD Saad. “Economic Integration among ASEAN 

Countries: Evidence from Gravity Model.” East Asian Development Network (EADN) Working 

Paper 40, February 2009. 

Aquino, Thomas G., Philippine Senior Undersecretary of Trade and Industry. Written testimony 

submitted to the U.S. International Trade Commission in connection with inv. no. 332-511, 

ASEAN: Regional Trends in Economic Integration, Export Competitiveness, and Inbound 

Investment for Selected Industries, March 3, 2010. 

Asian Development Bank (ADB). Designing and Implementing Trade Facilitation in Asia and the Pacific. 

Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2009. 

———. Emerging Asian Regionalism: A Partnership for Shared Prosperity, 2008. 

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). “Agreement to Establish and Implement the ASEAN 

Single Window,” December 9, 2005. http://www.aseansec.org/18005.htm. 

———. “ASEAN Accelerates Integration of Priority Sectors.” Media release, November 29, 2004. 

http://www.aseansec.org/16620.htm. 

———. “ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint.” November 20, 2007. 

http://www.aseansec.org/21083.pdf. 

———. “ASEAN Economic Community Scorecard: Charting Progress towards Regional Economic 

Integration,” March 2010. 

———. ASEAN Foreign Direct Investment Statistics Database. http://www.asean.org/18144.htm

(accessed March 25, 2010). 

———. “ASEAN Integration in Services,” August 2009. http://www.aseansec.org/20440.htm. 

———. “ASEAN Investment Area: An Update.” http://www.aseansec.org/6480.htm (accessed 

April 22, 2010). 

———. ASEAN Investment Report 2007, n.d. http://www.aseansec.org/21406.pdf (accessed 

April 22, 2010). 

———. ASEAN Investment Report 2008, n.d. http://www.aseansec.org/22111.pdf (accessed 

April 23, 2010). 

———. ASEAN Investment Report 2009, n.d. http://www.aseansec.org/documents/AIR2009.pdf 

(accessed April 23, 2010). 
2-34

———. “ASEAN Leaders Sign ASEAN Charter.” News release, November 20, 2007. 

http://www.aseansec.org/21085.htm. 

———. “ASEAN Protocol on Enhanced Dispute Settlement Mechanism,” 2004. 

http://www.aseansec.org/16754.htm. 

———. “ASEAN Trade Facilitation Work Programme 2007–2015, Revised 08 July 2009,” July 8, 2009. 

———. “Cebu Declaration on the Acceleration of the Establishment of an ASEAN Community by 

2015,” January 13, 2007. http://www.aseansec.org/19260.htm. 

———. Declaration of ASEAN Concord, Indonesia. February 24, 1976. 

http://www.aseansec.org/1649.htm. 

———. Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II), Indonesia, October 7, 2003. 

http://www.aseansec.org/15159.htm. 

———. “e-ASEAN Framework Agreement,” November 24, 2000. http://www.aseansec.org/6267.htm. 

———. “Economic Achievement.” http://www.aseansec.org/11832.htm (accessed March 10, 2010). 

———. “Fact Sheet: An ASEAN Economic Community by 2015,” August 20, 2008. 

———. “Fact Sheet: ASEAN Dispute Settlement System,” February 24, 2009. 

———. “Fact Sheet: ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services,” February 26, 2009. 

———. “Fact Sheet: Initiative for ASEAN Integration and Narrowing the Development Gap,” 

January 12, 2010. 

———. “Highlights of the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA).” August 26, 2008. 

http://www.aseansec.org/20632.htm (accessed March 10, 2010). 

———. “Informal ASEAN Economic Ministers Meeting.” Media statement, January 19–20, 2004. 

http://www.aseansec.org/15661.htm. 

———. Investment Guarantee Agreement, 1987. http://www.aseansec.org/6464.htm. 

———. “Memorandum of Understanding on the Implementation of the ASEAN Single Window Pilot 

Project,” February 5, 2010. http://www.customs.go.th/UploadFile/News/N0310009.pdf 

———. Roadmap for an ASEAN Community 2009–2015, 2009. 

http://www.aseansec.org/publications/RoadmapASEANCommunity.pdf

———. “Roadmap for the Integration of Logistics Services,” August 24, 2007. 

http://www.aseansec.org/20883.pdf. 

ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement, 2009. http://www.aseansec.org/documents/FINALSIGNED-ACIA.pdf (accessed April 23, 2010). 
2-35

ASEAN Economic Ministers. “Joint Media Statement of the 41st ASEAN Economic Ministers’ (AEM) 

Meeting, Bangkok,” August 13–14, 2009. http://www.aseansec.org/JMS-41st-AEM.pdf. 

———. “Joint Media Statement of the Fortieth ASEAN Economic Ministers’ (AEM) Meeting.” News 

Release, August 25–26, 2008. http://www.aseansec.org/22738.htm. 

———. “Joint Media Statement of the Thirty-Seventh ASEAN Economic Ministers’ (AEM) Meeting.” 

News Release, September 28, 2005. http://www.aseansec.org/17778.htm. 

ASEAN Single Window (ASW) Project. “ASW Legal Memorandum of Understanding Agreed.” ASW 

Project Web site, September 27, 2009. http://advanceiqc.com/advance/asw/legal/asw-legalmemorandum-of-understanding-agreed. 

ASEAN Trade In Goods Agreement, February 26, 2009. http://www.aseansec.org/22223.pdf. 

Atje, Raymond. “ASEAN Economic Community: In Search of a Coherent External Policy.” In Deepening 

Economic Integration: The ASEAN Economic Community and Beyond, edited by Hadi Soesastro, 

156–72. Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) Research Project Report 

2007, no. 1–2, 2007. http://www.eria.org/research/images/pdf/PDF%20No.1-2/No.1-2-part2-

10.pdf. 

Benjelloun, Rachid. “Technical Instructions: Consultancy Services on the Technical Architecture for the 

ASEAN Single Window Pilot Project.” ASW Project Web site, March 31, 2010. 

http://advanceiqc.com/uploads/rfp-asw-pilot-project-component-1.pdf. 

Calvo-Pardo, Hector, Caroline Freund, and Emanuel Ornelas. “The ASEAN Free Trade Agreement: 

Impact on Trade Flows and External Trade Barriers.” The World Bank. Policy Research Working 

Paper 4960, June 2009. 

Capannelli, Giovanni, Jong-Wha Lee, and Peter Petri. “Developing Indicators for Regional Economic 

Integration and Cooperation.” Asian Development Bank. Working Paper Series on Regional 

Economic Integration 33, September 2009. 

Chia, Siow Yue. “Regional Trade Policy Cooperation and Architecture in East Asia.” Asian Development 

Bank Institute. ADBI Working Paper Series 191, February 2010. 

Conference of Asia Pacific Express Carriers (CAPEC). “Express Delivery Services (EDS): ASEAN 

Regulatory Matrix and International Best Practices,” May 2009. 

Corbett, Jenny, and So Umezaki. “Overview: Deepening East Asian Economic Integration.” In Deepening 

East Asian Economic Integration, edited by Jenny Corbett and So Umezaki, 1–57. Economic 

Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) Research Project Report 2008, no. 1, March 

2009. http://www.eria.org/pdf/research/y2008/no1/DEI-00-Front_Cover.pdf. 

Cordenillo, Raul L. “The Future of the ASEAN Free Trade Area and the Free Trade Areas between 

ASEAN and Its Dialogue Partners,” n.d. http://www.aseansec.org/18425.htm (accessed March 10, 

2010). 

De Souza, Robert, Mark Goh, Sumeet Gupta, and Luo Lei. An Investigation into the Measures Affecting 

the Integration of ASEAN’s Priority Sectors (Phase 2): The Case of Logistics. Jakarta: ASEANAustralia Development Cooperation Program, 2007.

http://www.aseansec.org/aadcp/repsf/publications.html.
2-36

Díaz-Pinés, Agustín. Indicators of Broadband Coverage. Paris: OECD, December 10, 2009. 

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/39/44381795.pdf. 

Duek, Ana. “ASEAN Economic Integration: Evolving Patterns of Trade in AFTA.” Asia Competitiveness 

Institute (ACI) Working Paper Series, December 2008. 

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). “ASEAN and Trade Integration.” 

Trade and Investment Division. Staff Working Paper 01/09, April 8, 2009. 

ESCAP. “Trade Statistics in Policymaking,” n.d. http://www.unescap.org/tid/publication/tipub2559.pdf

(accessed March 10, 2010). 

European Commission. “Overview of FTA and Other Trade Negotiations,” updated April 21, 2010. 

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/december/tradoc_118238.pdf. 

Galexia. Harmonisation of E-Commerce Legal Infrastructure in ASEAN, April 2008. 

http://www.galexia.com/public/research/articles/research_articles-art53.html. 

Greenwald, Alyssa. “The ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (AFTA): A Legal Response to China’s 

Economic Rise?” Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 16, no. 1 (2006): 193–217. 

Guerrero, Rosabel B. “Regional Integration: The ASEAN Vision in 2020.” IFC Bulletin, no. 32 

(January 2010): 52–58. 

Hiebert, Murray. U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Written testimony submitted to the U.S. International 

Trade Commission in connection with inv. no. 332-511, ASEAN: Regional Trends in Economic 

Integration, Export Competitiveness, and Inbound Investment for Selected Industries, 

March 12, 2010. 

———. U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Written testimony submitted to the U.S. International Trade 

Commission in connection with inv. no. 332-511, ASEAN: Regional Trends in Economic 

Integration, Export Competitiveness, and Inbound Investment for Selected Industries, 

March 10, 2010. 

Hollweg, Claire, and Marn-Heong Wong. “Measuring Regulatory Restrictions in Logistics Services.” 

Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) Discussion Paper Series ERIADP-2009-14, May 2009. http://www.eria.org/pdf/ERIA-DP-2009-14.pdf. 

International Telecommunications Union (ITU). ICT Eye database. http://www.itu.int/ITUD/ICTEYE/Indicators/Indicators.aspx (accessed April 21, 2010). 

Katsiak, Ann. “ASW Project Improves ASEAN Capacity to Harmonize Data Requirements for Clearing 

Goods across Borders.” ASW Project Web site, January 2, 2010. 

http://advanceiqc.com/advance/asw/technical/asw-project-improves-asean-capacity-toharmonize-data-requirements-for-clearing-goods-across-borders. 

Le, Quang Anh. “Briefing on ASEAN Single Window to US-ASEAN Business Council.” Presentation 

for a roundtable discussion at the US-ASEAN Business Council, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 
2-37

Malaysian Institute of Economic Research, ADBI, and East-West Center. “Regional Market for Goods, 

Services, and Skilled Labor.” In Realizing the AEC: A Comprehensive Assessment, edited by 

Michael G. Plummer and Chia Siow Yue. Prepared for the ASEAN Secretariat. Singapore: 

Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2009. 

Malaysian Ministry of International Trade and Industry. “16th ASEAN Economic Ministers’ Retreat.” 

Media release, February 28, 2010. 

http://www.miti.gov.my/cms/content.jsp?id=com.tms.cms.article.Article_14d32d58-c0a81573-

2f1d2f1d-4e630e07. 

Mealy, Mark. US-ASEAN Business Council. Written testimony submitted to the U.S. International Trade 

Commission in connection with inv. no. 332-511, ASEAN: Regional Trends in Economic 

Integration, Export Competitiveness, and Inbound Investment for Selected Industries, 

February 4, 2010. 

Narjoko, Dionisius, and Pratiwi Kartika. “Narrowing the Development Gap in ASEAN through the 

AEC.” In Realizing the AEC: A Comprehensive Assessment, edited by Michael G. Plummer and 

Chia Siow Yue. Prepared for the ASEAN Secretariat. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian 

Studies, 2009. 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). OECD Information Technology 

Outlook 2008. Paris: OECD, 2008. 

Petri, Peter A. “Competitiveness and Leverage: Benefits from an ASEAN Economic Community.” In 

Realizing the AEC: A Comprehensive Assessment, edited by Michael G. Plummer and Chia Siow 

Yue. Prepared for the ASEAN Secretariat. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2009. 

Pitsuwan, Dr. Surin, Secretary-General of ASEAN. “Progress in ASEAN Economic Integration since the 

Adoption of the ASEAN Charter.” Speech at the Business Dialogue with the Federation of 

Japanese Chambers of Commerce and Industry in ASEAN. June 29, 2009. 

Plummer, Michael G. and Chia Siow Yue. “Assessing the Economics of the ASEAN Economic 

Community: Introduction.” In Realizing the AEC: A Comprehensive Assessment, edited by 

Michael G. Plummer and Chia Siow Yue. Prepared for the ASEAN Secretariat. Singapore: 

Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2009. 

Prime Minister’s Office of Malaysia. “Liberalisation of the Services Sector.” News release, April 22, 

2009. http://www.mida.gov.my/en_v2/uploads/images/invest/invest-pdf/liberaliseservicePS.pdf. 

Severino, Rodolfo C. “The ASEAN Developmental Divide and the Initiative for ASEAN Integration.” 

ASEAN Economic Bulletin 24, no. 1 (2007): 35–44. 

Soesastro, Hadi. “Accelerating ASEAN Economic Integration: Moving beyond AFTA.” CSIS Working 

Paper Series WPE-091, March 2005. 

———. “Implementing the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) Blueprint.” In Deepening Economic 

Integration: The ASEAN Economic Community and Beyond, edited by Hadi Soesastro, 47–59. 

ERIA Research Project Report 2007, no. 1–2, 2007. 

http://www.eria.org/research/images/pdf/PDF%20No.1-2/No.1-2-part2-3.pdf. 

Sussangkarn, Chalongphob. “Revitalizing ASEAN Competitiveness.” East-West Dialogue 2, (September 

2008): 10–11. http://forum.eastwestcenter.org/eastwestdialogue/ewd2/commentary-chalongphob/. 
2-38

Thangavelu, Shandre M. “Non-Tariff Barriers, Integration and Export Growth in ASEAN.” Preliminary 

draft prepared for GEP Conference at University of Nottingham, Malaysia, January 2010. 

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Logistic Services: An Overview of the Global Market and 

Potential Effects of Removing Trade Impediments. USITC Publication 3770. Washington, DC: 

USITC, 2005. 

Vietnam E-Commerce and IT Agency (VECITA). Vietnam E-Commerce Report 2008. Hanoi: VECITA, 

2009. 

World Bank. Doing Business database. http://www.doingbusiness.org (accessed April 20, 2010). 

———. Logistics Performance Index database. http://info.worldbank.org/etools/tradesurvey/mode1b.asp

(accessed April 20, 2010). 

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Report of the Working Party on the Accession of Cambodia: 

Addendum; Part II—Schedule of Specific Commitments in Services; List of Article II MFN 

Exemptions.” WT/ACC/KHM/21/Add.2, August 19, 2003. 

———. “Working Party on the Accession of Viet Nam: Schedule CLX—Viet Nam; Part II—Schedule of 

Specific Commitments in Services; List of Article II MFN Exemptions; Addendum.” 

WT/ACC/VNM/48/Add.2, October 27, 2006. 
3-1 

CHAPTER 3 

Electronics: Computer Components 

Electronics Overview1

Electronics products are a major source of manufacturing in the ASEAN region. 2

ASEAN countries exported $267 billion in electronics products to the rest of the world in 

2008 (table 2.4), making it the largest in terms of value among ASEAN’s priority 

integration sectors. In addition, ASEAN countries serve as important production and 

research and development (R&D) locations for multinational electronics firms in virtually 

all industries within the electronics sector. 

Taken as a whole, the ASEAN region is a major producer of electronics. However, 

ASEAN remains 10 distinct countries with differing policies and competitive strengths. 

In order to “develop, strengthen, and enhance the competitiveness of the ASEAN 

electronics sector and promote ASEAN as an integrated platform in which to do business 

in electronics,” the ASEAN Secretariat, in conjunction with member countries, developed 

the Roadmap for Integration of Electronics Sector (Roadmap).3

 The Roadmap proposes 

58 measures to improve regional integration in the electronics sector, of which 13 are 

sector-specific. The other 45 are measures that address common issues of importance 

across many sectors. An example of a sector-specific measure is the promotion of 

electronics trade exhibitions, while an example of a cross-sectoral measure is the 

development of harmonized ASEAN customs declaration forms. 

Among the measures specific to the electronics sector, the most notable success has been 

the implementation of the ASEAN Electrical and Electronic Mutual Recognition 

Arrangement (MRA). The electrical and electronics MRA is the first ASEAN-wide 

MRA,4

 and it establishes ASEAN-wide acceptance of test certificates from approved 

laboratories that assess electric and electronic products for conformity with safety and 

other regulations. In addition to the MRA, the electronics sector also has the most active 

public-private dialogue group among the priority integration sectors: the ASEAN 

Electronics Forum (AEF).5

 The AEF meets regularly to prioritize integration measures 

and assist with implementation. 

Although there have been some ASEAN-wide efforts to integrate the electronics sector, 

competition between ASEAN countries remains an obstacle to integration. ASEAN 

produces 10 percent of the world’s electronics and consumes 5 percent.6

 Most electronics 

 1

 See app. F for a list of the Harmonized System numbers covered under this priority sector. 2

 The ASEAN Secretariat defines the scope of “electronics products” to include electronic data 

processing (EDP) equipment, electrical and electronic home appliances, medical and industrial equipment, 

telecommunication equipment, communications and radar, automotive electronics, instrumentation and 

controls, mechanical parts of electronic and electrical products, semiconductor devices (including inputs for 

the manufacture of semiconductor devices), and other machineries and equipment for the manufacture of 

semiconductors and printed circuit boards (PCBs). 3

 ASEAN, “Roadmap for Integration of Electronics Sector,” November 29, 2004. 4

 ASEAN Secretariat representative, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 1, 2010. 5

 Ibid. 

6

 Parsons et al., “Measures Affecting the Integration of ASEAN’s Priority Sectors (Phase 2),” June 2007, 

v. 
3-2 

production is for export, and export-oriented production is primarily driven by 

multinational firms. The electronics industry in ASEAN “relies on medium and large . . . 

firms from its neighbor countries in North East Asia and the US and EU for its further 

expansion and integration.” 7 Because the large multinational firms mainly produce 

electronics for worldwide export, intra-ASEAN trade in electronics only accounts for 

20 percent of the region’s trade in these products. 8 Countries worldwide, including 

ASEAN countries, compete for investment from multinational electronics firms, and 

ASEAN countries may grow at the expense of one another. Vietnam surpassed the 

Philippines and Indonesia in total foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows in the late 

1990s9

 and has become an important recipient of electronics sector investment in the past 

several years. Several multinational electronics companies confirmed that they compare 

the benefits of investing in various ASEAN countries before deciding on a location, or 

that they have shifted their activities within ASEAN due to changes in countries’ 

competitive advantages. 10 The competitive dynamic between countries for exportoriented investment makes substantial cooperation between ASEAN countries on 

integration efforts difficult. 

Computer Components11 

Key Findings 

Within the electronics sector in ASEAN, the computer components industry is among the 

most important in terms of export competitiveness and inbound investment. Computer 

components account for nearly 25 percent of electronics exports from ASEAN to the rest 

of the world and approximately 22 percent of intra-ASEAN trade in electronics.12 The 

ASEAN region occupies a globally competitive position in this industry as the world’s 

second largest exporter of computer components. ASEAN countries have also been 

important locations for direct investment from major computer components producers for 

more than 40 years. At present, ASEAN countries specialize in various aspects of 

computer components production, including hosting regional headquarters, performing 

R&D, and assembling products. Despite the region’s overall competitiveness in the 

computer components industry, it faces a challenge from China, which has increased its 

share of components production as it has become the single largest assembler of finished 

computers. Many components producers are increasing production in China, both in 

order to be closer to their customer (the computer assembler) and because China 

performs well on several measures of competitiveness in this industry, including labor 

mix, existence of competitive local suppliers, and transportation infrastructure. In 

response, ASEAN member countries have acknowledged the importance of regional 

integration in order to remain competitive. However, as seen throughout the broader 

electronics sector, regionwide efforts to integrate this industry are hampered by 

 7

 Ibid. 

8

 Ibid. 

9

 Mirza and Giroud, “Regional Integration and Benefits from Foreign Direct Investment in ASEAN 

Economies,” 2004, 74. 10 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand; Binh Duong province, 

Vietnam; and Singapore, March 4–16, 2010. 11 See app. F under “Electronics” for HS subheadings that apply to the computer components industry 

discussed in this chapter. 12 WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010). Exports based on partner country 

imports. The electronics product group is defined in ASEAN’s “Roadmap for Integration of Electronics 

Sector,” November 29, 2004. 
3-3 

competition between ASEAN countries to supply components to the global computer 

supply chain. An important way in which countries become involved in export-oriented 

computer components production is through direct investment from multinational 

components firms, which several ASEAN countries compete heavily to attract. 

Background 

The following sections will describe ASEAN economic integration, export 

competitiveness, and inbound investment as they relate to the competitive factors 

impacting the computer components industry in the region. Among the diverse set of 

computer components products, key items produced in the ASEAN region include hard 

disk drives (HDDs), computer central processing units (CPUs), and assembled printed 

circuit boards. Inbound investment is particularly important to regional competitiveness 

in this industry, as a limited number of large multinational firms account for most of the 

production of many types of components (either directly or through their suppliers and 

contract manufacturers). Many countries worldwide, including several ASEAN countries, 

vie for investments from these firms as a source of skilled manufacturing and R&D jobs 

and integration into the highly globalized supply chain for computer products. This 

dynamic is complex given that many factors—availability of skilled labor, existence of 

supporting industries, political stability, ease of doing business, and financial incentive 

packages offered to investors—are important aspects of a country’s ability to compete in 

this industry. 

Within ASEAN, there is substantial variation between member countries in terms of the 

types of components they produce and the extent to which they participate in nonmanufacturing activities, such as R&D. The three ASEAN countries most heavily 

involved in the computer components industry are Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. 

The Philippines plays a smaller role in exporting computer components, but it has been 

an investment destination for firms such as Intel (until recently) 13 and Integrated 

Microelectronics, Inc., and it also serves as country coordinator for the ASEAN 

electronics sector Roadmap. Over the past few years, Vietnam has emerged as an 

important location for the computer industry, attracting direct investment from 

multinationals such as Compal Electronics, Intel, and Jabil Circuit. Vietnam’s exports of 

components are small by volume at present, but given its rising importance as an 

investment destination, Vietnam’s role in the computer industry, and specifically in 

components production, is likely to continue to grow. Indonesia exports a relatively small 

volume of computer components, although it is more heavily involved in other parts of 

the electronics industry. Brunei,14 Laos, Cambodia, and Burma do not produce computer 

components. The latter three of these countries lack a large enough pool of skilled labor 

for this industry at present, and their limited transportation infrastructure is also a barrier 

to investment.15

In the computer components industry, Singapore specializes in hosting regional 

headquarters of multinational firms, performing R&D, investing in other ASEAN 

countries, and certain skill-intensive manufacturing tasks such as that of producing 

 13 The Straits Times, “Intel to Close Philippines Plant,” January 23, 2009. 14 No specific information is available regarding the reasons for Brunei’s lack of components production. 

However, it is likely that the country’s small population restricts the availability of qualified labor. Some 

areas of concern in Brunei among electronics producers can be found in Parsons et al., “Measures Affecting 

the Integration of ASEAN’s Priority Sectors (Phase 2),” June 2007, 37. 15 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 16, 2010; industry 

representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 4, 2010. 
3-4 

specialized computer processors.16 Due to high labor costs, manufacturing activity has 

gradually dwindled in Singapore since the 1980s. 17 Malaysia has also become 

increasingly involved in regional R&D functions while also maintaining an important 

role in high-technology manufacturing.18 For example, while Malaysia’s role in the HDD 

industry has shrunk as manufacturing has moved to lower cost locations, it remains a 

competitive location for the more skill-intensive CPU industry. Thailand currently plays a 

leading role in HDD production; between 2004 and 2008, its share of global computer 

storage unit exports grew from under 10 percent to over 23 percent.19 Vietnam’s role in 

the industry largely remains to be determined, but Intel, the world’s largest producer of 

CPUs, will open a new assembly and test facility in 2010—its largest anywhere—near 

Ho Chi Minh City, an investment totaling about $1 billion.20 The value of the products 

that Intel plans to export from this facility substantially exceeds that of Vietnam’s total 

computer components exports in 2008, so it is likely that Intel’s CPUs will dominate 

Vietnam’s computer components exports for at least the next several years. 21 The 

competitive factors behind these production patterns are examined in greater detail later 

in this chapter. 

Currently, China is regarded as presenting the greatest challenge to ASEAN’s regional 

competitiveness in the computer components industry. Between 2004 and 2008, China’s 

share of global exports of computer components grew from 27 to 35 percent, while the 

ASEAN region’s share remained flat at 20–21 percent.22 As China has come to dominate 

final assembly of computers over the past 10 years, it has also captured an increasing 

share of components production and investment. 

ASEAN has responded to this challenge from China through its attempts to more fully 

integrate the electronics sector in the region. The goal of the ASEAN electronics 

Roadmap was to work with the private sector to “strengthen regional integration” in order 

to “promote ASEAN as an integrated platform in which to do business in electronics.”23

However, while the electronics sector is one of the more active among the priority 

integration sectors in discussing how to implement Roadmap measures, there are few 

examples of substantial cooperation between member countries regarding efforts to 

improve integration because, as noted, ASEAN member countries still view each other as 

rivals for inbound investment. Closer regional integration within ASEAN would likely 

benefit the region’s overall competitiveness in the global computer components industry, 

but competition between member countries for direct investment from multinationals, 

such as through the use of tax breaks and other financial incentives, impedes further 

integration. 

 16 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Singapore, March 4–5, 2010. Singapore also 

specializes in producing the electronic components that are inputs into computer components, such as 

integrated circuits. 17 Parsons et al., “Measures Affecting the Integration of ASEAN’s Priority Sectors (Phase 2),” June 2007, 

38; Rasiah, “Expansion and Slowdown in Southeast Asian Electronics Manufacturing,” 2009, 124. 18 Parsons, 38; Rasiah, 132. 

19 WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010). Exports based on partner country 

imports. 20 Intel Web site, http://www.intel.com/community/vietnam/index.htm (accessed April 29, 2010). 21 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, March 11, 2010. 22 WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010). Exports based on partner country 

imports. 23 Roadmap for Integration of Electronics Sector, ASEAN Framework Agreement for the Integration of 

Priority Sectors, 2004. 
3-5 

Regional Integration, Export Competitiveness, and Inbound 

Investment 

Leading Competitive Factors 

The ASEAN region has long been an attractive destination for the production of 

computer components and other electronics. Singapore began producing electronics for 

export in the 1960s, and Malaysia became a competitor shortly thereafter, attracting 

foreign investment from Intel, AMD, Hewlett-Packard, Hitachi, and others during the 

1970s.24 Beginning in the 1980s, components firms from Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and 

Singapore sought to lower their costs by moving more manufacturing offshore, largely to 

locations such as Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand.25 As costs rose and labor 

became scarce in Malaysia in the 1990s, Thailand attracted more investment, particularly 

in the HDD industry.26 Since the early 2000s, Vietnam has emerged as a new competitor 

in the industry. This section will examine the competitive factors that, in addition to 

government policies, determine the competitiveness of ASEAN countries within the 

global supply chain for computer components. These include diversity, cost, and 

productivity of the labor pool, development of supporting industries, transportation 

infrastructure, macroeconomic conditions, market size, and other factors. 

Labor 

One of the most important competitive factors in the computer components industry is 

the availability and relative cost27 of both skilled professionals and assembly workers. 

Compared with other manufacturing sectors, the computer components industry is skillintensive in that, due to the rapid pace of innovation, it relies more heavily on an 

adequate supply of well-trained engineers and specialized technicians.28 Companies must 

be able to find engineers and technicians locally or easily bring them into a country in 

order for that country to become or remain competitive. In addition, in order to produce 

components competitively, a country must have an available pool of relatively unskilled, 

productive assembly workers that can be hired at a competitive wage. Thus, it is not only 

skill availability or labor cost that determines the competitiveness of a country’s labor 

pool in this industry. Rather, it is the diversity of the labor pool—the availability of 

workers at a wide range of skill levels needed in the components industry and their 

corresponding cost—that gives a country a competitive advantage in attracting 

investment and jobs in the computer components industry.29

Each of the countries in ASEAN has its own unique labor challenges. In Singapore, it is 

difficult to find labor at most skill levels that is cost-competitive with that found in other 

components-producing countries. The manufacturing jobs that remain in Singapore tend 

to be very specialized technical positions. One of the multinational firms that continues to 

operate a manufacturing facility in Singapore has moved many of the jobs that used to be 

 24 Rasiah, “Expansion and Slowdown in Southeast Asian Electronics Manufacturing,” 2009, 124. 25 Ibid., 125. 

26 Ibid., 125. 

27 For the purposes of this section, the “cost” of labor refers not simply to workers’ compensation but to 

the definition of “labor cost” as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which factors in 

differences in worker productivity. BLS defines labor cost as total labor compensation divided by real output. 

For more information, see the BLS Web site, http://www.bls.gov/lpc/faqs.htm#P06 (accessed June 1, 2010). 28 BLS, “Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing.” (accessed March 23, 2010). 29 Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), Benchmarking FDI Competitiveness in Asia, 2003, 

9. 
3-6 

done there to China. The firm retains a few high-level manufacturing positions in 

Singapore, however, because it has found the skill set of engineers in Singapore well 

suited to its business, and it also appreciates the fact that its staff in Singapore can speak 

both Chinese and English.30

In Malaysia, as the labor force has developed the skills needed to participate in R&D and 

other professional activities, labor for assembly has become scarce.31 Assembly workers 

are typically brought in from other Asian countries, some from ASEAN and some from 

outside the region. Indonesia is a major source of assembly workers for Malaysian 

components factories.32 In addition to the shortage of assembly workers, one company 

noted that while Malaysia has skilled engineers, there is a great deal of competition for 

these workers because multiple industries in Malaysia rely on them.33 The combination of 

the need to bring assembly workers in from other countries and the shortage of skilled 

engineers in Malaysia creates a potential constraint on the country’s competitiveness in 

this industry. 

In Vietnam, labor is cost-competitive, but there is a shortage of experienced managers 

and engineers. Companies generally state that they have little difficulty recruiting new 

college graduates for professional positions or securing an adequate supply of relatively 

unskilled assembly workers. Vietnamese engineers reportedly are cost-competitive, as 

they typically make salaries about half of those in China.34 Electronics assembly workers 

are also highly cost-competitive in Vietnam; the minimum wage for this type of work is 

less than half the average manufacturing wage in prime manufacturing areas of China, 35

although foreign firms generally report paying more than the minimum wage. However, 

in 2006, the overall labor productivity level in Vietnam was only 53 percent of that of 

China. 36 While Vietnam’s labor productivity is rapidly increasing, it is currently 

comparable with China’s only for labor-intensive activities.37 In addition to relatively low 

labor productivity in Vietnam, finding experienced professional managers and engineers 

was uniformly cited as a major challenge for components producers, and firms have 

responded by instituting extensive in-house training programs, bringing in experienced 

professionals from other countries, or both.38 

Finally, Thailand is generally considered “competitive in labor costs, availability, and 

productivity.”39 However, there is a shortage of engineers, and companies report that a 

larger pool of electronics engineers would improve the country’s competitive position.40

 30 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 4, 2010. 31 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 32 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010; Mitarai, “Issues in the 

ASEAN Electric and Electronics Industry and Implications for Vietnam,” February 2005, 16. 33 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 16, 2010. 34 Bradsher, “As Labor Costs Soar in China, Manufacturers Look to Vietnam,” June 18, 2008. 35 Martin, “For Jabil Circuit, Vietnam is the New China,” June 8, 2008. 36 Asian Productivity Organization, APO Productivity Databook 2009, 2009, 56. 37 Irwin, Free Trade under Fire, 37. 38 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, March 11, 2010. 39 Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), Benchmarking FDI Competitiveness in Asia, 2003, 

11. 40 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 16, 2010; Mitarai, 

“Issues in the ASEAN Electric and Electronics Industry and Implications for Vietnam,” February 2005, 7. 
3-7 

Supporting industries 

Another important competitive factor in the computer components industry is the 

existence of a base of suppliers capable of working with multinational firms. When firms 

are located very close to a competitive base of suppliers, such as in a cluster, it 

“facilitates the sharing of information, speeds logistics, minimizes plant inventory, and 

ensures a ready supply of locally produced parts and components.”41 The degree to which 

ASEAN countries have adequate supplier bases to meet components firms’ needs varies. 

Singapore has a number of indigenous firms focused on supplying a wide range of 

services and advanced technology components to multinationals. 42 A competitive 

network of suppliers also exists in the Penang region of Malaysia, which is an electronics 

cluster.43 One HDD company operating in Thailand reported that they have been satisfied 

with the availability of competitive suppliers from Singapore and Malaysia, but that Thai 

firms generally lack the capital to compete with larger suppliers from other countries.44 In 

Vietnam, an industry group noted that local firms’ capacity to act as suppliers to 

multinationals is generally very low due to inadequate basic infrastructure and lack of 

experience producing to export standards. 45 Jabil Circuit’s experience 46 in Vietnam 

confirms this. The company has found the supporting local electronics industry to be 

underdeveloped and, as a result, has had to import 80 percent of its inputs. 47 In the future, 

the company hopes to be able to source more of its inputs locally in order to speed 

production. To address this gap, governments in Thailand and Vietnam are both pursuing 

policy initiatives to develop the local electronics supplier base. At present, Vietnam has 

created a master plan to develop the supporting industry in electronics, but lacks funds to 

implement these measures.48 Developing supplier networks is especially important to 

ASEAN countries’ relative competitiveness in this industry because it is an area in which 

China excels.49 

Other competitive factors 

Beyond the availability of labor and existence of supporting industries, there are several 

other competitive factors that affect the computer components industry. While they were 

mentioned by industry representatives less often, they clearly affect the region’s overall 

competitiveness in this industry. They include: 

 Transportation infrastructure. Some computer components are shipped by air, 

while others are shipped by ocean. In either case, speed to market is important in 

this industry, so competitiveness depends on adequate infrastructure. 

Transportation infrastructure remains a major challenge in Vietnam, which just 

opened its first deepwater port in 2009 and lacks adequate roads in many areas.50

 41 Foster et al., Technology and Organizational Factors in the Notebook Industry Supply Chain, 2006, 14. 42 Doner and Ritchie, “Economic Crisis and Technological Trajectories: Hard Disk Drive Production in 

Southeast Asia,” 2001, 6. 43 Ibid., 7. 

44 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 16, 2010. 45 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Hanoi, Vietnam, March 9, 2010. 46 Jabil Circuit’s plant in Vietnam assembles printers for Hewlett-Packard. While printers are a computer 

accessory rather than a component, their experience with the local base of electronics suppliers is applicable 

to components firms. 47 Martin, “For Jabil Circuit, Vietnam Is the New China,” June 8, 2008. 48 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Hanoi, Vietnam, March 9, 2010. 49 Parsons et al., “An Investigation into the Measures Affecting the Integration of ASEAN’s Priority 

Sectors (Phase 2),” June 2007, 36. 50 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, March 10, 2010. 
3-8 

 Size of the domestic market. While most components production is for export to 

computer assemblers, a large domestic market for electronic products is an added 

incentive for some firms in the industry in choosing where to locate production. 

For example, producers in Vietnam noted that the growth potential of the 

domestic market for computers and other electronics had some impact on their 

location decision.51

 Macroeconomic conditions. In particular, inflation in Vietnam is a concern for 

many multinational firms. 

 Intellectual property protection. Enforcement of intellectual property rights 

affects a country’s competitiveness in the components industry. Counterfeit 

components are a major concern for firms, as virtually every part of a computer 

from CPUs to HDDs can be counterfeited. Addressing problems with 

components is costly because “a component that may be worth only $2 can cost 

$20 to replace if it is found to be counterfeit after it is mounted onto a circuit 

board.”52 Countries that effectively enforce intellectual property rights therefore 

have a competitive advantage over those where enforcement is weak. Within 

ASEAN, intellectual property enforcement varies widely. A more uniform, 

higher standard of enforcement would likely improve the region’s overall 

competitiveness. 

Regional Integration 

Given the sector’s importance in the regional economy, the ASEAN Secretariat has 

initiated several efforts to improve integration in electronics production. The most 

industry-specific of these is the electronics sector Roadmap. Initiated in 2004, the 

Roadmap is designed to “develop, strengthen, and enhance the competitiveness of the 

ASEAN electronics sector and promote ASEAN as an integrated platform in which to do 

business in electronics.” 53 Despite its ambitious agenda, attempts to implement the 

Roadmap have had somewhat mixed results. As noted, one of the key achievements 

under the electronics sector Roadmap was the implementation of the ASEAN Electrical 

and Electronics MRA. Computer components are not subject to the same consumer safety 

certification requirements as consumer electronics, however, so while the MRA was a 

step forward for regional integration in the broader electronics sector, it had little effect 

on computer components production. Meanwhile, some of the other Roadmap measures 

were never implemented.54

Under the Roadmap, the Philippines was designated as the country coordinator for 

implementation of Roadmap initiatives. In its role as country coordinator, the Philippines 

was instructed to convene representatives of the private sector from across ASEAN and 

obtain feedback on what improvements were needed in order to make the region a “truly 

integrated platform in which to do business in electronics.” 55 The result of this 

consultation is the ASEAN Electronics Forum (AEF). 

 51 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, March 10, 2010. 52 Pecht and Tiku, “Bogus!” May 2006. 

53 ASEAN, “Roadmap for Integration of Electronics Sector,” November 29, 2004. 54 ASEAN Secretariat official, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 2, 2010. 55 Santiago, “Development of ASEAN Framework for Trade Negotiations: Electronics Industry,” 

March 2007, 19. 
3-9 

The AEF is unique within the region in that it has been the only active sectoral group in 

any of the priority integration sectors.56 The purpose of the AEF is to promote dialogue 

between the public and private sectors and to help implement the measures contained in 

the Roadmap. The AEF has actively sought input from multinational firms as well as 

local companies, and it has had an ambitious agenda in moving toward implementation of 

many of the measures contained in the Roadmap. However, although the AEF played an 

important role in its first several years, its level of activity seems to have waned recently. 

The AEF convened 10 times between its inception in 2003 and October 2008, holding at 

least one meeting each year. However, the AEF did not meet in 2009 and, although a 

meeting was scheduled for April 2010, it did not take place. 

In addition to the Roadmap, promoting investment in the electronics industry is also a 

focus of the ASEAN Secretariat. Initially, both the Secretariat and the AEF thought that 

electronics investment could be promoted by expanding the framework of the ASEAN 

Industrial Cooperation Scheme (AICO). AICO was intended to promote regional supply 

chains in manufacturing. However, the incentives offered under AICO were limited to 

duty waivers. For many electronics firms, especially computer components firms, this 

incentive was of little value, given that most of their products already enjoyed duty-free 

treatment. The intent was to expand the incentives offered under AICO at a later time.57

However, despite recommendations from the AEF that AICO’s scope be broadened,58

incentives never expanded beyond duty waivers. As a result, AICO has had little impact 

on the computer components industry. 

Beyond the official integration efforts led by the Secretariat, there is some evidence that 

ASEAN’s role in integrating member countries into the regional economy can boost that 

country’s competitiveness within the global supply chain for computer components. The 

primary evidence of this comes from Vietnam. Vietnam’s integration into the ASEAN 

Free Trade Area accelerated its adoption of international norms on trade and investment 

policy59 and thereby facilitated its entry into the WTO. WTO accession, in turn, has 

provided an enormous boost to Vietnam’s ability to sell in international markets and 

attract investors. 

Export Competitiveness 

The ASEAN region is a globally competitive exporter of computer components. Tables 

3.1 through 3.3 provide trade values for computer components for 2004–08. Overall, 

computer components exports from the ASEAN region totaled nearly $56 billion in 2008, 

confirming the importance of the industry to the regional economy and making the region 

the second largest source of computer components after China. On an individual country 

basis, Thailand and Malaysia were the fourth- and fifth-largest global exporters of 

computer components, respectively.60 

 56 ASEAN Secretariat official, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 2, 2010. 57 Ibid. 

58 Santiago, “Development of ASEAN Framework for Trade Negotiations: Electronics Industry,” 

March 2007, 25. 59 Fukase and Martin, “A Quantitative Evaluation of Vietnam’s Accession to the ASEAN Free Trade 

Area,” November 1999, 47–48. 60 After China, the EU, and the U.S. WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010). 

Exports based on partner country imports. 
3-10

Trade patterns during this period primarily reflect China’s increasing importance as a 

trading partner for ASEAN countries due to its growing dominance of computer final 

assembly, a trend which is discussed in greater detail below. As seen in tables 3.1 and 

3.2, ASEAN’s exports of components to China grew 93 percent between 2004 and 2008, 

and imports of components from China grew 51 percent. These increases in ASEAN’s 

components trade with China occurred despite the fact that the global recession led to 

significantly lower demand for computers in 2008 than in 2004,61 indicating the strength 

of the overall trend. Meanwhile, ASEAN exports to the EU, Japan, and the United States 

fell between 2004 and 2008.62 In 2008, this was primarily due to the effects of the 

recession on demand from those trading partners. Throughout the 2004–08 period, 

computer assembly activities also continued to shift away from these countries in favor of 

lower-cost locations such as China,63 in turn reducing these countries’ share of ASEAN’s 

components exports. 

TABLE 3.1 Computer components: ASEAN exports to selected markets, by value, 2004–08 

Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

% change, 

2004–08 

 thousand $ 

United States 16,959,870 16,699,224 17,877,001 12,841,911 11,282,201 (33) 

China 7,740,109 10,211,999 11,533,966 12,156,735 14,919,132 93 

EU-27 15,732,687 16,610,906 18,415,212 14,375,013 13,947,009 (11) 

Japan 5,211,506 5,120,751 4,840,379 3,047,110 3,075,177 (41) 

 Subtotal 45,644,172 48,642,880 52,666,558 42,420,769 43,223,520 (5) 

All other 14,550,024 16,118,365 17,062,641 12,993,593 12,508,378 (14) 

 Total 60,194,196 64,761,245 69,729,200 55,414,363 55,731,898 (7) 

Source: WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010). 

Note: Data are based on ASEAN partner country imports because Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Philippines, 

and Vietnam do not report trade data in all years. All other export value excludes intra-ASEAN trade.

TABLE 3.2 Computer components: ASEAN imports from selected markets, by value, 2004–08

Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

% change, 

2004–08 

 thousand $ 

China 4,276,712 5,109,884 5,915,214 6,111,411 6,460,434 51 

United States 2,656,017 3,328,901 2,946,240 2,728,021 2,945,541 11 

EU-27 1,497,883 1,646,904 1,558,772 1,598,000 1,451,028 (3) 

Japan 2,515,173 2,385,489 2,257,999 833,706 784,086 (69) 

 Subtotal 10,945,785 12,471,179 12,678,225 11,271,138 11,641,089 6 

All other 5,759,733 5,706,861 5,508,312 4,907,841 4,267,909 (26) 

 Total 16,705,518 18,178,040 18,186,537 16,178,979 15,908,998 (5) 

Source: WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010). 

Note: Data are based on ASEAN partner country exports because Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Philippines, 

and Vietnam do not report trade data in all years. All other export value excludes intra-ASEAN trade.

 61 Montevirgen, “Industry Surveys: Semiconductors,” November 2009, 21. 

62 A portion of the decrease between the 2004–06 period and the 2007–08 period could be due to 2007 

changes to the Harmonized System classification of some computer components that may not be fully 

reflected in the data. The overall trend in the data, however, is consistent whether or not the items for which 

the classification changed are included in the analysis. 63 IBISWorld, “Global Computer Hardware Manufacturing” (accessed June 2009). 
3-11

Intra-ASEAN exports in this industry are only 20 percent of ASEAN’s total exports 

because production of computer components is primarily for export to final computer 

assemblers, many of which are in China. However, there are a few computer assembly 

facilities in ASEAN countries,64 and some components firms engage in intra-ASEAN 

sourcing, both of which contributed to the $11 billion in ASEAN exports to other 

ASEAN countries in 2008. 

Trade barriers and nontariff measures (NTMs) are not major factors affecting the 

computer components industry, and ASEAN countries’ elimination of tariffs on computer 

components and lack of restrictive NTMs are important aspects of the region’s export 

competitiveness in this industry. Import duties on computer components have been 

virtually eliminated in intra-ASEAN trade, as shown in table 3.4. As for components 

imported from non-ASEAN countries, all of the products discussed in this chapter are 

covered by the WTO’s Information Technology Agreement (ITA).65 This means that the 

ASEAN member countries that are signatories to the ITA must eliminate duties on 

computer components on an MFN basis. 66 Computer components generally are not 

subject to restrictive NTMs in the ASEAN region, either. A recent study reviewing these 

measures in ASEAN concluded that the only NTM affecting the computer industry in the 

region was the use of automatic import licensing in Indonesia.67 Indonesia’s licensing 

system became more restrictive in 2009 with the implementation of Decree 56, which 

 64 For example, Dell operates a computer assembly facility in Penang, Malaysia. 

65 WTO, Information Technology Agreement: Schedules of Concessions (accessed April 5, 2010). 

66 The ASEAN-6, of which all except Brunei are signatories to the ITA, do not apply duties on these 

items. Vietnam became a member of the WTO and a signatory to the ITA in 2007. Under its schedule of 

concessions (WTO, “Information Technology Agreement: Schedules of Concessions, Vietnam,” 2007), it has 

agreed to eliminate all duties on computer components on an MFN basis by 2012. Cambodia and Burma are 

members of the WTO but are not signatories to the ITA, and both apply duties to imports of these products 

from non-ASEAN countries. Laos is not a WTO member and also applies duties to imports of these products. 67 Parsons et al., “Measures Affecting the Integration of ASEAN’s Priority Sectors (Phase 2),” June 2007, 

68. 

TABLE 3.3 Computer components: ASEAN member exports to ASEAN members, by value, 2004–08

Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

% change, 

2004–08 

 thousand $ 

Malaysia 4,309,582 4,997,453 4,420,801 2,108,608 4,474,471 4 

Thailand 2,870,551 3,065,174 2,896,029 1,662,688 2,404,821 (16) 

Singapore 1,387,402 1,392,126 1,691,559 2,395,553 1,890,899 36 

Indonesia 1,611,089 2,034,033 2,026,839 662,927 1,299,259 (19) 

Philippines 860,248 1,139,927 1,215,090 857,623 691,448 (20) 

Vietnam 38,706 157,049 357,646 408,826 451,937 (a)

Brunei 66 481 412 249 974 (a)

Cambodia 7 38 79 19 85 (a)

Burma 504 30 37 14 41 (92) 

Laos 8 7 4 8 10 

 Total 11,078,163 12,786,316 12,608,492 8,096,512 11,213,944 1 

Source: WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010). 

Note: Data are based on ASEAN partner country imports because Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, 

Philippines, and Vietnam do not report trade data in all years. Trade between these members may be 

understated. Totals may not add due to rounding. 

 a > 1,000 percent.
3-12

designated additional import licensing requirements for electronics and has the potential 

to raise costs for importers.68

TABLE 3.4 ASEAN country tariffs for computer components, 2004, 2008, and 2010 (ad valorem percent) 

ASEAN members 

2004 2008 2010a

Imports from other 

ASEAN countries 

Imports from nonASEAN countries 

(MFN) 

Imports from 

other ASEAN 

countries 

Imports from nonASEAN countries 

(MFN) 

Imports from 

other ASEAN 

countries 

Brunei 0 0 0 0 0 

Burma 1.5 1.5 0–1.5b 1.5 0 

Cambodia 15 15 0–5c 15 0–5c

Indonesia 0d 0d 0 0 0 

Laos 0 5 0 5 0 

Malaysia 0 0 0 0 0 

Philippines 0 0 0 0 0 

Singapore 0 0 0 0 0 

Thailand 0 0 0 0 0 

Vietname 0–5 5–10 0–5 0–8 0 

Source: Agreement on the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) Scheme for the ASEAN Free Trade Area, 

Consolidated Package of Tariff Reductions for 2008, http://www.aseansec.org/19802.htm; Royal Malaysia Customs 

Department, HS-Explorer (accessed April 2010); WTO, Tariff Analysis Online (accessed April 2010). 

 a2010 MFN rates for ASEAN imports from non-ASEAN countries were not available to USITC staff for every ASEAN 

member country. 

 b

Burma’s 2008 duty rates on the computer components were mostly 1.5 percent in 2008, but a few products may be 

imported free of duty from ASEAN countries, including computer printers and assembled printed circuit boards. 

 c

Cambodia’s duty rates on computer components imported from other ASEAN countries were mostly 5 percent in 

2008 and 2010, but a few products, including hard disk drives, may be imported free of duty. 

 dIndonesia’s duty rates on all computer components covered in this chapter were zero in 2004, other than those on 

computer printers. Imports of computer printers from all countries carried a 5 percent rate of duty in 2004, including 

those imported from ASEAN countries. 

 e

Vietnam’s duty rates on the computer components covered in this chapter varied within the ranges shown in 2004 

and 2008. In 2008, the majority of MFN duties on these products were 3 percent, and the majority of AFTA duties were 

zero. All remaining AFTA duties on these products were reduced to zero in 2010. In addition, Vietnam acceded to the 

WTO and the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) in 2007 and is currently phasing in zero MFN duties on all of 

these products as required by the ITA. The phase-in is scheduled to be completed by 2012. 

Given the established presence of the computer components industry in ASEAN 

countries and the general absence of tariffs and restrictive NTMs, the region is a leading 

exporter of these products and retains a competitive position globally. However, as noted, 

ASEAN countries are increasingly facing competition from China for components 

production. This is due to China’s growing role as the leading location for final assembly 

of computers and the advantages of locating components production near customers. 

Between 2005 and 2008, China’s production of desktop computers grew 82 percent, and 

production of notebook computers grew 142 percent. 69 During this period, China 

overtook the United States and the European Union to become the largest export market 

for computer components from ASEAN, as its imports of computer components from 

ASEAN countries grew by 83 percent. While this growth of computer assembly in China 

certainly offers a large and growing export market for ASEAN components, as China has 

captured an increasing share of final computer assembly, some components producers 

have moved to China or expanded production there as well in order to be closer to the 

customer. 70 Locating components production and finished goods assembly in close 

proximity to one another shortens production time, lowers inventory costs, and facilitates 

 68 USTR, “Indonesia,” 2009, 249. 

69 IBISWorld, “Computer Body Manufacturing in China” (accessed June 2009). 70 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 4, 2010. 
3-13

joint R&D. 71 These advantages of locating near the customer create a challenge for 

ASEAN’s export competitiveness in computer components. This challenge is evident 

from the relative market shares of the two regions. Between 2004 and 2008, China’s 

share of exports of computer components grew from 27 percent to 35 percent of the 

world total, with the share growing in each year during the five-year period. Meanwhile, 

ASEAN’s share of global exports was flat throughout the period, remaining between 20 

and 21 percent each year. 

In addition to competing with China’s growing computer components industry, ASEAN 

exports are also affected by competition between countries within the region. For 

example, labor cost differences within the region were a major factor in the HDD 

industry’s shift of production from Malaysia to Thailand. 72 Similarly, Vietnam’s 

increasing export competitiveness has come, to some degree, at the expense of exports 

from other countries in the region. As one analyst has pointed out, within the broader 

electronics sector, “Indonesia experienced a contraction in exports and Philippines a 

slowdown in the 2000–2006 period following the emergence of Vietnam as a 

competitor.”73 This suggests that as individual ASEAN countries strive to improve their 

export competitiveness, production may shift from one ASEAN country to another, and 

total exports from the region may not necessarily grow. 

Inbound Investment 

Several ASEAN countries provide attractive investment environments for computer 

components firms. Because, as noted, a country’s competitiveness in the computer 

components industry depends in no small part on investment from multinational firms 

that provide links to global markets, countries actively compete to attract FDI and 

generally do not place restrictions on investment. Production of most types of computer 

components is dominated by a few large firms that exercise “control over critical 

resources and capabilities that facilitate innovation and . . . [possess the] capacity to 

coordinate transactions and the exchange of knowledge”74 in the global computer supply 

chain. Location decisions by this relatively small set of multinational components firms 

drive production in the countries where they invest because these firms are the direct link 

to the major computer assemblers, which are the customers for components. In 2009, the 

top two HDD manufacturers together accounted for over 60 percent of the market.75 In 

CPUs, production is even more concentrated: Intel accounted for nearly 82 percent of the 

microprocessor market in 2008, and its nearest competitor, AMD, accounted for over 

17 percent, for a combined market share of over 99 percent. 76 Competition between 

countries for investment from these firms is therefore intense, especially given that many 

countries worldwide are equipped with the skilled labor, infrastructure, and other 

necessary factors to participate in electronics assembly. These firms choose production 

locations based on many competitive factors, and most of them have operations in more 

than one ASEAN country, as well as in China. Negotiating power regarding the terms of 

investment favors the firms holding the technology for computer components, not the 

countries where production takes place. As such, at present, none of the ASEAN 

 71 BLS, “Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing” (accessed March 23, 2010). 72 Rasiah, “Expansion and Slowdown in Southeast Asian Electronics Manufacturing,” 2009, 125; 

industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 16, 2010. 73 Rasiah, “Expansion and Slowdown in Southeast Asian Electronics Manufacturing,” 2009, 126. 74 Ernst, “Global Production Networks in East Asia’s Electronics Industry and Upgrading Prospects in 

Malaysia,” 2004, 94. 75 ISuppli, “Seagate Maintains Top Ranking in Hard Disk Drive Market in Q4,” March 22, 2010. 76 Montevirgen, “Industry Surveys: Semiconductors,” November 2009. 
3-14

countries places restrictions on foreign investment in computer components 

manufacturing beyond those that are applied either to all foreign investment or to all 

foreign investment in manufacturing.77

Competition between countries for investment from multinational components producers 

leads governments to offer generous incentive packages to firms to induce them to invest. 

Conversations with multinational firms in this industry confirmed that incentive packages 

offered by governments can act as a “tiebreaker” in their decisions about where to place 

new facilities.78 In the incentives race, ASEAN countries must compete not only with 

countries outside the subregion, such as China, but also with each other in order to attract 

investment from major firms. Such competition exists for each of the various activities 

along the supply chain performed by firms in this industry: regional headquarters, 79

R&D, and assembly. Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam were all cited by 

multinational firms as offering competitive incentive packages to investors. Among the 

financial incentives typically offered to investors in the computer components industry 

are multiyear tax deferments or exemptions, free or reduced-price land or buildings, and 

the ability to operate in free trade zones.80 All of the components-producing countries in 

ASEAN offer R&D incentives81 in an effort to capture more of the value added in the 

computer components industry. Competition for assembly plants can also be intense 

because of the jobs associated with these facilities. To this end, governments in the region 

often grant “pioneer” status 82 to computer components firms, especially if they are 

willing to conduct some R&D in the country, and this status carries particularly attractive 

tax exemptions.83 This status is intended to designate an investment that will “create or 

expand a high value added industry” 84 and is commonly applied to firms in hightechnology sectors such as electronics. 

Between 2004 and 2008, Singapore was the source of the largest number of FDI activities 

in the computer industry in ASEAN, followed closely by the United States, Taiwan, the 

EU, and Japan, in that order. Singapore was also by far the leading destination for 

investment in the computer industry in ASEAN, followed by Thailand and Malaysia. 

Vietnam was the fourth most common destination, surpassing the Philippines and 

Indonesia.85

As a relative newcomer to the electronics industry, and especially to the computer 

components industry, Vietnam offers an example of the incentives that countries offer in 

 77 Corbett and Umezaki, “Table 6: FDI Policy,” 2008. 

78 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, March 11, 2010. 79 Singapore competes mainly with countries outside of ASEAN, such as Hong Kong, for regional 

headquarters investment, according to Brown and Tucker, “Business in Asia: A High-Flying Rivalry,” 

April 25, 2010 (accessed April 27, 2010). 80 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Singapore; Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; and 

Bangkok, Thailand, March 4–16, 2010. 81 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Singapore, March 4–5, 2010. 82 “Pioneer” status carries different definitions, requirements, and benefits in each country. For example, 

according to Malaysia’s Ministry of Finance Web site, pioneer status for high-technology companies carries a 

five-year tax exemption. Meanwhile, in Vietnam, pioneer status may confer tax exemptions for as long as 50 

years. 83 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 4, 2010; Stoler and Phan, 

“Vietnam: Intel and the Electronics Sector,” 2009, 184. 84 Brown and Tucker, “Business in Asia: A High-Flying Rivalry,” April 25, 2010. 

85 All data in this paragraph are from the Zephyr database (accessed May 3, 2010). Among intra-ASEAN 

investments listing Singapore as the source country, only a small number were made by Singapore-based 

subsidiaries of large multinational companies (headquartered in a third country). The majority of these 

investments were made by firms indigenous to Singapore. 
3-15

order to compete for investment (box 3.1). In competing for Intel’s newest assembly and 

test facility, the government of Vietnam worked directly with the company to meet Intel’s 

needs and secure a commitment to invest. While the full details of the incentive package 

offered to Intel are not public, it is known that the government built a power substation to 

meet the plant’s requirements and worked with Intel to develop a unique electronic 

processing system for its customs documents. 86 The government also signed an 

anticorruption memorandum of understanding with Intel. 87 Finally, Intel likely was 

accorded “pioneer” status, which provides “preferential tax treatment for perhaps as long 

as fifty years.”88 In general, Intel company representatives indicated that this government 

responsiveness was one of several important factors in its final investment decision, in 

conjunction with the other competitive factors described throughout this chapter.89

Political stability is also important to investors as they determine where to locate 

facilities. Among the components-producing countries in ASEAN, Singapore, Malaysia, 

and Vietnam score highly on World Bank indicators of political stability, while Thailand, 

the Philippines, and Indonesia score much lower.90 One industry official confirmed that 

the lack of political stability in Thailand was a factor limiting its competitiveness for that 

firm’s investment. 91 Political stability is an area where ASEAN countries must also 

compete with China, and several firms noted China’s political stability and overall 

government effectiveness as a factor in its ability to attract investment from 

multinationals.92 

Overall, ASEAN countries have been competitive in attracting inbound investment from 

multinational electronics firms. However, competition for these firms’ investment is 

intense, and China continues to grow as a presence in the computer industry. Still, many 

firms retain a presence in ASEAN countries as well. One reason cited for doing so was to 

diversify the production base. For example, one firm stated that it has a policy of not 

exceeding a certain percentage of its worldwide production capacity in any one country 

and that ASEAN countries are important as an alternative location in enabling it to follow 

this strategy.93 ASEAN countries’ ability to retain this position as an attractive alternative 

to China depends on maintaining competitiveness and a strong overall business climate. 

To this end, ASEAN leaders plan to implement the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment 

Agreement (ACIA), which provides greater legal protection and transparency for 

investors, including ASEAN-based foreign investors. If the scope of the regionwide 

improvements to the investment climate was broadened to include all foreign investors, 

this would likely be well-received by multinational computer components firms given 

that the agreement improves transparency—firms cited improved transparency as a factor 

that would make the region more competitive.94 At present, however, multinational firms 

in the region indicated that they generally deal solely with individual country 

governments in structuring their investments in ASEAN countries.95

 86 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, March 11, 2010. 87 Stoler and Phan, “Vietnam: Intel and the Electronics Sector,” 2009, 184. 88 Ibid. 

89 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, March 11, 2010. 90 World Bank Governance Indicators database (accessed April 22, 2010). 91 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, March 11, 2010. 92 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, March 10–11, 2010. 93 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, March 11, 2010. 94 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 16, 2010. 95 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 

and Singapore, March 4–16, 2010. 
3-16

BOX 3.1 Computer components: Profile of ASEAN Integration 

FDI plays a major role in computer components production in ASEAN. Some of the most notable examples of 

integration among ASEAN member countries center on direct investment links between the countries. 

Between 2004 and 2008, Singapore was the leading global source of direct investment in the computer 

hardware industry within ASEAN (as measured by number of investments), with the majority of this investment 

going to Malaysia and Thailand.a

 Increasingly, Singapore is also investing in Vietnam and, through these 

investment linkages, is improving Vietnam’s competitiveness and more fully integrating the region in computer 

components production. The Vietnam Singapore Industrial Park (VSIP), which is a joint venture between 

several Singaporean investors and a Vietnamese state-owned corporation, is an example of this bilateral 

investment link. As FDI in manufacturing in Vietnam has grown in recent years, industrial parks providing a 

wide range of services to these investors have become common. VSIP is one of the largest providers of these 

services, operating four large industrial parks in Vietnam. These parks have attracted approximately 400 

investment projects with a combined total investment capital of $2.4 billion, and VSIP is currently expanding 

the parks to meet further demand.b 

An official from a U.S.-based electronic components firm operating a plant in one of the VSIP sites explained 

why the park has been so attractive to his company. According to this source, the fact that the upper 

management of VSIP is Singaporean is an asset because they are very comfortable working with 

multinational companies and addressing their needs. Meanwhile, VSIP’s Vietnamese management is a 

government entity, which, in this firm’s experience, has meant that the park staff is highly skilled at walking 

investors through all of the required government paperwork and obtaining the proper licenses. This combined 

management structure is very valuable to the firm and was cited as a key factor in the firm’s success in 

Vietnam.c

 VSIP’s success with investors from outside the region is one example of intra-ASEAN linkages 

improving member countries’ ability to compete globally in the computer components industry. 

 a VSIP Web site, http://www.vsip.com/vn/ (accessed April 14, 2010). b Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Binh Duong province, Vietnam, March 11, 2010. c Ibid. 

Trade Facilitation, Logistics Services, and E-Commerce 

Trade Facilitation 

In general, the computer components industry has expressed concerns about customs 

transparency and adherence to international norms—concerns that are shared by 

multinational firms across many industries. However, due to the nature of the industry 

and its status as a desired source of investment in many countries, firms in this industry 

mentioned fewer trade facilitation problems than firms in many other industries. Because 

neither duties nor nontariff measures are common in the computer components industry, 

the aspects of trade facilitation that are most important to this industry center on reducing 

the administrative burden of customs procedures. This has led to a competitive form of 

integration of customs procedures whereby ASEAN countries tend to adopt similar trade 

facilitation measures in order to remain attractive destinations for investors. 

The major components-producing countries in ASEAN all use free trade zones (FTZs) as 

a means of simplifying trade-related administrative procedures for firms. These FTZs 

have contributed to what one industry official called “market-forced harmonization,”96

that is, an environment in which countries’ policies have converged because of investor 

demand for faster and simpler customs procedures rather than as a result of any 

centralized integration effort. FTZs simplify and speed up customs procedures for firms 

by placing customs officers onsite within the zone, with a focus on providing fast and 

 96 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 4, 2010. 
3-17

efficient service to tenants. Despite its status as a world leader in trade facilitation and the 

fact that it currently offers most customs services online, Singapore continues to offer 

several FTZs in addition to its normal trade facilitation measures. Components firms 

operating in Malaysia and Thailand indicated that FTZs in those countries were important 

to them in attracting their investment and that operating in FTZs had helped them bypass 

time-consuming paperwork.97 Similarly, in Vietnam, components firms tend to be located 

in industrial parks (some of which are FTZs) that compete with one another on the level 

of service provided to their tenants. These services typically include on-site customs 

facilities and assistance with obtaining preclearance for imports of materials.98 

Despite the competitive environment fostered by ASEAN FTZs in terms of facilitating 

trade, industry officials expressed some concerns regarding customs procedures in the 

region. Most often mentioned was the issue of customs transparency and predictability in 

Thailand, especially in the customs post-audit process. More generally, each of the 

sources expressed the view that improved customs harmonization throughout the ASEAN 

region, such as through the ASEAN Single Window, would be somewhat helpful. In the 

meantime, however, they stated that there were few problems in working with each 

country individually. 

Logistics Services 

Officials of computer components firms in ASEAN countries that were interviewed did 

not express any specific concerns regarding logistics (beyond basic infrastructure needs 

in some areas). Computer components firms generally rely on third-party logistics 

providers for both imports of their inputs and exports of their products.99 Some computer 

components are air-shipped, making logistics easier. 

E-Commerce 

Many large components firms prefer to use electronic systems to manage their supply 

chains and work with suppliers. However, suppliers’ ability to adopt adequate supporting 

technology to implement these electronic systems varies, especially since the network of 

suppliers with experience working with multinational firms is not well-established in 

some countries. One of the tools that multinational components firms use to promote ecommerce is RosettaNet. RosettaNet is a consortium of electronics firms throughout the 

supply chain “working to create, implement, and promote open process standards for ebusiness.”100 The associated software allows for linkage of enterprise systems between 

suppliers, customers, and logistics providers. 101 In the broader computer industry, 

participants include AMD, Dell, Hitachi, and Intel. 102 These firms often encourage 

suppliers to implement RosettaNet in order to expedite transactions and improve the 

accuracy of communication between companies.103 ASEAN member countries have also 

 97 Industry officials, interviews by USITC staff, Singapore, March 4, 2010 and Bangkok, Thailand, 

March 16, 2010. 98 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Binh Duong province, Vietnam, March 11, 2010. 99 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Singapore and Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 

March 4–11, 2010. 100 Ernst, “Global Production Networks in East Asia’s Electronics Industry and Upgrading Prospects in 

Malaysia,” 2004, 137. 101 Intel Web site, “RosettaNet” (accessed April 26, 2010). 102 Ernst, “Global Production Networks in East Asia’s Electronics Industry and Upgrading Prospects in 

Malaysia,” 2004, 138. 103 Intel Web site, “RosettaNet” (accessed April 26, 2010). 
3-18

encouraged adoption of RosettaNet, and to date, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and the 

Philippines have joined the United States, Australia, China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan in 

establishing regional affiliate offices to support implementation of RosettaNet 

standards.104 The Malaysian government has been particularly active in providing grants 

to small and medium-sized suppliers to enable them to adopt RosettaNet standards.105

Regionwide, one of the measures listed in the electronics sector Roadmap is to 

“institutionalize” RosettaNet, but the purpose of this measure was to establish the 

software for application to customs procedures (exchange of trade documents) rather than 

promote its use between firms in the private sector.106 RosettaNet is an example of private 

sector-led e-commerce efforts in ASEAN and underscores the importance of measures 

that integrate ASEAN producers into the global computer supply chain for improving 

competitiveness in the region. 

 104 RosettaNet Web site, http://www.rosettanet.org/ (accessed May 7, 2010). 105 Ernst, “Global Production Networks in East Asia’s Electronics Industry and Upgrading Prospects in 

Malaysia,” in Global Production Networking and Technological Change in East Asia, ed. Yusuf, Altaf, and 

Nabeshima (Washington, D.C.: World Bank and Oxford University Press, 2004), 138. 106 Santiago, “Development of ASEAN Framework for Trade Negotiations: Electronics Industry” (paper 

for the United States Agency for International Development, March 2007), 22. 
3-19

Bibliography 

Asian Productivity Organization. APO Productivity Databook 2009. Tokyo: Keio University Press, 2009. 

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). “Roadmap for Integration of Electronics Sector.” 

November 29, 2004. http://www.aseansec.org/16656.htm. 

 

Bradsher, Keith. “As Labor Costs Soar in China, Manufacturers Look to Vietnam.” New York Times, 

June 18, 2008. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/business/worldbusiness/18invest.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1

(accessed April 26, 2010). 

Bureau van Dijk. Zephyr database. Available for a fee at http://zephyr2.bvdep.com/version201055/Home.serv?product=zephyrneo (accessed May 3, 2010). 

Corbett, Jenny, and So Umezaki, eds. “Table 6: FDI Policy.” In Deepening East Asian Economic 

Integration. ERIA Research Project Report 2008, No. 1, March 2009. 

http://www.eria.org/research/y2008-no1.html (accessed March 16, 2010). 

Doner, Rick, and Bryan Ritchie. “Economic Crisis and Technological Trajectories: Hard Disk Drive 

Production in Southeast Asia.” MIT Japan Program, Working Paper 01.06, 2001. 

Ernst, Dieter. “Global Production Networks in East Asia’s Electronics Industry and Upgrading Prospects 

in Malaysia.” In Global Production Networking and Technological Change in East Asia, edited 

by Shahid Yusuf, M. Anjum Altaf, and Kaoru Nabeshima. Washington, D.C.: World Bank and 

Oxford University Press, 2004. 

Foster, William, Zhang Cheng, Jason Dedrick, and Kenneth L. Kraemer. Technology and Organizational 

Factors in the Notebook Industry Supply Chain. Tempe, AZ: Institute for Supply Management 

and the W.P. Carey School of Business, 2006. 

Fukase, Emiko, and Will Martin. “A Quantitative Evaluation of Vietnam’s Accession to the ASEAN Free 

Trade Area.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper no. 2220, November 1999. 

http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/2220.html.  

IBISWorld. “Computer Body Manufacturing in China.” IBISWorld and ACMR China Industry Report 

4041, May 21, 2009. Available for a fee at http://www.ibisworld.com/ (accessed June 22, 2009). 

———. “Global Computer Hardware Manufacturing.” IBISWorld Industry Report C2523-GL, 

May 5, 2009. Available for a fee at http://www.ibisworld.com/ (accessed June 22, 2009). 

Intel Web site. “RosettaNet.” https://supplier.intel.com/static/B2Bi/RosettaNet.htm (accessed 

April 26, 2010). 

Irwin, Douglas A. Free Trade under Fire. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. 

ISuppli. “Seagate Maintains Top Ranking in Hard Disk Drive Market in Q4,” March 22, 2010. 

http://www.isuppli.com/News/Pages/Seagate-Maintains-Top-Ranking-in-Hard-Disk-DriveMarketin-Q4.aspx. 
3-20

Martin, Susan Taylor. “For Jabil Circuit, Vietnam Is the New China.” St. Petersburg Times, June 8, 2008. 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/for-jabil-circuit-vietnam-is-the-new-china/609847 (accessed 

April 28, 2010). 

Mirza, Hafiz and Axele Giroud. “Regional Integration and Benefits from Foreign Direct Investment in 

ASEAN Economies: The Case of Viet Nam.” Asian Development Review 21, no. 1 (2004). 

Mitarai, Hisami. “Issues in the ASEAN Electric and Electronics Industry and Implications for Vietnam.” 

Working paper, Nomura Research Institute, February 2005. 

http://www.grips.ac.jp/vietnam/KOarchives/doc/EB02_IIPF/7EB02_Chapter6.pdf (accessed 

April 15, 2010). 

Montevirgen, Clyde. “Industry Surveys: Semiconductors.” Standard & Poor’s Industry Surveys.

November 2009. 

Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. Benchmarking FDI Competitiveness in Asia. Washington, 

D.C.: World Bank Group, 2003. 

Parsons, David. “An Investigation into the Measures Affecting the Integration of ASEAN’s Priority 

Sectors (Phase 2): The Case of Electronics.” With the assistance of Mawardi Maghfuri, Bintoro 

Ariyanto, and Rina Oktaviani. Final Report, REPSF Project No. 06/001b, June 2007. 

Pecht, Michael and Sanjay Tiku. “Bogus!” IEEE Spectrum, May 2006. 

http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/bogus (accessed May 4, 2010). 

Rasiah, Rajah. “Expansion and Slowdown in Southeast Asian Electronics Manufacturing.” Journal of the 

Asia Pacific Economy 14, no. 2 (2009). 

RosettaNet Web site. http://www.rosettanet.org/ (accessed May 7, 2010). 

Santiago, Ernie B. “Development of ASEAN Framework for Trade Negotiations: Electronics Industry.” 

Paper for the United States Agency for International Development, March 2007. 

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADJ685.pdf. 

 

Stoler, Andrew L., and Phan Van Sam. “Vietnam: Intel and the Electronics Sector.” In Trade and Poverty 

Reduction in the Asia-Pacific Region, edited by Andrew L. Stoler, Jim Redden, and Lee Ann 

Jackson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and the World Trade Organization, 2009. 

United States Trade Representative. “Indonesia.” 2009 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade 

Barriers. Washington, DC: USTR, 2009. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/reports-andpublications/2009/2009-national-trade-estimate-report-foreign-trad. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). “Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing.” Career Guide 

to Industries, 2010–11 Edition. http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs010.htm (accessed various dates). 

World Bank. Worldwide Governance Indicators database. 

http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/mc_countries.asp (accessed April 22, 2010). 

———. WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse. http://wits.worldbank.org/witsweb (accessed 

January 5, 2010). 
3-21

World Trade Organization (WTO). Information Technology Agreement: Schedules of Concessions. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/inftec_e/itscheds_e.htm (accessed April 27, 2010). 

4-1 

CHAPTER 4 

Textiles and Apparel: Cotton Woven 

Apparel 

Textiles and Apparel Overview1 

The ASEAN region and certain ASEAN countries in particular, are notable suppliers of 

textiles and apparel to the world. For the entire textiles and apparel priority sector, 

ASEAN countries accounted for 7.2 percent of total world exports in 2008, up from 6.7 

percent in 2004. The priority sector includes a much broader group of products than this 

chapter’s profile industry, cotton woven apparel. ASEAN exports of all textiles and 

apparel totaled $38.5 billion in 2008, compared to $6.3 billion for cotton woven apparel 

(table 2.4). The broader priority sector covers other important segments, such as manmade fiber yarns, fabrics, and apparel, which are important to some ASEAN producers, 

particularly Indonesia. 

At present, integration in the ASEAN textiles and apparel sector consists mainly of 

production of yarn and fabric in one ASEAN country to be shipped to another ASEAN 

country, where they are made into apparel. A fully developed and integrated textiles and 

apparel sector in the ASEAN region would likely encompass all elements of the supply 

chain across several ASEAN members (i.e., the production of fibers, spinning of yarns, 

knitting or weaving of fabrics, and cutting and sewing of finished apparel), as well as at 

least some regional integration into global supply chains. 

One factor influencing the level of integration in ASEAN textile and apparel production 

is ASEAN’s Roadmap for Integration of Textiles and Apparel Products Sector 

(Roadmap). The Roadmap encompasses the full textile and apparel supply chain, 

including raw fibers (e.g., raw cotton, wool, polyester staple fibers), yarns, fabrics, and 

finished apparel or textile articles.2

 The Roadmap provides for the elimination of tariffs 

on intra-ASEAN trade in all sector products, as well as other measures to encourage 

integration. Tariff elimination is almost complete in six ASEAN countries. The 

remaining four—Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, and Laos—have reduced but not 

eliminated tariffs on cotton woven apparel and its textile inputs, such as cotton woven 

fabrics.3

The Malaysian government is the coordinator for the textile and apparel Roadmap. 

Reportedly, Malaysian officials have worked with the ASEAN Federation of Textile 

Industries (AFTEX), a private association made up of textile and apparel industry 

members from the 10 ASEAN countries, to increase integrated apparel production among 

the ASEAN countries. 4 In addition, AFTEX is working with the U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID) ASEAN Competitiveness Enhancement (ACE) 

 1

 See app. F for a list of the Harmonized System numbers covered under this priority sector. 2

 These products are those listed in the “Roadmap for Integration of Textiles and Apparel Products 

Sector.” 3

 External tariffs on imports of these products are maintained by the ASEAN countries. 4

 Industry representative, e-mail message to USITC staff, April 30, 2010. 
4-2 

Project to stimulate intra-ASEAN production as a means to increase the ASEAN region’s 

global competitiveness.5

The removal of global quotas has had a larger influence on the degree of production 

integration among the ASEAN countries than the tariff eliminations and reductions 

mandated in the Roadmap. 6

 The expiration of these quotas under the World Trade 

Organization (WTO) Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) on January 1, 2005, 

resulted in significantly increased competition among global suppliers to the U.S. and EU 

markets, including among the individual ASEAN countries.7

 Large U.S. and EU retailers 

consolidated their supply bases once the quotas were removed. 

Further, according to industry representatives, to the extent that there has been ASEAN 

integration along the supply chain in the textiles and apparel priority sector, it has largely 

been driven by variations in the individual countries’ economic environment.8

 The reason 

is that availability and relative cost of labor are driving factors in the textile and 

especially apparel industries.9

 For example, there is a trend to locate the more laborintensive apparel factories in the countries with relatively less developed economies, such 

as Vietnam,10 Cambodia, and Laos, where labor costs are relatively low and there is a 

large pool of available labor.11 The Philippines, with a relatively abundant supply of 

labor, has also traditionally been an apparel-producing country, although it has struggled 

to remain cost-competitive compared with some of the other ASEAN countries. 12

Production of the more capital-intensive textiles (yarns and fabrics) and higher-quality 

apparel is concentrated in the ASEAN countries with higher labor costs—Thailand, 

Malaysia, and to a lesser extent, Singapore.13 Cross-border integration is fostered by 

investment from the fabric-producing countries in ASEAN into the lower-cost-apparel 

manufacturing countries of Vietnam and Cambodia.14 Indonesia, which has a vertically 

integrated textile and apparel supply chain, also has been able to export its fabrics to 

ASEAN countries that are primarily apparel producers.15

 5

 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 10, 2010. 6

 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 10, 2010. Note that 

virtually no information was available on Burma’s textile and apparel industry. Also, according to industry 

sources, Brunei’s textile and apparel industry has virtually disappeared since the ATC quotas were removed 

in 2005. Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 28, 2010. 7

 Note that after the ATC quotas expired, the EU and the United States maintained safeguard quotas on 

selected textile and apparel imports from China, as permitted under the China WTO accession agreement. 

However, these safeguards were not as comprehensive as the quotas that were in place under the ATC. The 

safeguard quotas expired for the EU at the end of 2007 and for the United States at the end of 2008. 8

 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 10, 2010. 9

 For the purposes of this discussion, “cost of labor” means the cost to make one unit of a good. 

Differences in actual wage rates may be moderated or intensified by differences in productivity. 10 As of spring 2010, Vietnam had the fastest-growing textile and apparel sector in the ASEAN region. 11 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 10, 2010. 12 For example, the government of the Philippines is seeking preferential duty-free treatment in the U.S. 

market for its apparel exports that are made with U.S. fabric. Galvez, “RP Eyes Duty-Free Deal with US to 

Boost Textile Industry,” April 20, 2010. 13 Malaysian apparel factories, for example, tend to be small and produce higher-quality brand-name 

apparel in smaller quantities. Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 

March 10, 2010. 14 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 3, 2010, and Ho Chi 

Minh City, March 10, 2010. 15 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 28, 2010. As explained below, 

another key driver of integrated production of apparel and other textile finished products is the ASEANJapan FTA. 
4-3 

The remainder of this chapter focuses on the cotton woven apparel industry. The 

manufacture of cotton woven apparel lends itself to regional integrated production, and 

this type of production is a growing trend in the industry. Among the ASEAN countries, 

the level of economic integration in this industry is relatively small, but slowly 

increasing. 

Cotton Woven Apparel16 

Key Findings 

As noted in the overview, there is a small but growing amount of integrated production of 

cotton woven apparel among the ASEAN countries. Intra-ASEAN trade in cotton woven 

fabrics—the primary input into cotton woven apparel—increased by 13 percent in four 

years, rising from $168.4 million in 2004 to $190.8 million in 2008 (table 4.1). This 

trade, an important component of regional integration for cotton woven apparel, 

represented approximately 9 percent of the region’s total cotton woven fabric imports, 

valued at $2.1 billion in 2008 (table 4.2). The reduction in duties among member 

countries, as outlined in the sector Roadmap, has helped to facilitate increased integration 

in the cotton woven apparel industry. The ASEAN-Japan FTA has also generated some 

integrated production between ASEAN member countries because exports to Japan of 

apparel made from ASEAN fabric are entitled to duty-free treatment under that 

agreement. 

Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

% change, 

2004–08

Indonesia 36,145 40,146 34,261 38,182 36,334 1 

Vietnam 20,864 17,524 19,794 21,581 29,520 41 

Singapore 14,573 18,403 26,445 42,130 29,462 102 

Cambodia 22,900 26,333 37,384 22,663 22,570 (1) 

Burma 11,810 15,413 15,341 19,681 21,800 85 

Laos 18,251 17,966 18,216 18,612 21,100 16 

Malaysia 15,305 20,197 16,152 11,308 12,518 (18) 

Philippines 15,479 16,811 11,404 11,676 8,730 (44) 

Thailand 10,294 10,889 4,785 3,930 7,845 (24) 

Brunei 2,311 2,743 1,277 1,271 939 (66) 

 Total 168,363 185,992 185,060 191,033 190,818 13 

Source: WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010). Indonesia's exports from Global

Trade Services (accessed April 15, 2010).

TABLE 4.1 Certain cotton woven fabrics: ASEAN member imports from ASEAN members, by value (2004–08)

thousand $

Note: Data are based on partner country exports. Brunei, Burma, and Laos do not report trade data, and the following 

countries did not report data for selected years: Cambodia (2005–08), Philippines (2004–06), and Vietnam (2008). Trade 

between these countries may therefore be undervalued.

 16 See app. F under “Cotton Woven Apparel” for HS subheadings that apply to the cotton woven apparel 

industry discussed in this chapter. The fabrics considered part of the cotton woven apparel supply chain in 

this profile consist of cotton woven fabrics containing 85 percent or more by weight of cotton. These fabrics 

are classified in HS headings 5208 and 5209. 
4-4 

TABLE 4.2 Certain cotton woven fabrics: ASEAN imports from selected markets, by value, 2004–08

% change

Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2004–08

China 572,808 761,537 891,594 1,033,143 1,138,947 99 

Hong Kong 488,024 486,937 397,529 410,259 379,357 (22) 

Japan 101,241 105,903 104,042 110,124 105,944 5 

Taiwan 126,939 114,644 97,625 88,723 76,698 (40) 

Korea 79,596 76,558 69,456 67,539 61,914 (22) 

EU-27 60,122 57,832 65,474 69,987 52,926 (12) 

United States 12,509 12,959 8,310 8,714 8,182 (35) 

 Subtotal 1,441,239 1,616,371 1,634,029 1,788,489 1,823,967 27 

All other 183,996 184,388 204,779 241,737 253,551 38 

 Total 1,625,235 1,800,759 1,838,808 2,030,226 2,077,518 28 

Source: WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010).

Note: Data are based on ASEAN partner country exports. Brunei, Burma, and Laos do not report trade data, and the 

following countries did not report data for selected years: Cambodia (2005–08), Philippines (2004–06), and Vietnam 

(2008). "All other" import value excludes intra-ASEAN trade. Trade between these countries may therefore be 

undervalued.

thousand $

As noted above, the removal of global quotas has had a larger influence on degree of 

production integration among the ASEAN countries than the Roadmap. The removal of 

quotas at the beginning of 2005 created intense competition among suppliers for retailers’ 

business. This competition still exists among all global suppliers, including those in 

ASEAN countries. Large retailers, and apparel companies and sourcing agents who sell 

to the retailers, make decisions affecting the entire cotton woven apparel supply chain, 

including the selection of fabrics and where a garment is made. These firms’ choices are 

based on a number of factors, including labor rates and productivity; worker skill level; 

quality, cost, and availability of inputs; logistics affecting costs and time to market; 

dependability; and duty rates. 

In most cases, the duty reductions for intra-ASEAN trade on fabric inputs do not provide 

an incentive for regional integration, because most ASEAN-produced cotton woven 

apparel (about 99 percent) is exported outside of the ASEAN region (tables 4.3 and 4.4). 

Duty drawback programs, foreign trade zones, and other schemes already allow a cotton 

woven apparel manufacturer to import its fabrics effectively free of duty, as long as they 

are used to make apparel intended for export. 

 
4-5 

TABLE 4.3 Cotton woven apparel: ASEAN exports to selected markets, by value, 2004–08

Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

% change, 

2004–08

United States 3,360,705 3,757,580 3,913,203 3,776,907 3,694,324 10 

EU-27 1,147,099 1,010,868 1,356,781 1,400,340 1,569,228 37 

Japan 198,399 218,612 234,832 268,657 288,441 45 

China 3,582 5,399 6,141 7,107 11,977 234 

 Subtotal 4,709,785 4,992,460 5,510,957 5,453,011 5,563,970 18 

All other 451,704 517,860 582,261 691,541 774,612 71 

 Total 5,161,489 5,510,320 6,093,218 6,144,552 6,338,582 23 

Source: WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010).

thousand $

Note: Data are based on ASEAN partner country imports. 

TABLE 4.4 Cotton woven apparel: ASEAN member exports to ASEAN members, by value, 2004–08

Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

% change, 

2004–08

Indonesia 39,637 52,601 77,537 57,587 29,653 (25) 

Malaysia 28,410 19,757 18,748 19,549 24,782 (13) 

Thailand 16,074 13,449 16,234 15,135 15,946 (1) 

Philippines 5,504 6,856 6,273 6,778 5,284 (4) 

Cambodia 7,551 5,381 10,109 4,788 4,121 (45) 

Singapore 546 673 1,315 1,685 3,428 528 

Vietnam 5,138 3,648 3,137 2,448 3,341 (35) 

Laos 233 760 775 1,072 1,509 547 

Burma 2,621 435 587 971 940 (64) 

Brunei 1,391 5,400 1,002 1,004 270 (95) 

 Total 111,114 104,951 135,720 111,018 89,275 (20) 

Source: WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010).

thousand $

Note: Data are based on partner country imports. Brunei, Burma, and Laos do not report trade data, and the following 

countries did not report data for selected years: Cambodia (2005–08), Philippines (2004–06), and Vietnam (2008). Trade 

between these countries may therefore be undervalued.

Background 

The following sections will describe the industry, with particular attention to two 

important aspects—export competitiveness and inbound investment—as they relate to the 

competitive factors affecting integrated production of cotton woven apparel among the 

ASEAN countries. The cotton woven apparel industry encompasses an assortment of 

different apparel items, including the production of most cotton trousers (including jeans 

and khakis), as well as cotton woven blouses and shirts (such as men’s dress shirts). 

Other products include cotton woven shorts, jackets, dresses, skirts, and underwear. 

Although the industry’s exports account for a relatively small share of total ASEAN 

textile and apparel exports (16 percent in 2008), the cotton woven apparel supply chain 

provides opportunities for integration across the ASEAN region.17 This supply chain 

 17 WITS Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010). 
4-6 

includes the production of cotton yarns, the weaving of the yarns into cotton fabrics, and 

the cutting and sewing of the cotton fabrics into cotton woven apparel. In addition, before 

shipping, the finished apparel must be packaged according to the buyer’s instructions. 

This analysis will focus primarily on the production of cotton woven fabric and cotton 

woven apparel. 

The role that this part of the supply chain plays in ASEAN countries’ economies varies 

greatly. Some ASEAN countries, such as Vietnam and Cambodia, have a competitive 

advantage in apparel production, but need to import most of their cotton woven fabrics. 

Other countries, such as Thailand and Indonesia, produce both cotton woven fabrics and 

apparel. Even though they consume a large share of their fabric production domestically, 

they also have an incentive to trade in cotton woven fabrics. The production of cotton 

woven fabrics is capital-intensive, necessitating high capacity utilization rates in order to 

cover fixed costs. Further, factories tend to specialize in specific types of cotton woven 

fabrics (such as denim or twill fabrics for pants, or oxford cloth for men’s shirts). Apparel 

manufacturers, on the other hand, require a large variety of different fabric styles to meet 

the needs of their customers. Thus, apparel-producing countries import fabric inputs from 

many different countries. 

Regional Integration, Export Competitiveness, and Inbound 

Investment 

Leading Competitive Factors 

The expiration of global quotas under the ATC on January 1, 2005, resulted in 

significantly increased competition among the individual ASEAN countries, as well as 

among global competitors who supplied the U.S. and EU markets. Large U.S. and EU 

retailers consolidated their supply bases because the availability of quota was no longer a 

significant factor in deciding where to have their goods produced.18 Competition among 

the ASEAN countries also increased as Vietnam, an efficient and low-cost apparel 

producer, gained full access to the U.S. market. In December 2006, the United States 

granted Vietnam normal trade relations (NTR) status, which significantly reduced the 

duties on U.S. imports from Vietnam.19 On January 11, 2007, Vietnam became a member 

of the WTO.20 

Without the global quotas, the repercussions of increased competition among retailers 

emerged as a major factor in the global production of cotton woven apparel, influencing 

both export competitiveness and inbound investment. Because of this intense retail 

competition, retail buyers were and still are demanding lower costs and quick turnaround 

and delivery times. Retailers do not want to be left with inventory and take markdowns at 

the end of a season. As a result, ASEAN industry sources report that short lead times 

have become a major factor in choosing suppliers.21 Increasingly, retailers are demanding 

 18 The United States and the EU established quotas on imports of woven cotton apparel (and other textile 

and apparel articles) from China after the quotas under the ATC expired, as permitted under the China WTO 

accession agreement. However, these safeguards were not as comprehensive as the quotas that were in place 

under the ATC. The safeguard quotas expired for the EU at the end of 2007 and for the United States at the 

end of 2008. 19 For example, the duty rate for men’s and boys’ cotton trouser and shorts imported under U.S. 

Harmonized Schedule subheading 6203.42.40 dropped from 90 percent ad valorem to 16.6 percent ad 

valorem. 20 U.S. Department of State, “Background Note on Vietnam,” October 2009. 21 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 15, 2010. 
4-7 

a greater variety, but fewer garments, in various styles and colors. Key factors affecting 

costs and delivery include wage rates, productivity, and infrastructure and other logistics 

affecting access to raw materials, as well as shipping the finished products. U.S. retailers 

attribute Vietnam’s rise to a global supplier of cotton woven apparel to its high 

production efficiency (about 85 percent of that of China); low production costs (lower 

than China’s with similar delivery times); and a ready supply of highly skilled and lowcost labor. In addition, Vietnam’s proximity to China, with China’s large supply of cotton 

woven fabrics and other apparel inputs, allows short delivery times for raw materials.22

Regional Integration 

 Overview 

Although the amount of ASEAN cross-border production using ASEAN inputs is small 

relative to production of cotton woven apparel using inputs imported from outside the 

ASEAN region, trade and industry representatives report increases in integration and cite 

government and private sector initiatives to accomplish this goal. Industry sources report 

that the individual ASEAN countries are not able to compete globally without ASEAN 

integration. Specific examples of successful regional integration are described in box 4.1. 

Increasing ASEAN integrated production will give the region a comparative advantage 

that each country alone does not have.23

The Roadmap is a primary government initiative to integrate apparel production, 

including cotton woven apparel production, among the ASEAN countries. A key private 

sector initiative is the Source ASEAN Full Service Alliance (SAFSA), sponsored by 

USAID’s ACE project, working with the ASEAN Federation of Textile Industries 

(AFTEX). Both the government and private sector programs are actively encouraging and 

providing procedures and incentives to increase integrated apparel production among 

ASEAN members. 

ASEAN Roadmap for Integration of Textiles and Apparel Products Sector 

The Roadmap was developed to strengthen regional integration through the liberalization 

and facilitation of trade in goods, services, and investments in the textile and apparel 

sector. It was also designed to promote private sector participation. The Roadmap has 

produced mixed results. To date, its major accomplishments have been the reduction and 

elimination of tariffs. As of 2010, tariffs on cotton woven fabrics and apparel made from 

these fabrics have been eliminated by the ASEAN-6 and reduced and/or eliminated by 

the ASEAN-4 (Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, and Laos) (tables 4.5 and 4.6). According to 

the Roadmap, the tariffs on these products are to be completely eliminated by the 

ASEAN-4 on January 1, 2012. However, there is no evidence thus far that any of the 

other provisions of the Roadmap have been met. For example, the ASEAN nontariff 

barrier (NTB) database is incomplete and outdated.24 The database was established as 

part of the Roadmap to help ensure transparency in rules governing the trade of goods. A 

 22 Industry representatives, e-mail messages to USITC staff, March 11, 2010, March 16, 2010; March 22, 

2010, March 26, 2010; industry representatives, telephone interviews by USITC staff, March 22 and 

March 24, 2010. 23 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 17, 2010. 24 Government official, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 1, 2010. 
4-8 

BOX 4.1 Cotton woven apparel: Profile of ASEAN integration

There are several examples of integrated production in the cotton woven apparel industry in the ASEAN region. As 

discussed above, Malaysia’s apparel manufacturers, facing high labor costs and a shortage of labor, have moved up 

the value chain, producing higher-quality, higher-priced, and branded goods. Because of constant price pressure 

even from the high-level branded customers, Malaysian apparel producers have set up factories in the lower-cost 

ASEAN countries of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Indonesia. Privately owned by the Malaysian firms, these factories 

perform the cut-and-sew production work while such activities as designing, marketing, and merchandising are 

conducted in the apparel company offices in Malaysia.a

Vietnam and Cambodia’s apparel industries, in turn, depend heavily on imports of garment inputs, including cotton 

woven fabrics. Some of these imports come from within ASEAN. For example, Indonesia exports heavier-weight 

cotton woven denim fabric to Cambodia for the production of jeans.b Thailand supplies lightweight cotton woven fabric 

to factories in Vietnam and Cambodia for use in apparel, largely men’s and women’s tops, the majority of which are 

exported.c

 Thailand’s trade in cotton woven fabrics is bolstered by its reputation for producing reliable quality goods, 

as well as its existing trade relationships with the ASEAN markets, especially Vietnam and Cambodia.d

Vietnam produces little fabric, and most of its fabric imports come from outside ASEAN. Thailand’s shipments of 

lightweight cotton woven fabrics to Vietnam nearly doubled during 2004–08.e

 Nevertheless, in 2008, Thailand still 

only supplied roughly 3 percent of Vietnam’s imports of these goods.f

Like Vietnam, Cambodia has very little fabric production, and over 90 percent of inputs used in apparel production 

must be imported.g

 Again, the majority of these inputs are sourced from non-ASEAN countries. Thailand was 

Cambodia’s third-largest source of lightweight cotton woven fabrics in 2008, after China and Hong Kong.h

 Of the 10 

factories operating in Cambodia that import lightweight cotton fabrics, Thailand supplied 4, which used the Thaisourced fabrics largely to produce shirts, blouses, and jackets.i 

 

a

 Industry official, e-mail message to Commission staff, May 6, 2010.

b

 Industry representative, interview by Commission staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 3, 2010. c

 BDLINK Cambodia and ACE Project Team, “Diagnostics Report, Textile and Apparel Supply Chain Corridors, 

Light-Weight Woven Cotton Fabric (HS 5208),” July 2009, 16. d

 ACE Project Team, “Textile and Apparel Supply Chain Corridor Diagnostics, SWOT Analysis,” May 2009, 24. e

 Based on data obtained from WITS Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010). f

 Based on data obtained from WITS Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010). 

g

 BDLINK Cambodia and ACE Project Team, “Diagnostics Report, Textile and Apparel Supply Chain Corridors, 

Light-Weight Woven Cotton Fabric (HS 5208),” July 2009, 25. h

 Based on data obtained from WITS Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010). i

 BDLINK Cambodia and ACE Project Team, “Diagnostics Report, Textile and Apparel Supply Chain Corridors, 

Light-Weight Woven Cotton Fabric (HS 5208),” July 2009, 31–32. 
4-9 

TABLE 4.5 ASEAN country tariffs for cotton woven apparel, 2004, 2008, and 2010 (percent ad valorem) 

ASEAN members 2004 2008 2010a

Imports from other 

ASEAN countries 

Imports from nonASEAN countries 

(MFN) 

Imports from other 

ASEAN countries 

Imports from nonASEAN countries 

(MFN) 

Imports from 

other ASEAN 

countries 

Brunei 0 0 0 0 0 

Burma 5b 10b 5 10 5 

Cambodia 7–35c 7–35 c

 5 7–35 c 5 

Indonesia 0–5 15 0–5d 15 0 

Laos 3–8 10 0–5 10 0–5 

Malaysia 5 15–20 0 0–20 0 

Philippines 5 15 0 15 0 

Singapore 0 0 0 0 0 

Thailande

 0–5 30 0 10–60f 0 

Vietnam 5–15 50 5 20 5 

Source: Agreement on the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) Scheme for the ASEAN Free Trade Area, 

Consolidated Package of Tariff Reductions for 2008, http://www.aseansec.org/19802.htm; Royal Malaysia Customs 

Department, HS-Explorer (accessed April 2010); WTO, Tariff Analysis Online (accessed April 2010). 

a

2010 MFN rates for ASEAN imports from non-ASEAN countries are not available to USITC staff for every ASEAN 

member country. b The majority of tariff rates are 5 and 10 percent ad valorem, depending on if the supplying country is an ASEAN 

member or not. The exception is other men’s cotton woven garments classified in HTS subheading 6211.32.10, which has 

MFN and ASEAN rates of duty of 2 percent ad valorem. c The majority of tariff rates range between 15 and 35 percent ad valorem. The exceptions are babies’ garments 

classified under HTS subheadings 6209.20.90, 6209.30.90, and 6209.90.90 that have a rate of duty of 7 percent. d Most imports are duty free. Only women’s and girls’ cotton woven skirts and shirts classified in HTS subheadings 

6204.52 and 6206.30 have a rate of duty of 5 percent ad valorem. e

Thailand’s 2008 CEPT package of tariff rates in 2008 is the same as Thailand’s 2007 CEPT package. f

Thailand’s MFN rate for most cotton woven apparel imports was 60 percent in 2008. 

TABLE 4.6 ASEAN country tariffs for cotton woven fabrics, 2004, 2008, and 2010 (percent ad valorem) 

ASEAN members 2004 2008 2010a

Imports from other 

ASEAN countries 

Imports from nonASEAN countries 

(MFN) 

Imports from other 

ASEAN countries 

Imports from 

non-ASEAN 

countries (MFN) 

Imports from 

other ASEAN 

countries 

Brunei 0 0 0 0 0 

Burma 1–5 1–7.5 4 4 4 

Cambodia 7 7 5 7 5 

Indonesia 0–5 10–15 0 10–15 0 

Laos 5 10 0 10 0 

Malaysia 5 10 0 10 0

Philippines 5 10 0 10 0 

Singapore 0 0 0 0 0

Thailand 0 30 0 5 0 

Vietnam 15 40 5 12 5 

Source: Agreement on the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) Scheme for the ASEAN Free Trade Area, 

Consolidated Package of Tariff Reductions for 2008, http://www.aseansec.org/19802.htm; Royal Malaysia Customs 

Department, HS-Explorer (accessed April 2010); WTO, Tariff Analysis Online (accessed April 2010).

 a2010 MFN rates for ASEAN imports from non-ASEAN countries are not available to USITC staff for every ASEAN 

member country. 
4-10

national government source stated that the Roadmap is no longer a critical factor 

influencing economic integration in the cotton woven apparel industry.25 

 ACE Project’s SAFSA Initiative26

The ACE project funded by USAID is likely to have a greater effect than the Roadmap in 

increasing intra-ASEAN production. 27 It is designed to stimulate intra-ASEAN 

production in order to increase the ASEAN region’s global competitiveness. To 

accomplish this goal, the ACE project is supporting the restructuring of the ASEAN’s 

textile and apparel sector so it can compete in the growing global trend of “fast fashion.” 

As described above, the increasing competition in the global retail apparel market has 

driven apparel buyers to seek one-stop sourcing and hold smaller inventories in order to 

reduce costs. This has led them to place smaller orders for a greater variety of garments, 

delivered in shorter lead times. Although countries that are vertically integrated are most 

likely to have the means to develop “fast fashion” production, the goal of SAFSA is to 

develop an ASEAN industry from which global buyers would be able to source fully 

designed apparel that is produced with ASEAN inputs in ASEAN countries.28 

The use of virtual vertical factories (VVFs)29 can enable the production of fast fashion by 

linking suppliers and garment manufacturers in different countries. VVFs have the 

potential to allow the various players in the production chain to exploit their comparative 

advantages and market a complete suite of services to buyers, including design—a 

function traditionally controlled by buyers.30 In June 2010, there was a SAFSA Textile 

and Apparel Global Forum held in Singapore. Eight buyers from the United States and 

the EU were present, and 14 VVFs (textile mills and garment factories) attended.31

Role of FTAs on Integration 

FTAs are an additional driving force behind ASEAN integrated production. 33 For 

example, the rules of origin under the ASEAN-Japan FTA require that cotton woven 

apparel be produced from cotton woven fabric made in an ASEAN country or Japan. 

Indonesia has doubled its fabric exports to other ASEAN countries since the ASEANJapan FTA took effect in December 2008.34 Companies based outside of the ASEAN 

region may use ASEAN countries as a platform for duty-free exports to Japan under the 

ASEAN-Japan FTA, and Indonesian industry sources attribute this success to the FTA.35

To a lesser extent, the new ASEAN-China FTA will also permit non-ASEAN-based 

firms to use ASEAN countries as platforms for duty-free exports to China. However, the 

 25 Ibid., March 2, 2010. 

26 The ACE project’s initiative to develop “fast fashion” production. 

27 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 10, 2010; and 

government official, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 2, 2010. 28 Industry representative, e-mail message to USITC staff, April 30, 2010. 29 Virtual vertical factories (VVFs) are apparel factories and fabric weaving mills that would partner to 

create finished apparel. Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, 

March 15, 2010. 30 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 15, 2010; industry 

representative, e-mail to USITC staff, April 20, 2010. 31 Likhikiatikul, “Global Fashion Brands Sign 23 MOU with ASEAN Suppliers.” June 15, 2010. 33 Fee and Shannon, “Free Trade Agreements: Japan’s Free Trade Network,” March 16, 2010. 34 Industry representative, meeting with USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 3, 2010. 35 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 15, 2010. 
4-11

ASEAN-China FTA appears less likely to encourage integration in the textiles sector 

among ASEAN countries, at least initially. In the near term, this FTA will likely allow 

imports from China, the world’s largest textile and apparel producer and exporter, to 

compete more effectively in local ASEAN markets. 36 However, to the extent that 

production costs increase in China, making it less competitive, it is possible that the 

China FTA could result in increased market opportunities for ASEAN producers, 

particularly in the labor-intensive apparel sector. 

Export Competitiveness 

Trade 

ASEAN exports of cotton woven apparel to the world increased in value from 

$5.2 billion in 2004 to $6.3 billion in 2008; however, ASEAN’s share of world trade in 

this sector declined slightly. In 2004, ASEAN exports of cotton woven apparel accounted 

for 4.2 percent of world trade in these products; in 2008, this share dropped to 

3.8 percent. As noted above, Vietnam and Indonesia are the two largest exporting 

countries of cotton woven apparel among ASEAN members, together accounting for 

61 percent of total ASEAN cotton woven apparel exports to the world in 2008 (table 4.7). 

TABLE 4.7 Cotton woven apparel: ASEAN member exports to the world, by value, 2004–08

Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

% change, 

2004–08

Vietnam 973,463 1,112,532 1,428,897 1,724,382 2,028,985 108 

Indonesia 1,238,362 1,604,961 1,854,065 1,845,342 1,846,860 49 

Cambodia 779,371 791,364 780,795 784,870 811,557 4 

Thailand 728,336 763,382 722,846 654,808 617,421 (15) 

Philippines 839,550 774,287 769,150 601,446 508,278 (39) 

Malaysia 320,927 285,639 321,073 311,693 309,023 (4) 

Burma 145,531 89,964 124,713 137,049 141,578 (3) 

Laos 59,191 54,474 54,355 59,340 56,106 (5) 

Singapore 70,644 29,954 35,647 24,167 16,878 (76) 

Brunei 3,762 6,114 1,675 1,454 1,895 (69) 

 Total 5,161,489 5,510,320 6,093,218 6,144,552 6,338,582 23 

Source: WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010).

thousand $

Note: Data are based on partner country imports. Brunei, Burma, and Laos do not report trade data, and the following 

countries did not report data for selected years: Cambodia (2005–08), Philippines (2004–06), and Vietnam (2008). Trade 

between these countries may therefore be undervalued.

The United States is by far the largest market for ASEAN exports of cotton woven 

apparel (table 4.3). Nevertheless, the share of ASEAN exports going to the U.S. market 

declined from 65 percent in 2004 to 58 percent in 2008. The share of ASEAN exports 

going to the EU has remained relatively steady at 20 percent. As a whole, ASEAN 

countries have diversified their exports away from the United States and the EU, the 

traditional large markets that were largely controlled by import quotas until the end of 

2004. As explained earlier, following the removal of quotas, U.S. and EU retailers and 

apparel firms consolidated their sourcing to fewer countries to reduce costs and 

 36 For example, see Blake, “Blaming China: Indonesian Garment Makers Say Free Trade Pact Leaves 

Them on Brink of Collapse,” April 26, 2010. 
4-12

strengthen supplier relationships. Many countries, including some of the ASEAN 

countries, looked to expand their exports to other markets in order to maintain production 

levels. ASEAN exports to Japan, for example, increased by 45 percent during 2004–08, 

and the share of ASEAN exports going to Japan increased from 3.8 percent in 2004 to 4.5 

percent in 2008 (table 4.3). Recent growth in ASEAN exports to Japan is also partly 

attributed to the ASEAN-Japan FTA. U.S. firms that contract with ASEAN apparel 

companies indicated that the ASEAN-Japan FTA provides an incentive to produce cotton 

woven apparel in the ASEAN countries for the Japanese market.37 

As discussed in box 4.1, apparel-producing ASEAN countries rely heavily on imports of 

cotton woven fabrics from non-ASEAN members (see table 4.2).38 Nevertheless, some 

ASEAN countries have seen significant increases in their exports of cotton woven fabrics 

to other ASEAN members during 2004–08 (table 4.8). For example, Thailand’s exports 

of cotton woven fabrics to other ASEAN countries increased by about 70 percent during 

2004–08, fueled largely by increased exports to Vietnam, and, to a lesser extent, by 

increased exports of higher-valued fabrics to Singapore (table 4.8). Malaysia’s exports of 

cotton woven fabrics also increased by 42 percent during 2004–08, albeit from a much 

smaller base. 

TABLE 4.8 Certain cotton woven fabrics: ASEAN member exports to ASEAN members, by value, 2004–08 

Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

% change, 

2004–08

Thailand 67,002 73,416 96,601 112,353 115,471 72 

Singapore 50,136 45,803 29,330 29,602 29,727 (41) 

Indonesia 36,799 51,975 41,639 25,333 28,626 (22) 

Malaysia 11,738 12,537 14,313 17,963 16,677 42 

Philippines (a) (a) (a) 319 1,419 (a)

Cambodia 27 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a)

Vietnam 2,661 1,984 2,994 4,363 (a) (a)

 Total 168,363 185,714 184,876 191,033 190,818 13 

 a Not available.

Note: Data are based on exports. Brunei, Burma, and Laos do not report trade data, and the following countries did not 

report data for selected years: Cambodia (2005–08), Philippines (2004–06), and Vietnam (2008). Trade between these 

countries may therefore be undervalued.

thousand $

Source: WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010); GTIS, Global Trade Atlas Database (accessed 

April 15, 2010).

Competitiveness 

Using export data to the world (excluding intra-ASEAN trade) as an indicator, Vietnam 

has emerged as the most competitive producer of cotton woven apparel in the ASEAN 

region (table 4.7). Over the last five years, Vietnam has more than doubled its exports of 

cotton woven apparel to the world, from $1.0 billion in 2004 to $2.0 billion in 2008, and 

is now the top ASEAN exporter of such products to the world. 

 37 Industry representatives, telephone interviews by Commission staff, March 22 and March 24, 2010. 38 For example, China’s exports of cotton woven fabrics to the ASEAN countries nearly doubled from 

2004 to 2008 (table 4.2). 
4-13

The Vietnamese cotton woven apparel industry, like the Vietnamese textile and apparel 

sector as a whole, has been heavily influenced by government policies. The Vietnamese 

government sets targets for growth in sales and exports in the textile and apparel sector, 

including the cotton woven apparel industry.39 Its goal is to increase vertical integration 

in the industry, including the production of raw cotton and increased investment in 

dyeing and finishing.40 In addition, the Vietnam Textile and Apparel Group (VINATEX), 

a state-owned conglomerate, has partial ownership in about 100 firms and a majority 

share in 27 of those firms.41 

Industry sources indicated that Vietnam can be competitive with China because it has an 

abundant, skilled workforce, particularly in sewing; relatively high production efficiency; 

and competitive labor rates.42 It also has a stable business environment and, along with 

Bangladesh, is considered one of the prime alternatives to China for firms looking to 

diversify their sourcing.43 Vietnam is also attractive because of its proximity to Asian 

fabric suppliers (particularly China, Korea, and Taiwan), which allows short delivery 

times for raw materials. One industry source also indicated that Vietnam is an attractive 

place to invest compared with many apparel-producing locations around the world 

because, although its infrastructure is relatively underdeveloped, the government is 

actively working to improve it. Improvements include industrial zones that provide basic 

manufacturing infrastructure, as well as a new deepwater port southeast of Ho Chi Minh 

City that provides short transit times of 15 to 17 days to the U.S. West Coast. 

Indonesia also has a large apparel industry, and historically it has been among the more 

competitive producers of cotton woven apparel in the ASEAN region. After Vietnam, it 

was the second largest ASEAN exporter of cotton woven apparel to the world in 2008 

(table 4.7). Indonesia’s exports of cotton woven apparel jumped in 2005 and 2006 

following the expiration of the ATC global quotas on January 1, 2005; however, such 

exports leveled off after 2006, and the Indonesian cotton woven apparel industry is now 

experiencing difficulties in terms of logistics and rising costs. It does have a large 

workforce, with average monthly wages for the apparel industry reported to be lower than 

in Vietnam ($100 per month compared to $120 per month in Vietnam). On the other 

hand, wages are higher in Jakarta, which has pushed apparel production further inland 

where wages are lower, but transportation costs are higher. 44 Moreover, Indonesia’s 

worker productivity is reportedly less than in Vietnam.45

Unlike Vietnam, which has to import most of its apparel inputs, Indonesia also has a 

sizable industry producing cotton woven fabrics, which it uses in its production of cotton 

woven apparel. It also exports cotton woven fabrics to other countries, including other 

ASEAN members. However, Indonesia’s textile industry’s capacity utilization rate is just 

under 75 percent, due in part to problems with the power supply. 46 Because of 

comparatively high transportation costs and poor infrastructure, and the fact that 

Indonesia does not have a major port, some ASEAN industry sources conclude that 

 39 VITAS, “Garments Top Nation’s Export Lists,” January 12, 2010; VITAS, “Vietnam Receives Just a 

Small Slice of the Garment Industry Pie,” January 26, 2010. 40 VITAS, “Vietnam Receives Just a Small Slice of the Garment Industry Pie,” January 26, 2010. 

41 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, March 10, 2010. 42 Unless otherwise noted, information in this paragraph is based on the following sources: Industry 

representatives, e-mail messages to USITC staff, March 11, March 16, March 22, and March 26, 2010; 

industry representatives, telephone interviews by USITC staff, March 22 and March 24, 2010. 43 Joe Ayling, “Analysis: Emerging Exporters Eye China Market Share,” April 16, 2010. 44 Industry representative, meeting by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 3, 2010. 45 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 10, 2010. 46 Industry representative, meeting by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 3, 2010. 
4-14

Indonesia has limited potential as a global competitor in garment production.47 In spite of 

these challenges, however, some U.S. apparel buyers consider Indonesia a competitive 

producer and an attractive sourcing alternative to China.48

Cambodia, Thailand, and the Philippines are the next-largest exporters of cotton woven 

apparel in ASEAN. Cambodia’s exports of these goods remained relatively flat at about 

$0.8 billion during 2004–08, while those from Thailand and the Philippines declined 

during the same period. Of these three countries, Cambodia has the lowest labor costs and 

is the most competitive producer of cotton woven apparel in terms of opportunities for 

growth and integrated ASEAN production. Cambodia’s labor costs for the apparel 

industry, at approximately $80 to $100 per month,49 are among the lowest of the ASEAN 

producers. 

Thailand has a fully integrated textile industry, including yarn spinning, fabric weaving, 

and printing, dyeing, and finishing facilities.50 Approximately 60 percent of Thailand’s 

fabric production is consumed domestically, and the remaining 40 percent is exported.51

Thailand’s fabric producers ship their cotton woven fabrics to other ASEAN countries, 

primarily Burma, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, for apparel production, to benefit from 

those countries’ low labor costs.52 Thailand’s woven fabric industry is known for its highquality cotton woven fabrics sold at relatively high prices.53 The industry now faces 

increased manufacturing costs, in part due to the use of outdated machinery, rising labor 

costs, and relatively low capacity utilization rates (approximately 75 percent).54 

The cotton woven apparel industry in the Philippines contracted during the 2004–08 

period.55 Exports of cotton woven apparel from the Philippines declined annually, falling 

by approximately 40 percent during 2004–08 (table 4.7). Facing intense competition from 

such lower cost producers as Bangladesh, Vietnam, Cambodia, China, and Indonesia, the 

Philippines lost market share in the United States, its largest cotton woven apparel 

market. 56 The Government of the Philippines attempted to assist the industry by 

developing incentives to attract FDI. A special zone was set up in a former U.S. military 

base. All textile machinery imported into this special zone is duty-free.57 In addition, 

because the United States is the Philippines’ largest apparel export market, the 

Government of the Philippines is seeking preferential duty-free treatment in the United 

States for its apparel exports that are made with U.S. fabric.58 

 47 Ibid. 

48 Joe Ayling, “Analysis: Emerging Exporters Eye China Market Share,” April 16, 2010; Joe Ayling, 

“Speaking with Style: Janet Fox, JC Penney,” April 27, 2010. 49 Industry representative, interview by Commission staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 10, 2010. 50 BDLINK Cambodia and ACE Project Team, “Diagnostics Report, Textile and Apparel Supply Chain 

Corridors,” July 2009, 25–26. 51 BDLINK Cambodia and ACE Project Team, “Diagnostics Report, Textile and Apparel Supply Chain 

Corridors,” July 2009, 15–16. 52 Industry representative, interview by Commission staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 17, 2009. 53 BDLINK Cambodia and ACE Project Team, “Diagnostics Report, Textile and Apparel Supply Chain 

Corridors,” July 2009, 15–16. 54 ACE Project Team, “Textile and Apparel Supply Chain Corridor Diagnostics, SWOT Analysis,” 

May 2009, 23–24. 55 Textile Outlook International, “World Textile and Apparel Trade and Production Trends,” September–

October 2008, 26. 56 Ibid., 27. 

57 Ibid., 29. 

58 Galvez, “RP Eyes Duty-Free Deal with US to Boost Textile Industry,” April 20, 2010. The “Save Our 

Industries Act” (Senate Bill 3170, 111th Congress) would provide duty preferences for U.S. imports of 

certain apparel manufacturing in the Philippines using U.S. yarns and fabrics. 
4-15

The industry in Malaysia suffers from high production costs fueled by a shortage of 

labor. 59 Consequently, Malaysia’s factories tend to be small and focused on the 

production of higher-value goods and branded apparel for export.60 At the same time, 

Malaysian producers have expanded into lower-end apparel production in Vietnam and 

Cambodia. 61 The Malaysian industry is known for its quality products and timely 

delivery, both of which are important competitive factors, especially for branded apparel 

companies. 

Little information is available on the cotton woven apparel sector in Laos. Its exports to 

the world remained relatively flat during 2004–08. However, its exports of cotton woven 

apparel to other ASEAN members increased in value, from $223,000 in 2004 to $1.5 

million in 2008. Some industry analysts suggest that Laos’ low-cost work force makes it 

an attractive location for potential future investment for the production of apparel.62

However, Laos has not yet been targeted for significant investment in apparel production 

because of its poor logistics. The country is landlocked, with a significant portion 

inaccessible by roads. The road network that does exist is in poor condition, and Laos has 

no rail system.63 

Brunei is not a competitive producer of apparel, as is evidenced by its small and declining 

share of ASEAN exports to the world and declining intra-ASEAN exports. Brunei’s 

industry virtually disappeared after the removal of quotas at the end of 2004. 64

Information is not available on the state of the cotton woven apparel industry in Burma. 

 Inbound Investment 

According to industry and trade sources in the ASEAN countries, there are few, if any, 

restrictions on investment in the cotton woven apparel industry or in the industry that 

makes its inputs—cotton woven fabrics.65 Malaysia and Singapore have been two of the 

major sources of intra-ASEAN investment in Vietnam and Indonesia. As discussed, the 

costs of production in Malaysia and Singapore are generally higher than that for other 

ASEAN countries, and firms in these countries have sought lower-cost options for 

production outside of and among other ASEAN countries, particularly for apparel. 

Vietnam is the primary recipient of investment among the ASEAN countries. According 

to an industry source in Vietnam, approximately 30 countries, including Singapore, 

Malaysia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, the United States, France, and the 

United Kingdom, have invested in textile and apparel production in Vietnam, and a high 

percentage of that investment is likely to be in the cotton woven apparel industry.66

Several other ASEAN countries have attracted or encouraged FDI in the sector. 

Approximately 60 percent of Indonesia’s apparel production is based on foreign 

 59 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 10, 2010. 60 Textile Outlook International, “World Textile and Apparel Trade and Production Trends,” September–

October 2008, 21–22. 61 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 3, 2010, and Ho Chi 

Minh City, Vietnam, March 10, 2010. 62 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 10, 2010. 63 Greenwood, “WFP Laos-Logistics Overview.” May 7, 2010. 64 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 28, 2010. 

65 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 15, 2010. 66 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, March 10, 2010. 
4-16

investment,67 with much of the investment in the apparel sector originating from other 

ASEAN countries (Malaysia and Singapore), as well as from Taiwan, Korea, and Japan.68

Cambodia’s apparel industry, including the cotton woven apparel industry, is based 

almost entirely on FDI from countries such as China, Taiwan, and Korea. 69 FDI in 

Thailand’s textiles and apparel sector also increased in 2007 and 2008 from prior levels.70

In 2007, Thailand attracted $71.1 million in new FDI, following a net outflow of FDI in 

2006 ($7.8 million).71

Given the intensity of global competition in the apparel industry, the availability, cost, 

and productivity of labor72 are major driving factors affecting inbound investment in the 

cotton woven apparel industry. Although Vietnam’s apparel producers get most of their 

inputs and fabrics from China, there is growing investment in Vietnam to increase 

capacity in the production of textile and apparel inputs. VINATEX, the state-owned 

textile conglomerate, indicated that it is encouraging Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, and the 

United States to increase their investment in fabric production in Vietnam.73 Industry 

sources indicate there has also been strong support for the industry from the Government 

of Vietnam through the development of industrial parks, making it relatively easy to set 

up a factory.74 As indicated, logistics and infrastructure problems affecting access to 

imported raw materials and exports of finished goods have been important factors 

inhibiting inbound investment, though the government has been working to improve both 

these factors. 

Trade Facilitation, Logistics Services, and E-Commerce 

Trade Facilitation and Logistics Services 

Trade facilitation and logistics services, which affect quick turnaround and speed to 

market, are important competitive factors in both global and intra-ASEAN trade in cotton 

woven apparel and fabrics. Most industry representatives cited underdeveloped 

infrastructure as a challenge faced by ASEAN fabric and apparel producers, particularly 

in Indonesia, Cambodia, and to a lesser extent, Vietnam. 

Industry sources noted that Indonesia has poor transportation infrastructure, including a 

costly and slow trucking system, as well as a rail system that is underdeveloped and even 

more costly than trucking.75 Moreover, since Indonesia is located furthest among the 

ASEAN countries from its key input suppliers and key markets (i.e., China and the 

United States), its lack of a deepwater port further slows the movement of goods in and 

out of the country.76 On the other hand, a new trans-Java highway that could reduce 

ground transportation bottlenecks is being built; it is scheduled for completion by 2013. 

 67 Industry representative, meeting by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 3, 2010. 68 Ibid. 

69 BDLINK Cambodia and ACE Project Team, “Diagnostics Report, Textile and Apparel Supply Chain 

Corridors,” July 2009, 27. 70 Textile Outlook, “World Textile Trade and Production Trends,” September/October 2008, 33. 71 Ibid. 

72 For the purposes of this discussion, “cost of labor” means the cost to make one unit of a good. 

Differences in actual wage rates may be moderated or intensified by differences in productivity. 73 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, March 10, 2010. 74 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, March 24, 2010. 75 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 3, 2010. 76 Ibid. 
4-17

Cambodia is a country whose strengths in producing cotton woven apparel are undercut 

by poor infrastructure. Transportation between Thailand, Vietnam, and Cambodia is by 

road, which presents challenges because of poor road conditions.77 Cambodia’s apparel 

industry must ship its exports through the small port of Sihanoukville, which is also 

served by poor roads. Vietnam would like to serve as an export gateway for Cambodia’s 

cotton woven apparel industry.78

Vietnam also is hampered by poor infrastructure. Nevertheless, industry sources indicated 

that the situation is improving in Vietnam. Already, its new deepwater port facilitates 

faster delivery of inputs into the country and improves the speed to market for delivery of 

cotton woven apparel.79

Another common trade facilitation problem among the ASEAN countries is customs 

clearance,80 which also affects quick turnaround and speed to market. Customs clearance 

reportedly takes longer in Vietnam than in some of the other ASEAN countries; however, 

through government efforts, the time needed for clearance has been reduced from about 

six days to two days. By comparison, Malaysia’s customs clearance time is six hours and 

Singapore’s is one hour. The Vietnamese government is attempting to further reduce the 

time to import and export by 30 percent through its Project 30, which is a multiyear, 

cross-cutting red tape reduction program. 81 Improvements in customs clearance in 

Cambodia have been limited.82

E-Commerce 

The use of e-commerce in the ASEAN cotton woven apparel industry is limited but 

increasing. As an example of electronic procurement, a factory in Penang, Malaysia, 

produces shirts for an upscale U.S. retailer and a sister factory produces pants for this 

retailer. Both factories are electronically linked to the retailers that sell these garments. 

Thus, when inventory drops to a certain level, the factory automatically ships more.83

Electronic procurement is likely to become more widespread in the future, especially if 

companies are able to provide superior speed to market and become one-stop sources—

operations that can offer customers both fully designed and fully produced apparel from a 

single source. 

 77 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 17, 2010. 78 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, March 10, 2010. 79 Industry representative, e-mail message to USITC staff, March 16, 2010; industry representatives, 

telephone interviews by USITC staff, March 22 and 24, 2010. 80 Government official, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 15, 2010. 81 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, March 10, 2010. Time 

periods reported above may differ from the World Bank “Trading Across Borders” data cited in chapter 2 

because of practices used in the World Bank’s methodology. 82 Government official, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 15, 2010. 83 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 10, 2010. 
4-18

Bibliography 

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Competitiveness Enhancement (ACE) Project. 

“Textiles and Apparel Supply Chain, Corridor Diagnostics, SWOT Analysis, and Remediation 

Action Plan for Light-Weight Woven Cotton Fabric (HS 5208) Exported from Thailand to 

Vietnam.” Prepared for United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Asia, 

May 2009. 

Ayling, Joe. “Analysis: Emerging Exporters Eye China Market Share.” Just Style, April 16, 2010. 

http://www.just-style.com/article.aspx?id=107441&lk=s (accessed April 27, 2010). 

———. “Speaking with Style: Janet Fox, JC Penney.” Just Style, April 27, 2010. 

http://www.just-style.com/article.aspx?id=107496 (accessed April 27, 2010). 

BDLINK Cambodia and ACE Project Team. “Textile and Apparel Supply Chain Corridors Light-Weight 

Woven Cotton Fabric (HS 5208) Thailand to Cambodia, SWOT Analysis, and Remediation 

Action Plan.” Prepared for United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Asia, 

July 2009. 

Blake, Chris. “Blaming China: Indonesian Garment Makers Say Free Trade Pact Leaves Them on Brink 

of Collapse.” Los Angeles Times, April 26, 2010. 

http://www.latimes.com/business/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-as-indonesia-china-tradefears,0,3780726.story. 

Fee, Jonathan, and BJ Shannon. “Free Trade Agreements: Japan’s Free Trade Network.” Cotton Council, 

Inc. http://www.cottonusasupplychain.com/sourcing/fta-japan.htm (accessed March 16, 2010). 

Galvez, James Konstantin. “RP Eyes Duty-Free Trade Deal with US to Boost Textile Industry.” Manila 

Times, April 20, 2010. http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/news/nation/15616-rp-eyes-dutyfree-trade-deal-with-us-to-boost-textile-industry.

Greenwood, Tom. “WFP Laos-Logistics Overview.” World Food Programme. 

http://www.wfplogistics.org/content/wfp-laos-logistics-overview (accessed May 7, 2010). 

Likhikiatikul, Jittdarat. “Global Fashion Brands Sign 23 MOU with ASEAN Suppliers.” ScottAsia 

Communications, June 15, 2010. http://scottasia.net/site/2010/06/global-fashion-brands-sign-23-

mou-with-asean-suppliers/. 

Minor, Peter. “Upgrading ASEAN Textiles and Apparel Supply Chains.” Nathan Associates, Inc. 

Prepared for United States Agency for International Development (USAID), June 16, 2008.

Textile Outlook International. “World Textile and Apparel Trade and Production Trends: China, SouthEast Asia and South Asia,” September–October 2008, 17–36. 

U.S. Department of State. “Background Note on Vietnam,” October 2009. 

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/4130.htm (accessed April 29, 2010). 

Vietnam Textile Organization (VITAS). “Garments Top Nation’s Export Lists,” January 12, 2010. 

http://www.vietnamtextile.org/en/ChiTietTinTuc.aspx?MaTinTuc=493&Matheloai=5 (accessed 

April 27, 2010). 
4-19

———. “Vietnam Receives Just a Small Slice of the Garment Industry Pie,” January 26, 2010. 

http://www.vietnamtextile.org/en/ChiTietTinTuc.aspx?MaTinTuc=523&Matheloai=5 (accessed 

April 27, 2010). 

5-1

CHAPTER 5 

Wood-based Products: Hardwood 

Plywood and Flooring 

Wood-based Products Overview1 

The ASEAN wood-based products priority sector includes processed wood products, 

such as lumber, plywood, other panel products, flooring, and wooden furniture. 

Unprocessed wood, such as logs, poles, and posts, are specifically excluded from the 

sector, as are pulp and paper products. This chapter provides a brief discussion of the 

wood-based products sector and then the region’s hardwood plywood and flooring 

industry, an important wood products segment that is representative of the competitive 

challenges and trends facing the region’s wood products producers. 

Historically, ASEAN countries have been significant contributors to global trade in 

wood-based products. The region is known for products made of tropical wood species 

that are desirable for their technical attributes as well as for their aesthetic qualities when 

used in furniture, cabinetry, flooring, and architectural woodwork. Plantation-grown 

woods such as rubberwood and teak are increasingly used in manufacturing wood-based 

products, as wood supply from the tropical natural forests becomes less available.2

 

Indonesia and Malaysia are major ASEAN players in the global trade of lumber, 

plywood, veneer, moldings, and flooring. Malaysia is the world’s largest exporter of 

hardwood lumber (i.e., non-coniferous species) and the second largest exporter of 

hardwood plywood, behind China. Indonesia is the third largest exporter of hardwood 

plywood. Vietnam has emerged as the second largest exporter of wooden furniture, again 

behind China. Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand are also significant exporters of wooden 

furniture and furniture components. ASEAN exports of wood-based products increased 

from $14.9 billion in 2004 to $17.7 billion in 2008 (table 2.4), although ASEAN global 

market share remained about the same, slipping from 11.6 percent to 11.1 percent.3

 

ASEAN countries have been historically competitive in this sector largely because of 

their abundant and relatively low-cost wood supply. However, the region’s international 

competitiveness is being challenged by Chinese expansion and by concerns in major 

markets about deforestation and illegal logging. Wood supply has also become less 

certain in recent years as natural tropical forests are more fully exploited and more 

restrictions are placed on their harvesting. As wood supply becomes more of an issue, the 

region is shifting its manufacturing to more highly processed wood products, such as 

flooring and furniture. 

Because of the uncertainty of securing adequate wood supplies, relatively little foreign 

investment flows into wood-based products manufacturing in the ASEAN countries. 

Furniture manufacturing and forest plantations are the two areas where foreign 

 1

 See app. F for a list of the Harmonized System numbers covered under this priority sector. 2

 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 15, 2010. 3

 WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed March 29, 2010). 
5-2

investment activity has been more pronounced over the past several years, with much of 

the foreign capital coming from outside of the region. Investors from Taiwan, Hong 

Kong, Japan and, to a lesser extent, the United States and Europe have taken advantage of 

competitively low wood costs and labor rates to locate wood furniture plants in the 

region. Often, these facilities import temperate species of logs, lumber, and veneer from 

North America and the European Union (EU) to make secondary products (such as 

furniture and flooring) to be exported back to those markets.4

 

To augment wood supply from natural forests, forest plantations have attracted some, 

albeit limited, foreign investment in the form of joint ventures. Japan is the largest 

outside investor in plantations in the region, with joint ventures reported in Thailand, 

Vietnam, and Indonesia. 5

 Chinese investment in the ASEAN wood-based sector has 

focused on logging (mainly in Burma) and forest plantations in other ASEAN countries 

to secure raw materials for factories in China. Intra-ASEAN investment in plantations is 

reportedly highest in Indonesia, with investments by Malaysian and Singaporean 

companies; some additional ASEAN cross-border plantation investment is reported in 

Vietnam. With few exceptions, however, government control of forest land in ASEAN 

countries complicates foreign investment and is a major barrier for foreign investors 

because of ownership controls and regulations.6

 

The ASEAN Roadmap for Integration of Wood-based Products Sector (Roadmap) shares 

many of the same objectives and programmatic elements as other priority sector 

Roadmaps, including tariff elimination, free flow of investment, and better trade 

facilitation. Indonesia is the lead country for the ASEAN Wood-based Products Sector 

Roadmap. Measures specific to wood products aim to, among other things, enhance 

cooperation in certification of wood-based products; combat illegal trade in forest 

products; ensure sustainability of forest resources; counter negative publicity about the 

tropical hardwood products trade; develop joint marketing efforts for ASEAN wood 

products; and promote investments in forest plantations. While ASEAN institutions have 

successfully served as forums for dialogue, progress has been slow in developing 

substantive region-wide approaches to many of these issues. 

Hardwood Plywood and Flooring7 

Key Findings 

Although unprocessed wood (referred to as industrial roundwood) is not included in the 

ASEAN wood-based products priority sector, it is nevertheless a dominant factor 

influencing economic integration. In fact, the single most important competitive factor in 

the production and export of hardwood flooring and plywood is the availability of 

competitively priced raw material; the basic cost for delivered logs typically accounts for 

more than half of all production costs. 

Without exception, all of the ASEAN countries have imposed prohibitions of one kind or 

another on the harvesting and/or export of unprocessed roundwood (i.e., logs) and, in 

 4

 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, Singapore, January 27, 2010. 5

 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, March 2, 2010. 6

 Ibid. 

7

 See app. F under “Wood-based Products” for HS subheadings that apply to the hardwood plywood and 

flooring industry discussed in this chapter. 
5-3

some cases, on the export of sawnwood (i.e. lumber) as well, both to encourage 

manufacturing of more highly processed products and to protect diminishing forest 

resources.8

 These restrictions affect intraregional trade as well as the overall supply of 

raw materials available for the region. In general, a variable wood supply and 

competition for exports between the member countries tend to hinder economic 

integration in hardwood plywood and flooring. 

Two other elements—the ability to satisfy international consumers’ concerns about the 

legality and sustainability of raw materials, and the elimination of tariffs—are also 

critical to achieving regional economic integration in the ASEAN hardwood plywood 

and flooring industry.9

 Although considerable progress has been made in lowering tariffs 

within ASEAN, policies in major export markets compelling ASEAN producers to assure 

that wood products are from legal, if not demonstrably sustainable, sources remain a 

major obstacle to the competitiveness of ASEAN hardwood plywood and flooring. 

Initiatives to collaborate on issues relating to deforestation and illegal logging are 

emphasized in the Roadmap, but progress has been complicated by the fact that ASEAN 

members are involved in various other simultaneous national, bilateral, and international 

processes aimed at achieving similar objectives.10 

The reduction in tariffs put into effect with the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), along 

with implementation of other ASEAN measures for economic integration, could 

potentially induce greater intra-ASEAN investment and trade at a time when wood 

supply in the region is tightening. Historically, tariffs on hardwood plywood and flooring 

in ASEAN countries were very high—as high as 40 percent in many cases. As of 

January 1, 2010, intra-ASEAN tariffs on hardwood plywood and flooring are mostly zero 

or less than 5 percent. Lower tariffs might allow more flexibility in sourcing materials 

and producing different varieties of hardwood plywood and flooring, but tariff reduction 

by itself has not yet triggered increased intra-ASEAN trade in this sector. 

Economic integration and intra-ASEAN trade could benefit the hardwood plywood and 

flooring industry as the region becomes more dependent on plantation-grown trees and 

imported raw materials, and as the region develops its downstream manufacturing 

capacity for wood products such as flooring, furniture, and millwork. However, plywood 

production in the region is declining. Suitable raw material is becoming scarcer and 

China has become a formidable competitor taking away global market share. While 

plywood, engineered wood flooring, and wood laminate flooring offer opportunities for 

cross-border investment, there has been relatively little intra-ASEAN investment in this 

sector. ASEAN institutions have had some positive effects on the hardwood plywood and 

flooring industry in terms of lower tariffs and increased dialogue on sector-specific 

competitiveness issues, but the industry itself has not experienced measurable regional 

economic integration. 

 8

 Resosudarmo and Yusuf, “Is the Log Export Ban Effective?” June, 2006, 1. 

9

 Although unprocessed wood products (timber, roundwood, posts, etc.) are not included within the trade 

liberalization scope of the ASEAN Sectoral Integration Protocol for Wood-based Products, the Roadmap 

addresses illegal logging and related perceptions about the region’s wood products. 10 Some of the programs and processes to address legal trade and forest sustainability are discussed in the 

regional integration subsection. See also table 5.3. 
5-4

Background 

Hardwood plywood and flooring are mainstay industries within the ASEAN wood-based 

products sector, and both are export oriented. ASEAN shipments of hardwood plywood 

and flooring represent an estimated 30 percent of all primary manufactured wood 

products (excluding roundwood) and 20 percent of wood-based products as defined in the 

ASEAN priority sector (which includes wood furniture).11 However, in 2008, only an 

estimated 15 percent of ASEAN production of hardwood plywood was consumed within 

the region.12 In that year, ASEAN exports of hardwood plywood and flooring accounted 

for $4.9 billion (table 5.1), or 27 percent of total world exports of these commodities.13

ASEAN’s largest market is Japan, which accounts for approximately 40 percent of the 

region’s hardwood plywood and flooring exports. 

Malaysia and Indonesia dominate production in the ASEAN region, accounting for over 

90 percent of ASEAN production (an estimated 57 percent and 34 percent, 

respectively). 14 Malaysia and Indonesia are also the region’s two largest exporters, 

together accounting for over 95 percent of ASEAN exports (an estimated 52 and 

44 percent, respectively).15 These figures mask some significant shifts that have occurred 

in the region over time. Indonesia’s plywood capacity has declined significantly over the 

past five years, while Malaysian production has remained steady. The number of 

operating plywood plants in Indonesia declined from 128 in 2003 to only 25 in 2009.16

The Indonesia plywood industry is contracting because of less government support, 

tightening timber supplies, and lost market share in industrialized countries concerned 

about the legality of wood sourcing. 17 Malaysia currently has 91 operating plywood 

plants.18 Only a handful of plywood facilities operate in the other ASEAN countries, 

which collectively account for less than 6 percent of regional production. 19 Brunei 

Darussalam (Brunei) is the only ASEAN member without any plywood production 

capacity. The Philippines was once the largest global hardwood plywood producer, but it 

exhausted its supply of exploitable timber resources by the 1980s and now accounts for 

only 2 percent of the region’s output. The country’s forest management agency reported 

39 operating plants in 2007.20 Separate data on wood flooring manufacturing by ASEAN 

countries are not available, but Malaysia and Indonesia are also the region’s largest 

producers and exporters of engineered and wood laminate flooring products.21

 11 Estimated based on FAO production data and unit export values, and value of global wood furniture 

imports from ASEAN members based on Global Trade Information Service (GTIS) data, accessed 

March 15, 2010. 12 Calculated using Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) plywood export value as a percent of 

derived value of plywood shipments (production times unit export value). 13 See table 2.4 for total exports of wood-based products. 

14 FAO, FAOSTAT database,. 

15 See table 5.3. 

16 Government representative, interview by USITC staff, March 2, 2010. 17 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, March 2, 2010. 18 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 12, 2010. 19 Government representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Hanoi, March 8, 2010; FAO, FAOSTAT 

database, accessed January 7, 2010; Philippines Forest Management Bureau, 2007 Forestry Statistics, 

accessed March 17, 2010. 20 Philippines Forest Management Bureau, 2007 Forestry Statistics, accessed March 17, 2010. 21 Based on GTIS trade data (accessed March 15, 2010) and confirmed by industry representative, 

interviewed by USITC staff, Washington, DC, March 30, 2010. 
5-5

TABLE 5.1 Hardwood plywood and flooring: ASEAN exports to selected markets, by value, 2004–08

Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

% change, 

2004–08

Japan 2,160,069 1,957,806 2,424,880 2,163,012 1,901,615 (12) 

EU-27 779,370 804,845 914,017 944,344 903,538 16 

Korea 316,986 345,374 358,585 401,350 419,753 32 

United States 695,708 642,676 659,525 600,886 383,402 (45) 

Taiwan 302,804 296,123 299,615 305,685 302,921 0 

Australia 125,760 139,430 147,582 208,490 195,167 55 

China 400,583 312,797 214,665 181,324 167,854 (58) 

 Subtotal 4,781,281 4,499,051 5,018,869 4,805,091 4,274,250 (11) 

All other 430,320 619,364 525,985 740,248 646,847 50 

 Total 5,211,601 5,118,415 5,544,854 5,545,339 4,921,096 (6) 

Source: WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010).

thousand $

Note: Data are based on ASEAN partner country imports because Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Phillipines, 

and Vietnam do not report trade data in all years. All other export value excludes intra-ASEAN trade.

Construction is the major end use for hardwood plywood produced in the ASEAN 

countries, but other uses for high-quality tropical hardwood plywood include furniture, 

door skins, architectural woodwork, and flooring. 22 ASEAN plywood and flooring 

producers typically use tropical wood species such as meranti, kapur, and keruing, among 

many others. For flooring, they also utilize locally grown bamboo, as well as imported 

temperate species such as oak, cherry, maple, and walnut. 

Three general types of hardwood flooring are manufactured in the ASEAN region—solid, 

engineered, and laminated. The latter two types have grown in popularity and are 

increasingly manufactured in both China and the ASEAN region.23 The local market for 

wood flooring is small; ceramic tile is the most common type of flooring used in the 

region.24 

Regional Integration, Export Competitiveness, and Inbound 

Investment 

Leading Competitive Factors 

The factors affecting integration, export competitiveness, and inbound investment in the 

ASEAN hardwood plywood and wood flooring industry are dominated by issues related 

to raw materials—specifically, stable access to wood supplies and international concerns 

regarding legal sourcing and forest governance. Other factors that affect the region’s 

integration and global performance are the emergence of China as a major global 

competitor and product standards that ASEAN producers must meet to sell into the 

 22 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Jakarta, March 2, 2010 and Kuala Lumpur, 

March12, 2010. 23 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 12, 2010. Engineered wood 

flooring is typically made from a plywood core with a “wear” layer of the desired species adhered to its 

surface. 24 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 12, 2010. 
5-6

industrialized country markets. Of lesser importance to the competitiveness of ASEAN 

plywood and flooring producers (and not discussed at length in this profile) are labor 

costs, infrastructure, and availability of investment capital. 

Wood costs remain the single most important factor in relative competitiveness for 

hardwood plywood and flooring. Delivered wood costs to a plywood plant are typically 

upwards of 60 percent of the total manufacturing costs.25 As measured by the export 

market, tropical log prices in the ASEAN region are generally lower than in other world 

regions.26 However, hardwood plywood manufacturers are facing increasing scarcity in 

raw materials.27 This is particularly the case for the large-diameter logs that are most 

often utilized for making plywood.28 

ASEAN countries regulate the volume of timber harvesting under concession systems to 

private and/or state enterprises, and for environmental reasons, some have imposed 

complete bans on harvesting in natural forests where large logs typically originate. With a 

few exceptions, most ASEAN countries restrict or ban exports of unprocessed or 

minimally processed wood material (table 5.2). With raw materials being so critical and 

not easily secured, opportunities for investment in the hardwood plywood and flooring 

TABLE 5.2 Harvesting and/or export bans imposed by ASEAN countries 

Country Year enacted Description 

Brunei 1989 Has a moratorium on new logging permits and a complete 

ban on log exports. 

Cambodia 1996 Has a complete ban on exports of logs and rough lumber. 

Indonesia 1980–1992 

1992–1998 

2001: logs 

2004: lumber 

Log exports banned from 1980 to 1992; ban replaced by 

high export tax from 1992 to 1998. 

Since 2004, exports of both logs and rough lumber from 

natural forests are banned; also prohibits harvesting certain 

species such as ramin (Gonystylus spp.). 

Laos 1999 Exports of logs, lumber and “semi-finished” products from 

natural forests are banned, but government-issued 

exemptions are common. 

Malaysia 1985 (P. Malaysia) 

1993–1996 (Sabah) 

1992 (Sarawak) 

Peninsula Malaysia has complete log export ban; Sabah 

imposed export ban from 1993 to 1996; Sarawak imposes 

an export quota. 

Burma No specific export ban noted. 

Philippines 1986 (export ban) 

1992 (harvesting ban) 

Has a complete ban on exports of logs from natural forests; 

has a harvesting ban on steep slopes and elevations over 

1,000 meters. 

Singapore Has no productive forests, so imposes no restrictions on 

log trade. 

Thailand 1989 Has a harvesting ban in natural forests; log exports are 

plantation based or re-exports. 

Vietnam 1992 Prohibits exports of both logs and rough lumber from 

natural forests; has a harvesting ban in natural forests. 

Sources: Resosudarmo and Yusuf, table 1, 2; FAO, ASIA and the Pacific National Forestry Programmes 

Update No. 34, 35, 41; Bibi and Berudin, 19; Forest Trends, 4; Boungnakeo, 5; Macek, 1; Tachibana, 58–59. 

 25 Tachibana, “Forest-Related Industries and Timber Exports,” 1999, 70–71. 26 ITTO, Tropical Timber Market Report, April 30, 2010, 19; log export price data are limited to ASEAN 

countries that permit log exports. 27 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, March 12, 2010; EC-FAO Partnership Programme, 

December, 2002, 176. 28 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Hanoi, March 9, 2010. Vietnam lacks large diameter 

logs and thus has only a small plywood industry. 
5-7

industry are limited, particularly in the import-dependent countries. 29 Thailand and 

Vietnam have complete bans on harvesting in natural forests, so manufactured wood 

products such as hardwood plywood and flooring are made from plantation-grown 

resources or imported raw material. Plywood manufacturers in Thailand rely principally 

on plantation-grown rubberwood. Malaysia is also expanding the use of rubberwood for 

core plywood material.30 

Major industrialized market countries are placing greater emphasis on assuring that 

imported hardwood plywood and flooring products are sourced legally and obtained from 

sustainably managed forests.31 By one estimate, as much as 25 to 40 percent of demand 

for tropical timber products in major markets could be subject to verification that they 

meet legality and/or sustainability requirements. These procurement-related policies are 

often government-mandated, but in some cases they are also privately imposed.32 In 

Japan and some European countries, procurement policies dictate that wood products 

must be produced according to specified guidelines for legality and/or sustainability.33 In 

some situations, wood products must be certified according to an approved certification 

scheme—a requirement viewed as a nontariff barrier by some producers in ASEAN 

countries. 34 In the United States, the Lacey Act prohibits trading in plant-derived 

products taken illegally. Furthermore, it requires U.S. importers of most plant-derived 

products to file a declaration that includes the species name and country of harvest of the 

plant material contained in each imported shipment. 35 The EU is also considering a 

regulation requiring importers to employ a due diligence system that verifies legality of 

timber products sold in the European market. Given these burgeoning trade-influencing 

measures, ASEAN producers of hardwood plywood and flooring recognize that, to 

remain competitive in the major industrialized markets, they must meet requirements for 

ensuring legality, if not also the sustainable sourcing, of their products.36

Hardwood plywood manufactured from tropical species also faces global competition 

from hardwood plywood made of birch and poplar in Russia and China. 37 ASEAN 

countries mainly compete against China, which has become the world’s largest producer 

of hardwood plywood and the largest exporter of both hardwood plywood and wood 

flooring. 38 From 2004 to 2008, ASEAN’s global market share declined from 36 percent 

to 27 percent, while China’s share increased from 14 percent to 26 percent.39 To produce 

these goods, China is importing raw materials from ASEAN (principally from Sabah and 

Sarawak in Malaysia and from Burma), other Southeast Asian countries, Russia, North 

America, and Africa. Despite a high dependence on imported raw material, China is a 

low-cost world producer. Some observers assert that the Chinese industry is becoming 

 29 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 12, 2010. 30 Ibid. 

31 Enforcement of harvesting regulations and restrictions is believed by many to be ineffective. 

Allegations of illegal logging are widespread. 32 Simula, “Pros and Cons of Procurement,” April, 2010, 15. 33 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, February 16, 2010. 34 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 11, 2010. 35 The Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) was first enacted in 1900 to protect wildlife. The most recent 

amendments to the Lacey Act were included in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 and 

expanded its provisions to cover a broad range of plants and plant products (Section 8204, Prevention of 

Illegal Logging Practices). The Lacey Act amendments exempt common cultivars and food crops from their 

provisions. They also exempt packing materials and live plants from the import declaration requirement. 36 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 11, 2010. 37 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, February 16, 2010. 38Based on extrapolations from FAOSTAT production (accessed January 7, 2010) and GTIS trade data 

(accessed March 15, 2010). 39 Market share estimates are based on the GTIS database (accessed March 15, 2010). 
5-8

more focused on its own large and growing domestic market, which could actually 

restore ASEAN competitiveness elsewhere and/or provide new opportunities for ASEAN 

hardwood plywood in China.40 Another analyst suggests that, by driving down wood 

flooring prices, the success of Chinese wood flooring exports has also made a wider 

range of flooring choices, including tropical wood flooring made in ASEAN countries, 

available to global consumers.41

The ability to meet product standards is important to the international competitiveness of 

ASEAN hardwood plywood and flooring producers, but there are no ASEAN-wide 

standards, and little progress to date has been made on harmonizing standards in the 

region. 42 Instead, product standards are imposed on hardwood plywood and flooring 

products in a number of major ASEAN export markets, where they are focused on 

performance or appearance (depending upon end use). Plywood used for concrete 

forming or structural applications must meet specific standards in Japan, Canada, the 

United States, and the EU. Hardwood plywood is often graded according to grading 

standards maintained by the associations in the importing countries. Compliance is 

verified by accredited independent testing agencies, and for some standards, testing labs 

have been approved in the ASEAN region. However, testing and certification 

requirements reportedly create delays and bottlenecks for ASEAN exports.43

Hardwood plywood, engineered flooring, and laminated wood flooring products must 

meet strict formaldehyde emission standards in Japan, Europe, and, most recently, the 

United States. In 2007, the state of California implemented restrictive formaldehyde 

emission standards for plywood, reconstituted wood products (e.g., particleboard, 

medium-density fiberboard, hardboard), and for products made from those materials. 

ASEAN producers, like all producers selling into the California market, must meet the 

state’s formaldehyde emissions standards and be certified by a California-approved 

certification agency. 44 One Indonesian certifier, the only one approved by the state of 

California in ASEAN, has certified 25 producers in Indonesia and 10 producers in 

Malaysia. An additional 9 facilities in Malaysia and 2 in Vietnam have also been certified 

by U.S.- and Hong Kong-based agencies. On July 7, 2010, President Obama signed into 

law the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Act that establishes national 

emission standards similar to those in California and will require all plywood and 

composite wood products sold in the United States to be certified as compliant with the 

new national standards.45

Regional Integration 

As of January 1, 2010, intra-ASEAN tariffs on hardwood plywood and flooring were 

scheduled to become zero in all but the four least developed countries (Burma, 

Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam). It is too early to assess the effects of tariff reductions on 

intra-ASEAN trade in hardwood plywood and flooring, but other equally or more 

 40 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, February 11, 2010. 41 Oliver, “Monitoring the Competitiveness of Tropical Timber,” 65. 

42 ASEAN official, interview by USITC staff, March 1, 2010. ASEAN work on wood products standards 

is pursued through the ASEAN Expert Group on Research and Development in Forest Products. 43 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 12, 2010. 44 The California Air Resources Board (CARB) rule requires producers of composite wood products and 

products made with them that are sold in California to be certified by a third-party testing agency accredited 

by CARB. See CARB Web site: http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/tpc/listofmills.htm (accessed 

March 20, 2010). 45 Public Law 111-199, 124 Stat. 1359. 
5-9

important factors continue to hamper regional integration involving these products. 

Clearly, government controls over wood supply (through land ownership and concession 

policies) and restrictions on the harvesting and trade of raw materials (unprocessed wood) 

have encouraged discrete, country-specific hardwood plywood and flooring industries. 

Although export restrictions on raw materials may foster the development of downstream 

hardwood plywood and flooring industries within a particular ASEAN country, they tend 

to form a barrier to the development of an integrated regional industry that could 

otherwise draw upon wood materials at various stages of processing sourced throughout 

the ASEAN region. 

Another factor influencing regional integration in ASEAN plywood and flooring is the 

pressure that is mounting in external markets for assurances that wood products are 

derived from legal and sustainable sources. Illegal harvesting and trade are alleged to be 

significant in the ASEAN region, and cases have been documented by a number of NGOs 

and governments.46 The EU, Japan, United States, Australia and other external markets 

for ASEAN hardwood plywood and flooring have instituted various policies to address 

concerns about illegal logging and tropical deforestation. 47 In response, ASEAN 

industries and governments are attempting to collaborate on addressing these issues. The 

Roadmap contains measures to address legality issues, sustainability and certification, 

protection for endangered species, outreach activities, and public relations efforts to 

counter negative publicity on tropical hardwood products. 48 ASEAN collaboration in 

responding to these concerns may be helping the industry to integrate in some respects, 

but ASEAN countries are also working independently in other forums to protect their 

global competitive interests. 

In addressing legal trade and sustainability issues, ASEAN reports that progress has been 

made on a number of the Roadmap objectives.49 Several separate but related ASEANwide work plans and agreements have been signed for the purpose of strengthening 

enforcement of forest and wildlife laws, curbing transboundary pollution, and promoting 

sustainable practices.50 Separately, Vietnam and Laos have entered into a Cooperative 

Action Plan targeting illegal hunting and forest products trade. 51 The overarching 

ASEAN Economic Blueprint includes a goal of developing a phased approach to forest 

certification by 2015.52

An Ad-Hoc Working Group to develop a Pan-ASEAN Timber Certification Initiative is 

working to develop criteria and indicators that can be applied in each ASEAN country, 

and agreement has been reached on core elements of principles for an ASEAN legality 

standard. 53 Malaysia has made the most progress on forest certification, having 

 46 Seneca Creek Associates, “Illegal Logging and Global Wood Markets,” October, 2004. See also 

Chatham House Web site for reports and news articles: www.illegal-logging.info (accessed various dates). 47 FAO, “Global Forest Resources Assessment,” 2005, table 4, 197. The FAO Forest Resources 

Assessment showed the deforestation rate for the region as a whole in the 1990s averaged 1.2 percent 

annually and continued at 0.7 percent per annum during the first half of the past decade. 48 Roadmap, 9–14. 

49 ASEAN Forest Clearing House Mechanism Web site. http://www.aseanforestchm.org/issue_pages/sfm_implementation/forest_and_timber_certification.html (accessed March 8, 2010). 50 ASEAN Senior Officials on Forestry (ASOF) signed the Vientiane Action Programme (VAP) in 2008; 

an ASEAN Wildlife Law Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN) was created in 2005; an agreement on 

transboundary haze pollution was signed in 2006; and the ASEAN Declaration on Environmental 

Sustainability was signed in 2007. 51 Boungnakeo, “Forest Law Enforcement and Governance in Lao PDR,” 15. 

52 ASEAN, “ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint,” November 20, 2007, section II.A7. 53 ASEAN Forest Clearing House Mechanism Web site. 
5-10

independently developed its own national forest certification scheme endorsed by the 

Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC).54 As of 2009, 4.4 million 

hectares, representing 21 percent of the country’s forests, have been certified by the 

Malaysia Timber Certification Council (MTCC). Another internationally recognized 

forest certification scheme, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), and an Indonesian 

certification scheme, LEI (Lembaga Ekolabel Indonesia), have collectively certified 

nearly 3 million hectares in ASEAN countries, mostly in Indonesia (the FSC has certified 

1.1. million hectares in Indonesia and approximately 70,000 hectares in Vietnam, 

Thailand, and Laos).55

Beyond specific ASEAN measures and certification programs, other multilateral and 

bilateral processes with participation by ASEAN member countries have been undertaken 

to address various aspects of legal and sustainable sourcing and trade of wood products 

(table 5.3). Malaysia and Indonesia are in the process of negotiating with the European 

Commission to enter into voluntary partnership agreements (VPAs) under the EU’s 

Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade action plan to enable easier exports to 

the EU.56 The VPAs would create a legality licensing system that verifies the legal origin 

of exports to the EU. The United States has a memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

with Indonesia on legal trade in forest products. One outcome of the MOU has been the 

Asia-Pacific Regional Dialogue to Promote Trade in Legally Harvested Forest Products, 

which currently includes four other ASEAN members in addition to Indonesia, as well as 

several other trading partners in East Asia.57 These processes have resulted in a number 

of initiatives endorsed at very high levels of government and industry, but they have also 

produced an assortment of criteria and requirements that, as a practical matter, are 

complicated and confusing to producers, including ASEAN hardwood plywood and 

flooring exporters.58

 54 PEFC is an internationally recognized certification body that endorses national certification schemes 

that conform to its core standards. 55 See FSC Web site for information about global FSC certificates, including types of certificates and 

global distribution: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html (accessed February 16, 2010); see also the LEI web 

site: http://www.lei.or.id/.

56 Ozinga, EU Forest Watch February 2010. 

57 USTR, press release, September 2, 2009. 58 Simula, IITO, 30. 
5-11

TABLE 5.3 Major intergovernmental processes to address legal and sustainable forest products production and 

trade

Process Sponsor 

When 

Initiated Countries Summary 

Asia-Pacific 

Regional Dialogue 

to Promote Trade 

in Legally 

Harvested Forest 

Products 

U.S. and 

Indonesia 

2009 Indonesia, U.S., 

Australia, 

Brunei, 

Malaysia, 

Papua New 

Guinea, 

Singapore, 

Solomon 

Islands, and 

Vietnam 

Convened by the US and Indonesia in 

September 2009 pursuant to the U.S.-

Indonesia MOU (see separate entry). The 

dialogue is intended to discuss issues related 

to trade in forest products among the invited 

countries. Both ministries of trade as well as 

ministries of forestry/environment participate. 

The second meeting is being planned. 

Memorandum of 

Understanding 

(MOU) on 

Cooperation to 

Combat Illegal 

Logging and 

Associated Trade 

U.S. and 

Indonesia 

2006 U.S., Indonesia The MOU was developed under a Trade and 

Investment Framework Agreement concluded 

between Indonesia's Minister of Trade and 

Minister of Forestry and the United States 

Trade Representative. It created a Working 

Group that meets two or three times per year 

and provides a mechanism for consultation 

and cooperation to combat trade associated 

with illegal logging and promote sustainable 

management of Indonesia's forests. 

East Asia Forest 

Law Enforcement 

and Governance 

Initiative (EAFLEG) 

World Bank, 

governments, 

others 

2001 Countries in 

East Asia, EU, 

U.S. 

Launched as a coalition of governments and 

stakeholders to devise ways of addressing 

illegal logging and forest governance issues. 

Forest Law 

Enforcement, 

Governance and 

Trade (FLEGT) 

voluntary 

partnership 

agreements (VPA) 

European 

Commission 

2007 Malaysia, 

Indonesia, EU 

Malaysia and Indonesia are in negotiations 

with the European Commission to form FLEGT 

VPAs whereby the EU would recognize a 

legality assurance system (LAS) involving the 

issuance of licenses to exporters that would 

ensure legal sourcing. The incentive offered is 

that a VPA would provide more secure access 

to the European market and give those 

countries potentially greater access to 

European foreign aid. Vietnam has started prenegotiations toward a VPA. 
5-12

TABLE 5.3 Major intergovernmental processes to address legal and sustainable forest products production and 

trade—Continued

Process Sponsor 

When 

Initiated Countries Summary 

Pan-ASEAN 

Timber 

Certification 

Initiative 

ASEAN and 

International 

Tropical Timber 

Organization 

(ITTO) 

2002 ASEAN 

countries 

ASEAN forestry officials established a working 

group to develop a pan-ASEAN timber 

certification scheme with the goal of adopting 

an initiative by 2006. A progress report was 

presented in 2005 at an ITTO workshop in 

Berne, Switzerland. No additional information 

is available. 

Forest Law 

Enforcement, 

Governance and 

Trade (FLEGT) 

due diligence 

regulation 

European 

Commission 

Proposed EU members Would require importers and European 

producers to implement due diligence system 

for ensuring legal sourcing. 

Roadmap for 

Integration of 

Wood-based 

Products Sector 

measures 

ASEAN 2005 ASEAN 

countries 

Several measures to address legality and 

sustainability are included in ASEAN’s 

Integration Roadmap for Wood-Based 

Products. In addition to the Pan-ASEAN 

Timber Certification Initiative, measures 

include developing a cooperation program 

among relevant authorities to combat illegal 

trade in forest products and to exchange wood 

import information (through ASEAN Customs 

Director Generals and the ASEAN Wood 

Based Products Working Group). They also 

include a program to promote regional 

cooperation in addressing issues related to 

the Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES) through the ASEAN Experts Group 

on CITES and the ASEAN Wildlife Law 

Enforcement Network. 

Asia Forest 

Partnership 

Consultative 

Group on 

International 

Agricultural 

Research 

(CGIAR) – an 

organization 

funded by the 

World Bank, FAO, 

United Nations 

Development 

Program (UNDP), 

International Fund 

for Agricultural 

Development 

(IFAD), and 

individual 

countries 

2002 20 countries 

in Asia 

(includes 

Cambodia, 

Indonesia, 

Malaysia, 

Philippines, 

Thailand, and 

Vietnam), the 

EU, and the 

U.S. 

Organizes multi-stakeholder forums to support 

cooperation and information exchange on 

sustainable forest management issues in Asia 

and the Pacific. 

Sources: USTR, “MOU between United States and Indonesia,” November 2006; USTR, “USTR Announces New 

Asia-Pacific Initiative,” September 2, 2009; World Bank, “Overview” (accessed January 8, 2010); EC, “Forest Law 

Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT)” (accessed January 8, 2010); ASEAN, “Forest and Timber 

Certification” (accessed March 8, 2010); “EU FLEGT: Due Diligence,” www.illegal-logging.info (accessed January 16, 

2010); ASEAN, “Roadmap for Integration of Wood-Based Products Sector,” 2007; Asia Forest Partnership, “AFP in 

Brief,” July 28, 2008. 
5-13

Export Competitiveness 

In 2008, ASEAN exports of hardwood plywood and flooring products totaled an 

estimated $4.9 billion (table 5.1).59 External trade accounted for over 95 percent of the 

total for the region—approximately $4.7 billion in 2008. Exports to Japan accounted for 

nearly 40 percent of total ASEAN hardwood plywood and flooring exports; the EU, 

18 percent; South Korea, 9 percent; and the United States, 8 percent. Malaysian exports 

of hardwood plywood and flooring alone were an estimated $2.4 billion in 2008, or 

nearly half of total ASEAN exports of these products (table 5.4). While Indonesian 

exports totaled approximately $2.0 billion in 2008, or 40 percent of the export total, this 

represented a decline of 30 percent from 2004 (table 5.4). The decline reflects a loss in 

industry capacity due to tighter wood supplies and lost sales because of concerns over the 

legality of Indonesian supply in major markets.60 In contrast, Malaysian exports increased 

by 23 percent in 2008, as compared to 2004 (table 5.4), possibly because of its more 

advanced certification program and aggressive marketing of its products. The other 

promising producer is Vietnam, which has been exporting bamboo plywood and flooring 

for secondary manufacturing to Taiwan as well as to end-use flooring markets in the 

United States.61 While modest compared to Malaysia and Indonesia, Vietnam’s exports of 

hardwood plywood and flooring have more than tripled since 2004, totaling an estimated 

$73 million in 2008, principally to South Korea, the EU, Japan, and the United States 

(table 5.4).62

While intra-ASEAN trade has increased over the past five years, it remains relatively 

small, accounting for no more than 5–10 percent of total exports. Indonesia and Malaysia 

supplied 75 percent of total intra-ASEAN hardwood plywood and flooring exports.63

Vietnam is the largest market for intra-ASEAN hardwood plywood and flooring exports, 

followed by Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand (table 5.5). Hardwood 

plywood is used in Vietnam’s burgeoning wood furniture industry. Imports of hardwood 

plywood and flooring from outside of the region, most notably from China, exceed intraASEAN trade in these products and increased more than intra-ASEAN trade during 

2004–08. Imports from China increased by over two and half times (table 5.6), indicative 

of that country’s strengthening global position. The majority of ASEAN imports of these 

products are plywood, as opposed to flooring; the plywood is used primarily for concrete 

forms in local construction and in the manufacturing of furniture for export.64

 59 The trade data are not an exact match. Some of the HTS 6-digit categories that include flooring are 

broad groups that contain moldings, panels, and other wood products, so these figures overstate the actual 

trade in flooring. 60 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, March 2, 2010. 61 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, March 23, 2010. Bamboo is 

technically a grass species but is marketed with hardwood when utilized for plywood and flooring products. 62 WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010). 63 Ibid. 

64 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, February 12, 2010. 
5-14

TABLE 5.4 Hardwood plywood and flooring: ASEAN exports to the world, by value, 2004–08

Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

% change, 

2004–08

Malaysia 1,947,973 2,003,652 2,474,831 2,518,147 2,405,281 23 

Indonesia 2,793,577 2,589,393 2,468,830 2,351,073 1,950,498 (30) 

Philippines 181,246 189,201 238,905 255,440 218,114 20 

Thailand 166,888 179,797 193,467 229,084 206,862 24 

Vietnam 22,353 37,425 41,329 62,674 73,060 227 

Singapore 30,604 37,975 43,917 40,570 46,045 50 

Burma 34,678 37,896 32,131 33,181 13,890 (60) 

Laos 6,506 5,876 8,922 7,062 7,309 12 

Brunei 7 100 64 518 36 400 

Cambodia 4,460 2,948 354 248 1 (100) 

 Total 5,188,293 5,084,263 5,502,750 5,497,997 4,921,096 (5) 

Source: WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010).

thousand $

Note: Data are based on ASEAN partner country imports because Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Phillipines, 

and Vietnam do not report trade data in all years. Data excludes intra-ASEAN trade.

Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

% change, 

2004–08

Vietnam 24,564 36,860 57,333 75,113 48,185 96 

Singapore 20,471 23,867 29,423 36,033 34,538 69 

Malaysia 18,739 14,443 20,199 29,434 29,150 56 

Indonesia 11,141 13,694 21,104 32,591 27,076 143 

Thailand 21,508 23,021 23,531 28,300 22,193 3 

Philippines 27,003 30,866 41,543 40,459 11,208 (58) 

Brunei 3,297 2,408 3,310 3,492 1,044 (68) 

Burma 971 715 750 1,050 939 (3) 

Laos 584 448 586 1,196 560 (4) 

Cambodia 662 526 522 671 257 (61) 

 Total 128,940 146,845 198,301 248,339 175,150 36 

Source: WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010).

Note: Data are based on ASEAN partner country exports because Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Phillipines, 

and Vietnam do not report trade data in all years. Trade between these members may therefore be understated.

TABLE 5.5 Hardwood plywood and flooring: ASEAN member imports from ASEAN members, by value, 2004–08

thousand $
5-15

TABLE 5.6 Hardwood plywood and flooring: ASEAN imports from selected markets, by value, 2004–08

Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

% change, 

2004–08

China 39,902 37,018 55,471 112,157 106,349 167 

United States 22,556 33,073 43,354 54,346 52,487 133 

EU-27 39,340 40,464 60,930 47,150 35,530 (10) 

Japan 4,473 3,985 3,250 8,115 17,222 285 

 Subtotal 106,271 114,540 163,005 221,769 211,588 99 

All other 144,232 156,677 187,046 230,848 275,822 91 

 Total 250,502 271,217 350,051 452,618 487,410 95 

Source: WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010).

Note: Data are based on ASEAN partner country exports because Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Phillipines, 

and Vietnam do not report trade data in all years. All other export value excludes intra-ASEAN trade.

thousand $

Tariff reductions within ASEAN have made its member countries more competitive in 

each other’s markets relative to non-ASEAN imports. Before the implementation of the 

Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) scheme, plywood and flooring tariffs in 

the ASEAN countries were as high as 40 percent—among the highest for any wood 

products in the region. While MFN tariff rates applied to external trade remain high, the 

CEPT scheme has effectively reduced tariffs on plywood and flooring for intra-ASEAN 

trade to 5 percent or less, effective January 1, 2010. ASEAN has not yet harmonized 

MFN tariff rates on non-ASEAN imports. Applied MFN tariffs for non-ASEAN 

countries for most hardwood plywood and flooring categories range from zero in the case 

of Singapore to a high of 35–40 percent for Malaysia and Laos (tables 5.7 and 5.8). 

TABLE 5.7 ASEAN country tariffs for hardwood plywood, 2004, 2008, and 2010 (ad valorem percent) 

ASEAN members 2004 2008 2010a

 Imports from 

other ASEAN 

countries 

Imports from 

non-ASEAN 

countries (MFN) 

Imports from 

other ASEAN 

countries 

Imports from 

non-ASEAN 

countries (MFN) 

Imports from 

other ASEAN 

countries 

Brunei 5 20 0–5 20 0 

Burma 10 15 5 15 5 

Cambodia 15 15 5 15 5 

Indonesia 0 10 0 10 0 

Laos 20 40 5 40 5 

Malaysia 5 25–40 5 25–40 0 

Philippines 5 15 0–5 15 0–5 

Singapore 0 0 0 0 0 

Thailand 5 12.5 5 5 0 

Vietnam 5 10 5 8 5 

Source: Agreement on the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) Scheme for the ASEAN Free Trade Area, 

Consolidated Package of Tariff Reductions for 2008; Royal Malaysia Customs Department, HS-Explorer (accessed 

April 10, 2010); World Trade Organization, Tariff Analysis Online (accessed April 2010).

 a2010 MFN rates for ASEAN imports from non-ASEAN countries are not available to USITC staff for every 

ASEAN member country. 
5-16

TABLE 5.8 ASEAN country tariffs for engineered and laminate wood flooring, 2004, 2008, and 2010 (ad valorem 

percent) 

ASEAN members 2004 2008 2010a

 Imports from 

other ASEAN 

countries 

Imports from nonASEAN countries 

(MFN) 

Imports from 

other ASEAN 

countries 

Imports from 

non-ASEAN 

countries (MFN) 

Imports from 

other ASEAN 

countries 

Brunei 0–5 0–20 0 0–20 0 

Burma 3–5 3–5 3–5 3–5 3–5 

Cambodia (b) (b) 10 15 5 

Indonesia 0 5–10 0 5–10 0 

Laos 10 20 1–5 20–30 1–5 

Malaysia 5 20 0 20 0 

Philippines 0–5 5–15 0 5–15 0 

Singapore 0 0 0 0 0 

Thailand 5 12.5–20 0–5 5–30 0 

Vietnam 5 5–10 0 3–8 0 

Source: Agreement on the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) Scheme for the ASEAN Free Trade Area, 

Consolidated Package of Tariff Reductions for 2008; Royal Malaysia Customs Department, HS-Explorer (accessed 

April 10, 2010); World Trade Organization, Tariff Analysis Online (accessed April 2010). 

 a2010 MFN rates for ASEAN imports from non-ASEAN countries are not available to USITC staff for every 

ASEAN member country. bNot available. 

ASEAN has entered into free trade agreements (FTAs) with China, Japan, the Republic 

of Korea, Australia-New Zealand, and India that either have or will effectively lower 

tariff barriers in those markets, although hardwood plywood and flooring products are 

typically listed as “sensitive” sectors and are thus subject to gradual staging of tariff 

reductions. Under the ASEAN-China FTA, for example, final reductions for tariff lines 

on the “highly sensitive” lists, which include China’s plywood and flooring imports, will 

not occur until 2018.65 

The full effects of the CEPT tariff reductions and the various FTAs on plywood and 

flooring trade patterns both within ASEAN and between ASEAN countries and other 

FTA partners are uncertain.66 In general, Malaysia and Singapore are expected to be most 

advantaged by the ASEAN-China FTA because of their English-Chinese language 

facility and already well-established trading relationships.67 In contrast, the ASEANChina FTA sparked protests in Indonesia earlier this year from groups fearful of the 

impact from Chinese imports.68

Inbound Investment 

Data specific to foreign direct investment (FDI) in hardwood plywood and flooring are 

not available, but industry sources indicate that there is not much FDI in hardwood 

plywood and flooring manufacturing in ASEAN countries.69 Some specific examples of 

 65 ASEAN China Free Trade Area. Annex 2, App. 1, 99. 

66 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 12, 2010. 67 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 15, 2010. China is currently a 

major purchaser of Malaysian logs (from Sarawak and Sabah). 68 Jakarta Post, “Thousands Rally Against Free Trade Treaty,” January 21, 2010. 69 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 11, 2010. 
5-17

FDI in hardwood plywood and flooring include one U.S. company known to have a 

flooring plant in Malaysia70 and one Japanese company that recently announced plans to 

construct a major new $250 million plywood mill in Vietnam.71 Taiwan is also often cited 

as a major investor in Vietnam, mostly in furniture, but also reportedly in enterprises that 

produce bamboo for flooring manufacturing.72 

Many ASEAN countries restrict foreign investors from majority ownership and/or do not 

offer them national treatment. For example, countries may impose additional licensing, 

registration or other regulations on foreign enterprises not required of domestic investors. 

When fully implemented, the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA) 

will provide additional investor protections, particularly to ASEAN-based investors, 

although it is too early to assess the effects of the ACIA on flows into the hardwood 

plywood and flooring sector.73 

Hardwood plywood and flooring differ from other manufacturing sectors because of their 

close link to production in forests, where foreign investment is typically tightly 

controlled. With few exceptions, ASEAN countries prohibit foreigners from owning 

forest land outright, and government concessions are generally restricted to joint ventures 

that have majority local ownership.74 Restrictions currently apply equally to ASEAN 

investors as well as investors from outside of the region. 

Consistent with measures in the Roadmap, all ASEAN countries encourage new forest 

plantations, but limited land availability and cumbersome regulatory requirements tend to 

discourage foreign investment. For example, the Malaysian government provides 

favorable loan terms to investors for establishing and managing forest plantations, but 

loans are available only to wholly owned Malaysian non-publicly listed companies or to 

publicly listed companies with majority Malaysian equity ownership. 75 Nevertheless, 

some foreign investment in plantations has been permitted from enterprises in nonASEAN countries seeking to secure wood supplies for their own (or joint venture) 

industries. Korean and Chinese investors have undertaken forest-related investments in 

Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, and Thailand. Singaporean and Malaysian 

companies have invested in Indonesia.76 Overall, outside investments are not as extensive 

as those from local investors. 

The Roadmap recognizes that investments in securing stable wood supplies are necessary 

to foster integration in the hardwood plywood and flooring industry. To that end, the 

Roadmap includes measures to promote plantations as a way of augmenting the region’s 

wood supplies. Many ASEAN members have incentive programs and other policies in 

place to promote forest plantations. The vast majority of plantations have been 

established to supply the pulp and paper industry, but plantations of teak, rubberwood, 

khaya, and other species intended for making plywood, furniture, and other products are 

being established. In the case of rubberwood, the latex is tapped for a number of years, 

and then the trees are harvested for wood and veneer to be used for lumber, plywood, 

 70 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, April 22, 2010. 71 Saigon Times, “Sumitomo Forestry to Build Plywood Factory,” January 13, 2010. 72 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, March 23, 2010. 73 The ACIA replaces the Framework Agreement on the ASEAN Investment Area (AIA) signed in 1998, 

but has not yet entered into force. See chap. 2 for additional information on the ACIA and AIA. 74 U.S. Department of State, “Investment Climate Statements” for ASEAN countries; Economic Research 

Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA), “Deepening East Asian Economic Integration,” Chap. 5, table 6. 75 Malaysia Timber Industry Board, “Credit Opportunities in Forest Plantations,” n.d. 76 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, Singapore, January 27, 2010. 
5-18

engineered flooring, and other products. Similarly, investments in oil palm are envisioned 

to supplement wood supply for plywood and other wood products. 77 The plywood 

industry is slowly adapting to smaller diameter rubberwood and oil palm trees that can be 

used after their productivity for latex and oil wanes (see box 5.1). The continuing 

addition of rubberwood and other forest plantations is expected to add to the region’s 

wood supplies and therefore contribute to ASEAN competitiveness. 

BOX 5.1 Hardwood plywood and flooring: Profile of ASEAN integration 

By most measures of cross-border investment and cross-border links in manufacturing, the hardwood plywood and 

flooring industry has not experienced significant regional integration. The industry is highly parochial because of its 

long-established history within the major producing countries and close linkages to locally available forest resources. 

Nevertheless, there are instances of plywood and flooring companies investing and/or operating in more than one 

ASEAN country. The most successful cross-border investments involve vertically integrated companies. For example, 

one Malaysian company is in both the oil palm and the wood flooring business.a It manufactures flooring in Malaysia 

and maintains oil palm plantations in both Malaysia and Indonesia. Although the technology is not yet fully 

commercialized, oil palm wood is beginning to be used for core layers in some plywood manufacture. The potential 

advantage of using oil palm wood in plywood production is that it would reduce reliance on wood from natural forests. 

Some regional integration is also occurring by virtue of FDI from outside of ASEAN. For example, Taiwanese 

companies are reportedly sourcing lumber and veneer of coconut palm from Indonesia and sugar palm from Thailand 

for use in furniture and flooring products manufactured both in Vietnam and in Taiwan.b

 

ASEAN efforts to reduce and eliminate intra-ASEAN tariffs on hardwood plywood and flooring may provide additional 

opportunities for regional industry integration. If tariff elimination makes it more economically attractive, core plywood 

material could be imported from another ASEAN country and finished with a locally manufactured decorative outer ply 

or “wear” layer. Similarly, wood laminate flooring uses medium-density fiberboard (MDF), which could be imported 

and finished with a locally printed paper and melamine overlay, assuming there are cost-savings or other advantages 

for doing so. 

a

 The company referenced is TSH Resources Berhad, which has a wood flooring subsidiary called Ekowood. b

 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, March 30, 2010. 

Trade Facilitation, Logistics Services, and E-Commerce 

Trade Facilitation 

ASEAN trade facilitation efforts have led to some improvements—streamlining 

procedures at ports of entry and harmonizing documentation requirements—that have 

benefited trade in hardwood plywood and flooring, along with trade in the region more 

generally. 78 Further progress is anticipated over the next several years through the 

development of national and ASEAN single windows.79 Considerable effort has also been 

made to harmonize intra-ASEAN tariffs and trade by implementing a common 8-digit 

tariff nomenclature based on the Harmonized System (HS), although not all ASEAN 

countries are reporting both trade data and applied tariffs consistently yet.80

 77 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 11, 2010. 78 Ibid., March 12, 2010. 

79 See discussion on trade facilitation in chap. 2. 

80 ASEAN official, e-mail message, April 21, 2010. Not all ASEAN members are reporting trade and 

tariff data at the same level of detail for external as well as intra-ASEAN trade, nor are all members using the 

most recent 2007 ASEAN Harmonized Tariff Nomenclature (AHTN). 
5-19

Trade across land routes has been and continues to be a significant issue for wood 

products, particularly along remote borders. Relatively little plywood and flooring is 

transported by rail, and transport by truck across borders can pose bureaucratic 

difficulties.81 At border crossings in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS), goods being 

trucked from one country to another are often unloaded, inspected by officials of both 

countries, and then reloaded onto separate trucks for the balance of the journey. Thailand 

requires permits and collects fees for transit of goods from Laos.82 The Cross Border 

Transit Agreement signed in 1998 by Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand and later joined by 

Cambodia, Burma, and China was designed to streamline the land route border 

crossings.83 However, not all of the annexes and protocols have been ratified by all 

signatories, and differences in laws and regulations continue to inhibit full 

implementation. That Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore use the British left-side road 

convention while other ASEAN countries use a right-side driving system also presents 

difficulties for transport and at border crossings. Nonetheless, government officials report 

that progress has been made towards making border crossings smoother.84

Export taxes and cess fees (i.e., additional excise or product taxes) are assessed by some 

ASEAN members and add costs to exported plywood and flooring. Malaysia applies a 

cess rate of US$1.55 per cubic meter for plywood, and much higher rates for wood 

products made of rubberwood.85 In 2008, Vietnam began imposing a 10 percent export 

tax on wood products, including plywood and flooring, made from imported wood. The 

tax was modified in 2009 to provide an exemption for wood boards less than 100 mm 

wide and 30 mm thick, which would include many solid wood flooring products.86 In 

addition to excise and export taxes, unofficial payments to government officials at 

various levels in order to process exported goods are reportedly fairly common, 

particularly in the lesser-developed ASEAN countries, and can complicate export 

clearing procedures.87 

Logistics Services and E-Commerce 

Logistics services are not often used in producing and distributing plywood and flooring. 

These products are bulk items, most often shipped in large volumes by truck and ocean 

freight. Similarly, e-commerce is not widely used in the hardwood plywood and flooring 

business in the ASEAN countries. Businesses, particularly those in the flooring industry, 

use Web sites as the principal advertising medium for their products, and e-mail has 

clearly both expedited placement of orders and reduced the lead time for fulfillment.88

However, the use of business-to business (B2B) electronic interchange for ordering and 

delivery scheduling does not appear to be significant in the industry. 

 81 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 15, 2010. 82 Nathan Associates, “Toward a Roadmap of Integration,” March 2007, 33. 83 The Cross-Border Transit Agreement is part of a Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) Program 

supported by the Asian Development Bank. It was crafted in consultation with ASEAN and the United 

Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. 84 Government official, interview by USITC staff, Hanoi, March 9, 2010. 85 Malaysia Timber Industry Board Web site. Cess rates range from less than US$1.00 per m3

 to as much 

as US$80.00 per m3

 for certain species of timber. MDF products (that could be used to manufacture laminate 

wood flooring) have no cess rate. 86 See Vietnam Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment web site and Global Trade Alert. 87 NGO representative, interview by USITC staff, Hanoi, March 8, 2010. 88 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 12, 2010. 
5-20

Bibliography 

American Hardwood Export Council (AHEC). “Southeast Asia Market Report,” November 2009. 

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). “Agreement on the Common Effective Preferential 

Tariff (CEPT) Scheme for the ASEAN Free Trade Area, Consolidated Package of Tariff 

Reductions for 2008,” February, 25, 2009. http://www.asean.org/19802.htm. 

 

———. “ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint.” November 20, 2007. www.aseansec.org/21083.pdf. 

———. “ASEAN Economic Community Scorecard.” Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat, March 2010. 

———. ASEAN Investment Report 2009: Sustained FDI Flows Dependent on Global Economic 

Recovery, n.d. http://www.aseansec.org/18657.htm. 

———. “CEPT-AFTA Rules of Origin for Wood-Based Products.” 

http://www.miti.gov.my/cms/documentstorage/com.tms.cms.document.Document_7fa39e36-

c0a81573-2d952d95-641ed0fc/ST%20Rules%20for%20Wood.doc (accessed March 20, 2010). 

———. “Forest and Timber Certification.” http://www.aseanforestchm.org/issue_pages/sfm_implementation/forest_and_timber_certification.html (accessed 

March 8, 2010). 

———. “Highlights of the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA).” PowerPoint 

presentation, August 26, 2008. www.aseansec.org/21885.ppt. 

———. “ASEAN-China Free Trade Area.” Annex 2, “Modality for Tariff Reduction/Elimination for 

Tariff Lines Placed in the Sensitive Track.” http://www.aseansec.org/19105.htm (accessed 

April 6, 2010). 

———. “Non-Tariff Barriers.” http://www.aseansec.org/10114.htm.

———. Non-Tariff Measures Database. http://www.aseansec.org/16355.htm (accessed various dates).

———. “Roadmap for Integration of Wood-Based Products Sector.” Appendix 1 to the ASEAN Sectoral 

Integration Protocol for Wood-Based Products, 2007. http://www.aseansec.org/16741.htm. 

———. Statistics of Foreign Direct Investment in ASEAN. 7th Edition, 2005. 

http://www.aseansec.org/18177.htm. 

———. Temporary Exclusion List and Sensitive List for Manufacturing, Agriculture, Fishery, Forestry, 

Mining and Quarrying Sectors, February 2008. http://www.aseansec.org/18657.htm. 

———. “Terrestrial Ecosystems.” Chapter 5, Fourth ASEAN State of the Environment Report. Jakarta: 

ASEAN Secretariat, 2009, 52–65. http://www.aseansec.org/18177.htm. 

Asia Forest Partnership (AFP). “AFP in Brief,” July 28, 2008. http://www.asiaforests.org/index.php. 

Austria, Myrna S. The Pattern of Intra-ASEAN Trade in Priority Goods Sectors. Regional Economic 

Policy Support Facility (REPSF). ASEAN-Australia Development Cooperation Program, 

August 2004. 
5-21

Azarcon, Chulia J. “Comparative Tariff Policies of the ASEAN Member Countries.” Journal of 

Philippine Development 43, Vol. 24, No. 1 (First Semester 1997). 

Bamboo Flooring. n.d. 

http://extension.ucdavis.edu/unit/green_building_and_sustainability/pdf/resources/bamboo_floori

ng.pdf.

Bibi, Muhd Safwan Abdullah, and Zaeidi Haji Berudin. “Forest Land Management in Brunei 

Darussalam.” Paper presented at symposium, “100 Years of Modern Land Administration,” 

Brunei, November 11, 2009. 

http://www.tanah.gov.bn/Symposium/Forestry%20Department%20%5BFinal%5D.doc. 

Boungnakeo, K. “Forest Law Enforcement and Governance in Lao PDR.” Forest Trends. 

http://www.forest-trends.org/~foresttr/documents/files/doc_832.pdf (accessed March 10, 2010). 

Buckley, Michael. “A Flooring Market Update.” Panels & Furniture Asia, May/June 2009, 39–44. 

Congressional Research Service (CRS). United States Relations with the Association of Southeast Asian 

Nations (ASEAN). CRS Report for Congress, R40933. Washington, DC: CRS, 

November 16, 2009.

Corbett, Jenny, and So Umezaki, eds. Deepening East Asian Economic Integration. Economic Research 

Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA). Research Project Report 2008, No. 1. Jakarta: ERIA, 

2008. http://www.eria.org/research/y2008-no1.html (accessed March 24, 1010). 

Diete, T. Tumaneng, Ian S. Ferguson, and Donald MacLaren. “Log Export and Trade Policies in the 

Philippines: Bane or Blessing to Sustainable Forest Management?” Forest Policy and Economics

7 (2005): 187–98. 

Durst, Patrick B. et al., eds. Forests Out of Bounds: Impacts and Effectiveness of Logging Bans in Natural 

Forests in Asia-Pacific. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). AsiaPacific Forestry Commission. Bangkok, Thailand: FAO, 2001. 

Djani, Dian Triansyah. “ASEAN-EU Economic Relations: Maximizing Mutual Benefits,” July 19, 2007. 

http://www.kbriwina.at/downloads/Presentation_Amb_Triansyah.pdf. 

European Commission (EC). “Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT).” 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/flegt.htm (accessed January 8, 2010). 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAOSTAT Database. 

http://faostat.fao.org/site/626/default.aspx#ancor (accessed January 7, 2010). 

———. National Forestry Programmes Update No. 34: ASIA and the Pacific, December 2000. 

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/003/x6900e/x6900e00.pdf. 

———. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005: Progress towards Sustainable Forest Management. 

Rome: FAO, 2006. http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2005/en/. 

Forest Trends. Timber Markets and Trade between Laos and Vietnam: A Commodity Chain Analysis of 

Vietnamese-Driven Timber Flows. January 2010. 
5-22

Global Trade Alert. “Vietnam Tax Exemption for Exporters of Wood Products.” Center for Economic 

Policy Research, March 22, 2010. http://globaltradealert.org/measure/vietnam-tax-exemptionexporters-wood-planks.

Global Trade Information Service, Inc. (GTIS). Global Trade Atlas Database (accessed various dates). 

Ha, Ngyyet. “Chips Down for Fabricated Woods.” VietnamNet, June 28, 2004 (accessed April 15, 2010). 

http://english.vietnamnet.vn/news/2004/06/170380/.

Hunt, Glenn. Presentation to AMRC/AusAID Greater Mekong Conference, September 26–27, 2007. 

http://www.mekong.es.usyd.edu.au/events/past/conference07/images/papers%20&%20presentati

ons/Glenn%20Hunt%20presentation.pdf.

Illegal-Logging.Info. “EU FLEGT: Due Diligence.” 

http://www.illegal-logging.info/approach.php?a_id=120 (accessed January 16, 2010). 

International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). Tropical Timber Market Report 14, no. 22 

(November 16–30, 2009). http://www.itto.int/. 

———. New Directions for Tropical Plywood: Proceedings of an ITTO/FAO International Conference 

on Tropical Plywood; September 26–28, 2005. Beijing, China. ITTO Technical Series 26, 2006. 

Jakarta Post. “Thousands Rally Against Free Trade Treaty in Surabaya, Semarang,” January 21, 2010. 

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/01/21/thousands-rally-against-free-trade-treatysurabaya-semarang.html (accessed March 6, 2010). 

Lang, Chris. “Deforestation in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.” In Deforestation, Environment, and 

Sustainable Development: A Comparative Analysis, edited by D.K. Vajpeyi. Westport, CT and 

London: Praeger, 2001, 111–137. http://chrislang.org/2001/01/03/deforestation-in-vietnam-laosand-cambodia/. 

Lim, Hank Giokhay, and Kester TAY Yi-Xun. “Regional Integration and Inclusive Development: 

Lessons from ASEAN Experience.” Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade. 

Working Paper Series 59, December 2008. http://www.unescap.org/tid/artnet/pub/wp5908.pdf.

Lopez-Casero, Federico. “EU-ASEAN Workshop on Trade in Wood Products in South East Asia, Kuala 

Lumpur, May 24–25 2006: Summary.” Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), 

June 20, 2006. 

Ma, Qiang, and Jeremy S. Broadhead, eds. An Overview of Forest Products Statistics in South and 

Southeast Asia. EC-FAO Partnership Programme, December 2002. 

Macek, Paul, and Kalaya Chareonying. “Thailand Log Ban.” TED Case Studies 2, no. 1 (January 1993). 

http://www1.american.edu/TED/THAILOG.HTM.

Malaysia, Government of. Royal Malaysia Customs Department, HS-Explorer (accessed April 10, 2010). 

Malaysia Timber Council. “FAQs on Malaysia’s Forestry & Timber Trade.” Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 

n.d. 
5-23

Malaysia Timber Industry Board (MTIB). Posted cess rates for wood products. 

http://www.mtib.gov.my/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93:cessrate&catid=40:service (accessed March 27, 2010). 

———. “Credit Opportunities for Forest Plantations,” n.d. 

http://www.mtib.gov.my/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94:forestplantation&catid=40:service (accessed February 17, 2010). 

Nathan Associates. “Toward a Roadmap for Integration of the ASEAN Logistics Sector.” Washington, 

DC: USAID, March 2007. 

Oliver, Rupert and Ben Donkor. “Monitoring the Competitiveness of Tropical Timber.” Yokohama, Japan: 

International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), forthcoming. 

Ofreneo, Rene E. “Regional Integration in the Wood-Based Industry: Quo Vadis?” Paper presented at 

ASEAN Business Summit, Cebu City, Philippines, December 2006. 

Ozinga, Saskia, and Iola Leal. “Forest Watch Special Report: Update Report on FLEGT Voluntary 

Partnership Agreements.” EU Forest Watch, February 2010. http://www.illegallogging.info/uploads/VPAupdate.pdf. 

Philippines Forest Management Bureau. “2007 Forestry Statistics.” 

http://forestry.denr.gov.ph/stat2007.htm (accessed February 15, 2010). 

Phimmavong S., B. Ozarska, S. Midgley, and R. Keenan. “Forest and Plantation Development in Laos: 

History, Development and Impact for Rural Communities.” International Forestry Review 11 (4), 

2009. 

Purbawiyatna, Alan, and Markku Simula. Developing Forest Certification: Towards Increasing the 

Comparability and Acceptance of Forest Certification Systems Worldwide. International Tropical 

Timber Organization (ITTO). ITTO Technical Series 29, 2008. 

Resosudarmo, Budy P., and Arief Anshory Yusuf. “Is the Log Export Ban Effective? Revisiting the Issue 

through the Case of Indonesia.” Australian National University. Economics and Environment 

Network Working Paper EEN0602, Canberra, Australia, June 13, 2006. 

Sabah, Government of. “Forest Industry in Sabah.” 

http://www.forest.sabah.gov.my/conservation/ForestIndustry.pdf (accessed May 3, 2010). 

Saigon Times. “Sumitomo Forestry to Build Plywood Factory in Long An,” January 13, 2010. 

http://english.thesaigontimes.vn/Home/business/corporate-news/8341/.

Sally, Razeen. “Regional Economic Integration in Asia: The Track Record and the Prospects.” European 

Centre for International Political Economy. Occasional Paper No. 2/2010. Brussels: ECIPE, 2010. 

Seneca Creek Associates. “Illegal Logging and Global Wood Markets: The Competitive Impacts on the 

U.S. Wood Products Industry.” Prepared for American Forest & Paper Association. Poolesville, 

MD, October 2004. 

Simula, Markku. “The Pros and Cons of Procurement: Developments and Progress in Timber-Producing 

Policies as Tools for Promoting the Sustainable Management of Tropical Forests.” International 

Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). Technical Series 34, Yokohama, Japan, April 2010. 
5-24

Tachibana, Satoshi. “Forest-Related Industries and Timber Exports of Malaysia: Policy and Structure.” 

Research Paper, University of Tokyo, c1999. 

http://enviroscope.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/upload/1503/attach/3ws-12-tachibana.pdf. 

———. “Impacts of Log Export Restrictions in Southeast Asia on the Japanese Plywood Market: An 

Econometric Analysis.” Journal of Forestry Research 5, no. 2 (2000), 51–57. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Burma: Solid Wood Products; 

Annual Report, 2005. GAIN Report no. BM5005, March 4, 2005. 

———. Malaysia: Solid Wood Products; Annual Report, 2006. GAIN Report no. MY6022, 

September 13, 2006. 

———. Thailand: Solid Wood Products; Annual Report, 2006. GAIN Report no. MY6022, July 13, 2006. 

———. Vietnam: Solid Wood Products; Annual Report, 2006. GAIN Report no. VM6075, 

December 8, 2006. 

U.S. Department of State. “2010 Investment Climate Statements.” March 2010. 

http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/rls/othr/ics/2010/index.htm (accessed April 15, 2010, by country). 

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Wood Flooring and Hardwood Plywood: Competitive 

Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industries. USITC Publication 4032. Washington, DC: USITC, 

2008. 

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the 

United States of America and the Republic of Indonesia on Combating Illegal Logging and 

Associated Trade, November 2006. 

http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/US%20Indonesia%20MOU%20to%20Combat%20Illegal

%20Logging%20Signed%20Text_0.pdf (accessed January 8, 2010). 

———. “USTR Announces New Asia-Pacific Initiative on Illegal Logging and Trade.” Press release, 

September 2, 2009. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2009/september/ustr-announces-new-asia-pacific-initiative-illeg. 

Wibowo, Prabianto. “ASEAN Roadmap for Integration of Wood-Based Products: Does It Provide a 

Suitable Framework to Guide the Development of Sustainable and Competitive Timber Trade?” 

Paper presented at EU-ASEAN Workshop on Trade in Wood Products in South East Asia, Kuala 

Lumpur, Malaysia, May 24–25, 2006. 

http://www.delmys.ec.europa.eu/en/special_features/Prabianto.pdf.

World Bank. Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (FLEG)—East Asia & Pacific. 

http://go.worldbank.org/Q3SXQDTSC0 (accessed January 8, 2010). 

———. Indonesia Economic Quarterly: Building Momentum, March 2010. 

World Trade Organization (WTO). Tariff Analysis Online. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tariffs_e/tao_help_e.htm (accessed April 2010). 
6-1

CHAPTER 6 

Healthcare: Healthcare Services 

Healthcare Overview1

The ASEAN Roadmap for Integration of the Healthcare Sector (Roadmap) covers five 

industries, four of which involve healthcare products. However, increased trade and 

industry development are making healthcare services an increasingly important sector of 

the ASEAN healthcare sector. For this reason, this chapter begins with a brief survey of 

the healthcare products covered by the Roadmap, but focuses primarily on healthcare 

services. Comparable data on trade and investment in healthcare services do not exist in 

the same way as for healthcare goods; hence, the trade and other data presented in this 

overview pertain only to healthcare goods, unless otherwise noted. The discussion of 

trade in healthcare services has been approached using the number of foreign patients that 

have received treatment as a proxy for cross-border trade, and data on individual 

investment deals have been used in the absence of aggregate investment statistics. 

The healthcare priority sector,2

 as defined by the Roadmap, has grown in the past five 

years due to growing demand for healthcare goods and services, both inside and outside 

the ASEAN region. In 2008, trade within ASEAN of healthcare goods covered by the 

Roadmap3

 reached an estimated $2 billion (table 2.4). 4 In that same year, the world 

exported $9.3 billion of such goods to ASEAN and imported $10.2 billion of healthcare 

goods from ASEAN countries. Intra-ASEAN exports of these goods increased at an 

average annual rate of approximately 23 percent per year, compared to 30 percent annual 

growth in world imports of such goods from ASEAN. 

ASEAN members have made limited progress towards regional integration of the 

healthcare goods sectors, as measured against the Roadmap. Measures set forth in the 

Roadmap that have thus far been achieved through the integration effort, which is led by 

Singapore, include progress in developing regional regulatory standards for healthcare 

goods (a primary focus of the Roadmap) and lowering barriers to trade.5

 When fully 

integrated, the region will have common standards for each of the four healthcare goods 

subsectors; presently, development of ASEAN-wide standards and regulatory 

harmonization is limited to the cosmetics industry.6

 However, members have reiterated 

 1

 See app. F for a list of the Harmonized System numbers covered under this priority sector. Healthcare 

services do not have Harmonized System numbers, and thus are not included in this list. 2

 The healthcare priority sector, as designated by the ASEAN Secretariat, is categorized into five 

subsectors: healthcare services; cosmetics; medical devices and equipment; pharmaceuticals; and traditional 

medicines and health supplements. The priority sector product basket (excluding healthcare services) 

comprises 245 goods, almost half of which are pharmaceutical products. 3

 The use of the term “healthcare goods” is understood to refer only to those healthcare goods covered by 

the Roadmap, which are only a portion of all healthcare goods traded. 4

 Intra-ASEAN trade volumes are estimates based on available import trade data and may be undervalued. 

Brunei, Burma, Indonesia, and Laos do not report trade data. Cambodia did not report trade data for 2005–08, 

and the Philippines did not report trade data for 2004–06. 5

 ASEAN Secretariat, “Appendix 1,” n.d.; Gross and Minot, “ASEAN Medical Device Regulatory 

Integration,” January 1, 2009. 6

 The Agreement on the Harmonized Cosmetic Regulatory Scheme was signed in 2005 and is in varying 

stages of implementation among member countries. Badan Standardisasi Nasional, “Indonesia Will Soon 

Ratify ASEAN Cosmetic Directive,” September 9, 2009. 
6-2

their commitment to achieving harmonization in the remaining three healthcare goods 

subsectors, the markets for which have remained fragmented due to wide variation in 

national regulations.7

 Relatively more progress has been made in lowering trade barriers 

in the region. Most of the region’s Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) rates 

were significantly lowered by 2003, and as of 2008, CEPT rates for most priority 

healthcare goods were at zero.8

Extra-ASEAN exports of healthcare goods listed in the Roadmap have remained 

competitive as governments have leveraged advantages in related, technologically 

intensive industries—specifically electronics and chemicals—to become an attractive 

production location for multinationals from the United States and Europe. 9 Although 

Asian manufacturers have traditionally focused on low-end medical devices and supplies, 

in recent years, governments such as Malaysia and Singapore have promoted the 

production of more technologically advanced products,10 and extra-ASEAN exports have 

increasingly been higher-value products; pharmaceuticals and medical devices had the 

largest export growth from 2004 through 2008, as measured by world imports from 

ASEAN. 

Healthcare goods covered by the Roadmap have become competitive within ASEAN as 

well, largely due to tariff reductions. In contrast with ASEAN’s extraregional trade, the 

bulk of intraregional trade in healthcare goods—and growth in such trade 11 —has 

remained in lower-value products, primarily cosmetics or personal care items such as 

shampoos, soap, and deodorants. Expansion and privatization within the regional 

healthcare services industry, and lower prices due to the reduction of the CEPT rates have 

made regional products more competitive. 

 7

 Lee-Brago, “ASEAN Agrees to Further Promote Integration of Traditional Medicine,” January 7, 2010. 

In the medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and traditional medicines subsectors, working groups for each 

respective sector have been formed and continue to meet in efforts to coordinate industry regulations and 

requirements. Seerangam, “ASEAN Pharmaceutical Harmonization,” November 17–19, 2008. 8

 CEPT rates for healthcare goods in the priority basket were successfully eliminated in the ASEAN-6 

(Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) and are a maximum of 5 percent in 

the ASEAN-4 (Burma, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam). Agreement on the Common Effective Preferential 

Tariff (CEPT) Scheme for the ASEAN Free Trade Area, Consolidated Package of Tariff Reductions for 2008, 

http://www.aseansec.org/19802.htm (accessed June 11, 2010); Royal Malaysia Customs Department, HSExplorer (accessed April 28, 2010); World Trade Organization (WTO), Tariff Analysis Online (accessed 

April 28, 2010). 9

 SingaporeMedicine, “Growing Biomedical Manufacturing Industry,” n.d. (accessed June 11, 2010); 

Singapore Economic Development Board, “Medical Technology: Industry Background,” n.d. (accessed 

June 11, 2010); Malaysian Industrial Development Authority, “Industries in Malaysia: Medical Devices 

Industry,” n.d. (accessed June 11, 2010). 10 Jain, “Malaysia Poised for Leap of Growth–II,” May 11, 2010. Medical technologies range from 

advanced medical electronics, such as MRI scanners, to implantable devices, such as cardiac stents, and 

single-use technologies, such as gloves and needles. Eucomed, “Medical Technology Brief,” May 2007. 11 WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed March 29, 2010). 
6-3

In recent years, the traditional investment destinations among the ASEAN countries—

Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand—have continued to attract investors from the United 

States, Europe, and Japan. 12 These countries’ governments have promoted foreign 

investment in healthcare by offering tax exemptions and other incentives to foreign 

manufacturers that enter their healthcare industries.13 However, as ASEAN has become 

more competitive globally, investment in the production of healthcare goods by other 

Asian countries (China, India, and South Korea) has increased and has targeted new 

destinations, such as Indonesia and Vietnam. These countries have attracted investment 

due to their rapidly growing pharmaceutical and medical device markets, as well as lower 

production costs, particularly as such costs rise in China. 14 For example, Vietnam’s 

liberalization of investment restrictions upon its accession to the World Trade 

Organization (WTO) in 2007, combined with rapid economic growth and the 

government’s investment in healthcare services infrastructure, led to increased 

investment in both its medical device and pharmaceutical markets—58 foreign-owned 

pharmaceutical businesses were established in 2007 alone.15

The healthcare services industry is the fifth segment of the healthcare priority sector. 

Healthcare services encompass a wide range of services and treatments provided by 

medical professionals and healthcare facilities such as hospitals, clinics, or laboratories. 

Services include inpatient services (services provided by hospitals to in-house patients), 

outpatient medical treatments provided by clinics, and other related medical services, 

such as pathology services provided by laboratories. Trade in the ASEAN healthcare 

services industry is estimated to be smaller than trade in the four goods industries 

included in ASEAN’s healthcare priority sector. For example, in 2007, the world 

(including ASEAN countries) imported US$7.1 billion of priority goods from Singapore; 

in comparison, Singapore’s healthcare industry provided services to 348,000 patients, 

valued at S$1.7 billion (US$750 million). 16 However, the designation of healthcare 

services in ASEAN’s healthcare priority sector reflects the industry’s economic potential. 

Healthcare services generate export revenue,17 attract foreign investment, and can support 

development in other industries by providing the necessary support services to attract 

highly skilled, educated employees. 

 12 The ASEAN Secretariat does not report data on foreign investment for the healthcare sector. Instead, 

information supporting this investment discussion was gathered from reports of individual deals, anecdotal 

information, and discussions with industry representatives. Bureau van Dijk, Zephyr database (accessed 

April 27, 2010). 13 Malaysian Industrial Development Authority, “Incentives for the Medical Devices Industry.” 14 Gross and Minot, “The Roar of Vietnam’s Device Market,” May 2009. 15 Pacific Bridge Medical, “Growing Foreign Investment in Vietnam’s Pharmaceutical Industry,” 

February 4, 2008. 16 Data used in this section, where available, are largely from national statistical agencies, as the ASEAN 

Secretariat does not report statistics on healthcare services. Data for 2007 were the most recent available. 

Hospitals.sg, “Singapore’s Medical Tourism Figures Revealed by Health Minister,” January 28, 2009. 17 Healthcare services exports refer to consumption abroad, or medical treatment provided to foreign 

patients by healthcare facilities, often referred to as medical travel. Medical travel is a primary focus of the 

ASEAN integration efforts and of national governments. 
6-4

Healthcare Services18 

Key Findings 

The initial stages of integration in healthcare services in the ASEAN region have largely 

been driven by increased trade and investment in the healthcare services industry.19 In the 

ASEAN region, much of the investment in, and exports of, healthcare services have been 

undertaken by facilities belonging to healthcare groups, which are networks of hospitals 

and other healthcare facilities owned by one entity that share resources and coordinate 

care throughout the region. Private healthcare providers20 in Malaysia, Singapore, and 

Thailand have been able to capitalize on the comparative advantages in their sectors, such 

as the availability of low-cost labor and highly skilled medical practitioners, and the 

liberalization of investment barriers to provide competitively priced healthcare services to 

foreign patients and meet increasing demand in the regional market. In the last 5 to 10 

years, demand for quality healthcare services in Cambodia, Indonesia, and Vietnam has 

continued to grow, encouraging providers in Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand to invest 

in these markets in order to better serve the local population. As with healthcare goods, 

the opportunities presented by economic growth, liberalization of investment regulations, 

and government incentives for investment in the healthcare industry have attracted a 

growing volume of international investment in regional healthcare groups. 

As more patients have traveled across borders within the ASEAN region to receive 

healthcare, and investment in healthcare services has grown, governments have acted 

individually—and through ASEAN, collectively—to develop programs and policies to 

support industry growth and integration. Certain national governments, such as Brunei 

and Singapore, have entered into bilateral agreements regarding healthcare services, 

intended to further strengthen trade and investment relationships. They have also 

implemented programs simplifying procedures for the movement of foreign patients 

across borders. ASEAN has facilitated additional regional integration in the healthcare 

 18 In the following discussion, healthcare services refer specifically to the services categorized under the 

United Nation’s Central Product Classification (CPC) code Human Health Services (931), which is consistent 

with the commitments in healthcare services made in the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services 

(AFAS). Services industries cannot be categorized or defined using tariff numbers, but the CPC system 

provides a parallel classification system. CPC codes do not categorize industries, per se, but rather the output 

of an industry. To the degree possible, products or services provided by a single industry are grouped under 

one CPC: for example, Human Health Services (931) encompass most of the services provided by hospitals 

and other healthcare facilities. Human health services encompass the following subclasses: inpatient services 

(9311); medical and dental services (9312), which include outpatient medical treatments; and other human 

health services (9319), which include laboratory services. UN, Statistics Division, “CPC Ver. 2,” 

December 31, 2008. 19 Trade in healthcare services can be divided into four modes, or categories, of supply. Cross-border 

trade (mode 1) parallels trade in goods, wherein suppliers and consumers are located in different countries. 

Cross-border trade in healthcare services usually involves pathology or radiology services (specimens or 

films can be sent across borders), or telemedicine (the provision of services using information technology). 

Consumption abroad (mode 2) occurs when the consumer, or patient, travels to the country of the supplier. 

Commercial presence (mode 3) is when the supplier, or provider, establishes a presence through a juridical 

person in the consumer’s market; this is closely linked to foreign investment. Movement of service providers 

(mode 4) describes the movement of an individual healthcare professional to the country of the patient. See 

below for a further discussion of trade in healthcare services. WTO, “Definition of Services Trade and Modes 

of Supply,” n.d.; Arunanondchai and Fink, “Trade in Health Services in the ASEAN Region,” March 2007, 

11. 20 Generally, “public” healthcare facilities are defined as facilities which belong to the state; conversely, 

“private” facilities are those owned by non-government individuals or groups. Giusit, Criel, and De Behune, 

“Viewpoint,” 1997, 193. 
6-5

services industry by developing the Roadmap to coordinate country efforts, establishing 

the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services (AFAS) to secure commitments on 

healthcare services, and initiating the effort to harmonize licensing standards and 

qualifications for healthcare services workers across countries. 

Background 

Private sector 21 participation across all ASEAN healthcare markets has increased in 

recent years, although healthcare systems in the region vary in terms of their privatepublic mix (table 6.1).22 In Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand—the largest 

healthcare markets in the ASEAN region as measured by per capita healthcare 

expenditure—the private healthcare sector plays a larger role; for example, in Singapore, 

7 of its 13 hospitals are private facilities.23 Vietnam, which opened its healthcare market 

to private facilities in 2003, had 20 private hospitals in 2008, two of which were foreignowned.24 In contrast, Burma and Laos only recently opened their markets to private 

providers, and so continue to have largely public healthcare systems. 25 Healthcare 

systems in Cambodia and Indonesia are in transition as well. Both of these countries, due 

either to lack of infrastructure or to patient preference, meet excess demand by importing 

significant volumes of healthcare services from the more developed markets in the 

region.26

 21 The focus of this analysis is the private healthcare services sector, as publicly provided services are a 

public good and generally do not compete with private services. 22 Governments frequently participate in the provision of healthcare services to address economic and 

public health concerns, often serving as the primary healthcare provider in lower-income economies. 

However, as countries experience economic development, the private healthcare system develops and treats 

public health issues. Additionally, the population’s preference for healthcare services shifts, due to the 

increased incidence of noncommunicable diseases as well as rising household expenditure on health. As a 

result, healthcare systems frequently grow over time to include a mixture of public and private providers as 

governments seek private sector participation to further develop healthcare infrastructure and meet growing 

demand. Arunanondchai and Fink, “Trade in Health Services in the ASEAN Region,” 2007, 2, 8; Hanson and 

Berman, “Private Health Care Provision in Developing Countries,” n.d., 10; Global Health Council, “PrivatePublic Sector,” n.d. 23 Ministry of Health Singapore, “Healthcare Facilities,” n.d.; Ministry of Health Singapore, Health Facts 

2008, 2008. 

24 International Medical Travel Journal Online, “Indochina,” November 20, 2008. 25 In Burma, private hospitals were prohibited prior to 2007, and in Laos, the government granted the first 

licenses for private hospitals in 2009. Irrawaddy, “Burma Licenses Private Hospitals, Clinics,” October 8, 

2009; Phouthonesy, “Govt Grants First Private Hospital Licenses,” September 22, 2009. 26 Imports of healthcare services refer to the movements of individuals across borders to receive medical 

treatment and care outside their home market. 
6-6

TABLE 6.1 Healthcare services: healthcare systems of ASEAN countries, latest year available

Indicator

Health expenditure 

per capita, PPP 

(constant 2005 $), 

2007

Out-of-pocket 

spending (percent 

of total healthcare 

spending), 2007a Public Private Public Private 

Hospital beds 

per 1,000 

people

Brunei 1149 99 506 58 4 2 2.8

(2008) (2008) (2008) (2008) (2006)

Burma 26 95 7,976 13,823b 839 (c) 0.6

(2007) (2007) (2007) (2006)

Cambodia 108 85 (c) (c) (c) (c) 0.1

(2004)

Indonesia 81 66 (c) (c) (c) (c) 0.2

(2002)

Laos 84 76 (c) (c) 145 0 1.2

(2005) (2008) (2005)

Malaysia 604 73 15,096 10,006 137 209 1.8

(2008) (2008) (2008) (2008) (2007)

Philippines 130 84 3,047 (c) 701 1,080 1.1

(2007) (2007) (2007) (2006)

Singapore 1643 94 4,297 3,051 6 7 3.2

(2008) (2008) (2008) (2008) (2007)

Thailand 286 72 15,343 3,575 927 292 2.2

(2004) (2004) (2004) (2004) (2002)

Vietnam 183 90 (c) (c) 974 20 2.6

(2008) (2008) (2008)

 b

Data include cooperative doctors.

 cData not available.

No. of physicians No. of hospitals

Sources: World Bank, WDI database (accessed May 3, 2010); Ministry of Health Brunei, Health Information Booklet 2008; 

Ministry of Health Burma, Hospital Statistics Report 2007; World Health Organization, "Lao People's Democratic Republic," 

2009; Ministry of Health Malaysia, Health Facts 2008 ; Philippines Department of Health, "Health Facilities and Government 

Health Manpower 1995–2006"; Ministry of Health Singapore, "Health Facts Singapore"; Thailand National Statistical Office, 

Statistical Yearbook Thailand 2007; General Statistics Office of Vietnam, "Statistical Handbook of Vietnam 2009"; 

International Medical Travel Journal , "Indochina," November 20, 2008.

 aOut-of-pocket expenditure is any direct outlay by households, including gratuities and in-kind payments, to health 

practitioners and suppliers of other healthcare goods and services. It is a part of private health expenditure. World Bank, 

Data Indicators, n.d. (accessed June 24, 2010).
6-7

Only a few countries export large volumes of healthcare services, although all ASEAN 

countries trade at least some small amount of medical services. 27 Many ASEAN 

governments are promoting their healthcare exports (i.e., their medical travel industries).

Governments in Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam have all 

announced initiatives to promote their healthcare industries to foreign patients. 28

However, of the ASEAN countries, Singapore, and Thailand are the most competitive in 

the global healthcare services market, as measured by numbers of foreign patients they 

receive, although Malaysia’s industry has exhibited rapid growth in recent years. 

Singapore and Thailand’s largest competitors are largely in Southeast Asia, as the global 

market is fragmented regionally and consumers prefer local care.29 Outside of the region, 

India is Asia’s largest exporter of healthcare services, based on the number of foreign 

patients treated, followed by South Korea. China and Taiwan, too, are working to 

increase their exports of healthcare services.30 

While it is difficult to compare the competitiveness of ASEAN healthcare providers with 

extra-ASEAN providers,31 anecdotal evidence and accreditation statistics suggest that 

ASEAN providers, particularly Singapore and Thailand, are making strides in becoming 

globally competitive. Accreditation statistics reported by the Joint Commission 

International (JCI) (table 6.2), which list the hospitals that have voluntarily pursued an 

international standard of hospital quality, indicate that as of 2010, 31 hospitals in the 

ASEAN region have received JCI accreditation, including 13 in Singapore and 9 in 

Thailand.32 These statistics also illustrate the rapid growth of healthcare services in other 

developing regions; for example, the Middle East increased its number of JCI-accredited 

hospitals from 7 in 2005 to 76 in 2010. However, industry representatives indicate that 

although the Middle East has vastly improved its healthcare infrastructure, Middle 

 27 As mentioned above, healthcare services can be traded via four modes; however, each of these four 

modes is captured by discrete and incomparable trade data, where such data exist. For the purposes of this 

report, exports of healthcare services will refer to consumption abroad (medical treatment provided to foreign 

patients by healthcare facilities, often referred to as medical travel). Medical travel is a primary focus of the 

ASEAN integration efforts and of national governments. Trade via mode 3, or commercial establishment, is 

closely related to investment, and so will be addressed in the investment discussion of this report. Data for the 

other two modes of trade in healthcare services do not exist, and so, where necessary, will be discussed 

anecdotally. For example, data on cross-border trade in healthcare services in the ASEAN region, if captured, 

falls under trade in information services. Similarly, statistics on the volume or value of services provided by 

foreign medical personnel to patients in their (patient’s) home country (mode 4) do not exist; instead, trade 

through movement of professionals is captured through data on the number of foreign professionals operating 

in a country. This data will be presented where relevant to the discussion. 28 International Medical Travel Journal, “Malaysia,” September 8, 2009; Arunanondchai and Fink, 

“Trade in Health Services in the ASEAN Region,” March 2007, 13; Chee, “Medical Tourism in Malaysia,” 

January 2007, 10, 13, 18. 29 There are some exceptions to this, such as travel by U.S. citizens to Thailand or India specifically for 

healthcare services. However, the majority of healthcare exports are provided to foreign patients from 

neighboring countries, and industry representatives indicate that only a minority of patients are outside a 6–7 

hour flight radius from the healthcare facility. Industry representative, interview with USITC staff, Singapore, 

March 8, 2010. 30 Industry representatives, interview with USITC staff, Singapore, March 8 and 9, 2010; eTurboNews, 

“Medical Tourism Health Travel Magazine Launched in Thailand,” August 27, 2009. 31 There is no international body that governs the private healthcare industry, and due to the combination 

of public and private provision, there is no specific indicator for competitiveness across the global market. 32 The Joint Commission International (JCI) is the international division of Joint Commission Resources, 

the U.S. hospital accreditation body. JCI accreditation is considered an indicator of quality, as accreditation 

indicates a facility has met baseline safety and quality standards for international care. Other standards and 

accreditations used throughout the hospital industry include those set by the International Organization for 

Standards (ISO) 9000. Joint Commission International Website, “About Joint Commission International”; 

Timmons, “The Value of Accreditation,” October 17, 2007. 
6-8

Eastern patients continue to travel to ASEAN (largely Thailand) for treatment, due to the 

high cost of quality care at home.33 

Region 2005 2010

Asia 15 65

 ASEAN 11 31

 Other Asia 4 34

Europe 38 91

Middle East 7 76

The Americasa 4 26

Note: 2005 statistics are based on accredited hospitals as of 

December 2005; 2010 statistics are accurate as of April 2010. 

Source: Joint Commission International, "Joint Commission 

International (JCI) Accredited Organizations," n.d.

TABLE 6.2 Healthcare services: Number of JCI-accredited hospitals, 

2005 and 2010

 aThe Americas region does not include the United States.

Regional Integration, Export Competitiveness, and Inbound 

Investment 

Leading Competitive Factors 

The competitive landscape of the healthcare services industry in the ASEAN region has 

undergone substantial change in recent years, reflecting industry growth driven by 

increased demand and competition in the export market as well as new opportunities in 

developing markets. The primary driver of three related phenomena—regional 

integration, export competitiveness, and inbound investment—has been the growth of 

private healthcare groups. Following the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Thailand, followed 

by Singapore and Malaysia, promoted healthcare service exports (provision of services to 

foreign patients) to fill excess capacity in the market caused by a decline in domestic 

demand, as well as to capitalize on cost advantages stemming from the devaluation in 

regional currencies.34 In the past five years, the healthcare export market has become 

increasingly competitive as new providers have entered the market. Competition in the 

market is based on price and quality, with firms seeking to differentiate perception of 

their services through marketing. Other factors which have contributed to gains in export 

competitiveness include government policies and programs, and the Mutual Recognition 

Agreements (MRAs) negotiated through ASEAN. 

Private healthcare providers have invested aggressively both to expand beyond their 

domestic markets and to enter neighboring markets with growing demand for highquality healthcare services. Regional expansion has drawn investors from outside the 

ASEAN region, as these indigenous healthcare groups offer stable investment 

opportunities through which investors can access the ASEAN market. The rising wealth, 

 33 Industry representative, interview with USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 16, 2010. 34 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 16, 2010; Chee, 

“Medical Tourism in Malaysia,” January 2007, 9–10. 
6-9

growing populations, and increasing demand for healthcare services in these markets 

provide attractive opportunities for investors. 

Private healthcare groups have played an important role in the rise of regional integration 

throughout the region. New entrants to the market have driven providers to offer higherquality services, increasing export competitiveness. Similarly, intra-ASEAN investment 

has risen as private healthcare groups look to regional expansion for new revenue 

streams. The development of the marketplace for healthcare services exports has made 

patients more likely to travel throughout the region to receive treatment. Other factors 

which have contributed to the deepening integration are shared economic growth; 

improved transportation and telecommunication linkages; bilateral agreements on 

healthcare between governments; and the liberalization of regional investment rules 

under the AFAS. 35 

Regional Integration 

As defined by the Roadmap, regional integration encompasses free movement of patients 

across borders as well as liberalized investment policies.36 As mentioned above, much of 

the integration achieved has been driven by the development and expansion of regional 

private healthcare groups, but governments and the ASEAN Secretariat have established 

the necessary policies to support progress achieved by individual firms. Anecdotal 

evidence suggests that few regulatory barriers prevent patients from seeking healthcare 

services abroad within the region; indeed, under the AFAS, the seven members that made 

commitments on hospital services have completely liberalized consumption abroad.37

Improved transportation and telecommunication linkages and revised visa procedures 

help patients move across borders in growing numbers. With respect to investment, new 

commitments to liberalization in the AFAS, implemented in 2009, have been augmented 

by unilateral and bilateral initiatives. 

Strong economic growth in member economies, particularly in skilled or technical sectors 

such as electronics, has attracted populations of higher-income employees and has 

increased demand for high-quality healthcare services in the region, along with more 

cross-border travel by patients.38 Additionally, increased per capita income39 has changed 

the types of services demanded. Demand for higher-quality preventative and elective 

healthcare has increased, as has treatment for noncontagious afflictions, such as diabetes 

and hypertension.40 ASEAN healthcare providers have addressed this growing demand by 

increasing their regional presence, through both expansion and marketing. For example, 

Malaysia’s KPJ Healthcare Berhad has established a network of facilities throughout 

 35 The ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services (AFAS) is the regional agreement on liberalization in 

services trade, which is intended to bind regional commitments beyond commitments made under the 

General Agreement on Trade in Services. As of 2009, seven rounds of commitments had been negotiated and 

implemented. ASEAN Secretariat official, e-mail to USITC staff, April 25, 2010; ASEAN Secretariat Web 

site, “ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services.” 36 ASEAN Secretariat, “Appendix 1,” n.d. 

37 Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam did not make commitments on hospital services. Industry 

representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Singapore, March 7 and 8, 2010; industry representative, 

interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 17, 2010. 38 Industry representative, interview with USITC staff, Singapore, March 7, 2010; industry representative, 

interview with USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 17, 2010. 39 ASEAN economies exhibited strong growth in gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, particularly 

from 2005 through 2007. ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN Yearbook of Statistics 2008, 38. 40 Arunanondchai and Fink, “Trade in Health Services in the ASEAN Region,” 2007, 8; Hanson and 

Berman, “Private Health Care Provision in Developing Countries,” n.d., 10. 
6-10

Malaysia and Indonesia, and has advertised throughout the region, targeting markets such 

as China and Vietnam.41 

Intra-ASEAN travel by these growing populations of medical travelers has been 

facilitated by increased capacity in interregional air transportation, and may benefit in the 

future from more efficient visa procedures. In 2005, the ASEAN transport ministers 

initiated a plan—the ASEAN Open Skies agreement—to accelerate the liberalization of 

air travel. This agreement allowed regional budget airlines to enter the market and offer 

more flights between ASEAN destinations, such as Kuala Lumpur and Singapore or 

Kuala Lumpur and Rangoon (Burma).42 Additionally, one of the initiatives set forth in the 

Roadmap specified reduced visa requirements to simplify the cross-border movement of 

patients within the ASEAN region,43 although it is unclear if advances have been made 

on this issue. 

By providing the organizational framework (through the AFAS) for regional cooperation 

and liberalization, ASEAN appears to have made progress in facilitating both increases in 

overall healthcare investment and further regional integration. Historically, governments 

have tended to maintain barriers to foreign healthcare establishments because they are 

often perceived as infringing on national sovereignty.44 However, the seventh package of 

commitments in services in the AFAS, which was implemented in 2009, substantially 

liberalized commercial presence restrictions, largely removing equity limitations.45 For 

instance, some countries such as Indonesia have liberalized regulations to permit foreign 

firms to hold majority shares; in Indonesia, foreign equity up to 51 percent is permitted. 

Vietnam also liberalized its regulations to allow 100 percent foreign ownership, although 

there is a minimum capital requirement of $20 million for hospitals. 46 Given the 

relatively recent implementation of these commitments, it is likely that the full impact of 

the rule changes on regional investment flows have not yet been captured in ASEAN 

member data. 

In addition, member governments have begun efforts to support this process by 

participating in bilateral agreements on healthcare to encourage regional trade and 

investment. For example, Brunei signed memorandums of understanding (MOUs)47 on 

healthcare training and healthcare services with Singapore in 2004 and 2007, 

respectively, and a MOU on healthcare services with Thailand in 2010.48 Singapore also 

 41 See the discussion on investment below for further information on regional expansion of healthcare 

providers. KPJ Healthcare Berhad Web site, “Hospital Network”; World Eye Reports, “Healthcare Tourism 

on the Rise,” November 14–15, 2010. 42 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, March 7, 2010; Xinhua News Agency, “Myanmar, 

Malaysian Airlines Increase Flight Capacity,” October 6, 2005; Airline Industry Information, “Tiger Airways 

Increases Capacity on Singapore-Kuala Lumpur Route,” September 29, 2008; ASEAN Secretariat, “Eleventh 

ASEAN Transport Ministers Meeting,” November 17, 2005. 43 ASEAN Secretariat, “Appendix 1,” n.d. 

44 Arunondchai and Fink, “Trade in Health Services in the ASEAN Region,” 2007, 2. 45 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, March 9, 2010. Acquisition of an existing firm, or a 

controlling interest, is reportedly the easiest way for healthcare firms to enter a market, as it requires less 

investment in infrastructure and leverages local knowledge of consumption patterns and culture. Industry 

representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 46 ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services, 2007. 

47 A memorandum of understanding (MOU) is a binding document that expresses mutual accord on an 

issue between two or more parties. “Memorandum of Understanding,” Business Dictionary.com, n.d. 

(accessed June 27, 2010). 48 Ministry of Health, Singapore, “MOU between Singapore and Brunei Ministries of Health to Promote 

Trainings,” December 6, 2004; Chee, “Medical Tourism in Malaysia,” 2007, 20. 
6-11

has a healthcare MOU with Cambodia. 49 These MOUs are intended to increase the 

cooperation in healthcare services between the respective countries across a number of 

areas, including training, research, investment, and the spread of infectious diseases. 

Export Competitiveness 

Thailand, Singapore, and Malaysia are the ASEAN region’s leading exporters of 

healthcare services. In 2008, Thailand reported the largest volume of medical travelers 

among ASEAN member countries (table 6.3),50 with the majority coming from outside 

the ASEAN region. Thailand’s largest export market is reported to be the Middle East, 

accounting for over half of its foreign patients, although it also receives patients from 

developed nations such as Japan and the United States (5 percent and 3 percent, 

respectively).51 Neighboring Burma is reported to be Thailand’s largest source of patients 

in the ASEAN market, accounting for 5 percent of medical travelers. 52 In contrast, 

Malaysia and Singapore largely export healthcare services to ASEAN neighbors. 

Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Malaysia 174,189 232,161 296,687 341,288 374,063

Singapore 320,000 374,000 410,000 348,000 (b)

Thailand 1,103,905 1,249,984 1,450,000(a) (b) 1,300,000

 bNot available.

Sources: Association of Private Hospitals Malaysia, cited in Malaysia-German Chamber of 

Commerce and Industry, Market Watch 2010 , 2010, 7; Hospitals.sg, "Singapore's Medical 

Tourism Figures Revealed by Health Minister," January 28, 2009; Yap, "Medical Tourism and 

Singapore," 2006/2007, 025; Tourism Authority of Thailand, "Thailand Projects Around 2 Million 

Visitors for Medical Services," n.d.; International Medical Travel Journal , "Thailand: Thailand to 

Boost Medical Tourism in 2010," January 20, 2010.

TABLE 6.3 Healthcare services: Exports of healthcare services, by estimated numbers of foreign 

patients, 2004–08 

Notes: Singapore and Thailand do not report annual statistics on the estimated number of foreign 

patients treated. Instead, estimates for Singapore in 2004 and 2005 are from Yap, "Medical 

Tourism in Singapore;" 2006 and 2007 are from the Health Minister, as reported by Hospitals.sg . 

Estimates for Thailand are from two reports, both citing Tourism Authority of Thailand estimates. 

Data are not available for Singapore and Thailand for the years 2008 and 2007, respectively.

 aData are likely underestimated, as specific statistics are not provided. Available data cite over 

1,450,000 foreign patients treated in Thailand in 2006.

 49 Noor, “Thailand Looks to Set Up Private Hospital Here,” March 30, 2010. 50 Neither ASEAN nor the individual governments of these countries collect comprehensive statistics or 

comparable statistics on the volume of medical travelers on a regular basis, so statistics are estimates. Data on 

the value of healthcare services exports are not widely available or consistent. Instead, data on volumes of 

foreign patients are presented. These data are not specific to the private healthcare sector; however, based on 

anecdotal evidence, it is assumed that the majority of services are provided by private facilities. Industry 

representative, interview with USITC staff, Singapore, March 8, 2010; Hospitals.sg, “Singapore’s Medical 

Tourism Figures Revealed by Health Minister,” January 28, 2009. 51 International Medical Tourism Journal, “Thailand: Health and Medical Tourism Update,” April 15, 

2010; industry representative, interview with USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 16, 2010; UN, ESCAP, 

“Medical Travel in Asia and the Pacific,” 2009, 16. 52 International Medical Tourism Journal, “Thailand: Health and Medical Tourism Update,” April 15, 

2010. 
6-12

Singapore’s largest export markets are Indonesia and Malaysia,53 although Singapore has 

entered into bilateral agreements with certain Middle Eastern countries, such as the 

United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, to diversify its export base.54 The ASEAN market 

accounts for 85 to 90 percent of Malaysia’s exports of healthcare services, as patients 

from Indonesia, Vietnam, and Cambodia travel to Malaysia for care, while the Middle 

East and developed countries account for the remainder.55 

The market for healthcare services exports within the ASEAN region has become more 

competitive in recent years; regional healthcare groups have sought to differentiate their 

services by adopting marketing strategies based on cost and perceived quality. 56

Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand all have low labor costs relative to developed 

countries, which allow them to specialize in healthcare services exports.57 Each has found 

a way to differentiate its services within the ASEAN market based on a combination of 

cost and quality. Thailand has positioned its healthcare exports as low-cost, high-quality 

care in a luxury setting, targeted at the extra-ASEAN market, 58 while Malaysia has 

focused largely on price-sensitive patients seeking quality care within the ASEAN 

region.59 By contrast, Singapore has focused on exporting specialty care, such as cancer 

and heart treatment; this focus allows Singapore’s medical professionals to maintain 

expertise in specific specialties and address excess capacity in Singapore’s healthcare 

infrastructure, such as available hospital beds and underutilization of advanced medical 

technology.60 Additionally, by creating a niche market, Singapore’s exports command 

premium prices, as the country’s industry has positioned itself to compete more on 

quality than on price, avoiding direct price competition with other regional providers.61

Malaysia’s rise as a destination for low-cost healthcare exports has provided the largest 

challenge to Singapore, particularly as the two countries are neighbors.62 Patients from 

Indonesia, Vietnam, and Cambodia travel to Malaysia seeking more developed healthcare 

services infrastructure, while Singaporeans travel to Malaysia seeking lower prices.63 

ASEAN member governments have aided their domestic exporters of healthcare services 

by implementing marketing campaigns and other initiatives to promote the industry 

(box 6.1). For example, the governments of Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and the 

Philippines have established programs, most often in conjunction with tourism 

authorities, which market directly to potential patients through online marketing 

 53 UN, ESCAP, “Medical Travel in Asia and the Pacific,” 2009, 12; Chee, “Medical Tourism in 

Malaysia,” January 2007, 19; industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 

16 and 17, 2010. 54 Chee, “Medical Tourism in Malaysia,” January 2007, 20; eTurboNews, “Health Travel Magazine 

Launched in Thailand,” August 27, 2009. 55 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 8, 2010; Malaysian-German 

Chamber of Commerce and Industry, “Market Watch 2009—the Healthcare Sector,” 7. 56 Socio-Economic and Environmental Research Institute, “Medical Tourism,” April 2009, 13. 57 Davis and Erixon, “The Health of Nations,” 2008, 10. 

58 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 16, 2010. 59 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 60 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 8, 2010; Chee, “Medical Tourism 

in Malaysia,” 2007, 20. 61 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 62 Ibid. 

63 Singaporeans account for 10 percent of foreign patients treated in Malaysia. Industry representative, 

interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 8, 2010; International Medical Travel Journal, “Malaysia 

Promoting Health Tourism from Brunei and Singapore,” March 25, 2010; Malaysian-German Chamber of 

Commerce and Industry, “Market Watch 2009,” 6. 
6-13

BOX 6.1 Healthcare services: Profile of ASEAN integration 

In the ASEAN region, Singapore and Malaysia have moved furthest in terms of integrating healthcare markets. 

Patients move freely between the two countries, and the industries have strong investment ties. Geographic proximity 

and a shared history of British colonization have promoted integration, as has the complementary specialization of 

the two markets.a

 Singapore specializes in higher-cost, complex medical procedures, whereas Malaysia focuses on 

more routine procedures at a competitive price.b Consequently, Singaporeans in need of routine medical procedures 

increasingly travel to Malaysia for care, whereas Malaysians in need of more complex medical procedures travel to 

Singapore. The governments in these countries have supported increased trade in healthcare services by 

implementing policies facilitating medical travel. For example, Malaysia has reportedly implemented a “green lane” 

system to facilitate customs clearance for medical travelers at major entry points, including the Singapore-Johor 

causeway.c

 

Singapore and Malaysia also enjoy a strong investment relationship.d Parkway Holdings, one of the largest 

healthcare providers in Singapore, owns majority shares in two hospitals in Malaysia and is a minority shareholder in 

Malaysia’s Pantai Hospital Group through a joint venture with the Malaysian government.e The Singaporean and 

Malaysian governments make efforts to support these bilateral investment flows, such as the Malaysian Minister of 

International Trade and Industry’s trade mission to Singapore in 2008.f 

Singapore’s recent initiative permitting portability of healthcare financing is expected to deepen integration of the two 

markets.g In 2010, the Singapore Ministry of Health announced that beginning on March 1, Singaporeans would be 

able to use their Medisaveh

 funds to pay for medical treatment abroad at approved facilities.i Industry representatives 

indicated this is expected to provide a large benefit to Malaysian healthcare providers.j

 The expansion of the 

Medisave program also allows the estimated 100,000 Singaporean workers who live in Malaysia to use their 

Medisave funds in their country of residence.k

a

 Industry representative, interview with USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 17, 2010. b

 Industry representatives, interviews with USITC staff, Singapore, March 8 and 9, 2010. c Industry representative, interview with USITC staff, Singapore, March 8, 2010; Association of Private Hospitals 

Malaysia, “Health Tourism in Malaysia,” October 2008. d

 Data on bilateral investment in healthcare between Malaysia and Singapore do not exist; assertions of the 

investment relationship are based on anecdotal information. e ParkwayHealth Web site, “Our Hospitals,” http://www.parkwayhealth.com/hospitals/index.asp. f

 International Enterprise Singapore, “Annual Report 2008/2009,” 23. 

g

 Industry representatives, interviews with Commission staff, Singapore, March 8 and 9, 2010. h The Medisave program is a mandatory health savings account that Singaporean workers contribute to for 

healthcare expenses. The Medisave program, in conjunction with a catastrophic health insurance plan, are the 

Singaporean equivalent of national healthcare. Singapore government, Central Provident Fund Board, “Health 

Financing Framework in Singapore,” n.d. I

Straits Times, “Use of Medisave Overseas,” February 10, 2010. j

Straits Times, “Use of Medisave Overseas,” February 10, 2010; industry representative, interview with USITC 

staff, March 9, 2010. k

 Industry representatives, interviews with USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 

campaigns. 64 Additionally, some governments have begun to offer incentives to 

encourage healthcare providers to export. For example, the government of Malaysia has 

established an institutional framework to facilitate exports, comprising nationwide 

pricing guidelines, an accreditation system, tax incentives, and promotional activities.65

Few initiatives have been adopted by ASEAN to liberalize exports of healthcare services 

because, as mentioned above, few barriers to cross-border trade exist. However, under the 

Roadmap, MRAs have been negotiated to coordinate and harmonize licensing 

qualifications and standards for medical professionals among the 10 countries and to 

 64 Chee, “Medical Tourism in Malaysia,” 2007, 18. 65 Ibid., 25. 
6-14

facilitate movement of professionals throughout the region. 66 MRAs for nursing, 

medical, and dental professionals are being implemented, and coordinating committees 

are working to develop a framework for core competencies and standards, relevant laws 

and regulations, entry procedures, and other related issues for each profession.67 The 

MRAs are expected to increase the competitiveness of ASEAN healthcare service 

providers by expanding the pool of skilled labor.68

Inbound Investment 

Both international and intra-ASEAN investment in healthcare in ASEAN have reportedly 

increased in recent years, although limited data exist on regional investment flows.69

Anecdotal evidence suggests that intra-ASEAN investment has grown as regional 

healthcare groups have established operations throughout the region; at the same time, 

most extra-ASEAN investment has entailed private equity investors taking stakes in 

ASEAN private healthcare groups and facilities.70 Leading ASEAN regional healthcare 

groups, largely from Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand, have expanded into their 

developing-country neighbors, such as Cambodia, Indonesia, and Vietnam, often by 

acquiring minority shares in existing facilities.71 For example, KPJ Healthcare (Malaysia) 

and ParkwayHealth (Singapore) have both invested in Indonesia, and Thailand’s 

Bangkok Hospital has established regional affiliates in Cambodia, Burma, and Vietnam.72

At the same time, many of these leading ASEAN healthcare providers have attracted 

investment from outside of ASEAN. For example, in 2005, Newbridge Capital (United 

States) acquired a minority share of Singapore’s Parkway Holdings, the parent company 

of the Parkway Hospital groups, for S$311 million (US$131 million).73 Similarly, in 

2008, U.S.-based Lombard Investments acquired a minority stake in the Philippine’s 

Professional Services Inc., the owner of a private hospital.74

As mentioned earlier, growth in intra-regional investment has been driven by expansion 

strategies adopted by local healthcare providers, intended to maintain relationships with 

their patient populations and continue revenue growth. 75 In recent years, traditional 

medical travel destinations such as Singapore and Thailand have seen increased 

 66 ASEAN Secretariat, “Appendix 1,” n.d. 

67 ASEAN Secretariat official, e-mail to USITC staff, April 25, 2010. 68 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 11, 2010. 69 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Singapore, March 7 and 8, 2010. ASEAN 

countries that do report statistics on foreign investment, such as Singapore, often do not report data specific 

to healthcare services, but instead aggregate investment in health care services with other industries. For 

example, Singapore reports healthcare services in the “other” category, which also includes agriculture and 

related services; fishing, operation of fishing hatcheries, and fish farms; extraction of crude petroleum and 

natural gas; other mining and quarrying; electricity and gas supply; collection, purification, and distribution 

of water; sewage and refuse disposal, sanitation; recycling; education; social and community activities; arts, 

entertainment, and recreation; repair and maintenance of vehicles, office equipment, and personal and 

household goods; other services activities; public administration and defense; and domestic work activities. 

As a result, the investment discussion below is based on data for specific transactions, and anecdotal 

information. Singapore Department of Statistics, “Singapore’s Investment Abroad,” April 2010, 32. 70 Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is only relevant to private healthcare markets. Smith, “Foreign Direct 

Investment and Trade in Health Services,” 2004, 2318. 71 World Health Organization (WHO), Regional Office for the Western Pacific, “Cambodia,” 2009; 

industry representative, interview with USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 72 Bangkok Hospital Web site, “Overseas Network Affiliates.” 73 Bureau van Dijk, Zephyr database, April 27, 2010. 

74 Ibid. 

75 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 
6-15

competition for foreign patients in the region76 as more ASEAN countries export services 

and develop the infrastructure necessary to meet local demand.77 Additionally, providers 

in Singapore and Thailand have watched as growing populations and economic growth 

have fueled demand for healthcare in neighboring markets. ASEAN healthcare groups 

have responded to the changing business environment by expanding their regional 

presence. Many have invested in hospitals outside their home market, 78 but more 

frequently they have established clinics or representative offices throughout the region. 

For example, while ParkwayHealth owns hospitals in four ASEAN countries (including 

Singapore), it has established patient assistance centers (which act as referral centers) in 

19 countries, including in eight of the ASEAN members (except Laos and Thailand).79

These patient assistance centers, such as the one in Vietnam, serve to expand Parkway’s 

brand in a fast-growing new market, while avoiding issues such as infrastructure 

investment or the shortage of skilled workers by referring new patients back to Parkway’s 

hospitals.80 Similarly, Thailand’s Bumrungrad Hospital has established 28 representative 

offices around the world, which promote Bumrungrad’s services and refer patients to the 

Thai facility. 81 Adopting such investment strategies has allowed ASEAN healthcare 

providers to establish foreign commercial presences at lower cost, while also supporting 

hospital facilities in their home markets through patient referrals.82 

While the ASEAN market has attracted growing investment in recent years, regional 

investors have reported that some measures continue to impede investment. Remaining 

equity limitations continue to reduce the region’s attractiveness, because providers prefer 

to enter a market with full ownership, or at a minimum, majority-interest ownership, to 

exert more control over operations.83 Although many countries have committed to few or 

no equity limitations in healthcare under the AFAS, other restrictions may prevent 100 

percent foreign ownership. For example, many countries maintain restrictions on foreign 

land ownership. Healthcare firms initially used Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) to 

avoid the restrictions and maintain full foreign-ownership of the facilities; however, 

certain ASEAN member countries are reportedly implementing requirements that compel 

hospitals to own the land on which they operate, effectively forcing them to work with 

local partners.84 

 76 Currently, out of the 10 ASEAN member countries, at least 6 governments have announced national 

initiatives promoting their healthcare services to foreign patients. 77 For example, healthcare providers in Thailand report seeing a drop in patient volumes from Bangladesh 

as a result of the opening of advanced hospitals in Bangladesh. Industry representative, interview by USITC 

staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 17, 2010. 78 For example, ParkwayHealth (Singapore) has a majority interest or more in hospitals in Singapore, 

Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei; KPJ Healthcare (Malaysia) holds controlling interests in facilities in 

Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Saudi Arabia. 79 ParkwayHealth Patient Assistance Center Web site. 

80 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 81 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 16, 2010. 82 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010; Chee, “Medical Tourism 

in Malaysia,” January 2007, 23. 83 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 17, 2010. 84 Ibid. 
6-16

Trade Facilitation, Logistics Services, and E-Commerce 

Trade Facilitation and Logistics Services 

Review of current literature and interviews with industry representatives in the ASEAN 

region indicate that healthcare services firms have encountered few or no trade 

facilitation or logistics issues, and improvements in these two areas are unlikely to 

substantially increase the competitiveness of healthcare services exports. 85 Trade 

facilitation and logistics services are more frequently associated with trade in healthcare 

goods, rather than provision of healthcare services. 

E-commerce 

Rising Internet usage in the region has expanded use of e-commerce in the healthcare 

services industry, which in turn has bolstered the competitiveness of healthcare services 

exports in the ASEAN region by increasing contact with patients and developing a more 

skilled workforce. 86 Many healthcare facilities have used the Internet to develop 

connections with patients before performing procedures or treatments, by answering 

questions and making advance arrangements. 87 Additionally, in countries where the 

governments are promoting healthcare exports, governments have established central 

Internet portals, generally linked to the country’s tourism Web site, intended to attract 

future patients and direct them to participating private facilities. An online presence is 

vital for both private facilities and governments promoting a national healthcare services 

industry.88 

Increased Internet access has also increased regional competitiveness by developing a 

more skilled healthcare workforce. Many healthcare facilities in ASEAN have 

encountered workforce shortages, as well as variation in levels of training and education. 

The availability of tele-education,89 or training provided remotely over the Internet, has 

helped to improve healthcare workers’ skills, allowing them to offer higher-quality, 

competitively priced healthcare services.90 For example, in Thailand, nursing schools and 

public health colleges use teleconference and tele-education technologies to connect 

students with real-time lectures, conferences, and other events.91 Tele-education has also 

offered healthcare groups in the region another avenue to expand their business and use 

their industry knowledge to generate revenues beyond their borders.92 For example, a 

 85 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, industry representatives, interview by 

USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 17 and 18, 2010. 86 In 2003, the number of Internet subscribers/users per 1,000 people in ASEAN was 58.7; in 2007, it was 

114.9. Telemedicine is another application of e-commerce seen with increasing frequency in the global 

healthcare market. However, literature reviews and interviews with regional officials indicated that currently, 

telemedicine in ASEAN is predominantly used by public providers to outsource services such as radiology 

and to increase domestic access (Malaysia’s Telehealth initiative is an example). As such, telemedicine 

applications do not contribute to trade volumes and do not increase the export competitiveness of healthcare 

services. ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN Statistical Yearbook 2008. 87 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 88 UN, ESCAP, “e-Health in Asia and the Pacific,” 2009, 14. 89 Tele-education is defined as “the use of information and communication technologies to provide 

Distance Education.” International Telecommunications Union and Inter-Americana Telecommunication 

Commission Organization of American States, Tele-Education in the Americas, December 2001, 9. 90 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 8, 2010. 91 UN, ESCAP, “e-Health in Asia and the Pacific,” 2009, 10. 92 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 8, 2010. 
6-17

Singaporean provider provides training to students in Kazakhstan, Korea, and Vietnam 

using e-modules and webcams.93 

To date, no ASEAN regional measures have been implemented to improve e-commerce 

specifically for healthcare services; however, initiatives underway from the ASEAN 

Secretariat include the MRAs for medical, nursing, and dental professionals. One aspect 

of the professional MRAs, which will harmonize and coordinate standards and licensing 

requirements across countries, is an electronic database of healthcare professionals. 

ASEAN member states are currently working to populate the database with information 

on foreign healthcare professionals operating in their markets and will eventually upload 

the database to the Internet to facilitate the movement of professionals throughout the 

region.94 

 93 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 94 ASEAN Secretariat official, e-mail to USITC staff, April 25, 2010. 
6-18

Bibliography 

Airline Industry Information. “Tiger Airways Increases Capacity on Singapore-Kuala Lumpur Route,” 

September 29, 2008. 

Arunanondchai, Jutamus, and Carsten Fink. “Trade in Health Services in the ASEAN Region.” World 

Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4147, March 2007. 

Association of Private Hospitals Malaysia. “Health Tourism in Malaysia.” Media release, October 2008; 

cited on Tourism Malaysia, October 2008. 

http://www.tourism.gov.my/corporate/mediacentre.asp?page=feature_malaysia&subpage=archive

&news_id=16. 

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). “Appendix 1: Roadmap for Integration of Healthcare 

Sector,” n.d. http://www.aseansec.org/19429.pdf. 

———. ASEAN Yearbook of Statistics 2008. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat, July 2009. 

———. “Eleventh ASEAN Transport Ministers Meeting, Vientiane, 17 November 2005.” Press release, 

November 17, 2005. 

Badan Standardisasi Nasional (National Standardization Agency of Indonesia). “Indonesia Will Soon 

Ratify ASEAN Cosmetic Directive,” September 9, 2009. 

http://www.bsn.go.id/news_detail.php?news_id=1278&language=en&language=en&language=id

&language=en. 

Brekke and Sørgard. “Public Versus Private Health Care in a National Health Service,” March 2006, 2. 

Bureau van Dijk. Zephyr Database (accessed April 27, 2010). 

Businessdictionary.com. “Memorandum of Understanding (MOU),” n.d. 

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/memorandum-of-understanding-MOU.html

(accessed June 27, 2010). 

Chee, Heng Leng. “Medical Tourism in Malaysia: International Movement of Healthcare Consumers and 

the Commodification of Healthcare.” Asia Research Institute. Working Paper Series No. 83, 

January 2007. 

Danish Trade Council. “The Healthcare Sector.” Royal Danish Embassy, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 

March 31, 2009. 

Davis, Lucy, and Fredrik Erixon. “The Health of Nations: Conceptualizing Approaches to Trade in Health 

Care.” European Centre for International Political Economy. Policy Brief 04/2008. 

Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. Medical Tourism: Update and Implications, 2009. 

Deloitte Singapore. Private Equity ASEAN, 2008. 

Eucomed. “Medical Technology Brief: Key Facts and Figures on the European Medical Technology 

Industry,” May 2007. 
6-19

Giusti, Daniele, Bart Criel, and Xavier de Béthune. “Viewpoint: Public versus Private Healthcare 

Delivery: Beyond the Slogans.” Health Policy and Planning 12, no. 3 (1997): 193–98. 

Global Health Council. “Private-Public Sector,” n.d. 

http://www.globalhealth.org/health_systems/private_public/ (accessed June 28, 2010). 

Goh, Jeffrey. “Teleradiology Outsourcing: Rumblings from the Ground.” SMA News 38, no. 5 (May 

2006): 22–23, 27. 

Gross, Ames, and John Minot. “ASEAN Medical Device Regulatory Integration: Countries Working to 

Modernize Healthcare Industry May Ease Medical Device Entry Into Southeast Asian Market.” 

Medical Product Outsourcing, January 1, 2009. 

———. “The Roar of Vietnam’s Device Market.” Pacific Bridge Medical, May 2009. 

Hanson, Kara, and Peter Berman. “Private Health Care Provision in Developing Countries: A Preliminary 

Analysis of Levels and Composition.” Harvard School of Public Health, Department of 

Population and International Health, Data for Decision Making Project, n.d. 

Hospitals.sg. “Singapore’s Medical Tourism Figures Revealed by Health Minister,” January 28, 2009. 

International Enterprise Singapore. Annual Report 2008/2009, n.d. 

http://www.iesingapore.gov.sg/wps/portal/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gDC

yNf30C_QA9Hg1APFz9ncycjAwjQL8h2VAQAC7xNtQ!!/ (accessed June 11, 2010). 

International Medical Travel Journal. “Indochina: Vietnam and Cambodia Make Hospital 

Developments,” November 20, 2008. 

———. “Malaysia: Tracking Malaysian Medical Tourism Statistics,” September 8, 2009. 

———. “Malaysia Promoting Health Tourism from Brunei and Singapore,” March 25, 2010. 

———. “Thailand: Health and Medical Tourism Update,” April 15, 2010. 

International Telecommunications Union and Inter-Americana Telecommunication Commission 

Organization of American States. Tele-Education in the Americas.OEA/Ser.LXVII.6.3. 

December 2001. 

Irrawaddy. “Burma Licenses Private Hospitals, Clinics,” October 8, 2009. 

Jain, Sanjeev. “Malaysia Poised for a Leap of Growth—II.” BioSpectrum: Asia Edition, May 11, 2010. 

http://www.biospectrumasia.com/content/110510MYS12639.asp. 

Lau, Jennifer. “Medical Device Market: Mega Trends in Asia.” Frost and Sullivan, Singapore, n.d. 

Lee-Brago, Pia. “ASEAN Agrees to Further Promote Integration of Traditional Medicine.” The 

Philippine Star, January 7, 2010. 

Malaysian-German Chamber of Commerce and Industry. “Market Watch 2009: The Healthcare Sector,” 

2009. 
6-20

Malaysian Industrial Development Authority. “Incentives for the Medical Devices Industry,” April 20, 

2009. http://202.190.126.187/en_v2/index.php?page=medical-devices-industry. 

Malaysian Industrial Development Authority. “Industries in Malaysia: Medical Devices Industry,” April 6, 

2009. http://www.mida.gov.my/en_v2/index.php?page=medical-devices. 

Ministry of Health Singapore. “Healthcare Facilities: Overview,” n.d. 

http://www.moh.gov.sg/mohcorp/hcfacilities.aspx?id=106 (accessed June 28, 2010). 

———. “Healthcare Institution Statistics,” n.d. http://www.moh.gov.sg/mohcorp/statistics.aspx?id=242

(accessed June 28, 2010). 

———. “Memorandum of Understanding to Foster Greater Cooperation in Healthcare Between 

Singapore and Brunei.” Press release, February 9, 2007. 

Noor, Narissa. “Thailand Looks to Set Up Private Hospital Here.” Borneo Bulletin, March 30, 2010; cited 

in BruDirect.com, March 30, 2010. 

Pacific Bridge Medical. “Growing Foreign Investment in Vietnam’s Pharmaceutical Industry.” Asia 

Medical eNewsletter, February 4, 2008. 

Phouthonesy, Ekaphone. “Govt Grants First Private Hospital Licenses.” Vientiane Times, September 22, 

2009; cited in Lao Voices, September 22, 2009. http://laovoices.com/2009/09/22/govt-grantsfirst-private-hospital-licences/ (accessed April 14, 2010). 

Royal Malaysia Customs Department. HS-Explorer. http://tariff.customs.gov.my (accessed April 2010). 

Sabri, Reehan. “Working in Brunei Darussalam.” Pakistan Journal of Medical Science 23, no. 5 (2007): 

814–17. 

Seerngam, Selvaraja. “ASEAN Pharmaceutical Harmonization.” Ministry of Health Malaysia. 

Presentation given at V Conference of the Pan American Network for Drug Regulatory 

Harmonization 2008, Argentina, November 17–19, 2008. 

Singapore Department of Statistics. “Singapore’s Investment Abroad 2008,” April 2010. 

Singapore Economic Development Board. “Industry Background: Medical Technology,” May 3, 2010. 

http://www.sedb.com/edb/sg/en_uk/index/industry_sectors/medical_technology/industry_backgro

und.html. 

Singapore Government. Central Provident Fund Board. “Healthcare Financing Framework in Singapore: 

My CPF Providing for Your Healthcare Needs,” November 19, 2009. 

http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/CPF/my-cpf/Healthcare/PvdHC2.htm. 

SingaporeMedicine. “Growing Biomedical Manufacturing Industry,” n.d. 

http://www.singaporemedicine.com/leadingmedhub/biomed_mfg.asp (accessed June 28, 2010). 

Smith, Richard D. “Foreign Direct Investment and Trade in Health Services: A Review of the Literature.” 

Social Science & Medicine 59 (2004): 2313–23. 
6-21

Socio-economic and Environmental Research Institute (SERI). “Medical Tourism: A New Growth 

Frontier for Penang in 2009 and Beyond.” Penang Economic Monthly 11, issue 4 (April 2009): 

10–15. 

Straits Times. “Use of Medisave Overseas,” February 10, 2010. 

Timmons, Karen. “The Value of Accreditation.” Medical Tourism Magazine, October 17, 2007. 

United Nations. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. “E-Health in Asia and the 

Pacific: Challenges and Opportunities,” 2009. 

———. “Medical Travel in Asia and the Pacific: Challenges and Opportunities,” 2009. 

———. Statistics Division. “CPC Ver. 2: Explanatory Notes,” December 31, 2008. 

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/cpc-2.asp. 

Vietnews. “Overseas Vietnamese Builds Hospital in Laos,” March 7, 2010. 

Whittaker, A. “Pleasure and Pain: Medical Travel in Asia.” Global Public Health 3, no. 3 (July 2008): 

271–90. 

World Bank. Data Indicators, n.d. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.OOPC.ZS (accessed June 

24, 2010). 

———. World Development Indicators database, accessed May 3, 2010. 

World Eye Reports. “Healthcare Tourism on the Rise,” November 14–15, 2009. 

http://www.worldeyereports.com/reports/2009/cd_malaysia_2009/2009_malaysia01.aspx. 

World Health Organization (WHO). Regional Office for the Western Pacific. “Cambodia.” Country 

Health Information Profiles 2009, 2009. 

———. “Lao People’s Democratic Republic.” Country Health Information Profiles 2009. 2009, 162–74. 

World Trade Organization. “Definition of Services Trade and Modes of Supply.” GATS Training Module: 

Chapter 1, n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/cbt_course_e/c1s3p1_e.htm (accessed 

June 11, 2010). 

———. Tariff Analysis Online. http://tariffanalysis.wto.org (accessed April 2010). 

Xinhua News Agency. “Myanmar, Malaysian Airlines Increase Flight Capacity,” October 6, 2005. 

7-1

CHAPTER 7 

Automotive: Motor Vehicle Parts 

Automotive Overview1

The automotive industry, including the motor vehicle parts industry, is highly desired by 

many countries as a driver of economic growth, job creation, and technology 

development. The countries of the ASEAN region are no exception. They have succeeded 

at developing individual automotive industries over the past decades in part through the 

use of local-content requirements, high tariffs, investment incentives, and tax policies 

designed to promote and protect their respective industries. Moreover, the region’s large 

population of 550 million has attracted investment from foreign automakers and their 

suppliers because of its potential market size. 

To further integrate the region’s automotive industries, the ASEAN Secretariat developed 

the Roadmap for Integration of the Automotive Products Sector (Roadmap) 2 to 

“strengthen regional integration efforts through liberalisation, facilitation and promotion 

measures to ensure full integration of the automotive sector by 2010” and to promote 

private sector participation. To achieve these goals, the Roadmap focuses on three groups 

of measures that are dedicated to expanding intra-ASEAN trade and investment, 

increasing the ASEAN automotive industry’s technological capabilities, and improving 

human resources capability. Within these three groups are 60 measures largely related to 

tariff elimination, elimination of non-tariff measures (NTMs), customs cooperation, 

effective implementation of the ASEAN Industrial Cooperation Scheme (AICO)3

 and 

Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) schemes, improvement of the rules of 

origin, harmonization of standards and conformance, promotion of future investment, 

improvement of logistics services, enhancement of ASEAN car manufacturing capability, 

and establishment of a training and skill certification system. Although this Roadmap4

 is 

quite comprehensive in terms of initiatives and goals, no sectoral group reportedly exists 

to help move the Roadmap forward.5

 Some industry officials have indicated that the 

Roadmap is less significant now that ASEAN-6 duties have been eliminated, whereas 

other sources continue to see value in the Roadmap goals. 

 1

 See app. F for a list of the Harmonized System numbers covered under this priority sector. 2

 The automotive priority sector includes a wide variety of automotive and transportation-related products, 

including tires, engines, air conditioning systems, self-propelled trucks, bearings, gaskets, batteries, electrical 

equipment, truck tractors, golf carts and similar vehicles, special-purpose vehicles (e.g., ambulances, hearses), 

passenger cars, trucks, motor vehicle parts, tanks and other armored vehicles, mopeds, motorcycles and their 

parts, and trailers and semi-trailers. 3

 The AICO is an ASEAN industrial cooperation scheme designed to increase industrial production, 

achieve closer integration, increase investment, increase intra-ASEAN trade, improve economies of scale, 

enhance the technology base, create internationally competitive industries, increase private sector 

participation, and increase industrial complementation. ASEAN, ASEAN Industrial Cooperation Scheme 

(accessed May 6, 2010). The program encourages joint manufacturing activities between ASEAN-based 

companies, with a minimum of two companies in two different countries receiving preferential rates of duty 

on goods exchanged between the signatory countries, subject to a government-approved AICO arrangement. 

For more information on the AICO system, see box 7.2. 4

 Indonesia has the lead on this priority sector Roadmap. 

5

 Government official, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, March 1, 2010. 
7-2

Within the broad priority sector, the automotive industry (in particular motor vehicles) is 

by far the most significant driver of regional trends in integration, export 

competitiveness, and inbound investment. The sector has achieved a considerable level of 

integration through the use of the AICO preferential duty system, which has allowed 

automakers and their parts suppliers to rationalize production throughout the region. The 

recent elimination of duties among the ASEAN-6 countries and reduction in NTMs are 

major achievements of the Roadmap that should help to further integrate the sector. 

However, the motor vehicle industry is still subject to numerous policies and taxes within 

the region, such as those imposed by the Malaysian government through its National 

Automotive Policy, that protect local industry and that channel investment and 

production to targeted motor vehicle products. 

ASEAN automotive sector exports to the rest of the world more than doubled during 

2004–08 to $27.1 billion (table 2.4). The four leading markets––the European Union 

(EU), Japan, Australia, and the United States––accounted for 65 percent of these exports. 

ASEAN automotive sector imports from the rest of the world grew at a slower pace 

(59 percent) during the period, reaching $33.3 billion in 2008, with Japan accounting for 

nearly one-half of these imports. 

Motor Vehicle Parts6

Key Findings 

Within the automotive priority sector, ASEAN’s motor vehicle parts industry plays a 

pivotal role. This sector supports the region’s large vehicle manufacturing industry and is 

a leading source of intra-ASEAN trade. In particular, the motor vehicle parts that are the 

subject of this analysis exhibit high intra-ASEAN trade intensity, accounting for 24 

percent of regional priority sector exports in 2008. Moreover, AESAN exports of these 

motor vehicle parts to the rest of the world represented roughly 27 percent of comparable 

priority sector ASEAN exports in that same year. 

The elimination of duties and the lowering of NTMs are by far the most significant 

achievements to date of the ASEAN automotive Roadmap in furthering integration, 

promoting export competitiveness, and attracting investment in the motor vehicle parts 

industry. 7 The ASEAN region has also been successful at implementing the AICO 

system, 8

 a critical Roadmap target. The use of the AICO system by auto and parts 

manufacturers in particular allowed the industry to develop an integrated production 

scheme prior to the elimination of duties. Increased competition is expected within the 

region, which may help firms improve their export competitiveness by increasing their 

productivity, better managing their costs, and adding to their skill set.9

 At the same time, 

 6

 For the purposes of this report, the ASEAN motor vehicle parts industry includes electronic components 

(e.g., lighting and signaling equipment, wiring harnesses) and parts and accessories (e.g., gearboxes, wheels, 

brake systems and components). See app. F under “Automotive” for HS subheadings that apply to the motor 

vehicle parts industry discussed in this chapter. 7

 According to one group, the most useful ASEAN initiative has been the establishment of the ASEAN 

Free Trade Area (AFTA), which has particularly helped the auto industry. Association official, interview by 

USITC staff, Singapore, March 4, 2010. See ch. 2 for more information on AFTA. 8

 The AICO system was not the first effort by the ASEAN members to encourage industrial integration. 

The Brand-to-Brand Complementation scheme for the automotive industry was a precursor to AICO, with the 

objective being industrial complementation through improved economies of scale for all suppliers and 

increased intra-ASEAN trade. 9

 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 16, 2010. 
7-3

the more open ASEAN market may offer greater internal export opportunities for local 

firms. 

Despite these achievements, the regional automotive industry and market have yet to 

fully integrate. This lack of cohesiveness is in part a legacy of national government 

intervention in support of local automotive industries through such measures as national 

car policies and local-content requirements that served to shield local markets and 

encourage development of small-country markets, as well as the limited progress 

currently being made in harmonizing safety and environmental standards and improving 

customs cooperation and coordination. 

Further integration is likely as the region pursues Roadmap goals to reduce barriers in 

order to create a more seamless market. For some industry observers, however, the 

accelerated effort to integrate the region is considered to be too little, too late, given the 

extensive investment and development that is occurring in the industries of its regional 

rivals, China 10 and India. 11 Others believe that those countries with well-established 

motor vehicle and parts industries, such as Thailand and Malaysia, have the most to gain 

from regional integration and product specialization. By virtue of their already developed 

industries and large markets, these countries will attract greater investment because of the 

scale economies and manufacturing capabilities they offer. 12 Furthermore, 

complementary production of auto parts is expected to accelerate as a result of the AFTA 

duty eliminations, allowing scale production that would improve the regional industry’s 

export competitiveness.13

Background 

The ASEAN motor vehicle parts industry is concentrated in the four countries—

Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines—where vehicle production is largely 

located.14 The industry in Vietnam is growing but highly protected, and has yet to achieve 

the scale of the leading ASEAN countries. Singapore is also a major source of electronic 

automotive components, despite the lack of a motor vehicle industry, largely because of 

its historic role as a production base for many global electronics companies. The other 

ASEAN countries are not known to have significant motor vehicle parts industries in 

large part because of their lack of a large vehicle manufacturing base, technological 

expertise, manufacturing skills, and reliable infrastructure. 

Japanese automakers and their parts suppliers have traditionally been the dominant 

players in the ASEAN automotive industry since their investments in the 1950s. In 

Thailand, for example, approximately 80 percent of auto assembling capacity belongs to 

 10 The China-ASEAN FTA was frequently cited by industry representatives as a motivating factor for 

cooperation within the region. China is one of the world’s leading motor vehicle manufacturers, and its parts 

industry is increasingly sophisticated. Paired with its low manufacturing costs, China is seen by some as a 

major threat to the regional auto parts industry, although others see China as a major export opportunity. 

However, China and the four leading ASEAN auto-producing countries placed their automotive industries on 

the “sensitive” list within the FTA, providing continued protection of their respective industries for an 

extended yet undefined timeframe. Chrysler, “New ASEAN-China Trade Pact,” February 11, 2010. 11 Just-auto.com, “ASEAN Automotive Market Review,” March 2007, 2. 12 ECORYS, “Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment,” April 3, 2009, 125. 13 JAMA, “ASEAN and the Auto Supporting Industry – Part 2 of 2,” March 2010. 14 Although production data for motor vehicle parts are not available for the region, these four countries 

accounted for over 95 percent of regional auto production of nearly 2.0 million units in 2009. OICA, “World 

Motor Vehicle Production.” 
7-4

Japanese automakers. Their suppliers, many of which are located in the region to support 

their automotive customers, have a similarly prominent role in many of the region’s 

industries, helping to develop the competencies of the local manufacturing industry 

(box 7.1). 

According to a group within the ASEAN-Australia Development Cooperation Program, when 

 

Most of Thailand’s nearly 700 Tier One15 parts producers are members of Japanese 

keiretsu groups supplying their own customer base, whereas the majority of the domestic 

component manufacturers, numbering around 1,100 firms, are considered to be secondand third-tier suppliers. 16 In Malaysia, more than 350 firms manufacture automotive 

components, including local companies and subsidiaries of multinational parts 

 15 OEM parts makers are commonly referenced by their position in the industry “tier.” Tier One 

producers are generally large multinationals that supply components, systems, and modules directly to 

automakers. In addition to manufacturing, these firms may undertake supply chain management, inventory 

control, systems integration, foreign investment, and extensive design and R&D. Tier Two and Tier Three 

suppliers, which number in the tens of thousands, are generally smaller in size and product/function scope 

and are often less likely to have the financial resources and customer base to support significant foreign 

investment. Tier Two suppliers generally provide parts and materials for finished components/assemblies to 

Tier One producers, whereas Tier Three suppliers often provide raw materials or parts to a wide variety of 

industries, including the motor vehicle sector. 16 WTO, Thailand Trade Policy Review (Revision), February 6, 2008, 115. 

BOX 7.1 Automotive industry background 

The motor vehicle parts industry serves two markets: original equipment manufacturers (OEMs, or automakers) 

and the aftermarket (e.g., dealers, retail parts outlets, repair facilities). Industry production ranges from labor 

intensive commodity products, such as brake rotors, to more sophisticated, capital- and R&D-intensive goods, 

such as wiring harnesses. Components for the OEM and aftermarket are often produced by different firms (or 

plants within the same firm) because of the more stringent manufacturing and material specifications required of 

the OEMs. 

The automotive industry typically pursues a regional approach,a whereby automakers produce in their target 

markets to be responsive to local customers, reduce foreign exchange rate risk, and meet local vehicle pricing 

levels, for example.b In the initial stages of local production, automakers often export knocked downc kits of 

components and parts to the local market for assembly into motor vehicles. With greater production volumes, 

automakers typically shift to local manufacture and parts sourcing. Because of automakers’ specific product, 

material, and quality requirements, they often purchase components from established producers with the 

necessary certifications, reputation, and experience to meet their quality, cost, and delivery (QCD) capability 

standards. Automakers’ preference for sourcing many components locally to further benefit from just-in-time 

delivery and supplier support often means that their global suppliers will invest in greenfield operations or form 

joint ventures with local manufacturers. 

Automakers and global suppliers also seek to develop a local supply base to help increase local content and 

lower manufacturing costs, and will help develop local producers’ manufacturing and technical skills. Parts 

producers will also expand to foreign markets to diversify their customer base and tap expanding markets. In 

addition, local development of automotive parts allows automakers to produce and update vehicle models that 

are best suited to the local community. Automakers may continue to rely on imports of more high-tech 

components or signature systems (e.g., engines and transmissions) unless (or until) a reliable local supply base 

is established. 

–––––––––––––––––––– 

 a Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. b One parts industry representative indicated that its suppliers followed it to the ASEAN region. The firm must 

localize production to minimize its costs and reduce exchange rate risk. Industry official, interview by USITC 

staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 

 c

 The term “knocked down” essentially refers to an unassembled vehicle; with kits, all or some of the 

components and systems necessary to build a vehicle are packaged together and shipped by the automakers to 

the target market for assembly into a vehicle. Depending on the content of the kit, additional components may 

be necessary to procure for assembly of a complete vehicle.
7-5

producers.17 Many of Malaysia’s suppliers are believed to largely supply the country’s 

leading national automakers, Proton and Perodua.18 

The Indonesian industry totals at least 350 auto parts producers, with a focus on the 

domestic market.19 Many of these firms lack state-of-the-art technology and managerial 

skills, and have limited financing resources.20 The Philippine industry totals about 256 

companies, one-half of which are Tier One companies with multinational connections. 

The remaining firms are largely Filipino-owned small and medium sized enterprises 

(SMEs) with limited technological capabilities and product quality issues.21 

Regional Integration, Export Competitiveness, and Inbound 

Investment 

Leading Competitive Factors 

According to the funding component of the ASEAN-Australia Development Cooperation 

Program, when comparing ASEAN member countries, none reveals a comparative 

advantage in the production of automotive products.22 Globally competitive automotive 

industry manufacturers typically possess significant financial resources, extensive R&D 

capability, technological expertise, and state-of-the art manufacturing skills, for example, 

that are not as widely available from ASEAN industry producers. However, the parts 

industries in Thailand and Malaysia are probably the most advanced in terms of 

manufacturing competency and R&D ability.23 

Economies of scale 

Motor vehicle market size and the resulting economies of scale are particularly important 

for the auto parts industry, which relies on production volume to lower costs and supply 

numerous auto assembly plants from a small number of focused production facilities. The 

large combined market for auto parts is potentially a distinct advantage for the ASEAN 

region, creating the economies of scale necessary to manufacture components costeffectively. Several sources cited the large regional market offered by the ASEAN 

countries as its leading competitive advantage, 24 noting that the ASEAN countries 

individually do not have large enough markets to support automakers and their 

suppliers.25

Quality, cost, and delivery (QCD) capability 

Leading motor vehicle parts manufacturers generally employ a continuous improvement 

program for product quality, cost, and delivery that enhances competitiveness and 

improves margins. To qualify as a supplier to Japanese car manufacturers, for example, 

 17 WTO, Malaysia Trade Policy Review (Revision), March 9, 2006, 89. 18 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 11, 2010. 19 USAID/SENADA, “Automotive Component Value Chain Overview,” August 2007, 8–9. 20 Pratiwi, “Automotive Industry,” n.d. 

21 Aldaba, “Assessing the Competitiveness of the Philippine Auto Parts Industry,” November 2007, 18. 22 Findlay, “An Investigation into the Measures,” April 2007, 3. 23 Lau, “Distinguishing Fiction from Reality,” 2006, 461. 24 Industry officials, interviews by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 15, 2010 and Kuala Lumpur, 

March 12, 2010. 25 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 
7-6

suppliers must be able to meet QCD standard manufacturing processes developed by 

Japan Automotive Standards Organization (JASO) or other national standard-making 

bodies in the United States or Europe.26 Elements used to measure progress under a QCD 

program may include product return rate, employee productivity, stock turnover, meeting 

delivery schedules, equipment effectiveness, value added per person, and floor space 

utilization, for example.27 

ISO certification 

Motor vehicle parts suppliers must meet certain manufacturing and quality standards or 

certification requirements that are specified by their automaker customers. These may 

include International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards such as ISO 9001 

for quality management systems.28 OEM suppliers are subject to first-party audits (selfassessments) and/or inspections by OEM personnel or independent auditors to verify 

compliance with OEM customer standards requirements (e.g., statistical process control). 

R&D and design capability 

Automakers have increasingly turned to their component suppliers for R&D and design 

capability to help reduce automaker costs and resource requirements, as well as improve 

vehicle quality and innovation. Tier One suppliers are encouraged to support cutting-edge 

product development and introduce new manufacturing techniques and technologies to 

maintain a long-term working relationship with the automakers.29 This capability requires 

financial and resource commitments that are generally available only from large global 

suppliers. 

Regional competitiveness 

As previously noted, Thailand is generally considered to be the most competitive of the 

ASEAN countries producing motor vehicle parts. Because of its relatively open 

investment environment and large vehicle production base, the local industry has 

attracted numerous global component manufacturers. The presence of these producers in 

Thailand has helped to raise the overall performance level of the local industry, as has 

working with transplant automakers that require high manufacturing and product 

standards of their suppliers. 

One global automaker supported this assessment, noting that auto parts makers are most 

competitive in Thailand, having progressed from supplying the domestic market to now 

supplying parts internationally. Because of its large auto assembly base, Thailand offers 

the level of scale economies and market size necessary to attract auto parts manufacturers 

and contribute to lower costs.30 Another source indicated that Thailand is the “winner” in 

ASEAN, in part because it is the region’s largest auto market. Automakers’ main 

procurement activities also reportedly occur in Thailand, so it is important for component 

 26 USAID/SENADA, “Automotive Component Value Chain Overview,” August 2007, 18. 27 Auto Industry, “Quality Cost Delivery,” Auto Industry [UK] Web site (accessed June 1, 2010). 28 The ISO/TS 16949:2009 standard, for example, is specific to the automotive industry and notes the 

particular requirements for the application of ISO 9001:2008 for automotive production and relevant service 

part organizations. ISO, “New Edition of ISO/TS 16949 Quality Specification for Automotive Industry 

Supply Chain,” July 2, 2009. 29 Ford, for example, requires a commitment from its suppliers to bring leading-edge technological 

innovations. Ford Motor Company, “Ford, Key Suppliers Roll Out Innovative Business Model,” n.d. 30 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 15, 2010. 
7-7

manufacturers to locate there to be in direct contact with their customers. According to 

this same industry source, Thailand is the future of the regional auto parts industry, as 

more products will be made there.31

Despite being the only ASEAN country to establish its own automakers and support a 

supply base, Malaysia’s industry reportedly manufactures automotive components to the 

“Proton level”32 rather than to the rigorous specifications (e.g., standards and quality) of 

global automakers, keeping many of its parts producers out of the global market. In fact, 

to enhance their export competitiveness, some Malaysian auto parts makers reportedly 

moved to Thailand so that they could compete globally.33 

Many of the other regional domestic auto parts makers are believed to be smaller firms 

that largely lack the necessary skills and capabilities to be internationally competitive. 

Many have limited R&D and design capabilities and offer a narrow range of products and 

limited technological added value, all of which are important to supplying global 

automakers. Many of these parts producers are second- and third-tier suppliers, which by 

their nature are typically not active worldwide. A Toyota representative noted that the 

regional auto parts industry may have limitations on the availability of capable secondand third-tier suppliers.34 Moreover, many of the region’s small-scale parts producers are 

believed to supply the aftermarket, where product and manufacturing standards are not as 

strict.35

Regional Integration 

The existing regional integration of the auto parts sector has been achieved in part 

through the efforts of Japanese and foreign automakers and their suppliers within the 

framework of the AICO system to establish a manufacturing model that rationalizes 

production, thereby creating economies of scale and improved production efficiencies 

(box 7.2). ASEAN’s success at eliminating duties and liberalizing investment in this 

sector has furthered this effort. With the elimination of duties on ASEAN components, 

further integration will likely be expected as auto parts producers will no longer be bound 

by the government approval process and reciprocal trading required of the AICO system. 

According to one U.S. trade group, the full implementation of the AFTA will result in 

scales of production that provide cost efficiencies, without having to establish a plant in 

each country.36

As a result, some industry sources acknowledge that industry integration will produce 

winners and losers in the auto parts industry. 37 One source indicated that although 

rationalization was part of the “grand plan” of the industry Roadmap, redistribution of 

plants and manufacturing would be difficult to accomplish. Obtaining agreement from the 

many industry players would likely pose a problem, particularly as the different levels of 

industrial development among the ASEAN countries make it hard to create a common 

integration plan.38

 31 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 16, 2010. 32 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 11, 2010. 33 Ibid. 

34 The Nation, “Major firms see ASEAN as second investment base,” October 27, 2009. 35 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 36 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, written submission to the USITC, March 12, 2010, 2. 37 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 38 Ibid. 
7-8

BOX 7.2 Automotive: Profile of ASEAN Integration 

The existing production integration in the ASEAN region has largely been driven by the use of the AICO system by 

foreign, particularly Japanese, automakers and parts producers. The AICO system, which was implemented on 

November 1, 1996, was included as an element of the automotive Roadmap to promote resource sharing among 

ASEAN members in order to increase industrial growth and investment, improve manufacturing scale economies, and 

widen the scope of ASEAN-based industries, and thus achieve greater ASEAN integration.a 

AICO appears to have been somewhat successful in achieving its goals, at least in the automotive sector. According 

to the Philippine Institute for Development Studies, “The AICO Scheme has illustrated a successful integration 

initiative of the ASEAN as it encouraged multinational enterprises particularly those in the electronics and automotive 

industry to adopt efficient production networks regionwide.”b

 Within this program, Japanese automakers have been 

able to consolidate and rationalize production throughout the region. The automotive industry has accounted for the 

majority of the AICO arrangements, and Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines have been the leading 

beneficiaries of this system, with Toyota being one of the primary movers and beneficiaries of this effort. 

As an example of how the AICO system functions, Toyota was able to establish a production system whereby 

components from Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia were exported to the Philippines for assembly of certain motor 

vehicles (e.g., the Toyota Camry and Corolla). In return, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia were obliged to import 

certain motor vehicle components from the Philippines for the assembly of designated motor vehicles (e.g., the Kijang 

and Soluna) in their respective countries.c

 In this way, Toyota was able to concentrate the production of components 

in individual countries and achieve the economies of scale necessary to produce cost-effectively. Mitsubishi, Honda, 

and Nissan used a similar approach in the ASEAN region to concentrate production of certain components in 

specified countries, which were then shipped to an ASEAN region vehicle assembly site. Denso (Japan), one of the 

world’s leading motor vehicle parts manufacturers, was also able to use this system for production of a wide range of 

components, with shipments of parts largely traded among the same four countries. 

The program came with certain limitations, however. Governments were concerned with balancing trade within the 

industry, which contributed to the obligations to purchase parts. Moreover, any revisions to the production and trading 

arrangements required approval by the parties to the agreement.d

 Additionally, each ASEAN member country applied 

its own methodology to the approval process, with no standardization across the region.e

 

Industry representatives generally indicated that the AICO system is no longer as important, since duties among the 

ASEAN-6 were eliminated as of January 1, 2010. As a result, the industry is freed from the paperwork and 

government approval process that were required under AICO to benefit from the duty preferences. One U.S. 

automaker indicated that under AICO the firm benefited from a 5 percent preferential duty rate for its automotive 

products traded within ASEAN, but it no longer participates in the program since duties have been eliminated.f

Similarly, a trade group stated that the AICO is now meaningless because it only provided duty exemptions, and 

duties are now very low.g

New applications for AICO arrangements are reportedly on hold, although the program is still in effect for the ASEAN4 countries that have yet to fully eliminate their duties.h

 Some automakers still use the program, however, as it can be 

especially helpful in Vietnam.i

a

 Thailand in the 2000’s, “Industry on the Move,” n.d., 287. b

 Aldaba and Yap, Investment and Capital Flows, January 2009, 31. c

 Republic of the Philippines, Tariff Commission, Executive Order No. 215, February 15, 2000. d

 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 16, 2010. e

 Lau, “Distinguishing Fiction from Reality,” 2006, 471. 

f

 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 15, 2010. 

g

 Association official, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 4, 2010. h

 Association official, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 12, 2010. i

 Government official, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, March 1, 2010. 
7-9

Several other challenges to full integration also remain. Two difficult issues are the 

harmonization of automotive standards and regulations and the elimination of 

government policies that protect local industry, both of which are goals of the Roadmap. 

Moreover, although the ASEAN integration movement is creating conditions to foster 

greater cooperation among members, robust intraregional competition continues. As a 

result, the automotive industry is a particularly difficult sector in which to build 

consensus because individual countries (e.g., Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand) want to 

be the regional hub for the industry.39 One association representative indicated that the 

region is trying “its level best” to integrate the industry, but that this process will take 

time.40 

Standards/conformance 

The lack of common automotive standards in the region weakens the industry’s ability to 

integrate and compete effectively and is one of the Roadmap goals still under discussion. 

Because parts and vehicles must be manufactured to specific country standards rather 

than for a larger regional market, parts suppliers lose the benefits of economies of scale to 

lower costs. The harmonization of automotive environmental and safety standards 

throughout the region is reportedly moving slowly. Each ASEAN member country 

currently has its own standards, but the 10 countries are working on adopting a common 

set of standards for the automotive industry, using the UNECE 52 (1958) as a baseline41

and Euro 4 standards for emissions by 2012. 

The ASEAN Coordinating Committee on Standards and Quality (ACCSQ), which is 

instrumental to the regional effort to harmonize automotive standards, reportedly talks 

regularly with the private sector about automotive standards. Within ACCSQ, the 

Automotive Product Working Group (APWG) meets three times a year to discuss 

harmonization efforts, the last time in January 2010.42 For autos and electronics, the 

general strategy is to first conclude a mutual recognition agreement (MRA),43 and then to 

work on regulatory harmonization. With respect to motor vehicles and parts, ASEAN 

leaders have agreed to adopt an MRA based on the 1958 UNECE agreement, which 

could be signed by 2011. There is reportedly some international pressure (especially from 

the United States) to adopt the 1998 UNECE agreement which includes the option of 

self-declaration, 44 instead of the 1958 standard. This difference in approach has 

contributed to delays in progress toward harmonization in the automotive sector. 

 39 Association official, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 4, 2010; Borhan, “Indonesia to Boost 

Automotive Industry,” International Enterprise Singapore, April 16, 2010. 40 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 12, 2010. 41 The UNECE 52 standards come out of the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations 

(Working Party 29). WP.29 is a permanent working party of the United Nations that functions as a global 

forum allowing open discussions on motor vehicle regulations among UN member countries and any regional 

economic integration organizations set up by country members of the United Nations. Malaysia and Thailand 

have already acceded to the 1958 agreement. World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations 

(WP.29) Web site, http://www.unece.org/trans/main/welcwp29.htm?expandable=99. 42 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, written submission to the USITC, March 12, 2010, 12. 43 Mutual recognition agreements would allow companies to test their products once at a designated 

testing center, after which the products would be certified as meeting or exceeding the mutually agreed upon 

standards and would not require in-country testing. Malaysia is reportedly drafting the MRA as the first step 

in technical harmonization. Government official, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, March 1, 2010. 44 One automaker feels that the ASEAN market is weak and not yet ready for self-certification, a process 

that allows a firm to self-certify that its products meet all necessary standards and requirements stipulated by 

the foreign market. Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 15, 2010. 
7-10

Thailand is considered to be the most active in the harmonization movement, likely 

because establishing a globally accepted standard in the region will be key to its ability to 

export internationally. 45 Japanese automakers are very involved in the standards 

discussions occurring in the ASEAN region, providing their expertise and conducting 

briefings (e.g., on EU standards). 46 These automakers often head the technical 

committees that are determining the standards regime for the region.47 However, there 

reportedly is some resistance to adopting the EU standards because of the inference that 

local standards are somehow not up to international benchmarks.48 

Although one group was unaware of any major obstacles to implementation of the MRA 

for the automotive industry, it stated that harmonizing the regulatory regime will be much 

more difficult because of the region’s many different standards.49 Another group noted 

that the costs associated with adopting a new standards regime are holding back 

progress.50 Moreover, ASEAN reportedly lacks critical testing capability, which could 

take a number of years to establish, as well as the financial support to enforce these 

regulations.51

Government policies 

The ASEAN countries have enacted a variety of measures to promote the growth and 

reach of their local automotive industries over the years, many of which have shielded 

these industries from regional and global competition and resulted in policy-led 

automotive production plans that limited the development of a regionally integrated 

industry (box 7.3).52 According to one global parts maker, every ASEAN country is 

interested in developing an automotive industry, 53 largely because of their accretive 

impact on the economy and job creation. As a result, the industry is often considered to 

be a sensitive sector warranting protection, particularly for local producers.54 

BOX 7.3 Government automotive policies that have been eliminated 

Numerous protectionist automotive policies were maintained by ASEAN member governments before 2005. The 

Philippines, for example, imposed requirements for local content and balancing of foreign exchange under the Car 

Development Programme (CDP) and the Commercial Vehicle Development Programme (CVDP) from 1995 through 

June 30, 2003. Thailand abolished local-content requirements in the automotive sector as of January 2000. 

Indonesia eliminated its extensive tariff and tax incentives for local content in the automotive industry in 1999, when 

the sector was deregulated and liberalized. 

Sources: WTO, Report by the Secretariat, “Philippines Trade Policy Review,” June 7, 2005, 53; WTO, Report by the 

Secretariat, “Thailand Trade Policy Review,” October 15, 2003, 61; WTO, Report by the Secretariat, “Indonesia Trade 

Policy Review,” May 28, 2003, 33, and “Indonesia Trade Policy Review,” May 23, 2007, 82. 

 45 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 46 Industry officials, interviews by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010, and Bangkok, 

March 15, 2010. 47 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 15, 2010. 48 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 49 Government official, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, March 1, 2010. 50 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 12, 2010. 51 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 17, 2010. 

52 Austria, The Pattern of Intra-ASEAN Trade, August 2004, 9. 53 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 54 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 15, 2010. 
7-11

Many of these formal policies have been eliminated as the ASEAN member countries 

have come into compliance with their AFTA and WTO commitments, although some 

existing measures continue to limit the integration potential of the regional industry. U.S. 

automakers, for example, have indicated that they are hampered in the region by 

domestic policies that protect locally made products. These policies include domestic 

content-related benefits and tax structures that favor locally made products. The leading 

example of this protection is in Malaysia,55 which arguably maintains the most restrictive 

automotive environment of the four leading ASEAN members with its National 

Automotive Policy (NAP). 

Malaysia’s NAP “aims to build a competitive automotive sector in Malaysia and promote 

exports of automotive products.”56 In light of its WTO and AFTA obligations, however, 

the Malaysian government has taken steps to liberalize its automotive industry and 

market, despite some internal pressure to maintain the industry’s protected status.57 In 

November 2009, the government issued a revised NAP aimed at liberalizing and 

deregulating the automotive sector in recognition of “the required transformation and 

optimal integration of the local automotive industry into regional and global industry 

networks within the increasingly liberalised and competitive global environment.” 58

Although much of the NAP is focused on the motor vehicle industry, the policy identifies 

certain measures specific to the component sector. According to one industry source, the 

government wants to assist its parts producers through the NAP to make sure they survive 

to supply the national car brands.59 These measures include – 

 Phasing out imported used automotive products by June 2011; 

 Introducing mandatory standards for parts and components; 

 Promoting the production of critical and high-value-added parts and 

components;60

 Promoting development of hybrid and electric vehicles;61

 Enhancing the competitiveness of parts/components manufacturers through 

the continuation of the Automotive Development Fund and Industrial 

Adjustment Fund; and 

 Increasing local content and enhancing the development of the Bumiputera62

vendor program in any partnership of national automaker Proton and a 

globally established OEM. 

 55 USITC hearing transcript, February 3, 2010, 27. 

56 WTO, Malaysia Trade Policy Review, December 14, 2009, 55. 

57 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 15, 2010. 58 MITI, Review of National Automotive Policy, October 28, 2009. 

59 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 12, 2010. 60 Manufacturers of transmission systems, brake systems, airbag systems, and steering systems are 

eligible for better fiscal incentives (e.g., Pioneer Status of 100 percent fiscal deduction for 10 years or 

Investment Tax Allowance of 100 percent for five years). MITI, Review of National Automotive Policy, 

October 28, 2009. 61 Pioneer Status of 100 percent for 10 years or Investment Tax Allowance of 100 percent for 5 years for 

manufacture of selected critical components supporting hybrid and electric vehicles (e.g., electric motors, 

electric batteries, battery management systems, inverters, electric air conditioning, and air compressors). 

MITI, Review of National Automotive Policy, October 28, 2009. 62 Malaysia’s indigenous population, which benefit from many preferential government programs. 
7-12

Despite the continued implementation of a national auto policy, many observers expect 

that Malaysia’s industry will continue to liberalize and improve its competitiveness. 

Some industry watchers see the revised NAP as significant progress towards liberalizing 

the Malaysian market while also acknowledging its limitations, whereas others have 

questioned its deregulatory impact. One industry association in the region, for example, 

noted that the Malaysian automotive industry is now more open, but still has doubts 

about the actual application of the policy and the scope of its liberalization.63 Another 

group doubted the significance of the changes to the NAP.64 One automaker indicated 

that it had pulled out of Malaysia, noting the NAP did not allow it to participate in the 

market. Moreover, its small production volume was not sufficient to allow local parts 

manufacturers to supply the firm.65

Tax incentives and excise taxes are other methods used to boost local content and shield 

domestic parts industries. Malaysia maintains an excise tax on vehicles66 that favors 

higher local content. The value of the local content is deducted from the vehicle’s taxable 

base before the tax is applied. Therefore, the net tax amount paid by the purchaser is 

lower for vehicles with higher local content, although the tax rate is the same. Such tax 

policies influence the direction of vehicle demand and create market distortions that filter 

down into the auto parts industry.67 

Thailand is often accused of protecting its automotive industry with more informal 

measures. Its use of excise tax differentials to direct demand to pickup trucks, in which 

Thailand leads the region in terms of production, is frequently noted as a barrier to 

trade.68 This approach has led foreign auto parts manufacturers to focus their investments 

on components for pickup trucks.69 

Protectionist policies may help to develop component industries to support national 

carmakers, but they often are not sufficient to create an internationally competitive parts 

industry that can supply components of the quality, service, and delivery demanded by 

global automakers. In the case of Indonesia, for example, government protection was 

reportedly effective at expanding its auto parts industry, but largely in basic components 

rather than in the higher-technology goods.70 

Export Competitiveness 

As previously noted, the requirements to be a globally competitive supplier to the world’s 

leading automakers are quite demanding, necessitating QCD capability and certification 

to automakers’ manufacturing and materials specifications.71 These qualities often require 

significant financial resources, extensive R&D capability, technological know-how, and 

state-of-the-art manufacturing skills that are not as widely available from local producers 

 63 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 64 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 11, 2010. 65 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 15, 2010. 66 The excise tax rate ranges between 65 percent to 125 percent, depending on the vehicle type. USTR, 

National Trade Estimate Report, 2008, 381. 67 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 15, 2010 

68 ECORYS, “Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment,” April 3, 2009, 125. The excise tax on pickups is 

3 percent, whereas those for passenger cars with engines over 2,000 cc range from 30 percent to 50 percent. 

Thailand Board of Investment Web site, 

http://www.boi.go.th/english/how/tax_rates_and_double_taxation_agreements.asp (accessed April 16, 2010). 69 ECORYS, “Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment,” April 3, 2009, 122. 70 Nag, Banerjee, and Chatterjee, “Changing Features of the Automobile Industry in Asia,” n.d., 1. 71 USAID/ADVANCE, Evaluation of Proposed Target Sectors, June 2008, 26 and 30. 
7-13

in the ASEAN region as in other leading automotive countries. However, the presence of 

a large number of multinational Tier One parts suppliers in the region has contributed to 

the competitiveness of the ASEAN auto parts industry in the OEM market. In any case, 

such requirements are less onerous in the aftermarket, where components do not have to 

meet global OEMs’ stringent technical specifications and where local manufacturers are 

reportedly more active. 

With the gradual elimination of duties by the ASEAN-6 (table 7.1) as a result of the 

AFTA/CEPT scheme 72 and the phase-out of many NTMs, the ASEAN region 

experienced greater trade both within the region and with external partners. ASEAN 

imports of auto parts from outside the region totaled $8.4 billion in 2008 and were 

dominated by Japan, which was the source for over one-half of such imports (table 7.2). 

Japan’s leading role in ASEAN automotive production largely explains its prominent 

trading position. The EU and China are secondary import sources, although China’s 

growth outpaced that of other sources over the period, more than tripling to $1.0 billion. 

Despite its role as a leading export market, the United States is only a small supplier to 

the ASEAN auto parts market, accounting for less than 4 percent of total imports in 2008. 

TABLE 7.1 ASEAN country tariffs for motor vehicle parts, 2004, 2008, and 2010 (ad valorem percent) 

ASEAN members 2004 2008 2010a

 Imports from other 

ASEAN countries 

Imports from nonASEAN countries 

(MFN) 

Imports from 

other ASEAN 

countries 

Imports from nonASEAN countries 

(MFN) 

Imports from 

other ASEAN 

countries 

Brunei 0–15 0–20 0–5 0–20 0 

Burma 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5 

Cambodia (b) 15–50 5–20 15–35 5 

Indonesia 0–5 0–15 0–5 0–15 0 

Laos 5–8 5–10 0–2 5–10 0–2 

Malaysia 0–5 0–30 0 0–30 0 

Philippines 0–5 3–15 0–5 3–15 0–5 

Singapore 0 0 0 0 0 

Thailand 0–5 10–30 0–5 10–30 0 

Vietnam 0–20 0–30 0–5 0–29 0–5 

Source: Agreement on the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) Scheme for the ASEAN Free Trade Area, 

Consolidated Package of Tariff Reductions for 2008, http://www.aseansec.org/19802.htm; Consolidated 2003 CEPT 

Package by Country, Cambodia, http://www.aseansec.org/19119.htm (accessed April 28, 2010); Royal Malaysia 

Customs Department, HS-Explorer (accessed April 2010); World Trade Organization, Tariff Analysis Online (accessed 

April 2010).

 a2010 MFN rates for ASEAN imports from non-ASEAN countries are not available to USITC staff for every ASEAN 

member country. 

 bNot available.

 72 The CEPT scheme is discussed in more detail in chapter 2 of this report. 
7-14

TABLE 7.2 Certain motor vehicle parts: ASEAN imports from selected markets, by value, 2004–08

Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

% change, 

2004–08 

 thousand $ 

Japan 3,410,129 3,612,193 3,230,342 3,776,271 4,743,763 39 

EU-27 608,011 676,844 739,148 964,049 1,093,308 80 

China 311,027 426,218 505,696 776,027 1,029,389 231 

United States 245,797 282,361 308,887 324,060 308,347 25 

 Subtotal 4,574,964 4,997,617 4,784,072 5,840,407 7,174,807 57 

All other 698,584 926,597 763,444 971,528 1,206,138 73 

 Total 5,273,547 5,924,214 5,547,517 6,811,935 8,380,945 59 

Source: WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010). 

 

Note: Data are based on ASEAN partner country exports because Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, the 

Philippines, and Vietnam do not report trade data in all years. “All other” export value excludes intra-ASEAN 

trade.

Intra-ASEAN exports of auto parts doubled during the period, reaching $1.9 billion in 

2008. Thailand was the leading intra-ASEAN export source during the period, supplying 

37 percent of those exports in 2008, followed by Indonesia and the Philippines 

(table 7.3). ASEAN exports outside of the region more than doubled during 2004–08 to 

$7.4 billion (table 7.4). Japan and the United States were the leading export markets for 

ASEAN countries, accounting for 63 percent of total exports in 2008. ASEAN sector 

exports of $9.3 billion (tables 7.3 and 7.4) represented about 27 percent of total ASEAN 

automotive priority sector exports of $35.1 billion in 2008. 

TABLE 7.3 Certain motor vehicle parts: ASEAN member exports to ASEAN members, by value, 2004–08

Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

% change, 

2004–08

Thailand 298 529 ,150 612 ,502 774 ,650 697 ,805 134 ,565 

Indonesia 181 357 ,173 417 ,613 472 ,431 494 ,292 173 ,434 

Philippines 246 310 ,975 304 ,007 311 ,631 385 ,342 56 ,526 

Malaysia 143 159 ,796 170 ,875 224 ,217 211 ,045 47 ,781 

Singapore 16 23 ,265 26 ,502 55 ,086 45 ,824 177 ,030 

Vietnam 2 11 ,758 17 ,972 25 ,142 33 ,528 1 ,230 ,105

Laos 1 287 ,323 99 5 9 ,288 612 ,411 

Brunei 3 40 133 64 74 2 ,061

Cambodia 26 0 2 21 46 77 

Burma 0 12 7 8 30 12 ,418

 Total 890 1 ,469 1 ,392,811 1 ,548,397 1 ,869,216 111 ,877,128 

Source: WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010).

thousand $

Note: Data are based on ASEAN partner country imports because Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, the 

Philippines, and Vietnam do not report trade data in all years. Trade between these members may therefore be 

understated.
7-15

TABLE 7.4 Certain motor vehicle parts: ASEAN exports to selected markets, by value, 2004–08

Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

% change, 

2004–08

Japan 1,559,410 1,825,210 2,352,678 2,797,953 3,265,143 109 

United States 991,669 994,112 1,236,321 1,479,077 1,399,823 41 

EU-27 314,467 368,167 464,996 671,189 740,260 135 

China 97,225 100,495 170,942 171,656 134,683 39 

 Subtotal 2,962,771 3,287,984 4,224,938 5,119,874 5,539,909 87 

All other 641,588 967,723 1,201,655 1,550,397 1,898,432 196 

 Total 3,604,359 4,255,707 5,426,593 6,670,271 7,438,342 106 

Source: WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010).

thousand $

Note: Data are based on ASEAN partner country imports because Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, the 

Philippines, and Vietnam do not report trade data in all years. "All other" export value excludes intra-ASEAN trade.

Although no direct evidence points to the implementation of new NTMs that could 

restrict trade, several industry sources have expressed some concern that as duties fall, 

new NTMs may be imposed to protect local manufacturing from the effects of production 

specialization.73 In addition, as certain countries protect their industries, others may try to 

follow with similar protectionist policies.74 One global automaker was aware of proposals 

for new NTMs, but acknowledged that none had been implemented. This firm expressed 

concern that ASEAN countries may enact measures that are not compliant with 

ASEAN’s integration efforts, in part because the ASEAN countries do not seem to 

widely support the AEC 2015 agenda, which calls for progressively removing NTMs and 

a halt to new measures. 75 The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also noted that some 

governments have considered enacting domestic tax exemptions or reductions for locally 

manufactured vehicles or niche products over imported vehicles or parts.76 

Ongoing efforts in the region to improve product quality and establish standards and 

certification systems highlight their importance to ASEAN’s export competitiveness. The 

government of Malaysia, for example, recently announced its interest in increasing the 

number of export-oriented Tier One parts producers in the industry. The government 

plans on encouraging the local auto parts industry to export, but recognizes that these 

firms need to have the quality required for export markets.77 In Indonesia, the industry is 

considering product and process standardization and the development of evaluation and 

certification systems to help local parts makers become more competitive and improve 

their access to international markets.78

 73 ECORYS, “Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment,” April 3, 2009, 125; USITC hearing transcript, 

February 3, 2010, 45. 74 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 15, 2010. 75 Ibid. 

76 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, written submission to the USITC, March 12, 2010, 12. 77 AutomotiveWorld.com, “Malaysia: Govt wants more parts companies to be Tier 1,” April 22, 2010. 78 Embassy of the United States, Jakarta, “Indonesia’s Automotive Industry,” February 12, 2009. 
7-16

 Inbound Investment 

The investment environment in the ASEAN region has been significantly liberalized 

within the ASEAN-6 countries, 79 as identified in the Roadmap, and most ASEAN 

member countries are actively seeking foreign direct investment (FDI) in their auto parts 

industries. The investment environment for the auto parts industry is, for the most part, 

open and unrestricted, with 100 percent foreign ownership permitted. According to the 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the creation of a single market would likely stimulate 

greater industry investment because of the opportunities it would offer to reach a large 

common market and to manufacture with scale economies.80 

Through their investment policies, most governments are seeking ways to make it easier 

for foreign investors to enter and leave the market. 81 Thailand, for example, offers 

corporate income tax holidays, reduction or exemption of import duties on machinery and 

raw materials, land ownership rights for foreign investors, and other privileges.82 Both 

Thailand and Malaysia are offering incentives to automakers and parts producers to 

jump-start their green vehicle initiatives. 

ASEAN investment trends by source and destination continue to reflect the production 

patterns already established in the region. Because Japanese automakers and parts 

producers are ingrained in this region, Japan will likely continue as the leading investor 

in the ASEAN auto parts sector. Toyota, for example, reportedly considers the ASEAN 

region to be its “second mother country.”83 Japan accounted for 62 percent of the total 

investment in the ASEAN auto components industry, with investments of nearly $1.6 

billion since 2003 in 123 projects.84 Of Japan’s 1.1 trillion yen ($10.6 billion) investment 

in the transportation sector worldwide in 2008 (on a balance of payments basis), ASEAN 

accounted for 10 percent (112 billion yen or $1.1 billion), which exceeded Japan’s 

investments in China (nearly 102 billion yen, or $987 million).85 

U.S. investment in the region totaled $139 million, with most of that investment 

occurring in the last two years in Thailand and Vietnam. Investment by Germany totaled 

$450 million and was more diverse in its destinations, covering all four major ASEAN 

auto parts-producing countries and, to a lesser extent, Cambodia, Singapore, and 

Vietnam. Only one project was reported by China, a $14 million project in Malaysia 

implemented by the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation.86 In terms of completed 

mergers and acquisitions as reported by Zephyr, 87 investment was concentrated in 

Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore. 

 79 The Roadmap identifies staggered timelines for compliance with the measure to eliminate investment 

restrictions for sensitive industry sectors: 2010 for the ASEAN-6; 2013 for Vietnam; and 2015 for the 

remaining ASEAN countries. 80 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, written submission to the USITC, March 12, 2010, 4. 81 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 82 ASIAtalk, “Thailand: Auto Parts,” September 2008. 83 The Nation, “Major firms see ASEAN as second investment base,” October 27, 2009. 84 Data collected by USITC staff from FDIMarkets database (accessed January 10, 2010). 85 Japan’s net outflow of investment focused on Thailand and Indonesia, which accounted for 63 percent 

and 21 percent, respectively, of the total. Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam were secondary FDI 

recipients. Ministry of Finance, “Japan’s FDI Flows.” 86 Data collected by USITC staff from FDIMarkets database (accessed January 10, 2010). 87 Zephyr is a database of mergers and acquisitions, initial public offerings, and venture capital deals. 

Zephyr database (accessed January 10, 2010). 
7-17

Although inbound investment data specific to this industry segment are not available, 

investment statistics for broader aggregations within the transport industry suggest that 

Thailand is the leading recipient of transport-related FDI in the ASEAN region. Thailand 

is not only an attractive investment site because of its large established automotive 

industry, technological and R&D capabilities, support network, and business-friendly 

atmosphere, but it also serves as a doorway to other markets via its trade agreements with 

Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and India.88 Of total identified investments of $2.6 billion 

in the ASEAN automotive components sector since 2003, investment in Thailand 

amounted to $1.6 billion, nearly 62 percent of the total with 114 projects. Vietnam came 

in second at $468 million with 27 projects. The total number of projects identified in the 

ASEAN region reached 189.89 

Malaysia’s focus on its national car brands has made it a somewhat less attractive 

investment site for global auto parts manufacturers. It is too early to tell whether the 

recent changes to its automotive policy will encourage the type of investment Malaysia 

seeks in order to raise its competitiveness to the level of its neighbor, Thailand.90 For 

example, Malaysia has been seeking an investment partner for its automaker Proton but it 

has not been successful, in part because Proton intends to keep its current suppliers and is 

reportedly not open to any new suppliers.91 

Indonesia is considered by many to be a growth opportunity for the automotive industry, 

given that it has the region’s largest population (over 240 million)92 and a relatively low 

rate of vehicle ownership.93 The operating environment in the Philippines is open, but its 

industry is relatively small and lacks the economies of scale and range of capabilities that 

would attract significant levels of investment. 

By comparison, FDI from all sources in China’s transport equipment manufacturing 

sector amounted to $2.6 billion in 2007 alone, from a total of 1,242 projects.94 Although 

not directly comparable, these FDI data clearly highlight the preeminent role played by 

China’s automotive sector in attracting FDI relative to that of the ASEAN region. Its 

dominance has likely “sent a clear message that ASEAN needs to act like a single 

country, providing economies of scale to compete for those investment dollars.”95

Trade Facilitation, Logistics Services, and E-Commerce 

Improved trade facilitation, logistics, and e-commerce are all important to the greater 

competitiveness of the ASEAN auto parts industry. Advancement in these areas, 

however, does not appear to be moving rapidly and remains problematic in certain 

countries, according to some sources. 

 88 ASIAtalk, “Thai Auto-Electronics Spark Investment,” August 2008. 89 Data collected by USITC staff from FDIMarkets database (accessed January 10, 2010). 90 The Japan Automotive Digest, “Malaysia Opens Auto Industry,” November 2, 2009, 4. 91 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 11, 2010. 92 CIA, The World Factbook: Indonesia, April 21, 2010. 93 The vehicle ownership rate in Indonesia is estimated at 2.8 units per 100 people, compared to 4 units 

per 100 people in Thailand and 28 units per 100 people in Malaysia. EIU, Indonesia: Automotive Report, 

September 21, 2009. 94 Invest in China database (accessed January 20, 2010). 95 Chrysler, “New ASEAN-China Trade Pact,” February 11, 2010. 
7-18

Trade Facilitation 

The timely movement of automotive parts through customs is essential to reducing costs 

and meeting the just-in-time delivery system of the automotive industry. Customs delays 

and administrative complexities impose additional burdens that hamper industry 

competitiveness, which explains the importance of trade facilitation to the ASEAN 

automotive Roadmap. Although ASEAN members have developed an itemized list of 

programs to improve customs procedures and trade facilitation, including the ASEAN 

Single Window (ASW), many industry representatives have the impression that ASEAN 

is making slow progress on these tasks and has not established firm concrete steps to 

achieve its goal.96 

The ASW is one of the more high-profile efforts within the region to create a relatively 

seamless market. One multinational automaker noted that the ASW will be a big help 

with customs clearance issues,97 while a leading global parts manufacturer thinks it will 

speed the customs clearance process for imported components. Currently the clearance 

time for its imported goods is two days, and its goal is one-day clearance.98

According to an industry official, Thailand’s post-audit customs process creates an 

uncertain business environment.99 Under this formal system, Thai customs authorities 

have up to 10 years to review a product’s tariff classification and reclassify the product 

under the appropriate category. The violating company must then pay penalties that have 

accrued since the good’s clearance and release. The Customs agents then split a share of 

the penalty award collected, which creates a conflict of interest that, despite being quite 

transparent, may encourage reclassification of goods. This system appears to be under 

review, and much progress has reportedly been made with the Thai government to 

modify this program.100 

An industry official also pointed out that Thai Customs officials had a tendency to 

classify goods at higher duty rates than the importer, who would enter goods in 

classifications with lower rates when that option was available. Now that multiple-tier 

duties have been eliminated for intra-ASEAN trade, the problem of classification at 

different tariff levels is no longer experienced.101 

Logistics Services 

Logistics services are another critical element in the automotive production scheme and a 

key element of the Roadmap. The extensive reliance of the industry on just-in-time 

delivery places great importance on the ability to move components quickly to the auto 

assembler, whether from the local parts producer or from the port where components are 

imported. In some cases, logistics firms also provide sequencing to the automakers, in 

which parts are provided in the desired sequence to the automaker for the vehicle 

 96 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 97 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 15, 2010. 98 Ibid., March 16, 2010. 

99 Ibid., March 15, 2010. 

100 Industry consultant, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 17, 2010, The American Chamber of 

Commerce in Thailand, “Customs Meeting,” April 24, 2009. 101 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 17, 2010. 
7-19

assembly.102 This just-in-time delivery system often requires suppliers to locate near the 

automaker, thereby reducing logistics costs.103 

In most cases, logistics issues were not cited as particularly burdensome or difficult, 

despite lingering infrastructure issues throughout the region. According to one 

automotive association, ASEAN countries recognize that regional infrastructure must be 

improved, but infrastructure priorities must be identified (e.g., rail, road) and then must 

be financed, both of which present problems.104

E-Commerce 

It is less clear how far along the use of e-commerce is in the auto parts sector in the 

ASEAN region and its impact on competitiveness and integration. Although e-commerce 

has reportedly been introduced by nearly every ASEAN country as they build out 

infrastructure, the ASEAN countries operate at different levels of sophistication.105 Many 

local suppliers are believed to have Web sites that advertise their products and provide 

basic company information, but business-to-business e-commerce may not be broadly 

used.106 Multinational companies located in the region, however, generally employ ecommerce in their business operations. Several sources noted that, although e-commerce 

has its place, the conventional approach of personal meetings with potential parts 

purchasers and suppliers continues to be an important business tool. 

A leading global automaker provided an example of its use of e-commerce in Vietnam. It 

employs only a basic form of electronic supply chain management, and this system is 

mostly used with suppliers located outside the country. The firm can place orders 

electronically, but payment/invoicing rules require them to use a hard copy. For example, 

for its dealerships in Vietnam, local rules require that a record of each individual 

transaction be provided, whereas in every other country where it operates, the company 

supplies a single monthly settlement with its dealers. However, the government is 

becoming friendlier to e-commerce. Vietnam has initiated Project 30, the governmentwide effort to eliminate 30 percent of the administrative burden in transactions with the 

government, acknowledging that a paper-based system is not in line with globally 

competitive procedures.107

 102 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 12, 2010. 103 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 17, 2010. 104 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 9, 2010. 105 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, March 12, 2010. 106 Industry consultant, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, March 17, 2010. 107 Industry official, interview by USITC staff, Hanoi, March 8, 2010. 
7-20

Bibliography 

Aldaba, Rafaelita M. “Assessing the Competitiveness of the Philippine Auto Parts Industry.” Discussion 

Paper Series No. 2004-14. Philippine Institute for Development Studies, November 2007. 

Aldaba, Rafaelita M., and Josef T. Yap. Investment and Capital Flows: Implications of the ASEAN 

Economic Community. Discussion Paper Series No. 2009-01. Philippine Institute for 

Development Studies, January 2009. 

American Chamber of Commerce in Thailand. “Customs Meeting with Deputy Minister of Finance H.E. 

Mr. Pradit Phataraprasit,” April 24, 2009. 

www.amchamthailand.com/asp/view_doc.asp?DocCID=2352. 

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). ASEAN Industrial Cooperation Scheme. 

http://www.aseansec.org/6402.htm (accessed May 6, 2010). 

–––––. Questions and Answers on the CEPT. http://www.aseansec.org/10153.htm (accessed 

May 6, 2010). 

ASIAtalk. “Thai Auto-Electronics Spark Investment,” August 2008. 

———. “Thailand: Auto Parts,” September 2008. 

Austria, Myrna S. The Pattern of Intra-ASEAN Trade in the Priority Goods Sectors. Final Report. 

Regional Economic Policy Support Facility, ASEAN-Australia Development Cooperation 

Program. REPSF Project No. 03/006e, August 2004. 

Auto Industry [UK] Web site. http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/features/qcd (accessed June 1, 2010). 

AutomotiveWorld.com. “Malaysia: Govt Wants More Parts Companies to Be Tier 1,” April 22, 2010. 

Bangkok Post. “FTI Sees Winners and Losers,” September 1, 2010. 

http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/economics/30737/fti-sees-winners-and-losers.

Borhan, Mohamed Hairul. “Indonesia to Boost Automotive Industry.” International Enterprise Singapore, 

April 16, 2010. http://www.iesingapore.gov.sg. 

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The World Factbook: Indonesia, April 21, 2010. 

Chrysler, Mark. “New ASEAN-China Trade Pact Leaves Out Auto Industry, for Now.” Ward’sAuto.com, 

February 11, 2010. http://wardsauto.com/ar/asean_china_trade_100211.

Doi, Ayako. “Faced with Shrinking U.S. Market, Japanese Suppliers––& Makers––Invest More in 

Thailand.” The Japan Automotive Digest, September 29, 2008. 

ECORYS Research and Consulting; Institute for International and Development Economics; Centre for 

European Studies, Chulalongkorn University; Mekong Economics; PT Inacon Luhur Pertiwi; and 

Rajah & Tann for the European Commission. “Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment,” 

April 3, 2009. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/analysis/sustainability-impact-assessments/assessments. 
7-21

Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). Indonesia: Automotive Report, September 21, 2009. 

Embassy of the United States, Jakarta. Public Affairs Section. Indonesia’s Automotive Industry 

Confronts Global Economic Downturn, February 12, 2009. 

http://jakarta.usembassy.gov/press_rel/February09/industry_auto.html. 

FDIMarkets database. http://www.fdimarkets.com (accessed January 10, 2010). 

Findlay, Christopher. “An Investigation into the Measures Affecting the Integration of ASEAN’s Priority 

Sectors (Phase 2): Overview: Summary, Final Report.” Regional Economic Policy Support 

Facility, ASEAN-Australia Development Cooperation Program. REPSF Project No. 06/001a, 

April 2007. 

Ford Motor Company. “Ford, Key Suppliers Roll Out Innovative Business Model,” n.d. 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). “New Edition of ISO/TS 16949 Quality 

Specification for Automotive Industry Supply Chain,” July 2, 2009. 

http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1234. 

International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA). “World Motor Vehicle Production 

by Country and Type 2008–2009.” http://oica.net/wp-content/uploads/all-vehicles-2008-2009.pdf. 

Invest in China database. www.fdi.gov.cn (accessed January 20, 2010). 

The Japan Automotive Digest. “Malaysia Opens Auto Industry to Foreign Investment,” 

November 2, 2009. 

Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA). “ASEAN and the Auto Supporting Industry: Part 

2 of 2.” News from JAMA Asia (March 2010). 

Just-auto.com. “ASEAN Automotive Market Review.” Management briefing, April 2007. 

Lau, Terence J. “Distinguishing Fiction from Reality: The ASEAN Free Trade Area and Implications for 

the Global Auto Industry.” University of Dayton Law Review 13, no. 3 (2006), 453-76.

http://law.udayton.edu/LawReview/documents/31-3/Lau.pdf.

Ministry of Finance. “Japan’s FDI Flows to ASEAN and China by Country and Industry, 2008,” table. 

Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI). Review of National Automotive Policy, 

October 28, 2009. http://www.scribd.com/doc/21781137/Review-of-National-Automotive-Policy.

Nag, Biswajit, Saikat Banerjee, and Rittwik Chatterjee. “Changing Features of the Automobile Industry in 

Asia: Comparison of Production, Trade and Market Structure in Selected Countries.” Asia-Pacific 

Research Network on Trade, Working Paper Series, No. 37, July 2007. 

The Nation (Thailand). “Major Firms see ASEAN as Second Investment Base,” October 27, 2009. 

Pratiwi, Dina Sih. “Automotive Industry.” Pefindo Credit Rating Indonesia, n.d. 

Pugliese, Tony. “Analysis: ASEAN Q1 Vehicle Sales Jump 41% [includes data].” Just-auto.com, 

April 23, 2010. 
7-22

Thailand in the 2000’s. “Industry on the Move,” n.d. 

United States Agency for International Development/ADVANCE (USAID/ADVANCE). Evaluation of 

Proposed Target Sector: ASEAN Supply Chain Competitiveness Project, June 2008. 

United States Agency for International Development/Indonesia Competitiveness Forum 

(USAID/SENADA). “Automotive Component Value Chain Overview,” August 2007. 

United States Chamber of Commerce. Written submission to the U.S. International Trade Commission in 

connection with inv. No. 332-511, ASEAN: Regional Trends in Economic Integration, Export 

Competitiveness, and Inbound Investment for Selected Industries, March 12, 2010. 

United States International Trade Commission (USITC). Hearing transcript in connection with inv. no. 

332-511, ASEAN: Regional Trends in Economic Integration, Export Competitiveness, and 

Inbound Investment for Selected Industries, February 3, 2010. 

United States Trade Representative (USTR). National Trade Estimate Report, 2008. 

http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/reports/2008/NTE/asset_upload_file356_14651.pd

f.

World Trade Organization (WTO). Report by the Secretariat. “Indonesia Trade Policy Review,” 

May 28, 2003.

http://docsonline.wto.org/GEN_viewerwindow.asp?http://docsonline.wto.org:80/DDFDocuments

/t/WT/TPR/S117-3.doc.

 

––––––. “Indonesia Trade Policy Review,” May 23, 2007.

http://docsonline.wto.org/GEN_viewerwindow.asp?http://docsonline.wto.org:80/DDFDocuments

/t/WT/TPR/S184-04.doc. 

———. “Malaysia Trade Policy Review (Revision),” March 9, 2006. 

http://docsonline.wto.org/GEN_viewerwindow.asp?http://docsonline.wto.org:80/DDFDocuments

/t/WT/TPR/S156R1-4.doc. 

––––––. “Malaysia Trade Policy Review,” December 14, 2009. 

http://docsonline.wto.org/GEN_viewerwindow.asp?http://docsonline.wto.org:80/DDFDocuments

/t/WT/TPR/S225-04.doc. 

––––––. “Philippines Trade Policy Review,” June 7, 2005. 

http://docsonline.wto.org/GEN_viewerwindow.asp?http://docsonline.wto.org:80/DDFDocuments

/t/WT/TPR/S149R1-3.doc. 

––––––. “Thailand Trade Policy Review,” October 15, 2003. 

http://docsonline.wto.org/GEN_viewerwindow.asp?http://docsonline.wto.org:80/DDFDocuments

/t/WT/TPR/S123-3.doc. 

———. “Thailand Trade Policy Review (Revision),” February 6, 2008. 

http://docsonline.wto.org/GEN_viewerwindow.asp?http://docsonline.wto.org:80/DDFDocuments

/t/WT/TPR/S191R1-04.doc. 

Zephyr database. http://www.zephyrdeadata.com (accessed January 10, 2010).
8-1

CHAPTER 8 

Agro-based Products: Palm Oil1

Agro-based Products Overview 

The agricultural products covered by the ASEAN Roadmap for Integration of Agro-based 

Products (Roadmap) are limited both in number and by value, particularly when 

compared to the breadth of agricultural products traded within ASEAN and between 

ASEAN and its global trading partners.2

 The Roadmap, which primarily covers peas and 

beans, certain seeds, tomatoes and related products, and vegetable oils, represented only 

12 percent of intra-ASEAN trade in agricultural products in 2004, declining to 10 percent 

in 2008. 3 Nonetheless, intra-ASEAN trade in those products, by value, increased 

105 percent during 2004–08, while ASEAN external trade in those products increased 

135 percent, indicating that demand for these products among ASEAN’s external trading 

partners is growing faster than demand within the ASEAN region (table 2.4). 

Among the products covered in the Roadmap, palm oil was identified as the industry that 

has experienced the greatest changes in terms of regional economic integration, export 

competitiveness, and inbound investment in recent years. The crucial factor in selecting 

palm oil for the profile industry was its considerable share of the total value in intraASEAN and ASEAN external agricultural trade. Even with the “negative list” exceptions 

on palm oil taken in whole or in part by the Philippines and Thailand (which slowed 

those countries’ liberalization of intra-ASEAN palm oil trade), palm oil remained the 

dominant component of the agro-based products sector. In 2008, trade in palm oil 

represented almost 80 percent of intra-ASEAN trade and more than 70 percent of 

ASEAN external trade in the agro-based products sector defined in the Roadmap. It also 

represented more than 25 percent of ASEAN external agricultural products exports 

overall. As the world’s leading producers of palm oil, Indonesia and Malaysia are the 

most competitive global producers and the most attractive markets for intra-ASEAN and 

external foreign investment in palm oil. 

Although the Roadmap remains the clearest indicator of ASEAN priorities for agro-based 

trade integration, the ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint (Blueprint) also addresses 

recent developments in regional integration of agro-based products. The focus of the 

Blueprint includes (1) standards and safety harmonization for agricultural products and 

 1

 Palm oil covers crude and refined palm oil but not palm oil that has been chemically modified, such as 

by hydrogenation. See app. F under “Agro-based products” for HS subheadings that apply to the palm oil 

industry discussed in this chapter. 2

 Roadmap for Integration of Agro-based Products Sector, ASEAN, November 29, 2004. 3

 A number of important ASEAN agricultural products industries were not included in the Roadmap, as 

reflected in the 90 percent of ASEAN agricultural trade not covered during 2004–08. Trade in animal 

products such as beef and poultry and trade in rice are some notable omissions. It is likely that these 

industries were omitted for food security reasons, especially because rice in particular is a staple of the diet 

for many ASEAN countries and has historical importance for a number of countries’ attempts to feed their 

people within their own borders. Furthermore, trade in rice was subject to restrictions or outright bans during 

the height of the commodity price increases that took place worldwide during 2007–08, whereas palm oil is 

by comparison freely traded despite global price fluctuations, although ASEAN countries also place a 

premium on maintaining targeted domestic supplies of palm oil. These actions suggest that the beef, poultry, 

and rice industries in ASEAN countries may be hindered in any efforts to expand beyond their national 

borders, even if an ASEAN focus on these industries had been present. 
8-2

(2) the development of ASEAN cooperation and approaches toward international bodies 

and agreements, such as the International Plant Protection Convention and the Codex 

Alimentarius Commission. 4 But the Blueprint sets targets for lowering tariffs for 

agricultural products only for imports from non-ASEAN countries, indicating that 

ASEAN countries may still view their fellow members more as competitors than as 

regional partners in the agro-based products sector. 

Palm Oil 

Key Findings 

 

Joint decisions among ASEAN members to further regional integration, export 

competitiveness, and inbound investment in the palm oil industry, particularly through 

the Roadmap, appear to have had little impact on the structure of the industry. Instead, 

two groups of influential actors have had the primary effect on developments over the last 

five years: multinational corporations, which produce and refine palm oil and process it 

into finished and semifinished goods, and international groups, such as the Roundtable on 

Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), through which the corporations, among other actors, seek 

to influence developments in the palm oil market. 

The oil palm tree can be cultivated only in a few areas of the world, centered within 

10 degrees latitude north and south of the equator. In addition, oil palm fruit must be 

milled into crude oil quickly after harvest to maximize the quality of the oil. 

Consequently, only two ASEAN countries—Indonesia and Malaysia—possess the 

necessary climate for commercially viable palm oil growing and milling, and no 

significant competitors to Indonesian and Malaysian palm oil have emerged inside or 

outside ASEAN. The growing conditions and infrastructure development in these 

countries are so conducive to palm oil production that they supply most of the global 

demand for the product. Because of these advantages, harvesting and milling of oil palm 

fruit takes place largely within ASEAN. The natural limitations inherent in growing and 

milling oil palm fruit severely restrict most investment opportunities in ASEAN to 

Indonesia and Malaysia. Investments in other ASEAN countries would largely be in 

downstream products, such as refined palm oil or chemical derivatives, that do not 

require processing in close proximity to where the oil palm fruit is grown. 

Most competition for palm oil customers outside ASEAN comes from other vegetable 

oils, such as soybean oil, but that competition is muted in South and East Asian markets 

because of palm oil’s comparatively low price. Demand for this low-cost oil and the long 

experience of Indonesian and Malaysian companies with palm oil cultivation serve to 

drive intra-ASEAN and external investment in the palm oil value chain for both 

countries. 

Background 

Palm oil is produced from the pulp of the fruit of the oil palm tree, which is cultivated 

best in equatorial regions. Grown primarily on plantations but also on smallholder farms, 

 4

 The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by the Food and Agricultural Organization 

of the United Nations and the World Health Organization to develop international food standards, guidelines, 

and codes of practice. 
8-3

the tree produces its fruit in bunches over a lifespan of 20–25 years.5 Eight to 12 bunches 

are cut from the tree annually6

 and undergo the initial stages of processing, including 

steaming the fruit, stripping the fruit from the bunches, and extracting and purifying the 

fruit pulp, at mills usually located on or very near the plantations or small farms 

(fig. 8.1).7

 This process, which produces the crude palm oil, begins within 24 hours of 

harvesting under the best circumstances, as the fruit begins to degrade quickly once cut 

from the tree.8

 The crude palm oil is then refined immediately nearby or transported to a 

refinery for refining. Many ASEAN countries refine various crude vegetable oils, 

including palm oil, and agricultural products at the same refinery. Refined palm oil can 

be consumed as cooking oil or used in a variety of processed food products or in the 

chemicals or personal care products industries. 

FIGURE 8.1 Palm oil production chain

Source: Compiled by USITC staff. 

The equatorial climate is one of the most defining characteristics of oil palm tree growth, 

with the requirements of high temperatures, generous rainfall, and fertile soil naturally 

limiting the regions that can grow oil palm trees. Beyond 10 degrees latitude north or 

south of the equator, palm oil production is not commercially viable.9

 Nearly all of 

Indonesia’s and Malaysia’s land area devoted to oil palm tree production is located 

within this equatorial range, while Burma, Laos, and Cambodia lie wholly outside it; 

elsewhere in ASEAN, only the southernmost portions of Thailand and the Philippines lie 

within this range.10 Efforts to create a type of oil palm tree that would be commercially 

 5

 Smallholders account for less than one-third of the planted area in Indonesia and Malaysia. Biodiversity 

and Agricultural Commodities Program (BACP), “Market Transformation Strategy for Palm Oil,” 

May 1, 2008, 15–16. 6

 American Palm Oil Council (APOC), “Palm Oil: Gift to Nature, Gift to Life,” n.d. 7

 Basiron, “Palm Oil Production through Sustainable Plantations,” 2007, 290. 8

 Government official, telephone interview by USITC staff, April 16, 2010; Southern Group, 

“Manufacturing: Palm Oil Mill”; Agriprods.com, “Anglo Eastern Plantations PLC.” 9

 USITC, hearing transcript, February 3, 2010, 35–36 (testimony of Rosidah Radzian, Embassy of 

Malaysia). 10 A small portion of southern Vietnam is located between 9 and 10 degrees north latitude; Indonesian 

sources indicate that the Vietnamese are trying to grow oil palm commercially despite the less-than-favorable 

conditions. Palm production in the Philippines is also reportedly hindered by soil conditions. Industry 

representatives, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 2, 2010. 

Plantation 

(growing / harvesting) 

Mill 

(sterilizing / threshing / 

extraction / purification) 

Refinery 

(fractionation / 

bleaching / 

deodorization)

Crude palm oil 

Fruit 

Refined palm oil exports

Crude palm oil exports
8-4

productive in climates further from the equator have not yet proved sustainable. 11

Consequently, only Indonesia and Malaysia are able to grow large numbers of oil palm 

trees—and they are doing so on ever-larger numbers and sizes of plantations that are 

becoming increasingly efficient.12 

Producers in both Indonesia and Malaysia strive to meet growing global demand for palm 

oil.13 Although the oil palm tree was originally brought to Southeast Asia from Africa,14

Indonesian palm oil production accounts for 46 percent of global production, and 

Malaysian production accounts for 41 percent (table 8.1). Thailand is a distant third, with 

3 percent, while there are smaller production locations in other countries situated around 

the equator, such as Nigeria, Colombia, and Ghana.15 Because of their size,16 as well as 

their importance to consumers worldwide desiring affordable vegetable oil, the palm oil 

industries of Indonesia and Malaysia continue to be the most competitive suppliers 

globally and, consequently, attract the largest amounts of intra-ASEAN and foreign direct 

investment in palm oil.17

TABLE 8.1 Palm oil: Production, by ASEAN country and marketing year (1,000 MT) 

Country 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 (est.)

Indonesia 15,560 16,600 18,000 20,500 21,500

Malaysia 15,485 15,290 17,567 17,259 18,500

Thailand 784 1,170 1,050 1,200 1,300

Philippines 61 60 65 70 70

Source: USDA, FAS, Production, Supply and Distribution database (accessed May 4, 2010). 

Note: The marketing year for Indonesia and Malaysia is October to September; for the Philippines 

and Thailand, it is January to December. 

ASEAN countries produce approximately 90 percent of the global palm oil supply, but 

represent less than 9 percent of the world’s population. Accordingly, most ASEAN palm 

oil exports (95 percent in 2008) go to non-ASEAN markets. The sheer size of Indonesian 

and Malaysian production means that their competition in the global market comes only 

from other vegetable oils. However, much of this competition comes from suppliers far 

from ASEAN, in places where other vegetable oils have a long-standing commercial 

presence or cultivation and marketing advantages.18 Nevertheless, in ASEAN markets 

and markets throughout Asia, palm oil’s low price and abundant supply, as well as its 

nearby production location, make it the vegetable oil of choice.19 

 11 USITC, hearing transcript, February 3, 2010, 42 (testimony of Rosidah Radzian, Embassy of Malaysia). 12 One industry representative estimated that 80 percent of oil palm plantation land in Indonesia and 

Malaysia is owned by large companies. Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, 

Thailand, March 17, 2010. 13 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 12, 2010. 14 Basiron, “Palm Oil Production through Sustainable Plantations,” 290. 15 One analysis led to the conclusion that it is unlikely that any other palm oil–producing country will 

challenge the supplier roles of Indonesia and Malaysia. BACP, “Market Transformation Strategy for Palm 

Oil,” 16–17. 16 USITC, hearing transcript, February 3, 2010, 6–7 (testimony of Rosidah Radzian, Embassy of 

Malaysia); Basiron, “Palm Oil Production through Sustainable Plantations,” 290; Law, “Can Palm Oil Help 

Indonesia’s Poor?” 17 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 2, 2010; industry 

representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 5, 2010. 18 For example, in the United States, soybean oil and canola oil dominate the U.S. market because 

soybeans are grown throughout the United States, providing nearby, ready markets, and Canada produces 

large amounts of rapeseed, from which canola oil is produced, and has enlarged its share of the U.S. market 

by capitalizing on canola oil’s health benefits and ready supply. 19 See industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 12, 2010. 
8-5

Among the goods covered within the Roadmap, palm oil had the largest share by value in 

intra-ASEAN and ASEAN external agricultural trade. In 2008, trade in palm oil 

represented almost 80 percent of intra-ASEAN trade and more than 65 percent of 

ASEAN external trade in the products covered in the Roadmap.20 It appears that Burma’s 

role as facilitator of the Roadmap has not visibly changed the direction or pace of palm 

oil industry integration within ASEAN. Several factors likely contribute to this 

circumstance, including Burma’s preoccupation with its domestic social and political 

issues; its lack of a domestic palm oil industry; and its low per capita use of palm oil.21

Regional Integration, Export Competitiveness, and Inbound 

Investment 

Leading competitive factors 

Refined palm oil and products derived from it can be produced in any ASEAN country, 

despite limitations on where oil palm trees can be cultivated and crude palm oil produced. 

The primary factors behind the industry’s increased export competitiveness and regional 

value-chain integration were the increase in refining and processing capacity in ASEAN 

countries other than Indonesia and Malaysia (as well as other countries worldwide) to 

satisfy local demand; the price-competitiveness of refined palm oil against other 

vegetable oils in the ASEAN market; increased productivity; and opportunities for 

infrastructure investment.22 

Regional Integration 

ASEAN countries that do not produce enough crude palm oil to satisfy domestic market 

needs, such as Thailand and Vietnam, have increased their refining capacity, occasionally 

with foreign investment assistance from Malaysia in particular, creating new demand for 

crude palm oil from Indonesia and Malaysia in these countries. 23 ASEAN countries 

generally have also increased their food processing capacity (cookies, cooking oil) in 

recent years, creating demand for palm oil as an input.24 

Export Competitiveness 

Trade 

Indonesia and Malaysia are not only the largest ASEAN exporters of palm oil, they also 

dominate world trade, primarily because only Indonesia and Malaysia have sizable 

quantities available for export (tables 8.2 and 8.3). Indonesia and Malaysia each account 

for 44–45 percent of global palm oil exports; Benin and Papua New Guinea are next, with 

3 percent in total. As with most of the other, smaller palm oil–producing countries, 

 20 WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010). 21 Than, “Mapping the Contours of Human Security Challenges in Myanmar,” 172–202; Oil Crops in 

Myanmar Project, “Oil Crops in Myanmar”; USDA, FAS, Production, Supply and Distribution database 

(accessed May 4, 2010). 22 Export competitiveness factors include growing demand and increasing productivity. For a more 

detailed discussion of export competitiveness, see chap. 1. 23 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 12, 2010. 24 See Sime Darby Plantation, “South East Asia,” 2008. 
8-6

ASEAN members Thailand and the Philippines consume as much palm oil as they 

produce domestically, although some trade occurs. 

TABLE 8.2 Palm oil: Exports by ASEAN country, 2004–08 (million $) 

 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Crude and refined 

Malaysia 5,038 4,905 5,326 7,665 11,784

Indonesia 3,978 3,646 4,756 6,064 8,674

Singapore 110 266 213 273 371

Thailand 16 5 47 107 212

Vietnam 2 0 0 4 11

Other 1 4 3 10 8

 Total ASEAN exports 9,145 8,826 10,345 14,123 21,060

Crude 

Indonesia 1,899 1,778 2,548 3,446 4,641

Malaysia 890 1,104 1,394 1,619 2,083

Thailand 5 1 44 95 208

Singapore 41 128 122 183 196

Cambodia 1 1 2 2 7

Other 0 0 0 2 1

 Total ASEAN exports 2,835 3,012 4,109 5,347 7,136

Refined 

Malaysia 4,072 3,801 3,830 6,046 9,701

Indonesia 2,076 1,869 2,196 2,618 4,033

Singapore 57 137 90 90 175

Vietnam 2 0 0 4 11

Thailand 11 4 3 12 4

Other 1 2 0 7 1

 Total ASEAN exports 6,219 5,813 6,119 8,777 13,925

Source: WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010). 

Notes: Brunei, Burma, Indonesia, and Laos do not report trade data. Figures for ASEAN exports are based on those for partnercountry imports. Data for 2008 are understated, because numerous small countries and one identifiably important market 

(Bangladesh) have not reported 2008 import figures. Figures may not add to totals shown because of rounding. 

TABLE 8.3 Palm oil: Intra-ASEAN trade, total and select countries, 2004–08 (million $) 

 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Crude and refined 

Intra-ASEAN imports 601 315 407 386 1,012

Malaysia 356 157 282 291 614

Singapore 148 58 37 71 349

Thailand 39 9 1 1 34

Crude 

Intra-ASEAN imports 358 156 233 206 518

Malaysia 355 152 230 205 475

Thailand 0 0 0 0 33

Singapore 2 3 2 2 10

Refined 

Intra-ASEAN imports 237 159 174 179 494

Singapore 146 55 35 69 340

Malaysia 1 5 52 87 139

Philippines 50 85 80 21 10

Thailand 39 9 1 1 1

Source: WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010). 

Notes: Brunei, Burma, Indonesia, and Laos do not report trade data. ASEAN exports based on partner-country imports. Data for 

2008 are understated, because numerous small countries and one identifiably important market (Bangladesh) have not reported 

2008 import figures. Figures may not add to totals shown because of rounding. 
8-7

The largest markets for ASEAN palm oil lie outside ASEAN. 25 ASEAN countries 

devoted 97 percent of their palm oil exports to non-ASEAN markets, including four 

markets larger than ASEAN: China, the EU, India, and Pakistan. Note that the U.S. 

market for palm oil ($1.0 billion in 2008) (table 8.4) is roughly equivalent to intraASEAN import amounts ($1.0 billion in 2008) (table 8.3). 

TABLE 8.4 Palm oil: ASEAN exports to select non-ASEAN partners, 2004–08 (million $) 

 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Crude and refined 

ASEAN exports to non-ASEAN partners 8,789 8,668 10,062 13,832 20,446

China 1,868 1,781 2,251 3,638 5,206

EU-27 1,447 1,474 1,756 2,427 3,866

India 1,707 1,281 1,163 1,434 2,425

Pakistan 640 752 762 1,146 1,674

USA 137 181 298 545 1,001

Total ASEAN exports 9,145 8,826 10,345 14,123 21,060

Crude 

EU-27 790 833 1,092 1,487 2,463

India 739 829 1,068 1,336 1,909

Pakistan 56 59 159 329 592

China 3 41 259 269 521

Bangladesh 448 482 694 903 n/a

Total ASEAN exports 2,835 3,012 4,109 5,347 7,136

Refined 

China 1,864 1,740 1,992 3,370 4,685

EU-27 657 641 664 940 1,403

Pakistan 584 694 603 816 1,082

USA 137 181 298 545 1,001

Japan 233 211 233 369 586

Russia 172 262 237 279 542

Total ASEAN exports 6,219 5,813 6,119 8,777 13,925

Source: WITS, Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed January 5, 2010). 

Notes: Brunei, Burma, Indonesia, and Laos do not report trade data. Figures for ASEAN exports are based on those for partnercountry imports. Data for 2008 are understated, because numerous small countries and one identifiably important market 

(Bangladesh) have not reported 2008 import figures. Figures may not add to totals shown because of rounding. 

Notable differences exist between exports of ASEAN crude and refined palm oil. 

ASEAN crude palm oil is primarily exported to the EU and India, which have sufficient 

refining capacity available (table 8.3). ASEAN refined palm oil is primarily exported to 

China, which grows and imports soybeans and primarily devotes its refining capacity to 

that oilseed (table 8.4). 

Within ASEAN, crude palm oil is shipped overwhelmingly to Malaysia (91.7 percent in 

2008) as feedstock for its refineries and downstream processing, and refined palm oil is 

primarily destined for Singapore, to be processed into food products and for re-export.26

More than half of intra-ASEAN palm oil trade is of crude palm oil, indicating the 

presence of refinery facilities in countries other than Indonesia and Malaysia supplying 

global markets with finished palm oil products. 

The value of intra-ASEAN palm oil trade has increased by two-thirds during 2004–08, 

from $601 million to $1.0 billion, but the value of ASEAN palm oil exports to nonASEAN markets increased far more, rising 133 percent to $20.4 billion. Tariffs are not a 

barrier to intra-ASEAN palm oil trade. Under ASEAN’s Common Effective Preferential 

 25 For a similar examination of the importance of non-ASEAN markets, see Sally, “Regional Economic 

Integration in Asia,” 2010. 26 APOC, “Palm Oil: Gift to Nature, Gift to Life,” n.d.; industry representatives, interview by USITC 

staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 2, 2010. 
8-8

Tariff, import tariffs on palm oil trade within ASEAN are 5 percent or less, with the 

largest importers of crude and refined palm oil (Malaysia and Singapore) having duty 

rates of free (table 8.5). Tariffs on palm oil from sources outside ASEAN can be higher, 

although ASEAN countries import very little palm oil from outside ASEAN, reflecting 

Indonesia’s and Malaysia’s dominant positions as global suppliers. Nontariff measures 

(NTMs) do not appear to be trade impediments currently, as no ASEAN palm oilexporting country has highlighted any restrictions of this type on its palm oil exports. 

However, smaller ASEAN palm oil-producing countries may be more likely to turn to 

NTMs to protect their less-efficient and higher-cost palm oil industries from lower-priced 

Indonesian and Malaysian imports now that intra-ASEAN palm oil tariffs have been 

reduced to free.27 

TABLE 8.5 ASEAN country tariffs for palm oil, 2004, 2008, and 2010 (ad valorem percent or specific) 

ASEAN members 2004 2008 2010a

 Imports from other 

ASEAN countries 

Imports from nonASEAN countries 

(most-favored 

nation rate {MFN}) 

Imports from 

other ASEAN 

countries 

Imports from nonASEAN countries 

(MFN) 

Imports from 

other ASEAN 

countries 

Brunei 0 0 0 0 0 

Burma 1 1 1 1 1 

Cambodia 7 7 5 7 5 

Indonesia 0 0 0 0 0 

Laos 5 10 0 10 0 

Malaysia (crude) 0 0 0 0 0 

Malaysia (refined) 5 5 0 5 0 

Philippines (crude) 3 15 3 15 3 

Philippines (refined) 5 15 0 15 0 

Singapore 0 0 0 0 0 

Thailand(b) 5 B1.32/liter or 

B2.50/liter

5 B1.32/liter or 

B2.50/liter 

0 

Vietnam (crude) 5 5 3 3 3 

Vietnam (refined) 15 30 or 50 5 3 or 25 5 

Source: Agreement on the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) Scheme for the ASEAN Free Trade Area, Consolidated 

Package of Tariff Reductions for 2008, http://www.aseansec.org/19802.htm; Royal Malaysia Customs Department, HS-Explorer 

(accessed April 2010). 

Note: Information reflects tariff rates for crude and refined palm oil imports unless specified otherwise. 

 a2010 MFN rates for ASEAN imports from non-ASEAN countries are not available to USITC staff for every ASEAN member 

country. b

 Thailand’s currency is the baht. 

Indonesia and Malaysia impose export taxes on palm oil, affecting the supply and 

composition of their palm oil exports. The Indonesian government announced in 

December 2009 that its export tax on crude palm oil would be 3 percent ad valorem 

beginning January 2010. In the past, the Indonesian government has used its palm oil 

export tax to maintain domestic supply and lower prices, but it has not used these tax 

revenues to assist the palm oil industry.28 The effects of these export taxes vary because 

the tax rate fluctuates with the international price of crude palm oil.29 

The Malaysian government imposes a differential export tax on palm oil to encourage the 

domestic production of downstream palm oil products. Malaysia uses the funds generated 

to support Malaysian agricultural research and development and palm oil distribution to 

 27 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 5, 2010. 28 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 2, 2010. 29 World Bank, “Indonesia Economic Quarterly: Building Momentum,” March 2010, 15. 
8-9

the poor.30 For example, neutralized, bleached, and deodorized palm olein (a refined palm 

oil product) is fully exempt from export tax while crude palm oil is subject to a 10–

30 percent export tax, depending on its market price. The Malaysian government waives 

the export tax when the palm oil is shipped to refineries having Malaysian investors, 

which can provide an advantage for Malaysian-owned refineries.31

Increased demand 

Palm oil is one of the world’s most competitive vegetable oils by price because of 

abundant supply and the low cost of production.32 Palm oil maintains this market position 

despite increased demand from the largest overseas markets, such as China, the EU, and 

India, as well as the United States. Within ASEAN, this price-competitiveness has 

encouraged nonproducing countries to satisfy their vegetable oil demand through imports 

and producer countries to consume this natural resource.33 

Commercial-scale palm oil production in Indonesia and Malaysia is influenced by large, 

ASEAN-based multinational corporations, such as Sime Darby and Wilmar, that own the 

regionally integrated production chain from plantation to crusher to refinery and, 

frequently, to factories in which the refined palm oil is further transformed (e.g., 

biodiesel, lubricants) or incorporated into other goods (e.g., cookies).34 Each of these 

facilities may be located in different ASEAN countries, and a number of these 

corporations have holdings in multiple ASEAN countries, including agro-businesses in 

Singapore, which has no indigenous raw oil palm supplies.35

Palm oil is marketed throughout ASEAN under labels owned by the major producers. 

Sime Darby is a prime example of a fully integrated palm oil producer, growing the palm 

fruit on its own plantations and selling its refined palm cooking oil under its own name.36

Many palm oil producers that do not sell their own refined oil directly to consumers 

under their own cross-border brand will sell refined oil, or crude oil to be refined, to 

domestic processors in each ASEAN member country that have established their own 

national brands.37 

Indonesia’s large and lower-income population generates a heavy demand for vegetable 

oils. As a result, that country already consumes a great portion of its domestic palm oil 

production as food (box 8.1).38 The Indonesian government has, in fact, taken actions to 

promote domestic food consumption of palm oil for the economic benefit of its 

 30 Basiron, “Palm Oil Production through Sustainable Plantations,” 2007, 290; Valentine, “Reframing 

Global Warming,” n.d., 21; USITC, hearing transcript, February 3, 2010, 37–38 (testimony of Rosidah 

Radzian, Embassy of Malaysia); industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, 

March 2, 2010. 31 USTR, “2010 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers,” 2010, 247. 32 Thoenes, “Biofuels and Commodity Markets–Palm Oil Focus,” 2006, 2. 33 As one example, Vietnam consumed 485,000 MT of palm oil in MY2009/10, but had no domestic 

production. See table 8.1 and box 8.1. 34 USITC, hearing transcript, February 3, 2010, 34 (testimony of Rosidah Radzian, Embassy of Malaysia). 35 Sime Darby Plantation, “South East Asia,” 2008. 

36 Ibid. 

37 See Chandran, “Commodity Sector Overview,” March 2010, 161. 38 Indonesian domestic palm oil consumption for cooking was relatively steady in the last few years and 

represented about 20 percent of the total supply. 
8-10

BOX 8.1 Palm oil: Profile of ASEAN Integrationa

Natural limits restrict the ability of ASEAN nations that are not palm oil producers to become more integrated with 

existing ASEAN palm oil production industries. One reason is the need to locate mills close to plantations so that 

the mills can begin processing the oil palm fruit very shortly after harvest (usually within 24 hours) before the fruit 

and oil begin to spoil.b Palm oil is widely used and traded throughout ASEAN, with four countries producing 

commercially significant amounts and all ASEAN countries consuming palm oil for food and nonfood purposes. 

Most ASEAN members, however, grow few or no oil palm trees, having too little land (Brunei, Singapore) or too 

unfriendly a climate (Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam) for commercial-scale palm oil production. 

Although growing oil palm trees and producing crude palm oil may not be an option for these ASEAN members, 

they consume it and are capable of refining crude palm oil and processing it into food (usually the majority of 

consumption for poorer ASEAN countries) or industrial products (see table).c

 Vietnam, in particular, has a 

growing refining capacity and is a draw for foreign refining investment, including from Malaysia, because of a 

growing domestic market.d Most of the palm oil refined in Vietnam is likely to be consumed domestically, as that 

country routinely experiences shortfalls in vegetable oil production compared with consumption. But Vietnam 

reportedly sold several million dollars worth of palm oil to China in 2008, indicating that, as with other, much 

smaller ASEAN palm oil producers, some trade occurs outside of the Indonesian and Malaysian markets. 

Palm oil: Domestic consumption, by ASEAN country, type, and marketing year (thousand MT) 

Country 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 (est.)

Burma 304 330 365 375 390

 Food 304 330 365 375 390

 Industrial 0 0 0 0 0

Indonesia 4,255 4,523 4,651 4,467 4,914

 Food 3,710 3,852 3,987 3,801 4,200

 Industrial 465 586 579 581 629

Malaysia 2,926 3,109 2,986 2,995 3,277

 Food 720 804 820 840 910

 Industrial 1,986 2,080 1,936 1,920 2,080

Philippines 223 130 89 79 78

 Food 200 110 68 64 63

 Industrial 23 20 21 15 15

Singapore 50 50 76 105 105

 Food 50 50 76 105 105

 Industrial 0 0 0 0 0

Thailand 671 694 747 1,002 990

 Food 388 350 397 500 500

 Industrial 227 250 260 400 400

Vietnam 326 415 428 451 485

 Food 326 415 428 451 485

 Industrial 0 0 0 0 0

Source: USDA, FAS, Production, Supply and Distribution database (accessed May 4, 2010). 

Note: The marketing year for Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore is October to September; for the 

Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, January to December; for Burma, September to August. Figures may not 

add to totals shown because of feed waste consumption. 

a

 For a more detailed discussion of economic integration in free trade areas, such as that envisioned for the 

ASEAN Economic Community, see chapter 1. See also Sally, “Regional Economic Integration in Asia,” 2010, 4–

5. b

 USITC, hearing transcript, February 3, 2010, 43 (testimony of Rosidah Radzian, Embassy of Malaysia); 

government official, telephone interview by USITC staff, April 16, 2010. c

 Brunei, Cambodia, and Laos do not have confirmed consumption amounts during 2004–08, although their 

proximity to price-competitive palm oil from Indonesia and Malaysia and the regional preference for vegetable oils 

as a part of the diet strongly suggest that these countries, at a minimum, consume palm oil as a food. For Brunei, 

its participation with Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines in the EAGA, an initiative that encompasses 

production, processing, and trade in palm oil, lends support for this conclusion. d Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 12, 2010. 
8-11

population. These actions have affected the amounts available for export in less- and 

more-processed forms, from crude palm oil to health care products.39 

Increased productivity 

The production of biodiesel is one area in which companies in ASEAN countries may be 

able to create great value by using palm oil for nonfood purposes. Indonesia and 

Malaysia already have well-established and growing biodiesel industries resulting from 

government plans to increase revenue streams from palm oil production, but even smaller 

palm oil-producing countries, such as the Philippines and Thailand, have biodiesel 

policies and production facilities that use those countries’ much smaller palm oil supplies 

to much higher value effect than for food consumption. Increases in demand for biodiesel 

within ASEAN countries, among other industrial and oleochemical products,40 would 

result in more production facilities and similar increases in demand for palm oil supplies 

throughout ASEAN from ASEAN palm oil-producing countries. 

Improved crop maintenance and species cultivation, better soil management techniques, 

conversion of existing land from other agricultural purposes, reclamation of degraded 

lands, and creation of new plantations from uncultivated forestland have all contributed 

to higher levels and lower costs of palm oil production, increasing the amounts available 

for export.41 The government of Malaysia, along with several multinational corporations, 

has led the effort to improve yields and shares the results of those attempts with 

Indonesian producers in which Malaysian producers have invested. 42 Indonesia and 

Malaysia have each increased the amount of cultivated land devoted to growing oil 

palm—Indonesia through the expansion of new planting areas and Malaysia through the 

conversion of existing agricultural land to palm oil production.43

Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) 

In the absence of ASEAN policies noticeably affecting the palm oil industry and in 

tandem with the influence of multinational corporations,44 the RSPO is the single most 

identifiable organizational influence on the ASEAN palm oil production and marketing 

chain and will likely grow steadily from its comparatively small volume and low 

company-participation numbers.45 The RSPO includes representatives of banks, social 

and environmental nongovernmental organizations, and all levels of the palm oil value 

 39 To encourage palm oil consumer price stability, the Indonesian government launched the Minyak Kita 

program (literally translated as “Our Oil”) in March 2009. Large Indonesian crude palm oil producers can 

provide cheaper oil as part of their initiative to help low-income households. Bromokusumo, “Indonesia: 

Oilseeds and Products Annual,” May 5, 2009, 3; Bromokusumo and Slette, “Indonesia: Oilseeds and 

Products Annual,” March 18, 2010, 12. It is unclear whether this program is an Indonesian government 

mandate or a government initiative, although the government and the industry maintain a close relationship 

because of palm oil’s importance in the Indonesian agricultural sector and to the economy overall. 40 See Chandran, “Commodity Sector Overview,” March 2010, 161. 41 USITC, hearing transcript, February 3, 2010, 13, 15 (testimony of Mohd Salleh Kassim, American 

Palm Oil Council); Sime Darby Plantation, “Overview,” 2008; IOI Group, “Agronomy Support,” 2009. See 

Basiron, “Palm Oil Production through Sustainable Plantations,” 2007, 290. 42 USITC, hearing transcript, February 3, 2010, 36, 52 (testimony of Rosidah Radzian, Embassy of 

Malaysia). 43 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 12, 2010. 44 Ibid. 

45 In May 2010, six Malaysian and Indonesian palm oil producer associations reportedly created the 

Indonesia-Malaysia Palm Oil Group to address concerns over the sustainability of palm oil production. 

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, “Malaysia Sees Possible WTO Case against EU 

Palm Oil Limits,” May 19, 2010. 
8-12

chain, from plantations to retailers.46 The majority of the 400 individual participants in 

the RSPO in 2010 are Indonesian and Malaysian.47 Created in 2004 to address concerns 

by palm oil consumers that palm oil production was harmful to the environment, the 

RSPO’s existence is intended to encourage producers to seek RSPO certification attesting 

that their processes meet certain sustainable criteria. This certification would then make 

their palm oil more desirable in foreign markets willing to pay a price premium for such 

oil. 

Despite their dominant position in the global palm oil industry, which limits customers’ 

ability to source low-priced vegetable oils elsewhere, Indonesian and Malaysian 

producers have perceived RSPO certification to bestow economic advantages in very 

profitable markets over noncertified palm oil.48 This recognition appears in the palm oil 

investment chain as well, as Malaysia transfers its environmentally sensitive technology 

and capital to plantations in Indonesia.49 Nevertheless, only six Malaysian and three 

Indonesian producers had produced RSPO-certified palm oil through November 2009, 

and this oil represented only a small portion of each country’s overall production.50 

RSPO certification of certain ASEAN palm oil suppliers and supplies has had a 

demonstrable effect on sales to some major markets. Consumers in the EU and the United 

States are at the forefront of palm oil sustainability requirements; they have proven they 

are willing to pay a higher premium for such palm oil51 and have taken action when these 

expectations are not met.52 For example, Unilever, one of the world’s largest corporate 

consumers of palm oil, stopped sourcing palm oil from two Indonesian suppliers within a 

span of months because of environmental shortcomings.53 A number of multinational 

 46 Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), “Who Is RSPO?” 2009; Malaysian Palm Oil Promotion 

Council, “Business With Palm Oil,” n.d., 15. 47 RSPO homepage, http://rspo.org/ (accessed April 26, 2010). 48 A Thai palm oil industry representative confirmed this impression for Thai palm oil production as well. 

Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 17, 2010. However, some 

Indonesian producers reportedly believe that satisfying the national requirements of their purchasers is more 

important than RSPO certification. Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, 

March 2, 2010. 49 USITC, hearing transcript, February 3, 2010, 36–38, 51–52 (testimony of Rosidah Radzian, Embassy 

of Malaysia); industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 12, 2010. 50 RSPO, “RSPO Certified Mills & CSPO Production,” 2009. Estimates of RSPO-certified palm oil 

amounts in 2009 range from 1.4 million to 2 million tons. Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, 

Singapore, March 5, 2010; USITC, hearing transcript, February 3, 2010, 18 (testimony of Mohd Salleh 

Kassim, American Palm Oil Council). A separate account estimated that 3 percent of global palm oil 

production is “sustainable.” BBC News, “Orangutan Survival and the Shopping Trolley,” February 22, 2010. 

In 2010, Malaysia is targeting half of its production (9 million tons) to be RSPO certified. USITC, Hearing 

transcript, February 3, 2010, 13 (testimony of Mohd Salleh Kassim, American Palm Oil Council). 51 A Thai palm oil industry representative estimated this premium only to be 5 percent currently. Industry 

representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 17, 2010. Palm oil consumers, however, 

indicated at an RSPO meeting in November 2006 that they do not anticipate sustainable palm oil to cost 

significantly more or any more than nonsustainable palm oil. BACP, “Market Transformation Strategy for 

Palm Oil,” May 1, 2008, 19. 52 Cadbury announced in August 2009 that it would stop using palm oil in its chocolate bars because of 

consumer environmental concerns. Chan, “World Bank Arm Halts Financing to Palm Oil Industry,” 

September 10, 2009. Cargill is reportedly reconsidering its supply arrangements with an Indonesian company 

over environmental concerns. Creagh, “Cargill Considers Dropping Sinar Mas Over Land Clearing Claims,” 

March 25, 2010. 53 Notably, both Indonesian producers, one of which is the world’s second-largest palm oil producer, 

were members of the RSPO, a fact that has contributed to allegations that RSPO standards and procedures for 

monitoring and certification have not been effective. Mongabay.com, “BBC Documentary Leads Unilever to 

Blacklist Indonesian Palm Oil Company,” Febriaru 24. 2010. 
8-13

corporations have announced that they will use only RSPO-certified palm oil no later 

than 2015.54 

Other leading markets, such as China, India, and Pakistan, are less influenced by RSPO 

efforts. Largely for price reasons, they have continued to provide ready markets for 

uncertified palm oil, hampering sustainability standardization efforts, and hindering the 

increase in values that certification can bring.55 Each of these countries has a great need 

for low-cost vegetable oils as food for their large, poorer populations and has 

demonstrated a willingness to purchase palm oil that has not been RSPO certified.56 This 

demand has lessened the pressure on palm oil producers to undertake the additional costs 

necessary for RSPO certification, and because these markets are obtaining enough of the 

low-cost oil they want, they have little incentive to pay higher prices for RSPO-certified 

oil.57 This situation hampers the uniform application of RSPO standards and efforts by 

palm oil producers to increase the value of their export product. 

Nonetheless, the RSPO certification structure has served to increase the export 

competitiveness of palm oil in markets (e.g., the EU and United States) where palm oil 

production is perceived as being more environmentally destructive (primarily by 

deforestation) than production of other vegetable oils, as well as to draw investment by 

companies desiring to ensure supplies of such sustainable oil. U.S. companies with a 

significant presence in palm oil-producing countries, such as Cargill in Indonesia, operate 

their own plantations adhering to RSPO standards, as do Malaysian companies 

transferring their environmentally sensitive production practices to investments in 

Indonesia.58

Inbound Investment 

Indonesia is the destination for the largest number of palm oil investment activities 

among ASEAN countries (table 8.6). As the largest producer of palm oil in the world, 

and the country with the greatest amount of land under cultivation (7.2 million hectares in 

2009), Indonesia is a natural destination for investment in establishing, enlarging, and 

managing palm oil plantations.59 Investments in refining operations, on the other hand, 

occur in multiple ASEAN countries because construction of a refinery is not affected by 

the climate and growing conditions that limit where plantations are located. 

 54 Hickman, “Online Protest Drives Nestlé to Environmentally Friendly Palm Oil,” May 19, 2010. 55 The reportedly largest food processor, manufacturer, and trader in China is the only RSPO member 

there. Similarly, India has four or five RSPO members, and Pakistan has none, leading some Indonesian 

industry representatives to believe that there is no demand for RSPO palm oil in these countries. Industry 

representatives, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 2, 2010; BACP, “Market 

Transformation Strategy for Palm Oil,” May 1, 2008, 13. 56 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 5, 2010. 57 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, D.C., February, 18, 2010. 58 USITC, hearing transcript, February 3, 2010, 36–38, 51–52 (testimony of Rosidah Radzian, Embassy 

of Malaysia); industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 12, 2010. 59 Bromokusumo and Slette, “Indonesia: Oilseeds and Products Annual,” March 18, 2010, 14. 
8-14

TABLE 8.6 Palm oil: Intra-ASEAN investment, select activities, 2004–09 

Year 

Investor 

country Investor company 

Target 

country Target company 

Nature of 

investment 

Value

(est. million $)

2009 Malaysia IOI Corp. Indonesia (a) Plantation services 48.8

2009 Singapore Abaca Enterprise 

PTE 

Indonesia Teguh Swakarsa 

Sejahtera 

Plantation operating 

services 

4.3

2009 Malaysia Kwantas Corp. Indonesia Kinabalu Invesdag 

Indonesia 

Plantation operating 

services 

2.4

2009 Malaysia Dynasive Enterprise 

SDN 

Indonesia Prima Alumga Planter 0.1

2008 Singapore Pacific Agriculture 

Holdings PTE 

Indonesia PT Tunas Sejati 

Abadi 

Plantation operating 

services 

<0.1

2007 Malaysia IOI Corp. Indonesia Bumitama Gunajaya 

Agro 

Plantation services 82.9

2006 Malaysia TH Plantations Indonesia (a)

 Refinery expansion 7.0

2006 Malaysia Ayer Molek Rubber 

Co. 

Indonesia PT Varita Majutama Plantation operating 

services 

0.6

2005 Malaysia Golden Hope 

Plantations 

Vietnam (a)

 Refinery expansion 13.5

2005 Malaysia Maxillion PTE Indonesia PT Pukun Mandiri 

Lestari 

Plant operations 0.1

2004 Malaysia Delloyd Plantations 

SDN 

Indonesia Rebinmas Jaya Plantation operating 

services 

11.3

2004 Malaysia Taipan Hectares 

SND 

Indonesia Rebinmas Jaya Plantation operating 

services 

6.6

2004 Malaysia Ahmad Zaki 

Resources 

Indonesia PT Ichtiar Gusti Pudi Cultivation services 1.8

Sources: Bureau van Djik, Zephyr database (accessed January 9, 2010); fDi Markets. 

Note: This table does not include corporate mergers or takeovers involving ASEAN palm oil interests, such as the 2006 

purchase by Singapore’s Wilmar International of Malaysia’s PPB Oil Palms for $1.1 billion. 

 a

Not available. 

The level of intra-ASEAN palm oil investment activities varies from millions of dollars 

to less than $100,000. The data in table 8.6 are representative of all types of palm oil 

industry investment activities in ASEAN, and the value trend indicates that intra-ASEAN 

investment activities are increasing somewhat, particularly as Malaysia continues to seek 

increases in the supply of crude palm oil for its refining facilities and postrefining 

commercial consumption.60

Wealthier ASEAN countries (Malaysia and Singapore) have parlayed the initial and 

continuing financial benefits of processing palm oil into the production and marketing of 

higher-valued products. They have tended to focus their intra-ASEAN investment 

strategies on guaranteeing supply for their processing facilities, with purchases of 

 60 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 2, 2010. Most Malaysian 

palm oil investment overseas is not directed at plantations, but rather at processing and manufacturing 

facilities. Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 12, 2010. 

There are examples of investments outside the dominant Malaysia-to-Indonesia pattern. A Thai palm oil 

industry representative indicated that Malaysian business interests currently are considering investments in 

the Thai palm oil industry. Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 17, 

2010. Some Indonesian industry representatives stated that Malaysian investment is flowing into African and 

South American palm oil ventures instead of additional Indonesian projects. These representatives also 

indicated that some Indonesian producers are exploring the possibility of investing abroad. Industry 

representatives, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 2, 2010. 
8-15

plantations in the prime growing areas (Indonesia) facilitating industrial integration.61

This is particularly important for Singapore, which has almost no domestic palm oil 

industry other than refining and processing facilities.62 On the other hand, Malaysia has a 

more integrated palm oil industry infrastructure than Indonesia but less land for possible 

production expansions because Indonesia has a land mass five times that of Malaysia 

(and has a larger labor pool). The majority of the available land in Malaysia has already 

been either converted to palm oil production or protected as conservation areas.63 

Among ASEAN countries, Indonesia and Malaysia have more liberal investment rules for 

foreign capital in the agricultural sector. They have encouraged investment from ASEAN 

(Malaysia, Singapore) and non-ASEAN (China, Japan, Korea) countries.64 Indonesian 

law permits foreign ownership of companies up to 95 percent, which is beneficial for 

foreign investors unless they encounter difficulties finding Indonesian partners for the 

remaining 5 percent stake, which has occurred.65 Malaysian law allows complete foreign 

ownership of companies with export-oriented production, but has restrictions on foreign 

ownership of land, which can hinder foreign investments and industry improvement.66 

Most ASEAN countries, though, significantly restrict the investment of foreign capital in 

agriculture. Restrictions range from bans on foreign ownership of land (such as palm oil 

plantations) to requirements for majority local ownership of manufacturing facilities 

(such as palm oil refineries). The tabulation below reflects the general restrictions on land 

and facilities investment by ASEAN countries: 

 61 USITC, hearing transcript, February 3, 2010, 37–38 (testimony of Rosidah Radzian, Embassy of 

Malaysia); industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 2, 2010; Sime 

Darby Plantation, “South East Asia,” 2008; industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Kuala 

Lumpur, Malaysia, March 12, 2010. 62 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 12, 2010. 63 USITC, hearing transcript, February 3, 2010, 13, 34–35 (testimony of Rosidah Radzian, Embassy of 

Malaysia); Malaysian Palm Oil Council, “Oil Palm: Tree of Life,” 2006, 10; industry representatives, 

interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 12, 2010; BACP, “Market Transformation 

Strategy for Palm Oil,” May 1, 2008, 13. The cross-border investment figures in the table above do not reflect 

Indonesian domestic investment on palm oil projects, which would be expected to be much greater in 

monetary terms than its investment throughout ASEAN. 

Investment facilitation in certain ASEAN countries’ palm oil industries can occur at a very local level, as 

evidenced by 2009 requests made to the Small & Medium Enterprises Development Cluster of the East 

ASEAN Growth Area (EAGA), a subregional economic cooperation initiative, by a Philippines economic 

development council. Brunei Indonesia Malaysia Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA), 

“Report of the 9th Small & Medium Enterprises Development (SMED) Cluster Meeting,” 2009, 7. See 

BIMP-EAGA, http://www.bimpbc.org. 64 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, Indonesia, March 2, 2010; industry 

representative, interview by USITC staff, Singapore, March 5, 2010. 65 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, D.C., February 18, 2010. 66 One industry representative indicated that the Malaysian government recently opened a new sector for 

foreign investment but capped foreign ownership at 49 percent. Industry representative, interview by USITC 

staff, Singapore, March 5, 2010. 
8-16

Brunei Foreign investment stake may reach 100 percent, but the government may impose restrictions. 

Burma Foreign partner share in joint ventures must be at least 35 percent, but can reach 100 percent. The 

government reserves the absolute right to cultivate the land. 

Cambodia Foreign investment stake may reach 100 percent, except for land ownership. 

Indonesia Foreign partner stake must be no more than 95 percent. 

Laos Foreign partner share in joint ventures must be at least 30 percent, but can reach 100 percent. 

Malaysia Foreign investment in export enterprises may reach 100 percent. Acquisitions of land restricted. 

Philippines Foreign partner stake limited to 40 percent on public lands. Foreign investment in export enterprises 

may reach 100 percent. Nationality requirement may be suspended for certain ASEAN-related 

activities. Foreign ownership of land prohibited. 

Singapore Foreign partner stake must be no more than 49 percent. 

Thailand Foreign partner stake must be no more than 49 percent. 

Vietnam Must be in the form of a joint venture, with the foreign partner holding no more than a 49 percent 

stake. Foreign ownership of land prohibited. 

Sources: Jenny Corbett and So Umezaki, eds., “Deepening East Asian Economic Integration,” ERIA Research 

Project Report 2008, no. 1, chap. 5, table 6; USTR, “National Trade Estimate,” 2010, 185, 289; industry 

representative, interview by Commission staff, Singapore, March 5, 2010. 

Some ASEAN countries are considering economic policies that would effectively make 

their country less attractive to palm oil investment. For example, Vietnam is considering 

a price control measure that would affect the price of palm oil, which Vietnam imports in 

comparatively large quantities. Government-mandated pricing for palm oil would create 

disincentives for foreign companies seeking to enter Vietnam’s palm oil processing and 

related food products industries.67

Trade Facilitation, Logistics Services, and E-commerce 

E-commerce is an important commercial element in the palm oil trade, particularly in 

reference to the palm oil exchange in Malaysia. Bursa Malaysia Derivatives (BMD) is 

one component of Bursa Malaysia (previously known as the Kuala Lumpur Stock 

Exchange); it maintains most widely cited contract pricing information for palm oil and is 

a spot price source. Palm oil futures and options are also traded on the BMD. 68 In 

addition, the palm oil industry has expanded its exchange reach with palm oil futures 

recently beginning to be traded in Indonesia and the United States: this development is 

increasing the opportunities for more global traders to participate in the palm oil trade 

and facilitating palm oil consumption vis-à-vis other vegetable oils worldwide.69 

The Commission found little evidence that trade facilitation issues and logistics services 

strongly impacted ASEAN regional integration, export competitiveness, and inbound 

investment in the palm oil industry.70

 67 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, D.C., February 18, 2010; USITC, 

hearing transcript, February 3, 2010, 47 (testimony of Murray Hiebert, U.S. Chamber of Commerce). 68 According to some Malaysian industry representatives, all trading is done electronically. Industry 

representatives, interview by USITC staff, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 12, 2010. 69 The Star Online, “El Nino May Lift CPO Futures Prices,” March 10, 2010. 70 One industry representative in Thailand offered the observation that transportation of crude palm oil 

between the mills and the refineries, for which tanker trucks are used, is not an issue. Industry representative, 

interview by USITC staff, Bangkok, Thailand, March 17, 2010. Trade facilitation and logistics services are 

discussed in chap. 2 as they relate to the ASEAN economy as a whole. 
8-17

Bibliography 

Agreement on the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) Scheme for the ASEAN Free Trade 

Area, Consolidated Package of Tariff Reductions for 2008, http://www.aseansec.org/19802.htm. 

Agriprods.com. “Anglo Eastern Plantations PLC,” n.d. (accessed April 1, 2010). 

American Palm Oil Council (APOC). “Palm Oil: Gift to Nature, Gift to Life,” n.d. 

http://www.americanpalmoil.com/publications/Brief%20Palm%20Oil%20Story.pdf. 

Basiron, Yusof. “Palm Oil Production through Sustainable Plantations.” European Journal of Lipid 

Science and Technology 109 (2007). 

http://www.americanpalmoil.com/pdf/enviromental/Palm%20Oil%20Production%20Through%2

0Sustainable%20Plantations.pdf. 

BBC News. “Orangutan Survival and the Shopping Trolley.” February 22, 2010. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8523000/8523999.stm. 

Biodiversity and Agricultural Commodities Program (BACP). “Market Transformation Strategy for Palm 

Oil.” May 1, 2008. 

http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/ref_Biodiversity_BACP_MTSPalmOil/$FILE/BACP_MTS_Palm_SC_Approved_FINAL+new+format.pdf. 

Bromokusumo, Aji K. Indonesia: Oilseeds and Products; Annual. GAIN Report no. ID9013. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, May 5, 2009. 

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Commodity%20Report_OILSEEDS%

20AND%20PRODUCTS%20ANNUAL_Jakarta_Indonesia_5-5-2009.pdf. 

Bromokusumo, Aji K., and Jonn Slette. Indonesia: Oilseeds and Products; Annual. GAIN Report, no. 

ID1008. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, March 18, 2010. 

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Oilseeds%20and%20Products%20An

nual_Jakarta_Indonesia_3-18-2010.pdf. 

Brunei Darussalam Indonesia Malaysia Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA). “Report 

of the 9th Small & Medium Enterprises Development (SMED) Cluster Meeting,” 2009. 

http://www.bimpbc.org/files/9th%20SMED%20Report.pdf. 

Bureau van Djik. Zephyr database (accessed January 9, 2010). 

Chan, Yvonne. “World Bank Arm Halts Financing to Palm Oil Industry.” BusinessGreen.com, 

September 10, 2009. http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2249248/world-bankarm-halts-financing. 

Corbett, Jenny, and So Umezaki, eds. “Deepening East Asian Economic Integration.” ERIA Research 

Project Report 2008, no. 1. http://www.eria.org/research/y2008-no1.html. 

Creagh, Sunanda. “Cargill Considers Dropping Sinar Mas over Land Clearing Claims.” Reuters, 

March 25, 2010. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSJAK50197620100325. 

fDi Markets database. http://www.fdimarkets.com/ (accessed January 9, 2010). 
8-18

Hickman, Martin. “Online Protest Drives Nestlé to Environmentally Friendly Palm Oil.” The Independent, 

May 19, 2010. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/online-protest-drivesnestl-to-environmentally-friendly-palm-oil-1976443.html. 

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. “Malaysia Sees Possible WTO Case against 

EU Palm Oil Limits.” Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest 14, no. 8 (May 19, 2010). 

http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/76269/. 

IOI Group. “Agronomy Support,” 2009. http://www.ioigroup.com/business/busi_agritech.cfm. 

Law, Bill. “Can Palm Oil Help Indonesia’s Poor?” BBC News, March 1, 2010. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8534031.stm. 

M.R., Chandran. “Commodity Sector Overview.” The Planter 86, no. 1008 (March 2010). 

Malaysian Palm Oil Council. “Oil Palm: Tree of Life,” 2006. 

http://www.americanpalmoil.com/publications/TreeOfLife.pdf. 

Malaysian Palm Oil Promotion Council. “Business with Palm Oil,” n.d. 

http://www.americanpalmoil.com/pdf/enviromental/business%20with%20palm%20oil.pdf

(accessed February 11, 2010). 

Mongabay.com. “BBC Documentary Leads Unilever to Blacklist Indonesian Palm Oil Company,” 

February 24, 2010. http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0224-palmoil.html. 

Oil Crop in Myanmar Project. “Oil Crops in Myanmar,” March 17, 2010. http://ocdpmas.org/OilCropsInMyanmar.php. 

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Roadmap for Integration of Agro-based Products, 

November 29, 2004. http://www.aseansec.org/16656.htm (accessed various dates). 

Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). “RSPO Certified Mills & CSPO Production,” 2009. 

http://rspo.org/?q=node/520. 

Royal Malaysia Customs Department. HS-Explorer. http://tariff.customs.gov.my (accessed April 2010). 

RSPO. “Who Is RSPO?” 2009. http://rspo.org/?q=page/9. 

Sally, Razeen. “Regional Economic Integration in Asia: The Track Record and Prospects.” ECIPE 

Occasional Paper no. 2 (2010). http://www.ecipe.org/regional-economic-integration-in-asia-thetrack-record-and-prospects/PDF. 

Sime Darby Plantation. “Overview,” 2008. http://www.simedarbyplantation.com/Overview.aspx. 

———. “South East Asia,” 2008. http://www.simedarbyplantation.com/South_East_Asia.aspx. 

Southern Group. “Manufacturing: Palm Oil Mill,” n.d. http://www.southern.com.my/palm-oil-mill.htm. 

Than, Tin Maung Maung. “Mapping the Contours of Human Security Challenges in Myanmar.” In 

Myanmar: State, Society and Ethnicity, edited by N. Ganesan and Kyaw Yin Hlaing (Singapore: 

Institute of Southeast Asian Studies), 2007. 
8-19

The Star Online. “El Nino May Lift CPO Futures Prices,” March 10, 2010. 

http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/3/10/business/5826696&sec=business. 

Thoenes, P. “Biofuels and Commodity Markets–Palm Oil Focus,” Food and Agriculture Organization of 

the United Nations, 2006. http://www.rlc.fao.org/es/prioridades/bioenergia/pdf/commodity.pdf. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS). Production, 

Supply and Distribution database (accessed May 4, 2010). 

United States Trade Representative (USTR). “2010 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade 

Barriers,” 2010. 

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Hearing transcript in connection with inv. no. 332-511, 

ASEAN: Regional Trends in Economic Integration, Export Competitiveness, and Inbound 

Investment for Selected Industries, February 3, 2010. 

Valentine, Scott Victor. “Reframing Global Warming: Toward a Strategic National Planning 

Framework,” n.d., 21. 

WITS. Integrated Data Warehouse (accessed various dates). 

World Bank. “Indonesia Economic Quarterly: Building Momentum,” March 2010. 

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTINDONESIA/Resources/Publication/280016-

1264668827141/6742485-1270634116634/Full.Report.en.pdf. 

APPENDIX A 

USTR Request Letter 

A-3
A-4
APPENDIX B 

Federal Register Notice 

E 

B-3

 Federal Register /Vol. 74, No. 233 /Monday, December 7, 2009 /Notices 64099 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 332–511] 

ASEAN: Regional Trends in 

Economic Integration, Export 

Competitiveness, 

and Inbound Investment for 

Selected Industries 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of investigation 

and scheduling of hearing. 

SUMMARY: Following receipt on 

November 9, 2009, of a request from 

the United States Trade 

Representative (USTR) under section 

332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

U.S.C. 1332(g)), the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

(Commission) instituted 

investigation No. 332–511, ASEAN: 

Regional Trends in Economic 

Integration, Export Competitiveness, 

and Inbound Investment for Selected 

Industries. 

DATES: 

December 30, 2009: Deadline for 

filing requests to appear at the public 

hearing. January 5, 2010: Deadline 

for filing pre-hearing briefs and 

statements. February 3, 2010: Public 

hearing. February 10, 2010: Deadline 

for filing post-hearing briefs and 

statements. March 10, 2010: Deadline 

for filing all other written 

submissions. August 2, 2010: 

Transmittal of Commission report to 

the USTR. 

ADDRESSES: All Commission 

offices, including the Commission’s 

hearing rooms, are located in the 

United States International Trade 

Commission Building, 500 E Street, 

SW., Washington, DC. All written 

submissions should be addressed to 

the Secretary, United States 

International Trade Commission, 500 

E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. The public record for this 

investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://www.usitc.gov/ 

secretary/edis.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 

CONTACT: 

Project leader John Fry (202–708–

4157 or john.fry@usitc.gov) or 

deputy project leader Vincent 

Honnold (202–205–3314 

or vincent.honnold@usitc.gov) 

for information specific to this 

investigation. For information on 

the legal aspects of this 

investigation, contact William 

Gearhart of the Commission’s 

Office of the General Counsel 

(202–205–3091 or 

william.gearhart@usitc.gov). 

The media should contact 

Margaret O’Laughlin, 

Office of External Relations 

(202–205–1819 or 

margaret.olaughlin@usitc.gov). 

Hearing-impaired individuals 

may obtain information on this 

matter by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD 

terminal at 202–205–1810. 

General information concerning 

the Commission may also be 

obtained by accessing its 

Internet server 

http://www.usitc.gov). 

Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need 

special assistance in gaining 

access to the Commission should 

contact the Office of the 

Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

Background: As requested by 

the USTR, the Commission will 

conduct an investigation and 

prepare a report that provides a 

brief overview of regional 

trends in economic integration, 

export competitiveness, and 

inbound investment in six 

industry sectors in Southeast 

Asia. The sectors are electronics, 

automotives, agro-based 

products, healthcare, textiles and 

apparel, and wood-based 

products. In addition, the 

Commission will identify 

ASEAN industries within these 

sectors that have experienced 

significant changes in regional 

economic integration, export 

competitiveness, and inbound 

investment in recent years and 

provide profiles of these 

industries in its report. To the 

extent possible, the report 

will include illustrative country 

information and be based on the 

most recent five year period for 

which data are available. As 

requested, each industry profile, 

to the extent possible, will include the 

following information: 1. A 

description of the selected 

industry(ies) within ASEAN, 

including the industry’s position 

relative to global competitors, as it 

relates to export competitiveness and 

inbound investment flows; 

2. Identification of the leading 

ASEAN exporting countries and their 

key markets; 

3. Identification of the leading 

ASEAN country recipients of 

inbound investment and source 

countries of that investment; 

4. Identification of pairs or groups of 

countries within ASEAN that have 

experienced significant integration 

related to industry production and/or 

marketing; and 

5. An analysis of leading competitive 

factors that have contributed to 

changes in industry regional 

integration, export competitiveness, 

and inbound investment, with a focus 

on how regional improvements in 

trade facilitation, logistics services, 

and ecommerce have contributed to 

these changes. 

The USTR requested that the 

Commission deliver its report no later 

than August 2, 2010. 

Public Hearing: A public hearing in 

connection with this investigation will 

be held at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building, 500 E Street, 

SW., Washington, DC, beginning at 

9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, February 3, 

2010. Requests to appear at the public 

hearing should be filed with the 

Secretary no later than 5:15 p.m., 

December 30, 2009, in accordance 

with the requirements in the 

‘‘Submissions’’ section below. All 

pre-hearing briefs and statements 

should be filed no later than 5:15 

p.m., January 5, 2010; and all posthearing briefs and statements 

responding to matters raised at the 

hearing should be filed no later than 

5:15 p.m., February 10, 2010. In the 

event that, as of the close of business 

on December 30, 2009, no witnesses 

are scheduled to appear at the 

hearing, the hearing will be canceled. 

Any person interested in attending the 

hearing as an observer or 

nonparticipant may call the Office of 

the Secretary (202–205–2000) after 
ES64100 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / Notices

B-4

December 30, 2009, for information 

concerning whether the hearing will 

be held. Written Submissions: In lieu 

of or in addition to participating in the 

hearing, interested parties are invited 

to file written submissions concerning 

this investigation. All written 

submissions should be addressed to 

the Secretary, and all such 

submissions (other than pre- and posthearing briefs and statements) should 

be received no later than 5:15 p.m., 

March 10, 2010. All written 

submissions must conform with 

the provisions of section 201.8 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 201.8). Section 

201.8 requires that a signed original 

(or a copy so designated) and fourteen 

(14) copies of each document be 

filed. In the event that confidential 

treatment of a document is requested, 

at least four (4) additional copies 

must be filed, in which the 

confidential information must be 

deleted (see the following paragraph 

for further information regarding 

confidential business information). 

The Commission’s rules authorize 

filing submissions with the Secretary 

by facsimile or electronic means only 

to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the rules (see 

Handbook for Electronic Filing 

Procedures, http:// 

www.usitc.gov/secretary/ 

fedregnotices/rules/documents/han

dbookonelectronicfiling.pdf). 

Persons with questions regarding 

electronic filing should contact the 

Office of the Secretary (202–205–

2000). Any submissions that contain 

confidential business information 

must also conform with the 

requirements of section 201.6 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 201.6). Section 

201.6 of the rules requires that the 

cover of the document and the 

individual pages be clearly marked as 

to whether they are the 

‘‘confidential’’ or ‘‘nonconfidential’’ 

version, and that the confidential 

business information be clearly

identified by means of brackets. 

All written submissions, except 

for confidential business 

information, will be made 

available for inspection by 

interested parties. In its request 

letter, the USTR stated that it 

intends to make the 

Commission’s report available to 

the public in its entirety, and 

asked that the Commission not 

include any confidential business 

information in the report it sends 

to the USTR. Any confidential 

business information received by 

the Commission in this 

investigation and used in 

preparing this report will not be 

published in a manner 

that would reveal the operations 

of the firm supplying the 

information. 

Issued: December 1, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–29025 Filed 12–4–09; 

8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P
APPENDIX C 

Calendar of Hearing Participants 

C-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade 

Commission=s hearing: 

Subject: ASEAN: Regional Trends in Economic Integration, Export 

Competitiveness, and Inbound Investment for Selected 

Industries 

Inv. No.: 332-511 

Date and Time: February 3, 2010, 9:30 a.m. 

Sessions were held in connection with this investigation in the Main Hearing Room (room 

101), 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 

EMBASSY WITNESSES: 

Embassy of Malaysia 

Washington, D.C. 

Rosidah Radzian, Science Attache, Embassy of Malaysia, and Regional Manager— 

Americas, Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) 

ORGANIZATION AND WITNESS:

American Palm Oil Council (APOC) 

Washington, D.C. 

Mohd Salleh Kassim, Executive Director 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

Washington, D.C. 

Murray Hiebert, Senior Director, Asia 

-END-

APPENDIX D 

Positions of Interested Parties 

D-3

Summary of Positions of Interested Parties1

Thomas G. Aquino, Philippine Senior Undersecretary of 

Trade and Industry2

Mr. Aquino stated that, in an attempt to fast-track the realization of the ASEAN 

Economic Community by 2015, ASEAN selected 12 economic sectors to undergo 

accelerated integration under the Priority Integration Program. He explained that ASEAN 

countries were designated to lead the sectoral integration efforts; the Philippines was 

designated the country coordinator for the electronics sector. Mr. Aquino noted that 

ASEAN developed sectoral protocols and roadmaps to help the 12 sectors rapidly 

integrate. He indicated that ASEAN has made progress in integration in a number of 

areas, including (1) the development and implementation of sectoral mutual recognition 

arrangements (MRAs) for certain goods and services, (2) bilateral agreements on visa 

exemption, (3) cooperative efforts to combat illegal trade in forest products, and (4) tariff 

liberalization.

Mr. Aquino stated that the Philippines has an important role to play in ASEAN’s regional 

economic integration by virtue of the fact that it is the country coordinator for the 

electronics sector. He noted that the electronics sector is a vital component of the 

ASEAN economy, accounting for a large portion of the region’s exports, and reported 

that Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines were the region’s top four of 

exporters of electronic goods in 2008; Indonesia and Vietnam were also exporters of 

electronic goods. Mr. Aquino noted a recent study which indicated that the most 

significant challenge to the integration of ASEAN’s electronics sector was for each of the 

10 member countries to attain the capacity to meet international standards of 

competitiveness. Another challenge to the integration of the region’s electronics sector 

was the state of the global economy, which had turned downward in the recent past but 

now appeared to be on the road to recovery, with a consequent upturn in demand for 

electronics products.

Mr. Aquino stated that the Philippines government and the semiconductor and electronics 

industries in the Philippines have taken steps to integrate with ASEAN’s electronics 

sector. These steps included (1) enlisting the cooperation of ASEAN electronics 

producers in regional integration efforts through the ASEAN Electronics Forum, (2) 

working with other ASEAN members to harmonize standards for safety and 

electromagnetic capability, (3) working with other ASEAN members on MRAs and 

harmonization of regulatory regimes, and (4) hosting an ASEAN Electronics Business 

Opportunities Exhibition and Conference. Mr. Aquino noted that these regional 

integration efforts and others demonstrated ASEAN’s commitment to remaining an 

important player in the global electronics industry, promoted intra-ASEAN trade and 

investments, and improved the electronics sector’s capabilities and quality. 

 1 This appendix reflects only the principal points made by the particular party. The views summarized are 

those of the submitting parties and not the Commission. Commission staff did not undertake to confirm the 

accuracy of, or otherwise correct, the information described. For the full text of hearing testimony and written 

submissions, see entries associated with investigation no. 332-511 at the Commission’s Electronic Docket 

Information System (https://edis.usitc.gov/edis3-internal/app). 2 Thomas G. Aquino, Philippine Senior Undersecretary of Trade and Industry on behalf of the Republic 

of the Philippines, written submission to the USITC, March 3, 2010.
D-4

Mr. Aquino noted that the Philippines government has cooperated in various regional 

integration efforts for other economic sectors, including wood-based products, healthcare, 

and automotives. Finally, he stated that the semiconductor and electronics industries in 

the Philippines has expressed an interest in hosting a meeting of chief executives of five 

leading U.S. electronics firms and five leading ASEAN electronics firms to identify 

issues and initiatives that could lead to increased regional integration of the ASEAN 

electronics sector. Regular follow-up meetings of these chief executives could ensure a 

continuing strategic partnership of U.S. and ASEAN electronics firms. 

 

American Palm Oil Council3

The American Palm Oil Council (APOC), a trade association funded by a portion of the 

assessments on Malaysian palm oil production, states that its mission is the promotion of 

palm oil in food and nonfood applications in the United States. In his hearing testimony, 

Mohd Salleh Kassim, APOC executive director, noted that palm oil contains no trans fats 

and that its use in U.S. processed food products as part of a vegetable oil blend has 

increased in recent years because of U.S. labeling and other requirements intended to 

diminish the presence of trans fats in the U.S. diet.

He presented various exhibits showing the increase in U.S. palm oil imports and in palm 

oil’s share of global vegetable oils production and consumption markets. He listed palm 

oil importing and exporting countries and commented that the world could face a 

shortage in oils and fats.

Mr. Kassim described the sustainability activities that the Malaysian palm oil industry 

has undertaken, including subscribing to the standards and certification system under the 

Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), comprising eight principles, 39 criteria 

underlying the principles, and 120 auditable points. He noted that six Malaysian 

producers, as well as other ASEAN and non-ASEAN producers, have become RSPO 

certified, and provided estimates on the amount of palm oil expected to be RSPO 

certified in 2010.

Mr. Kassim provided information about the comparatively high productivity of oil palm 

compared to other oilseed crops. He also recounted the growing interest in oil palm 

cultivation on the part of developing countries in the tropics, many of which have poverty 

alleviation and food security concerns, because of the oil palm’s long and productive 

lifespan, high oil yield, and cost-effectiveness. 

Malaysian Palm Oil Board4

The Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) is the primary government agency for the 

promotion and development of national policies and priorities for the Malaysian palm oil 

industry and is funded by assessments on Malaysian palm oil production. In her hearing 

testimony, Rosidah Radzian, the science attaché at the Embassy of Malaysia in 

Washington, DC, and MPOB regional manager for the Americas, stated that she would 

 3 USITC, hearing transcript, February 3, 2010, 13–20 (testimony of Mohd Salleh Kassim, APOC); APOC 

Web site, http://www.americanpalmoil.com/ (accessed March 29, 2010). 4 USITC, hearing transcript, February 3, 2010, 4–13 (testimony of Rosidah Radzian, MPOB); MPOB 

Web site, http://www.mpob.gov.my/html/about/pdf/cb_complete.pdf (accessed March 29, 2010).
D-5

speak about the importance of the trade relationship between Malaysia and the United 

States in palm oil and highlighted the Malaysian government’s goal of raising the 

standard of living and upgrading the infrastructure in rural Malaysia through agricultural 

economic development. She noted that the Malaysian oil palm industry is one of the 

country’s biggest foreign export earners, contributing $18 billion in 2008, compared to 

$4.5 billion in 2000. She stated that four decades of research and development has given 

Malaysia a competitive advantage in the palm oil trade and made Malaysia the number 

one palm oil exporter in the world. Although acknowledging that the Malaysian 

government has played a key role in the palm oil industry, she credited agencies such as 

the MPOB, the Malaysian Palm Oil Council, the Malaysian Palm Oil Association, and 

other stakeholders with the success of palm oil in Malaysia.

In explaining why Malaysia should be the primary U.S. trading partner for palm oil, Ms. 

Radzian noted, among other things, Malaysia’s emphasis on food quality and safety 

standards and on environmental considerations without any form of subsidy from the 

government. She also stressed Malaysia’s activities as chair of the Codex Alimentarius 

Commission’s Committee on Oil and Fats beginning in 2008 and as a member of the 

International Maritime Organization regarding international shipping of bottled liquids 

and commodities.

Ms. Radzian explained that Malaysian palm oil farmers and their families are provided 

with free housing, medical care, and schooling, helping to reduce Malaysian poverty. She 

described the environmental efforts that the Malaysian palm oil industry has undertaken, 

including carbon footprint life cycle analysis and peatland management.

She stated that oil palm farming in Malaysia represents about 67 percent of the 

agricultural area in Malaysia and that conservation and forest protection policies prevent 

additional farm land from being cultivated. She cited a genome project between the 

MPOB and a U.S. company to facilitate the production of palm oil varieties with a higher 

yield.

National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and U.S. Dairy 

Export Council (USDEC)5

National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) is the national farm commodity 

organization that represents U.S. dairy farmers and the dairy cooperative marketing 

organizations they own and operate throughout the United States. U.S. Dairy Export 

Council (USDEC) is a nonprofit, independent membership organization that represents 

the export interests of U.S. milk producers, dairy cooperatives, proprietary processors, 

and export traders. USDEC’s mission is to increase the volume and value of U.S. dairy 

exports. 

NMPF and USDEC stated in their joint submission that a bilateral free trade agreement 

between the United States and ASEAN would provide significant new export 

opportunities in important Asian markets. They noted that U.S. dairy industry is eager to 

increase sales in the region, particularly considering the fact that an FTA was concluded 

in 2008 between major dairy exporters Australia and New Zealand and ASEAN member 

countries. NMPF and USDEC explained that under the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand 

 5 NMPF and USDEC, written submission to the USITC, March 10, 2010.
D-6

FTA (AANZFTA), Australian and New Zealand dairy exporters are receiving 

preferential access to the ASEAN market through lower tariffs. They expressed a belief 

that as the AANZFTA becomes fully implemented and tariffs decline, the 

competitiveness of U.S. dairy companies in ASEAN markets will erode. In particular, 

they asserted the United States will face unfavorable dairy tariff differentials against 

Australia and New Zealand in the Philippines (the sixth largest export destination for 

U.S. dairy products in 2009) and Indonesia (the seventh largest destination). 

NMPF and USDEC went on to say that these circumstances will create a difficult 

competitive situation for U.S. exports to ASEAN, a region of 580 million people, a 

growing middle class, and a combined GDP of $1.5 trillion. They pointed out that by 

2020, the AANZFTA will provide duty-free treatment for dairy products shipped from 

Australia and New Zealand to the Philippines and Vietnam; in addition, all ASEAN 

member countries are to grant Australia and New Zealand deep cuts in tariffs on dairy 

products over the next decade. NMPF and USDEC added that other dairy competitors are 

also moving into the ASEAN market; the European Union, for example, has recently 

launched free trade negotiations with ASEAN.

NMPF and USDEC said they believe that the only way to remedy the competitive 

disadvantage facing U.S. dairy exporters is through a U.S.-ASEAN FTA, particularly if 

such an agreement eliminates tariff discrimination against U.S. dairy products. In 

addition, an FTA with ASEAN would help grow a high-value market area, and additional 

U.S. exports to the region would bolster milk prices for America’s dairy farms and 

support additional jobs in the dairy processing and transportation sectors. 

US-ASEAN Business Council6

The US-ASEAN Business Council is a trade association of over 100 American 

companies which has worked on behalf of American firms doing business in the ASEAN 

region for over 25 years. The council stated that it has supported ASEAN’s regional 

economic integration efforts for many years. The council noted that in certain aspects 

ASEAN is more important economically for the United States than China or India, and 

that greater economic integration for ASEAN will lead to increased American investment 

in the area and greater export opportunities for American businesses.

The council stated that currently ASEAN is a long way from achieving the level of 

regional economic integration that has occurred in the European Union; progress in 

regional economic integration has been slow. The council noted that despite reductions in 

tariffs among ASEAN countries, it is sometimes easier and cheaper to move goods 

between Singapore and Los Angeles than between Malaysia and Vietnam. Rules and 

regulations to facilitate greater foreign investment in the region have also been slow to 

materialize, according to the council. The council stated that the single biggest obstacle to

ASEAN’s regional economic integration is that its institutions are not developed enough 

to carry out the cross-border linking projects and structural policy reforms needed to 

create an economic community.

The council indicated that ASEAN was originally formed in 1967 in response to political 

and security concerns. As time passed, ASEAN member countries began to realize that 

 6 US-ASEAN Business Council, written submission to the USITC, February 4, 2010.
D-7

regional economic integration would help them to attract foreign investment and develop 

economically. The council noted, however, that this increased economic cooperation was 

not accompanied by the structural and institutional reforms necessary to bring about real 

regional economic integration. It was reported that one factor that had a positive impact 

on ASEAN’s regional economic integration efforts was the Asian financial crisis in 1997, 

which prompted stronger efforts by ASEAN countries to coordinate economic policies. 

The council stated that the recent global recession has led to greater recognition by 

ASEAN countries that regional economic integration is critical to succeeding in the 

global economy, to competing successfully with India and China, and creating ASEAN 

multinational companies.

The council noted that, although ASEAN’s regional economic integration presents 

opportunities for U.S. companies, it also presents challenges for them. These challenges 

include lost opportunities for U.S. firms to export to ASEAN nations as a result of 

preferential trade agreements between ASEAN and other countries such as China, as well 

as greater competition from ASEAN firms as they grow and become regional and global 

businesses. 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce7

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) is the world’s largest business federation, 

representing more than three million businesses and organizations in every major 

classification of U.S. business—manufacturing, retailing, services, construction, 

wholesaling, and finance. In addition, the Chamber has a substantial international reach, 

with 112 American Chambers of Commerce abroad and an increasing number of 

members engaged in importing and exporting goods and services. The Chamber favors 

strengthened international competitiveness and opposes artificial U.S. and foreign 

barriers to international business.

With 582 million consumers, ASEAN is the third largest market in Asia after China and 

India. The Chamber’s submission states that not only would increased regional economic 

integration benefit U.S. companies, but it would also boost growth, increase trade, and 

create jobs in Southeast Asia. According to the Chamber, integration would stimulate 

new consumer demand that U.S. firms would seek to meet, as well as provide new 

investment opportunities for U.S. companies and increase ties between ASEAN member 

countries and the United States.

The Chamber stated that through the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (AFTA), the 10

member countries are moving toward an integrated regional market, principally by 

eliminating tariffs on industrial and agricultural products. It asserted that fully 

implementing AFTA is critical to the entry and long-term growth of business in the 

region and providing U.S. businesses with the scale of production that will offer them 

competitive cost efficiencies without having to establish a manufacturing presence in 

each market.

The Chamber’s submission states that its member companies tell them that regional 

integration is still at an early stage, and more work is required to remove barriers to trade 

in goods and the free flow of capital and labor. Specifically, ASEAN needs to address 

 7 Unless otherwise specified, the source for this position of interested party is U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce, written submission to the USITC, March 10, 2010.
D-8

cumbersome rules of origin, customs procedures need to be simplified, and nontariff 

barriers need to be eliminated. The Chamber asserted that Southeast Asia risks being left 

behind unless it speeds up economic integration, and ASEAN’s self-imposed deadline of 

five more years does not leave much time to solve the necessary technical and political 

challenges.

The Chamber expressed its opinion that investment in the ASEAN region is held back by 

differences between countries in regulations and business environments, as well as 

political and business culture. The 2009 ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement 

(ACIA) consolidated earlier ASEAN investment agreements, but the AICA only covers a 

limited number of sectors and does not include logistics services. According to the 

submission, U.S. companies canvassed by the Chamber urge ASEAN to undertake efforts 

to enhance the transparency of investment legislation, and address restrictions from 

overlapping and contradictory legislation, regulations, and licensing criteria, which 

effectively negate the benefits of the liberalization measures.

The U.S. business community, as represented by the Chamber, supports efforts to 

implement the ASEAN Single Window (ASW) because it believes the ASW will reduce 

the cost and complexities of doing business in the region. The Chamber added that for 

ASW to be effective, some ASEAN countries will need to make improvements in their 

legal and administrative infrastructure, such as implementing clear and transparent import 

and export procedures, increasing cooperation among government bodies, and providing 

facilities for e-commerce. The ASW has made only slow progress in recent years at both 

the national and ASEAN levels: at the regional level, it is unclear to U.S. companies what 

ASW is supposed to do and whether it is merely a collection of individual country 

national single windows (NSWs) or intended to move toward an integrated ASW that 

will give traders from outside ASEAN a portal to access ASEAN NSWs. The Chamber 

would like more regular updates from ASEAN member countries on the development of 

NSWs and regular discussions between U.S. companies in the region and the ASW 

Steering Committee. 

The Chamber’s submission reported that its member companies believe that the focus of 

ASEAN should shift to the progressive elimination of nontariff barriers (NTBs) now that 

ASEAN tariff elimination has largely taken place. According to the Chamber, the 

elimination of NTBs by ASEAN should be considered as important as eliminating tariffs. 

One of the top concerns of U.S. companies doing business in ASEAN is the lack of 

transparency in government regulation and rules; in particular, unique technical standards 

and differing technical regulations and processes increase investment costs, both at the 

national and regional levels.

The Chamber noted that ASEAN Coordinating Committee on Standards and Quality 

(ACCSQ) is working to address different standards between ASEAN member countries, 

but the Chamber is requesting more dialogue between government entities and private 

sector interests to identify key areas of focus for standards and identify mechanisms for 

improving the regional standards regime. Two other Chamber recommendations to 

ASEAN members include developing national Websites for publishing regulations and 

standards and partnering with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for 

technology transfers.

Finally, the Chamber’s submission and hearing testimony provided specific comments 

from their members in the electronics, logistics services, automotives, agro-based 

products, and healthcare sectors. In the area of electronics, member companies are 
D-9

seeking a harmonized ASEAN tariff nomenclature; a comprehensive, harmonized 

information technology-based platform in areas such as customs and licensing procedures 

that would increase efficiency and transparency in dealing with ASEAN governments; 

and an ASEAN single window that would help electronics firms increase supply chain 

efficiencies.8 In the automobile sector, members of the Chamber are concerned about 

domestic content laws, such as those that exist in Malaysia, which protect locally made 

products.9

 

 8 USITC hearing transcript, February 3, 2010, 26.

9 Ibid., 27.

APPENDIX E 

Country Profiles 

E-3

 BRUNEI DARUSSALAM

ECONOMIC PROFILE

Sources of GDP (2008)

Services

25.3%

Industry

74.0%

Agriculture

0.7%

Economic Indicators

2004 2008

Population (million) 0.4 0.4

Nominal GDP (billion US$) 7.9 14.3

Real GDP growth (%) 0.5 ─1.9

Goods exports (million US$) 5,067 10,449

Goods imports (million US$) 1,428 2,550

Trade balance (million US$) 3,639 7,899

GDP per capita (US$ at PPP) n/a n/a

Inward FDI stock (million US$) 9,139 10,361

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: Brunei 

Darussalam, June 2009 and March 2010; U.S. Central 

Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook: Brunei 

Darussalam, March 2010; United Nations Conference on 

Trade and Development, FDISTAT Interactive Database.

PPP = purchasing power parity.

Principal imports: machinery and transport 

equipment, manufactured goods, food, and 

chemicals.

Principal exports: crude oil, natural gas, and 

garments.

Source: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, The World 

Factbook: Brunei Darussalam, March 2010.

Main trade partners, percent of total, 2008

Export markets Suppliers

Japan 43.2 ASEAN countries 47.0

ASEAN 

countries

22.7 United States 13.7

South Korea 14.8 Japan 8.5

Australia 10.4 China 6.9

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: 

Brunei Darussalam, March 2010.

Brunei Darussalam’s trade agreements include:

• ASEAN-China, preferential trade agreement 

covering goods (eff. July 2003);

• ASEAN-China, economic integration agreement 

covering services (eff. July 2007);

• ASEAN-Japan, free trade agreement covering 

goods (eff. Dec. 2008);

• ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), free trade 

agreement covering goods (eff. Jan. 1992); 

• Brunei Darussalam-Japan, free trade agreement 

and economic integration agreement covering 

goods and services (eff. July 2008); and

• Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership, 

free trade agreement and economic integration 

agreement covering goods and services (eff. 

May 2006).

Source: World Trade Organization, Regional Trade 

Agreements, Brunei Darussalam, http://rtais.wto.org

(accessed March 17, 2010). Eff. = effective.
E-4

 BURMA

ECONOMIC PROFILE

Sources of GDP (2009)

Services

37.3%

Industry

19.8%

Agriculture

42.9%

Economic Indicators

2004 2008

Population (million) 48.0 49.6

Nominal GDP (billion US$) 10.0 22.6

Real GDP growth (%) 13.6 0.9

Goods exports (million US$) 2,927 6,348

Goods imports (million US$) 1,999 3,427

Trade balance (million US$) 928 2,921

GDP per capita (US$ at PPP) 491 435

Inward FDI stock (million US$) 4,791 5,546

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: Burma,

June 2009; United Nations Conference on Trade and 

Development, FDISTAT Interactive Database. PPP = 

purchasing power parity.

Principal imports: fabric, petroleum products, 

fertilizer, plastics, machinery, transport equipment, 

cement, construction materials, crude oil, food 

products, and edible oil.

Principal exports: natural gas, wood products, 

pulses, beans, fish, rice, clothing, and jade and gems.

Source: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, The World 

Factbook: Burma, March 2010.

Main trade partners, percent of total, 2007

Export markets Suppliers

Thailand 44.7 China 35.9

India 14.1 Thailand 20.7

China 6.9 Singapore 16.8

Japan 5.6 Malaysia 4.4

Malaysia 2.6 India 3.5

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: 

Burma, June 2009.

Burma’s trade agreements include:

• ASEAN-China, preferential trade agreement 

covering goods (eff. July 2003);

• ASEAN-China, economic integration agreement 

covering services (eff. July 2007);

• ASEAN-Japan, free trade agreement covering 

goods (eff. Dec. 2008); and

• ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), free trade 

agreement covering goods (eff. Jan. 1992). 

Source: World Trade Organization, Regional Trade 

Agreements, Burma, http://rtais.wto.org (accessed 

March 17, 2010). Eff. = effective.
E-5

 CAMBODIA

ECONOMIC PROFILE

Sources of GDP (2007)

Services

41.0%

Industry

30.0%

Agriculture

29.0%

Economic Indicators

2004 2008

Population (million) 13.7 14.6

Nominal GDP (billion US$) 5.3 10.6

Real GDP growth (%) 10.3 5.0

Goods exports (million US$) 2,589 4,312

Goods imports (million US$) 3,270 6,370

Trade balance (million US$) ─681 ─1,335

GDP per capita (US$ at PPP) 1,257 1,921

Inward FDI stock (million US$) 2,090 4,637

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: 

Cambodia, June 2009; United Nations Conference on Trade 

and Development, FDISTAT Interactive Database. PPP = 

purchasing power parity.

Principal imports: petroleum products, cigarettes, 

gold, construction materials, machinery, motor 

vehicles, and pharmaceutical products.

Principal exports: clothing, timber, rubber, rice, fish, 

tobacco, and footwear.

Source: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, The World 

Factbook: Cambodia, March 2010.

Main trade partners, percent of total, 2008

Export markets Suppliers

United States 53.7 Thailand 34.9

Israel 26.7 China 20.5

Germany 7.6 Vietnam 19.5

Canada 5.8 Hong Kong 11.2

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: 

Cambodia, June 2009.

Cambodia’s trade agreements include:

• ASEAN-China, preferential trade agreement 

covering goods (eff. July 2003);

• ASEAN-China, economic integration agreement 

covering services (eff. July 2007);

• ASEAN-Japan, free trade agreement covering 

goods (eff. Dec. 2008); and

• ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), free trade 

agreement covering goods (eff. Jan. 1992). 

Source: World Trade Organization, Regional Trade 

Agreements, Cambodia, http://rtais.wto.org (accessed 

March 17, 2010). Eff. = effective.
E-6

 INDONESIA

ECONOMIC PROFILE

Economic Indicators

2004 2008

Population (million) 226.0 237.5

Nominal GDP (billion US$) 256.8 510.8

Real GDP growth (%) 5.0 6.1

Goods exports (million US$) 70,766 139,290

Goods imports (million US$) 50,615 115,981

Trade balance (million US$) 20,151 23,309

GDP per capita (US$ at PPP) 2,850 3,824

Inward FDI stock (million US$) 15,858 67,044

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: 

Indonesia, June 2009; United Nations Conference on Trade 

and Development, FDISTAT Interactive Database. PPP = 

purchasing power parity.

Sources of GDP (2009)

Services

38.5%

Industry

47.1%

Agriculture

14.4%

Principal imports: machinery and equipment, 

chemicals, fuels and foodstuffs.

Principal exports: oil and gas, electrical appliances, 

plywood, textiles, and rubber.

Source: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, The World 

Factbook: Indonesia, March 2010.

Main trade partners, percent of total, 2008

Export markets Suppliers

Japan 21.6 Singapore 28.8

Singapore 11.7 China 13.7

United States 11.1 Japan 10.8

China 10.1 Malaysia 6.2

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report:

Indonesia, June 2009.

Indonesia’s trade agreements include:

• ASEAN-China, preferential trade agreement 

covering goods (eff. July 2003);

• ASEAN-China, economic integration agreement 

covering services (eff. July 2007);

• ASEAN-Japan, free trade agreement covering 

goods (eff. Dec. 2008);

• ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), free trade 

agreement covering goods (eff. Jan. 1992); and

• Japan-Indonesia, free trade agreement and 

economic integration agreement covering goods 

and services (eff. July 2008).

Source: World Trade Organization, Regional Trade 

Agreements, Indonesia, http://rtais.wto.org (accessed 

March 17, 2010). Eff. = effective.
E-7

 LAOS

ECONOMIC PROFILE

Sources of GDP (2009)

Services

26.9%

Industry

33.9%

Agriculture

39.2%

Economic Indicators

2004 2008

Population (million) 5.8 6.2

Nominal GDP (billion US$) 2.5 5.2

Real GDP growth (%) 6.9 7.5

Goods exports (million US$) 341 1,161

Goods imports (million US$) 614 1,387

Trade balance (million US$) ─273 ─226

GDP per capita (US$ at PPP) n/a n/a

Inward FDI stock (million US$) 641 1,408

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: Laos,

June 2009; United Nations Conference on Trade and 

Development, FDISTAT Interactive Database. PPP = 

purchasing power parity.

Principal imports: machinery and equipment, 

vehicles, fuel, and consumer goods.

Principal exports: wood products, coffee, electricity, 

tin, copper, and gold.

Source: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, The World 

Factbook: Laos, March 2010.

Main trade partners, percent of total, 2008

Export markets Suppliers

Thailand 49.0 Thailand 68.6

Vietnam 18.6 China 11.3

China 12.1 Vietnam 4.7

South Korea 6.3 South Korea 2.5

United Kingdom 3.3 Japan 2.5

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: 

Laos, June 2009.

Laos’ trade agreements include:

• ASEAN-China, preferential trade agreement 

covering goods (eff. July 2003);

• ASEAN-China, economic integration agreement 

covering services (eff. July 2007);

• ASEAN-Japan, free trade agreement covering 

goods (eff. Dec. 2008);

• ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), free trade 

agreement covering goods (eff. Jan. 1992); and

• Laos-Thailand, preferential trade agreement 

covering goods (eff. June 1991).

Source: Laos is not a member of the World Trade 

Organization but information about its trade agreements 

can be determined from the World Trade Organization, 

Regional Trade Agreements, Thailand, http://rtais.wto.org

(accessed March 17, 2010). Eff. = effective.
E-8

 MALAYSIA

ECONOMIC PROFILE

Sources of GDP (2009)

Services

47.6%

Industry

42.3%

Agriculture

10.1%

Economic Indicators

2004 2008

Population (million) 25.6 27.7

Nominal GDP (billion US$) 124.7 222.2

Real GDP growth (%) 6.8 4.6

Goods exports (million US$) 126,817 198,919

Goods imports (million US$) 99,244 154,708

Trade balance (million US$) 27,573 44,211

GDP per capita (US$ at PPP) 10,854 13,852

Inward FDI stock (million US$) 43,047 73,262

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: 

Malaysia, June 2009; United Nations Conference on Trade 

and Development, FDISTAT Interactive Database. PPP = 

purchasing power parity.

Principal imports: electronics, machinery, petroleum 

products, plastics, vehicles, iron and steel products,

and chemicals.

Principal exports: electronic equipment, petroleum 

and liquefied natural gas, wood and wood products, 

palm oil, rubber, textiles, and chemicals.

Source: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, The World 

Factbook: Malaysia, March 2010.

Main trade partners, percent of total, 2008

Export markets Suppliers

Singapore 14.7 China 12.8

United States 12.5 Japan 12.5

Japan 10.8 Singapore 11.0

China 9.5 United States 10.8

Thailand 4.8 Thailand 5.6

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: 

Malaysia, June 2009.

Malaysia’s trade agreements include:

• ASEAN-China, preferential trade agreement 

covering goods (eff. July 2003);

• ASEAN-China, economic integration agreement 

covering services (eff. July 2007);

• ASEAN-Japan, free trade agreement covering 

goods (eff. Dec. 2008);

• ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), free trade 

agreement covering goods (eff. Jan. 1992); 

• Japan-Malaysia, free trade agreement and 

economic integration agreement covering goods 

and services (eff. July 2006); and

• Pakistan-Malaysia, free trade agreement and 

economic integration agreement covering goods 

and services (eff. Jan. 2008).

Source: World Trade Organization, Regional Trade 

Agreements, Malaysia, http://rtais.wto.org (accessed 

March 17, 2010). Eff. = effective.
E-9

 PHILIPPINES

ECONOMIC PROFILE

Sources of GDP (2009)

Services

55.2%

Industry

29.9%

Agriculture

14.9%

Economic Indicators

2004 2008

Population (million) 86.2 92.7

Nominal GDP (billion US$) 86.9 168.6

Real GDP growth (%) 6.4 4.6

Goods exports (million US$) 38,794 48,202

Goods imports (million US$) 44,478 60,784

Trade balance (million US$) ─5,684 ─12,582

GDP per capita (US$ at PPP) 2,678 3,457

Inward FDI stock (million US$) 12,737 21,470

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: 

Philippines, June 2009; United Nations Conference on Trade 

and Development, FDISTAT Interactive Database. PPP = 

purchasing power parity.

Principal imports: electronic products, mineral fuels, 

machinery and transport equipment, iron and steel, 

textile fabrics, grains, chemicals, and plastic.

Principal exports: semiconductors and electronic 

products, transport equipment, garments, copper 

products, petroleum products, coconut oils, and fruits.

Source: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, The World 

Factbook: Philippines, March 2010.

Main trade partners, percent of total, 2008

Export markets Suppliers

China 34.0 Japan 18.3

United States 16.9 United States 15.2

Japan 16.4 China 14.8

Hong Kong 12.0 Singapore 13.8

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: 

Philippines, June 2009.

Philippines’ trade agreements include:

• ASEAN-China, preferential trade agreement 

covering goods (eff. July 2003);

• ASEAN-China, economic integration agreement 

covering services (eff. July 2007);

• ASEAN-Japan, free trade agreement covering 

goods (eff. Dec. 2008);

• ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), free trade 

agreement covering goods (eff. Jan. 1992); and 

• Japan-Philippines, free trade agreement and 

economic integration agreement covering goods 

and services (eff. Dec. 2008).

Source: World Trade Organization, Regional Trade 

Agreements, Philippines, http://rtais.wto.org (accessed 

March 17, 2010). Eff. = effective.
E-10

 SINGAPORE

ECONOMIC PROFILE

Sources of GDP (2009)

Services

73.2%

Industry

26.8%

Agriculture

0.0%

Economic Indicators

2004 2008

Population (million) 4.2 4.8

Nominal GDP (billion US$) 109.7 181.9

Real GDP growth (%) 9.3 1.1

Goods exports (million US$) 199,393 342,708

Goods imports (million US$) 168,330 309,564

Trade balance (million US$) 31,063 33,144

GDP per capita (US$ at PPP) 33,037 40,319

Inward FDI stock (million US$) 169,433 326,142

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: 

Singapore, June 2009; United Nations Conference on Trade 

and Development, FDISTAT Interactive Database. PPP = 

purchasing power parity.

Principal imports: machinery and equipment, 

mineral fuels, chemicals, foodstuffs, and consumer 

goods.

Principal exports: machinery and equipment 

(including electronics), consumer goods, 

pharmaceuticals and other chemicals, and mineral 

fuels.

Source: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, The World 

Factbook: Singapore, March 2010.

Main trade partners, percent of total, 2009

Export markets Suppliers

Hong Kong 11.6 United States 14.7

Malaysia 11.5 Malaysia 11.6

United States 11.2 China 10.5

Indonesia 9.7 Japan 7.6

China 9.7 Indonesia 5.8

Source: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, The World 

Factbook: Singapore, March 2010.

Singapore’s trade agreements include:

• ASEAN-China, preferential trade agreement 

covering goods (eff. July 2003);

• ASEAN-China, economic integration agreement 

covering services (eff. July 2007);

• ASEAN-Japan, free trade agreement covering 

goods (eff. Dec. 2008);

• ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), free trade 

agreement covering goods (eff. Jan. 1992); 

• China-Singapore, free trade agreement and 

economic integration agreement covering goods 

and services (eff. Jan. 2009);

• EFTA-Singapore, free trade agreement and 

economic integration agreement covering goods 

and services (eff. Jan. 2003); 

• India-Singapore, free trade agreement and 

economic integration agreement covering goods 

and services (eff. Aug. 2005);

• Japan-Singapore, free trade agreement and 

economic integration agreement covering goods 

and services (eff. Nov. 2002);

• Jordan-Singapore, free trade agreement and 

economic integration agreement covering goods 

and services (eff. Aug. 2005);

• Korea-Singapore, free trade agreement and 

economic integration agreement covering goods 

and services (eff. Mar. 2006);

• New Zealand-Singapore, free trade agreement 

and economic integration agreement covering 

goods and services (eff. Jan. 2001);

• Panama-Singapore, free trade agreement and 

economic integration agreement covering goods 

and services (eff. July 2006);

• Peru-Singapore, free trade agreement and 

economic integration agreement covering goods 

and services (eff. Aug. 2009);

• Singapore-Australia, free trade agreement and 

economic integration agreement covering goods 

and services (eff. July 2003);

• Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership, 

free trade agreement and economic integration 

agreement covering goods and services (eff. 

May 2006); and

• US-Singapore, free trade agreement and 

economic integration agreement covering goods 

and services (eff. Jan. 2004).

Source: World Trade Organization, Regional Trade 

Agreements, Singapore, http://rtais.wto.org (accessed 

March 17, 2010). Eff. = effective.
E-11

 THAILAND

ECONOMIC PROFILE

Sources of GDP (2009)

Services

43.7%

Industry

44.0%

Agriculture

12.3%

Economic Indicators

2004 2008

Population (million) 65.1 66.3

Nominal GDP (billion US$) 161.3 273.3

Real GDP growth (%) 6.3 2.6

Goods exports (million US$) 94,979 174,822

Goods imports (million US$) 84,194 157,274

Trade balance (million US$) 10,785 17,548

GDP per capita (US$ at PPP) 6,353 8,235

Inward FDI stock (million US$) 53,187 104,850

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: 

Thailand, June 2009; United Nations Conference on Trade 

and Development, FDISTAT Interactive Database. PPP = 

purchasing power parity.

Principal imports: capital goods, intermediate goods 

and raw materials, consumer goods, and fuels.

Principal exports: textiles and footwear, fishery 

products, rice, rubber, jewelry, automobiles, 

computers, and electrical appliances.

Source: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, The World 

Factbook: Thailand, March 2010.

Main trade partners, percent of total, 2008

Export markets Suppliers

United States 11.2 Japan 18.8

Japan 11.2 China 11.2

China 9.1 United States 6.4

Singapore 5.6 United Arab 

Emirates

6.0

Hong Kong 5.6 Malaysia 5.5

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: 

Thailand, June 2009.

Thailand’s trade agreements include:

• ASEAN-China, preferential trade agreement 

covering goods (eff. July 2003);

• ASEAN-China, economic integration agreement

covering services (eff. July 2007);

• ASEAN-Japan, free trade agreement covering 

goods (eff. Dec. 2008);

• ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), free trade 

agreement covering goods (eff. Jan. 1992); 

• Japan-Thailand, free trade agreement and 

economic integration agreement covering goods 

and services (eff. Nov. 2007);

• Laos-Thailand, preferential trade agreement 

covering goods (eff. June 1991);

• Thailand-Australia, free trade agreement and 

economic integration agreement covering goods 

and services (eff. Jan. 2005); and

• Thailand-New Zealand, free trade agreement 

and economic integration agreement covering 

goods and services (eff. July 2005).

Source: World Trade Organization, Regional Trade 

Agreements, Thailand, http://rtais.wto.org (accessed 

March 17, 2010). Eff. = effective.
E-12

 VIETNAM

ECONOMIC PROFILE

Sources of GDP (2009)

Services

39.1%

Industry

40.3%

Agriculture

20.7%

Economic Indicators

2004 2008

Population (million) 82.7 86.1

Nominal GDP (billion US$) 45.4 91.3

Real GDP growth (%) 7.8 6.2

Goods exports (million US$) 26,485 61,600

Goods imports (million US$) 28,772 77,606

Trade balance (million US$) ─2,287 ─16,006

GDP per capita (US$ at PPP) 1,932 2,793

Inward FDI stock (million US$) 29,115 48,325

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: 

Vietnam, June 2009; United Nations Conference on Trade and 

Development, FDISTAT Interactive Database. PPP = 

purchasing power parity.

Principal imports: machinery and equipment, 

petroleum products, fertilizer, steel products, raw 

cotton, grain, cement, and motorcycles.

Principal exports: crude oil, marine products, rice, 

coffee, rubber, tea, garments, and shoes.

Source: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, The World 

Factbook: Vietnam, March 2010.

Main trade partners, percent of total, 2007

Export markets Suppliers

United States 21.5 China 20.4

Japan 10.8 Singapore 11.8

Australia 7.0 Japan 9.6

China 5.9 South Korea 7.7

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: 

Vietnam, June 2009.

Vietnam’s trade agreements include:

• ASEAN-China, preferential trade agreement 

covering goods (eff. July 2003);

• ASEAN-China, economic integration agreement 

covering services (eff. July 2007);

• ASEAN-Japan, free trade agreement covering 

goods (eff. Dec. 2008);

• ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), free trade 

agreement covering goods (eff. Jan. 1992); and 

• Japan-Vietnam, free trade agreement and 

economic integration agreement covering goods 

and services (eff. Oct. 2009).

Source: World Trade Organization, Regional Trade 

Agreements, Vietnam, http://rtais.wto.org (accessed 

March 17, 2010). Eff. = effective.
APPENDIX F 

Harmonized System Numbers for the 

Priority Sectors and Selected Profiled 

Industries 

F-3

TABLE F.1 Agro-based products: Priority sector and profile HS selection

0702.00 1205.10 1515.29

0708.10 1205.90 a 2002.10

0708.20 1206.00 a 2002.90

0708.90 1207.10 2005.40

0710.21 1207.20 2005.51

0710.22 1207.30 2005.59

0713.10 1207.40 2005.90

0713.20 1207.50 2008.11

0713.31 1207.60 2008.19

0713.32 1207.99 2008.20

0713.33 1208.10 2009.41

0713.39 1208.90 2009.49

0713.40 1507.10 2009.50

0713.50 1507.90 2302.10

0713.90 1511.10 2303.10

0801.11 1511.90 2304.00

0801.19 1512.11 2306.10

0804.50 1512.19 2306.20

1005.10 1512.21 2306.30

1005.90 1512.29 2306.41

1102.20 1513.11 2306.49

1102.30 1513.19 2306.50

1201.00 1513.21 2306.60

1203.00 1513.29 2306.70

1204.00 1515.21 2306.90

Source: Roadmap for Integration of Agro-Based Products Sector, Attachment 1.

 a Profile selection: Palm oil.
F-4

TABLE F.2 Automotive: Priority sector and profile HS selection

4011.10 8482.10 8701.20 8708.92 a

4011.20 8482.20 8702.10 8708.93 a

4011.40 8482.30 8702.90 8708.94 a

4011.69 8482.40 8703.10 8708.99 a

4011.99 8482.50 8703.21 8709.11

4012.11 8482.80 8703.22 8709.19

4012.12 8482.91 8703.23 8709.90

4012.19 8482.99 8703.24 8710.00

4012.20 8483.10 8703.31 8711.10

4012.90 8483.20 8703.32 8711.20

4013.10 8483.30 8703.33 8711.30

4013.90 8483.40 8703.90 8711.40

7315.11 8483.50 8704.10 8711.50

7315.19 8483.60 8704.21 8711.90

7315.89 8483.90 8704.22 8713.10

7315.90 8484.10 8704.23 8713.90

7320.10 8484.20 8704.31 8714.11

7320.20 8484.90 8704.32 8714.19

7320.90 8485.90 8704.90 8714.20

8407.31 8507.10 8705.10 8714.91

8407.32 8507.20 8705.20 8714.92

8407.33 8507.30 8705.30 8714.93

8407.34 8507.40 8705.40 8714.94

8408.20 8507.80 8705.90 8714.95

8409.91 8507.90 8706.00 8714.96

8409.99 8511.10 a 8707.10 8714.99

8413.30 8511.20 a 8707.90 8716.10

8415.20 8511.30 a 8708.10 a 8716.20

8415.81 8511.40 a 8708.21 a 8716.31

8415.82 8511.50 a 8708.29 a 8716.39

8415.83 8511.80 a 8708.31 a 8716.40

8415.90 8511.90 a 8708.39 a

8421.23 8512.10 a 8708.40 a

8421.31 8512.20 a 8708.50 a

8421.99 8512.30 a 8708.60 a

8427.10 8512.40 a 8708.70 a

8427.20 8512.90 a 8708.80 a

8427.90 8544.30 a 8708.91 a

Source: Roadmap for Integration of Automotive Sector, Attachment 1.

 a Profile selection: Motor vehicle parts.
F-5

TABLE F.3 Electronics: Priority sector and profile HS selection

3909.10 8462.29 8475.21 8514.40 8519.92

3909.20 8464.10 8475.29 8514.90 8519.93

3909.30 8464.20 8475.90 8515.11 8519.99

3909.40 8464.90 8477.10 8515.19 8520.10

7108.13 8465.91 8477.40 8515.29 8520.20

7111.00 8465.92 8477.59 8515.31 8520.32

7321.11 8465.95 8477.80 8515.39 8520.33

7321.12 8465.99 8477.90 8515.80 8520.39

7321.13 8466.10 8479.50 8515.90 8520.90

7321.81 8466.20 8479.82 8516.10 8521.10

7321.82 8466.30 8479.89 8516.21 8521.90

7321.83 8466.91 8479.90 8516.29 8522.10

7321.90 8466.94 8480.71 8516.31 8522.90

8414.30 8469.11 8501.10 8516.32 8523.11

8414.51 8469.12 8504.10 8516.33 8523.12

8415.10 8469.20 8504.21 8516.40 8523.13

8415.20 8469.30 8504.22 8516.50 8523.20

8415.81 8470.10 8504.23 8516.60 8523.30

8415.82 8470.21 8504.31 8516.71 8523.90

8415.83 8470.29 8504.32 8516.72 8524.10

8415.90 8470.30 8504.33 8516.79 8524.31

8418.10 8470.40 8504.34 8516.80 8524.32

8418.21 8470.50 8504.40 8516.90 8524.39

8418.22 8470.90 8504.50 8517.11 8524.40

8418.29 8471.10 8504.90 8517.19 8524.51

8418.30 8471.30 8506.10 8517.21 8524.52

8418.40 8471.41 8506.30 8517.22 8524.53

8418.50 8471.49 8506.40 8517.30 8524.60

8418.61 8471.50 a 8506.50 8517.50 8524.91

8418.69 8471.60 a 8506.60 8517.80 8524.99

8418.91 8471.70 a 8506.80 8517.90 8525.10

8418.99 8471.80 a 8506.90 8518.10 8525.20

8419.39 8471.90 8509.10 8518.21 8525.30

8419.81 8472.10 8509.20 8518.22 8525.40

8419.89 8472.20 8509.30 8518.29 8526.10

8419.90 8472.30 8509.40 8518.30 8526.91

8420.99 8472.90 8509.80 8518.40 8527.12

8422.11 8473.10 8509.90 8518.50 8527.13

8424.89 8473.21 8510.10 8518.90 8527.19

8450.11 8473.29 8510.20 8519.10 8527.21

8450.12 8473.30 a 8510.30 8519.21 8527.29

8450.19 8473.40 8510.90 8519.29 8527.31

8450.20 8473.50 8514.10 8519.31 8527.32

8450.90 8474.31 8514.20 8519.39 8527.39

8462.21 8474.32 8514.30 8519.40 8527.90

See footnotes at end of table.
F-6

8528.12 8540.71 9001.90 9011.10 9030.89

8528.13 8540.72 9002.11 9011.20 9030.90

8528.21 8540.79 9002.19 9011.80 9031.10

8528.22 8540.81 9002.20 9011.90 9031.20

8528.30 8540.89 9002.90 9012.10 9031.30

8529.10 8540.91 9004.90 9012.90 9031.41

8529.90 8540.99 9006.10 9013.10 9031.49

8531.20 8541.10 9006.20 9013.20 9031.80

8531.80 8541.21 9006.30 9013.80 9031.90

8531.90 8541.29 9006.40 9013.90 9032.10

8532.10 8541.30 9006.51 9016.00 9032.20

8532.21 8541.40 9006.52 9017.10 9032.81

8532.22 8541.50 9006.53 9017.20 9032.89

8532.23 8541.60 9006.59 9017.30 9032.90

8532.24 8541.90 9006.61 9017.80 9033.00

8532.25 8542.10 9006.62 9017.90 9101.11

8532.29 8542.21 9006.69 9018.11 9101.12

8532.30 8542.29 9006.91 9018.12 9101.19

8532.90 8542.60 9006.99 9018.13 9101.21

8533.10 8542.70 9007.11 9018.14 9101.29

8533.21 8542.90 9007.19 9018.19 9101.91

8533.29 8543.11 9007.20 9018.20 9101.99

8533.31 8543.19 9007.91 9022.12 9102.11

8533.39 8543.20 9007.92 9022.13 9102.12

8533.40 8543.30 9008.10 9022.14 9102.19

8533.90 8543.40 9008.20 9022.19 9102.21

8534.00 8543.81 9008.30 9022.21 9102.29

8536.10 8543.89 9008.40 9022.29 9102.91

8536.20 8543.90 9008.90 9022.30 9102.99

8536.30 8544.11 9009.11 9022.90 9108.11

8536.50 8544.19 9009.12 9023.00 9108.12

8536.61 8544.20 9009.21 9027.10 9108.19

8536.69 8544.30 9009.22 9027.20 9108.20

8536.90 8544.41 9009.30 9027.30 9108.90

8537.10 8544.49 9009.91 9027.40 9504.10

8537.20 8544.51 9009.92 9027.50

8538.10 8544.59 9009.93 9027.80

8538.90 8544.60 9009.99 9027.90

8539.31 8544.70 9010.10 9030.10

8540.11 8548.90 9010.41 9030.20

8540.12 9001.10 9010.42 9030.31

8540.20 9001.20 9010.49 9030.39

8540.40 9001.30 9010.50 9030.40

8540.50 9001.40 9010.60 9030.82

8540.60 9001.50 9010.90 9030.83

 a Profile selection: Computer components.

TABLE F.3 Electronics: Priority sector and profile HS 

selection—Continued

Source: Roadmap for Integration of Electronics Sector, Attachment 1.
F-7

TABLE F.4 Healthcare: Priority sector and profile HS selection

1211.10 3004.10 3401.19

1211.20 3004.20 3401.20

1211.30 3004.31 3401.30

1211.90 3004.32 4014.10

2936.10 3004.39 4818.40

2936.21 3004.40 4818.50

2936.22 3004.50 5208.21

2936.23 3004.90 6307.90

2936.24 3005.10 8419.20

2936.25 3005.90 8713.10

2936.26 3006.10 8714.20

2936.27 3006.20 9001.30

2936.28 3006.30 9018.11

2936.29 3006.40 9018.12

2936.90 3006.50 9018.13

2937.12 3006.60 9018.14

2937.19 3006.70 9018.19

2937.21 3006.80 9018.20

2937.22 3303.00 9018.31

2937.23 3304.10 9018.32

2937.29 3304.20 9018.39

2937.31 3304.30 9019.10

2937.39 3304.91 9019.20

2937.40 3304.99 9021.10

2937.50 3305.10 9021.29

3001.10 3305.20 9021.31

3001.20 3305.30 9021.39

3001.90 3305.90 9021.40

3002.10 3306.10 9021.50

3002.20 3306.20 9021.90

3002.30 3306.90 9022.12

3002.90 3307.10 9022.13

3003.10 3307.20 9022.14

3003.20 3307.30 9022.19

3003.31 3307.41 9022.21

3003.39 3307.49 9022.29

3003.40 3307.90 9402.90

3003.90 3401.11

Source: Roadmap for Integration of Healthcare Sector, Attachment 1.
F-8

TABLE F.5 Textiles and apparel: Priority sector and profile HS selection

5001.00 5113.00 5206.33 5209.59 a 5301.30 5403.20 5408.33 5510.90

5002.00 5201.00 5206.34 5210.11 5302.10 5403.31 5408.34 5511.10

5003.10 5202.10 5206.35 5210.12 5302.90 5403.32 5501.10 5511.20

5003.90 5202.91 5206.41 5210.19 5303.10 5403.33 5501.20 5511.30

5004.00 5202.99 5206.42 5210.21 5303.90 5403.39 5501.30 5512.11

5005.00 5203.00 5206.43 5210.22 5304.10 5403.41 5501.90 5512.19

5006.00 5204.11 5206.44 5210.29 5304.90 5403.42 5502.00 5512.21

5007.10 5204.19 5206.45 5210.31 5305.11 5403.49 5503.10 5512.29

5007.20 5204.20 5207.10 5210.32 5305.19 5404.10 5503.20 5512.91

5007.90 5205.11 5207.90 5210.39 5305.21 5404.90 5503.30 5512.99

5101.11 5205.12 5208.11 a 5210.41 5305.29 5405.00 5503.40 5513.11

5101.19 5205.13 5208.12 a 5210.42 5305.90 5406.10 5503.90 5513.12

5101.21 5205.14 5208.13 a 5210.49 5306.10 5406.20 5504.10 5513.13

5101.29 5205.15 5208.19 a 5210.51 5306.20 5407.10 5504.90 5513.19

5101.30 5205.21 5208.21 a 5210.52 5307.10 5407.20 5505.10 5513.21

5102.11 5205.22 5208.22 a 5210.59 5307.20 5407.30 5505.20 5513.22

5102.19 5205.23 5208.23 a 5211.11 5308.10 5407.41 5506.10 5513.23

5102.20 5205.24 5208.29 a 5211.12 5308.20 5407.42 5506.20 5513.29

5103.10 5205.26 5208.31 a 5211.19 5308.90 5407.43 5506.30 5513.31

5103.20 5205.27 5208.32 a 5211.21 5309.11 5407.44 5506.90 5513.32

5103.30 5205.28 5208.33 a 5211.22 5309.19 5407.51 5507.00 5513.33

5104.00 5205.31 5208.39 a 5211.29 5309.21 5407.52 5508.10 5513.39

5105.10 5205.32 5208.41 a 5211.31 5309.29 5407.53 5508.20 5513.41

5105.21 5205.33 5208.42 a 5211.32 5310.10 5407.54 5509.11 5513.42

5105.29 5205.34 5208.43 a 5211.39 5310.90 5407.61 5509.12 5513.43

5105.40 5205.35 5208.49 a 5211.41 5311.00 5407.69 5509.21 5513.49

5106.10 5205.41 5208.51 a 5211.42 5401.10 5407.71 5509.22 5514.11

5106.20 5205.42 5208.52 a 5211.43 5401.20 5407.72 5509.31 5514.12

5107.10 5205.43 5208.53 a 5211.49 5402.10 5407.73 5509.32 5514.13

5107.20 5205.44 5208.59 a 5211.51 5402.20 5407.74 5509.41 5514.19

5108.10 5205.46 5209.11 a 5211.52 5402.31 5407.81 5509.42 5514.21

5108.20 5205.47 5209.12 a 5211.59 5402.32 5407.82 5509.51 5514.22

5109.10 5205.48 5209.19 a 5212.11 5402.33 5407.83 5509.52 5514.23

5109.90 5206.11 5209.21 a 5212.12 5402.39 5407.84 5509.53 5514.29

5110.00 5206.12 5209.22 a 5212.13 5402.41 5407.91 5509.59 5514.31

5111.11 5206.13 5209.29 a 5212.14 5402.42 5407.92 5509.61 5514.32

5111.19 5206.14 5209.31 a 5212.15 5402.43 5407.93 5509.62 5514.33

5111.20 5206.15 5209.32 a 5212.21 5402.49 5407.94 5509.69 5514.39

5111.30 5206.21 5209.39 a 5212.22 5402.51 5408.10 5509.91 5514.41

5111.90 5206.22 5209.41 a 5212.23 5402.52 5408.21 5509.92 5514.42

5112.11 5206.23 5209.42 a 5212.24 5402.59 5408.22 5509.99 5514.43

5112.19 5206.24 5209.43 a 5212.25 5402.61 5408.23 5510.11 5514.49

5112.20 5206.25 5209.49 a 5301.10 5402.62 5408.24 5510.12 5515.11

5112.30 5206.31 5209.51 a 5301.21 5402.69 5408.31 5510.20 5515.12

5112.90 5206.32 5209.52 a 5301.29 5403.10 5408.32 5510.30 5515.13

See footnotes at end of table.
F-9

TABLE F.5 Textiles and apparel: Priority sector and profile HS selection—Continued

6201.99 6204.41 6208.92 6215.90 6304.93

6202.11 6204.42 b 6208.99 6216.00 6304.99

6202.12 b 6204.43 6209.10 6217.10 6305.10

6202.13 6204.44 6209.20 b 6217.90 6305.20

6202.19 6204.49 6209.30 6301.10 6305.32

6202.91 6204.51 6209.90 6301.20 6305.33

6202.92 b 6204.52 b 6210.10 6301.30 6305.39

6202.93 6204.53 6210.20 6301.40 6305.90

6202.99 6204.59 6210.30 6301.90 6306.11

6203.11 6204.61 6210.40 6302.10 6306.12

6203.12 6204.62 b 6210.50 6302.21 6306.19

6203.19 6204.63 6211.11 6302.22 6306.21

6203.21 6204.69 6211.12 6302.29 6306.22

6203.22 b 6205.10 6211.20 6302.31 6306.29

6203.23 6205.20 b 6211.31 6302.32 6306.31

6203.29 6205.30 6211.32 6302.39 6306.39

6203.31 6205.90 6211.33 6302.40 6306.41

6203.32 b 6206.10 6211.39 6302.51 6306.49

6203.33 6206.20 6211.41 6302.52 6306.91

6203.39 6206.30 b 6211.42 6302.53 6306.99

6203.41 6206.40 6211.43 6302.59 6307.10

6203.42 b 6206.90 6211.49 6302.60 6307.20

6203.43 6207.11 b 6212.10 6302.91 6307.90

6203.49 6207.19 6212.20 6302.92 6308.00

6204.11 6207.21 b 6212.30 6302.93 6309.00

6204.12 b 6207.22 6212.90 6302.99 6310.10

6204.13 6207.29 6213.10 6303.11 6310.90

6204.19 6207.91 6213.20 b 6303.12

6204.21 6207.92 6213.90 6303.19

6204.22 b 6207.99 6214.10 6303.91

6204.23 6208.11 6214.20 6303.92

6204.29 6208.19 b 6214.30 6303.99

6204.31 6208.21 6214.40 6304.11

6204.32 b 6208.22 6214.90 6304.19

6204.33 6208.29 6215.10 6304.91

6204.39 6208.91 b 6215.20 6304.92

Source: Roadmap for Integration of Textiles and Apparel Sector, Attachment 1.

 a Profile selection: Cotton woven fabrics. b Profile selection: Cotton woven apparel.
F-10

TABLE F.6 Wood-based products: Priority sector and profile HS selection

4401.10 4409.20 a 4412.29 a 9401.50

4401.21 4410.21 4412.92 a 9401.61

4401.22 4410.29 4412.93 a 9401.69

4401.30 4410.31 4412.99 a 9403.30

4402.00 4410.32 4413.00 9403.40

4405.00 4410.33 4414.00 9403.50

4406.10 4410.39 4415.10 9403.60

4406.90 4410.90 4415.20

4407.10 a 4411.11 a 4416.00

4407.24 4411.19 4417.00

4407.25 4411.21 a 4418.10

4407.26 4411.29 a 4418.20

4407.29 4411.31 4418.30 a

4407.91 4411.39 4418.40

4407.92 4411.91 4418.50

4407.99 4411.99 4418.90 a

4408.10 4412.13 a 4419.00

4408.31 4412.14 a 4420.10

4408.39 4412.19 4420.90

4408.90 4412.22 a 4421.10

4409.10 a 4412.23 a 4421.90

 a Profile selection: Hardwood plywood and flooring.

Source: Roadmap for Integration of Wood-Based Products Sector, 

Attachment 1.