Ninoy Aquino on Foreign Investors

Some people might say that Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. said something concerning about "developing ourselves". However, his speech in Los Angeles in 1981 reveals another crucial detail about what he actually thought about FDI during the first Marcos administration. That was a time when the Filipino First Policy festered into an economic crisis.

Q: If you will become the next president of the Philippines, what will you do with the U.S. investments or big foreign investments in the Philippines? 

A: That’s a very very good question because there is a misconception that if the opposition wins in the Philippines, we will kick out all American/foreign investments. But why should we do that? Foreign investments are in the Philippines to give employment to our people. We should watch against predatory foreign investments who are exploitative of the Filipino people. But I cannot accept that all foreign investments are exploitative. There are many foreign investments that are helpful to our country because there are many foreign multinationals that have technology which we do not have. We do not have the technology and digitals and computers. Who will teach us this? The idea is not to kick out foreign investment but to regulate foreign investment so that they will be mutually beneficial to both countries. Where they become exploitative, they should be extripated, but where they help the economy, they should be encouraged.

Plus, Ninoy Aquino said this about FDI and the oligarchy:

Finally, I do not believe in the monopoly of basic industries. Why should one family monopolize one electric company in the Philippines? Or why should one family monopolize the ownership of one airline company in the Philippines? Or why should one company monopolize the telephone company in the Philippines? So since the government is funding all of these to begin with, these families are borrowing from government institutions and must depend on government guarantees, then I say, let the government own them and let the people share in the profit. Christian Socialism therefore is nothing more than democracy.

I may not agree with the speech 100%, especially when it comes to mentioning the late Jose Maria Sison; Ninoy didn't believe in isolating the Philippines from the rest of the world. Although I believe Ninoy is mockingly stating that if the government must own all the basic services, everyone must have the profits then!  

As the debate for Pax Silica goes on, I always want to have a middle ground. If Pax Silica agrees to operate with environmental discretion, then by all means, yes. However, if Pax Silica refuses to operate with discretion, then no to Pax Silica. I want to exercise proper study that if Pax Silica couldn't be negotiated with or couldn't present its solutions on how to deal with the cooling system, how farmers can avoid being displaced, etc., then rejection becomes the last resort. 

Mutual benefits for both countries, not one over the other

The Philippines should put its economic restrictions within legislation only to regulate any FDIs. The question is, "Will it mutually benefit both countries or not?" Many times, people think that only FDIs will get rich if you let them invest in the country. The reality is that FDIs' only profit is based on net income after taxes. 

FDIs, when regulated properly (but not without the ridiculous, excessive equity rules in several sectors; Vietnam has only a few sectors under such rules, but only within legislation), have these benefits, to name a few:

1. Competition will force local businesses to innovate or perish. The regulation is the Fair Competition Act, which will make sure neither side can copy the other's confidential data, such as secret formulas.
2. Competition in the job market will naturally drive salaries up. After all, companies don't compete to see who can pay the lowest but who can pay the highest. The competition naturally drives the demand for labor up. Right now, the Philippines has low demand for labor and an oversupply of labor. 
3. Because of competition, local companies may actually benefit from having more service providers. A local business may get better Internet from an MNC while still being a local business. We can also name that Grab and Foodpanda are also helpful for local businesses to thrive.
4. FDIs can also end up as customers of local businesses. The need for direct materials, services, etc. can push FDIs to buy local and go local because of their location. A company may start buying wood from Mindanao to produce what they need. They can also end up buying excessive agricultural goods to minimize dumping. 
5. Filipinos end up acquiring new technology. Ninoy lamented that the Philippines was lagging behind. The practical approach is that the Philippines shouldn't care if the technology is foreign or Filipino, as long as it can help a Filipino entrepreneur.
6. The BIR would end up collecting more taxes. If you earn income, you naturally have to pay taxes when it enters a certain bracket, such as anything above PHP 250,000.00. An MNC may earn much more, meaning that taxes collected would be considerably higher, which in turn is beneficial for the Philippines' government expenses.
7. In turn, newer agricultural techniques can be used as an alternative if certain FDIs may not be suitable (ex., choosing an agricultural FDI over a data center, which may not be feasible in the Philippines). This will give Filipino farmers better technology to deal with both scarcity and excess. 

This is the reality in accepting and rejecting FDI. They are a case-by-case basis. Each FDI that may not require a local partner (to get 60% or higher) can either be beneficial or destructive. An FDI that would provide quality products, services, employment, and follow the rules is beneficial. An FDI that plays around the host country like it owns the country should be treated as a bad tenant.