Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
mk-logo
From Our Readers

First and foremost, we thank the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers (FMM) president Saw Boon Choon for coming out in the open for his support on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). From Bantah TPPA, we believe this issue is not highly discussed due to its technicality.

 

In his statement yesterday, Saw said that protesters who want Malaysia to drop out of the TPPA “did not really understand its benefits”.

 

He continued by saying it was "not very clever” to protect "a few players" by sacrificing the country’s economy, 60 percent of which is made up of trade.

 

Bantah TPPA supports his statement in the sense that it would be “not very clever” to protect a few players, but not in the way FMM’s president speaks of it.

 

According to its website, the FMM represents 2,500 manufacturing and industry services of various sizes. It does not, however, support 30 million Malaysians who fear for their livelihood in other sectors.

 

As such, we have to ask ourselves; who exactly is protecting “a few players” by sacrificing the welfare of an entire nation?

Already trading globally without TPPA

 

Does FMM support state owned enterprises which employ millions of Malaysians and support vendor development programmes (VDPs) to open up their doors to foreign players, thus abandoning the budding Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)?

 

And what is hindering FMM members from trading with the US in the current state of the world?

 

In their many presentations and talks, proponents of the TPPA mention purported “gains” to be had from signing onto the agreement. As currently proposed, its proponents often claim that the tariffs of a number of exports will be reduced - from as much as 30 percent - to zero, if the free trade deal goes into effect.

 

However, as all TPPA countries are members of the World Trade Organisation, Malaysia already receives low tariffs into all the other TPPA countries. Furthermore, Malaysia already has free trade agreements (FTAs) with all the TPPA countries except Canada, Mexico, Peru and the USA.

 

For them, numbers indicate that on average, tariffs imposed currently by the US on Malaysian goods and products come up to only 3 percent or so. Canada, similarly, currently imposes an average rate of only six percent on all Malaysian goods and products imported into that country.

 

So we venture to suggest that it is only a handful of Malaysian businesses or industries that would benefit from the reduction of tariffs imposed on their products that are currently high (in the region of 30 percent or so).

Push for yarn forward rule

 

Textiles and apparel, perhaps?

 

But the US is insisting on the yarn forward rule in the TPPA. Like in all the US’ free trade agreements, this will mean textiles and apparel cannot benefit from the TPPA, as even the cheaper Vietnamese textile and apparel manufacturers will admit.

 

The millions of other Malaysian goods and services that are imported into the US, therefore, would benefit only negligently from reduction to zero, since tariffs on these goods are already very low.    

If this is the case - and we humbly submit we are not 100 percent sure since the actual costs and benefits of the TPPA have not been disclosed despite Malaysia being in its fourth year of negotiating the deal - the actual beneficiaries of the TPPA as it is currently being negotiated are the actual “few players” that Saw referred to.

 

On the other hand, does the FMM support consumers who would have to pay higher prices for medicines, which their members will have reduced opportunity to produce because the patents would be extended, to the point that Malaysians are effectively denied access outright?

 

Also, does this mean that Saw does not care to having Malaysia sued in an international tribunal for billions through the investor state dispute settlement chapter?

 

We also find it reckless for Saw to represent his members in the textile industry by saying it would open a larger market when the American government is pushing for the yarn forward rule, which would allow only the more expensive American thread to be used for this particular business in Malaysia.

Where is the cost-benefit analysis?

 

Bantah TPPA understands that perhaps FMM’s president is looking out for his members.

 

However, he should not do so when the TPPA threatens access to medicine for millions, threatens the removal of affirmative action policies, threatens state-owned enterprises that employ millions, and also the loss of billions of ringgit as well as environmental damage.

 

While Malaysia thrives as a trading nation, we have accomplished making RM1 trillion without the TPPA. As such, we also echo former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s urging; if we could achieve this without the TPPA, so why burden ourselves with it?

 

We ask Saw to reconsider his stance and instead consider other avenues to increase trade for his members without threatening the well-being of the Malaysian people, such as the Asean Economic Community (AEC).

 

Furthermore, in its current form and through briefings by the International Trade and Industry Ministry (Miti), we do know that TPPA negotiations are still underway without transparency on the matter or any active engagement from civil society. Also, the government has yet to release the cost benefit analysis (CBA) report to show if this agreement truly benefits everyone.

 

As such, there is no basis for anyone or of sound judgment to support the agreement. Thus, we also ask the FMM president; just who is “not too clever” in pushing the signing of this agreement?


MOHD NIZAM MAHSHAR is the chairperson of the Bantah TPPA movement.

ADS