Talking Policy: YB Pehin Dato Lim Jock Seng on Brunei

Brunei, a Southeast Asian nation with a population of only 400,000, ranks among the world’s wealthiest nations per capita due to its extensive oil and gas resources. Situated strategically on the South China Sea and a member both of APEC and ASEAN, it is also a central player in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact now awaiting Congressional action. David A. Andelman, editor emeritus of World Policy Journal, sat down with Yang Berhormat Pehin Dato Lim Jock Seng, Brunei’s Second Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and a close advisor to the His Majesty the Sultan of Brunei, to examine the stakes on both sides of the Pacific and to discuss the country’s domestic politics and relations with its neighbors.

DAVID A. ANDELMAN: Here we are in 2016 in very difficult times. Where do you see Brunei? What do you think is its place in the region right now?

YB PEHIN DATO LIM JOCK SENG: Brunei is a small country, with a population of about 400,000. We are the smallest member of ASEAN. And our role will be actually very minimal in any organization, being that size. So this is why ASEAN is so important to us, because this is one organization where we feel we can contribute to ASEAN, to the region, and internationally. If we're doing it alone, it would be impossible. Nobody cares.

DA: You're the wealthiest country in the region, along with Singapore, by far. You have great resources. You have a strong central government. You're a peaceful country. You should be one of the great forces in the region. Do you have that confidence to do that?

PDLJS: Yes, we are blessed with oil and gas, and when the prices fall and gas is high, we were able over the last 10-15 years to put all that extra money into reserve, and invest it to the States, Europe, and everywhere. So from these reserves, we have the financial backing, but some of the major players in the region are China, Japan, and India. Within ASEAN, we try to play our part. We feel that in diplomacy, the best way to do anything is to trust each other. I realized from my 30-plus years of experience that if you don't have the trust, however brilliant you are, you will never get anything done. We have friends, and the natural way for us in Brunei really is that we are very friendly—we like to be friends and trust is the main thing.

DA: Who do you think does not trust you in the region?

PDLJS: I think, generally, they see us as a small country of no significance, but they like us because we never trouble them, we never criticize them, and we are one of those who think, "fine, if that's alright with you, we'll come along."

DA: Does that include China?

PDLJS: That includes China. Both China and America are two major powers and we are friends with both. We tell our American friends that we're friendly with China, we're friendly with you, but it would be good if you could use us as a channel, because what I do is, every time I would see the Chinese, I would tell them, "have you ever thought properly what it is that the Americans really want? I would tell you exactly what it is." And then I will convey to them what the Chinese think, because the Chinese, when we talk about the South China Sea, were telling me, "look, here is China. We are surrounded by Korea, Japan ... and then you have Australia, you have Thailand, you have everybody around here. All have military relations with the United States. And the moment that Australia and New Zealand come in, we feel surrounded." So that's basically how we see our role.

DA: The Trans-Pacific Partnership is something that's of great interest now in America, and I'm sure here. Do you see TPP—since TPP has excluded China—as yet another threat to China? And since you are participating in that, do you see that you effectively are, too?

PDLJS: No, because TPP is an open association. Everybody can come in. And we've told the Chinese, "come." We've invited everybody and now they have some who are seriously thinking of coming in. And, I think the TPP is good in a sense that it is now moving the RCEP [Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership] we are doing with the Chinese and the Indians. That's 18 of us in total, without the United States. And now the pace is getting faster because they realize TPP is now on. And we told the Chinese we supported them, we want them to come in, the U.S. wants them to come in. I think the Chinese are thinking seriously now about it—they are getting interested in coming, and they're not as opposed to it.

DA: But aren't you afraid that the American government—depending on what administration we have after November—and Congress might say, "Oh, this is just another Trojan horse to get China more weight in the region?"

PDLJS: I think we have more confidence than you on this. In our last meeting, Obama was telling us that he feels that we'll be able to pull it off. And we were talking to Alex Feldman, with the ASEAN U.S. Business Council. Now, if you look at TPP and what they're doing, it would be silly of us not to proceed with it. And I'm sure there have been a lot of business sectors saying, “forget about politics.”

DA: What if the United States Congress said we're not going to ratify this now? Would you go ahead with it without the United States?

PDLJS: I'm not sure of that. We have to change some of the legislation, labor and all that, to accommodate, which will take about 18 months. Then we're ready to ratify.

DA: Do you sense that the aggressive role of China, in the South China Sea particularly, as well as its defensiveness against the TPP, would shift the power balance in this part of the world?

PDLJS: Economically, with the facts and figures, China is becoming a very important player. It is already the second largest economy in the world. Will it take over? It may, it may not. But at the same time, the U.S.—there is no country in the world that I've seen with the same amount of talent, research, and innovation. I was in California’s Silicon Valley. It’s fantastic! There I see Syrians, Sri Lankans, Vietnamese—all the best brains you have. There is nowhere else in the world like it, and that's why your American spirit, your American dream is important—although the Chinese are trying to get the Chinese dream. But, as long as you pursue this, I don't think anybody really has the environment to encourage that kind of innovation, and that's something that America has done very well.

DA: Can Brunei maintain its voice in the region with these levels of oil prices, or do you need to have a higher price of oil?

PDLJS: I think we need some sense so that both the consumer and the producer gain from it. There's no point in us getting $140 and have some people suffering somewhere. So what we need to get rid of is the volatility. I think Brunei's role and influence comes from having resources. And, in that sense, a fairly stable middle of the price of oil in the $60s to $70s range [would be good]. We're fine because constant production is very low.

DA: Now, what I find interesting is the lessons that Brunei could teach other smaller countries that have resources. Indonesia, for instance, has resources. Malaysia has resources. You have the fourth highest GDP-PPP in the world. You must be able to teach other countries something. What kinds of lessons can you teach them?

PDLJS: I’m going to explain to you the policy His Majesty has been following. I once told him, "We have spent a lot of money on welfare. We have spent a lot of money on education." His emphasis is: "I want education. I don't care what you all do, ministers. I want everyone to be educated from A to Z. I want everyone to have access to medical care. If you can't get it in Brunei, we'll fly the patients out. I want everybody to have housing—cheap housing, or free housing. In fact, in the end, it's all free housing." So I said, "You can't sustain it!" He said, "All the money that comes from oil and gas and everything to the government—it's for the people. So spend it on the people."

DA: I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but His Majesty lives very well. And his family lives very well. Do people resent this at all?

PDLJS: As far as I can gather, because he's trying to give all that money to the people, education and all that, people are quite comfortable. And then the social safety net—when you retire, when you're older, you still have the pension scheme, which is non-contributory, so you get it anyway. In that case, I think he has won half of the battle in the sense that he has given them the basics plus this social safety net.

DA: I knew Singapore’s Lee Kwan Yew a bit. He was a tough man, very smart and very for the people. Did you ever contemplate how Brunei might have been different if you have followed more of a Lee Kwan Yew model? You had resources that they never had in terms of oil and so on, and natural gas.

PDLJS: I think with the kind of society we have, it would be difficult. Brunei's society is completely different from that of Singapore.

DA: How would you describe Brunei society in that respect?

PDLJS: I would say we are still family-oriented. Because of our small size, we all know each other, we're all related to each other. And this is why when you talk about corruption and all that, it is so difficult. I'll give you an example. I did my research in a fishing village for a year, and stayed with a family there. So when I came up, the family would say, "Look, my son hasn't got a job. Can you please help me?" And the expectation is that you must help him. Now half of me says no, half of me says you have to help him. So I'm caught in a dilemma between the Western and the Eastern world. Eventually, I said, "Send the application. If he's qualified, he'll get it."

DA: That's more of the Singapore model, isn't it? That's what we would say. I think one of the things you do share with Singapore is no corruption here, right?

PDLJS: We're trying to reduce it. We're conscious that we haven't succeeded.

DA: I don't think of Brunei as a corrupt society, certainly nothing like a lot of the Middle Eastern countries, or certainly most of the African nations. You're very high on the transparency international list, so that's good.

PDLJS: So we're hoping the TPP will help us because the TPP addresses the question of transparency. We need to make some of the rules very clear. That's one way of ruling out corruption. So in this sense, TPP is helping us to really move up.

DA: What would you say if the U.S. Congress rejected it? What would the consequences be for Brunei, and for the region?

PDLJS: Well, TPP is something that will provide us with a market of 800 million people. It provides us with capacity building—we are trying to build all our businesspeople, our rules, our regulations, so that it's on par with everyone. In this way, we are bringing Brunei into the international forum. So that's one aspect of it, apart from creating more jobs. But we also have many other free trade agreements with nations like Australia and New Zealand. There is also RCEP, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. Now this one is with India, China—but not the U.S. If TPP fails, some of these countries will come in.

DA: So basically, it'll be worse for America if it fails than it'll be for Brunei and the region.

PDLJS: Yes.

DA: That's a very interesting perspective.

PDLJS: But if you see the World Bank's report, we are number three getting benefits out of it. But we wouldn't get any benefits until we move up.

DA: Move up what?

PDLJS: In the sense of some of the rules, the regulations. If I want to attract American investors, my rules and my judiciary must be very clear. Some of the rules are not very clear, like labor. That's in the process of being done.

DA: But you don't need TPP for that. You realize that, right?

PDLJS: No, but TPP provides us this motivation.

DA: That's very interesting. So what else would you want from America?

PDLJS: I think, as I said, America is a very good friend of ours. One of the major powers, if not the major power. It has contributed a lot to the peace and stability of this region. China of course is the up-and-coming one, but we want them to play a positive role—the both of them.

DA: They seem to want to encroach on your oil lands and your oil fields in the South China Sea, and it seems they want to make life difficult for you.

PDLJS: At the end of the day, I think that China and the U.S. cannot afford to fight. The reality is that we need each other, and you can't do that. I don't think for a moment that the Chinese would be mad enough to do some thing, and I'm sure the Chinese have a long-term view of things.

DA: So you're not concerned then about these things that are happening in the South China Sea?

PDLJS: If it is the nine-dash line, it is part of it, but we're saying this is ours, and this is yours - but it's not going to come to any blows.

DA: I’m also interested in the legislative part of the government, and wanted to see how that worked in Brunei.

PDLJS: The composition of the legislative council, which was introduced in 2004, is that a quarter of those people are actually elected as head men of villages. From these 50-60 head men, 15 out of them get to represent in parliament. They were chosen by the people, through elections. And then His Majesty adds about five people who represent some ethnic communities and groups, and another five people who represent the interests from the private sector, people with contributions.

DA: So the idea as I understand it is that the legislative council—people come in, and tell the problems they have to the ministers. You're one of the ministers—you'll be up there?

PDLJS: Yes.

DA: If something does not go their way, they can't protest. There isn't that avenue. So does it still function as a safety valve in the communities, or does it not act as a source of frustration?

PDLJS: Our parliament is designed slightly differently. The parliament is trying to have the concept of a discussion, and trying to get a consensus; there is no such thing as opposition. And if you see the design of the sitting arrangement, it's different.

DA: Have they ever gotten what they wanted?

PDLJS: Some of them do, some don't, but some questions come up again and again. So the idea is, how do you find a consensus?

DA: But is it really a consensus? It's really not a true democracy, with all due respect. The head of state and head of government has been in power for over 40 years. But do people still feel a participation in the Brunei miracle, if you will?

PDLJS: There is access to His Majesty. He's there every Friday, and they will see him and pass on letters to him. So every time he comes back with letters complaining about the ministers not doing anything, and the next day all the ministers will have to answer all of the questions.

DA: Does he ever do anything for the people?

PDLJS: Oh, yes. One example is of a market that is operating and the ministers were saying that they wanted to move the vendors to a better place. But the vendors were saying, we've been here for generations, and we want to stay here because this is our place and history and people. So His Majesty came down and talked to them, and they told His Majesty they want to stay. And I think His Majesty took their word and said, “Alright.” They have access to him; they write letters to the palace with requests. The ministers are reminded again and again that everything is for the people, not for themselves. But this message is not well publicized. So His Majesty is always being portrayed as this and that, so he said, “I live with it.”


Sumber - World Policy Institute

ASEAN, China And The US: An Uneasy and Fragile Triangle

ASEAN-US Special Leaders’ Summit – February 2016

Jean-Pierre Lehmann

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT that, symbolically at least, the recent U.S.-ASEAN Special Leaders’ Summit in California was a historic event.

I was in the ASEAN region 50 years ago when ASEAN per se did not yet exist; it was founded the following year, 1967, by five of its current ten members: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, which were later joined by Brunei, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia. At the time Southeast Asia was the world’s bloodiest battlefield, with not only the Vietnam War raging but also insurrections and risks of wars between countries. With the establishment at the end of 2015 of the ASEAN Economic Community, the group has had a highly successful journey.

This is all the more remarkable in that no region in the world contains such religious, political and economic diversity (as well as diverse colonial histories) as Southeast Asia. In recent decades, notwithstanding its multiple fault lines, ASEAN has been an island of comparative stability in what has been and is increasingly a turbulent world. The contrast between Southeast Asia and Southwest Asia (the Levant) is particularly striking. In this context it has to be said that the U.S., since its defeat in the Vietnam War 40 years ago, has been, on balance, a benign force, both in respect to security and economic development.

This stability, however, must not be taken for granted. It is fragile: There are various social, environmental, economic, political and ideological threats within countries, and potential areas of conflict between countries. Furthermore, while one cannot say that the U.S.’ role has become hostile in the region, it is ambivalent. The U.S.-ASEAN summit is presumably a component of the “pivot to Asia” strategy, but it is not clear what the “pivot to Asia” means, nor to what it is directed.

The really grave threat would be if ASEAN becomes a proxy battlefield between the superpower U.S. and the rising great power China, somewhat comparable to the position of the Balkans between the great powers on the eve of World War I. Many issues could exacerbate not only tensions between China and the U.S. but also among ASEAN member states. Two especially stand out.

TPP – The Exclusive (no China) Partnership

With the collapse of the multilateral WTO Doha Round, Washington has been pursuing various regional and megaregional trade policy initiatives. The TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) consists of a dozen Pacific countries from Latin America, North America and East Asia, including four ASEAN member states: Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam. It excludes China. Whereas the Washington rhetoric argues that TPP (like its Atlantic counterpart, TTIP) is a building block to a more liberal global trade order, others, notably but not only in Beijing, see it as a stumbling block, divisive and exclusive. The regional trade dynamics could become highly geopoliticized.

The second and potentially most explosive issue is the South China Sea. It is an immensely complex issue not only for the Asia-Pacific region but also the world. Territorial disputes are especially acute between China and four ASEAN states, three of which (Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam) are also members of TPP (the fourth is the Philippines).

From the perspective of the U.S. and the threatened ASEAN countries, China appears in the South China Sea as a rising territory-grabbing imperialist nation impeding freedom of navigation. From the Chinese perspective the South China Sea is as critical to its security as the Caribbean was to the U.S. at a time when it was seeking its place in the global sun. The U.S. transformed the Caribbean into an American lake, as the Chinese wish to transform the South China Sea into a Chinese lake.

With China highly dependent on supplies of vital resources, notably energy, minerals and food, any disruption in the South China Sea, particularly the geopolitically critical Malacca Strait, threatens the lifeline to China’s 1.3 billion people.

Just as there is no unanimous view among ASEAN member states about TPP, there is no unanimous view about the South China Sea. To avoid transforming the region once again into a battlefield, visionary statesmanship will be called upon from all key actors: China, the U.S. and the ten member states of ASEAN.

It is, to put it mildly, a bit worrying.


Sumber - Forbes

US tells TPP members to improve labour standards

Rabiatul Kamit
Sunnylands, USA

THE United States yesterday warned Brunei and other Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) members of failing to implement improved labour and environmental standards as this will lead to restrictions in receiving full benefits of the free trade deal.

Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said countries have to meet the baseline for labour rights and environmental protection to access lifted tariffs and open markets.

“There’s a powerful incentive to countries in the TPP to meet those standards, because if they don’t, they won’t receive all benefits… That is what’s in it for everybody in the TPP that meet their end of the deal,” he told reporters in Sunnylands, Rancho Mirage.

Under the labour chapter of the trade agreement, Brunei must undertake reforms to protect labour rights which include introducing a minimum wage.

The US negotiated a separate side deal with Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam, requiring the three governments to implement specific legislative and regulatory reforms as well as increase enforcement capacity as outlined in their respective consistency plans.

TPP members must also allow mechanisms for the creation of a workers’ union, procedures for collective bargaining and strikes as well as prohibit discrimination.

While the sultanate has yet to enact minimum wage laws, the government enables workers to anonymously report violations of labour laws that include follow-up and documentation procedures, another condition laid out in Brunei’s consistency plan.

Last week, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Dato Paduka Hj Erywan Pehin Dato Pekerma Jaya Hj Mohd Yusof had said Brunei will revise several pieces of legislation, including minimum wage, labour and transparency laws before the sultanate ratifies the TPP.

Rhodes believed the TPP empowers members across the Asia Pacific region to not only improve and enhance trade relations, but also uphold labour and environmental standards.

“Over time, we think that can improve the standards in those countries and the region as whole, because there will be a benefit that comes to countries who are elevating their standards and improving their performances in these areas,” he said.

The core international standards on labour rights, which all TPP members must demonstrate, are in line with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) regulations.

At the plenary session of the Special US-ASEAN Leaders Summit, US President Barack Obama reiterated that Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam have committed to high labour and environmental standards in joining the TPP.

He previously said the TPP will help countries deal with issues involving forced labour, child labour and discrimination against women, by using internationally recognised labour laws.

“We know from our own history that when workers are able to come together and speak with one voice, it helps to boost wages which improves working conditions and raises living standards. This progress ripples out and benefits all workers,” he said last November.

As one of the hallmarks of the TPP, Obama said hundreds of millions of workers will now be covered by higher, enforceable labour standards.


Sumber - The Brunei Times

HM to attend US-ASEAN summit

Rabiatul Kamit
CALIFORNIA

HIS Majesty Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin Waddaulah, the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam, and his ASEAN counterparts will convene for a special summit with US President Barack Obama at the Sunnylands Centre in Rancho Mirage, California today.

It is the first time Washington is hosting a standalone summit for leaders of the 10-nation bloc on American soil as the US deepens its engagement with ASEAN, a central pillar of its rebalance to Asia.

The move marked the Obama administration’s commitment to the region of diplomatic, economic and strategic importance, which sits astride some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes and is a key partner in addressing regional and global challenges.

Both sides are looking to build on the momentum at the two-day summit, following the elevation of their relationship to the level of a strategic partnership at the ASEAN Summit last November.

US officials said the Sunnylands Summit will comprise a retreat session on economic issues to highlight the strength of the US-ASEAN economic relationship, where they will identify ways to promote further trade and investment.

The leaders will also exchange ideas on policy reforms to promote growth and integration by focusing on key themes such as innovation and entrepreneurship.

There will be discussions on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with ASEAN members Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam part of the pact.

Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand have also expressed interest in joining the ambitious free trade agreement.

Meanwhile, the working dinner will enable the leaders to share views on broader strategic developments in the region.

Although the dinner was designed to be in an informal setting, Obama is expected to take the opportunity to stress America’s commitment to the region as well as importance of issues including governance, accountable institutions and rule of law.

The retreat session on political and security issues will explore ways to enhance cooperation on major political security challenges confronting the region.

Among the topics of conversation will be upholding international law in the South China Sea maritime dispute involving ASEAN claimants Brunei, Malaysia, Philippines and Vietnam. The leaders will also discuss ISIS in relation to terrorism and countering violent terrorism.

Other key items on the political and security agenda include trafficking-in-persons, global health and climate change.

Prior to His Majesty’s departure to the US, several members of the Royal family gathered at the Sultan’s Flight Hangar in Rimba to bid adieu including His Royal Highness Prince Hj Al-Muhtadee Billah, the Crown Prince and Senior Minister at the Prime Minister's Office.

Also present were HRH Prince Hj Sufri Bolkiah; HRH Prince ‘Abdul Malik; HRH Prince ‘Abdul Wakeel; and HRH Princess Ameerah Wardatul Bolkiah.


Sumber - The Brunei Times



HM, ASEAN leaders in US for Summit

His Majesty being greeted by officials at the hotel at Rancho Mirage in Sunnylands on Sunday.

Rabiatul Kamit
CALIFORNIA

HIS Majesty Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin Waddaulah, the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam, arrived in California on Sunday ahead of a special summit hosted by United States President Barack Obama for ASEAN heads of state this week.

The monarch and the other nine leaders from the regional grouping will meet the American president in Sunnylands, Rancho Mirage, on February 15 and 16 as both sides seek to intensify their recently-elevated strategic partnership.

Economic cooperation and security issues are expected to top the agenda of the two-day standalone summit, a first-of-its-kind to take place in the US as Washington demonstrates commitment to ASEAN as central to its Asia Pacific rebalance.

Engagement with the 10-nation bloc is of strategic importance to the US as the Southeast Asian region, which straddles some of the world’s vital shipping lanes, is a key partner in addressing regional and global challenges.

While the Special US-ASEAN Leaders Summit is slated to produce an outcome document highlighting shared principles, United States officials said it will be less formal compared to traditional meetings featuring strict agendas and tightly negotiated joint statements.

His Majesty’s arrival amid heightened security at the nearby Palm Springs International Airport was greeted by US Assistant Chief of Protocol Gladys Boluda and a number of high-level senior representatives from the Brunei government.

Among those welcoming the Sultan was Yang Berhormat Pehin Orang Kaya Pekerma Dewa Dato Seri Setia Lim Jock Seng, Minister at the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and Second Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Also present were YB Pehin Datu Singamanteri Colonel (Rtd) Dato Seri Setia (Dr) Hj Mohd Yasmin Hj Umar, Minister of Energy and Industry at PMO, and Dato Paduka Hj Serbini Hj Ali, Brunei’s ambassador to the United States.

Collectively, ASEAN states comprise the third largest economy in Asia and the seventh largest economy in the world with a combined GDP of US$2.4 trillion. It is also the US’s fourth largest trading partner with trade in goods topping US$226 billion.

The US along with ASEAN members Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam are part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an ambitious free trade pact that aims to deepen economic ties and boost growth between the 12 nations involved.

With over 39 years as dialogue partners, the United States and ASEAN cooperate on a diverse range of issues from countering terrorism and pandemic disease to upholding international law and standards in the South China Sea and other issues.


Sumber - The Brunei Times

Need for better legal norms to lure FDIs

Darren Chin
BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN

THE president of the Brunei Law Society has called for further improvements to be made to procedures and regulations in Brunei for foreign direct investors to be confident enough to invest their resources in the country.

Rozaiman Abdul Rahman questioned whether the current legal system would be able to adequately provide foreign direct investors access to justice in case of any disputes.

Rozaiman, a barrister who also holds a Masters in Business Administration, was delivering a talk at a seminar ‘Facilitating and Promoting Foreign Direct Investment: Legal Options and Overcoming Challenges’ at Universiti Brunei Darussalam yesterday.

“If we want Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) coming in, it would not just be foreign money flowing in but expatriates would be coming here to work and manage these investments as well,” he said. “As a foreigner, how easily can that person get legal help and assistance in Brunei?” he questioned. He stated that the absence of judicial reviews in Brunei could pose a problem for potential investors as it takes away the system of checks-and-balances to the nation’s judiciary and called for alternative solutions to protect foreign investors in Brunei.

“When the Trans-Pacific Partnership is implemented, the investors would be more vulnerable as our markets will be open to challenges from the other signatory countries –and we have the smallest market of all the signatories by far,” he said.

“Grey areas in the law at a micro level in our country would not inspire confidence among investors at home or from abroad,” he said.

Judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made through the courts, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusions reached.

“When foreign investors come to Brunei, they expect to be protected by the law but without judicial reviews, there has to be at least other ways to assure them that Brunei has the social, economical, political and religious stability for their investments to thrive in,” he said.

“The authorities need to find alternatives to establish a framework for a system of checks-and-balances and have a practical approach to how we can complement these FDIs,” he said.

He stated that the legal system must inspire confidence among investors and the lack of it would present an incalculable risk that might cause potential foreign investors to shy away.

“For FDIs to work, it is important for all processes and regulations in Brunei to be transparent and consistent, not changing every time there is a change of personnel within the organisations of the authorities,” he said. “The law and the government policies must not be at loggerheads with each other and there should be a way that people can challenge the legality of it through the proper channels in the judiciary,” he said, referring to a judicial review.

He also stated that judicial reviews are meant as an avenue to ensure that each function of the authorities is not acting above the limits of their powers and not as a tool to challenge the authorities.


Sumber - The Brunei Times

Ecuador buat bayaran AS$1 bilion

QUITO, 10 Jan (AFP) – Ecuador akan membuat bayaran berjumlah AS$1 bilion kepada syarikat minyak Amerika Occidental Petroleum pada April, sejajar dengan satu keputusan daripada panel penimbang tara Bank Dunia, kata Presiden Rafael Correa semalam.

Pusat Antarabangsa untuk Penyelesaian Perbalahan Pelaburan (ICSID) pada mulanya mengarah Ecuador supaya membayar syarikat, dikenali sebagai Oxy, AS$1.77 bilion serta faedah dalam keputusan pada tahun 2012.

Correa dalam taklimat media mingguan berkata kerajaannya berjaya berunding untuk mengurangkan jumlah wang berkenaan, pertama kepada $1.4 bilion, seterusnya lebih rendah lagi. “Anugerah berjumlah AS$1.4 bilion. Kami akan membayar kira-kira AS$980 juta. Pengurangan adalah AS$420 juta,” kata beliau.

Occidental, juga dikenali sebagai Oxy, berkata Ecuador mencabul satu perjanjian pelaburan dua hala dengan Amerika Syarikat. Correa pada mulanya berusaha mendapatkan keputusan dibatalkan, berkata kerajaan mempunyai hak untuk membatalkan kontrak disebabkan Oxy menjual 40 peratus saham dalam syarikat itu kepada firma Kanada Encana pada 2000 tanpa kebenarannya.

Correa berkata dalam ucapannya di radio bahawa ‘secara jujur’ Ecuador membuat bayaran awal berjumlah AS$100 juta dolar pada bulan lalu, dan menetap jadual bayaran untuk menamatkan bayaran baki pada April. “Kami menandatangani satu perjanjian dengan Oxy semalam dan kami telah menyelesai masalah dalam cara yang baik,” kata beliau.

Syarikat minyak itu menyaman Ecuador sebanyak AS$3.37 bilion pada Mei 2006, hari selepas negara Amerika Selatan mengumumkan pembatalan satu kontrak yang memberinya hak untuk mengeluarkan 100,000 tong minyak sehari dari lembangan Amazon, kira-kira 20 peratus daripada keluaran Ecuador.

Bayaran sebanyak satu billion dolar itu menambah masalah belanjawan yang menghadapi Ecuador, anggota paling kecil kartel minyak OPEC, di tengah kemerosotan minyak mentah dan penurunan nilai mata wang.


Sumber - Media Permata


Petikan Ucapan Dasar Presiden NDP di Kongres Agung Tahunan Ke-10 2015:

...Sebagai iktibar, dalam kes-kes sebelum ini, beberapa buah negara telah menjadi mangsa tuntutan pampasan yang melebihi 1 bilion dolar, melalui instrumen Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) yang diperalatkan oleh syarikat gergasi antarabangsa. Justeru banyak pihak yang berpendapat bahawa penerimaan ISDS itu tidak ubah seperti menggadai kedaulatan negara.

Oleh itu, sekali lagi saya menyeru supaya kerajaan bersikap berhati-hati dan menghalusi perkara ini agar Brunei tidak terperangkap dalam situasi yang memudaratkan.

Petikan daripada laman Naked Capitalism:

[T]he ISDS tribunal in the previously mentioned Occidental v. Ecuador case, brought under the U.S.-Ecuador BIT, ordered Ecuador’s government to pay $2.3 billion to the U.S. oil corporation – one of the largest-ever investor-state awards. The penalty imposed by the tribunal on Ecuador’s taxpayers was equivalent to the amount Ecuador spends on healthcare each year for over seven million Ecuadorians – almost half the population. The tribunal decided on the massive penalty after acknowledging that Occidental had broken the law, that the response of the Ecuadorian government (forfeiture of the firm’s investment) was lawful, and that Occidental indeed should have expected that response. But the tribunal then concocted a new obligation for the government (one not specified by the BIT itself) to respond proportionally to Occidental’s legal breach and, upon deeming themselves the arbiters of proportionality, determined that Ecuador had violated the novel investor-state obligation.

To calculate damages, the tribunal majority estimated the amount of future profits that Occidental would have received from full exploitation of the oil reserves it had forfeited due to its legal breach, including profits from not-yet-discovered reserves. The tribunal majority then substantially increased the penalty imposed on Ecuador by ordering the government to pay compound interest. It has become increasingly common for investor-state tribunals to order governments to pay compound rather than simple interest, often requiring that the interest be retroactively compounded from the moment of the challenged action or policy to the date of the tribunal’s decision, and prospectively until the date of payment.136 In the Occidental v. Ecuador case, these interest requirements alone cost the Ecuadorian government more than $500 million.

How TPP can disrupt ASEAN economic integration

Shohib Masykur

The ASEAN Community officially kicked off as we entered the year 2016. The most important pillar of the ASEAN Community is the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), which according to the Bali Concord II Declaration aims “to create a stable, prosperous and highly competitive ASEAN economic region in which there is a free flow of goods, services, investment and a freer flow of capital, equitable economic development and reduced poverty and socio-economic disparities”. 

In short, it was created to achieve economic integration in Southeast Asia.

At the same time, nearly three months before the kick-off, 12 Asia-Pacific countries concluded the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. Among those 12, four are ASEAN members: Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam. 

The inclusion of some ASEAN members in the TPP and the exclusion of the rest has potential disruptive effects on ASEAN economic integration in three aspects: trade and investment diversion, increasing gaps between countries and growing negative sentiments among ASEAN leaders.

Trade and investment diversion occurs when trade and investment move away from one country to another country as a result of trade agreements. 

In ASEAN’s case, trade and investment will potentially be diverted from non-TPP ASEAN members (i.e. ASEAN members that are not part of the TPP) to TPP ASEAN members (i.e. ASEAN members that are also TPP members). The diversion is due to the benefits that the TPP offers to its members, such as lower trade barriers and better protection for foreign investors.

Trade and investment diversion caused by the TPP is significant because the US, Japan and Australia (all TPP members) are among the top 10 trading partners of ASEAN. 

Together they account for US$511 million worth of trade, 20.2 percent of total ASEAN trade in 2014, only a little less than ASEAN intra-trade, which represents 24 percent. 

As for foreign direct investment (FDI), the US, Japan, Australia and Canada are among the top 10 sources of FDI inflow to ASEAN. Together they account for $33.3 million, 24.5 percent of total FDI in ASEAN in 2014, higher than intra-ASEAN FDI, which represents 17.9 percent.

From the perspective of regional integration, trade and investment diversion is a direct attack against one of the AEC’s most important characteristics: a single market and production base.

Economic disparities between ASEAN countries have been huge from the beginning. ASEAN consists of countries with populations as big as Indonesia (252 million) and as small as Brunei (413,000), gross domestic product (GDP) as high as Indonesia (US$984 billion) and as low as Laos ($12 billion), GDP per capita as high as Singapore ($56,000) and as low as Cambodia ($1,000), international merchandise trade volumes as high as Singapore ($776 billion) and as low as Laos ($5 billion) and FDI inflow as high as Singapore ($72 billion) and as low as Brunei ($568 million) — all in 2014 data, according to the ASEAN Secretariat.

The TPP will potentially further increase the already-existing gaps between ASEAN countries because ASEAN TPP members will likely improve in those indicators at the expense of other members. Additionally, the TPP will also potentially increase gaps in economic management. 

Due to the high standards required by the TPP, ASEAN TPP members will be motivated to enhance their economic management capacities (better rules and regulations, more efficient production and so forth). 

Those countries will allocate more resources to do so because, unlike non-TPP ASEAN members, they have incentives to do so.

One of the reasons behind the creation of the AEC was to avoid some ASEAN countries pursuing their own economic agendas in the region at the expense of the other members. Thus, the AEC seeks to strengthen trade and investment links with non-ASEAN countries through a coherent approach. 

Rather than acting individually, ASEAN countries agree to collectively negotiate with other countries and throughout the process ASEAN should maintain its central role. 

However, the TPP is destroying the harmony by splitting ASEAN into two categories: TPP ASEAN members and non-TPP ASEAN members. The division could revive the old fear that some ASEAN members will pursue invididual economic interests at the expense of region-wide collective economic interests. 

For example, at the World Economic Forum on the Asia-Pacific held in Jakarta in April 2015, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen said, “We should review again […] why the Trans-Pacific Partnership did not include 10 ASEAN members. What is the purpose, real intention of establishing [the] Trans-Pacific Partnership […] that they include half of ASEAN to be partners […] leaving half of ASEAN outside?” 

His statement echoed what the Philippines’ Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima said earlier: “If there’s a lag between the joining of the others in a high-quality agreement such as TPP, there can be resentment, especially as we continue to integrate.” 

The growing disappointment among ASEAN leaders sends an alarming signal to the organization that can endanger its integration.

Sumber - The Jakarta Post

Brunei at the forefront of TPP ratification

Leo Kasim
BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN

AS negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement have concluded with each country going into the ratification process, Brunei could become one of the first countries to ratify the trade deal due to the sultanate’s more straightforward government system.

The trade deal was signed on October 5, 2015 in the US after about five years of trade negotiations and heated debates in which member countries sought to achieve a balanced deal.

In a November statement, Brunei’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MoFAT) said that the TPP will create a market with a combined gross domestic product (GDP) of US$30 trillion, which is 40 per cent of global gross domestic product, once it is ratified.

Brunei is one of the countries to agree to the trade pact along with Australia, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the US and Vietnam.

Increased market access for Brunei

Last month, MoFAT said that the Sultanate will benefit from the trade deal which will improve market access and investment flows.

MoFAT also said that the government sees the country’s participation in the pact will help drive its economic successes in the future.

“The government of Brunei sees its participation in the TPP (as one) of significant importance that will drive national economic development, ensuring that our nation can continue to prosper in the future,” the ministry said in a November statement.

MoFAT said the Brunei’s total trade with the TPP countries under has amounted to $10 billion in 2014, a figure which further signifies the importance of the trade pact to the Sultanate’s economy.

It added that the TPP will provide greater predictability and transparency in the trade and investment regime, boosting confidence among investors and complement efforts to improve the business environment in the country.

Changes to improve labour standards

Brunei could see itself implementing labour reforms as part of its commitment to the TPP, according to the US President last month during the ASEAN Business and Investment Summit 2015 in Kuala Lumpur.

In his address, President Barack Obama said that Brunei, along with Malaysia and Vietnam, has committed to “specific and concrete reforms” to reach the high labour standards stated in the trade deal.

Both Brunei and the US agreed to work on legal reforms labour reforms under the Brunei-US Labour Consistency Plan, a bilateral instrument in accordance with Chapter 19 of the TPP, in order to improve labour standards for Brunei.

The seven-page document, which was made publicly available in the full text of the TPP, mentioned specific reforms for Brunei such as the creation of a workers’ union, prohibiting discrimination, enacting minimum wage laws and having procedures for collective bargaining and strikes.

The document also said the country must ensure the effectiveness of its mechanisms such as allowing anonymous reporting of labour violations to have procedures for referring complaints to labour inspectors for record and follow up purposes.

President Obama said that better conditions for workers will help boost wages which improves working conditions and improve living standards.

No price shocks on consumer goods

After TPP negotiations concluded in October, some senior diplomats in the country said that prices of consumer goods in Brunei may not see drastic changes as a result of the trade deal.

Craig Allen, the US Ambassador to Brunei, said that Bruneian duties have already been “relatively low and the country has had an open economy, adding that the issues have to be seen from a “product by product” basis.

“In the areas where tariffs are currently high, that (lowering of prices) would be the case,” he said in October when the full TPP text was not released yet.

In a separate interview, Todd Mercer, Australian High Commissioner to Brunei, said that the TPP will not have a major effect on consumer goods prices in Brunei due to existing low tariffs.

“We’ll need to look into the details of things...because it really depends on your import makeup. There are already low tariffs between Brunei and Australia (so) it will not significantly affect consumer goods prices,” he said.


Sumber - The Brunei Times

Penyokong TPPA abai bukti impak terhadap akses ubatan

Teks penuh dokumen TPPA yang telah dikeluarkan pada 5 November lalu telah mengesahkan kebimbangan kami di Bantah TPPA mengenai kesukaran yang akan dihadapi rakyat bagi mendapatkan ubat-ubatan (access to medicines). Perkara-perkara yang terkandung di dalam teks tersebut, termasuklah peruntukan (provision) mengenai perlanjutan tempoh patent (patent extension), pasaran ekslusif (market exclusivity) bagi ubat-ubatan biologik dan hubungan data (data linkage) akan mengancam kebergantungan terhadap ubat-ubatan generik yang jauh lebih murah. Data menunjukkan bahawa 84.7 peratus ubat-ubatan berjenama (brand-name medicines) yang disarankan boleh diganti dengan ubat-ubatan generik. [1]

Baru-baru ini, pelbagai kenyataan telah dikeluarkan oleh penyokong TPPA bahawa perjanjian perdagangan itu tidak akan memberi kesan terhadap harga ubat-ubatan. Kenyataan-kenyataan ini yang dibuat oleh pihak yang langsung tidak mempunyai pengalaman di dalam perihal kesihatan awam dan perolehan ubat-ubatan bercanggah dengan bukti-bukti dan kenyataan-kenyataan yang pernah dikeluarkan oleh Ketua Pengarah Organisasi Kesihatan Sedunia (WHO), pemenang Nobel Doktor Tanpa Sempadan (Doctors without Borders, MSF), Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia, badan-badan pelajar perubatan seperti Persatuan Pelajar Perubatan Amerika dan persatuan-persatuan profesional perubatan seperti Persatuan Perubatan New Zealand (NZMA) dan Persatuan Perubatan Malaysia (MMA).

Kita tidak boleh terus menidakkan bahawasanya TPPA akan memberi impak terhadap akses kepada ubat-ubatan yang mampu dimiliki (affordable medication) berdasarkan bukti-bukti yang sediaada seperti peruntukan TRIPS+ dan kemasukan ubat-ubatan generik ke dalam pasaran. Kita seharusnya mengaku bahawa akses kepada ubat-ubatan mampu dimiliki telah digadaikan (traded away) di dalam perjanjian TPP untuk mendapatkan bahan lain (goods or favours), sama ada benar (real) atau yang tidak begitu menguntungkan (negligible). [2]    

Empat hari yang lalu, Ketua Pengarah WHO Margaret Chan menyatakan: “Jika perjanjian-perjanjian ini membuka peluang perdagangan tetapi menutup pintu kepada ubat-ubatan yang mampu dimiliki, kita harus bertanya: Adakah ini satu kemajuan?” (“If these agreements open trade yet close the door to affordable medicines we have to ask the question: is this really progress at all?”) [3]

Bantah TPPA berserta dengan organisasi atau badan-badan kesihatan dan hal-ehwal pesakit meminta Kementerian Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri (MITI) untuk mengambil kira secara serius bukti-bukti saintifik yang telah dikemukan di peringkat antarabangsa mengenai isu TPP dan impaknya terhadap akses kepada ubat-ubatan (access to medicines) serta pandangan pakar perubatan antarabangsa yang telah disebutkan di atas. Kami meminta ahli parlimen dari kedua-dua belah pihak untuk menyatakan TIDAK kepada TPPA di dalam undian mereka dan seterusnya kami meminta Kabinet agar menjaga kepentingan rakyat dengan menolak peruntukan-peruntukan TRIPS+ ini. Bantah juga ingin mengingatkan pembuat keputusan (decision-makers) bahawa jika kesihatan rakyat terabai akibat kurangnya keprihatinan dari pihak kerajaan, maka ia akan mendatangkan kesan buruk atau impak yang besar terhadap produktiviti, ekonomi negara dan bajet nasional.

LAMPIRAN

MENYANGKAL KENYATAAN DANGKAL MENGENAI IMPAK TPP TERHADAP AKSES KEPADA UBAT-UBATAN  (ACCESS TO MEDICINES & THE TPP) 

Dalam lampiran ini, kami ingin mematahkan beberapa kenyataan yang dibuat oleh penyokong TPPA dalam pelbagai forum, termasuk di dalam ruang OpEd:

1. Kenyataan: Data eksklusif and pasaran eksklusif untuk ubat-ubatan biologik akan menggalakkan syarikat-syarikat farmaseutikal untuk memasarkan produk baru mereka lebih awal di Malaysia. Seterusnya, ini akan memberi laluan bagi ubat-ubatan generik yang lebih murah untuk dipasarkan dengan lebih awal juga.

Realiti: Tiada bukti langsung bahawa peruntukan “TRIPS-plus” akan menyebabkan ubat-ubatan generik dipasarkan dengan lebih awal. Di samping itu, keputusan sebuah syarikat ubat-ubatan asal untuk membuat permohonan pemasaran di Malaysia bergantung terutama sekali kepada saiz pasaran dan sebab-sebab lain.

2. Kenyataan: Kerajaan telah bersetuju untuk memberi perlindungan data yang serupa kepada produk biologik dengan tujuan kesamarataan (tanpa diskriminasi).

Realiti: Pertubuhan Perdagangan Dunia (WTO) tidak menetapkan apa-apa peraturan berkaitan dengan data ekslusif ataupun pasaran eksklusif bagi ubat-ubatan dan Pelapor Khas PBB bagi Hak Kesihatan (UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health) pernah berkata bahawa negara membangun tidak perlu bersetuju dengan peruntukan tersebut mahupun TRIPS+. Jika Malaysia begitu risau mengenai isu kesamarataan, maka ia harus menghapuskan peruntukan data eksklusif/pasaran eksklusif bagi molekul kecil (ubat-ubatan bukan biologik). Jika Malaysia bersetuju untuk  menggunakan peruntukan TRIPS+, Malaysia dilihat sebagai melanggar tanggungjawabnya terhadap Konvensyen Mengenai Hak Kanak-Kanak (Convention on the Rights of the Child, CRC), yang mengambil-kira hak kesihatan (right to health). Sangat jelas bahawa Malaysia ditekan oleh Amerika Syarikat untuk menerima peruntukan pasaran ekslusif bagi ubat-ubatan biologik. Ubat-ubatan biologik berbeza dengan ubat-ubatan molekul kecil dan dilihat semakin penting di dalam pasaran ubat-ubatan serta dijual dengan begitu mahal sehingga boleh mencecah US$569,000/pesakit/tahun pada harga monopoli. Oleh kerana sebahagian besar ubat-ubatan biologik diperolehi dari sumber-sumber yang hidup, ia tidak boleh dipatenkan. Tanpa perlindungan paten dan juga peruntukan eksklusif TPPA, maka ubat-ubatan generik boleh terus didapati dengan mudah di Malaysia dengan harga yang berpatutan.

3. Kenyataan: Peruntukan ini adalah perlu kerana mereka akan membuat syarikat lebih berinovasi.

Realiti: Peruntukan TRIPS+ tidak dapat menolong syarikat-syarikat farmaseutikal yang sedang menghadapi “krisis inovasi” [4]. Dengan sedikit pengubahsuaian kepada ubat-ubatan sedia ada,  mereka boleh memohon untuk mendapatkan paten baru. Di samping itu, kajian juga menunjukkan bahawa inovasi sebenarnya dihalang oleh  hak harta intelek (IPR) yang lebih ketat[5]  ataupun ia langsung tidak merangsangkan inovasi. Sebagai contoh, walaupun Italy menambah IPR, impak kepada kadar pengeluaran rekaan baru adalah sedikit atau langsung tiada (little or no impact) [6]. Contoh yang kedua ialah Kesatuan Eropah yang mempunyai pasaran farmaseutikal yang mempunyai perlindungan paling kuat di dunia tetapi semakin kurang inovatif jika dibandingkan dengan rantau-rantau yang lain. [7]

4. Kenyataan: Semua penemuan, termasuk kegunaan baru, akan diteliti oleh pejabat paten bagi memastikan ia kegunaan baru dan jelas (novelty and obvious use).

Realiti: Penggunaan paten baru dalam mana-mana bidang teknologi adalah sangat bermasalah kerana ia melanjutkan monopoli secara berterusan (evergreen the monopoly). Tambahan pula, TPPA merendahkan standard untuk inovasi yang baru dan menggalakkan langkah merekacipta bukan jelas untuk semua paten termasuk paten penggunaan baru. Ini bermakna bahawa lebih banyak teknologi yang akan mendapat perlindungan paten sekurang-kurangnya 20 tahun sebelum pengguna, petani dan pengeluar boleh membelinya dengan harga yang lebih murah akibat persaingan generik.


Kenyataan media ini disediakan oleh Kumpulan Bantah TPPA Akses kepada Ubat-Ubatan terdiri daripada Malaysian AIDS Council & Breast Cancer Welfare Association 

[1] Chong CP, Hassali MA, Bahari MB and Shafie AA. Generic medicine substitution practices among community pharmacists: a nationwide study from Malaysia. Journal of Public Health 2011; 19(1): 81-90.

[2] Re worsening trade balance in: Rashmi Banga, Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA): Implications for Malaysia’s Value-Added Trade (January 2015) <http://wtocentre.iift.ac.in/workingpaper/TPP%20PAPER.pdf> Accessed 15 November 2015

[3] Tom Miles, Pacific trade deal could limit affordable drugs: world health chief (12 November 2015) Reuters < http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/12/us-trade-tpp-health-idUSKCN0T10X720151112> Accessed 14 November 2015

[4] Cynthia Ho, ‘Sovereignty under Seige: Corporate Challenges to IP Decisions’ (2015) 30(1) Berkeley Technology Law Journal

[5] Lerner J, 150 Years of Patent Protection, Harvard MA, Harvard Business School Working Paper (2001), Monitoring Financial Flows for Health Research 2005: Behind the Global Numbers by Global Forum for Health Research page 31. The Global Forum for Health Research is funded by the World Health Organization, the World Bank, the Rockefeller Foundation and various national governments. This Chapter of the Report was written by Donald Light who in addition to being an academic is a member of the Business Advisory Council of the Republican Party and a member of the President’s Business Commission.

[6] Deardorff A, ‘Welfare Effects of Global Patent Protection’ Economica 1992; 59: 35-51 and Branstetter LG ‘Do Stronger Patents Induce More Local innovation?’ in KE Maskus and JH Reichman (eds) International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology Under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge 2005; 309-320

[7] EGA press release: Brussels, 10 November 2005, a Call to Review the Patent System, IPH 10/11/2005


Sumber - Harakahdaily

Teks TPPA bukan teks muktamad

MOHD AZMI ABDUL HAMID

Walaupun teks versi akhir Perjanjian Perkongsian Trans-Pasifik (TPPA) yang baru didedahkan dan dibaca sebagai tidak menjejaskan kepentingan negara, namun kami berpendirian mengikut teks tersebut jelas mengesahkan kekhuatiran banyak pihak. TPPA mengandungi klausa yang sah merugikan negara dan bakal membebankan rakyat.

Antaranya ialah isu pelanjutan masa kepada 5 tahun untuk ubat generik dibenarkan berada dipasaran dan dengan sebab itu pengguna terpaksa membeli ubat dari pembuat asal yang sangat tinggi harganya.

Demikiannya juga isu hak bumiputera dan syarikat milik kerajaan (SOE) yang dikatakan terpelihara. TPPA dikatakan membenarkan fleksibiliti 30% untuk pemerolehan kerajaan kepada bumiputera dan SOE. Namun sejauh mana fleksibiliti itu dibolehkan jika sesebuah kontrak yang diberi kepada syarikat luar datang dalam bentuk satu pakej. Mekanisme apa yang ada dalam peraturan Malaysia untuk menolak permohonan tender dari luar yang lebih kompetitif dari segi harga?

Klausa mengenai layanan yang sama antara syarikat tempatan dan syarikat luar dalam TPPA bakal menjadi medan pertembungan yang besar jika mekanisme di Malaysia tidak cukup kuat menghadapi risiko diheret ke mahkamah antarabangsa dalam proses Penyelesaian Pertikaian Pelabur-Negara (ISDS)  yang terdapat dalam TPPA.

Kami juga sangat khuatir terhadap kenyataan kononnya pengguna Malaysia akan nikmati barang berkualiti dan harga berpatutan dari 11 negara luar. Sementara pasaran Malaysia bakal menghadapi lambakan, malah masakini pun sudah berlaku gejala tersebut manakala produk Malaysia pula belum tentu mampu bersaing di pasaran luar. Kami tidak yakin TPPA baik untuk pengguna mahupun untuk usahawan Malaysia.

Respons awal kami ialah  ia merupakan pendedahan yang amat lewat dan pendedahan yang belum muktamad.

TPPA adalah perjanjian yang sangat kompleks dan penuh kontroversi. Ada proses sertifikasi yang perlu diselesaikan bermakna teks yang didedahkan itu tidak muktamad.

Kami tetap berpendirian bahawa ia adalah perjanjian yang menghakiskan kedaulatan negara dan merupakan suatu penjajahan yang menggunakan  instrumen perjanjian perdagangan untuk menguasai sebuah negara dalam jangka masa panjang.

Menteri MITI menyatakan ini bukan penjajahan moden kerana negara lain turun menyertai TPPA. Kami berpandangan perjanjian yang memberi kesan kepada keupayaan negara membuat dasar dan menggubal undang-undang sendiri adalah satu penjajahan.

Setelah lebih 5 tahun berunding secara rahsia akhirnya teks TPPA didedahkan oleh MITI di laman sesawang kelmarin yang diedar oleh kerajaan New Zealand sebagai anggota asal TPPA.

Kami sudah menyatakan bahawa merahsiakan perundingan sebesar ini adalah tidak adil dan berbaur konspirasi.

Kesangsian pelbagai pihak terhadap TPPA kerana kerahsiaan yang sedemikian lama  adalah munasabah. Untuk pihak MITI mengatakan setelah teks versi akhir kini didedahkan dan kerana itu ia menjadi telus adalah suatu pembodohan masyarakat awam.

Adakah ini bermakna kerajaan sedang mula menghitung hari untuk menentukan tarikh Perdana Menteri menandatangani dokumen perjanjian itu?

Sebelum pendedahan teks perjanjian tersebut dimuktamadkan,  pihak kerajaan nampaknya tetap mengulangi bahawa TPPA sangat bermanfaat untuk negara. Ini ketetapan yang jelas membayangkan bahawa perbahasan mengenai TPPA di Parlimen pada sidang akan datang tidak membawa makna. Menteri MITI sendiri menyatakan sebenarnya memadai keputusan dibuat oleh Jemaah Menteri. Adakah ini bermakna jika parlimen menolak TPPA, kerajaan tetap akan menandatanganinya?

Kami hairan, sebelum 2 Analisis Kos dan Faedah (Cost Benefit Analysis) yang dikendalikan oleh Institut Kajian Strategik dan Antarabangsa Malaysia (ISISI) dan Pricewaterhouse Coopers  (PwC) dikatakan akan dikeluarkan lagi dua minggu dari sekarang Menteri MITI terus mengulangi kenyataan  bahawa TPPA akan menguntungkan negara dalam perdagangan dunia.

Dengan menyertai TPPA, retorik seperti  daya saing yang lebih tinggi, agenda perdagangan yang lebih agresif dan lebih baik, terus diwar-warkan untuk memberi mesej bahawa kerajaan Malaysia sudah siap menandatangani perjanjian tersebut walaupun ada suara penentangan yang kuat dari rakyat.

Soalnya, gambaran yang muluk-muluk yang didedahkan sebagai manfaat dari TPPA, apakah akan menjadi kenyataan indah khabar dari rupa.

Sepatutnya ruang dibuka juga untuk pihak lain membentangkan penilaian analisis kos-faedah secara bebas mengenai perjanjian berkenaan.

Bagi kami teks yang didedahkan ini semata-mata, tidak memadai untuk memberi analisis yang mencukupi. Rakyat perlu didedahkan dokumen latarbelakang TPPA dari mula ianya dirundingi untuk memberi gambaran menyeluruh terhadap teks tersebut.

Inilah yang tidak mahu didedahkan kepada rakyat. Proses perundingan itu telah menetapkan dokumen latar belakang itu hanya boleh didedahkan 4 tahun selepas TPPA berkuatkuasa.

Analisa kerajaan nampaknya lebih cenderung untuk menunjukkan keuntungan lebih dari implikasi kos yang akan terbeban ke atas sebahgian besar rakyat. Walaupun dalam tempoh 3 bulan yang diberi kepada pihak awam untuk meneliti teks dan 2 CBA itu nanti, Menteri MITI sudah pun mengistiharkan komitmen kerajaan untuk menandatangani TPPA.

Setidaknya beberapa klausa yang dikutip oleh media untuk menunjukan status bumiputera akan dipelihara dalam TPPA masih boleh dipersoalkan. Semua pernyataan dalam TPPA itu masih tertakluk kepada tindakan mahkamah perdagangan walaupun diberi masa 4 tahun selepas didapati melanggar TPPA.

Klausa mengenai pemanjangan waktu untuk industri pengeluar ubatan boleh menghasilkan ubat generik dan mengedarkannya ke dalam pasaran kepada 5 tahun kepada 20 tahun ternyata merupakan kerisauan yang benar.

Kami menggesa sekali lagi agar kerajaan Malaysia tidak menandatangani TPPA dan suara rakyat yang menolak TPPA perlu dihormati.

Penulis ialah Presiden Majlis Perundingan Petubuhan Islam Malaysia (Mapim).


Sumber - Harakahdaily

TPP beneficial to Brunei’s economy

BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN
Tuesday, November 10, 2015 

BRUNEI’S total trade with countries under the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement amounted to $10 billion in 2014, signifying the importance of the free trade deal to the sultanate’s economy, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MoFAT) said in a statement yesterday.

MoFAT said that Brunei will benefit from increased market access, trade and investment flows among the TPP member countries such as Australia, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.

Brunei’s total trade with TPP countries comprises an average of 64 per cent of the country’s overall trade, according to the ministry.

“The government of Brunei sees its participation in the TPP (as one) of significant importance that will drive national economic development, ensuring that our nation can continue to prosper in the future,” MoFAT said, adding that Brunei’s future relies on its success as a trading nation.

The ministry said that larger market access under the TPP will also benefit domestic companies which are already exporting or are looking to do so.

The TPP provides greater predictability and transparency in the trade and investment regime which will boost confidence among investors and complement efforts to improve the business environment in the country, MoFAT said.

These efforts will enhance Brunei’s overall competitiveness and will attract “quality” foreign direct investments that will help drive economic growth and diversification.

The TPP concluded negotiations on October 5 in the United States after about five years of trade negotiations and heated debates as member countries seek to achieve a balanced trade deal.

MoFAT said that the accord is a “high-quality” and comprehensive trade agreement that will “set the stage for 21st century trade and investment rules in the Asia-Pacific region.”

Once ratified, the TPP will create a market with a combined gross domestic product (GDP) of US$30 trillion, which is 40 per cent of global GDP.

MoFAT said that the full text of the TPP agreement is available on its website at www.mofat.gov.bn/pages/tpp.aspx.


Sumber - The Brunei Times

TPPA: Kembali dijajah selepas 58 tahun merdeka

MOHD AZMI ABDUL HAMID

SETELAH banyak tenaga dicurahkan, puluhan tahun anak bangsa berjuang, banyak jiwa disumbat dalam penjara, ramai yang terkorban , bersusah payah perundingan antara kaum berjaya disepakati, hak umiputera dipertahankan, kedudukan Islam dipahat dalam perlembagaan. Bumi ini akhirnya mencapai kemerdekaan 58 tahun yang lalu.

Kini, dengan hanya satu tandatangan, tanah air yang disemboyan dengan Negaraku ini, kembali dijajah, kali ini bukan melalui hujung senapang tetapi melalui perjanjian perdagangan yang dicatur oleh Amerika Syarikat (AS).

Satu perjanjian yang mengikat dan mengunci negara sehingga negara berekonomi jauh lebih kuat kini boleh menguasai negara yang kecil, yang mudah dieksploitasi oleh syarikat gergasi dari luar seperti dari AS, Kanada dan Australia. Ia dianggap sebuah perjanjian mega (mega treaty) yang terbesar di dunia.

Atas nama perjanjian dan perkongsian bergelar TPPA itu, hampir tidak ada bidang dalam urustadbir negara yang tidak terkesan; tender kerajaan, status syarikat milik kerajaan, kuasa menggubal dan menguatkuasakan undang-undang, bekalan ubatan dan kos kesihatan, kualiti alam sekitar, pengambilan tenaga kerja professional,  eksploitasi sumber bumi negara, kos sara hidup, perbankan, polisi kewangan, dasar pemeliharaan hak dan kedudukan bumiputera, status syariah dalam perundangan dan industri halal negara, kos pendidikan, kepentingan dan kedudukan usahawan tempatan, syarat dan peraturan pelaburan, kuasa legislatif dan kehakiman, kuasa agensi tempatan, peraturan tender dan pengambilan pekerja syarikat luar, regim percukaian, sosio-budaya dan pertahanan negara.

TPPA adalah alat penjajahan paling menyeluruh, lebih lengkap dan lebih menjamin kedudukan penjajah untuk merentas kuasa politik. Ia mengikat dan mengunci sifatnya sehingga sebarang peralihan kuasa politik kepada mana-mana parti politik sekalipun, tetap perlu mematuhi peraturan didalam TPPA yang telah dimeterai oleh kerajaan hari ini.

Anehnya, AS yang kini bukan sebenarnya sebuah ekonomi yang mapan dan boleh bertahan, malah sangat rapuh, namun AS menjadi penggerak untuk memeterai kesepakatan TPPA yang paling ghairah dan sangat bernafsu untuk memastikan 11 negara yang lain mengikut telunjuknya. Tujuannya jelas, dengan mengikat 40 % dari perdagangan dunia, disamping memeterai perjanjian perdagangan dengan negara-negara blok yang lain, AS akan dapat menjamin dasar luarnya untuk menguasai dunia.

Maknanya ekonomi AS akan dijamin oleh negara yang diperalatkan oleh nya melalui TPPA.

Padahal AS sebenarnya bermasalah dan boleh tumbang , namun boleh memaksa ekonomi negara yang kecil untuk mengadakan perjanjian perdagangan yang berat sebelah atas nama "free trade" (perdagangan bebas).

MAPIM sangat kecewa degan kerajaan Malaysia bila dengan jelas ia telah meneruskan penyertaan dalam TPPA walaupun cukup banyak hujah yang konkrit disuarakan oleh pelbagai Ngo dan parti politik serta ahli ekonomi, mengenai kesan buruk TPPA kepada kedaulatan negara. Kemerdekaan negara digadai dengan begitu mudah bila kesepakatan TPPA dimeterai dibumi kuasa imperialis dunia itu sendiri iaitu di Atlanta, AS.

Bantahan bukan sahaja disuarakan di Malaysia sahaja malah dari rakyat, Ngo, ahli politik dan pakar ekonomi dari pelbagai negara di New Zeland, Amerika Syarikat, Kanada, Jepun, Australia dan Chile. Apakah suara mereka ini mahu diendahkan oleh kerajaan negara-negara tersebut?

Kami menganggap pemimpin negara telah menjual kemerdekaan dan kedaulatan negara tanpa disedari rakyat kerana perjanjian yang dirundingi dijalankan dalam keadaan penuh kerahsiaan. Jika benar TPPA untuk kepentingan rakyat, kenapa ia perlu dirundingi dengan berahsia? Kami hanya dapat merumus secara logik, jika ia dilakukan dengan terbuka, mereka menjangka pasti bantahan rakyat akan menjadi lebih kuat.

Menteri Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri ( MITI ), Datuk Sri Mustapa Mohammad mengeluarkan kenyataan bahawa perbahasan masih akan berjalan untuk mendapat kelulusan di Parlimen dan beliau juga menyebut bahawa maklumbalas dari pihak awam juga akan dikumpulkan sebelum teks perjanjian TPP itu ditandatangani. Ketua Setiausaha MITI pula menyatakan TPP akan berkuatkuasa penuh paling awal dua tahun lagi.

Namun ini bukan jaminan yang akan melegakan banyak pihak. Soal pokok ialah perjanjian itu telah dipersetujui sepenuhnya oleh kerajaan. Tidak mungkin persetujuan yang dimeterai itu boleh dipinda oleh Parlimen. Apa yang MITI perlu lakukan hanyalah untuk mendapat kelulusan Parlimen dan dengan itu ia segala dasar dan undang-undang akan diseleraskan (rectify) dengan perjanjian TPPA.

Sebanyak 29 bab dalam perjanjian itu telah dirundingkan seperincinya, setiap ayat, setiap klausa, setiap nokhta, setiap koma. Bab yang yang menyentuh soal perdagangan hanya 5, selebihnya ialah mengenai hal-hal yang boleh menjejaskan kedaulatan negara.

Kami berpendapat perbahasan di Parlimen ataupun dengan masyarakat sivil dan parti politik hanya suatu formaliti. Persetujuan dasar sudah dimeterai dan kerajaan yang menggangotai TPPA tidak mungkin akan mengisytiharkan keluar dari perjanjian kerana tidak bersetuju dengan teks yang sudah dihadamkan melalui proses rundingan selama lebih 4 tahun bermula Mac 2010. Ia bermula dengan TPSEP (Trans Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) pada 2006 yang hanya melibatkan 4 negara (Singapore, Brunei, Chile dan New Zealand) dan berubah menjadi TPPA apabila 8 lagi negara menyertainya termasuk AS.

Kami dengan tegas menyatakan TPPA memudaratkan rakyat dan negara ini. Ia suatu  kesilapan paling besar dalam sejarah mempertahankan kemerdekaan negara.

Ia adalah konspirasi bisnes dan politik golongan elit dan syarikat konglomert dunia, yang mengatasnamakan perdagangan bebas untuk kepentingan rakyat, tetapi sebenarnya untuk mengeksploitasi seluruh kehidupan rakyat untuk meraih keuntungan semaksima mungkin, tetapi mendapat perlindungan undang-undang dari perjanjian TPPA untuk melakukan eksploitasi tersebut.

Malaysia malangnya keluar dari mulut British kini masuk dalam mulut Amerika Syarikat dan sekutunya , kembali sebagai bumi terjajah.


Sumber - Harakahdaily

Mega trade pacts and the fight for Asia's trade future

Fiona Chan

As christmas approaches, Singapore's trade negotiators look set to end another year without the top item on their wishlist: a resolution to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The ambitious free trade agreement (FTA), which seeks to break new ground in removing trade barriers among 12 Asia-Pacific nations, has already missed several deadlines starting from last year.

Each delay is rooted in the same reasons. The United States and Japan, the two biggest economies in the deal, are still quibbling over opening up their industries to more foreign competition.

Other perennial sticking points in the TPP talks, which began in March 2010, include how to deal with "21st century" trade issues such as intellectual property protection and state-owned firms.

But, this time, the stakes for the TPP's completion are higher.

Other mega Asia-Pacific trade pacts have started to gain momentum in recent months, propelled by major economic players that are not part of the US-led TPP - notably China.

One such parallel deal is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which covers all 10 ASEAN nations plus the bloc's six FTA partners of China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

When RCEP talks are completed by the end of next year - a commitment the 16 countries reiterated in August - it will be the world's largest FTA, although not nearly as in-depth as the TPP.

Then there is the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), a mammoth arrangement that was first mooted in 2004, but that China finally lifted out of limbo during last month's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) summit in Beijing.

Making the FTAAP the centrepiece of its summit agenda, Beijing persuaded the 21 Apec leaders to commission a "strategic study" into the trade deal - a move China's President Xi Jinping said symbolised the "official launch of the process towards the FTAAP".

Rivals for the trade prize

Depending on which agreement prevails, trade in fast-growing Asia could flow in different directions, bringing with it the power to shape economic agendas in the region.

The US is well aware of the stakes. It has recently been supplanted by China as the main trading partner of many Asian countries - last year, the US bought only 14.2 per cent of Asia's merchandise exports, down from 23.7 per cent in 2000, according to Asian Development Bank data.

That may be why Washington is trying to quash Beijing's attempts at kickstarting the FTAAP and to refocus attention on the TPP, the economic cornerstone of its rebalance towards Asia.

The US reportedly pushed back on China's original draft of the Apec communique that called for a "feasibility study" into the FTAAP - which would have implied the start of negotiations.

It also managed to prevent Beijing from setting a 2025 deadline for the FTAAP. The final communique states only a meek timeframe of 2016 for the completion of the strategic study.

On its part, Beijing is pushing hard for the FTAAP, in what some say is an effort to extend its influence in the Pacific Rim and counterbalance the bigger role the US is likely to play in the region once the TPP is a done deal.

To a smaller extent, China is also seen as one of the lead drivers of the RCEP, alongside ASEAN.

While all three trade pacts will enlarge the region's economy, they involve different countries and represent varying benefits to each, which is likely to translate into different levels of motivation for them to conclude each deal.

China, Indonesia and South Korea are among those in the RCEP and FTAAP but not the TPP. The United States and Canada are in the TPP and FTAAP but not the RCEP. India is in the RCEP but not the other two.

Only seven countries are included in all three agreements: Singapore, Australia, Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand and Vietnam.

Even then, countries like Japan and Vietnam are more likely to see immediate gains from the TPP than the RCEP, since they do not have an existing FTA with the US.

The US also stands to reap the most benefits from the TPP, since its intellectual property provisions offer the greatest perks for US companies, says Mr Jayant Menon from the Asian Development Bank Institute.

"But the region as a whole will gain the most from an agreement that includes all of the key players, such as the FTAAP."

Experts see it as unlikely that the TPP and RCEP will ever merge, given that the former holds all countries to the same ambitious standards while the latter allows special treatment for developing country members.

"The TPP can be broader and deeper in part because it's a voluntary agreement - members choose to join," says Ms Deborah Elms, executive director of the Singapore-based Asian Trade Centre.

"The RCEP countries got 'drafted' by virtue of existing agreements. They therefore have differing levels of enthusiasm for the whole exercise."

Assembling the puzzle

An alternative version of events, however, frames the spaghetti bowl of Asia-Pacific trade deals as a jigsaw puzzle, with the different trade deals eventually expanding or being combined to encompass the whole region.

In this scenario of a region-wide FTA, there are two possibilities. The first is that the TPP and the RCEP develop in parallel towards an overarching FTAAP.

If successful, the FTAAP would be by far the largest FTA in the Asia-Pacific region, covering all TPP members and the world's three largest economies of China, the US and Japan.

One oft-cited study published in May by the East-West Center, a US-based institution promoting diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific region, has estimated that the economic gains from a concluded FTAAP could reach nearly US$2 trillion (S$2.6 trillion), adding 2 per cent to the global economy.

This would be more than eight times the US$223 million boost from the TPP, and about three times the RCEP's US$644 million estimated gain.

But even if the FTAAP fails to materialise, a second region-wide FTA is possible. This would entail expanding the TPP to include other countries that have expressed some interest to join.

The addition of China, Indonesia, Korea, the Philippines and Thailand to the TPP could boost its projected gains to more than US$1.9 trillion, nearly equal the gains from the FTAAP, the East-West Center study showed.

These countries are now excluded from the TPP not due to economic rivalries, but because they are reluctant or unprepared to meet the high standards of the "21st century" pact, which aims to blaze a trail for the next generation of FTAs.

Ms Elms is among those who expect China to eventually join the TPP. "Chinese firms are increasingly in supply chains and not just as a final assembly point. The benefits for firms inside the TPP will be substantial," she says.

But Mr Menon believes the FTAAP is a more likely route than an expanded TPP.

"It is difficult to imagine conditions under which China may join the TPP, if and when it is concluded, or indeed the US coming into RCEP," he says, noting that new entrants have to accept the terms agreed to by existing members.

"It would be easier to start from scratch, and the FTAAP provides one such opportunity."

Dr Mireya Solis of the Brookings Institution adds that entry into the TPP would not grant China the same clout as spearheading its own initiative like the FTAAP.

"China would have to abide by disciplines negotiated by others and would have to make significant concessions to ensure its accession," she noted in a commentary last month.

Still, any expansion of the TPP or convergence of the existing mega trade agreements will have to overcome a few obstacles.

One is the disparity in economic development between different Asia-Pacific countries, which will make it difficult to implement a one-size-fits-all FTA. A way around this could be a step-up FTA, where the least developed economies initially achieve RCEP standards, with a view to eventually meeting FTAAP and then TPP requirements.

Another, perhaps more crucial, hurdle is the political conflict between major economies - not just between the US and China, but also among the East Asian powers of China, Japan and Korea.

That will be trickier to negotiate. But concluding each individual mega trade pact, which should continue to be the focus for now, would provide some practice and perhaps give the countries in question a preview of the benefits they can expect if they set aside their differences.

Sumber - The Straits Times

What ‘Free Trade’ Has Done to Central America

With Republicans winning big in the midterm elections, the debate over so-called “free trade” agreements could again take center stage in Washington.

President Barack Obama has been angling for “fast track” authority that would enable him to push the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP—a massive trade agreement between the United States and a host of Pacific Rim countries—through Congress with limited debate and no opportunity for amendments.

From the outset, the politicians who support the agreement have overplayed its benefits and underplayed its costs. They seldom note, for example, that the pact would allow corporations to sue governments whose regulations threaten their profits in cases brought before secretive and unaccountable foreign tribunals.

So let’s look closely at the real impact that trade agreements have on people and the environment.

A prime example is the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, or DR-CAFTA. Brokered by the George W. Bush administration and a handful of hemispheric allies, the pact has had a devastating effect on poverty, dislocation and environmental contamination in the region.

And perhaps even worse, it’s diminished the ability of Central American countries to protect their citizens from corporate abuse.

A Premonition

In 2004 and 2005, hundreds of thousands of protesters filled Central America’s streets.

They warned of the unemployment, poverty, hunger, pollution, diminished national sovereignty and other problems that could result if DR-CAFTA were approved. But despite popular pressure, the agreement was ratified in seven countries—including Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic and the United States.

Ten years after the approval of DR-CAFTA, we are seeing many of the effects they cautioned about.

Overall economic indicators in the region have been poor, with some governments unable to provide basic services to their population. Farmers have been displaced when they can’t compete with grain imported from the United States. Amid significant levels of unemployment, labor abuses continue. Workers in export-assembly plants often suffer poor working conditions and low wages. And natural-resource extraction has proceeded with few protections for the environment.

Contrary to the promises of US officials—who claimed the agreement would improve Central American economies and thereby reduce undocumented immigration—large numbers of Central Americans have migrated to the United States, as dramatized most recently by the influx of children from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras crossing the US-Mexican border last summer. Although most are fleeing violence in their countries, there are important economic roots to the migration—many of which are related to DR-CAFTA.

One of the most pernicious features of the agreement is a provision called the Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism. This allows private corporations to sue governments over alleged violations of a long list of so-called “investor protections.”

The most controversial cases have involved public interest laws and regulations that corporations claim reduce the value of their investments. That means corporations can sue those countries for profits they say they would have made had those regulations not been put into effect.

Such lawsuits can be financially devastating to poor countries that already struggle to provide basic services to their people, much less engage in costly court battles with multinational firms. They can also prevent governments from making democratically accountable decisions in the first place, pushing them to prioritize the interests of transnational corporations over the needs of their citizens.

The Mining Industry Strikes Gold

These perverse incentives have led to environmental deregulation and increased protections for companies, which have contributed to a boom in the toxic mining industry—with gold at the forefront. A stunning 14 percent of Central American territory is now authorized for mining. According to the Center of Research on Trade and Investment, a Salvadoran NGO, that number approaches 30 percent in Honduras and Nicaragua—and rises to a whopping 35 percent in Honduras.

In contrast to their Central American neighbors, El Salvador and Costa Rica have imposed regulations to defend their environments from destructive mining practices. Community pressure to protect the scarce watersheds of El Salvador—which are deeply vulnerable to toxic mining runoff—has so far prevented companies from successfully extracting minerals like gold on a large scale, and the Salvadoran government has put a moratorium on mining. In Costa Rica, after a long campaign of awareness and national mobilization, the legislature voted unanimously in 2010 to prohibit open-pit mining and ban the use of cyanide and mercury in mining activities.

Yet both countries are being punished for heeding their citizens’ demands. Several US and Canadian companies have been using DR-CAFTA’s investor-state provisions to sue these governments directly. Such disputes are arbitrated by secret tribunals like the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, which is hosted by the World Bank and is not accountable to any democratic body.

In 2009, the US-based Commerce Group sued El Salvador for closing a highly polluting mine. The case was dismissed in 2011 for lack of jurisdiction, but El Salvador still had to pay several million dollars in fees for its defense. In a case still in process, the gold-mining conglomerate Pacific Rim has also sued El Salvador under DR-CAFTA for its anti-mining regulations. To get around the fact that the Canadian company wasn’t from a signatory country to DR-CAFTA, it moved its subsidiary from the Cayman Islands to Reno, Nevada, in a bid to use the agreement’s provisions. Although that trick failed, the suit has moved forward under an outdated investment law of El Salvador.

Elsewhere, Infinito Gold has used DR-CAFTA to sue Costa Rica for nearly $100 million over disputes related to gold mining. And the US-based Corona Materials has filed a notice of intent to sue the Dominican Republic, also claiming violations of DR-CAFTA. These costly legal cases can have devastating effects on the national economies of these small countries.

Of course, investor-state disputes under DR-CAFTA are not only related to mining. For example, TECO Guatemala Holdings, a US corporation, alleged in 2009 that Guatemala had wrongfully interfered with its indirect subsidiary’s investment in an electricity distribution company. Specifically, TECO charged that the government had not protected its right to a “minimum standard of treatment”— an exceptionally vague standard that is open to wide interpretation by the international tribunals that rule on such cases—concerning the setting of rates by government regulators. In other words, TECO wanted to charge higher electricity rates to Guatemalan users than those the state deemed fair. Guatemala had to pay $21.1 million in compensatory damages and $7.5 million in legal fees, above and beyond what it spent on its own defense.

The US-based Railroad Development Corporation also sued Guatemala, leading to the country paying out an additional $11.3 million, as well as covering both its own legal fees and the company’s. Elsewhere, Spence International Investments and other companies sued Costa Rica for its decision to expropriate land for a public ecological park.

A Chilling Effect

What’s at stake here is not only the cost of lawsuits or the impact of environmental destruction, but also the ability of a country to make sovereign decisions and advance the public good.

Investment rules that allow companies to circumvent national judicial systems and challenge responsible public policies can create an effect that’s been dubbed “regulatory chill.” This means that countries that might otherwise have curtailed corporate activity won’t—because they’re afraid of being sued.

Guatemala is a prime case. It’s had to pay companies tens of millions of dollars in investor-state lawsuits, especially in the utility and transportation industries. But it hasn’t yet been sued by a mining company. That’s because the Guatemalan government hasn’t limited the companies’ operations or tampered with their profit-making.

Take the Marlin Mine in western Guatemala, for example. In 2010, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights advised the Guatemalan government to close the mine on account of its social and environmental impacts on the surrounding region and its indigenous population. Nonetheless, after briefly agreeing to suspend operations, the Guatemalan government reopened the mine a short time later.

In internal documents obtained by activists, the Guatemalan government cited potential investment arbitration as a reason to avoid suspending the mine, writing that closing the project could provoke the mine’s owners “to activate the World Bank’s [investment court] or to invocate the clauses of the free trade agreement to have access to international arbitration and subsequent claim of damages to the state.” As this example demonstrates, just knowing that a company could sue can prevent a country from standing up for human rights and environmental protection.

More recently in Guatemala, the communities around San Jose del Golfo—about 45,000 people—have engaged in two years of peaceful resistance to prevent the US-based Kappes, Cassiday, and Associates from constructing a new mine. Protesters estimate that 95 percent of families in the region depend on agriculture, an industry that would be virtually destroyed if the water were to be further contaminated. But the company threatened to sue Guatemala if the mine was not opened. “They can’t afford this lawsuit,” a company representative said. “We had a big law group out of [Washington] DC fire off a letter to the mines minister, copied to the president, explaining what we were doing.”

On May 23, the people of San Jose del Golfo were violently evicted from their lands by military force, pitting the government in league with the company against its own people—potentially all to avoid a costly lawsuit.

A Prelude to the TPP

Warnings about the crises that “free trade” would bring to Central Americans were, unfortunately, correct. Central America is facing a humanitarian crisis that has incited millions to migrate as refugees from violence and poverty, thousands of them children. One push factor is the environmental degradation provoked by ruthless mining corporations that are displacing people from their rural livelihoods.

And it’s not just DR-CAFTA. The many investor-state cases brought under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and in countries all over the world, have exposed the perniciousness of investor protection rules shoehorned into so-called “free trade” pacts. Many governments are realizing that these agreements have tied their hands when it comes to protecting their own environments and citizens.

We must use these egregious investor-state cases to highlight extreme corporate power in the region. We must work to help Central Americans regain livelihoods lost to ruthless extractive projects like mining. And we must change trade and investment agreements to stop these excessive lawsuits that devastate communities, the environment and democracy itself.

Like DR-CAFTA, the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership includes investor-state provisions that are likely to hurt poor communities and undermine environmental protections. Instead of being “fast tracked” through Congress, future trade agreements like the TPP—and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership being negotiated between the European Union and the United States—must be subject to a full debate with public input.

And such agreements must not, at any cost, include investor-state mechanisms. Because trading away democracy to transnational corporations is not such a “free trade” after all.


Sumber - The Nation