TUN Mahathir Mohamad opposes the TPPA but ex-minister Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz supports it. That is what is confusing to me; an ex-Miti official who helped to develop and shape the Second Industrial Master Plan for Malaysia in the period 1995-2005, and then the National IT Agenda for the Knowledge Economy.
We are now in 2015; and our development and growth of industries has still not moved much beyond the high technology focus of the National IT Agenda towards the IP and Patents focus of the Knowledge Economy.
I suspect the difference between Mahathir and Rafidah’s views relate to what really are the strategic interests for Malaysia. My honest fear and concern is that we are merely selling our “operational agendas” to the Americans and sacrificing our “strategic agenda”. Therefore, I have some simple but strategic questions which I would like my good friend, International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed to answer. Let me try and frame my questions since the minister has not given us any details to date:
Why is TPPA more important to us, when China, India and Indonesia are excluded?
The paradigm of business has shifted from the vertical industrial-manufacturing model of industrial depth under the First Industrial Master Plan, towards the relational model of spatial and lateral business relationships and markets of the IMP2.
Under the IMP2 paradigm and logic of planning assumptions, cross border relationships of examples like IMT Growth Triangle (Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand) are important and critical for regional development of areas and arenas. BIMP (Brunei, Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines) East Asian Growth Area is the other one.
Moreover, we know that politically Asean is fully framed and formed and the next stage is our economic collaboration. Why is the political and longer term interest of the Asean as a group, more important vis-à-vis the smaller interests of each Asean member?
Finally, why are we not thinking of our longer term strategic interests of China, India, and Indonesia as markets which are bigger than US any day and any time? Surely, our historical interests and relationships with these three countries are more than the mere corporate partners of MNCs of Malaysia. Our challenge is to drop our feudal mindset that we do not or cannot own IP and Patents in the future global markets.
Why are we protecting and preserving inefficient industries?
Mahathir was right in launching the automotive industry in Malaysia to grow and shape heavy industries in Malaysia. But, this industry and a few other policy-driven industries needed protection under the global trade “infant industry arguments”. But, was that protection still relevant?
Why are we still protecting and preserving Proton, or Perodua, or Naza when there is really nothing real about its Malaysian-ness? Are these not like most other global MNCs who have existed in Malaysia since the early 1980s? Why should any Malaysian company birthed and grown since 1980s; whether rubber-based or oil palm based, or steel and cement industry-based, or any other resource-based industries be fully protected any more; after a quarter century?
My question therefore is: why are we still protecting and preserving such partisan interests in the name of national and public interest?
For one simple but clear example: will we need to provide Selangor Pewter with any protection just because they use 5% tin? If Selangor Pewter cannot compete in the fully open market environment, should we really be protecting their business interests with preservation in the national interest?
Are our pharmaceutical industries ready for open and free competition?
I read in theSun of Oct 12 that the executive director of international intellectual property (IP) of the US Chamber of Commerce, Patrick Kilbride, said that:
Malaysia is uniquely positioned among middle-income countries to become an innovation success story. An investment by Malaysia in a world-class IP system will deliver three key benefits.
He defined the three following benefits when we sign on to the TPPA:
» We make a strong case to receive earlier access to innovative products, such as life-saving medicines;
» Preferential and increased R&D attention treatment for healthcare needs; and
» The TPPA will enable “local innovators” legal tools, financing, to bring their products to market.
It is interesting that a foreigner can articulate such ideas for us Malaysians to understand, and our minister did not; but I have an even more important question: Can Miti tell all Malaysian domestic innovators in what areas and arenas we are poised to take advantage of such an agenda?
How are generic drugs handled under TPPA for Malaysia?
For example, I read in the newspaper that Malaysia rejects US patent proposal “to extend patents of medicines in the TPPA”.
The Health Ministry has announced that we do not agree on the extension of the duration of the patency of the medicines as it will burden the people, the deputy minister said in Penang.
Questions that need answers
If we take an operational view and decide to protect uncompetitive partisan players in Malaysia; the unnecessary AP system will continue forever because it feeds and finances some illegitimate agendas!
Mustapa must come clean and open with the TPPA agenda, especially the what and why we think it is good for Malaysia. I wait to hear from the minister.
KJ John
We are now in 2015; and our development and growth of industries has still not moved much beyond the high technology focus of the National IT Agenda towards the IP and Patents focus of the Knowledge Economy.
I suspect the difference between Mahathir and Rafidah’s views relate to what really are the strategic interests for Malaysia. My honest fear and concern is that we are merely selling our “operational agendas” to the Americans and sacrificing our “strategic agenda”. Therefore, I have some simple but strategic questions which I would like my good friend, International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed to answer. Let me try and frame my questions since the minister has not given us any details to date:
Why is TPPA more important to us, when China, India and Indonesia are excluded?
The paradigm of business has shifted from the vertical industrial-manufacturing model of industrial depth under the First Industrial Master Plan, towards the relational model of spatial and lateral business relationships and markets of the IMP2.
Under the IMP2 paradigm and logic of planning assumptions, cross border relationships of examples like IMT Growth Triangle (Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand) are important and critical for regional development of areas and arenas. BIMP (Brunei, Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines) East Asian Growth Area is the other one.
Moreover, we know that politically Asean is fully framed and formed and the next stage is our economic collaboration. Why is the political and longer term interest of the Asean as a group, more important vis-à-vis the smaller interests of each Asean member?
Finally, why are we not thinking of our longer term strategic interests of China, India, and Indonesia as markets which are bigger than US any day and any time? Surely, our historical interests and relationships with these three countries are more than the mere corporate partners of MNCs of Malaysia. Our challenge is to drop our feudal mindset that we do not or cannot own IP and Patents in the future global markets.
Why are we protecting and preserving inefficient industries?
Mahathir was right in launching the automotive industry in Malaysia to grow and shape heavy industries in Malaysia. But, this industry and a few other policy-driven industries needed protection under the global trade “infant industry arguments”. But, was that protection still relevant?
Why are we still protecting and preserving Proton, or Perodua, or Naza when there is really nothing real about its Malaysian-ness? Are these not like most other global MNCs who have existed in Malaysia since the early 1980s? Why should any Malaysian company birthed and grown since 1980s; whether rubber-based or oil palm based, or steel and cement industry-based, or any other resource-based industries be fully protected any more; after a quarter century?
My question therefore is: why are we still protecting and preserving such partisan interests in the name of national and public interest?
For one simple but clear example: will we need to provide Selangor Pewter with any protection just because they use 5% tin? If Selangor Pewter cannot compete in the fully open market environment, should we really be protecting their business interests with preservation in the national interest?
Are our pharmaceutical industries ready for open and free competition?
I read in theSun of Oct 12 that the executive director of international intellectual property (IP) of the US Chamber of Commerce, Patrick Kilbride, said that:
Malaysia is uniquely positioned among middle-income countries to become an innovation success story. An investment by Malaysia in a world-class IP system will deliver three key benefits.
He defined the three following benefits when we sign on to the TPPA:
» We make a strong case to receive earlier access to innovative products, such as life-saving medicines;
» Preferential and increased R&D attention treatment for healthcare needs; and
» The TPPA will enable “local innovators” legal tools, financing, to bring their products to market.
It is interesting that a foreigner can articulate such ideas for us Malaysians to understand, and our minister did not; but I have an even more important question: Can Miti tell all Malaysian domestic innovators in what areas and arenas we are poised to take advantage of such an agenda?
How are generic drugs handled under TPPA for Malaysia?
For example, I read in the newspaper that Malaysia rejects US patent proposal “to extend patents of medicines in the TPPA”.
The Health Ministry has announced that we do not agree on the extension of the duration of the patency of the medicines as it will burden the people, the deputy minister said in Penang.
Questions that need answers
If we take an operational view and decide to protect uncompetitive partisan players in Malaysia; the unnecessary AP system will continue forever because it feeds and finances some illegitimate agendas!
Mustapa must come clean and open with the TPPA agenda, especially the what and why we think it is good for Malaysia. I wait to hear from the minister.
KJ John