Do you remember the 1996 film Twister? It was an instant classic, a disaster film that gave us memorable characters, groundbreaking special effects, and – as everyone inevitably recalls – a flying cow.

There was one particularly impactful scene ­­set at a rural drive-in theatre. As the night sky flashes ominously with lightning, a devastating storm looms – unseen but unmistakably near. The movie is still playing onscreen, but nature has already changed the script.

“The tornado’s coming! It’s headed right for us!” someone yells. Bill Paxton’s character doesn’t even flinch. His steely reply is sober, determined, and almost resigned: “It’s already here.”

That line echoes loudly today. While many Americans may debate about whether fascism is “on the rise,” “a looming threat,” or “just around the corner,” the more honest answer is far simpler – and far more distressing: It’s already here. The America of old has, in a span of just six months or so, been replaced by an authoritarian state to a much greater extent than many may realize.

Expats have the uncommon experience of being able to view their home country from afar, to see things through a different lens. Living abroad often changes our perspectives, but at a minimum, it exposes us to an alternative narrative and different ways of thinking. As an American expat who has been living outside of his home country for many years, what’s now happening in the U.S. is devastating to witness from outside – in ways that may not always be obvious to people living in the midst of the daily chaos. Perhaps many of them are becoming inured to the daily onslaught of one norm-breaking outrage after another.

But we cannot – must not – ignore the clear evidence that’s being presented. Just as in the film Twister, the catastrophic damage isn’t merely a future possibility. It’s here, and it’s happening now.

I was curious to learn the historical context for the rise of fascism, so I checked. There is a fairly standard playbook when it comes to how authoritarian regimes have generally established themselves, based on common actions and themes observed across numerous countries and different eras. But first, a definition:

CREATING A FASCIST STATE: A HOW-TO GUIDE FOR THE ASPIRING DICTATOR

STAGE 1: EXAGGERATE A CRISIS

• Leverage a real or manufactured crisis (war, terrorism, economic collapse, social unrest) to generate fear and urgency.
• Promise “strong leadership” to restore order or greatness.
• Frame existing institutions as too weak or corrupt to handle the crisis.

STAGE 2: CREATE A COMMON ENEMY

• Blame internal or external groups (minorities, immigrants, political opponents, intellectuals, foreign powers).
• Stoke nationalism, xenophobia, or religious fervour to unify the populace against these “enemies.”
• Label critics as unpatriotic or traitorous.

STAGE 3: UNDERMINE DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS

• Attack the credibility of the judiciary, press, universities, and other independent institutions.
• Undermine elections through voter suppression, disinformation, or fraud claims.
• Replace or sideline civil servants and officials with loyalists.

STAGE 4: CONTROL THE NARRATIVE

• Use propaganda and state media to shape public perception.
• Suppress independent journalism and dissenting voices.
• Flood the public sphere with lies, conspiracy theories, or contradictory messaging to create confusion.

STAGE 5: ERODE THE RULE OF LAW

• Ignore or rewrite constitutional norms.
• Pass laws to expand executive powers under the guise of national security or emergency.
• Criminalise protests and restrict civil liberties.
• Use law enforcement selectively to target opponents.

STAGE 6: MILITARIZE AND INTIMIDATE

• Increase police and paramilitary presence in public spaces.
• Deploy masked or unidentified security forces.
• Conduct arbitrary arrests, surveillance, and harassment of activists or journalists.
• Begin detentions without trial, often in unofficial or extrajudicial facilities.

STAGE 7: ELIMINATE CHECKS AND BALANCES

• Weaken or dissolve the legislature or judiciary.
• Bypass parliamentary or judicial review entirely.
• Declare martial law or permanent states of emergency.
• Rule increasingly by decree.

STAGE 8: CONSOLIDATE PERSONAL POWER

• Cultivate a cult of personality around the leader.
• Extend term limits or abolish elections altogether.
• Rewrite history and educational curricula to glorify the regime.
• Crush any remaining opposition through violence or exile.

If many of items on this to-do list sound familiar, you have likely been paying close attention to U.S. politics. I was shocked at how much on this list is being followed to the letter by the Trump Administration.

To be sure, these steps don’t always occur in strict order, nor are they always obvious at first. Often, they unfold slowly – introduced and normalized bit by bit – until resistance becomes difficult or dangerous. It’s the sociopolitical equivalent of the old “frog in the pot” allegory. Unaware that the slowly, steadily rising temperature will ultimately prove fatal, the frog remains in the pot until it’s too late to leap to safety.

Unsurprisingly, the warning signs are nearly always visible and abundantly evident in hindsight. The challenge is recognizing them in real time.

We’ve finally entered a moment where the alarms about creeping authoritarianism in America are no longer alarmist; they are indicators of current reality. Over the last six months, institutions once anchored in due process, transparency, and accountability have been almost methodically eroded. Instead, we’ve seen multiple documented cases where power became secretive, unaccountable, and punitive. Authoritarianism is not coming to the United States; it is already here.

MASKED AGENTS, SECRET POLICE

Across the country, immigration raids and law enforcement operations are now increasingly conducted by masked, plainclothes agents – some of whom critics say are effectively no more than untrained, outsourced vigilantes – who refuse to identify themselves.

In cities and states from Los Angeles to Oklahoma to Massachusetts, individuals have reported being detained by armed men in unmarked vehicles, with no badges, identification or warrants shown. These masked agents operate with near impunity – and the imagery they project is chillingly reminiscent of secret police in authoritarian states.

One recent case made U.S. headlines when masked ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents seized a Tufts University student, Rumeysa Öztürk, accused of co-authoring a critique of the Gaza war. She was flown some 2,400 km to Louisiana and detained without due process despite court orders. A judge later ruled her detention lacked any legal basis and ordered her release on bail.

COURT ORDERS IGNORED, CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS SIDELINED

In another well-documented case, deportee Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s attorneys accused the U.S. government of ignoring multiple court orders during his removal proceedings. His legal team has sought sanctions, arguing the administration is flouting judicial authority – and normal rules of evidence and discovery. Add to this the DOJ’s dropped felony charges against protestors in Los Angeles after investigators admitted to false statements and inflated allegations, and it’s plain that official narratives are increasingly unmoored from fact or accountability. As long as the initial act gets the headlines, the clean-up or backtracking happens largely behind the scenes and away from media attention.

Donald Trump also goes on unhinged screeds against judges who rule counter to his own will, posting insults and rants on social media. Since taking office in January 2025, Trump has resumed a now-familiar pattern of aggressively attacking members of the judiciary who rule against his administration, and often, his administration lackeys follow suit.

When U.S. District Judge James Boasberg blocked mass deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act in March, Trump branded him a “Radical Left Lunatic” and called for his impeachment. The response drew rare public concern from Chief Justice John Roberts. Similarly, after Judge Paul Engelmayer halted an executive order restricting access to Treasury systems, the White House accused the judiciary of overreach, and Trump allies like Elon Musk openly suggested mass judicial impeachments.

Other rulings have triggered similar responses. When Judge William Alsup ordered unlawfully dismissed government employees reinstated, Trump’s Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed the decision as “absurd” and declared that judges should “run for president” if they wanted executive power. Across the board, legal experts and watchdog groups have flagged a rise in harassment against judges following these presidential tirades, including online doxxing and coordinated intimidation campaigns. Critics argue this is part of a broader effort to undermine judicial independence and consolidate executive control – again following the authoritarian playbook.

MUZZLING DISSENT, THREATENING CRITICS

Efforts to silence critics go beyond enforcement raids. Some detained individuals were targeted due to published opinions or political activism. The Öztürk case specifically noted that her arrest stemmed, at least symbolically, from critical commentary – prompting warnings from civil liberties groups that dissent is increasingly policed in a non-transparent way.

At the same time, federal agents have raided protests, arresting journalists and advocates without warning – even though many clearly cited First Amendment protections. Public interest attorneys describe the behaviour as “kidnapping” on the streets of America, likening it to political repression rather than civic enforcement.

Moreover, since returning to office, Trump has increasingly used the power of the presidency to bully law firms, universities, and media outlets into submission. Major legal firms have withdrawn from civil rights cases after public attacks from Trump allies (and several have promised millions of dollars in free legal services), while several universities have faced funding threats over curriculum content or admission policies deemed unsuitable by the administration. Critics warn that such coordinated pressure campaigns are chilling dissent and eroding institutional independence across the board.

MASS DETENTION AND CONCENTRATION‑STYLE CAMPS

While the term “concentration camp” evokes horrific images from another era, current U.S. detention practices are drawing disturbing comparisons. One stark example is the recently expanded migrant holding facility in Florida – an isolated, heavily fortified compound surrounded by swampland and wildlife, including alligators, leading the facility’s proponents to call it “Alligator Alcatraz,” a nickname that has garnered plenty of criticism that suggests it cartoonishly minimizes the inhumanity dished out at this centre. Built to house unaccompanied minors and asylum seekers, the facility has come under fire for its remote location, restricted access, and lack of transparency.

In June 2025, a federal court blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to rewrite the Flores Settlement Agreement, which limits how long children can be held in custody. The proposed changes would have allowed indefinite detention with reduced judicial oversight – a move widely condemned as unconstitutional. Despite the ruling, thousands of detainees remain in limbo under opaque, inhumane policies that defy basic standards of care and due process. The grim stories that have emerged from this facility are, to put it mildly, outrageous.

CHILLING EFFECTS ACROSS THE BOARD

The combined effect is unmistakable: disproportionate secrecy, unchecked force, disregard for judicial authority and political intimidation. Critics warn that these trends go beyond immigration – they are strategic moves toward dismantling legal accountability, suppressing dissent and centralizing unchecked power. Project 2025, a detailed blueprint circulated among MAGA-aligned circles, explicitly calls for purging civil service, turning the justice system into an arm of the presidential agenda, replacing independent officials with loyalists, and erasing oversight structures and institutions altogether.

WILL AMERICANS NORMALIZE AUTHORITARIANISM – OR CHOOSE RESISTANCE?

The optics are striking: masked enforcers, shameless disregard for court rulings, and detention systems operating with minimal transparency. The target has often been the most vulnerable – immigrants, critics, and protestors. If the tools of repression can be wielded without legal check, what remains of constitutional protections?

This is no longer dystopian speculation. These are actions unfolding in real time, in defensible court filings and documented raids. When civil liberties advocates say “fascism has come,” they don’t mean it’s simply near. It’s already here. If the rapid changes we’ve seen unfolding in the United States tell us anything, it should be that democracy is a fragile system. It must be nurtured, protected, and defended.

From my home away from home, here on the other side of the world, I can only hope that enough of my fellow Americans of conscience – from across the political spectrum – see what is happening, recognize what’s taking place, and fight for democracy, employing every practical tool of resistance against the fascism that is already there.

SOURCES AND FURTHER READING:

• AP News – Face‑Covering Agents and Public Trust
• The Week – Are Masked ICE Agents America’s Secret Police?
• Kansas Reflector – Masked Agents Operating Without Identification
• The New Yorker – ICE’s Spectacle of Intimidation
• Reuters – Tufts Student Ordered Released from ICE Detention
• Washington Post – Rumeysa Öztürk Secretly Detained by U.S. ICE
• AP News – Judge Criticizes Government for Defying Ruling in Abrego Garcia Case
• Maryland Matters – U.S. Moves to Dismiss Lawsuit Over Deportation
• The Guardian – Law Enforcement Gave False Testimony in LA Protest Cases
• Lofgren.House.gov – Project 2025 Blueprint to Dismantle U.S. Democracy

The post Fascism Has Come to America appeared first on ExpatGo.

In his recent remarks on targeted fuel subsidies, and in response to a fair degree of public mockery over actually increasing subsidies in order to reduce the pump price of RON95 petrol from RM2.05/litre to RM1.99/litre (a near-meaningless reduction, and only for citizens), Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim stated that foreigners in Malaysia would no longer benefit from subsidized RON95 fuel, falsely claiming that they do not pay taxes or contribute directly to the Malaysian economy. While the stated goal of subsidy rationalization is fiscally sound, the rationale for excluding foreigners on these grounds is seriously flawed and deserves a closer look.

With respect, the statement that foreign residents do not pay taxes in Malaysia is simply inaccurate to the point of being outrageous. Expatriates are subject to the same income tax obligations as Malaysian citizens, depending on their residency status. Any foreign worker who resides in Malaysia for 183 days or more in a calendar year is deemed a tax resident and taxed on a progressive scale — just like any citizen. Non-residents, meanwhile, are typically taxed at a flat rate of 30 percent. Either way, their income is taxed at source through the Potongan Cukai Bulanan (PCB) system, leaving little room for avoidance.

Beyond personal income tax, there are other fiscal contributions. Since mid-2024, SOCSO (social security) contributions have been made mandatory for most foreign workers. While EPF contributions remain optional for non-Malaysians, many still participate voluntarily. Consumption taxes, excise duties, and bizarrely enough, tourism taxes — all of which are applied to resident foreigners — further underscore the point. Even simple day-to-day purchases generate revenue via the Service and Sales Tax (SST), making every person living in Malaysia a contributor to government coffers.

Ironically, a significant number of Malaysian citizens — estimated at over 85 percent — do not pay personal income tax at all. Between tax reliefs, deductions, and minimum income thresholds, only a small portion of the local working population is actually contributing directly through income tax. So the suggestion that subsidized fuel is funded solely by Malaysians is not only misleading populism, it is mathematically indefensible.

BACKLASH GROWS FROM MULTIPLE QUARTERS

The policy change has rightly drawn criticism from both opposition government members and civil society observers, who have pointed out the discriminatory overreach of excluding foreign residents entirely from the subsidy scheme. Many expats are long-term residents, with children in local schools, mortgages on Malaysian property, and bank loans from local financial institutions. They employ Malaysians, rent Malaysian properties, support local businesses, and spend in the community. These are real, measurable contributions.

And that’s to say nothing of the MM2H community, whose per-household spending typically exceeds RM10,000 per month, all of which is effectively foreign direct income being injected into Malaysia’s economy. To claim that foreigners “do not contribute” to the country’s economy is laughably false, and we are grateful that some in government have chosen to call out the Prime Minister’s false statements.

There is, of course, merit in targeting subsidies to the truly needy. Across the world, governments are rethinking broad-based fuel subsidies due to their heavy fiscal burden and environmental costs. In this context, rationalizing Malaysia’s subsidy programme is sensible. What is not sensible is drawing the eligibility line based solely on citizenship, rather than income or contribution levels.

If fairness is the guiding principle, then it should apply equally to low- and middle-income residents, regardless of nationality. A means-tested or income-tiered approach would be far more equitable and effective. Tying subsidy eligibility to tax filings or official residency status, for example, would allow the government to identify and assist those who genuinely need the help, while still maintaining a broad-based fiscal base.

Unfortunately, Prime Minister Anwar’s recent statements risk fuelling public resentment and social division, using the time-worn “us versus them” tactic to achieve political ends. Rather than clarifying the mechanics of the new subsidy framework, the remarks seemed to vilify an entire category of residents — many of whom are contributing as much, or more, than citizens who are exempt from tax.

DOES THIS SEND A WELCOMING MESSAGE?

It is worth asking what message this sends to the international community. Malaysia has long branded itself as an investment-friendly destination, open to talent and foreign direct investment. Moves that appear exclusionary, or which suggest that foreigners are unwanted burdens, stand in stark contrast to this narrative. Perception matters, and if long-term residents feel they are not welcomed or appreciated, they will look elsewhere — and bring their skills, investment, and consumption with them.

As the government presses ahead with subsidy reforms, it would be prudent to revisit the framing and language around these measures. The goal should be to balance fiscal responsibility with fairness, and that cannot be achieved by misrepresenting who pays what. It certainly cannot be achieved by alienating those who live and work here legally, pay taxes, and contribute in a multitude of visible and invisible ways.

Rather than making them the scapegoat of subsidy reform, perhaps it is time to acknowledge that expatriates, migrants, and foreign workers — from white-collar executives to blue-collar construction teams — are all part of the Malaysian economy, and by extension, its society. They help build its roads, teach in its classrooms, develop its software, and pay into its tax base. Many of these people, particularly those who are here legally and have lived here for many years, genuinely love and appreciate Malaysia, and consider it to be their home. Perhaps it’s time to stop vilifying them.

Facts matter. And so does tone. Malaysia can rationalize subsidies while being fair to all who contribute — not just those who carry a MyKad.

REFERENCES USED

• Malaysian tax residency and PCB rules from Inland Revenue Board (LHDN)
• Mandatory SOCSO contributions (as of July 2024)
• Income tax base and contribution breakdowns from Ministry of Finance
• Prime Minister’s statements as reported in NST, The Star, and Malaysiakini
• Opposition criticism and NGO reactions from Malay Mail and Free Malaysia Today

The post A Response to PM Anwar’s Recent Comments: Subsidy Reform Should Not Be Based on Nationality appeared first on ExpatGo.

While spending two months in Singapore for medical treatment, I had the chance to explore neighbouring Johor and see for myself the momentum building across this southern Malaysian state. Rather than rent an expensive studio apartment in Singapore, my wife and I based ourselves across the border in Johor – a decision that made financial and lifestyle sense.

We first stayed in Puteri Harbour, near the Tuas crossing. Though the closure of the Jen Hotel left a noticeable gap, the Olive Tree group’s restaurant remained open – a lovely spot to unwind with a view. For our second month, we relocated to another apartment nearby, featuring an impressive 41st-floor swimming pool and well-equipped gym.

Commuting daily across the Tuas checkpoint to Singapore was surprisingly easy. By timing our travel to avoid the morning rush, we made the 30-minute door-to-door drive with minimal delays. Despite having to pay a daily road usage charge of S$35 and additional tolls – amounting to around RM200 daily – this was still significantly more cost-effective than living in Singapore. An Autopass card and online daily arrival declaration smoothed our immigration clearance.

This temporary home base gave us time to explore Johor Bahru and the Iskandar region. The city is undergoing steady modernisation, bolstered by its proximity to Singapore. With the Johor-Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) expected to launch soon – capable of moving up to 10,000 passengers an hour – connectivity is about to improve significantly.

Johor’s property market is also heating up. New apartment buildings, stand-alone homes, and townships continue to emerge across Iskandar. We were particularly taken with the Eco Botanica township – complete with hundreds of English-style homes, a large mall, and lively shops. Sunway City Iskandar Puteri is another substantial development spanning 2,000 acres. While many Singaporeans invest in Johor properties, they tend to visit only occasionally, meaning some neighbourhoods are noticeably quieter on weekdays.

On the other side of the state, the Desaru Coast – about 100 km from Tuas – has been transformed into a premium beachside resort destination. It’s now home to the likes of Anantara, the Westin, and Hard Rock Hotel. The exclusive One&Only resort is no more, as the property will be shifting to a Mandarin Oriental resort in early 2026, making it clear that the area’s luxury profile continues to grow.

Then there’s Forest City – arguably Johor’s most ambitious development. Positioned along the west coast near the Second Link to Singapore, this massive project was launched by a Chinese developer in partnership with Malaysian stakeholders. Marketed initially to Chinese buyers, Forest City was envisioned as a futuristic eco-city spread over four man-made islands. Only one has been completed to date, and sales slowed dramatically due to the pandemic and other economic factors.

Nonetheless, the scale of the finished island is impressive, with high-rises capable of housing over 100,000 residents. Units start at around RM500,000 for 500 square feet, with sea-view properties commanding even higher prices. This puts the cost per square foot above other parts of Johor, likely due to high construction expenses and land reclamation.

As Chinese demand waned, we returned to see whether the project might now appeal to the English-speaking expat community. Developers are increasingly open to non-Chinese buyers, though marketing and funding support appear limited for now.

Still, Forest City has some strong advantages. It’s part of the newly announced Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone and designated for financial services investment. It’s also the only development tied to a bespoke version of the Malaysia My Second Home (MM2H) visa, designed for retirees. The financial requirement is much lower than the national MM2H scheme – just US$32,000 in fixed deposit for applicants over 50, half of which can be withdrawn after a property purchase.

On top of that, Forest City is now a duty-free zone, offering residents significant savings on items like alcohol. What it currently lacks, however, is the lifestyle infrastructure that appeals to many expats – things like Western-style cafés, bars, and dining outlets. These could certainly help the area realise its original vision.

Despite its quiet weekdays, Forest City is kept tidy and sees a boost in activity on weekends. A growing number of full-time residents is helping shift the mood. For retirees or budget-conscious expats, particularly from Europe, this development offers warm weather, a low cost of living, and proximity to Singapore without the high prices.

Johor has long been a supporting act to Malaysia’s bigger destinations, but that’s changing. From the container port at Tanjung Pelepas – now the world’s 15th-largest – to burgeoning resort towns and SEZ-linked developments, the state is evolving. Whether as a short-term base or a permanent move, Johor presents compelling reasons to take a closer look.

The post Johor’s Rising Profile of Development, Affordability, and Opportunity: A Personal Journey appeared first on ExpatGo.

Kuala Lumpur Tower, one of Malaysia’s most iconic landmarks, reopened on April 26 under new management by LSH Service Master Sdn Bhd (LSHSM). As part of the relaunch, the operator has introduced a sharply divided two-tier ticket pricing system that significantly reduces rates for Malaysians, while hiking prices for international visitors by over 20% for the Sky Deck and up to 33% for the Observation Deck.

Locals with a MyKad will now pay RM50 for the Sky Deck, while international adults will pay RM140 — nearly three times the local rate. Children’s ticket prices exhibit a similar disparity, with parents of non-Malaysian kids having to pay a whopping RM80 for a child’s ticket.

WHAT MESSAGE DOES THIS SEND TO TOURISTS?

This openly discriminatory pricing decision, coming just as Malaysia ramps up preparations for Visit Malaysia Year 2026, risks undermining the country’s image as a warm, welcoming destination. While the move is supposedly meant to boost local accessibility, the stark pricing gap unquestionably sends the wrong signal to international tourists, who form the bulk of daily visitors.

Dual pricing schemes like this may errantly appeal to populist domestic sensibilities (ignoring the fact that there are many wealthy Malaysians and also many international budget travellers), the steep increase for foreigners could be perceived as discriminatory or exploitative, especially given the massive gap between prices for locals and those for foreign tourists.

Moreover, this reopening follows a messy legal dispute between the government, the former operator (MKLSB), and the new concessionaire, adding further controversy to an already fraught transition. As tourism becomes increasingly competitive, pricing strategies that alienate core market segments may do more harm than good — especially when the sector is expected to showcase Malaysia at its best.

OUR THOUGHTS

We are no fans of discriminatory two-tier pricing in general, especially when there is no taxpayer-subsidised element in place. (For example, if a service or attraction is funded in whole or in part by Malaysian taxpayers, then a legitimate argument can be made for lowering the cost for Malaysian citizens, and for, we would argue, working resident expats who also pay taxes here.) For a privately held attraction, however, where any foreign visitor is wholly equal to any Malaysian citizen, charging the visitor more – especially two to three times more – is outrageous, and should, in our view, be called out by officials in the Tourism Ministry, even if it cannot be forcibly curtailed. Two-tier pricing sends a poor message indeed in the run-up to Visit Malaysia Year 2026.

We call on the new management of KL Tower to rethink this blatantly unfair pricing scheme in the interest of showing that Malaysia is a welcoming and equitable travel destination, not one in which visitors are going to be gouged and discriminated against at every turn.

Absent that, we would suggest visitors to Kuala Lumpur avoid the KL Tower and offer here a much better alternative: If you’re a family of four, a single visit to KL Tower will cost you RM440. We recommend taking that money and spending it in one of the city centre’s several excellent rooftop restaurants, from Mesa on 51 and Sabayon to Torito and Charr. Those without children, meanwhile, can also opt for a sky-high bar experience at SkyBar, Vertigo, Satellite, Canopy, Sky51, Marini’s on 57, or any of several rooftop bars. You may not be quite as high as KL Tower, but you’ll get an excellent dining and drinking experience with stunning city views all the same.

The post Divisive New Two-Tier Pricing at KL Tower Sends Wrong Message Ahead of Visit Malaysia Year 2026 appeared first on ExpatGo.

Never far from controversy – sometimes deserved, sometimes not – Asia’s edition of the World’s 50 Best Restaurants list recently dropped, and if the countries scoring the most celebrated eateries looks awfully familiar, well… you’re not imagining things.

Singapore, Bangkok, and Tokyo are, once again, arguably over-represented, while many other major cities in Asia have either no entries whatsoever, or perhaps just one. I have to assume plenty of people are scratching their heads and wondering, “What is up with that?”

Kuala Lumpur (and Malaysia as a whole) was completely shut out, and the countries of Indonesia, the Philippines, and China – three countries with a cumulative population of over 1.8 billion – collectively landed only six restaurants in the top 50. (Hong Kong and Macau are not counted as part of China for this ranking; nor is Taiwan – sorry, Beijing!)

THE ‘STJ’ PHENOMENON

Each year in recent memory, the unholy trinity of ‘STJ’ – Singapore, Thailand (specifically Bangkok), and Japan (mostly Tokyo) – grab a plurality, if not an outright majority of the ’50 best’ spots.

In fact, eight of the restaurants in the top 10 are in those three countries, and 12 of the top 15. Altogether, the ‘STJ’ countries account for a whopping 26 out of the top 50 restaurants in 2024. Singapore alone has nine. If you add in Hong Kong, which claimed six spots, that’s 32 out of 50 going to four countries in all of Asia.

Is there something wrong with the judging and scoring system?

THE WAY RESTAURANTS ARE RANKED

The World’s 50 Best Restaurants ranking – and by extension, similar lists for bars, restaurants in Asia, etc. – rivals the Michelin Guide for importance in the culinary landscape.

The inception of the World’s 50 Best Restaurants list traces back to its debut feature in the British magazine Restaurant in 2002. Subsequently, an awards ceremony was established to commemorate the unveiling of this prestigious list. The outcomes are now also disseminated through the World’s 50 Best Restaurants social media platforms and website on the awards night.

The selection process for the World’s 50 Best Restaurants list involves polling over 1,000 independent diners (some ‘experts’), who cast their votes for the restaurants where they have had their most memorable culinary experiences. The World’s 50 Best Restaurants Academy comprises 27 regions globally and strives to have gender balance, after being plagued by controversy in this regard.

Additionally, there was very little regional diversity, and that’s only now really seeing change. For nearly all of the awards’ first decade, it was unusual to see restaurants in the list from any country outside of Europe apart from the United States, and even they had very poor representation.

Indeed, looking at the top three rankings from every year since the World’s 50 Best began, precisely ONE restaurant is from a country outside of Europe or the U.S. Even France – France! – has only two restaurants showing in the top three places over a span of 21 years. Spain, the UK, and Denmark are the most prominent countries represented.

The voting process and outcomes of the World’s 50 Best Restaurants list undergo independent adjudication by Deloitte, which is meant to ensure transparency and integrity.

Notably, there are no predefined criteria for voting – which may or may not be a good thing, depending on who you ask. The organisation empowers the 1,080 voters to exercise their judgment, and their collective preferences shape the final list.

A controversial rule introduced in 2019 (curiously, largely at the behest of some well-regarded chefs on the list) disqualifies previous winners from competing. Noma only qualified again in 2021 because it closed in 2016 and later reopened in a new location and with a new concept.

Since 2013, William Reed has expanded its culinary accolades by introducing regional restaurant rankings such as Asia’s 50 Best Restaurants and Latin America’s 50 Best Restaurants. In February 2022, they launched Middle East & North Africa’s 50 Best Restaurants, further enriching the culinary landscape.

FIT TO FALL?

For quite a few chefs appearing on the list, particularly at or near the top, the award can be a double-edged sword. Unsurprisingly, the ‘buzz’ (and bookings) often surges dramatically for top-tier establishments after the list is released.

Restaurants that make the top 10 can expect a huge increase in attention from eager diners and media alike. “Within 24 hours of the ceremony, we got two million booking requests,” says Catalan chef Joan Roca in a 2019 interview, whose restaurant El Celler de Can Roca in Girona, Spain, took number one in 2013 and 2015. “We’re still feeling the impact.”

But some would argue that the lofty rankings create unrealistic expectations which are almost impossible to consistently satisfy.

This writer may be among them, as in late 2023, I booked a table at that year’s number-one ranked restaurant on the 50 Best list – for all of Asia, mind you – Le Du, in Bangkok, specialising in seasonal ‘modern Thai-inspired cuisine.’

Was it good? Sure. (They didn’t get the Michelin star they also have because they’re terrible.) Was it breathtakingly expensive? Absolutely. Before the discount the chef generously provided thanks to a friend’s personal connection, it was a staggering RM2,400 for two. As I recall, that was for a six-course tasting menu with a modest wine pairing option.

This year, Le Du dropped from 2023’s very top spot to number 12. Now, 12th place out of 50 is still quite respectable, of course, but it’s admittedly a rather steep plunge, and it’s not hard to guess how sinking from #1 to #12 will impact bookings (and, one would hope, prices).

The suggestion to remove previous top winners from subsequent rankings came predominantly from highly ranked chefs, arising in very small part from a desire to unclog the top, acccording to 2019 TIME interview, but also by an effort to avoid the decline in reputation that some notable chefs have suffered once they fell from first place.

Daniel Humm, whose restaurant Eleven Madison Park in New York won the top spot in 2017, then fell in later years, acknowledges that the negative impact of a drop in the ranking was a factor in the group’s proposal to eliminate #1 restaurants from the next year’s competition.

“We’ve seen restaurants fall down the list, even though they were getting better and better,” Humm explained. “There have been a few chefs in the past who started to feel [irritated] and mistreated, and they started to not show up to the ceremony, and that was hurting the whole thing.”

Humm’s perception is not unique. “It’s an assassin list,” agrees Ferran Adrià, whose restaurant elBulli held the title five times before it closed in 2011. Like many other chefs, Adrià only learned of 2019’s new rule once it was publicly announced. “Once you fall, you disappear not only from the list,” he said, “but from the [industry’s] whole little world.”

AN EXPANDING WORLD OF RANKED LISTS

The influence of social media and related content has only grown in importance, if not always in credibility, so just as the 50 Best list diluted the all-important dominance of the Michelin Guide, so too is the 50 Best Restaurant’s crushing grip seeing more and more loosening in recent years.

To be clear, both Michelin and the 50 Best are still the industry’s bellwethers, and nothing has fully shaken their global cachet, but on a more micro level, there’s plenty of competition.

For now, I look at the Asia’s 50 Best Restaurants with interest, but also with a dose of skepticism, simply because Asia is a vast place with scores of countries, hundreds of cities, and thousands of terrific restaurants, and it beggars belief that just three locales could account for half of the supposed ‘Top 50.’ But I also recognise that the mechanism for voting, judging, and ranking – particularly in an area as big as Asia – is inherently complex and difficult.

So while it’s disappointing (and frankly surprising) that Malaysia didn’t get a single establishment listed in Asia’s 50 Best Restaurants, the reality seems to be that the cities that get the most nods on this list are simply going to be the ones where most of the judges live (or visit).

Making Malaysia a world-renowned culinary destination sure sounds like a new challenge for Tourism Malaysia to take on!

In the meantime, here is the line-up of 2024’s 50 Best Restaurants in Asia… for what it’s worth!

• 1. Sezanne (Tokyo, Japan)
• 2. Florilege (Tokyo, Japan)
• 3. Gaggan Anand (Bangkok, Thailand)
• 4. The Chairman (Hong Kong)
• 5. Wing (Hong Kong)
• 6. Nusara (Bangkok, Thailand)
• 7. Suhring (Bangkok, Thailand)
• 8. Den (Tokyo, Japan)
• 9. La Cime (Osaka, Japan)
• 10. Odette (Singapore)
• 11. Sorn (Bangkok, Thailand)
• 12. Le Du (Bangkok, Thailand)
• 13. Mingles (Seoul, South Korea)
• 14. Narisawa (Tokyo, Japan)
• 15. Burnt Ends (Singapore)
• 16. Neighborhood (Hong Kong)
• 17. Potong (Bangkok, Thailand)
• 18. 7th Door (Seoul, South Korea)
• 19. Fu He Hui (Shanghai, China)
• 20. Euphoria (Singapore)
• 21. Onjium (Seoul, South Korea)
• 22. Logy (Taipei, Taiwan)
• 23. Masque (Mumbai, India)
• 24. Toyo Eatery (Manila, Philippines)
• 25. Born (Singapore)
• 26. Indian Accent (New Delhi, India)
• 27. Mono (Hong Kong)
• 28. Meta (Singapore)
• 29. Samrub Samrub Thai (Bangkok, Thailand)
• 30. Labyrinth (Singapore)
• 31. Seroja (Singapore)
• 32. Caprice (Hong Kong)
• 33. JL Studio (Taichung, Taiwan)
• 34. Mume (Taipei, Taiwan)
• 35. Villa Aida (Wakayama, Japan)
• 36. Ling Long (Shanghai, China)
• 37. Ando (Hong Kong)
• 38.  Les Amis (Singapore)
• 39. Sazenka (Tokyo, Japan)
• 40. 102 House (Shanghai, China)
• 41. Mosu (Seoul, South Korea)
• 42. Baan Tepa (Bangkok, Thailand)
• 43. Lolla (Singapore)
• 44. Avartana (Chennai, India)
• 45. Goh (Fukuoka, Japan)
• 46. August (Jakarta, Indonesia)
• 47. Cenci (Kyoto, Japan)
• 48. Anan Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam)
• 49. Chef Tam’s Seasons (Macau)
• 50. Meet the Bund (Shanghai, China)

The post Asia’s 50 Best Restaurants for 2024 Revealed… and They’re in the Usual Countries Once Again appeared first on ExpatGo.

They say the only sure things in life are death and taxes, and a general disdain for taxation is quite possibly one of the few things nearly all people agree on. But I also think that many, if not most, of us understand why taxes exist. And we accept the imposition of taxes more easily when we see good things arising from their collection.

But it’s a funny old business for sure. I remember many years ago – 1993 to be exact – when my home city of Denver, Colorado was awarded one of two major league baseball expansion teams. For the first two years, the team played in the city’s football stadium since the seasons for the two sports don’t really overlap. The fields for baseball and American football are, of course, completely different, so a lot of adjustments had to be made. Calls quickly began mounting for a dedicated baseball stadium, so accordingly, for the six-county area surrounding Denver, a tiny sales tax increase was proposed to fund the stadium’s costly construction. It was only 0.1% – just 1¢ for every $10 spent, the pitch proclaimed – and voters passed it. A genuinely beautiful new $300 million baseball stadium was built in downtown Denver, just over half funded by that tax, and in April 1995, Coors Field opened with its first game. Now, nearly three decades later, the stadium still stands.

Curiously enough, however, that 0.1% tax increase – ostensibly imposed to fund the construction of Coors Field – also still stands (albeit under a fresh new name). As many governments have discovered, once that magical tap of delicious tax revenue is turned on, it’s really hard to muster up the political will to turn it off.

TAXING THE TOURISTS

The one tax that I would very much like to see shelved here in Malaysia – or at least reviewed and modified – is the loathsome ‘tourism tax.’ Although many municipalities impose such taxes in some form or another, the way in which Malaysia levies it on a nationwide basis could probably use some tweaking.

No matter where you go in the country, no matter the room rate of the lodging in which you stay, a flat RM10 per room, per night tourism tax is levied, and innkeepers are required to collect this charge in full and typically upfront (though not always), separate from the bill paid at check-out. It is loudly and clearly announced, too, often noted on a prominent placard at the front desk: this is a tourism tax. Only Malaysian citizens and permanent residents are exempted. (More on this later.)

Does this not seem a bit unwelcoming and unfriendly, as though tourists are almost being openly penalized for choosing to come to Malaysia and spend their money? Officials have said that “most of the money” collected from this tourism tax, which is a significant haul, is used to further promote the country to other tourists, which just seems… odd. A tourist comes to visit and explore Malaysia and spend their money here, and they are taxed specifically so that more tourists can be enticed to come, and then also get taxed for visiting? To my mind, a country should pay, from its own general budget, for promoting itself overseas, not the tourists who have already chosen to visit.

Think of it in a different way. You go to a restaurant, but before you are taken to your table, a RM5 per dish charge is demanded and collected. It doesn’t matter if your selection costs RM150 or RM20. The same fee applies – RM5 per dish. “What is this for?” you ask. “Well,” they explain, pointing to the sign, “it’s our dining tax. We collect this cash from you, then use it to advertise our restaurant so we can get other diners to come. When they do, we’ll collect the same fee from them, then use that to buy even more advertising.”

Would this not elicit outrage? And wouldn’t most diners simply decide to eat elsewhere next time? I feel this is a pretty fair analogy for Malaysia’s tourism tax.

Does it bring in a lot of money? It surely does – early estimates of over RM100 million per 10% in occupancy rate were floated (e.g., about RM654 million for average nationwide occupancy rate of 60%). But is it good policy? That remains an open question.

Surely there must be a better way. Perhaps a blanket ‘occupancy tax’ that is levied universally, and on a modest percentage basis. Even on its face, this seems more equitable, because while paying an extra RM10 per night at a hotel whose rates start at RM900 might not seem like a big bite, how does that translate to paying the same extra RM10 a night for a room that’s RM80 a night? One guest is paying about 1.1% in tourism tax, while the other is paying 12.5%. Additionally, the tax penalty grows if a tourist stays longer in Malaysia, presumably spending more money and adding to the economy all the while. Seven nights? Well, that’ll be RM70 extra, please.

Tourism industry players ramped up calls in 2018 to abolish the tax, which they said was too “in your face” and counterproductive to the goal of stimulating tourist spending. Agencies and tourism groups decried the charge en masses, saying it was an “unnecessary burden” on both tourists and on accommodation operators. Despite months of pleading, however, the government pointedly said it had no intention of removing the controversial tax.

After all, the lucrative tap had been turned on, and just as in Colorado, officials found it much too tantalising to turn off.

BUT IT’S NOT JUST FOR TOURISTS

Possibly the most frustrating thing about this so-called tourism tax is that it is cheerfully imposed on working expats and resident MM2Hers, too – people who are in no way tourists in Malaysia. I’ve lived here for 15 years. I work here, I pay taxes here, I spend money here literally every day, contributing to the country’s economy. And yet, if I travel anywhere within the country, and check in to a hotel, I am asked to pay a tourism tax.

Like several other expats with whom I’ve spoken about the issue, I flatly refuse to pay it, explaining that I am not a tourist, but rather a long-time resident. Of course, I realize it’s not the hotel’s doing, and I tell them that – they’re simply executing Ministry of Tourism policy.

But perhaps it’s time to revisit that policy, and either include residents with long-term visas on the exemption list, or rethink the tourism tax approach altogether. Experts more knowledgeable than I have decried tourism taxes as ‘bad tax policy,’ saying that it shifts the cost burden unfairly, creates negative effects on consumers and business owners, and hinders the effective promotion of a destination – exactly the opposite effect intended. One comprehensive study found that a 10% increase in tourism tax resulted in a 5.4% decrease in tourist demand.

Moreover, many municipalities which do impose a tourism tax do so to help fund the infrastructure and attractions that tourists enjoy, preserve the environment, or encourage the development of sustainable tourism practices. Some even use the funds to pay for insurance policies to provide an umbrella of protection for visitors in the event of injury. And of course, in some instances – in this era of growing overtourism – some destinations impose taxes simply to disincentivize visits.

But not many places explicitly levy taxes on tourists for the purpose of funding the destination’s tourism marketing goals! And most places tend to impose these taxes a bit more discreetly or indirectly, working them subtly into international airline fares, occupancy taxes, or such.

TIME FOR A REVIEW?

Thailand, which in February 2023 approved a controversial and deeply unpopular 300-baht ‘tourism fee’ for visitors arriving by air (150 baht for land and sea arrivals), did not announce at the time exactly when it would be implemented. In mid-December 2023, they announced it would be postponed indefinitely, ‘until the industry recovers.’

Maybe a rethink of a policy that explicitly taxes tourists for choosing to come here is worth considering for Malaysia, too – and certainly a reversal of treating and taxing resident expats as tourists is in order.

Or maybe there’s just a better way to implement these taxes. If levied as a much lower, percentage-based occupancy tax across the board, it would not only be fairer, it could potentially even generate more revenue, as nobody would be exempt. And why should they be? After all, a Malaysian who lives in KL and visits Kuching is still very much a tourist. And if the funds are used to bolster and improve tourism facilities and keep places clean and sustainable, then locals derive every bit as much benefit from that as tourists – if not more!

Tourism is too important to Malaysia’s economy to implement flawed or unsustainable policy. The country has an abundance of incredible tourism assets and derives immense benefit from tourism, so it’s clear that adopting well-thought-out approaches to managing the resources and funding their upkeep will always be of critical importance.

The post Is Malaysia’s Tourism Tax Good Policy? appeared first on ExpatGo.

Remember the big Cuti-Cuti Malaysia push – a bid to promote and encourage travelling locally in the post-pandemic recovery period? If it’s slipped your mind, it appears you’re not alone.

Lately, there’s been a rise in people taking notice of a curious phenomenon: Local Malaysians are flocking to Thailand in droves, bypassing domestic holiday destinations such as Langkawi. The buzzing city of Hat Yai in southern Thailand, not far from the Malaysian border, has apparently been drawing huge numbers of Malaysians, to the point that some in the local media have asked why Hat Yai, and not Langkawi? (Others answer the question, saying affordable hotels, excellent shopping, plenty to see and do, and an amazing array of inexpensive food all contribute to Hat Yai’s appeal.)

Enough has been made of the surge of Malaysians heading to Thailand that the inevitable pushback and hand-wringing has commenced, with some saying it’s inherently unfair to compare such destinations as Hat Yai with Langkawi.

In fact, Thailand has recently reported that China is no longer their biggest source of inbound tourism – Malaysia is, with some 4.56 million visits in 2023. Reports splashed across news outlets recently exclaimed that Malaysians pouring into Hat Yai alone over the holidays in late December dumped 10 billion baht – that’s billion with a ‘B’ – into southern Thailand in barely over a week’s time, a number that’s quite frankly difficult to believe. So I checked it out, and found the disconnect.

The source appears to be an industry leader in Thailand, who told Bernama, “Malaysian tourists are estimated to have contributed approximately two billion baht to the Hat Yai economy this Christmas and New Year celebration.” Two billion.

So apparently, something got lost in the transfer of information from Bernama to other news outlets (though at least one got it right). Bit of a difference between two billion and 10 billion! Regardless, however, that’s still a lot of money to be injected into a destination’s economy in such a short spell.

But despite the eyebrow-raising figures about Malaysians’ spending habits in Thailand, the question continues to be asked: How can we get Malaysia’s destinations back on the radar of local travellers?

Honestly, when looking at Langkawi specifically, it’s hard to know what’s going on there, at least in part because reports landing within 24 hours of each other last month appeared to be wildly contradictory. One story claimed tourism was thriving on the island, while others said numbers were down and that complaints of high prices were on the rise. A scathing article in Malay Mail which interviewed holidaymakers returning from Langkawi said the island desperately needs not only a clean-up and rejuvenation, but a ‘major reset’ to revive its ailing tourist industry. Meanwhile, a TTG Asia story published the same week insisted tourist arrivals on the island are ‘soaring.’

Then, there are conflicting accounts of who or what is to blame. High prices? Limited flights? Religious extremism? Poor marketing? No brand identity? Neglected infrastructure? All have been named as culprits – and that’s just in the last month!

It’s safe to say your destination has a problem when inbound tourism players are called on to act as mediators between squabbling authorities at the state level (Kedah) and national level (Ministry of Tourism). Making matters worse, much of this has been playing out in the media, which isn’t doing Langkawi any favours.

In speaking to hoteliers and tour operators on the island, I was told that September and October were extremely slow, particularly for domestic tourism. Some industry people told me that their summer months were good, with brisk business in July and August, but that it fell off a cliff after that. November picked up a bit, and of course the festive season helped in December, as usual.

COST CONSIDERATIONS

Airfares between Kuala Lumpur and Langkawi have risen sharply in the last couple of months, primarily because of a reduced number of seats on the route. The collapse of MYAirline, the increasing struggles of SKS Airways, and what looks to be a cessation of flights between Subang Airport and Langkawi by Batik Air cannot be considered helpful for a tourist destination that’s bemoaning its low numbers of domestic arrivals.

Not only are airfares higher now, Langkawi is widely known to have some of the highest average hotel room rates in Malaysia. In recent local media articles, Malaysians were interviewed and the prevailing attitude seemed to be, “Borders are open now. Why would we spend so much to have a holiday in Langkawi when we can go to Phuket or Bangkok or Bali for the same, or even less?” (Or apparently, Hat Yai.)

One notable Malaysian PR company recently commented that some of these problems stem from having a government-linked company in charge of marketing the country and its various destinations, saying, “They don’t understand how the destination, the business, and the consumers have changed.”

But, experts say, Langkawi doesn’t really have a marketing problem so much as it has a branding problem. And this is something I’ve also been saying for years. I’ve personally visited Langkawi over 60 times, and have seen first-hand the manifestation of competing interests, poor planning, and confusing promotional strategies leading me to wonder what Langkawi is trying to be.

ISLAND IDENTITY

For a tourist destination, marketing and branding serve distinct yet interconnected roles. Marketing is the strategic effort to promote and sell the destination’s features and experiences. It involves the implementation of campaigns, advertisements, and promotional activities to attract visitors. On the other hand, branding is the holistic process of shaping and communicating the destination’s identity. It goes beyond short-term promotional efforts and focuses on creating a lasting impression. Branding encompasses the destination’s unique personality, values, and the connection it establishes with visitors.

Simply put, while marketing is about driving visits in the short term, branding lays the foundation for long-term loyalty and overall perception. In practice, marketing is the active pursuit of visitors, while branding is the development of a destination’s enduring story that resonates with travellers over time.

That’s a real problem for Langkawi because it can’t seem to decide what kind of destination it wants to be and what sort of travellers it wants to engage with. It’s hard to be seen as a laid-back ‘good time’ island when stories leak out about religious extremism taking hold, along with rumours of bans on consuming alcohol or wearing bikinis – or even shorts! (None of these are actually true, but when it comes to things like this, perception tends to be more important than reality.)

Of course we know Langkawi isn’t set to be a regional party island, so then what is it? It’s hard to be styled as a top beach destination when your beaches don’t compete favourably with others in the region – or even others in Malaysia! It’s hard to be branded an eco-tourism hotspot when it seems evident that little effort is being made in this pursuit, to the point of nearly losing – twice! – the very UNESCO Geopark inscription that gives Langkawi such tourism value. It’s hard to be seen as a duty-free value-for-money destination when reports of ‘exorbitant prices’ at hotels, restaurants, and shops land in the local media, coupled with persistent reports every couple of years that some parties are pushing to strip Langkawi of its duty-free status altogether.

HOW DO YOU COUNT?

One issue that I feel has potentially bedevilled Langkawi for years is the skewed inflation of actual tourist numbers by including day-trippers, cruise ship excursionists, and workers arriving on the ferry in the total. For the travel industry, this approach distorts true tourist numbers, which in turn can lead to problems with refining and targeting the marketing strategies being used to promote the island.

Officials last week said that 2.63 million tourists visited Langkawi from January 1 to December 20 of 2023. It’s tough to believe that an average of over 7,400 genuine tourists – that’s overnight or long-stay visitors – arrived on the island every single day in 2023.

Officials claim 3.9 million tourists visited Langkawi in 2019, which pushes the average daily number of tourists up to nearly 11,000, a figure that’s even more challenging to accept.

Are these numbers possible? Maybe. Again, I don’t know. But if the figures are being padded by the inclusion of daily arrivals who aren’t actual tourists, then that doesn’t help anyone in the long term.

Veteran tourism agent and Tourism Langkawi coordinator Ahmad Pishol Isahak addressed the possibility that day-trippers were being included in the tabulation, often workers commuting by ferry to and from the island. Pishol suggested using hotel occupancy rates as a more meaningful gauge of tourist arrivals while also seeking more in-depth data on consumer spending to understand whether tourists were spending less now than before the pandemic, and if so, why.

Langkawi needs not just leadership, but a true champion to take the helm and steer the island out of its meandering morass. Identify and develop a brand identity for the island, clean up the place, improve the infrastructure and tourist attractions, and market the island’s strengths to the right audiences.

Above all, don’t neglect the domestic market in the pursuit of international visitors – both are important, but it’s accurate to say Langkawi’s biggest draw, by far, comes from right here in Malaysia.

If the Hat Yai phenomenon is to be correctly interpreted, perhaps offering lower hotel rates, a thriving morning or night market, better shopping (maybe a Langkawi branch of the ‘Premium Outlets Malaysia’ concept that’s found success in Johor and Genting), and a wider, more diverse range of good, affordable food options would surely see more locals returning to Langkawi.

The post Tourism Travails as Malaysians Opt for Thailand? appeared first on ExpatGo.

Having been involved in providing feedback and suggestions during the early days of the MM2H visa, and also marketing it overseas, I became quite attached to it and was happy to promote the programme. It seemed an excellent initiative that allowed foreigners to enjoy all that Malaysia had to offer while contributing to the growth of the economy.

To my mind, it was a win-win proposition. Applicants were encouraged to move here and assured that the conditions under which they applied would not be changed and they would be most welcome here. The programme became regarded as one of the best retirement visa options of the many available around the world. Many retirees settled here, buying houses, cars and other capital items and our research showed an average monthly spend of around RM10,000.

Malaysia became known as a country that welcomed foreigners and this helped inbound tourism and foreign direct investment. Family and friends flocked to Malaysia to visit visa holders, and the word about Malaysia’s many attractions spread exponentially. Lifestyle is usually a consideration when corporations make investments overseas. Seeing that people chose to come and live in Malaysia was a positive factor in persuading investors that Malaysia was a good choice.

That all came crashing down during Covid, not because of the virus itself, but because of the decisions that were made during that period. This included suddenly denying nearly all visa applications, locking MM2H visa holders out of the country, and then suspending the visa programme altogether. When a revised set of conditions for the visa was eventually announced, most interested applicants found they were no longer eligible. Malaysia quickly disappeared from the top of various global lists showing the best places to retire.

The programme was open to adults of all ages, and in some respects that was a potential weakness, as there was a strong possibility that younger applicants would seek employment. It also failed to offer a viable avenue for those who were retired, but were willing to offer their services to assist local businesses.

The concerns expressed by some that the country would be flooded with retirees were not valid, as the annual approved applicants never surpassed 10,000, while Malaysia’s own population was increasing by over 500,000 people a year. Compare that with Singapore which has more permanent residents (PRs) approved each year than new citizens born into the country. However, unlike Singapore, Malaysia has always been reluctant to give anyone PR – and even more so when it comes to citizenship.

We had hoped the newest version of the rules would offer a retirement visa to meet the needs of this very sizeable group of people who are interested in settling outside their own country. Many were looking for a place to relocate, buy a home and settle down. A critical requirement was knowing they could stay indefinitely and that the requirements to qualify for the visa would, for them, remain unchanged. This was supposed to be the case in Malaysia, but changes made during Covid caused people to doubt Malaysia’s word.

The latest version of the visa has three tiers – silver, gold, and platinum – which are largely distinguished by the size of the fixed deposits applicants have to make. The higher the deposit, the longer you can stay.

The following are my observations at this point:

1. There is no indication that the new rules will affect existing MM2H visa holders.

2. Under the existing current programme, applicants have to show a monthly income of RM40,000 a month, an amount that is too high for most retirees. However, the latest rules make no mention of the required income or even if there is an income requirement. Not having any income requirement could open the programme to people who would struggle to survive here and thus make little contribution to the economy.

3. The same goes for liquid assets. Currently, applicants have to show the equivalent of RM1.5 million in cash assets before applying, but nothing is stated regarding liquid assets in the new rules. Having said that, I have actually never been in favour of that particular requirement. To my mind, the key requirement is that applicants can place the required fixed deposit.

4. The lowest tier, silver, gives a five-year visa and requires a RM500,000 fixed deposit, which is half the current amount. Approved applicants still have to wait a year before being allowed to withdraw any funds and then only for specific items. This time there was no mention of withdrawing money to cover educational costs, which was previously permitted.

5. The next tier up, gold, with a required deposit of RM2,000,000 comes with a 15-year renewable visa. Malaysian law restricts all long-term visas to a maximum of five years, so I assume each renewal will be easy to make. However, the silver visa is also renewable, so it is unclear how much harder it will be to renew the silver visa than the “15 years visa” under the gold category, which will undoubtedly be issued for three periods of five years each.

6. The decision to permit applications for Permanent Residency to the platinum tier, who must deposit RM5 million, is surprising since Malaysia has always been very reluctant to give PR to foreigners. It will be interesting to see how easy they will make the application process, because in the past even people who qualify have waited many years to get approval.

7. They are still insisting you leave the full amount of the deposit in place for one year before allowing a partial withdrawal of 50%. The reason for this is not clear, but it has been a feature of the programme since it was first launched. Since the deposit has been known to dissuade people from buying property, we think it might be better to waive the deposit if people buy a home.

8. The visa is not clear about permission to work. Currently, visa holders can work for a Malaysian company for up to 20 hours a week ,but the approval process is cumbersome and it seems few people apply. It is reasonable to assume that those interested in Permanent Residency under the platinum tier would be looking for some kind of employment, but it is not yet known if they will be allowed to work up until the time they receive PR.

9. The visa seems to be open to people aged 30 and over, which is very young unless they are permitted to work. It is not clear who they are targeting here. Once again, that is why we have long advocated a genuine retirement visa with minimum age of say, 50.

10. Another concern is the 60 days residency requirement. For someone who relocates here, it is not a problem, but for a person who buys a holiday home with plans to relocate here in the future, it would likely mean they could not join. It might persuade potential holiday home purchasers not to buy, whereas having a separate investment visa category without the 60-day residency rule might capture another segment.

A final, but crucial, missing piece of information is when this new policy takes effect. We assume it will be January next year, but it was not specified.

I believe it will take a while for Malaysia to regain its popularity as a place to retire. Hopefully, the relaxed conditions and these three MM2H visa options will eventually attract back some of the many thousands of people who were turned away from Malaysia.

The post First Thoughts on the Latest MM2H Programme Revision appeared first on ExpatGo.

Malaysia will begin limiting subsidies on the most commonly used grade of gasoline (RON 95) to only the lowest-income households beginning in the second half of 2024, as the government seeks to narrow a budget gap that’s among the widest in Southeast Asia.

The country’s richest 20% households, known as the T20, are now receiving 53% of fuel subsidies, Economy Minister Rafizi Ramli said on Monday in Kuala Lumpur, according to news reports. Such a model is “neither sustainable nor equitable,” he added.

So, a couple of things to unpack here. First, it’s extremely unclear how such a determination could be made. Drivers are, after all, not required to submit their household financial details when filling up their cars. How could it be so specifically ascertained that 53% of fuel subsidies are going to the T20? That seem a fairly nebulous statistic on its face, though I confess there may be some magical calculation of which I’m not aware that can accurately gauge it.

Second, the availability of the fuel subsidy is reportedly going to be based on “disposable household income.” But this, for most households, is a continually changing number. As housing, food, and other costs increase, failing an increase in salary, a household’s disposable income will decrease. And what if someone changes jobs, or gets a raise, or even gets retrenched? Those all have immediate and meaningful impacts on the household’s disposable income. This dynamic number seems to be a very difficult thing to track and confirm in real time. (And what are the cut-off points to receive the subsidy? Will this apply to everyone residing in the country, or only Malaysian citizens?)

Third, even if we go on the assumption that the 53% figure above is a valid statistic, is it really surprising? People with more disposable income will drive more, in most cases. There are also loads of people driving for business reasons – from gig economy workers to lorry drivers to businessmen and women driving outstation for work. How does that factor into the subsidy allocation calculation?

This is actually applicable mostly across the board when it comes to subsidies. Those who consume the most – usually by definition the wealthiest – will reap the most benefits. Kind of a “the more you spend, the more you save” kind of thing. Plus, people who earn more money in general pay more in taxes (at least in theory), so why should they be completely locked out of the subsidies? I don’t necessarily disagree with this in all instances, but it really is almost a wealth redistribution model, and for many people, that’s a conversation that’s at least worth having.

Finally, to my mind, for something as ubiquitous, essential, and readily available in a country as fuel – I mean, really, people can get petrol at virtually any hour, any day of the week in one of thousands of pumps across Malaysia – is going to be a real challenge for targeted subsidies. Most people I’ve talked to are expecting the roll-out to be a disaster. (Many of them used other words that we can’t reprint here.)

Subsidies by their nature often carry problems along with them. An obvious one is a distortion of the market. By artificially lowering prices, there are risks of overconsumption, waste, and inefficiencies in resource allocation. Case in point: Malaysia subsidizes electricity tariffs for many people. With relatively inexpensive energy bills, where is the incentive to switch off lights, appliances, and air conditioners? Where is the needed drive (from both consumers and industry) to increase efficiency and energy-saving measures in the products we buy and use?

Subsidies also cause trade imbalances and unfair price advantages, which in turn can lead to problems ranging from petty crime to serious tensions between countries. We often see this manifested here in everything from Singaporeans driving across the Causeway to illicitly fill up their vehicles with cheap Malaysian petrol to truckloads of cooking oil and sugar being smuggled across the Thai border.

Subsidies can additionally lead to widespread dependency on them, which in turn can hinder innovation and self-sustainability. They also have economic consequences. Clearly, Malaysia’s subsidies put a considerable strain on the country’s budget, sucking up resources that could be used for education, infrastructure, research and development, or any number of needed things. RM81 billion, the rough amount that Malaysia spends on subsidies, is not an enormous number in respect of the country’s overall economy, but it’s big enough to be well-noticed in an annual budget, and could obviously be used for better things.

Targeting subsidies is a recognized problem for governments, and my guess is that Malaysia is going to quickly learn how much of a challenge it is once they start trying to limit subsidies to only certain people in the country. It’s simply one of those things that plays out very differently in theory than it does in actual practice. The law of unintended consequences will also definitely make an appearance here, as higher fuel prices (in the absence of subsidies) will potentially lead businesses to raise prices to cover shrinking profit margins. It could also lead consumers to spend less as their own household budgets get squeezed, which in turn can impact the economy in a number of ways. Consumer confidence and overall consumer spending isn’t quite as crucial to the economy in Malaysia as it is in countries like the United States, but it still drives a number of economic metrics nevertheless.

The results of targeted subsidies may not all be bad, but the truth is, we won’t know until it’s actually implemented and in effect for some time. (For one example, reducing or eliminating subsidies on sugar could possibly lead to lowered consumption, which wouldn’t be a bad thing in a country that leads much of Asia when it comes to rates of type-2 diabetes.)

I have mixed opinions on subsidies in general. Of course, like everyone in Malaysia, I enjoy paying one of the lowest prices at the pump anywhere in the world. But to my mind, the subsidized fuel prices here are the only thing that make the blizzard of toll highways tolerable. The government has abdicated its responsibility to provide transportation for its citizens to a few private concessionaires, who build money-making highways – which may or may not be actually needed in the first place – and drivers pick up the tab. (One of the larger concessionaires collects millions of ringgit in tolls every single day, which is mind-boggling.) Many people living in the Greater KL area rack up monthly toll charges of hundreds of ringgit, and that’s just for drivers of regular passenger cars; larger vehicles and lorries pay considerably more at the toll booths. This is offset, of course, by the low fuel prices we enjoy.

Some have also advocated for a return to the GST model for tax collection, as it is a more secure and efficient taxation system with fewer loopholes, and could address some of Malaysia’s budget shortfall. A poorly communicated roll-out of GST in 2015, coupled with considerable political backlash, saw it scrapped just three years after its implementation. Will something similar happen with the effort to target subsidies? And would it not be easier to simply reduce the fuel subsidy across the board, rather than try to make it available only to certain people? Raise the ceiling price for RON 95 from RM2.05/litre to, for example, RM2.65. That instantly cuts the cost of fuel subsidies borne by the government by about 30%. Do similar things for other subsidies, too, especially the less-critical ones, such as sugar.

It’s pretty clear that Malaysia needs to do something to tighten the gap in its annual budget. Subsidies are one place to look, but other worthwhile pursuits could be implanting better tax collection measures, reducing government wastage, and – let’s be honest – stopping corruption, which costs the country billions in both direct and indirect ways.

For now, it appears residents in Malaysia have about seven or eight months left to enjoy unfettered access for all to subsidized gasoline. We’ll have to see what happens from about mid-2024 onward.

The post Malaysia’s Universal Fuel Subsidy to End in 2024. How Will That Look? appeared first on ExpatGo.

As we have written before, the Malaysia My Second Home (MM2H) visa is frequently misunderstood, resulting in decisions that are detrimental to Malaysia. The latest changes imposed seemed to be focused on reducing the number of visa holders so they did not overrun the country, and a key point that was made at the time was the decision to limit the total number of people holding the visa to no more than one percent of the population. The reality was very different. Even after some 20 years, the number of people holding the visa was far short of one percent of the population so there were no concerns on that front. Indeed, even of that small number of MM2H visa holders, many did not even relocate to Malaysia. Moreover, the continuous phenomenon of people exiting the programme, either by choice or death, always kept the total number from growing too fast.

Unfortunately, the government’s efforts to curb interest in the visa was extremely successful and Malaysia saw a dramatic 90% drop in applications – and sadly its once-prominent position as a preferred destination for retirees to settle.

The MM2H visa programme was very appealing to many retirees and led to Malaysia being ranked as the best place to retire in Asia by International Living, a well-known magazine for people looking to live outside their own country. The Ministry of Tourism frequently mentioned Malaysia’s high ranking in their own marketing efforts – at least in the days when they had responsibility for promoting and administering the visa.

The decision was made to transfer responsibility for the visa to the Ministry of Home Affairs and they decided it was best to make the visa more exclusive hoping to attract ‘quality’ applicants.  This resulted in a massive fall off in applicants. The reality is that the qualifying criteria was exceedingly high for retirees. One of the key attractions of Malaysia is that it is a low-cost country which offers a very attractive lifestyle for retirees. Collectively, they provide substantial amounts of foreign exchange, both through capital investments (like buying a car or house) and for their daily living expenditures within the country. In addition, they became unofficial ambassadors for Malaysia by spreading the word about the country’s attractions as a good place to live, visit, or invest.

REQUIREMENTS TIGHTENED

All that came to an end when the new rules were introduced. Our MM2H help line continued to receive many enquiries about the visa, which nearly always ended with the potential applicant expressing amazement that the criteria for the visa was so much higher than all the other countries who offered similar programmes. Nearly all of them decided to relocate somewhere else

The programme did not just attract retirees, but also others who wanted to come and spend time here. This included people with a second home here which they wished to visit only part of the year, as well as some applicants who wanted to accompany their children who they enrolled in one of Malaysia’s excellent international schools. A few people came here hoping to work, but the rules regarding this were quite restrictive, requiring the applicant to apply for special permission and even then, only allowing them to work for a local company for a limited number of hours a week

In our opinion, it all pointed to the need for different visas to be created for different categories of applicants. A dedicated retirement visa seemed to make sense as the total number of retirees around the world is enormous and quite a few choose to relocate for one reason or another. What seemed to confuse authorities in some countries – including Malaysia – is that while the applicants may have reasonable savings, they do not necessarily have high monthly incomes. Most people experience a drop in income when they stop work, of course, though many find they have lower expenses, as well. If they are fortunate enough to continue to enjoy higher incomes and still wish to relocate, they will often choose one of the better-known and more-developed retirement locations.

MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT MM2H PERSIST

Recently, a retired Malaysian government official was quoted in the national press as saying the new criteria for the MM2H visa should not be seen as a negative because it would deter “ventures that had limited value and insufficient potential for expansion and diversification.”

The official explained (incorrectly) that the MM2H initiative was tailored to attract foreign nationals keen on establishing Malaysia as their second home and operating base for their entrepreneurial pursuits, adding that “the focus was on attracting top-tier investments that would not only enrich investors, but also contribute to the nation’s economic landscape.”

If this visa was aimed at attracting investors, then that may be the case, but it has always primarily been promoted as a retirement visa, and had considerable success at attracting that audience. In total, it was a relatively small number of people who actually relocated here, but it kept growing as word spread about the country. The participants made a welcome contribution to Malaysia’s economic growth and their international image. MM2H was never intended to attract investors, as there are other visas available to do that.

This is not the first time that senior officials in Malaysia have been quoted as saying things which indicate they are confused about the objectives of the MM2H visa. When people within a country are confused, there are sure to be people outside Malaysia will also be confused. Unfortunately, as Malaysia started to close its door on applicants, other countries began recognising the huge potential from this group and launched their own visa programmes.

TOWARDS A BETTER MM2H

We have long advocated different visas for different categories of applicants, possibly still under the broader MM2H umbrella, but with different terms and conditions to make each visa relevant to the targeted audience. We have been researching MM2Hers for many years and this has enabled us to better understand them, as well as to estimate their contribution to Malaysia (financial and intangible). It soon became obvious to us why the programme is so beneficial to the country. Most applicants who relocate here are genuine retirees and bring their assets with them. Some are expats who have worked here and fell in love with the country and wanted to stay (or return). Of course, under the current programme, very few of them could meet the new terms and conditions and subsequently chose to move to other countries with more realistic terms.

Generally, most had the same fundamental profile, though: They wanted to live out the rest of their lives quietly in a pleasant environment with a friendly population. Malaysia tended to fit the bill, with the added bonus of excellent local cuisines, a central geographic location, and relatively low costs.

Sadly, the very positive image of Malaysia that the MM2H visa created over many years has been badly damaged in recent times. Malaysia has not only lost a lot of money, but has had its international image dented. It is certainly not too late to fix, and we hope the changes that are made to the visa when they are announced will fix some of those problems. It would help if influential people and decision-makers within Malaysia had the visa properly explained to them so they understood the programme’s requirements, objectives, and significant benefits it brings to the country.

Malaysia obviously decides who they want to live here and how they wish to benefit from the visa, but frequently do not seem to take into account the audience they are addressing. Right from the start, that’s where we came in. We became strong advocates for the MM2H programme because we were very happy to support something which we felt was truly, mutually beneficial. Malaysia derives a very real benefit from the programme and the applicants gain residential access to a country which has so much to offer them.

The post MM2H: An Often Misunderstood Visa appeared first on ExpatGo.