Selanjutnya, meskipun MITI cuba meyakinkan kita sebaliknya, “pelindungan” di dalam TPPA yang menyentuh bidang kesihatan, alam sekitar dan tenaga manusia tidak boleh dikuat kuasa. Ini bererti, sekiranya pelabur melakukan kesalahan dalam bidang-bidang tersebut, kerajaan kita tidak dapat memfailkan tuntutan terhadap mereka di bawah TPPA. Apa yang akan berlaku adalah situasi Renco yang tersebut di atas.

Tidak lupa juga, isu mengenai ‘Most Favoured Nation Clause’. Dikenali sebagai klausa ‘wipe out’, klausa ini membolehkan pelabur asing dari negara-negara TPP untuk membuat tuntutan terhadap Malaysia berdasarkan peruntukan ISDS dalam mana-mana urus niaga perdagangan lain yang ditandatangani oleh Malaysia, tidak kira negara mana yang memasuki perjanjian sedemikian dengan Malaysia. Jadi tidak kiralah jika TPPA dideraf dengan begitu pintar dan hati-hati, kita hanya akan dilindungi setakat perjanjian perdagangan paling mundur yang telah kita meterai.

Further, despite what MITI would have us believe, the “safeguards” within the TPPA on health, environment and labour are unenforceable. Meaning, should the investor be guilty of offences in these areas, our government cannot file claims against them under the TPPA. What we will have though, is a Renco situation, as described above.

Then there is the issue of the Most Favoured Nation Clause. Known as the wipe out clause, it allows foreign investors from TPP states to make a claim against Malaysia based on the ISDS provisions in any other trade deal Malaysia has signed, no matter which country it was signed with. So no matter how cleverly and carefully drafted the TPPA is, we are only as protected as the most retrogressive trade agreement that we’ve entered into.

Claims brought under similar worded ISDS clauses in other free trade agreements include:

American company Renco’s suit against Peru for US$800 million (RM3.4 billion) because its contract was not extended after Renco’s operations caused massive environmental and health damage;

A French company, Veolia, sued Egypt for the disadvantage it suffered from the rise of the minimum wage from 400 to 700 Egyptian pounds (US$56 to US$99). Minimum wage was one of the few concessions won by salaried workers in the 2011 Arab Spring.

Eli Lilly, the fifth-largest pharmaceutical group in the US, is demanding roughly US$490 million in compensation because the Canadian courts upheld Canada’s patent laws and had found in favour of a generics manufacturer, making medicines cheaper and more accessible to Canadians.