Accepting FDIs isn't a Threat to Philippine Independence, It's All About Developing Economic INTERDEPENDENCE

Bongbong Marcos' Facebook Page

It's June 12, and it's time for Philippine Independence Day. Given that today is a Friday, it's an Independence Day long weekend. I was thinking about not writing anything today, but the IBON Foundation wrote an entry called "Still Dreaming of Freedom", which is built on the Filipino First Policy. I would be writing this Philippine Independence Day post to talk about economic interdependence. In 2024, I wrote a post where I discussed that Philippine Independence Day doesn't mean rejecting FDI altogether. 

Wait, isn't FDI a form of neocolonialism?

For a start, FDI isn't neocolonialism. To understand, Britannica defines neocolonialism as:

neocolonialism, the control of less-developed countries by developed countries through indirect means. The term neocolonialism was first used after World War II to refer to the continuing dependence of former colonies on foreign countries, but its meaning soon broadened to apply, more generally, to places where the power of developed countries was used to produce a colonial-like exploitation—for instance, in Latin America, where direct foreign rule had ended in the early 19th century. The term is now an unambiguously negative one that is widely used to refer to a form of global power in which transnational corporations and global and multilateral institutions combine to perpetuate colonial forms of exploitation of developing countries. Neocolonialism has been broadly understood as a further development of capitalism that enables capitalist powers (both nations and corporations) to dominate subject nations through the operations of international capitalism rather than by means of direct rule.

The term neocolonialism was originally applied to European policies that were seen as schemes to maintain control of African and other dependencies. The event that marked the beginning of this usage was a meeting of European heads of government in Paris in 1957, where six European leaders agreed to include their overseas territories within the European Common Market under trade arrangements that were seen by some national leaders and groups as representing a new form of economic domination over French-occupied Africa and the colonial territories of Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands. The agreement reached at Paris was codified in the Treaty of Rome (1957), which established the European Economic Community (EEC), or Common Market.

FDI can become a tool of neocolonialism. However, Investopedia's definition of foreign investments is as follows:

Foreign investment occurs when capital is invested in another country by acquiring ownership stakes in businesses or purchasing financial assets. It plays a key role in global capital flows, drives economic growth, creates jobs, and brings in new technologies. But it can raise concerns about national sovereignty and economic independence. There are two forms: foreign direct investment (FDI), which involves the control or ownership of a company, and foreign portfolio investment (FPI), which involves purchasing financial assets without a controlling interest. Foreign investment has evolved from early trade to a regulated system.

While Investopedia also raises concerns, we need to look at the importance of FDI:

Why Is Foreign Investment Important?

Foreign investment helps develop ties between different countries, promotes international trade, and can be economically beneficial to both the foreign and domestic country. The International Trade Administration claims foreign investment “plays a major role in the U.S. economy, both as a key driver of the economy and an important source of innovation, exports and jobs.”

In short, when we look into reality, FDIs aren't automatically exploitative. What is needed are balanced restrictions. Plus, these restrictions should only be done within legislation, not tightly written into the constitution. FDIs only get rich based on the net profits after taxes. However, it's a big problem that some people think that revenues equal profits, a very classic mistake that kills a business.

This makes Atty. Hilario Davide G. Jr.'s claim that FDIs will turn the Philippines into a colony of businessmen from other countries. However, Davide's view would be rejected by pragmatic grandfathers like Mahathir Mohamad (the former prime minister of Malaysia) and Kishore Mahbubani. Mahbubani saw Singapore rise from third world to first. Davide can talk all he wants but if he couldn't provide empirical data for his claim of FDI takeover, what he says stays merely an opinion!

What does it mean to develop economic interdependence through FDI?

It's easy to say that the Philippines has become dependent on the US. I believe that's a serious problem. I'm not saying that the Philippines should cut ties with the US. The big problem is that the Philippines becomes dependent on the US, like the opinion of Americans who know nothing about the entire picture. It's one thing to provide advice. It's another thing to be meddlesome when another country shouldn't meddle. Now, to think that I'm not going to cut ties with the US. My aim is to avoid the Philippines from becoming dependent on America.

To define interdependence, we need to look into this definition on Start My Wellness:

Codependency vs. Interdependence

In the vast realm of human relationships, the intricacies of our bonds often balance between reliance and autonomy. At times, this balance shifts in subtle yet significant ways, setting our trajectory toward excessive dependency. Determining where our relationships stand can often mean the difference between feeling trapped and feeling free.

In relationships, codependency is an over-reliance of two or more individuals on each other for autonomy, motivation, and self-worth. This unhealthy reliance can breed resentment and power imbalances while limiting the individuality of both parties. In contrast, interdependence celebrates the strength of mutual respect, allowing individuals to flourish collectively in their relationships.

While codependency and interdependence look similar from the outside, they have vastly different motivations and implications for mental health. This article will delve deep into relationship dynamics to shed light on what it means to be in a healthy, interdependent relationship.

Understanding Interdependence

Interdependence embodies mutual reliance between two individuals, offering synergistic benefits from the participation of both.

In other words, interdependent relationships function optimally when both individuals benefit from their combined efforts. Synergistic refers to their bond being stronger than the combined sum of the individuals.

At its core, interdependence embodies mutual reliance. Contributing elements within an interdependent relationship functionally depend on one another for harmony, balance, and self-improvement.

The key word here is functionally depend, which refers to the necessity of the bond for mutual support and growth. Within this bond, both people retain their inherent individuality while participating dependently in a healthy relationship.

Overall, interdependence strikes the balance between dependence and independence in a relationship.

When nations are interdependent, it's all about benefiting both sides. In basic biology, that's what you call mutualism. The 60-40 policy should be viewed not as promoting interdependence but as parasitism on the part of the oligarch. It's because letting FDIs invest in your country is aimed at mutual benefit for both the FDI and the host country. I can name some of the ways mutual benefits happen. Now, let's move forward to the benefits, such as:

1. My favorite example to raise concerns is taxes. The more businesses there are, the more taxes will be paid. After all, FDIs are destined to be taxed based on how much taxable income they earn during the quarter, or they get to pay 12% VAT. When I look at my receipts from FDIs like McDonald's, Chatime, Gong Cha, Xiaomi, Samsung, Huawei, etc., there's always the receipt and the BIR notice that tells customers to ask for a receipt. This is the first step to debunking the ridiculous myth that only FDIs will get rich if you let them invest in the Philippines.
2. FDIs will naturally end up buying local out of necessity. FDIs will have to buy basic goods from local wholesalers, hire local transportation services from locals, get local cleaning services, buy local foods/beverages, buy local food products, to name a few of local businesses that can benefit.
3. The competitor of one's customer can become the next customer. For example, a rice merchant was selling to Filipino restaurants, but because of more FDI restaurants, they would eventually sell to the competitor as well.
4. People who are part of the oligarchy would be forced to compete. Why is it that the Philippines has poor services? Businesses that lack competition will become complacent over time. That's why I often say that Filipinos need more competition over democracy. What could will democracy be if no one can express their opinions because they are so poor and can barely eat three meals a day?

In the end, the mutual benefit is both countries. The FDIs get rich, but they also enrich the host country. It's been tried and tested that FDI-friendly countries have succeeded. The Philippines couldn't afford to keep depending on Pinoy Pride Economics, because such pride will never put food on the table!