JANUARY 28 — Let’s put aside the size of anti-TPP protests in the country. What makes them really interesting is their components.

We have religious entities such as PAS, leftists such as Parti Sosialis Malaysia, racist organizations such as Perkasa and Isma, and non-racial organizations in the likes of Bersih 2.0.

In the past, these groups have not been known to get along well with one another at all, but now, they find themselves walking side by side all for a common cause, shouting the same slogans. It is all the more difficult to draw a line to distinguish between allies or foes, especially between PAS and its breakaway rival Amanah.

From the political point of view, these parties and organizations used to be confronting one another in ideologies and backgrounds: leftist vs rightist, conservative vs progressive, authoritative vs liberal. But now, they are like lumped together haphazardly into total amorphousness.

They are vocally against TPP in the pretext of defending the country’s sovereignty on the macroscopic level, down to the more microscopic concerns over rising prices of pharmaceuticals after TPPA is signed. Most of all they believe once the economy is fully liberalized and opened up, competition will intensify and this is poised to impact local enterprises and job market. Even government projects and contracts might end up in the hands of foreigners.

Sure enough there are people concerned about possible intervention by the United States into Malaysia’s domestic affairs by way of TPP.

But behind all the chanting of nationalistic slogans lies an evasive attitude towards the stark reality as well as fear for the future.

Could the arguments that dominated the last century survive the test of the globalization age?

It’s not difficult to understand why some have been persistent in rejecting TPP, in particular those who have been comfortable with the government’s protectionist policies.

After the New Economic Policy was put into place in late 1970s, our economic, political, educational and many other sectors have been restructured and realigned. The government has been providing privileges to the mainstream community through its control and redistribution of the country’s resources and wealth, along with a wide range of subsidies justified in the name of protectionism and patronage, despite the fact that only a handful of elite members of this community have actually gained access to such privileges.

Of course, to a certain extent, such patronizing measures have helped improve the quality of life of the beneficiaries but chronic implementation of protectionist policies has drastically distorted the principles of fair market competition and contravened the natural law of survival and development. A handful of people have been able to amass unproportionate quantities of wealth by non-competitive means while those shielded under the protectionist umbrella have grown comfortable with the existing environment, losing their dynamism and the ability to compete heads-on with the others.

The New Economic Model introduced by Najib during his early days as the prime minister was designed to break such indolence by way of opening up the economy to unleash the dynamism and accelerate growth.

But, the NEM has been subsequently given a facelift under the pressure from within Umno and the Malay society at large, such that its original significance has been lost and its effectiveness restricted.

We can see from here that reform is an uphill task when it touches on the well-being of vested interests.

Even as there are challenges from TPP, the more open, liberal and competitive atmosphere that comes with it will create a fairer and more transparent environment, offering a unique opportunity for the country’s reform initiatives.

When China began to open up its economy, the leaders were indeed facing mounting pressure from within the communist party. At a time when it was a big problem even to sell merchandise from a province in a neighboring province, taking the market economy way could be a challenge of gargantuan proportions.

When Zhu Rongji took over the premiership, he took a by-pass, insisting that China join the WTO first even though that would mean the country had to face intense competition globally and government-run companies might have to wind up as a result.

Zhu was under tremendous pressure then, with many accusing him of pawning the country’s interests to foreigners.

But after joining WTO, China’s economic system had to be reformed to meet WTO standards. The market was increasingly opened up to the outside world while the country’s laws were adapted to fit international specifications.

That was a kind of change, and since China was unable to push ahead domestically driven reforms, it had to take a different approach by allowing the external environment to spearhead the much needed change.

Indeed as anticipated, many government-run companies tumbled but the Chinese economy was least hurt as a consequence. On the contrary, the country’s energy and potentials were fully liberated, new companies emerging at unprecedented rates with productivity remarkably boosted to make China a veritable world factory.

WTO provided a unique opportunity for China to force through full-scale reforms, just as TPP offers a similar opportunity for Malaysia.

If we choose to shun TPP, a foreseeable phenomenon is that all existing protective measures will remain, special interest groups will continue to dominate the allocation of national resources while our competitiveness will stay suppressed. We will find our country experiencing development bottleneck not uncommon in many emerging economies while our people get stuck desperately in the middle income trap.

We don’t need a trade or economic expert to tell us that TPP has the capacity to churn out opportunities, unless we are fearful of challenges and contented with what we already have.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.