Using Controversial Bamban Mayor Alice Leal Guo as a Reason to Say #NoToEconChaCha is Logically Fallacious

I can't be sure if Alice Leal Guo (if that's ever her real name) is either a spy for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) or a criminal hiding from Chinese justice. As much as I'm now wary of the Philippines doing business with the CCP--I believe that the POGO operations are actually run by Chinese criminals hiding from the CCP. The CCP isn't just notorious for its brutal policies on its citizens but also for crime. Do drug dealing in China and you may face the same fate as the three Filipino drug mules last 2011. In my own speculation, Alice is actually an illegal migrant hiding from the long arms of the CCP. Either way, she's getting very suspicious. My stand will always be if a Filipino does wrong abroad--the law of that country will deal with that Filipino. The same applies to any foreigner who breaks the law in the Philippines--the Philippine law will deal with that foreigner. 

However, it's no surprise some people take advantage of the Alice Leal Guo issue. These people use her or the issue to justify going against economic charter change. I wouldn't be surprised if the CBCP's former president Archbishop Socrates Villegas would raise this up to go against economic charter change. I wouldn't be surprised if Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. would raise this up to go against economic charter change. There's some high pride in several framers of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines and the CBCP. The CBCP would take pride in their participation in the EDSA 1986  Revolution. I'm not going to ignore any good EDSA 1986 did. The problem I still have is how people refused to focus on fixing EDSA and keep talking about the Marcos Years' damage rather than repairing it. I can compare the Marcos Years to a hurricane. People should focus on how to fix the damage done by the hurricane than cry over the aftermath of the hurricane while doing nothing. 

The issue is that any talks for economic charter change end up with much foolishness. The foolish argument can go something like, "If charter change is implemented with foreign investment, it will mean that China will control the Philippine economy." I won't name the person or the ones commenting. Do they even understand the meaning of FDI? Calling FDIs as invaders (read here) is what the late Lee Kuan Yew would call a third-world mentality. Investment is investment and invasion is invasion. It's not like. It's not as if the Philippines can't pass economic regulations through legislation. These regulations can include basic pay laws, employee welfare laws, taxation laws, and the like to make sure that the Philippines gets taxes from FDIs. 

A good example is how Israel uses strict budgetary discipline. Singapore may accept FDIs but it practices the Green Singapore Policy. Restrictions like environmental laws, labor laws, and the like, are pretty much like laws that govern tenants if they wish to continue doing business on a space for rent. 

Now, to look through logical fallacies with the arguments using Alice herself as a reason to say #NotoEconChaCha

Using Alice herself is a complete non sequitur. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as:

1

: an inference (see INFERENCE sense 1) that does not follow from the premises (see PREMISE entry 1 sense 1)

specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative (see AFFIRMATIVE entry 1 sense 3) proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent (see CONSEQUENT entry 1 sense 1)

2

: a statement (such as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

We were talking about the new restaurant when she threw in some non sequitur about her dog.

An example of a non-sequitur policy is saying because the Philippines has been open to FDI (to a certain extent) that an illegal Chinese (and I think Alice is one) became the mayor of that said place. It's not as if allowing a certain degree of FDIs automatically means illegal aliens are allowed to run for office. FDIs must still register their businesses, follow employment laws, get their permits to invest as foreigners, and pay taxes. The problem is Alice can become mayor despite her really questionable background. This is not the same as an FDI investing in the Philippines with proper documentation.

Another logical fallacy is the slippery slope argument. It's defined by Texas State University as:

In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen.

It's like saying that the Philippines will become a colony for the Chinese, with Alice as the "only evidence" that it would. They may fail to present examples of countries with better FDI policies that allowed them to deal with illegal Chinese better. They may fail to see that Vietnam may no longer have good working relations with China. They may fail to see that Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad dumped Chinese projects. Who says that accepting FDI means letting the Chinese do what they want, letting China take over it, and let illegal Chinese sit for office and legalize them? Again, that's a very slippery slope.

With the Alice Leal Guo controversy in mind, it's really not a good argument to use her to go against economic charter change. I'd want them to try and take their arguments to the ASEAN countries, such as Singapore or Malaysia, first. Maybe, they'd be asked, "Do you think you can only get investments from China?'