–Anusha Arumugam, July 18, 2013.

Suraya and Leong run a carpentry store. They have two school going children and Leong homes his sickly mother. Currently, they are middle-income. If the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) were to come to place, less than a decade down the line Suraya and Leong would have to close their business, Leong would have to abandon measures to seek treatment for his mother and their status would drop to lower income where their earnings would barely be enough to sustain their children’s education. What more about Muthu who is a single father suffering from asthma and heart problems, has three schooling children, and lives in a flat.

In October this year, the Najib government is going to sign a deal called the TPPA with 11 other countries, (the US, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Japan) which is going to cause Muthu and around a million others who are and if not, will be poverty stricken to not afford healthcare approximately 5 years down the line. This is because 80% of medicines that Malaysians consume are generic as opposed to patented medicines which, according to Martin Khor, can be 1,044% times more expensive. With the TPPA, patented medicines would be given higher protection, hence disallowing generic companies to produce affordable and easily accessible medicines.

In 2004 a study showed that generic medicines which replaced patented ones could treat 4,000 HIV infected patients from the previous number of only 1,500 for the same cost. Hence, with the TPPA in place, this threat on affordable generic medicines can be extrapolated to being a threat to the lives of sickly people. According to the Malaysia Aid Council there were more than 4,000 cases of HIV and AIDS in 2011.

Suraya and Leong represent the 39.3% of Malaysia’s labour force involved in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) (as provided by the Malaysian Labour Force Survey Report 2011) which contributes around 31% to Malaysia’s gross domestic product (GDP). The services sector contributes approximately 60% share of the SME GDP, while the manufacturing sector 30% and agriculture 7%.  According to the National Small and Medium Enterprise Development Council (NSDC), SMEs play a critical role in stabilizing the Malaysian economy during economic shocks. In fact, in some sectors SMEs remain resilient and agile during economic downturns.

However the TPPA is going to cripple this sector. Reason being, this multilateral agreement will allow more multinational companies and corporations to invade Malaysia’s SME causing more imported goods to be sold at cheaper prices. Inevitably and slowly the local SME would be affected and would be made to shut down. The rationale is this, if there is a small shop house selling the same goods as its adjacent competitor which happens to be a store like IKEA, how long do you think it would take for the shop house to close down? Sadly, in response representatives of Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Malaysia’s negotiator for TPPA, argue that SMEs can seize the opportunity of a larger market that the TPP provisions would create to improve themselves.

As if not economically dampening enough, the TPP has provisions where negotiated new rules override that of a country’s. These provisions could greatly restrict the government’s ability to balance public interest and human rights against the private interests of corporations. In other words, Malaysia’s sovereignty would be challenged. Disputes between foreign companies and the government would be judged by ad-hoc tribunals with legal fees averaging at $US 8 million per case but can go well above $US 30 million, hence they are no help to small businesses or farmers as according to John Ring, the Foreign Affairs Spokesperson for New Zealand Democrats.

Like Brazil, Malaysia should reject the TPP not just because patented medicines would be given higher protection and the free trade area would be further liberalized but also because the removal of export taxes would encourage more logging, forest clearing and mining which indirectly contributes to global warming. Then there are the bars to internet freedom, greater intellectual property protection measures in the fields of culture, education, research and publication. With so much negativity soaking this agreement, what possible positive outcomes can outweigh this plausible damage so as to make this agreement worth being considered in the first place?

The 2013 Human Development Report lists Malaysia as the third last in terms of human development amongst its 11 other negotiators. Following Malaysia is Peru and lastly Vietnam. Taking these countries, Malaysia ranks among the highest in terms of Gini coefficient. Malaysia’s Gini coefficient is 0.46, while Peru and Mexico both at 0.48 and Chile with the record of 0.52. The Gini coefficient is a measure of income distribution where 1 being the maximum, denotes greatest inequality in a country’s income distribution. In terms of indicators we are in a weaker position.

Malaysia already sustains a huge and unjust income disparity. The Edge report in 2010 indicated that Malaysians’ household debt to disposal income is one of the highest in the world at 140 per cent, doubtful if it is any better now.  This situation is like a weak person participating in a boxing championship where 9 out of the other 11 are stronger competitors. What possible good can come out of this?

The question that must be asked is this: if the TPP agreement makes people poorer, how is it suppose to enrich Malaysia’s economy? Are our political leaders looking for a scapegoat to cover the economic blunders in the name of TPPA? Are we being pawned for that?