No Need for 100% FDI Shares Ownership if Filipino Politicians Were Just Like Shinzo Abe?

Today is the second death anniversary of Shinzo Abe, the former Japanese prime minister. It's a sad fact that Abe died so soon via assassination. This reminds me of a certain fool on Facebook (who's got a strong anti-Marcos rhetoric) who said, "We don't need 100% FDI share ownership. We just need strong leaders like Shinzo Abe!" The same fool had already blocked me on Facebook. I want to really dance for joy when it happens. As I examined his logic, I found that many Filipinos still misunderstand the lack of FDI inflow. Of course, some keep talking about the late Benigno Simenon C. Aquino III, as to why there's no need for constitutional reform (read here). However, relying on past successes as not to improve anything in the present, will murder any more chances for future successes.

There's a real problem with the statement. One needs to take a look at the Constitution of Japan. Some might argue that it's actually older than the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. However, I'd like to say that the issue (at times) is that it's not because something is new or old. It's about whether something new or old delivers results or not. To say that nothing is wrong with the Constitution and should "never be amended" is wrong. However, I'd like to point out that the Constitution of Japan still works because of the following:

  1. Japan, by default, is a Parliamentary System. This actually goes hand-in-hand with Japanese having a strong sense of honor. Not that I support the seppuku culture though! A parliamentary system makes it 
  2. Japan doesn't contain the ridiculous economic restrictions found in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines!
This is what makes me ask them, "What kind of government does Japan have?" They often argue stuff like:
  1. The parliamentary system is suitable for countries like Japan and Malaysia, because their officials are not corrupt, unlike the Philippines.
  2. The parliamentary system didn't work during Marcos' time, so Filipinos should avoid it. Never mind that the first Marcos administration was still presidential in character

The problem is that we think that countries will not mind the ridiculous 60-40 policy if only more politicians were like Abe. I could fire a question like, "Was Noynoy like Abe or Mahathir Mohamad?" They could either get defensive or just say, "Yes." However, they could keep talking about Joseph Marcelo Ejercito (who I believe, was really corrupt), Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and Rodrigo R. Duterte (who is currently detained at the more humane ICC cells). 

It's a huge problem when Filipinos still misunderstand what 100% FDI shares ownership actually means (read here). These economic neanderthals think that it means, "The Philippines is for sale." What's even funnier is that some people may actually think, every country has a 60-40 proposal! Where did that person get his information? From the mouth of a Catholic priest, who is a member of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines? From the mouth of Makabayan members bloc? From the mouth of the likes of Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. and Atty. Christian Monsod? Please share your source to back those sources!

For a start, they need to answer why Communist Vietnam has become the more ideal place for FDI (read here). Vietnam doesn't look like the ideal place to invest because it's under a One-Party State. The faces of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin are placed in several public areas. Vietnam has the Communist flag flying around. However, Vietnam has more FDI inflows than the Philippines. What's ignored or not noticed, is that the Constitution of Vietnam (which may be their Communist manifesto) is pretty silent on economic restrictions. Rising protectionism (such as tariffs) should only be done in legislation, or in times when the economy is overheating. However, the Philippines' problem is that it has excessive restrictions placed in the Constitution. It doesn't become easy to adjust economic restrictions when needed, because it's already in the "sacred inviolalate text" of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.

Is To Lam really like Shizo Abe, for a start? To Lam became the new General Secretary (or chairman) of the Communist Party of Vietnam. To Lam had that controversial scandal where he ate a gold-covered steak, right after he laid flowers on Marx's grave. I confess that I still laugh thinking about To Lam's steak scandal. It's because To Lam ate that gold steak while Vietnam has food security, unlike Venezuela. Vietnam's not really squeaky clean with corruption. However, I must admire Vietnam's Doi Moi, something that economic neanderthals fail or refuse to understand. 

On the side of FDI, the real problem isn't corruption or whether the one in power is from a political dynasty. It's the 60-40 economic provision. Sure, one can blame corruption. Just think that on April 29, 1960, the late Carlos P. Garcia (infamous for his Filipino First Policy) launched an anti-corruption campaign. Garcia lost the reelection bid to the late Diosdado Macapagal. Some might quote the late Alejandro Lichauco (who I heard is Sen. Maria Theresa "Risa" Hontiveros-Baraquel's uncle by marriage) but did the Philippines really become an Asian Tiger at that time? What's also ignored is that the first Marcos administration was marred not just by corruption, but also by economic protectionism.

We can blame corrupt officials for lack of FDI, but in this angle. Corrupt politicians may still be adhering to Filipino First Policy, to further their power. What's ironic is that Communist Vietnam, which is ruled by a One-Party State, actually allows more FDI to flow. One's a democracy but why is it overly restrictive with FDI. The other is a dictatorship that ironically allows more FDI. I can blame corruption for a lack of investment, but only when corrupt officials continue to allow Filipino First Policy, to flourish. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Outdated Database of a Die-Hard 1987 Constitution of the Philippines Apologist

"But the Philippines Isn't Taiwan!" is Just Another Lame Excuse to Justify Filipino First Policy

Davide Contradicts Himself by Having Experience as a UN DIPLOMAT While Supporting the Filipino First Policy

How Private-Owned Businesses Finance Government Spending

Taiwan: The Little David That Defeated the Protectionist Goliath, China

Why the DSWD Still Needs PRIVATE Sectors in Disaster Relief Operations

Like Taiwan, the Philippines Can Beat China Economically But It Must Swallow "Filipino First", First!

Why Businesses Need to Adapt to New Technology and New Information, Not Get Stuck in the Stone Age

Trying to Get Rich Quick, Aren't We?

No Hard-to-Earn Economics Degree is Required to Know That a Welfare, Anti-FDI Philippines is Destined to FAIL