Malaysia clamps down on export, transit of US-made AI chips
"Effective immediately, all exports, transships and transits of high-performance AI chips of US origin are subject to a strategic trade permit," the investment, trade and industry ministry said in a statement.
"This initiative serves to close regulatory gaps while Malaysia undertakes further review on the inclusion of high-performance AI chips of US origin" into its so-called Strategic Items List, the government said.
Washington has previously voiced concern about the transhipment of US-made AI chips, especially for the potential of sensitive components being diverted to China.
Kuala Lumpur last month said it was verifying reports that a Chinese company may have been bypassing US export curbs on high-end chips by using servers housing Nvidia chips based in the Southeast Asian country.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Chinese engineers had flown to Malaysia in March carrying hard drives containing data to build artificial intelligence models in Malaysian data centres using advanced Nvidia chips.
The engineers then planned to bring the AI models back to China, the report said.
The United States has cracked down on exports of advanced semiconductors to China, including those made by US tech giant Nvidia, as it seeks to retain a competitive edge over the technology.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
2 hours ago
- Business Times
TikTok urgently pitches Canada security solution to avoid shutdown
[VANCOUVER] TikTok is trying to talk with Canada about security solutions that would spare the popular video app from a looming order to shut operations in the country. So far, its pleas have fallen on deaf ears, said Steve de Eyre, director of TikTok's government affairs for Canada, in an interview. 'We are still looking to get to the table,' he said. TikTok, owned by China-based ByteDance, started this month to freeze spending on cultural programmes and sponsorships, following a November directive to close its Canadian unit, which cited national security concerns. TikTok would still be available on app stores for Canadians to use after the shutdown. 'Time is running out,' de Eyre said, though the company declined to share its deadline. TikTok has challenged the order in court. TikTok chief executive officer Shou Zi Chew wrote to Industry Minister Melanie Joly on Jul 2 requesting an urgent in-person meeting within the next two weeks. According to a copy of the letter seen by Bloomberg, he wrote: 'The windup process is rapidly approaching a critical juncture where, unless you intervene, TikTok will be forced to fire all of its Canadian employees' as well as halting investment and support for creators. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up De Eyre confirmed the contents of the letter, and said the company has not yet received an official response. The Industry Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In other countries where it's faced concerns, TikTok has set up systems to fence off user data to prevent it from being sent to China. These were dubbed Project Texas in the US and Project Clover in the EU. Asked if TikTok has pitched Canada an equivalent like 'Project Maple', de Eyre said: 'Maybe it would be Project Maple. But we need to sit down, understand the concerns that Canada has, and we want to build a solution that would provide greater data security, greater oversight and accountability where there are these concerns.' In the UK, TikTok hired a British firm to audit its data controls and protections to allay concerns. Right now, TikTok says it stores Canadian user data in the US, Ireland, Singapore and Malaysia. The company said it paid C$340 million (S$318 million) in Canadian tax from 2019 to 2024, employs about 350 people across Toronto and Vancouver, and has 14 million Canadian users. 'We have had people who have unfortunately left for other opportunities because of this order being out there, and we haven't been able to rehire for those roles because of the order,' de Eyre said. He argued the ban was enacted by a different government, under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, 'in a different time', and that things have changed in the US, where US President Donald Trump has delayed a more comprehensive order for ByteDance to sell or shut down the app. Last month, Trump said he's found a buyer for the US operations. The irony of Canada's order, if it goes through, de Eyre argues, is that the country loses 'the accountability of having a TikTok entity within Canada's legal jurisdiction, having employees who are directly accountable to parliament and regulators and law enforcement', even though the app will remain available. BLOOMBERG
CNA
3 hours ago
- CNA
Commentary: What does it matter if Singaporeans spend their CDC or SG60 vouchers on ‘frivolous' items?
SINGAPORE: From this month, Singaporeans can start claiming their SG60 vouchers. Each adult citizen will receive S$600 in vouchers, while those aged 60 and above can claim S$800. This comes on top of S$800 in Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers which were given to each household earlier this year. Retailers have lost no time in offering discounts and promotions to entice Singaporeans to spend their vouchers on their products and services. However, a newspaper article published in May suggesting fun ways to make use of CDC vouchers – such as on dance apparel and craft workshops - prompted a flurry of online responses from netizens who felt that spending the vouchers on 'frivolous' items went against the stated intent of the vouchers, namely to help Singaporeans with the cost of living. IS THE ANGST JUSTIFIED? The truth is that while the vouchers are a lifeline for some households and individuals struggling with high living costs, they are for others no more than extra pocket money or even spare change. So is the angst over how the vouchers are spent justified? There are those who feel that SG60 vouchers should be distinguished from CDC vouchers in that the former are a celebratory gift while the latter are aimed at easing hardship. Others are not bothered about how vouchers – whether CDC or SG60 – are used. Their view is that once public money passes into private hands, people should be free to do whatever they want with it. After all, whether the vouchers are used to buy bread or a fancy meal, the spending will ultimately benefit businesses and boost the economy. Some have asked: Could the government have ringfenced the use of the vouchers to daily necessities? It is hard to draw a clear line between essential and discretionary expenditure. Moreover, money is fungible – saving on any kind of purchase frees up financial resources for spending on other items. There is a strong consensus among economists that giving assistance in cash or near-cash does more to improve consumer welfare than support that comes with conditions or restrictions because it offers recipients greater freedom of choice. DIFFERING SOCIAL BENEFIT PARADIGMS The crux of the issue may lie in differing concepts of what is prudent use of government money. On the one hand, there are Singaporeans who prefer not to receive cash handouts or vouchers as they feel that such support ought to be chanelled to the lower-income. This group is more likely to take umbrage at the use of vouchers for non-essential purchases. Targeting government support at those who need it most is still the approach adopted for most forms of social support in Singapore. These include means-tested housing and healthcare subsidies, as well as permanent social transfers such as the Workfare Income Supplement, Silver Support and the Goods and Services Tax Voucher. This paradigm of social support contrasts with models of universal welfare where social support is seen as a citizenship right. The latter, however, necessitates high taxes to enable extensive redistribution. In Singapore, the government's priority is to keep taxes on the middle class low in order to encourage work and enterprise. Under what is known as a 'progressive' system of taxes and benefits, the rich bear a larger burden of taxes, while those with lower income receive more in social transfers or benefits. Consistent with this approach, the Ministry of Finance estimates that the bottom 20 per cent of households by income receives around S$4 in benefits for every dollar of tax paid, while the top 20 per cent receive just S$0.30 for every tax dollar. On the other hand, there are Singaporean who feel that all citizens who contribute to the state's coffers should be entitled to a range of benefits, and not just limited to public goods such as national security or infrastructure. Some may feel aggrieved if they are excluded from certain benefits on account of their income or wealth, particularly if they are contributing a significant amount in taxes. Like wealthy donors at a charity dinner who take pleasure in good food and a door gift, these high-income earners derive satisfaction from receiving vouchers and other Budget goodies, even if these offset only a small fraction of what they pay in taxes. AN INJECTION OF UNIVERSALISM Singapore's approach towards social benefits is in fact evolving. More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic saw the government disburse a 'solidarity payment' of S$600 to all adult Singaporeans in recognition of the broad impact of the pandemic on the population, with additional support given to seniors and families with children. Rebates on utilities and service and conservancy charges, however, were tiered according to Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat type. Those who lost jobs or saw a significant fall in income could apply for further financial help through the COVID-19 Support Grant or COVID-19 Recovery Grant. Taken together, Singapore's COVID-19 support can be seen as a form of 'progressive universalism' – where everyone receives some benefits, but those with greater needs receive more. Following the pandemic, supply chain disruptions saw inflation shoot up across the world, including in Singapore. The government responded with a series of payouts to all Singaporeans in the form of CDC vouchers – the vouchers having the dual aim of providing cost of living support while giving heartland merchants a leg-up. Notwithstanding these examples of universal benefits, most social support is still means-tested or tiered according to income or home value. There are advantages to having a mix of benefits – some universal and others means-tested with differing qualifying income thresholds. This approach avoids a 'cliff effect' where benefits drop off suddenly when one's income crosses a particular threshold, which could discourage career and income advancement. Some elements of universality also make for greater inclusivity and sense of solidarity among citizens. A MIDDLE WAY? As inflation has receded from the post-pandemic highs, we may see fewer CDC vouchers disbursed in future. But for this year at least, vouchers are very much a part of the conversation. Singaporeans who have no need for this support can easily donate unused vouchers to their preferred Institutions of Public Character via the CDC voucher website; they will even qualify for a 250 per cent tax deduction. For those who are still in two minds on how government vouchers ought to be spent, perhaps a good strategy would be to set aside a portion of the vouchers to give away, and then spend the rest on whatever you wish with a clear conscience.
CNA
3 hours ago
- CNA
Commentary: Can Malaysia nudge ASEAN beyond non-interference to tackle the scam crisis in Myanmar?
SINGAPORE: ASEAN's traditional non-interference doctrine has posed an acute challenge for the regional body in responding to the 2021 coup in Myanmar. A Five-Point Consensus proposal has seen little progress, with a major obstacle that member states are prohibited from intervening in each other's internal affairs under the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, a foundational pillar of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. This self-imposed reticence has led to accusations of ASEAN paralysis in the face of the ensuing civil war and series of humanitarian crises. But ASEAN has also struggled to address organised crime in Myanmar, which has proliferated with the breakdown of state authority and carries serious cross-border ramifications. Myanmar has become especially fertile ground for a multibillion-dollar scam and human trafficking industry, with detrimental knock-on effects for the regional economy. Online job opportunities first lure individuals with the promise of work, then force these victims into centres where they must seek to defraud others online under the threat of torture. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has called Southeast Asia 'ground zero for the global scamming industry', with centres found in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. But these centres are most prevalent in Myanmar, operating with impunity in territories contested by militias and warlords, outside the control of the junta or any formal state authority. NON-INTERFERENCE IN THE FACE OF CROSS-BORDER CRIME Malaysia, as the current chair of ASEAN, has proposed a more assertive, problem-solving posture on Myanmar. This includes engaging with the National Unity Government set up in opposition to military rule as well as the junta. This is challenging for ASEAN's non-interference but is also necessary to combat the scam challenge. Across East and Southeast Asia, the UN estimates that countries collectively suffered estimated loss of US$37 billion in 2023 from the scam cartels. The problem is spreading to tourism after a Chinese actor was kidnapped in Thailand and smuggled to Myanmar, resulting in a vast drop in daily Chinese visitor numbers. ASEAN's responses have included both bilateral efforts and regional initiatives: Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand have mounted some rescue operations for trafficked nationals. A plan of action was also beefed up by the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Transnational Crime (AMMTC) and the ASEAN Senior Officials Meeting on Transnational Crime (SOMTC). But the next challenge is transforming these initiatives into a more sustained, coordinated regional strategy that addresses the scale and evolving nature of the threat. The cross-border nature of these scams demands a coordinated response. ASEAN's existing enforcement tools, while evolving, remain ill-equipped to respond swiftly to the complexities of transnational cybercrime. ASEAN's principle of non-interference stands at the core of these inadequacies as it takes away incentives for transparency, legal cooperation and the development of frameworks to facilitate joint investigation and prosecution. During the 2025 Langkawi Foreign Ministers' retreat under Malaysia's chairmanship, ASEAN members pledged enhanced cooperation on transnational crimes and online scams, even backing new working groups tackling these pressing problems. ASEAN still lacks the authority to act within Myanmar, but these initiatives signal an interesting move towards rights-based governance. COOPERATION NOT AS INTERFERENCE, BUT AS SOLIDARITY To make the work of the AMMTC and the SOMTC more effective in Myanmar, Malaysia can lead a pragmatic shift during its time as chair. First, it could advocate for broader ASEAN accession to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, which would significantly enhance regional and global enforcement capacity. The Budapest Convention is the most comprehensive and only legally binding instrument dealing with cybercrime and mutual assistance on evidence sharing between law enforcement agencies. Among ASEAN members, only the Philippines has ratified it. Next comes the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime, due to be ratified at the end of 2025. There are significant differences between the two treaties such as expedited cooperation in emergency situations and better disclosure on digital evidence. Having ASEAN members become parties to both conventions would allow law enforcement agencies to conduct more expedient human trafficking rescue operations from scam centres. It would also allow for better cooperation with authorities in non-ASEAN countries where the scam victims reside. A further step would be updating ASEAN's 2004 Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. This instrument offers a foundation for cross-border cooperation, but it has not yet been formally updated to include cybercrime or digital evidence. Revision of the treaty could complement existing frameworks and improve legal interoperability in cybercrime enforcement. Malaysia should also propose expanding the mandate of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights to include monitoring of scam-related abuses. A regional rapporteur on trafficking or a task force focused on cyber-exploitation could help focus on human security. Malaysia must frame humanitarian and security cooperation not as interference but as solidarity. This rhetorical shift is key to winning consensus among cautious ASEAN members to tackle the scam scourge as well as the current humanitarian crises in Myanmar.
