DECEMBER 2 — I’m struggling a bit with my new phone. Not exactly earth-shattering news but I’ve made the transition from Apple to Samsung/Android — and moving my WhatsApp and data has been an absolute pain.
These companies seem to work really hard to lock you in but despite the inconvenience, I felt I had come to the end of the road with Apple because:
- They have stopped supporting any standard headphone jacks and Bluetooth ear-pods are annoying to pair and are too easy to lose.
- I was getting a little uncomfortable with Apple’s Big Brother knows best approach vs Android’s happy chaos.
- I try to buy Asian brands where I can.
There I’ve confessed. I’m a quiet economic nationalist/regionalist/continentalist.
Give me Onitsukas over Nikes, Grab over Uber, Charles and Keith over Kate Spade.
I just feel that where possible, it’s better to buy Singaporean, then regional and then Asian.
Our region remains at a considerable technological and commercial disadvantage vs the West (there are hundreds of years of colonialism to account for, various imbalances in the global trade system etc.).
We are also fighting years of prejudice battling the idea that things from Europe and America are more premium and valuable than our own.
And I believe each of our tiny little economic choices correctly deployed can make a difference.
Now of course I understand there are dangers and limits to nationalism (of every kind). Singaporeans buying only Singaporean products would soon starve. But the point is to nudge and use my spending where I can to make a difference.
Of course, this doesn’t mean rewarding some Asian brands who rely on captive markets to sell substandard goods at high prices but where I see local and regional companies really offering value and competitiveness, I try my best to throw my (puny) economic weight behind them.
This idea cuts both ways. There are plenty of economic nationalists in Europe and especially America.
The Trump administration is demanding that companies who sell products in America do more manufacturing in the US.
This is, of course, a threat to thousands of Asian businesses which manufacture goods for the US market. It’s also a threat to Singapore which relies on East-West trade flows for its economic existence.
But while these sort of trade flows are good and will always remain vital, they are still ultimately imbalanced. The manufacturing i.e. the dirtiest and most labour-intensive work is done in Asia but the profit accrues to headquarters in the West (or offshore financial centres but that’s another story).
Basically 99 per cent of an iPhone may be made in Asia but that doesn’t mean Asia is getting 99 per cent of the profits.
Long-term we really need to work on creating Asian brands and ensuring that as much value addition as possible stays in the region.
The traditional liberal economic argument that countries should only produce things they can manufacture more cheaply/effectively than anywhere else (competitive/comparative advantage) leaves many nations at a permanent disadvantage.
Without some protection, it will never be advantageous to produce microchips, cars etc. in Laos, or even Myanmar but it is these kinds of industries small/underdeveloped nations need to add value.
Without some amount of protectionism, you simply cannot nurture local manufacturers and producers.
Countries in Asia like Japan and South Korea that did industrialise deployed heavy protectionism.
Koreans remain fanatically loyal to Samsung products and in America, Apple is king. Support from your home market is really essential both in terms of policy and popular support.
This is something Asean really needs to work on; support for regional products and brands.
China, for example, insists on technology transfer. So if US/European companies want to sell in China, they need to open factories in China, partner with Chinese companies and employ senior Chinese managers etc.
Perhaps Asean should begin to think along the same lines.
Now I know trade isn’t really a zero-sum game. One party doesn’t necessarily win at the expense of the others but unless some effort is made by regulators, companies and consumers trade can become a zero-sum equation between nations and economically globalised elites and workers at the lower levels.
It may all sound abstract but these imbalances are what we see playing out in the form of US-China trade wars and the election of anti-globalist populists i.e. Donald Trump. It is all a reaction to the same very imbalanced distribution in wealth largely derived from trade.
It is something we all need to be conscious of and make some effort to address.
Now purchasing my phone from a giant Asian multinational instead of a giant American one might not solve much — but I think it is better than nothing.
If more and more people around the world move to work out who really benefits from their spending, well... we might end up with a less angry world.
* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
