TPPA: What’s there in it for us? PLENTY …

If those Malaysian officials now negotiating the terms and conditions of Malaysia’s entry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) are given the chance to use their talent, they will get the best out of the ongoing trade talks for our country.

Led by the Minister for International Trade and Industry (Miti), the team has had ample experience of complex negotiations having done similar exercises for at least a dozen times in the past.

Their job is not easy and when they appear reluctant to reveal to the public details of their proposals, the stakeholders in the private sector were worried that their interests would not factor in the discussions. However, we must understand that while they are still in intense discussions, the officials will keep their cards close to their chests in the interests of the country as a whole. They don’t and must not let the other negotiators know what their trump cards are if we want them to achieve the best deal possible in a bargain involving many parties with their own respective various national interests to protect.

If our officials should compromise in certain deals, it would be in a win-win situation. Remember that in any negotiation one does not get all what one wants. As long as one’s interests are not adversely affected, half a loaf is better than no bread. That’s a fact of life.

Even after the negotiations are wrapped up by October this year, the salient features of Miti’s proposals are yet to be scrutinised by the cabinet. Or parliament?

Perhaps, for the sake of transparency, or for being politically correct, the government may have to reveal the major positive and likely pitfalls of the proposed protocols. By then the curious members of the public, especially the NGOs and other stakeholders, may have the chance to study those proposals and conjure the implications to their own interests in the short- and the long-term.

Feedback From Sarawak

Miti has organised a number of discussions with certain stakeholders in the Peninsula for the purpose of getting feedback from the public there. I think the ministry should also make arrangements for local stakeholders to discuss whatever doubts they may have about the general proposals. Only Miti should do this before the end of the negotiations in two months’ time.

For whatever agreement reached in respect of products from Sarawak, the local producers must be made to feel that they have a say in the future of their businesses and that their interests are being protected as well. That’s a fair request, isn’t it?

A Small Vendor With Bigger Clientele

That’s the beauty of being small. Compared to the countries of Asia and the Pacific Rim, which initiated the move for free trade, ours is a small economy. Yet we have ample resources which are our trump card. If and when these resources are fully tapped, we will play a significant role as a trader in the market of 800 million consumers. There are trillions of ringgit of trade between these countries and if we play our cards well in the negotiations, we have noting much to lose if we are a member of the pact.

As a country relying mainly on exports to help boost our GDP and having set our eyes on the status of a developed country in seven years’ time, by which time every Malaysian is supposed to have an annual average income of RM45,000, we must make hay while the sun shines.

Dealing with the boys may provide us with that opportunity to earn RM4,000 per month; otherwise how is each Malaysian, in theory at least, to earn RM4,000 per month? Provided they don’t bully us, let’s try to work with the boys. Part of the job of our negotiators is to protect both our national and sectional interests. With favourable terms obtained at the negotiating table, the big economies will gobble up our products provided that these are of good quality and saleable overseas.

And with the participation of Japan, which joined the 18th round of negotiations in Kota Kinabalu recently, we better bargain on our terms while maintaining our trade relations with Japan, the mutual interests of both nations being intact in the process.

Also, the market for our produce would be much larger when the USA and other countries continue to buy goods and services from the members of the partnership. Think of the huge amount of palm oil that we can sell to the US if we can, at this negotiating stage, twist the arms of the American negotiators to buy a little bit, just an ounce more, of our palm oil which has met with stiff competition from their corn and soya oil producers for more than two decades.

Think of other possibilities too: our humble Terong Asam, Durians, Rambutan, Dabai, may just appear on the shelves of the supermarkets in many countries of the pact. What about crocodile skins for the fashion house and their meats plus Empurau for the American cold storage?

We would be better placed again if China were taken on board as well; for some reason China is not in for now. Some suspect China as having roughshod Southeast Asian countries and this new partnership minus China may possibly act as a counter weight to the influence from that second largest economy in the world. For some reason, Indonesia is outside at the moment but Malaysia has other trade agreements with both. Business as usual — no loss to us or them. But better, if both neighbours can do trading on fair terms in a wider market and the bigger the market the better. That’s the importance of the TPPA to us.

Supposing we will not be in the pact, we will continue to do the usual thing – trading with present partners – but we will lose the opportunity to enter the bigger market and the opportunities it offers.

The Complaint

There is a complaint about lack of information on trade agreements particularly about the proposed TPPA in so far as it may affect the interests of the small men in the private sector. However, if one is serious about studying the details of a free trade agreement (FTA), there are any number of standard examples which one can download from the Internet. For example, look at the agreements between the USA and Korea or with Singapore. There are, of course, variations to the format but basically they are typical of most trade agreements.

We Want To Hear From Miti Too

Miti has arranged a number of meetings with the stakeholders in the Peninsula but is yet to get more feedback from those in the Borneo states. I wish East Malaysians would be given a chance to be briefed by Miti on both the positive and the negative aspects, if any, of the likely outcome of the trade negotiations before these are wrapped up in two month’s time.

This is to avoid several million Malaysians in Borneo wondering what is there in the agreement for them and if there is anything at all that the government can do about dismantling the Cabotage policy which is allegedly a contributing factor to the high cost of living in the Borneo states. Will the TPPA help them out?

Comments can reach the writer via [email protected].