PPE and free trade to better tackle COVID-19 in ASEAN

Author: Sithanonxay Suvannaphakdy, ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute The Special ASEAN Summit on 14 April emphasised the need for a collective response from ASEAN to COVID-19 that involves keeping the regional bloc’s markets open to trade. As ASEAN member states deploy all possible instruments to combat the pandemic, trade can serve as a powerful, low-cost tool to […]

PPE and free trade to better tackle COVID-19 in ASEAN

Author: Sithanonxay Suvannaphakdy, ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute

The Special ASEAN Summit on 14 April emphasised the need for a collective response from ASEAN to COVID-19 that involves keeping the regional bloc’s markets open to trade. As ASEAN member states deploy all possible instruments to combat the pandemic, trade can serve as a powerful, low-cost tool to improve access to personal protective equipment (PPE) needed by healthcare workers. Following an indicative list of COVID-19 medical supplies published by the World Customs Organization, PPE products include five product groups — gloves, hair covers, face masks, goggles and gowns.

The total number of confirmed cases in ASEAN rose by 59 per cent from 16,749 on 10 April to 26,631 on 19 April, while the total number of deaths rose by 75 per cent from 620 to 1084 over the same period. Health care systems are being overwhelmed by patients seeking testing and care, which has increased demand for PPE. Hospitals in Malaysia have increased their usage of PPE during the COVID-19 period by more than twice the amount used in the pre-COVID-19 period.

The overwhelming demand for PPE by healthcare workers and the rise of bulk buying by the public has also led to price exploitation by sellers. Despite price control measures in Thailand, the price of face masks sold on Facebook was about five times higher than the limit set by the Thai government. On the supply side, some member states that can produce PPE still face shortages as COVID-19 containment measures prevent workers from working in the factories that are producing these products.

Some exporters to member states have also limited their PPE exports. On 12 March, Germany — one of the top five global exporters of PPE products — imposed an export licensing requirement on certain PPE products due to anticipated COVID-19-induced shortages in the country, although it has relaxed its export curb to a certain degree since 20 March. On 17 March, the Indonesian government also imposed an export curb on PPE products, which will last until 30 June.

Due to a lack of PPE supplies, some member states have sought assistance from international organisations and other countries. The World Health Organization has provided PPE supplies to four member states: Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and the Philippines. China, the United States and Vietnam have also donated PPE supplies to Laos. But as the number of confirmed cases in ASEAN grows, bilateral assistance from international organisations and other countries is unlikely to meet demand for PPE products. An alternative is to source PPE through foreign trade.

In the pre-COVID-19 period, member states not only produced PPE products to trade regionally, but also exported them to the rest of the world. UN trade data for 2018 reveals that at least one member state was listed in the top five global exporters of each type of PPE. This includes Malaysia and Thailand for gloves, and Vietnam for gowns, hair covers, masks and gloves.

The total value of global PPE exports was US$47.5 billion in 2018. The majority of such export was in gloves, masks and gowns. More than 60 per cent of these exports were accounted for by the top five exporters.

ASEAN trade data for 2018 reveals that not every member state produces all the PPE products needed by their healthcare workers. Thailand and Vietnam were net importers of masks, while Cambodia and Indonesia were net importers of both goggles and masks. Specialisation in producing particular PPE products means that an individual member state cannot necessarily produce all needed PPE products by itself. The ability to source PPE from within and outside the region is critical.

But the importation of PPE in ASEAN has been constrained by tariffs and non-tariff measures (NTMs). The ASEAN Tariff Finder database reveals that most member states impose relatively high most-favoured-nations (MFN) tariffs on imported surgical masks from countries which do not have a free trade agreement with ASEAN. The MFN tariff rate on surgical masks, for example, is 10 per cent in Indonesia, Laos and Thailand, 15 per cent in Myanmar and the Philippines, and 20 per cent in Malaysia.

Another type of import barrier is the presence of NTMs. The UNCTAD NTM database reveals that member states impose such measures on imported gas masks, ranging from 3 measures in Cambodia to 16 measures in Malaysia. These measures include technical barriers, price control measures and quantity control measures. The price and quantity control of imported PPE products can translate into higher prices, which increases public expenditure on healthcare interventions.

Any policy to improve the effectiveness of public health interventions to tackle COVID-19 and to mitigate price exploitation by sellers should aim at stimulating production and facilitating trade of PPE products.

Export restrictions can jeopardise cooperation among member state governments, erode trust and result in retaliation. These restrictions can also result in the loss of future export sales abroad, which discourages local firms from ramping up production and investing in new capacity. In addition to promoting domestic production and exports, member states should also facilitate the importation of PPE products by streamlining NTMs and eliminating tariffs on PPE imports from non-member states. This would lower the costs of imports from ASEAN’s trading partners.

Working together, member state governments could quickly and cheaply implement trade reforms to sweep away tariff and non-tariff barriers which impede trade flows of PPE products reaching member states where they are desperately needed.

This is not a call for regional negotiations. Governments can act unilaterally, bilaterally or in groups, with some member states joining later as momentum builds. Trade reform requires bottom-up as well as top-down initiative if ASEAN is to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak in a timely manner.

Sithanonxay Suvannaphakdy is Lead Researcher (Economic Affairs) at the ASEAN Studies Centre of the ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore.

Source : East Asia Forum More   

What's Your Reaction?

like
0
dislike
0
love
0
funny
0
angry
0
sad
0
wow
0

Next Article

China EdTech GSX revenues increased by 382% in Q1 2020

GSX Techedu Inc. (NYSE: GSX), a leading online K-12 large-class after-school tutoring service provider in China, reported net revenues of RMB1,297.6 million in Q1 2020, a 382.0% increase from RMB269.2 million in the first quarter of 2019. The huge increase in GSX’s revenues was mainly driven by the growth in paid course enrollments for K-12 […]

China EdTech GSX revenues increased by 382% in Q1 2020

GSX Techedu Inc. (NYSE: GSX), a leading online K-12 large-class after-school tutoring service provider in China, reported net revenues of RMB1,297.6 million in Q1 2020, a 382.0% increase from RMB269.2 million in the first quarter of 2019.

The huge increase in GSX’s revenues was mainly driven by the growth in paid course enrollments for K-12 courses.

Cost of revenues rose 245.5% to RMB283.3 million from RMB82.0 million in Q1 2019. The increase was mainly due to the increase in compensation for instructors and tutors, learning materials, as well as the extra costs paid for supporting our services offered for free during the COVID-19 outbreak.

GSX’s gross profit increased by 442.1% to RMB1,014.3 million from RMB187.1 million in the first quarter of 2019. Gross profit margin increased to 78.2% from 69.5% in the same period of 2019, primarily as a result of economies of scale.

Non-GAAP gross profit increased 448.4% to RMB1,028.2 million from RMB187.5 million in the same period of 2019. Non-GAAP gross profit margin increased to 79.2% from 69.7% in the same period of 2019.

Operating expenses were RMB922.4 million, increasing from RMB144.4 million in the first quarter of 2019.

Selling expenses increased to RMB757.2 million from RMB99.5 million in the first quarter of 2019. The increase was primarily a result of higher marketing expenses to expand the user base and enhance our brands, an increase in compensation to sales and marketing staff, as well as free course promotional expenses to acquire traffic during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Research and development expenses increased by 227.0% to RMB99.4 million, from RMB30.4 million in the first quarter of 2019. The increase was primarily due to an increase in the number of course professionals and technology development personnel, as well as an increase in compensation for such staff.

General and administrative expenses increased to RMB65.8 million from RMB14.4 million in the first quarter of 2019. The increase in general and administrative expenses was mainly due to an increase in the number of general and administrative personnel and an increase in compensation paid to general and administrative staff.

Income from operations was RMB91.9 million, compared with RMB42.7 million in the first quarter of 2019. Non-GAAP income from operations increased to RMB134.7 million, from RMB46.5 million in the first quarter of 2019.

Aggregation of interest income and realized gains from investments this quarter, representing the income received from cash, cash equivalents, short-term and long-term investments, increased 1,045.5% to RMB12.6 million, from RMB1.1 million in the first quarter of 2019. This resulted from an increase of cash, cash equivalents, short-term and long-term investments.

Other income increased to RMB61.9 million, from RMB533 thousand in the first quarter of 2019. The increase was primarily due to the value-added tax exemption offered by the government, partially offset by the related cost, during the COVID-19 outbreak, which amounted to RMB53.2 million, as well as government subsidies of RMB8.2 million received in the first quarter of 2020.

Net income increased to RMB148.0 million, from RMB33.9 million in the first quarter of 2019.

Non-GAAP net income increased to RMB190.7 million, from RMB37.7 million in the first quarter of 2019.

Net operating cash inflow for the first quarter of 2020 was RMB117.7 million, an 82.2% increase from RMB64.6 million in the first quarter of 2019.

Basic and diluted net income per ADS were RMB0.62 and RMB0.59, respectively, in the first quarter of 2020.

Non-GAAP basic and diluted net income per ADS, were RMB0.80 and RMB0.76, respectively, in the first quarter of 2020.

As of March 31, 2020, GSX had 159,165,833 ordinary shares outstanding.

As of March 31, 2020, GSX had RMB565.2 million of cash and cash equivalents, RMB1,003.1 million of short-term investments and RMB1,169.0 million of long-term investments, compared with RMB74.0 million of cash and cash equivalents, RMB1,473.5 million of short-term investments and RMB1,188.3 million of long-term investments as of December 31, 2019.

The increasing of cash and cash equivalents is mainly due to the maturity of short-term wealth management investments in the first quarter of 2020.

As of March 31, 2020, ITS deferred revenue balance was RMB1,338.8 million, largely flat from RMB1,337.6 million as of December 31, 2019. Deferred revenue primarily consisted of tuition collected in advance.

GSX’s board of directors authorized a share repurchase program under which it may repurchase up to US$150 million of its shares, effective until May 6, 2022.

Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of GSX. A complaint has been filed against GSX on behalf of investors that purchased GSX securities.

On June 6, 2019, GSX conducted its initial public offering (“IPO”) by issuing 19.8 million ADSs at $10.50 per share.

According to the complaint, on February 25, 2020, Grizzly Research LLC (“Grizzly”) published a report highlighting multiple alleged issues with GSX’s business and financial operations (the “Grizzly Report”).

Specifically, the Grizzly Report alleged, among other issues, that GSX “has been drastically overstating its profitability in its US public filings, especially for 2018″; Grizzly “found multiple strong indications of past and current order ‘brushing,'” which are “essentially fake student enrollments to boost student count”; “many of GSX’s reported students do not actually exist”; and “[w]hile [GSX] touts its high-quality teacher recruitment mechanism, [Grizzly] found a sign-up website that was not functional, multiple allegations of GSX hiring teachers right out of college with no prior experience, and fabricated teachers profiles.”

Following the publication of the Grizzly Report, the price of GSX’s ADSs fell $1.33 per share, or 2.93%, to close at $44.09 per ADS on February 25, 2020.

Then, according to the complaint, on April 14, 2020, Citron Research published a report highlighting additional alleged issues with GSX’s business and financial operations (the “Citron Report”), including, among other issues, that GSX’s “2019 revenue was overstated by 70%,” that “sales revenues are largely exaggerated,” and that GSX’s “filings are riddled with suspicious transactions.”

Following the publication of the Citron Report, the price of GSX’s ADSs fell $0.20 per share, or 0.64%, to close at $31.20 per share on April 14, 2020, 31.3% lower that the closing price prior to the issuance of the Grizzly Report and the Citron Report.

Source : China Internet Watch More   

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.