What options are there for us?

NOW that the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) is as good as scrapped in its present form – after Donald put down his cards in January – the remaining partners will either have to carry on trading with the rest of the signatories under the terms and conditions of the partnership, with certain modifications, or else abandon ship.

First option

If the former option is preferred, then they will have to learn how to live without the Americans for a change. But then they will have to choose among themselves a leader to make things happen. At the recent meeting of Apec ministers in Hanoi, this question was not raised. Maybe in the meeting of officials of TPPA in July in Japan, this leader may be picked. Japan is one country that may like to assume that role. New Zealand is still keen to play its role as a partner; so is Singapore. Malaysia, too, can play its role as a partner if the country is allowed some leeway to look at the necessary amendments to our own legislation governing labour and intellectual property rights. And environment, if I may add.

These are meant to protect our national interests; at the same time, they enable our partners to do business with us with full confidence. It is vital that they can rely on us to observe laws concerning contracts and commercial crimes; so it is vital that we can rely on them to observe their part of the bargain.

Happy and lasting will be the trading relationship when there is a mutual understanding of mutual rights and mutual responsibilities.

There’s is no such thing as a total absence of trade restrictions and protections. All countries have laws that protect and safeguards their individual interests in terms of dealing with other countries. Malaysia is no exception.

In this regard, I commend our Malaysian team led by Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed, Minister of International Trade and Industry, for their patience and skill in the negotiations when TPPA was being hammered out during the past few years.

‘America First’

The exit of the USA from this club is the direct result of the ‘America First’ policy and we have to respect that right of the Americans to be outside TPP. But they have no choice but to continue doing business with us, and we with them.

Of course, they prefer to deal with the club members individually on a bilateral basis. In this case, a responsible member of any exclusive club should observe the rule: all members must consider the interests of the group as a whole first before those of a non-member.

The other option

Let’s assume that the Gang of 11 stay put. The next thing for the TPP officials to do at the July meeting in Tokyo is to formally recommend the implementation of the agreed principles of partnership already adopted/approved before the United States opted out in early this year. Appropriate modifications to the original terms may be necessary. It has taken them many days of hard bargaining in order to arrive at a halfway solution or win-win situation. Those hours were precious time and they should not go to waste.

Attitude known

We should have anticipated the American attitude a long time ago. Politicians in USA including the Democrats had indicated that they were not keen on TPPA. There was practically no serious discussion on the trading arrangement during the presidential election. So when Trump triumphed in the race to the White House, the end of the American participation in TPPA was not unexpected.

The USA’s participation is not that vital to the success of the partnership if the rest of partners stick together.

Time sent on discussing TPPA for the past few years is not wasted. In fact, this vacuum left by the USA provides a good chance for another industrialised country with large population and a vast network of trading partners to assume leadership of the remaining partners. Japan may like to play that leading role in trade in the Pacific rim in this century. Otherwise, China, almost by default, will have to fill the vacuum, whether we like it or not. Already, China has positioned herself neatly to play its role in another outfit called the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). That, and don’t forget, is additional to their One Belt, One Route (OBOR) project.

Though, RCEP, is a multilateral outfit, it is not as comprehensive as the TPPA because it is confined to Asian countries. Without USA, the RCEP is good enough for Asia. All the existing bilateral trade arrangements between Asia and other countries in the other parts of the world are still in place, with or without TPPA or RCEP.

Malaysia’s option

Malaysia must carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of being in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Club. We must understand that with the benefit of membership come obligations in the interests of the group as a whole. So play our international role like a good world citizen, accordingly.

There is the possibility that we will miss the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of being a member of the club. The question is how much more can we get out from being inside. First thing first: in, not out.

Though we are free to do business with anybody as we have always been doing all this while, yet we want to be a member of a bigger club if that membership brings some tangible benefits to the country. More importantly, if the benefits of trade go down eventually to the end users of goods and services – you and me. A country may be rich through making money out of trading with other countries and from other sources of revenue but the people can be poor at the same time if the distribution of wealth among the stakeholders (citizens) is not equitable.

How’s that for a topic of conversation during the Gawai?

Gayu Guru Gerai Nyamai!

Comments can reach the writer via [email protected].