Despite Mahathir’s loud invectives against the United States (US), Malaysia had good relations with the US at various levels during his tenure as prime minister, extending from police and military cooperation, to trade and investment ties, and including cultural cooperation.
Prime Minister Najib Razak is more transparent about his dealings with the US and his position vis-├а-vis the US. He has not raised rabid calls against the US, while also appealing for their assistance in the areas of trade, investment and technology.
The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement is an interesting issue because it forces Najib to publicly declare his stand on a number of questions. Najib can choose to opt for silence. But that will be an answer in itself, because not saying “No” will indicate consent.
The most difficult knot that Najib will have to undo is the tension between the national agenda and the demands of global liberalisation. The TPP draws the members of the potential agreement towards a scenario where economic liberalism prevails. Economic liberalism does not comfortably share the same bed as that carved by the Malaysian agenda.
The Malaysian economic agenda is characterised by preferential treatment for Bumiputera, certain classes of entrepreneurs, particular types of small and medium enterprises, and support for specific aspirations. This stands in conflict with the liberal economic culture where all individuals are held as equals, with efficiency, competitiveness and productivity as the measure of economic achievement, and the optimisation of social welfare as the mark of success. Social welfare in these terms is taken to be the welfare of the economy in its entirety and not that of particular groups of people.
The underlying philosophy of the TPP has more in common with neo-classical economics and economic liberalism than it has with that of the Malaysian economic agenda.
Although a country achieves an overall increase in social welfare, this can be attained in spite of the losses that certain sections of the economy have incurred. Going by economics pure and simple this would be a preferred choice. But what if the sections that have lost are large or powerful? What if the groups that have suffered losses are icons of the nation, entities that are symbolic of certain aspirations?
Let us say Walmart enters the country. A thousand Walmarts open their outlets throughout the country. Twenty million Malaysians gain from the decrease in prices, better services and enjoy a wider range of goods. But, what if all the Mydins have to close down in the process?
The question ceases to be an economic one and becomes a political issue.
Two other significant issues that force Najib to take a firm stand relate to the economic value of rights and freedom, and transparency.
The transparency requirement can be stringent and far-reaching. The transparency condition will require the government to invite open tenders for projects, especially if they are mega projects that are to the interest of multinational corporations; it will expect government agencies to announce on their websites what incentives are on offer; it may even require government agencies to explain why certain applications that have been filed by MNCs have been rejected. And if incentives and conditions that have been offered by the government have not been fulfilled, or are thought not to have been fulfilled, then the MNCs can take legal redress against the government.
Economic liberalism treats all individuals and companies as being equal. Equality is the cornerstone of rights and freedom. One individual, regardless of his/her faith, gender, conviction, is as good as the other. The importance of this point came across with resounding clarity when Obama, during his visit to Malaysia, said that prejudices against people from different religions and races have no place in the modern world and must be removed. He was quoted as saying that “Malaysia won’t succeed if the non-Muslims do not have the same opportunity.” All individuals in exercising their rights should have the freedom to be and do as they please so that they can flourish.
A liberal framework will also demand that companies, too, are placed on equal footing regardless of their country of origin. An American company will have to be treated no differently than a Malaysian company. Companies, wherever they come from, so long as they are members of the TPP agreement should not be discriminated, should be given equal opportunity, and should be allowed to flourish.
These are complicated issues. But they are the set of rules that will govern global trade in the future. These rules step on the toes of many who have vested interests. The choice is definitely not easy: do we reject these rules and whatever thinking underpins it? Or do we bite the bullet and march forward?
To add to the complexity of these problems there is the question of intellectual property rights and the associated fear of rising health care costs. This is a huge problem, with or without the TPP. Malaysia has provided excellent health care at subsidised costs in its public hospitals thus far, but all indications are that it may take a market-oriented approach. This is a separate question.
There are a several options that are available. One policy attitude will be for Prime Minister Najib and Mr Mustapa Mohamed, the Minister of International Trade and Industry, to engage the Malaysian public on the government’s vision for the future. This will mean taking the bull by its horns and selling their vision of the future. The other option is to sign the agreement without prior buy-in from all parties, and to undertake reform subsequent to signing the TPP agreement. The third option is to realise the gravity of the opposition and to succumb to its pressure.
I find Dr Nambiar’s article very naive.
Is he not aware that there is nothing liberal or egalitarian about the TPP.
It was drawn up by US Multinational Corporations, to give them an unfair advantage over everyone else, be they national government agencies or private citizens.
Any country that is stupid enough to sign this agreement does so at their peril
0
0
This commentary is far from accurate and is full of false claims. Mahathir did not have good relations with the US throughout his twenty-two year reign. That is nonsense. Mahathir hates the US and does not hide it. Nambiar’s voice is the voice of UMNO and is, therefore, the voice of Prime Minister Najib, who’s days are numbered. UMNO/BN lacks any credibility and Nambiar’s father funny optimism, is belied, by a government that is totally lost, beholden to racist Malay NGOs,
can’t decide if it is Islamic or pseudo-secular, does not understand the Malaysian Constitution, and allows the Home Minister and the IGP to utter seditious comments, stating that they serve Malays and Islam, before Malaysia. The TTP is useless. UMNO is finished. Najib is totally worn out, letting Isma and Perkasa do his bidding. Nambiar talks about Malaysia, as if it was a stable, thriving democracy, with no intercultural division, no racism, no threats to expel “Pendatang”, no threats from Malay NGOs to “chop heads in defence of Islam”, no absurd
court decisions regarding the use of the word “Allah”, and no unfair-minded decisions regarding false converts to Islam. Nambiar may be talking about some nation on Planet Earth, but it is most certainly not Malaysia.
Oh, did I mention a missing airplane ?
0
0
Hi there Monique,
You may want to read Barry Wain’s book, or the works of KS Nathan and Johan Saravanamuthu on US-Malaysia relations.
For a quick review, read this article.
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/06/17/mahathirs-regional-legacy/
0
0
Greg, what do you make of Nambiar’s thinking about these issues?
0
0
Hi Sharaad,
I think Dr. Nambiar has correctly assessed the position of the Prime Minister from an economic growth perspective of a country experiencing growth slowdown.
Malaysia, which relies on international trade and foreign direct investment to drive the economy, especially now that it is facing a growth slowdown (almost for more than a decade now), needs external stimulus for a range of reasons.
With nothing happening at the WTO, and the government not prepared to undertake unilateral economic reforms (including trade reforms), the TPP appears to be the best bet, to ensure domestic structural reforms (which is needed to overcome the growth slowdown), and also capture marginal gains through this preferential trade agreement.
There will be social cost — no doubt.
But again that is his view. Others may have different views.
0
0
Spot on… The writer took some stuff for breakfast before writing the article. Whatever that is, I would like some…
0
0
Barry Wain’s book is critical of Mahathir, but insufficiently so, as I told him myself in 2012, a year before he sadly passed away. There can be no doubt about Ketuanan Melayu and increasing Malay racism, Islamic stridency, UMNO corruption and failed leadership, and seditious statements by Isma and Perkasa. In fact, the IGP and Home Minister made seditious statements and refused to follow federal court orders, a crime in any sane and remotely democratic nation. When Perkasa talks about “Chopping off heads to protect Islam”, it is a little silly to talk about TTP, in a nation, where false converts must remain Muslim, the Home Minister mocks non-Malays, a missing airplane remains missing, and almost all Malaysia Analysts agree that Prime Minister Najib is leading from behind, if leading at all. Many Analysts predict that Najib will step down, or there will be an early election. One does not talk trade or economics with a lame-duck administration. Mahathir continues to bedevil
Malaysia, Najib, and spout bigoted and anti-Semitic drivel as usual. He is widely despised in the US, UK and Australia, even if loved in Zimbabwe, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan, all wonderful “democracies”. I repeat, there was never good relations between Mahathir and the United States, the best one can say, is that there
were collaborative arrangements on the economic front. Mahathir restricted military
and some cultural ties. As I know several
Ambassadors from both countries over the course of 35 years, I can confirm this.
Malaysia’s problem is not the TTP, but racism, religious bigotry, and failure to respect the Malaysian Constitution and the Malaysia Agreement of 1963. The Malaysian court system is totally beholden to UMNO. I might add the formal opposition isn’t that much better and is disorganised and has no viable leadership that can counter UMNO. When some Malay NGOs demand that Malaysian-Chinese (“Pendatang”) hand over their businesses and leave the country, as Isma, Perkasa and Abdullah Tee have frequently stated, talking about TTP, when Malaysia is in crisis mode is ridiculous. President Obama’s visit to Malaysia was useless; Susan Rice speaking to Anwar is a joke, as everyone wants to speak with Anwar, when Kassim Ahmad is being held illegally and falsely accused of heresy. Please don’t talk to me about trade relations with Malaysia, when UMNO should be tried internationally for human rights abuses, something President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron do not care about, though Prime Minister Abbott may care a bit more. Thanks for all the references, but I have 40 + years of Malaysia residency behind me.
0
0