Page 119 - Contributed Paper Session (CPS) - Volume 4

CPS2145 Jee, Hui-Siang Brenda et al.
regarded as accurate match if the discrepancy index is less than 20.0%. Thus,
this result mirroring the quality of trade data between Sarawak and Japan is
quite accurate. Although discrepancy did exist, it was due to some reasons
that are to be discussed.

3.2. Discussion
From the results discussed above, although both Sarawak and Japan
followed the United Nations guidelines on merchandise trade statistics
compilation (refer Table 1), it does not mean that the corresponding import/
export data will match. There are several aspects of the guidelines, such as
valuation and partner country attribution, that when followed, created bilateral
discrepancies.

Table 1: Comparison of Statistical Concepts and Definitions
Region/ Sarawak Japan
Country
Partner Exports: Country of last Exports: Country of last known
countries known destination destination
Imports: Country of origin Imports: Country of origin
Valuation Exports: FOB; Imports: CIF Exports: FOB; Imports: CIF
methods
Trade system General General
Commodity Goods are classified based on Goods are classified based on
codes the HS which consist of 6-digit the HS which consist of 6-digit
HS code and 4-digit domestic HS code and 3-digit domestic
code. code.
Source: Department of Statistics Malaysia and Ministry of Finance Japan.
As stated in the United Nations Trade Statistics official website, the three
main and well-known reasons for asymmetries in bilateral merchandise trade
are:

(i) The application of different criteria of partner attribution in import
and export statistics;
(ii) The use of Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) type of valuation in
import statistics and Free on Board (FOB) type of valuation in export
statistics; and
(iii) Application of different trade systems in data compilation.

Based on the valuation methods, import statistics in Japan included
international freight and insurance charges, thus valuing on a CIF basis, while
Malaysia excluded these charges in their exports statistics, valuing on FOB
basis. As a result, Japan’s value of imports was conceptually higher than
108 | I S I W S C 2 0 1 9