The Irony of #FilipinosAreNotForSale While Supporting Policies That Force Many Filipinos to Become OFWs

Currently, there's the people's initiative for charter change. In my case, I prefer to call charter change constitutional reform. There are people on Facebook who say, "No to cha cha, yes to tango." The tango means "Tanggalin ang gago." or "Remove the fool." in English. Some people even claim that people were paid PHP 100.00 to sign the People's Initiative. The tagline goes with #FilipinosAreNotForSale. However, the irony of it all is that they support the Filipino First Policy. Yes, that policy by the late former Philippine president, Carlos P. Garcia, who tried to make sure that the majority of economic players should only be Filipinos. However, the results have been rather miserable. The Filipino First Policy, I'd dare say, enabled the first Marcos Administration to do what it did. Even worse, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines still insists on it. 

The same old echo chamber composed of defenders of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines

To do so, some boomers tend to quote Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. on Facebook. Davide Jr. turned 88 and was able to celebrate his birthday with guests, despite his advanced age. Davide Jr. is also quoted when it comes to the whole desire to stop charter change or constitutional reform. Speaking of which, I wrote an entry where I asked if Davide Jr. knows how to bring the Philippines up in the Asian Century. That's why I dare 1987 Constitution apologists to take their arguments to the National University of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. I wonder what the NUS or the LKYSPP will have to reply. Some may even quote Davide Jr.'s statement on FDI like this one, which he said last 2018: 

MANILA - The provisions of the Constitution on foreign ownership should remain because amending it may lead to the Philippines being a "colony" of foreign investors, a former chief justice said Monday.

The Philippines has "one-fifth of the richest natural resources" and it was "designed that it should only be for Filipinos," said Hilario Davide Jr., a member of the commission that crafted the 1987 charter.    

"If you remove the Filipino citizenship requirement in the exploitation of natural resources, on the acquisition of public lands, or even in mass media, in education, you remove the solemnity of nationalism," he told ANC's Headstart.

Davide said lawmakers should be guaranteed to be incorruptible because Congress can be prevailed upon by foreign interests in order to favor exploitation of the country's natural resources.

"One country may have businessmen so strong because they have the money. If you are in Congress, there might be a temptation to agree to certain propositions, to reduce the limit, for instance, of Filipino participation and increase the participation of foreigners," he said.

"In the end, we will become a colony of businessmen of other countries," he added.

Davide said the 60-40 foreign equity ratio should stay also because the Philippine population is growing annually and they should have food security.

"What will you feed the people afterwards if all our assets here, natural assets, would be [granted] to foreign investors?...Congress should stick to it [60-40] and fully implement the same," he said.

The Constitution restricts ownership of certain areas of investments to firms with at least 60-percent Filipino capital.

The restriction also covers exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources through co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations.

It's easy to claim something. It's easy to mock me and call me gago because I'm not in the same league as the luminaries they so claim. They can say am I smarter than Christian Monsod, his wife Mrs. Solita Collas-Monsod, or the late Cecilia Muñoz-Palma. Speaking of which, it doesn't mean that an intellectually stupid person can't learn from brilliant people. I'm no genius myself but it doesn't mean I can't quote from geniuses in my articles! Do the words of Davide Jr. prove anything just because he said it and because he's a constitutionalist? I want to dare his supporters to go to Singapore and have a debate with the LKYSPP of the NUS. Maye, if they're lucky, they can find Kishore Mahbubani and try to prove him wrong and Davide Jr.. Why I mention Mahbubani is, because, like Davide Jr., he is a policymaker and a former UN diplomat. Pretty much, the playing field is more even than comparing Davide Jr. to the late John Gokongwei Jr.

They would often say, "We will not believe anyone if it's not Davide et al." Okay, this really creates a huge dilemma. It's just like not believing that your house is on fire because the person warning you isn't a fireman. If my house was on fire, do I need to wait for a fireman to tell me that my house, which is obviously on fire, is on fire? When I was told not to eat too much fatty food by a concerned friend, should I dismiss him or her because he or she isn't a doctor? The argument is pretty much Ad Hominem. In short, it's choosing to attack the person instead of focusing on the argument. Even worse, some of them start hurling insults such as calling a person "Sayad!" Sayad is a Tagalog word meaning insane. Ironically, the same person who's saying "Sayad! Sayad!" might be a sayad himself or herself. 

Then, of course, I can speak about economics and they tell me, "STFU! You're not an economist!" I could start citing some economists like the late Albert Winsemius and they'll say, "That's just a study by the white imperialists!" When I quote from a Filipino economist, I can expect them to say, "Why would you listen to a traitor?" What might be funnier is if I'm told those things online and they're using Apple products. If I'm not wrong, one of the members of the IBON Foundation is using a MacPRO to type her nonsense. This reminds me that I wrote about the Filipino obsession with the iPhone. I also wrote about wanting to import luxury items for Christmas while going against FDI. In short, they're self-contradictory hypocrites. 

Davide Jr. may have spoken this and that. However, I don't see people consulting him like they consult Mahbubani. Sure, fire all the racist Bumbay jokes at Mahbubani but that never changes facts. The fact that Mahbubani spoke from experience. Mahbubani grew up in an impoverished Singapore. Even both Communist countries, China and Vietnam, learned from Singapore. That's why I always fire shots and say, "Well tell that to Singapore."

The sad truth behind decades of Filipino First Policy, put Filipinos on sale

Sure, it's very easy to keep talking about the late Lee Kuan Yew when he talked about the Marcoses (read here). I guess these people who do so haven't truly read the book From Third World to First. Maybe, some people don't want to bother reading the book because of their emotional attachment to the late Flor Contemplacion (read here). I even wonder if their best source to justify their hatred is based on the movie, The Flor Contemplacion Story. The movie had two of her twin sons star as themselves in the same movie. The movie was made to try and paint Flor as some kind of martyr of injustice. Fortunately, further autopsies done on the late Delia Maga were done. The late Fidel V. Ramos, who originally wanted to cut ties with Singapore, would later reestablish ties. 

I wonder if the same people who keep citing LKY about the Marcoses, have actually read this part of the book or even heard of it. Again, I doubt it since most of my countrymen have very bad reading comprehension. Many people react and react without properly reading things. I even remember a stupid incident where people on Facebook badmouthed the mayor of Valenzuela for an incident that happened in Venezuela. Now, for what LKY had to say about the Philippines and labor export:

He (Ramos, emphasis mine) knew well the difficulties of trying to govern with strict American-style separation of powers. The Senate had already defeated Mrs. Aquino's proposal to retain the American bases. The Philippines had a rambunctious press but it did not check corruption. Individual press reporters could be bought, as could many judges. Something had gone seriously wrong. Millions of Filipino men and women had to leave their country for jobs abroad beneath their level of education. Filipino professionals whom we recruited to work in Singapore are as good as our own. Indeed, their architects, artists, and musicians are more artistic and creative than ours. Hundreds of them have left for Hawaii and for the American mainland. It is a problem the solution which has not been made easier by the workings of ta Philippine version of the American constitution. 

LKY's statement was said during the time of FVR. If only the Philippine government heeded LKY's advice on his dinner speech during the 1990s. 

Second: Concentrate on economics not politics or more accurately, politicking. Lift restrictions on trade and investment. Dismantle the web of measures which keep out foreign companies and make Philippine companies compete to survive, not thrive at the expense of ordinary Filipinos.

The consequences have bene that bad. How is it a good sign, anyway, that millions of Filipino men and women, have to leave the Philippines, be separated fro their loved ones, just to find work? Some people even work what might be literally 18 hours a day. I can't expect people who juggle multiple jobs to discipline their children. I guess that's one of the root causes as to why a lot of Filipinos are lacking in discipline or pasaway. Can you expect a husband and a wife who are working multiple jobs to make ends meet to notice their children are lacking discipline? Can you expect OFWs to be able to monitor their children closely from abroad? 

The root cause has to be all about the excessive restrictions on trade and investment. Some people can say, "But Israel has a restrictive economy!" Well, I did write about Israel's so-called restrictive economy. However, Israel's economic restriction isn't on corporate equity ownership. Instead, consider the following about Israel's restrictions on economic activities:

Israel’s fiscal policy is characterized by rather strict budgetary discipline, which is maintained by the significant power of the Ministry of Finance, a fiscal framework that sets limits on public deficits and annual increases in public spending, and the so-called Arrangements Law. The Arrangements Law is an omnibus law that is passed in parallel with each budget, consists of numerous restrictions and amendments, and is designed to secure the state’s financial goals.

Israel’s comparatively strong fiscal position was maintained during the pandemic. In terms of the deficit, Israel posted a budget deficit (ILBUD=ECI) of 4.6% of gross domestic product by the end of 2021, down from 5.5% during the same period in 2020. The improvement came as an economic rebound that has led to higher-than-expected tax revenue. Over the past year, tax income is up 23.1% from the same period in 2020 (BOI 2021). Consequently, the increase of public debt has been relatively low in comparison to other OECD countries.

The ILS 609 billion ($194 billion) spending plan for 2021 is the first budget Israel has passed since 2018. This delay was due to a prolonged political deadlock, which saw successive governments fall before they could bring a proposal to the Knesset. The 2022 spending plan stands at ILS 562.9 billion ($180 billion). The overall budget marks a major reorientation of Israel’s allocation of resources and financial priorities in the coming years. It is based on the principles of streamlining government operations, upgrading public services, boosting economic competitiveness, cutting regulations to support public and private sector growth, limiting Israel’s shadow economy, boosting transportation, housing, energy and technology infrastructure, and investing in human capital by training and integrating marginalized populations into the workforce (Ben David 2021).

The Knesset’s approval of the 2021–2022 budget has reduced political uncertainty and risks to public finances, affirming the government’s capacity to advance legislation. Fitch Ratings increased Israel’s rating from A to A+. According to Fitch Ratings, “Israel’s A+ rating balances a diversified, high value-added economy, which proved resilient to the COVID-19 pandemic, strong external finances and solid institutional strength” (Fitch Ratings 2021).

Citations: 

Bank of Israel (BOI), “Economic indicators: Public Sector Activity,” 2021. Retrived from: https://www.boi.org.il/en/DataAndStatistics/Pages/Indicators.aspx?Level=1&IndicatorId=5&Sid=5

Fitch Ratings (2021), “RATING ACTION COMMENTARY,” Retrived from: https://www.fitchratings.com/research/sovereigns/fitch-affirms-israel-at-a-outlook-stable-29-07-2021

Kershner, Isabel (2021), “Israel Passes First Budget in More Than 3 Years in Lifeline for Government.” The New York Times, 05 of January 2022. Retrived from: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/world/middleeast/israel-budget.html

Knesset 2021. “Knesset Plenum votes to approve 2021-2022 state budget and Arrangements Law” Retrived from: https://main.knesset.gov.il/EN/News/PressReleases/Pages/press51121q.aspx

Ben David, Ricky. 2021, “How much of a revolution? 13 key reforma in Israel’s new State Budget,” The times of Israel. Retrived from: https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-much-of-a-revolution-13-key-plans-in-israels-new-state-budget/

Some people might be foolish enough to believe in a game of conquest to justify the policies

It makes me laugh or cringe that some people think that OFWs are conquerors of the world. I remember a fat American man (who I believe is in his 60s now) who wished that the same program was done According to that fat American on Facebook (and mind you, he really hates Singapore) is that it's because Americans will get the jobs abroad from the locals. It's pretty screwed-up logic. If you get the job, you're practically under the control of the boss. Let's say I'm an OFW and I work in Singapore. I work at Singtel. If I got the job, did I conquer Singapore for my country? Instead, I'm under the authority of Singtel meaning that I'm required to follow the company rules and those who enforce the company rules. I can't tell them I'm conquering Singapore and keeping my job at Singtel. Even worse, I could face deportation for my seditious comments. 

I guess that's why some people rejoice at Jollibee opening in the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Ironically, they get mad at the proposal that more MNCs should be allowed. Their mindset is most likely geared to believe in a game of conquest. I wrote about why Filipinos need to put aside the myth of believing that game of conquering nations via MNCs and OFWs. Where OFWs are working, they need to follow the by-laws. Jollibee has opened here and there and each branch bows down to the country. Jollibee in Communist Vietnam must submit to the authority of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV). 

OFWs who believe that they're actually "conquering the world "are just plain deluded. Do you remember that Filipino nurse who thought he was "conquering Singapore"? Singapore ended up getting on to him. OFWs can be deployed if they violate simple rules such as basic peace and order. To think that they must "conquer or be conquered" is plain funny. It's because foreign companies and foreign workers are all required to follow the rules of that foreign land. 

Just how do people who are against reforming the economic provisions of the constitution, aim to create local labor? 

This reminds me of why Migrante International (read more about them here) is so hard to talk with. Some people even call them Migraine International on Facebook. It's because their arguments can cause a migraine. They want to stop labor exports but they want to continue insisting on economic protectionist policies. All the while, I believe some of them are using iPhones and MacPROs to spread their agenda. I doubt that Migrante's server and website-making platform are Filipino-based too. All that makes it even more hypocritical. I'm glad that someone on their page noticed me commenting. 

This would be a very important question. Maybe, they are still angry with Singapore because of the execution of Flor. It would be like if I'm still mad at Japan, Germany, and Italy, for what happened during the Second World War. Come on, the three AXIS power rulers are no more. The Japanese imperial family is just symbolic now. Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini are dead for a long time. In the case of Flor, defending her even when she was condemned by one of the best justice systems in the world, is something. Again, even if Flor was a victim of injustice, it seems like Filipinos hating Singapore are acting like injustices and wrongful punishments never happen in the Philippines. Some Filipinos still believe that both Hubert Jeffry P. Webb and Juan Francisco G. Larrañaga (Paco) were guilty. The truth is the real perpetrators of the crimes both Hubert and Paco were falsely accused of have not been found until now. 

If their proposal is through national industrialization (that is, transfer of private industries to government ownership), they better look at Venezuela and North Korea. They might go ahead and blame the US and South Korea for the poverty of both nations. Maybe, they're also blaming China for why North Korea is poor. It's because national industrialization has been proven not to work. Some of them even believe Vietnam is a protectionist state and that it's "FDI" is by selling its products worldwide. If that were true, why do I hear of a huge influx of FDI in Vietnam? Why don't people get products from Venezuela and North Korea? Blame the US and South Korea again? Unemployment in Venezuela and North Korea can only be blamed on their lousy economic policies. 

It's really foolish that they demand jobs for Filipinos at home but refuse can provide more jobs. Are they sure that all Filipinos are business-inclined? I guess I'll just give those quotes from LKY (and I don't mind if Migrante cries foul, if ever because it's from Singapore) to stress a point: 

Pages 57-58

After several years of disheartening trial and error, we concluded that Singapore's best hope lay with the American multinational corporations (MNCs). When the Taiwanese and Hong Kong entrepreneurs came in the 1960s, they brought low technology such as textile and toy manufacturing, labor-intensive but not large-scale. American MNCs brought higher technology in large-scale operations, creating many jobs. They had weight and confidence. They believed that their government was going to stay in Southeast Asia and their businesses were safe from confiscation or war loss.

I gradually crystallized my thoughts and settled on a two-pronged strategy to overcome our disadvantages. The first was to leapfrog the region, as the Israelis had done. This idea sprang from a discussion I had with a UNDP expert who visited Singapore in 1962. In 1964, while on a tour of Africa, I met him again in Malawi. He described to me how the Israelis, faced with a more hostile environment than ours, had found a way around their difficulties by leaping over their Arab neighbors who boycotted them, to trade with Europe and America. Since our neighbors were out to reduce their ties with us, we had to link up with the developed world-America, Europe, and Japan-and attract their manufacturers to produce in Singapore and export their products to the developed countries.

The accepted wisdom of development economists at the time was that MNCs were exploiters of cheap land, labor, and raw materials. This "dependency school" of economists argued that MNCs continued the colonial pattern of exploitation that left the developing countries selling raw materials to and buying consumer goods from the advanced countries. MNCs controlled technology and consumer preferences and formed alliances with their host governments to exploit the people and keep them down. Third World leaders believed this theory of neocolonialist exploitation, but Keng Swee and I were not impressed. We had a real-life problem to solve and could not afford to be conscribed by any theory or dogma. Anyway, Singapore had no natural resources for MNCs to exploit. All it had were hard-working people, good basic infrastructure, and a government that was determined to be honest and competent. Our duty was to create a livelihood for 2 million Singaporeans. If MNCs could give our workers employment and teach them technical and engineering skills and management know-how, we should bring in the MNCs. 

Page 66

Our job was to plan the broad economic objectives and the target periods within which to achieve them. We reviewed these plans regularly and adjusted them as new realities changed the outlook. Infrastructure and the training and education of workers to meet the needs of employers had to be planned years in advance. We did not have a group of readymade entrepreneurs such as Hong Kong gained in the Chinese industrialists and bankers who came fleeing from Shanghai, Canton, and other cities when the communists took over. Had we waited for our traders to learn to be industrialists we would have starved. It is absurd for critics to suggest in the 1990s that had we grown our own entrepreneurs, we would have been less at the mercy of the rootless MNCs. Even with the experienced talent Hong Kong received in Chinese refugees, its manufacturing technology level is not in the same class as that of the MNCs in Singapore. 

Pages 68-69 

If I have to choose one word to explain why Singapore succeeded, it is confidence. This was what made foreign investors site their factories and refineries here. Within days of the oil crisis in October 1973, I decided to give a clear signal to the oil companies that we did not claim any special privilege over the stocks of oil they held in their Singapore refineries. If we blocked export from those stocks, we would have enough oil for our own consumption for two years, but we would have shown ourselves to be completely undependable. I met the CEOs or managing directors of all the oil refineries-Shell, Mobil, Esso, Singapore Petroleum, and British Petroleum on 10 November 1973. I assured them publicly that Singapore would share in any cuts they imposed on the rest of their customers, on the principle of equal misery. Their customers were in countries as far apart as Alaska, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand, besides those in the region.

This decision increased international confidence in the Singapore government, that it knew its long-term interest depended on being a reliable place for oil and other business. As a result, the oil industry confidently expanded into petrochemicals in the late 1970s. By the 1990s, with a total refining capacity of 1.2 million barrels per day, Singapore had become the world's third largest oil-refining center after Houston and Rotterdam, the third largest oil trading center after New York and London, and the largest fuel oil bunker market in volume terms. Singapore is also a major petrochemical producer. 

To overcome the natural doubts of investors from advanced countries over the quality of our workers, I had asked the Japanese, Germans, French, and Dutch to set up centers in Singapore with their own instructors to train technicians. Some centers were government-financed, others were jointly formed with such corporations as Philips, Rollei, and Tata. After 4 to 6 months of training, these workers, who were trained in a factory-like environment, became familiar with the work systems and cultures of the different nations and were desirable employees. These training institutes became useful points of reference for investors from these countries to check how our workers compared with theirs. They validated the standards of Singapore workers.  

Until now, they haven't really provided solutions. All they do is just complain. That's why I can't take them seriously. If anything, they ironically contradict themselves. How can they keep saying Filipinos aren't for sale when the very policies they support, inadvertently end up putting Filipinos on sale?