This is an interesting drawing I found on Facebook. It's often used to portray people who look at the removal of the unnecessarily restrictive 60-40 shares ownership policy as, "The current president's gift to China." The same was done during former Philippine president Atty. Rodrigo R. Duterte. The same was also done with Philippine President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. It makes me think of stupid comments written by idiots on Facebook. It would be ironic if a lot of anti-FDI and anti-American rants were made not only on Facebook but also were typed using Apple gadgets of all things! They may be quick to use whatever irrational reasons. Some reasons can range from foreigners "unfairly" owning the means to produce equipment (read here) and that they're simply forced to participate in the capitalist economy model to survive (read here). However, I must ask if these guys were forced to use the luxury brands they're using (read here).
As the map shows, some Filipinos say that FDI will destroy the "spirit of the country". It should be ironic that some of them are actually Catholics, belonging to a multinational religion. It should be stupid that members of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) should be happy about their shrines going international while going against FDI. They also mention China more than anything. It's almost like they never saw a world map. If they did--they probably think that the world as "one huge China". Please, it's not only Philippines and China. Ironically, some Filipinos against FDI are now asking for help from organizations like the International Criminal Court, the European Union, or just any non-Filipino critic of any politician they dislike. Can these people really make up their minds?
The definition of FDI would really prove that FDIs don't solely come from China:
Foreign investment represents part of the elaborate web of financial relationships between nations and corporations. It's a force that can transform skylines, revitalize industries, and reshape the economic destinies of entire regions. But it's also a phenomenon that raises critical questions about economic sovereignty, democratic preservation, and global power balance.
For the purposes of this article, we'll focus on foreign investment in its contemporary economic sense, leaving aside foreign aid and the investments in human capital and development by one country in another. We'll also set aside, at least explicitly, the historical context of military colonialism and imperialism that has long been intertwined with foreign investment and is broadly understood.
Historically, state engagements and corporate investments abroad have often been closely linked: foreign investments typically piggybacked on state alliances or military impositions in other regions. Examples range from the opening of China to foreign investment following efforts by various American administrations, starting with Richard Nixon, to the European colonialism that empowered domestic firms like the Dutch East India Company and their 20th-century successors that exploited so-called "banana republics" more beholden to foreign corporations than local populations.
Unlike colonialism, modern foreign investment, at least in theory, involves financial interests in a foreign region without direct political control; the transfer of capital is intended for both profit and mutual benefit. Foreign investment thus involves capital flows from one country to another, granting foreign investors ownership stakes in domestic companies and assets. This includes foreign direct investment (FDI), where investors have direct control over the foreign enterprise, and foreign portfolio investment (FPI), which involves purchasing securities and other financial assets without active management of the enterprise. The latter is also discussed as foreign indirect investment.
It's not like laws can't be passed or implemented to regulate FDIs that are 100% owned by the MNC. FDIs can own 100% of their shares (or in some cases, own land, which I'm still against). However, they're still subjected to laws like anyone who stays in the country. FDIs are still required to obey employment laws (which includes not going below the minimum wage), pay their taxes, renew their businesses, and follow environmental laws. Singapore had set his strict environmental laws. Vietnam accepts FDIs but requires them to follow the environmental law. It's because FDIs are like tenants. Tenants are required to follow the laws of the owner of the building or lot. If the tenants refuse to follow--the lessor is obligated to kick them out. The same applies to FDI--either they obey the laws where they invest or they can forget about investing!
Filipinos who still think about FDI equals Chinese invasion need to check all of their purchases and the establishments where the purchased happened. Did they just get a delivery from Grab (Singapore) and FoodPanda (Germany)? Were the drivers Filipinos or foreigners? Did they just get a new smartphone? Were the sales personnel Filipinos or foreigners? Did they just get a new iPhone? It may have come from Vietnam or China. It's because FDI isn't solely from China. The late Lee Kuan Yew invited American MNCs and other MNCs. When China progressed, Deng Xiaoping invited American MNCs. In short, FDIs really don't just come from China. China hasn't bought the world either. Many MNCs are exiting China. These MNCs aren't Chinese but from other countries.
It would be time to look at the removal of 60-40 this way. It would b create a more appealing environment to invest in. It's like if your previous occupation was so bad--you've got the right to leave. The Philippines' 60-40 arrangement may not prohibit but it certainly discourages FDIs from entering (read here).
Comments
Post a Comment