This week, key officials from International Trade and Industry Ministry (Miti) headed by secretary-general Mohd Sidek Hassan and US Trade Representative for Asia-Pacific Barbara Weisel sat down to forge a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) between Malaysia and the United States.

This was done amidst a peaceful demonstration held by 38 non-governmental organisations protesting the negotiations. This 'Coalition on the Malaysia-US FTA' were expressing their concerns at talks that seemed such a distant possibility just a few years ago.

The terms free trade and globalisation have enjoyed much fanfare since the setting up of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 1995. We constantly read and speak about it; and we know that applying these concepts would mean everything - from the price of rice in the local grocer to the cost of patents at the copyright office - would depend very much on circumstances thousands of borderless miles away.

To some it is a frightening phenomenon, to others it is exciting economics. Whatever one feels about it, there is no doubt that application of its characteristics has various consequences.

As a concerned citizen, I have a number of queries and doubts about the free trade agreement we intend to sign. I understand that a bilateral agreement between two nations can be mutually beneficial. However, a bilateral agreement between a developed nation and a developing one is a different matter.

For starters, our negotiation cards are always going to be limited compared to the Americans for the simple fact that they have much more to offer us economically. When negotiating with a powerful entity, it is vital for us to understand where we stand and take a careful look at our status and security.

Despite the various failings of the WTO, the one strong point it had was the fact that developing nations were protected from over-zealous trading partners. We did not have to open our markets to foreign investors if we felt it was not favourable.

The FTA on the other hand lacks this quality. Pro-fair trade economists have argued that the FTA is nothing more than a tool used by powerful nations to bypass the WTO and its main strength is the fact that it benefits a select few whilst giving the impression that it is a long-term economic answer.

While our representatives sit and negotiate, it is imperative that they take a look at Latin America. After years of suffering unequal trading rights with the US, countries like Venezuela, Brazil and Paraguay are actively reaching trade agreements via Mercosur, South America's leading trade coalition. Mercosur is an alternative to the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), which is backed by the US, and it provides a level-playing field. When other nations are looking at alternatives to FTAs, it is indeed ironic that Miti sees it as a solution.

Perhaps the cost/benefit study on the FTA that Rafidah Aziz said her ministry has done will shed some light on the potential benefits. Unfortunately, the study has not been made available for the public.

Miti has a responsibility to ensure that any signing of the FTA is done with the full confidence of the electorate. As a citizen who is bound to be affected by the agreement, I insist that the cost/benefit study is released for the consumption of the public. The release of the study will go some way in ensuring that Malaysians have an understanding about the agreement.

Besides this, the government must also ensure that all local sectors and industries that will play a direct role under the FTA are briefed thoroughly on the points of the agreement. The industry role-players have the right to know what they are getting into.

It is also imperative for the agreement to be debated in Parliament, as the discussions will then merit the publicity it deserves. Now, there are only plans to discuss and approve it at the cabinet level.

After all, we are talking about signing an agreement with a nation that has absolutely no respect for international treaties or laws. Judging from America's track record with other FTAs, it is clear that they know what they want from such agreements. The question is do we know what we are getting into?

The least we can do is to take an honest look at every point in the agreement before deciding on a potentially suicidal partnership.