Chinese netizens’ angst over TPP: “Why won’t they play with us?”

[CAPRICORN-88]

Thats not my point. I was not expecting you to be sympathetic, etc. My point was that you indeed do not have any such sympathy for VN-TPP, contrary to what you were trying to alluded to in your earlier post.
Speaking of exploitation, does the CCP allows workers to legally form their own independent labor unions to fight for their rights? Or are only state sactioned unions tolerated?
The TPP actually force govt to allow workers to legally form their own labor unions without any interferrence from the state or companies.
China has state sactioned labor unions since decades ago but it is a widely known fact that Chinese workers have been exploited, particularly during the 90s, and I can find articles and reports showing that it still exist today. And as far as I know, workers in China cannot legally form their own labor unions outside the state sanctioned ones to fight for their own well-being. Same for VN, but the TPP will soon give this rights for Vietnamese workers.

Wrong.

I stopped reading at this part. TPP was “originally designed” by Singapore, Brunei, NZ and Chile and had nothing to do with the US or China.

Stop SPINNING.

TPP originately started as EAEC initiated by Malaysia's Dr. M & Singapore in their discussion to bind ASEAN, China & the other far east nations as an trade bloc. But this idea was hijacked by USA and is currently turned into a USA agenda where USA dictates and decides on new rules (Since it is negotiated in secret with even mobile phones removed from delegates) which in opinion of many may run foul of UN's WTO.

Really. Nothing to do with China!! That is not true and the BIGGEST LIE. China was part of the EAEC but never dictate and new rules.

Nothing to do with USA. Yes. USA was not invited. Since this idea was formulated on the same basis as NAFTA in America for the East Asia and ASEAN.

This demonstrate to me you are just a PROPAGANDIST, I will not waste my time discussing the rest of the nonsense you penned.

To many of us, if government trade deal is signed without involving PEOPLE opinion but will AFFECTS them in DEMOCRATIC country (In Vietnam case, we can understand as it is truly authoritarian as demonstrate in this case), this is definite a BAD DEAL for the people of the country concerned. TPP is such a deal as it is all done in secrecy and fast track to avoid NGO, UNION, etc scrutiny and objection.

 

[Misay]

lol

 

[Edison Chen]

TPP has limited influence on China.

1, China has signed FTAs with 14 countries now.

• China-ASEAN FTA
• China-Pakistan FTA
• China-Chile FTA
• China-New Zealand FTA
• China-Singapore FTA
• China-Peru FTA
• Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic and Partnership Arrangement
• Mainland and Macau Closer Economic and Partnership Arrangement
• China-Costa Rica FTA
• China-Iceland FTA
• China-Switzerland FTA
• China-Korea FTA
• China-Australia FTA

FTAs under negotiations:

• China-GCC(Gulf Cooperation Council) FTA
• China-Norway FTA
• China-Japan-Korea FTA
• Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, RCEP
• China-ASEAN FTA Upgrade Negotiations
• China-Sri Lanka FTA
• China-Maldives FTA

Free Trade Agreements under Consideration:

• 
  
  
  • China-India Regional Trade Arrangement Joint Feasibility Study
  • China-Columbia FTA Joint Feasibility Study
  • China-Georgia FTA Joint Feasibility Study
  • China-Moldova FTA Joint Feasibility Study

Accoroding to TPP rules, members can sign FTAs with other non-TPP countries. Among the 12 TPP members, China has 5 FTAs with Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Peru and Singapore, the negative consequences to China's trade brought by TPP can be offset by signing new FTAs with other counries.

2, Look at TPP members, they are on two sides of global trade chain. They are either raw material export developing poor nations like Vietnam or Peru, or they are developed consumption driven countries like United States of America and Canada. They lack a real manufacturing hub like China, they can't replace China's position because they can't create a complete industrial chain inside TPP.

 

[William Hung]

Why are Chinese PDFers against TPP? Not the TPP itself, you got that moron what's his name going around PDF calling the rest of the world to collapse because there's this new thing PDF. Tell me he doesn't exist.

In reality, China is angry at TPP, because it is a political move, not an economic one. I would say that anger is misplaced, due to the reality of the situation, but whatever.

The heart of the TPP now is to propagate a liberal economic order across the globe. The opposite of which would be something like the state-controlled economic order propagated by the Soviet Union.

The present CCP does not offer any ideological alternative to this economic order. China takes on a pragmatic approach with its self-interest as a top priority. This is testified by the fact that China have joined the WTO and have liberalized certain sectors. So the TPP is not against China.

You can say the TPP is political, but only in such a way that it is trying to propagate a liberal economic order. China is not political in this sense, the CCP is only following a pragmatic approach that would best serve its self-interest, which may or may not involve colluding with or adopting part of this liberal world order in the future. The one belt, silk road, AIIB are also just part of this pragmatic approach. China is not a Soviet Union that propagate or offers an ideological alternative to the said liberal world order. The CCP might just end up working with or even joining the TPP in the future if it serves their interest, just like how it has joined the WTO. So your angry netizens are thinking too highly of themselves if they think the TPP is a political move aiming against China. The people who are justified in being angry at the TPP are the anti neo-liberal people.

So here's the question: who was more exploited - laborers in 1980's Soviet Union who could not form independent unions or African workers in the 1980's in Western owned diamond mines who nominally could form independent unions?

China and Vietnam are not the Soviet Union and Africa. So if we stick to the issue, I would ask again, was Chinese and Vietnamese workers exploited under the state-sanctioned labor unions? The answer is yes, BIG time!

Stop SPINNING.

TPP originately started as EAEC initiated by Malaysia's Dr. M & Singapore in their discussion to bind ASEAN, China & the other far east nations as an trade bloc. But this idea was hijacked by USA and is currently turned into a USA agenda where USA dictates and decides on new rules (Since it is negotiated in secret with even mobile phones removed from delegates) which in opinion of many may run foul of UN's WTO.

Really. Nothing to do with China!! That is not true and the BIGGEST LIE. China was part of the EAEC but never dictate and new rules.

Nothing to do with USA. Yes. USA was not invited. Since this idea was formulated on the same basis as NAFTA in America for the East Asia and ASEAN.

Even when you are trying to help out your friend, you are still contradicting him. He said:

TPP was originally designed to exclude China by setting up rules that fit standards of US industrial practice.

You said:

TPP originately started as EAEC initiated by Malaysia's Dr. M & Singapore in their discussion to bind ASEAN, China

So talk amongst yourselves and come up with a coherent position first.

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

Like to share what I just read yesterday.

It’s a deal!! The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, or simply TPPA, which represents the largest U.S. trade pact since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico in 1993, has been agreed upon by 12 nations – Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.

Almost immediately, Obama administration celebrates the finalised deal as if they’ve won the World War III. The president proudly claims that the deal would OPEN NEW MARKETS for U.S. goods and services. But the public are still confuse, unimpressed and worry due to SECRECY THAT SHROUDS THE DEAL.

The deal is so secretive that American senators who wish to read the 1,000-PLUS PAGES OF TEXT must do so in a classified soundproof reading room in the basement of the U.S. Capitol building. Prior to access of technical jargon and confusing cross-references encyclopaedia-liked agreement, lawmakers must surrender their cellphones and other mobile devices.

Nobody is allowed to take away any notes, photos, or copies, let alone talk about what he or she read with anyone unless they have “TOP SECRET” clearance. So, how can rhetoric king Obama claims the deal is good when the contents are guarded with military-grade confidentiality? And how many lawmakers have actually read the TTPA bible before voting for it?

In comparison, lawmakers were allowed a copy of the NAFTA entire text during Clinton administration. In fact, it’s EASIER TO ACCESS CERTAIN CIA DOCUMENTS THAN TPPA INFORMATIOn. Therefore, it’s safe to presume that not all the 60 senators who voted to approve fast-track authority for President Obama about 4-month ago in June, had done so knowing well what they were voted for.

Now that it is finalised, Obama must notifies Congress of the TPPA deal, after which lawmakers will have 30 days to review it before it is made public. The full text of the agreement must then be MADE PUBLIC for at least 60 days. After that, President Obama can sign it.

Next, the U.S. International Trade Commission will conduct a full economic review of the deal. The agency has up to 105 days to complete that work. But by then, negotiations are no longer allowed and changes to the language can’t be made any more. What lawmakers can do is to fully approve the deal or REJECT IT IN ITS ENTIRETY.

The burning question: is TPPA a good deal with win-win solutions for the 12 Pacific Rim nations who agreed to it? If Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is truly a great business deal negotiator as highlighted in his book – “The Art Of The Deal” – then it’s a screw up deal based on his latest reaction.

“The INCOMPETENCE AND DISHONESTY of the President, his administration and perhaps most disturbing – the Congress of the United States are about to place American jobs and the very livelihoods of Americans at risk … The only entities to benefit from this trade deal will be other countries, particularly China and Japan, and big corporations in America” – said Trump.

How does Trump know it was a a bad deal from the beginning? Trump said that the lack of transparency throughout the secret negotiations should prove that the deal is horrendous. Hate to admit it but what the clown said is true – IF THIS WAS SUCH A GOOD DEAL, WHY WAS THERE NO TRANSPARENCY?

So, if the Americans are not benefitting from this deal, does this mean the other 11 nations would benefit at the expense of United States? Not really. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is facing a tough and rough re-election this month with opposition party declaring it WOULD NOT BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE DEAL.

Leaders of Australia and New Zealand are having tough time with a deal they couldn’t explain satisfactory. Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak probably is AS CLUELESS AS THE PUBLIC as to what his country could benefit from the agreement. As one of the countries with little transparency but lots of protection, cronyism, nepotism and corruption, has NAJIB BROUGHT ANOTHER DISASTER TO THE COUNTRY?

So, does this mean Malaysia CAN SELL LOCALLY-MADE PROTON CARS to the United States without the need to meet strict US automotive regulations? If not, then the reverse is true so has Najib administration agreed to slash excise and import duties and makes American cars cheaper locally?

Considering US is the largest exporter of pharmaceutical drugs, essentially all the 11 nations would lose out if its pharmaceutical companies are allowed a LONGER MARKET EXCLUSIVITY that they already enjoy on genetically engineered drugs. U.S. law allows 12 years of patent-style protections so with TPPA deal, will the same privilege applies, which will make DRUGS MORE EXPENSIVE?

Amongst other, TPPA addresses tariff reductions for agriculture and automobiles, as well as intellectual-property rights for movies and pharmaceutical drugs, the free flow of information on the Internet, wildlife conservation, online commerce and dispute SETTLEMENT PRACTICES FOR MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS.

Does TPPA participating leaders, such as Malaysian Najib Razak knows that if his long perceived arrogant government chooses to change laws or other regulations, whenever they like, which could or would affect US big corporations, the US CAN SUE MALAYSIA FOR LOST PROFITS? Until participating nations can tell their citizens how the working class can benefit from the deal, it’s a BAD DEAL.

 

[Genesis]

The heart of the TPP now is to propagate a liberal economic order across the globe. The opposite of which would be something like the state-controlled economic order propagated by the Soviet Union.

The present CCP does not offer any ideological alternative to this economic order. China takes on a pragmatic approach with its self-interest as a top priority. This is testified by the fact that China have joined the WTO and have liberalized certain sectors. So the TPP is not against China.

You can say the TPP is political, but only in such a way that it is trying to propagate a liberal economic order. China is not political in this sense, the CCP is only following a pragmatic approach that would best serve its self-interest, which may or may not involve colluding with or adopting part of this liberal world order in the future. The one belt, silk road, AIIB are also just part of this pragmatic approach. China is not a Soviet Union that propagate or offers an ideological alternative to the said liberal world order. The CCP might just end up working with or even joining the TPP in the future if it serves their interest, just like how it has joined the WTO. So your angry netizens are thinking too highly of themselves if they think the TPP is a political move aiming against China. The people who are justified in being angry at the TPP are the anti neo-liberal people.

You can call the TPP whatever you want, it maybe the things you said, who knows, but the fact remains China is the number one trading nation in the world. From what I know of the TPP, it adds on a bunch of rules that makes the government even more hands on, not less. Having more standards, that's not the code word for hands off.

But, that's beside the point. China's AIIB, we invited both Japan and the US, neither joined, and it's still a conspiracy to the US. China, the largest trading nation is not invited to a trade pact that has nations around it in it. How should the average Chinese think?

China isn't against TPP, but China and US is locked in a battle, if you don't see that, then you are very ignorant. China is neither for or against any new ideas, but China is against the US writing the rules for us. Same thing for the US. Obama, literally said those words.

China and Vietnam are not the Soviet Union and Africa. So if we stick to the issue, I would ask again, was Chinese and Vietnamese workers exploited under the state-sanctioned labor unions? The answer is yes, BIG time!

Have you ever lived in Vietnam? If they are the same as other people, meaning that they are people. I doubt they will give up REAL power to some unions, but let's say for the sake of argument, they will.

Were Chinese workers exploited? Hell yes, but that depends on what exploited means, what else can they possibly do under those circumstances? Give more money and rights to the Vietnamese workers? Others will buy those expensive third world products why? You either have to have prestige or price, if you have none, then you got no deal.

China's wage is rising, everybody and their grandmothers know it's more than even Russia and Brazil now. Are Indian unions real, what of Indonesians? What of Philippines? They don't have the benefits, wage, or working condition that Chinese workers get, why? As you said pragmatic, if signing this deal gets Vietnamese workers at least the same pay and treatment as Chinese workers , good for you, but do you think that will happen.

According to ILO(2013):

Regions and countries
(their real figure is BS, it's PPP, I just used nominal, relative to Chinese yuan.)

Chinese average monthly wage(relative to yuan): 4290
Indonesia: 905
India: 731.36
Malaysia: 3081.31
Vietnam: 569
Iran: 700
Japan: 15608


So as you can see, Chinese wage is quite high, but at one point it was lower than everyone, maybe not Vietnam, but hard to say.

You can say what you want, the thing that will raise wage and working conditions, that's PROVEN is progress, not some ink on paper.

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

Even when you are trying to help out your friend, you are still contradicting him. He said:

You said:

So talk amongst yourselves and come up with a coherent position first.

That is because you either lack the skill of the language or did not understand what I wrote.

I says TPP started originally as EAEC and was HIJACKED by the USA into what is TPP today?

Where is the contradiction? Although Japan was part of the early EAEC negotiation but backed off after being pressure by USA like the AIIB project. EAEC was a trade pact and modeled after NAFTA for Asia including ASEAN. Although Australia indicated their interest but the founding members Dr M from Malaysia was against the participation by Australia.

So OBAMA allegation that China was writing the trade rules is simply NONSENSE.

TPP is a case where USA write all the NEW TRADE RULES that may run afoul of the international Trade Rules WTO. USA dislike the facts she lost so many cases against other complainant nations.

Since USA still has one card to play as the largest economy in the world, she decides to DOMINATE again by forcing her TRADE RULES to others. (This is my rules if you wanted to sell in USA consumer market in other words PROTECTIONISM e.g. extending USA patents and copyright well beyond what the world has agreed)

Read this

The East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC) or East Asia Economic Group (EAEG) was a regional free trade zone (FTA) proposed in 1990 by former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad and encompasses the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states, China, South Korea and Japan. Japan though refused participation due to the exclusion of the Western nations, which were already members of APEC and many other notable regional organizations in East Asia.

The EAEC was a reaction to ASEAN's integration into the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) by Dr. Mahathir, who is known for his strong Asian standpoint. His suggestion apparently articulated his dissatisfaction with ASEAN joining APEC, which includes Western nations, an idea he was strongly opposed to. Therefore EAEC was basically an APEC without North America and Australia. Nevertheless, it was never put into action officially. Recently the ASEAN+3 rounds might be called the successor of EAEC, which prompted Malaysia to state that EAEC was a reality. In 2005, due to Japan's support of the agreement, ASEAN Plus Three(ASEAN+3 or APT)agreed to include Australia, New Zealand, and India during the East Asia Summit.




The original concept of EAEC was very difficult to implement, as there were large economic, political, and regional differences between the East Asian countries. Besides these difficulties, Mahathir's concept committed Japan to be the leading power. At the time, this perspective was not acceptable for Japan, as it was closely allied to the US and deeply linked through trade with the other nations to be excluded from the organization.

South Korea was also extremely dissatisfied with Japan being placed at the center of the proposed organization, and would not support it.

 

[William Hung]

That is because you either lack the skill of the language or did not understand what I wrote.

I says TPP started originally as EAEC and was HIJACKED by the USA into what is TPP today?

Where is the contradiction?

I was referring to @Sanchez’s claim that the TPP was “originally designed” to exclude China which you then contradicted with your own claims.

So first, tell him that he was wrong, or you were wrong.

Although Japan was part of the early EAEC negotiation but backed off after being pressure by USA like the AIIB project. EAEC was a trade pact and modeled after NAFTA for Asia including ASEAN. Although Australia indicated their interest but the founding members Dr M from Malaysia was against the participation by Australia.

So OBAMA allegation that China was writing the trade rules is simply NONSENSE.

TPP is a case where USA write all the NEW TRADE RULES that may run afoul of the international Trade Rules WTO. USA dislike the facts she lost so many cases against other complainant nations.

Since USA still has one card to play as the largest economy in the world, she decides to DOMINATE again by forcing her TRADE RULES to others. (This is my rules if you wanted to sell in USA consumer market in other words PROTECTIONISM e.g. extending USA patents and copyright well beyond what the world has agreed)

Read this

The East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC) or East Asia Economic Group (EAEG) was a regional free trade zone (FTA) proposed in 1990 by former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad and encompasses the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states, China, South Korea and Japan. Japan though refused participation due to the exclusion of the Western nations, which were already members of APEC and many other notable regional organizations in East Asia.

The EAEC was a reaction to ASEAN's integration into the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) by Dr. Mahathir, who is known for his strong Asian standpoint. His suggestion apparently articulated his dissatisfaction with ASEAN joining APEC, which includes Western nations, an idea he was strongly opposed to. Therefore EAEC was basically an APEC without North America and Australia. Nevertheless, it was never put into action officially. Recently the ASEAN+3 rounds might be called the successor of EAEC, which prompted Malaysia to state that EAEC was a reality. In 2005, due to Japan's support of the agreement, ASEAN Plus Three(ASEAN+3 or APT)agreed to include Australia, New Zealand, and India during the East Asia Summit.




The original concept of EAEC was very difficult to implement, as there were large economic, political, and regional differences between the East Asian countries. Besides these difficulties, Mahathir's concept committed Japan to be the leading power. At the time, this perspective was not acceptable for Japan, as it was closely allied to the US and deeply linked through trade with the other nations to be excluded from the organization.

South Korea was also extremely dissatisfied with Japan being placed at the center of the proposed organization, and would not support it.

You haven’t provide any evidence to show how the TPP was originally from the EAEC. The only commonality between EAEC and TPP is that they both involve Singapore. But does this mean any agreements involving Singapore are the roots of the TPP?

There are many things that are contrary to your EAEC-TPP claims anyway...TPP original 4 founding members did not include Malaysia, it did not even include China. It however included non-Asian countries like NZ and Chile which was not the intention of the EAEC.

So how did you make the link between EAEC and TPP again?

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

I was referring to @Sanchez’s claim that the TPP was “originally designed” to exclude China which you then contradicted with your own claims.

So first, tell him that he was wrong, or you were wrong.

You haven’t provide any evidence to show how the TPP was originally from the EAEC. The only commonality between EAEC and TPP is that they both involve Singapore. But does this mean any agreements involving Singapore are the roots of the TPP?

There are many things that are contrary to your EAEC-TPP claims anyway...TPP original 4 founding members did not include Malaysia, it did not even include China. It however included non-Asian countries like NZ and Chile which was not the intention of the EAEC.

So how did you make the link between EAEC and TPP again?

OK. The next make sure you direct your reply to the right one if you feel their post is contradictory.

That shows how little you understand about the regional politics or TPP and yet you are defending it.

Anyway it is COMMON knowledge in this part of the world. Go and research on TPP in depth before you offer your useless opinions. An expansion of the original idea does not make it yours.

The idea of TPP originated from EAEC and was HIJACKED by USA after Japan did not participate fearing that it will offend USA. EAEC would have become a reality if because of the political views of individual like Malaysia Dr M, etc

This was the reason attributed to the failure of EAEC.

The aggressive Western-critical speech by Mahathir without consultations with his colleagues in other states, scared most East Asian countries away from this idea.

Japan especially, felt compromised by this. The way he introduced this idea of EAEC was perceived as greatly ineffectual, as he was even rejected by his colleagues in ASEAN.

Mahathir tried to support the idea by stressing that the EAEC conforms with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), but this step also brought hardly any results.

The exclusion of Oceania and Australia was found especially unfitting. Japan could not go along with this in the beginning of the 1990s, as it was re-orienting itself after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the end of the Cold War.

Dr. M insisted that the EAEC conforms with GATT or WTO today.

Whereas in TPP, USA wrote all the new Trade Rules like in the days of COLONIALISM hence beware of the neo-colonialist.

 

[William Hung]

OK. The next make sure you direct your reply to the right one if you feel their post is contradictory.

That shows how little you understand about the regional politics or TPP and yet you are defending it.

Anyway it is COMMON knowledge in this part of the world. Go and research on TPP in depth before you offer your useless opinions. An expansion of the original idea does not make it yours.

Ah, the good old replies when challenged to give detailed and referenced analysis of the TPP: “Go and do the research yourself!” lol do you know how many time I’ve been told that?

The idea of TPP originated from EAEC and was HIJACKED by USA after Japan did not participate fearing that it will offend USA. EAEC would have become a reality if because of the political views of individual like Malaysia Dr M, etc

Back up your claims with well supported arguments or evidences first, don’t just declare the claim and expect me to believe it as gospel.

The only commonality I can see between the EAEC and TPP is that they both involve Singapore. Nothing what you’ve posted shows the TPP comes from the EAEC. Please back up your claim or drop it.

The exclusion of Oceania and Australia...

This little description about the EAEC is particularly funny considering that the original 4 founding members of the TPP (before the US even joined) included New Zealand, an oceania country.

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

Today even Japan offers its reservation about the non participation of the world 2nd largest economy in TPP but would the neo-colonialist under Obama bothers.

Ah, the good old replies when challenged to give detailed and referenced analysis of the TPP: “Go and do the research yourself!” lol do you know how many time I’ve been told that?

Back up your claims with well supported arguments or evidences first, don’t just declare the claim and expect me to believe it as gospel.

The only commonality I can see between the EAEC and TPP is that they both involve Singapore. Nothing what you’ve posted shows the TPP comes from the EAEC. Please back up your claim or drop it.

You don't have to believe a word we are saying. But that is the concern and opinion of the majority of the people living in these TPP affected state. If you cannot feel the ground then you are in the air. Hahaha

I am relating what we understand from the news all these years in our discussion about TPP and EAEC while you offering absolutely nothing in return for the questions I highlighted. Give you a clue: TPP only came about after EAEC.

Don't be lazy, go and do your own research if you are really interesting. I have no time for that, I have done enough by offering to you a valuable clue. I have better thing to do.

Ah, the good old replies when challenged to give detailed and referenced analysis of the TPP: “Go and do the research yourself!” lol do you know how many time I’ve been told that?
Back up your claims with well supported arguments or evidences first, don’t just declare the claim and expect me to believe it as gospel.
The only commonality I can see between the EAEC and TPP is that they both involve Singapore. Nothing what you’ve posted shows the TPP comes from the EAEC. Please back up your claim or drop it.
This little description about the EAEC is particularly funny considering that the original 4 founding members of the TPP (before the US even joined) included New Zealand, an oceania country.

LOL You only wanted to win an argument but refuse to answer the relevant questions pertaining to the benefit of TPP agreement which I have highlighted which related to this thread.

The people themselves!!!

Answer those relevant question about things that concern PEOPLE and stop digressing.

Put aside the question whether or not TPP originated from EAEC as I alleged or read about all these years in the local news. That is hardly important to this thread. The qquestion I highlighted are.. Get it and get real!

 

[William Hung]

You don't have to believe a word we are saying. But that is the concern and opinion of the majority of the people living in these TPP affected state. If you cannot feel the ground then you are in the air. Hahaha

Yet you cant provide anything when asked about the details and specifics. The only reply is “go do your own research”.

I am relating what we understand from the news all these years in our discussion about TPP and EAEC while you offering absolutely nothing in return for the questions I highlighted. Give you a clue: TPP only came about after EAEC.

LOL you still have not provided any support for your claims that the TPP comes from the EAEC while I have explicitly mentioned their contrary facts (the inclusion of NZ and the absent of China in the 4 founding members of the TPP).

Your new “clue” is that TPP comes after EAEC? lol there are lots of agreements and proposal that comes before the TPP, are they all the grand daddies of the TPP as well?

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

Anti-TPP protest in New Zealand. Why because folks were kept in the dark? Read the posters and banners.

 

[William Hung]

LOL You only wanted to win an argument but refuse to answer the relevant questions pertaining to the benefit of TPP agreement which I have highlighted which related to this thread.

You were the one that posted the negative claims about the TPP that was was not corroborated or referenced to any TPP text. You need to give the proper reference and analysis for those claims first buddy, dont just use unsubstantiated claims from a blog post from a weird personal blog. Do I also need to address the blog’s claim that the Iranian women soccer team are men?

I have only made one positive claims about the TPP, its provision to allow independent workers union and the state of worker exploitations under state sanctioned labor unions in Vietnam and China...I can provide more detailed analysis on this issue, do you want me to create a new thread about it? e.g. independent workers union and workers exploitation in VN and China.

Create a new thread on it and I will give you more in depth analysis and details on it.

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

Even folks in Japan are protesting. Why is all the participating fast tracking this secret pact and not revealed it since it is so beneficial to the people back home?