The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) was previously a hot issue because it was shrouded in secrecy. After the cost-benefit analyses were published, however, it’s the difficulty of comprehending the dense agreement—and the consequent protesting against it — that has kept it in the limelight.
Questions about the TPPA have been forwarded to the government, but they’re either sidestepped or met with irrelevant remarks. The latest gem comes from Foreign Affairs Minister Anifah Aman.
When PKR lawmaker Wong Chen claimed the TPPA was primarily motivated by politics, Anifah denied the accusation in a media statement by calling it a “false notion.”
If the Foreign Minister truly believes that the TPPA is not politically motivated to any degree, he is probably not the best man for the job.
Gone are the days when politics and economics were separate spheres of government. The two have become increasingly intertwined through the years.
After World War II, what did the US do to make sure the European nations would remain its allies instead of joining the Soviet camp? It implemented the Marshall Plan and financed the reconstruction of their economies.
What do powerful countries do when they disagree with another country’s politics or policies? They use economic sanctions to rein in the offender.
And one isn’t short of examples within Malaysia today. Just look at the numerous businesses and GLCs that owe their success to political connections.
And yet the Foreign Affairs Minister wants the public to believe that an international trade deal has no political motivations.
Economic security can help guarantee political security. A trade deal in this day and age that doesn’t have political motivations is a lie at best and a lopsided, inefficient deal at worst.
What the TPPA does politically is allow Malaysia to maintain some semblance of balance between the US and China through hedging, i.e. protecting one’s position by making balancing or compensating transactions.
Malaysia is a small country. Its weight in the global arena is paltry in comparison to the heft pulled by heavyweights like the US and China, which have both been jostling for power and influence in the Asia Pacific and in the South China Sea.
Recent events like the selling of 1MDB’s assets, or even the obvious negligence and incompetence when handling the mystery of MH370, translate into Malaysia being increasingly indebted to China. It’s no secret that the government has been desperately pushing the TPPA to the public, not just because of economic gains but also because it will swing the pendulum back towards the US and away from China.
But even though Malaysia can swap sides, ultimately it has to be committed to itself. The non-alignment stance the country once prided itself on is giving way to pandering to both sides of the fence.
This has ceased to be a running back and forth between two superpowers. Malaysia is now being pulled in two directions and may end up being torn to pieces.
And if this is the foreign policy route Malaysia is about to embark upon, is it because there is a greater plan to confirm Malaysia’s safety? Or is it because the leadership has no direction and follows the whims of foreign powers?
If concerns and questions such as these are dismissed with mere reassurances instead of actual explanations, how can the public be persuaded to back the TPPA?
The TPPA is not necessarily a bad deal for Malaysia. Although there are disadvantages, there are significant advantages as well. Issues like unaffordable medicines can be mitigated and TPPA terms like the liberalisation of government procurement processes could potentially leave less room for corruption.
But if the government wants the public to support the TPPA, it must be willing to explain it fully and without any disrespect of the public’s intelligence. The Prime Minister may be able to select his cabinet, but he cannot select his audience. Unlike him, members of the public value intelligence over loyalty and giving sensible answers on the TPPA would be the first step to persuading them to accept it.