The 19th round of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations have begun in Brunei, scheduled to go until August 30.

By Andrew Chernoff     August 22, 2013 

Research: The Brunei Times

While many Canadians have reservations around the Harper government embracing of the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement and the present negotiations, some countries like Brunei, have similar concerns.

In Canada, according to a Huffington Post article, everything from the rules surrounding Internet downloads, to how our groceries are produced, to when you can copy textbooks legally, will be affected.

Leaks from some of the TPP discussions disclosed in the Huffington Post article, suggest the following could impact Canadians if included in the final agreement:

• It Could Criminalize Small-Scale Downloading
• It Could Reduce Or End Canadian Content Rules
• ISPs Could Become Internet Cops
• It Could Mean Foreign Telecom Coming To Canada
• Corporations Could Control Your Browsing History
• It Could Change Your Grocery Bill
• Copyright Terms Will Likely Be Expanded
• You May Have To Do Less Copying And Quoting

But the Harper government is not releasing any substance regarding the negotiations to Canadians, and it is not clear whether Canadians will have the final say on ratification of the agreement or whether his majority government will assume our wishes and vote on our behalf.

In Brunei, they are equally concerned about the secrecy its government has imposed as well on the negotiations as well as other things. The following are examples from the Editorial section of The Brunei Times:

 

Secrecy over TPP talks shows priority is for big business

Friday, August 23, 2013

Dear Editor,

THERE have been many comments in The Brunei Times recently on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations and its impact on participating countries, including Brunei, the latest being your excellent editorial.

TPP negotiators keep telling their public that the TPP outcome will be good for us, yet have kept us totally in the dark on the negotiations. What an irony! I guess we will just have to take their word for it and hope that they excel in what they do whilst keeping in mind our best interests.

I, for one, am not too optimistic about this, based on the total absence of engagement with stakeholders so far. Why this reluctance? A public and informed debate will help to clear up the air and maybe even garner public support for the TPP. It is precisely because of the dearth of information from Brunei’s negotiators that we, the public, whom they purport to serve, have to rely on rumours, hearsay and third-hand information.

The various reservations have already been aired in the BT, ranging from intellectual property through investors rights to state-owned enterprises, so I need not delve into these here. But I would like to quote Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz:

“… no trade agreement should put commercial interests ahead of broader national interests, especially when non-trade-related issues like financial regulation and intellectual property are at stake. … Other trade agreements have insisted on financial liberalisation and deregulation as well, even though the 2008 crisis should have taught us that the absence of good regulation can jeopardise economic prosperity.

Profits ahead of saving lives

The US pharmaceutical industry, which wields considerable clout with the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), has succeeded in foisting on other countries an unbalanced intellectual-property regime, which, designed to fight generic drugs, puts profit ahead of saving lives. Even the US Supreme Court has now said that the US Patent Office went too far in granting patents on genes. Finally, there must be a commitment to transparency. But those engaging in these trade negotiations should be forewarned: the US is committed to a lack of transparency….

In the case of the TPP, there is a further concern. Asia has developed an efficient supply chain, with goods flowing easily from one country to another in the process of producing finished goods. But the TPP could interfere with that if China remains outside of it….

If negotiators created a genuine free-trade regime that put the public interest first, with the views of ordinary citizens given at least as much weight as those of corporate lobbyists, I might be optimistic that what would emerge would strengthen the economy and improve social well-being.

The reality, however, is that we have a managed trade regime that puts corporate interests first, and a process of negotiations that is undemocratic and non-transparent.

Concerned Stakeholder

Looking at TPP pact and its significance

Editorial

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

THEY have kept it in the dark so far, and they intend to keep it under wraps until after the signing, and that is something which is inappropriate, and immoral if you will.

“They”refers to the negotiators, and “the signing” refers to the signing of the agreement of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

If the TPP agreement is for the benefit of the people, common sense dictates that the people should know about it, and not learn bits and pieces through leakages here and there.

From what we have gathered so far from the discussions already held, 18 rounds thus far since March 15, 2010, in Melbourne, though not much, are enough to sound the alarm bells.

Much has been written in The Brunei Times about the lengthening of patents, which could result in higher medicine prices for TPP countries, and that is one key reason why we feel “UN-comfortable” about this agreement, and it’s a very big “UN” here.

According to another leak, the US is also pushing for “investor rights”, which translates into the rights of companies to sue the government of a country if a regulation was passed and it affected the profit of the companies.

What is to be discussed now could be music to the ears of smokers in Brunei.

When Uruguay asked all cigarette firms in the country to put pictures of cancers on their cigarette boxes, Philip Morris (major tobacco company) used an FTA (Free Trade Agreement) provision to sue the Uruguayan government in February 2010 for hurting its cigarette sales (the case is still in progress).

Australia was also sued by the same company in November 2011 for a similar regulation regarding cigarette packs. And as recently as June 2013, Japan Tobacco has also moved against the Thai government on similar issue.

Just think of how many anti-cigarette regulations we have in Brunei, and think of how much profit these tobacco companies can sue us for.

Another contentious issue of the TPP is about the liberalisation of service sub-sectors (healthcare, retail trade, etc), meaning any service activity permitted by companies in one country, “national treatment” must also be awarded to foreign companies, which means companies in other TPP countries will also be able to operate in Brunei like they are a Brunei company.

Maybe there will be people who believe this is a good regulation, as consumers will be able to buy cheaper products and services. But imagine what damage it will do to the Brunei industries; will Hua Ho, SupaSave and Soon Lee be able to stand up to the competition of Walmart and Tesco? And what about the fate of our local SMEs that may have to compete with international MNCs for public contracts, where the locals may not be given legitimate preferences?

This latest round of negotiation in Brunei is slated to be the final round of the TPP discussions, and we are ill at ease. Ill at ease we certainly are because after three and a half years of discussions, the negotiators are still keeping all the information to themselves, which means they retain all the power to decide the fate of the people in the 12 participating nations. We are certainly not comfortable with such kind of power, even if we are to fully trust our own negotiators.

 

Thursday, August 22, 2013:

 

Who gains from ‘selling’ national sovereignty?

Dear Editor,

WE HAVE been made to understand that should the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement come into effect in its current format, foreign multinational corporations would be able to bring Brunei to an international tribunal outside of its jurisdiction if they do not like any of the country’s policies that they may find to be impinging on their ability to make profits, or for any other kinds of unknown or devious agenda for that matter. This, we understand, would tantamount to undermining Brunei’s national sovereignty.

On August 20, 2013, the US Ambassador was reported to have stated that the TPPA would result, for Brunei, an “aggregate income gains of US$193 million by 2025”, quoting a so-called “study” by the Peterson Institute. Is that how much Brunei would “gain” by surrendering its national sovereignty through the TPPA? Are Bruneians willing to sell off their country’s national sovereignty? And who exactly in Brunei would be gaining that “aggregate income”

Perhaps His Excellency would like to elaborate on this? And it would be good as well to know the opinion and stance of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Attorney-General’s Chambers on the subject.

UC,
Bandar

 

What does this TPP mean for Bruneians?

Dear Editor,

I READ with great interest the Opinion article published by your paper on August 19, 2013 titled “Role of state in developing nations under attack from new FTAs”. This article was rather mind-boggling knowing Brunei is part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Just a very basic query, intended for the government officials concerned, the trade side of MoFAT, I assume; what does this TPP mean for us? I suppose our local business people would be more than happy to hear your prompt and easy-to-understand response in this regard.

DWBSS
Brunei Darussalam

The 19th round of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations have begun in Brunei and are scheduled to go until August 30.