The reason I oppose TPPA

I opposed the Lynas operation in Pahang. Yet, I raged when people suggested the Lynas processing plant was as dangerous as the Fukushima nuclear reactor. That’s a careless exaggeration, just like many criticisms of the Trans Pacific-Partnership Agreement (TPPA).

Some critics of TPPA annoy me by their exaggerations.

They speak of TPPA as if it were a sacrifice of national sovereignty to global multinationals.

They speak of TPPA as if it were a disease like tuberculosis. They speak of TPPA as if it were a suicide pact, not a trade agreement.

Yet, much of what they say about TPPA is true. The cost of medicines will go up.

We will surrender the ease with which we may change some our laws. Benefits for labour rights and environmental protection can be implemented without adopting the TPPA.

But are reasons such as those sufficient to oppose the TPPA?

Should we not rather think of TPPA as a trade, in which we give up some things in order to gain other things?

Should we not rather think of TPPA as a boon because it means we don’t have to negotiate trade deals individually with 11 other nations with 800 million people and 40% of the world’s gross domestic product?

TPPA allows people from one nation to invest in another with less fear that their investments will later be nationalised, gives investors the confidence to spend more on research and development in expectation of sales in more markets; forces adoption of global, human ideas of justice – though Brunei will still retain hudud punishments.

TPPA is a landmark agreement, though it is not the first of its kind. There have been others before it, beginning in 1948 with the United Nations-birthed General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT, replaced by the WTO in 1995).

Trade agreements are one of the evidences of multilateralism: choosing to work “in concert” with other nations on selected issues. Trade agreements signal a nation’s commitment to working with other nations rather than going its own way.

All countries have trade barriers. Some are in the form of tariffs, a word which sounds more benign than “import duties”. TPPA is a massive effort by many nations to trade their tariff and non-tariff barriers for benefits.

Malaysia’s negotiators laboured for five years to get us to this stage of the TPPA. Yet, it cannot be denied that they were directed by politicians who think the role of government is to remain in office, enrich cronies and bull-doze decisions through Parliament.

What we like or dislike about TPPA will vary according to our political inclinations – neo-liberals will like much of it, socialists will hate most of it.

Some oppose the TPPA because big businesses greatly influenced it while small businesses didn’t influence it at all. But the same can be said about influencing our national budget – property developers influence it far more than peasant farmers.

Some oppose the TPPA because of the secrecy in negotiations: “they talked for so many years without engaging the public”. But the same can be said for prior agreements, and it’s the same in other nations.

Why then do I oppose Malaysia becoming a TPPA signatory?

My answer is best illustrated by how other potential signatories have responded. I’ll give two examples.

In the US, the New York Times responded that the end of TPPA negotiations marked the beginning of “the toughest fight President Obama will face in his final year in office: securing approval from Congress... Now the deal faces months of scrutiny in Congress, where some bipartisan opposition was immediate”.

In Australia, news.com.au reported that the TPPA will “be tabled in Parliament with an accompanying national interest analysis, and assessed by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties”.

Do you get it? Now the public will extensively debate the TPPA – speeches will be made, experts will give their opinions, advertisements will be run, the TPPA will be dissected, examined, challenged, polls will be taken. Then, a decision will be made.

But none of that will happen in Malaysia. It won’t happen because our Parliament and our Senate are mere rubber stamps and our journalists don’t have the skills to dissect and reveal the issues.

I have written here about Malaysian MPs and standing committees. I’ve shown here that our Parliament is a rubber stamp.

TPPA is also an expression of opportunism by Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and the US.

They are taking the opportunity to get the agreement rubber-stamped by a corrupt, democracy-denying regime in Malaysia.

That’s why I oppose the TPPA. – January 11, 2016.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.