THE government’s strategy in convincing us of the benefits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership has been too opaque. This has fuelled distrust and led to a situation in which accusations about the evils of the TPP are left unchallenged. It is clear that the government will not be able to appease many Malaysians who are apoplectic about the possible negative consequences of the TPP.
There are interesting cleavages within the political parties on this. Unlike in other democracies where a centre-right party or centre-left party can speak with a unified voice on trade and economic issues, we can find proponents and critics of the TPP in each of our major political parties: both Umno and DAP have economic liberals within their ranks.
Of course, there are also those from the classic left: thus we have the caricaturing of the TPP as an imperialistic, monopolising scheme by US corporations. They write of the possible repercussions (chiefly unemployment) on thousands of Malaysian workers, ignoring the potential opportunities for millions of ordinary Malaysian consumers to access better goods at lower prices.
In a related vein are nationalistic economic authoritarians who say that distortions are a small price to pay in attaining national pride – they support the creation and protection of ‘national products’ (such as cars) regardless of distortionary effects and the proliferation of tools of political patronage (like APs). Further along this scale are those who argue that government intervention in the economy is necessary to protect ethnic interests. The notion of opening up our markets domestically – let alone to the rest of the world – is anathema to them. In addition to these groups, the TPP has triggered sector-specific opposition. Primary among these is concern that patients’ accessibility to low-cost generic medicines will be limited due to intellectual property provisions ostensibly to incentivise companies to invest in research and development on new drugs.
Nonetheless, some trade bodies have expressed support for the TPP, including the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers, Malaysian International Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Malaysian Textiles Manufacturers Association – but they too are making assumptions in what the TPP agreement will contain.
So what we need is clarity and transparency. Until then, the debate will feed off leaks, conjecture and prejudice. Nurul Izzah Anwar in a recent article suggested the creation of a Parliamentary Select Committee to scrutinise the agreement. This is a sterling idea: in fact, there should be a permanent parliamentary committee that scrutinises all our foreign treaties, apart from one on defence, education, health, etc … However, it is important that the committee members are sworn to secrecy during the negotiations, so that we have the strongest possible position when talking to other countries. She also asks that the final draft of the agreement be ratified by parliament: also very sensible (and more realistic than a popular referendum as advocated by Badan Bertindak Bantah TPPA).
This is important, because with the TPP comes potential ramifications on our sovereignty. Already, our parliament has been curtailed by authoritarians using the language of religion to bypass elected representatives. In today’s Malaysia, a mere pronouncement can be more effective than the rule of law envisaged by our founding fathers. But at least that can be reversed: parliament and the state legislative assemblies are theoretically still sovereign and can rectify this situation if they had the inclination (and guts).
That would not be the case if our government were to relinquish some of our sovereignty to foreign entities: in particular, the possibility of Malaysian companies being taken to foreign courts if TPP rules are not obeyed. As the experience of the EU has shown, it’s possible that in an effort to liberalise trade, economies are ravaged because countries lose the power to make decisions on their own – and this is partly why anti-EU parties have been on the rise in recent years. Taking a step back from the melee, it’s worth remembering that we have enjoyed prosperity largely because – despite doses of corruption and inefficiency – we adopted an open market system. Principles of free trade, low taxes, free movement of workers and decentralisation have a long history in our region – from Srivijaya to Melaka to Johor’s kangchu system – and in early Muslim polities, where citizens could freely work and trade anywhere in the vast caliphate.
But pursuing these goals should not be at the expense of our sovereignty that might result in invasive measures in the future (which is why unilateral liberalisation is a superior policy). A wilful transfer of power that erodes our long-term ability to craft our own policies is an act of treason, and it is the urgent duty of the government to prove that they are not committing this crime.
Tunku Abidin Muhriz wishes all readers Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri.