There are a many involved parties and they're affected by it in multiple ways.
I think you're trying to say the consumer harm of increased prices of EVs is outweighed by the benefits to industry etc?
It’s not smart for a country to let all of their industrial engine be replaced just because it’s cheaper. It’s more expensive in the long run.
EDIT: I understand that free trade theoretically could be a win-win game. But the real world is a lot more complicated, and is a historical fact that developed nations always have and continue to push for less powerful nations to open their markets while abusing of protectionist practices themselves.
Read the following (from 1984) to understand how Deng Xiao Peng saw the roles of Special Economic Zone in the revival of China's economy:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/deng-xiaoping/198...
No, free trade is mutually beneficial and the natural state of things, protection exists for two reasons. Pursuit of military interests (blockades) or satisfying domestic rent seekers. (e.g. the shipping industry, farmers etc.)
But believing that the same recipe could be applied for Argentina, South-Africa or Brasil takes a lot more faith
But what is funny about the Singapore example always abused on those conversations is that it begs the question of why people always cite a more or less tiny Asian city-state as the most prominent case of the success of free-trade instead of bigger economies like the US, China, Japan, South Korea or the UE.
And the reason for that is that all those nations have always engaged and still engage on protectionist practices while expecting less developed markets to open their borders. Subsides, Non-Tax Barriers, Direct government investments, taxes and fees, you name it, they did and they do it.
Panama is the logical point of comparison — its governance has been consistently atrocious (cf. Noriega), but it nonetheless remains among the front of the pack in Latin America economically.