A debate, why not? But It’snt About FDIs Vs. DDIs; It’s Boosting Home Industries

Last night, my son, Bernhart Immanuel, forwarded to me an image of a message sent to him obviously by a pro-Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) group who would like to engage me in a virtual debate because of my posted views which preferred boosting homegrown industries.

Here is my reply to my son, who at a tender age, is very discerning of national issues:

“Anak, If the purpose of the debate is to convince me to see things their way, please tell them it would just be like convincing Pope Francis to convert to another religion.

And they are not getting the correct (no pun intended) message of my post. So, let me state it in all caps so they would read it clearly and understand:

1. I AM NOT AGAINST FDIs. WHAT I DO NOT AGREE WITH IS THE NOTION THAT IT IS ONLY THRU FDIs THAT THE COUNTRY WILL ATTAIN ECONOMIC PROSPERITY.

2. MY POSITION IS FOR GOVT TO FOCUS SUPPORT AND FUNDING FOR HOMEGROWN INDUSTRIES BECAUSE IT WILL INVOLVE UTILIZING LOCAL RESOURCES AND PROVIDING JOBS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE TO SPUR RURAL DEVELOPMENT;

3. ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM FDIs ARE SUPERFICIAL AND DO NOT FILTER DOWN TO THE COUNTRYSIDE WHERE THE PROBLEMS OF INSURGENCY AND POVERTY MAKE LIFE MISERABLE FOR MILLIONS OF FILIPINOS. BESIDES, FDIs COME AND GO DEPENDING ON THE PROFITABILITY OF THEIR VENTURE. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT: THEY ARE NOT IN LOVE WITH OUR COUNTRY OR OUR PEOPLE. IT’S ABOUT PROFITS WHICH THEY BRING BACK TO THEIR HOME COUNTRIES;

4. DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENTS BRING ABOUT INCLUSIVE AND INTERNALLY-DRIVEN ECONOMIC GROWTH AND THE BENEFITS SEEP DOWN TO THE GROUND IMPROVING LIVES OF FILIPINOS. GOOD OR BUST, THESE LOCAL INDUSTRIES WILL BE HERE WITH US AND THEIR INCOME WILL BE REINVESTED IN THE COUNTRY;

5. WHAT I MOST DISAGREE WITH IS FOR OUR GOVT-OWNED BANK ESTABLISHED TO SUPPORT AGRICULTURE,LBP, LENDING P4.2-B TO AN FDI WHICH WENT BANKRUPT WHILE POOR FILIPINO FARMERS ARE REQUIRED TO ACCOMPLISH A BOXFUL OF DOCUMENTS AND COLLATERALS JUST TO BE ABLE TO BORROW P1-M.

6. SO, THEY WOULD LIKE TO BRING IN FDIs TO DISMANTLE THE MONOPOLY BY FILIPINO OLIGARCHS? ARE THEY CERTAIN THAT THESE FDIs ARE NOT OWNED BY OLIGARCHS IN THEIR HOME COUNTRIES? MONOPOLIES ARE BEST ADDRESSED BY STRICT REGULATIONS. REMEMBER HOW CHINESE REGULATORS BROUGHT ALIBABA DOWN TO ITS KNEES? THEY DID NOT AMEND THE CHINESE CONSTITUTION TO DO THAT.

So, they are asking for a debate?

Sure, why not? Remember, I was a member of my college debating team. I could also engage your cousin, Atty. Bernice Joanna Piñol, champion debater of the CVC Law Debates, to back me up.

But we have to agree on the bone of contention and topic of the debate.

It cannot be, RESOLVED: THE ENTRY OF FDIs INTO THE COUNTRY IS BENEFICIAL TO NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT because I am not against the entry FDIs and I agree that FDIs indeed create jobs, so there is no conflict of positions.

I suggest that the topic of the debate should be RESOLVED: BOOSTING DOMESTIC INDUSTRIES BRINGS ABOUT INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE NATIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH.”

I am almost certain that they also won’t bite that because that is not what they want. They are girding for an “FDI vs. DDI” sort of conflict where there is none.

So, if there is no conflict of positions and views, what is there to debate about?

I suggest they wage a public information advocacy to convince people and our economic policy makers on the soundness of their proposal to amend the Constitution to provide incentives to FDIs and allow them 100% ownership of power, telecommunications and land.

The economic managers decide, I don’t.

We could start it in my Facebook page where i will post their position capsulized in a 1,000-word posit. That’s free of charge.

How’s that?”

#LetsCheckOurBackyardFirst!

#GovernanceIsCommonSense

(Attached are images of the message sent to my son, Imman, and other downloaded images related to this article.)