Singaporeans should have a say on treaties that the government binds us to
Off the top of your head, can the average Singaporean name any international trade treaties or pacts that we have either entered into or are currently considering entering into? If I were a betting…
Off the top of your head, can the average Singaporean name any international trade treaties or pacts that we have either entered into or are currently considering entering into? If I were a betting man, I would have take a punt and put my money on a resounding no. Is that because Singaporeans are apathetic and cannot be bothered? Or is it because half the time, we don't even know what is going on as we have not been told?
In Singapore, we are so used to our one-party majority system that makes all the decisions without consulting us that we don't even know what we don't know. The unfortunate thing, however, is that we should know and we should want to know because many of these decisions do affect us. While I understand that the government of the day does need to retain some autonomy and voters do not need to be badgered to decide on every single thing, there ought to be transparency on big-ticket issues that would have an enduring effect on Singaporeans.
The recent headlines on how Malaysia is reconsidering many of the decisions its previous government had committed it to, has got me thinking on this precise issue of public consultation on matters that could have far-reaching consequences that would affect the general public. For example, Malaysia has withdrawn from the High-Speed Rail project which would have linked up Singapore and Kuala Lumpur in a most public way. The reasons cited were that it would not have been beneficial to Malaysians and would have caused a huge dent in the government coffers. It is scary to think that this project which would likely have plunged Malaysia into years of debt without any real gains would have gone ahead had UMNO not been deposed in the recent General Elections. What shape would the Malaysian economy end up in? Luckily for Malaysians, this is now not something they will have to worry about.
Who would have thought that the man who had a past reputation of being totalitarian and who had put Najib in power in the first place would end up being now hailed saviour of Malaysia? Politics is a funny game. Most recently, we have Trump, the man who launched the battle cry against "fake news" amid accusations of cronyism and nepotism ironically defending democracy by (quite rightly in this instance) stating that all trade agreements should have a sunset clause.
That is exactly correct. How can there be an agreement that affects the fates of countries and millions of people amid changing times and circumstances be made to last forever? It just beggars belief and defies logic that this is what leaders in the G7 seem to see no trouble with when Trump raised the issue over the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) needing to have an expiry date.
Past examples of Trump's attitude towards trade deals would include him dramatically pulling the US out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on the basis that it was not, in a nutshell, beneficial to US exports. Whether that decision was right or wrong is the subject for another day, but these issues being in the international headlines has made me wonder about treaties such as these that affect Singapore. To what extent has the effects of these treaties on the average Singaporean been considered? To what extent do the people making these decisions to bind Singapore forever more to clauses that might harm average Joe's pocket understand average Joe and his needs? Is there a greater need for Singaporeans to be educated on the possibilities of how these might affect them thereby creating awareness and ownership on issues and problems?
Mahathir has similarly raised issues with the TPP on the basis that it would penalise smaller economies such as Malaysia. While I am not suggesting that the TPP is not advantageous for Singapore, I wonder to what extent Singaporeans have been given a chance to understand its implications beyond the knowledge that our politicians have now committed us to it.
Take the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) that came into force between Singapore and India in 2005. To what extent has this treaty benefited Singapore? Apart from figures on how trade and investment have increased, there is scant data on how this treaty has had tangible benefits for the average Singaporean. Given that CECA also permits free entry in and out of Singapore by way of Intercompany transfers without data on the numbers coming in and out disclosed, how can we track if jobs have indeed been created for Singaporeans. To what extent have jobs simply been filled by foreigners coming in and out? I am not at all against immigration. But for us to review the success of any treaty, these things have to be openly discussed. Have there been any in-depth debates in Parliament with adequate information provided? Based on what I have read so far, it would appear that CECA has not been a stellar success overall. Why then did we enter into it? Was enough consideration given at all levels before this decision was pushed through?
Given the far-reaching consequences of some of these agreements, I do think that we should have a greater say and understanding of its effects. It should not simply be a top-down decision which we just have to accept. The government should not take its power as blanket authority to agree to anything in our name, They need to be accountable. Minister Heng Swee Kiat's cavalier attitude seems to convey the message that the thoughts and the feelings of the masses matter not. This is why having a robust opposition and the ongoing presence of a strong alternative media is important. Transparency keeps one honest after all.
This entry was posted in Opinion.
