IDEAS organised a debate on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) on 28 March at the Kuala Lumpur Teaching Centre, Nottingham University. It was a rich debate by two gentlemen, both whose views I respect very much. We got the audience to vote both before and after, whether or not they were pro or against economic liberalisation and the TPPA. Members of the audience were asked to vote on whether they supported the TPPA and economic liberalisation. Before the debate, 53% voted yes, 19% voted no and 28% said they were unsure. After the debate, the numbers changed dramatically: 68% voted yes, 26% voted no and only 6% unsure – an increase of 15% for those supportive. Below are some welcoming remarks I gave as an introduction before the session began.
**
Good morning to YB Charles Santiago (MP of Klang) and debater today, together with Dr. Razeen Sally (Chair of Political Economy and Governance at IDEAS, also Associate Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy), Dr. Trevor Parfait, from Nottingham University, Friends from SEANET, Members of the media, friends, ladies & gentlemen.
A very warm welcome to all of you to the TPPA Debate. Thank you for giving up your Saturday morning to be with us.
For those who don’t already know us, IDEAS is an independent, not-for-profit, classical liberal think tank that seeks to promote better public policy solutions in the country, especially in the areas of political economy and governance, and education. We believe in 4 principles and all our work is grounded on these: the rule of law (where all citizens are treated equally before the law), individual liberty (basic civil liberties), free markets (the free movement of goods and services), and limited government (where government should have limited involvement in the people’s daily lives).
We’re also very proud of the two special projects that have emerged, namely our IDEAS Autism Centre for low-income autistic children, and an IDEAS Academy, a secondary-level learning centre for refugees and stateless children.
And SEANET, that you see here today, is the Southeast Asian Network for Development, which is our initiative to spread the same principles that IDEAS believes in to ASEAN countries. And there will be many other activities being organised by SEANET in the future.
I’d like to especially thank Nottingham University, our co-organiser, for the generous use of this hall today. You are fast gaining a reputation for facilitating open dialogue in a country that increasingly represses free speech.
We’re really excited about today’s event, not just because of the nature of the event – Malaysians very rarely like to debate. We don’t like confrontation.
We’re excited because it’s a rare opportunity to bring together people of different opinions when it comes to solving the economic problems of the country.
Malaysia was once known in the region as a “tiger cub economy”, almost but not quite reaching the level of a tiger economy, following its export-driven model of economic development. But after the financial crisis of 1997 growth rates were nowhere close to what we experienced prior to that.
Yes, we were still able to register a 6% growth rate in 2014. Yes, we had a 7.1% growth of private consumption. Yes, we have a RM9 billion trade surplus.
But yet we are riddled with many other problems: a household debt of 86.6%, oil and gas contributes an unsustainable one third to our national revenues, a bloated civil service, weak public procurement practices, all of which are of great concern. Bank Negara recently defended the country’s investment numbers, saying private sector investment accounted for 64% of total investment in 2014.
This may be true, but the 36% of public investment is also a whopping amount. GLCs control more than half the industry share in utilities, transportation, warehousing, agriculture, banking, ICT and retail trade. GLCs account for 36% and 54% of the Bursa Malaysia market capitalisation and the KLCI. This means small traders and companies are being crowded out of the market.
Which brings us to the theme being debated today. The TPPA has been an extremely controversial agreement, namely because there is disagreement on what impacts it will have on the economy. Essentially, will it help or harm our Malaysian economy and its people?
MITI has been accused of being secretive about the agreement’s contents, whilst the most controversial chapters on intellectual property, government procurement and ISDS (inter-state dispute settlements) are still being negotiated, the results of which are rarely discussed in public.
IDEAS and SEANET believe that a market-based economy is better in catalysing growth. But we don’t necessarily have a corporate view on how to do it.
Some of us think that the most ideal agreement would be a unilateral agreement, in which no countries are excluded from the “all boys’ club”, so to speak. Others feel that bilateral arrangements are actually better and a more efficient arrangement between two mutually agreeing nations. In the absence of unilateral trade, some believe the next best bet are multilateral agreements like the TPPA because although it excludes many, those it does include would greatly benefit, from the consumers’ point of view.
Others, like me, feel there are costs and benefits (many of which haven’t actually been measured yet, nor put out transparently in the open for the rest of the Malaysian public) but on the whole, the TPPA would be an opportunity to reform many archaic practices within government that make us sluggish and uncompetitive. But without saying too much more, I am proud that IDEAS and SEANET are able to provide an opportunity and platform for open, rational and most importantly, informed debate.Such space is rare in Malaysia and
I am honoured to have with us renowned individuals to speak both for and against the TPPA.
I have had the privilege of knowing both of them even before I joined IDEAS – Dr. Razeen and I have shared several conversations on the commonalities between Malaysia and Sri Lanka, where he is from. Charles Santiago worked closely with me on the Selangor water negotiations (though I must say cheekily that YB, your constituents are in a port area that depends on trade, no?)
With that, Ladies & Gentlemen. Once again, I warmly welcome you to our first Doha-style debate. If we aren’t able to convince you, let us at least agree to disagree.
Enjoy the show!
