The government has scheduled two important events for next week. The first is the parliamentary debate on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement scheduled for 26th and 27th January. This is a Yes or No vote to Malaysia’s participation in the trade pact with eleven other countries including US and Canada.
The second event is Prime Minister Najib Razak’s announcement on 28th January, revising Budget 2016. It’s believed that the premier will make the announcement from the administrative capital of Putrajaya, as in previous years.
I call upon the Prime Minister to submit his recalibrated 2016 budget to parliament on 26th and 27th January and thus defer the TPPA debate for another time.
The parliamentary debate on the revised budget 2016 would provide parliament the opportunity to access the government’s revised financial plan, scrutinise re-allocation of funds to the various ministries and ensure that peoples hardship are addressed.
Parliamentary scrutiny could push for cuts in the bloated Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) budget allocation of RM 20.3 billion as opposed to the Ministry of Health’s recent budget cut announcement of RM 300 million. The fear is that the recalibrated 2016 budget would sacrifice people interests, a trend observed in budget 2016 passed in December 2015.
The ministries of education, welfare and social spending saw major cuts.
The parliamentary debate on TPPA is not urgent at this time given the growing uncertainties in the US and Canada on the trade agreement.
These countries might not be able to meet the stipulated 4th February signing deadline in New Zealand.
The timing of the signing matters, because a formal signing starts the clock ticking on a two-year deadline for the 12 partner countries to ratify the agreement through their respective legislative processes.
Media reports indicate that the newly elected government of Julian Trudeau has not decided to participate in the 4th February event in New Zealand. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, three days ago reported Canada’s International Trade Minister, Chrystia Freeland, saying that “her government hasn’t decided whether it will participate in an expected signing ceremony for the Trans-Pacific Partnership in Auckland, New Zealand early next month”.
“We are aware that some of the countries are talking about a signing in New Zealand. Canada hasn’t yet taken a decision”.
The Canadians will establish a parliamentary select committee to study the TPPA.
Meanwhile in the US, the successful passage of the trade pact is far from assured. A major debate is raging between the Republicans and Democrats on the TPPA.
All indications show that influential congressman and senators prefer to put the TPPA debate on the backburner till after the Presidential elections in November.
The situation in the US is rather complicated given that the main presidential contenders on both sides oppose the trade agreement.
A further reason to defer the debate is to allow Malaysia parliamentarians and stake-holders more time to analyse the implications of the trade agreements on the country. The present strategy is to bull-doze the agreement through parliament.
In a short period of four to five weeks, parliamentarians are required to debate a 6000 page, two million word legal document involving technical references and side letters on a variety of complex issues.
Furthermore, an understanding of the inter-chapter linkages are crucial to the understanding of the agreement itself.
Specifically, an understanding of the impact of Intellectual Property Rights on medicine requires reading 7 inter-linked chapters in the trade agreement. It involves reading the core Intellectual Property chapter, investment chapter, investor to state dispute settlement chapter, Patent chapter, Transparency Annex chapter, government procurement chapter and regulatory coherence chapter.
In fact, the Intellectual Property chapter involves four separate areas such as copyrights, geographical indications, trade-mark and patents for medicines (including biologics) and new plant varieties.
Understanding each of these areas involves different legal expertise and each subject has got its own set of controversies and disciplines.
Thus, the government’s two to three hours briefing to MPs and other stake holders, although welcomed, will not be sufficient for a robust debate in the interest of the nation. Also, the there is little legal or academic analysis or commentary on this trade agreement.
Thus, in all fairness, MPs should be given a longer time to evaluate and to consult with experts for a better and deeper understanding of the text and its implications for the country.