Incredibly Onion-Skinned Filipinos' Reactions About Economic Liberalization on AMERICAN-MADE Social Media

 

Facebook has been one useful tool. I've used it to communicate with people from my past and present. I could also say that Facebook has been useful in sharing ideas. However, Facebook has also been a source of many quarrels as to why some people even leave it. Some people may only be using Messenger now. This reminds me that there are also some very onion-skinned Filipinos on social media. I've noticed that any news about economic liberalization also tends to be met with so much animosity. I could read a lot of comments regarding it. I'd be wasting much of my time if I had to single them out. Instead, I decided to write another onion-related post. This time though, it's not about literal onions but onion-skinned Filipinos and their incredibly annoying comments and posts regarding economic liberalization. I can't be sure if the comment was made because (1) they believe what they post, or (2) they actually have an agenda as to why they made up the lie (i.e. like a Ponzi schemer like the later Bernard Madoff).

I decided to write them down as stinging as I could possibly write them down. I'm afraid that in many ways, I'm probably being "too nice" (that is nice, by typical Filipino standards). Now, I might update this post because I'm just writing this based on what I can summarize. As a business graduate, I felt compelled to write this. January can be a time of reckoning for people who have plenty of debts accumulated last Christmas and New Year (read here). Now, it's time to present a stinging list of the types of comments on social media. Take note that the list is still limited and there may be many more ways than what I'm about to list down.

Be ready to be very butthurt if you're reading this and you're in that crowd...

"Why do you hate our local businesses so much?"

This is the first kind of comment that I get. This is typical to use the colonial mentality card in order to win the argument right. There's a big difference between liking something imported for its quality and colonial mentality. Colonial mentality is when I could care less about quality as long as it's imported. For the xenophobe, they fear something foreign because it's foreign rather than rejecting something foreign because it's bad. 

Just because I prefer something imported doesn't mean I reject the local. What if I told you I prefer Jollibee hamburgers over McDonald's hamburgers? What if I told you that I prefer McDonald's fried chicken over Jollibee fried chicken? That doesn't mean that I hate local businesses. It's just that when I prefer something imported--it's because it's of better quality. Otherwise, I'd avail to good local products and services whenever they can be good alternatives or provide better quality. Is it really so wrong to like both local and imported if they're of good quality? 

"But only foreign investors will get rich!" 

This is another myth that I always run into. This is sheerly made out of ignorance or selfish interest. Some people say it because they believe it. Meanwhile, I believe others say it because they have selfish interests. I remembered running across an annoying fat guy on Facebook who propagated that lie. I think that "thought leaders" like Teodoro A. Casiño of Bayan Muna. Sarah Jane I. Elago of Kabataan Partylist and Carwyn Candlia of League of Filipino Students (LFS) might be in for selfish interest. I think they know they're lying and they may just be there to mislead people. The others might be paid trolls by the oligarchs too. 

I always try to talk about it how foreign investors get rich based on net income after taxes (read here). It doesn't take a genius to figure out that companies get rich based on net income. You deduct the sales minus all expenses including taxes. Foreign investors are obligated to still follow laws, pay bills, pay salaries, and more importantly, taxes. That means anything foreign investors keep as net profits is what's left after expenses. They're practically left in these set rules. If they want to continue investing in the Philippines then follow rules. It's like a tenant must follow rules based on the contract or face the possibility of getting evicted. 

"We will lose our sovereignty as a nation to foreign investors!"

This is really another dumb argument that I keep hearing. Just reading Casiño's argument on Rappler can be funny and frustrating. Once again, it's really based on fear-mongering than facts. I really would say it's a good thing that Casiño is no longer a lawmaker. It's a good thing that Neri Colmenares hasn't won the senatorial race either. However, I'm still amazed that this lie is persistently written that foreign investors will violate national sovereignty. This is really an absurdly stupid argument that's written by some idiotic boomers who're still overly resistant to change.

The idea itself is already just plain stupid. I even wrote a refute of that idea (read here). If OFWs were indeed "conquering the world" (and one of the thoughts came from that fat American and another from a retired dancer in his early 60s)--I'd like to ask why hasn't even one country where OFWs are sent become a new Filipino state? Foreign investors are like tenants. It's because they're bound by local laws. Tenants must abide by their contracts. Foreign investors must abide by local laws. There's no loss of sovereignty there! 

"Foreign investors won't provide jobs for Filipinos but for foreigners!"

This is really yet another stupid kind of comment. I wrote a post where I refuted the idea that only foreigners will get the jobs, not Filipinos (read here). The idea was refuted by the likes of the late Lee Kuan Yew (in his book From Third World to First) and by other countries. We can also talk about the late Deng Xiaoping's new Communist China. We can talk about the late Nguyen Duy Cong's economic plan for Communist Vietnam. Still, some people will insist on the blunder through and through.

Right now, the Philippines has foreign investments. I'd like to bring up an example with foreign companies here. When I order food via Foodpanda or Grab--are the drivers who deliver the food, foreigners or Filipinos? When I go to any foreign food chain, are most of the workers from their country or mostly Filipino? When I went to China last 2007, I remembered eating Chinese McDonald's and the crew was managed by Chinese citizens. Why would they not want to hire readily available manpower?

"Foreign investors will compromise our security if we let them invest here!"

The news of the Public Services Act of 2022 launched some rather stupid comments. I could remember the comments of Candila of LFS. Aside from Candila, comments that foreign investments in the public services sector will "compromise security". Well, that could happen if there were no data privacy laws that would regulate all related players. It's like any company that would misuse and abuse SIM card registration, personal data, and the like can be held liable for it. The same law is still applied to foreign investors who provide services like telecommunications.

What's more ironic is that some people who say this kind of nonsense are complaining about slow Internet. Some of them even say that penalizing will be the best solution. However, this is a problem of supply and demand. It doesn't take an IT specialist (I never reached that dream and I'm okay with it now) to realize this. How in the world can a few telecommunication companies provide the demand for faster, better Internet when the Philippines has 7,107 islands? I don't need to do discrete mathematics to at least understand that fact!

"Instead of exposing local businesses to foreign competition, why not uplift their spirits continuously with protectionist policies?"

This is really no better than people who just can't accept constructive criticism huh? I'm afraid but it's already an established fact that a lot of Filipinos are too easy to offend. I would offer the solution that the best way to have better services is more competition. However, they're bound to say something like, "Why not uplift the spirits of Filipino businessmen with more protectionist policies?" I wonder if the late Carlos P. Garcia actually had that in mind when he announced the Filipino First Policy? 

I'd like to really bring another stinging truth. Since when did "uplifting" the spirits of local businesses via protectionism help the Philippines? I can't name even one instance that it did. Did protecting public services in the name of Filipino First actually give better services? Did it make the cost of public services any more affordable to the lower-class bracket? That's why I dare compare protectionism to insincere flattery. Insincere flattery never helps you grow. The only flattery that works is sincere praise which must always have some constructive criticism to go along with it. 

"Aren't you a Filipino too? If so, you are guilty of being a traitor!"

I could remember spending much of my elementary years with this problem. I remembered complaining about how people were habitually tardy. I could remember having an encounter where school programs started one hour late. You have people who say that one hour isn't a lot of time. Even worse, I was asked, "Are you sure you are a Filipino? If you like being on time then go back to China!" Sorry but I'm already born a Filipino citizen so deporting me there won't work. 

This can also apply to foreign investment. Ironically, the comments are made on American-made social media such as Facebook and Twitter. I did mention earlier about not understanding what colonial mentality is. Since when did rejecting bad Filipino businesses mean I'm a traitor to the country. Should I continue to avail of a local business just because it's Filipino even if it's bad? If so, that kind of action isn't patriotism but plain foolishness.

"If you're a foreigner, you have no right to talk about our economic policy that way! Go back to your country!"

This is where things can get really hazy. Let's imagine if Kishore Mahbubani would've directly criticized Hilario G. Davide Jr.'s statements last 2018. Let's say Mahbubani would've made a statement regarding his fellow UN diplomat and said, "No Davide Jr., you're wrong. Foreign investors create jobs, bring in capital, teach new skills to our labor force." on Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, or any mediu, that he might've had. It might cause a chain reaction telling Mahbubani that he's got no right to do so. Even more, I could imagine declaring persona non-grata for the wrong reasons.

Ironically, such people would sometimes appeal to foreigners if it suits them. It's really funny to see how some onion-skinned Filipinos against foreign investment appeal to certain foreign organizations. A good example is when some of these groups protested when the Philippines left the International Criminal Court. It's really an irony when these people who are against foreign investors also appeal to foreign organizations through American-made social media!

"Why don't you run for office and show us how FDI works if you know so much!"

Is running for office the only way to make a difference? Activism can take form in many ways. For example, Andrew James Masigan writes columns as an economist who also endorsed Atty. Maria Leonor G. Robredo aka Leni. You also have CoRRECT Movement whose webmaster, Orion Perez Dumdum, is an OFW working in Singapore. Right now, I'm just an ordinary Filipino-Chinese participating in sharing the ideals needed to help build awareness for economic reform.

Let's say that one day I decided to run for office. Let's say that I even won fair and square. What's the guarantee anyway that those destructive critics of mine will ever listen? I can't even give a guarantee that they will listen. Chances are they'll probably still mock me saying I cheated and "the whole world knows it". I even wonder if Robin Padilla's decision to run for senator was a good thing or not. Regardless, I feel Padilla has been learning to ignore the criticism and focus on the need for constitutional reform. 

"Shut up! You're not a constitutionalist or an economist!"

Do I even need to be a constitutionalist or economist to be right? This is yet another Ad Hominem because they don't like the message that I have to give. I could go ahead and quote from constitutionalists and economists. I could get some insults like, "Well, you're just a wannabee!" I even wonder what's the guarantee that these fools will listen to a real constitutionalist or economist who disagrees with their comfort zone views?

Let's say that one day that those people who insulted me to be just a wannabee meet someone I can only dream of becoming. Let's just say that this is a constitutionalist who finally says, "We need to make important amendments. The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines isn't the best in the world." The economist says, "Economic protectionism hasn't made countries better." I guess chances are they'll call that Filipino a "traitor" and tell that foreigner to "shut up and mind one's own country". In short, they'll contradict themselves eventually. 

"Other countries benefitted through protectionism!"

This is yet another blatant lie yet it persists. I could remember talking about Singapore again. Some say Singapore only opened to foreign investment because of its lack of natural resources. The other lie is that Singapore only opened to foreign trade after protectionism made it a first-world country. Such a claim was refuted by Lee's From Third World to First. As Lee mentioned, would've Singapore waited for its locals to become industrialists, they would've starved.

The history of protectionism has been proven disastrous. Recent examples today are how China's increasing protectionism may ruin it. We also have North Korea and Venezuela. The Philippines' long history of protectionism has never made it the top ASEAN nation. Slowest Internet, weak education system, Filipinos having to become OFWs because of a lack of jobs. Meanwhile, countries not using protectionism have defeated the Philippines economically. 

"It's only worse for some countries not because of protectionism but because of US sanctions and (insert other ridiculous reasons)." 

I cited two countries namely North Korea and Venezuela. A satellite image from space has shown China, North Korea, and Vietnam at night. In between the two brightly lit countries at night is a very dark North Korea. Venezuela is pretty much a destroyed country in spite of its rich oil reserves. I could name that protectionism destroyed them. However, some fools even say, "No, it's not protectionism. It's the fault of the US that Venezuela is poor! It's the fault of South Korea that North Korea is poor."

This is really nothing more than a blame game. It's as stupid as the late Mao Zedong when he blamed the sparrows for the poor harvest. What Mao did was order the massacre of sparrows. The result was that the pests the sparrow ate consumed much more grain than the sparrows. I even wonder if these fools would blame Taiwan that Mao's China is poor. Fortunately, Deng decided to learn from Lee's Singapore in his grand economic scheme for a prosperous Communist China. 

"How many times do I need to tell you the Philippines isn't Singapore, isn't China, isn't Vietnam, etc."

This is one comment that I can get. I had a tedious (yet also amusing conversation) with such a person. I can't be sure if he doesn't know what he's talking about (because of his bad spelling) or if he's just there to mislead people because he's paid to do so. Either way, I'm laughing at his comments because of how ignorant his statements are. When I mention other countries, that person could only say that the Philippines isn't Singapore then the list of countries can go on.

Is it me or is there this thinking that the Philippines is the most unique country in the world? The statement, "Only in the Philippines" can be easily misused and abused. What's the pride anyway of hazardous public transportation like the jeepneys when it's time to upgrade? Are these people saying that the Philippines should be protectionist because it's not this or that country that progressed through acceptance of foreign investment?

"But that's the way the Philippines has been and we should never change it!"

This is nothing more than the fallacy of appealing to tradition. I could remember getting annoyed at people who love to dilly-dally. As mentioned earlier, I was actually told to "go back to China" if I liked being on time. Well, good luck because the Chinese embassy fully knows I'm no Chinese citizen hiding in the Philippines. Is it me or do some people actually enjoy their bad habits and use their Filipino status to justify them? It's like the statement, "We can't do anything about that. That's the typical Pinoy!" 

This has also been used to defend economic protectionism. They can say that they're used to it. Once again, it's just another habit to defend one's blunder. It's like being habitually late and saying, "Well, that's the Philippines for you!" To say the Philippines should remain protectionist because it was "used to it" is like not abandoning bodily destructive habits because one is "used to it." Economic protectionism is nothing more than opium to the Philippines. It's hard to get rid of but it must be gotten rid of.