JANUARY 29 — In my article on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement in 2013 titled “Our sovereignty is not for trade” I agreed with Nurul Izzah Anwar’s views on having a Parliamentary Select Committee to scrutinise the agreement and for the final draft to be ratified by parliament.

The first was partially achieved through the TPP Caucus, and the second was fulfilled this week when parliament approved the government’s motion to sign and ratify the TPPA.

In contrast to the National Security Council Bill — which was introduced with two days’ notice, without the knowledge of some ministers, and with no public consultation whatsoever — the debate on the TPPA (led by 15 lawmakers each from government and opposition) followed months of scrutiny of the final draft of the agreement, after five years of speculation since Malaysia began negotiations. 

Opposition to the TPPA has been large and diverse, exemplified in the Jan 23 rally where “around 3,000” or “over 5,000” (depending on the source) supporters of Bersih 2.0, Perkasa, Parti Sosialis Malaysia, Amanah and other strange bedfellows attempted to convince members of parliament to reject the agreement. 

Support for the TPPA has come from the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers, the SME Association of Malaysia, the Malay Consultative Council and other business groups, as well as the Institute of Strategic & International Studies and IDEAS.

It is of course important to distinguish between those who only howled support or denunciation without qualification, and those who explained their conclusions with research and analysis: giving rise to the possibility that people can be equally patriotic in wanting the best for fellow citizens, even if they arrive at different conclusions.

IDEAS’ special paper on the TPPA (which my colleagues handed out to members of parliament ahead of the vote) showed why it is beneficial overall in terms of pursuing greater economic freedom, strengthening anti-corruption measures, improving governance in government-linked companies, increasing accountability and predictability without jeopardising our sovereignty, and increasing transparency and accountability in procurement.

Mustapa Mohamed (second from right) hands over a summary of the TPPA to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak outside the Dewan Rakyat on Wednesday. — Picture by Firdaus Latif

These and similar efforts by others aimed to show, citing evidence, why signing the TPPA would (or would not) be beneficial to Malaysia. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, many people were utterly unaffected by whatever evidence was presented to them. Three aspects in particular have compromised an objective assessment of the contents of the text.

The first is cynicism of the government’s motives, stemming from the lack of trust in it. If you do not like the government for a multitude of various things — indeed if you think that the people who run the country are corrupt and incompetent — then it is naturally a challenge to believe that they are capable of doing something good. 

The second is the involvement of foreign powers, in particular the charge that it is an economic invasion by the United States — although in the US, there is an opposite accusation that the TPPA will enable others to dominate them. Of course, there is geopolitical manoeuvring in any multilateral agreement (this one with China particularly in mind), but the enthusiasm of other countries (some smaller, some more democratic than us) to join should be considered an important factor too.

The third is the sheer size of the thing.  If every point of contention from the 30 chapters were distilled and debated on, with an appropriate weightage placed on each, the outcome would be deemed more democratic. 

Unfortunately, that has not happened, whether for reasons of time, resources or more likely, deliberate skewing by groups who want to focus on specific points.

The same lack of rigour seems to have afflicted our MPs and senators. Not a single lawmaker defied their party whip, implying that all the efforts of the lobby groups and think tanks had zero-effect in the voting.

It could of course be coincidental that the lawmakers matched their party affiliation, but I know in private that some of Charles Santiago’s colleagues in DAP quite like the TPPA, while some in Umno rather dislike it (Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal criticised it but apparently did not vote against it).

It indicates the extent to which MPs are loyal to their party leaders — not to the constituents who elected them, and certainly not to outside lobby groups, whatever the evidence presented.

Inevitably, there will be another issue that will galvanise civil society to appeal to MPs. On matters of political freedom, IDEAS will ally with those who disagree with us on economic freedom, but unless there is reform of parliament and democratisation within political parties, such efforts may, as we have seen in the TPPA debate, fall on deaf ears. 

As I’m finishing this article, the Cabinet has reportedly agreed to three proposals for parliamentary reform, which I’ll write about another time.

* Tunku ‘Abidin Muhriz is founding president of IDEAS.

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