By Andrew Chernoff    August 29, 2013

Some people in the host country of the 19th Round of Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) Negotiations in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei are concerned about tobacco and the push by the United States and its’ tobacco multinational companies to water down nations’ rights to enact legislation or rules that discourage the use of tobacco products in the TPP participating countries.

In the August 29, 2013 edition of the Brunei Times newspaper, a letter to the editor raised a further concern that perhaps, it was not just tobacco that countries were being influenced to change their legislation or rules about.

The letter titled, “Solid stance or wishful thinking on TPP?”, the writer says:

“IN A Canadian paper dated August 27, 2013, it was stated that “The Americans, apparently at the behest of tobacco companies, are trying to water down nations’ rights to enact legislation or rules that discourage the use of tobacco products”.

Are tobacco companies the only ones doing this?

The letter from MoFAT published in your paper on the same date stated that “On the queries on whether the TPP will impinge upon Brunei Darussalam’s sovereignty, our accession to the TPP will not prevent us from continuing to apply our laws and regulations”.

“Watering down” national rights to enact certain kinds of legislation or rules would certainly lead to impingement of a country’s sovereignty.”

This concern is not just one the citizens of Brunei should be concerned about. Canadians should have the same concern, and with the secrecy that abounds with negotiations, and the fact that the Canadian government is determined to make the decision on the final look of the partnership agreement, all Canadians must make sure that our politicians inform us of the particulars of the agreement items and get feedback from the Canadian electorate before Parliament gives royal assent.

As one commenter to the article in the Brunei Times said, and I quote, “The public at large (society) needs to participate in this debate so governments can formulate better strategies to balance economic diversification efforts and protection of the public.”

I wholeheartedly agree. How about you?