Anti-Constitutional Reform Agenda Is An OBSOLETE Concept Embraced By LOSERS

It's really something that the quality of the articles by Get Real Philippines is getting worse. Rather than talk about solutions - Benign0 is actually even more vindictive than Benigno. All Benign0 is doing now is getting vindictive. Like really does it matter anymore what Frankie Cuneta Pangilinan and Agot Isidro (or anyone like them) think? Then I remembered Benign0 had one article which makes me think about the loser agenda called "Loser mentality: Filipinos’ 500-year dependence on foreign investment". That's why CoRRECT Philippines is right to make the Benign0- Benigno comparison. Benign0 lives in Australia a country that greatly benefited from FOREIGN INVESTMENT yet he calls it "loser mentality". I really find it laughable at many points. However, while I do usually talk about foreign investment (and some anti-charter change people are for it) but I'd like to really talk about why I consider the Anti-Constitutional Reform Agenda as an OBSOLETE concept embraced by losers.

Protectionism as a concept embraced by LOSERS

The whole cry out against foreign direct investment (FDI) is always accompanied by a long-range of stupid excuses. I'm really amazed at how Malaya Business Insight even made a wicked caricature against FDI by saying that only they will get rich. Neri Colmenares himself also perpetuates the same lie that the moment you let FDI in then you are endangering the local businesses. Then you have the excuse that FDIs are invaders. That's why I even have to laugh at the idea that Rappler "defends" democracy when it allows people like Toady Casino to be part of it. Casino tries to perpetuate the same lie (which I think he knows is a lie) about foreign investors are arriving in the Philippines in the name of "conquest". Hilarious Davide even thinks that the Philippines will become a colony as a result of FDIs in the Philippines These are all ideas embraced by LOSERS. What's the use really of hating Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. when you support protectionism?

Why would a real winner embrace FDI? Think of the big-time job provider, didn't get a single cent from the government, WINNER, John Gokongwei II. I remembered writing a post where I talked about life-lessons for Filipinos from Gokongwei. Guess who went from the middle class to poor to rich? It's Gokongwei! Gokongwei's family lost much during the war and rather than whine - he decided to work hard until he became one of the richest Filipinos. Yes, I'm going to refer to Gokongwei as a FILIPINO even if he's Chinese by blood. You can think of how Gokongwei himself is a businessman, industrialist, and tycoon. That means he knows better than I do about business, economics, earning money, and why constitutional reform is needed. That makes Davide a LOSER and Gokongwei a WINNER. Gokongwei doesn't need to be a government crony like the oligarchs during the Marcos YEars. It's because Gokongwei embraces competition unlike the oligarchs who want more protection for their BIG BUSINESSES.

Any businessman goes by an analysis by SWOT - Strengths, Weaknesses, OPPORTUNITIES, and Threats. Why did I spell opportunities in caps lock and in bold for emphasis? It's because any good businessman knows the opportunity. If there are FDI sure they can be a threat if you belong to the SAME industry. However, what if you sell basic goods and you're probably just a small to medium scale businessman selling basic goods? It would be an OPPORTUNITY to see yourself grow. Any good businessman while not whine, "But only FDIs will get rich!" Instead, he will say, "Okay, let them in and I'm also going to get rich! Mwahahahahaha!" He would go and find new customers and new service providers. If he sells commodities then he will try and convince an FDI to buy his quality basic goods. He may be selling them rice or corn to feed their employees (assuming they do) or to serve their customers. He may be selling the flour to make pizza or different types of Indian bread. He may also be taking advantage of more service providers and suppliers that will give him more shipments and raw materials if he's on the production side. A real businessman sees FDIs not just as threats but as OPPORTUNITIES. For him, threats are there to help him keep himself on track.

In turn, the FDIs will benefit the government of the Philippines. It's because job providers are producing taxes - not the other way around. Not all people employed today are taxpayers - that is if their income doesn't meet the minimum requirement. However, their employers are the taxpayers. Let's just say that the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) has a lot of lists. Let's say that they will have several new books to take care of because there are more registered taxpayers. It's the rule of business that where you earn your income is where you pay. You only pay for income earned in the Philippines or wherever you earned it. FDIs are still required to declare their income and pay their taxes PROPERLY if they want to continue doing business here. They can't abscond with their wealth and leave (as Neil Doloricon the artist from Hindi Malaya) suggests but they have to declare it. That is they may be paying Value Added Tax (VAT) every month, the quarterly taxes, and their Annual Income Tax Return (AITR) as part of their requirement to continue investing and getting rich in the Philippines.

The Imperial Manila system is embraced by LOSERS

Now, we need to consider the federal vs. unitary concept. One can argue some progressive countries are unitary. Now, we've got Colmenares who also warned that the government can get more centralized through federalism. You also have clowns who claim that federalism will give rise to warlords and dynasties. Are they unable to read or are they purposely re-reading it? The claim by the Monsods is laughable. Unfortunately, the quest to decentralize the Philippines is just going to get tiresome. What's the use of the Balik Probinsya (Back to the Province) program if all development usually happens in certain areas, most especially IMPERIAL MANILA? The concept is embraced by losers who benefit from the decisions in IMPERIAL MANILA because they don't want a give and take relationship, right?

What would make federalism a winner in CERTAIN CASES? It's because the Philippines is too culturally diverse. Why do you think the Philippines is divided into 18 regions? I find it useless to divide the Philippines into 18 regions if all decisions are still made in IMPERIAL MANILA. What's the use of hating China if we copy it's rather ineffective "All decisions are made by Beijing!" type of government? The rule of the emperors may be over but Beijing seems to act like the Forbidden City is running China. I remembered my trip to China and the incident where Beijing had the worst traffic jam in history. The Chinese government is really a loser because it not only picks on weaker neighboring countries like Taiwan but also its OWN citizens. The Han Chinese don't even treat non-Han Chinese well. Doesn't that remind you of the Imperial Tagalog system?

Federalism is a concept for winners because it's not afraid to delegate powers to others. Don't believe that federalism is a country of many constitutions. Have you ever read the Constitution of Malaysia? Malaysia has only ONE constitution that governs the federation. A two-way federal government for the Philippines has it that the central government (National Capital Region) shares its powers with the other 17 regions under ONE constitution. It's for a government of a huge country that's not afraid to let others decide for them. Any parent must have the aim for their children to learn to be independent WITHOUT them. Unfortunately, the current Philippine government is babying everyone. Worse, other Filipinos end up trying to find jobs in Manila because it's not available in the other regions. A bully doesn't share his powers. A good leader consults his fellow directors and managers in regards of how to run the company better for people. A good leader is not afraid to delegate powers to qualified people because he or she cares more about the organization than himself. Only a bad leader wants more and more power for himself or herself. The results would be getting dictatorships instead of democracies.

Presidentialism is a concept embraced by losers

It's getting annoying how the Yellowtards keep saying, "Democracy is dead!" as if the Liberal Party is the founder of democracy. Was Democritus the Greek Philosopher and founder of the concepts of democracy, a member of the Liberal Party? The presidential system itself is usually flawed for one reason - PERSONALITY-BASED POLITICS. One good reason why the USA is falling down is because of the presidential system. Meanwhile, some presidential countries are doing better (such as South Korea and Taiwan) because they introduce parliamentary elements in an otherwise presidential system. South Korea may have a president with a single term of five years but the prime minister serves for as long as possible. Meanwhile, countries like Malaysia, Singapore, and Japan are full parliamentary. In my case, I prefer to have a presidential head of state and a parliamentary head of government. The opportunity should've happened last 1986 with the late Corazon C. Aquino as a ceremonial figurehead (because she was such during the revolution) while the brains of the revolution form the Philippine parliament.

So why was there a lot of talk against the parliamentary system with a lot of misinformation? Consider the attempted shift during the time of Fidel V. Ramos and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Ramos himself wanted to shift to parliamentary seeing that THE SYSTEM also plays a part in shaping up people. Just remember Lee Kuan Yew didn't wait for Singaporeans to straighten up. Instead, Lee decided to implement the rules there, and then that led to Singapore's rise to power. The same happened when Deng Xiaoping decided to implement new rules and a new system for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) that allowed it to progress. Taiwan was also very poor once, even poorer than the Philippines, before it rose up to what it is today. The whole scare that it'll result in Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo becoming a dictator or that Marcos was a prime minister is bogus. Marcos was ousted as a PRESIDENT, not as a PRIME MINISTER. If Marcos was a prime minister then he would've already been impeached by a vote of no confidence and arrested in the parliament.

The problem with the presidential system is that relies too much on presidential campaign debates, press conferences (and Antonio Trillanes IV is really known for it), and the winner takes all scenario. I guess when Bum Aquino said, "Democracy is dead!" - it's because winners take all. Bum himself could've opted for constitutional reform but failed. Then it has me thinking about Loida Nicolas-Lewis when she said that Manuel "Mar" A. Roxas and Leni Loud Robredo are the ideal candidates. Does she want to defend her claim? Well, I'd say that it'd be better defended under a PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM.

Do you remember the presidential debates last 2016? Just imagine if EVERY WEEK there was a debate TELEVISED on both satellite and cable. That means even the pro-Dilawan media will have to GIVE the complete details. Let's just pretend that Rodrigo R. Duterte is titled Prime Minister Duterte and Roxas is titled the Opposition Leader. That means Alan Peter S. Cayetano is the Deputy Prime Minister and Leni Loud is the Deputy Opposition Leader. I could think that the debate between Duterte and Roxas had valid points from each side. What makes the parliamentary system a system for WINNERS is that the winner isn't afraid to take shots from the loser. When there's the government then there's the shadow government. It's the job of the Opposition to keep the government on its toes. That means Roxas as the Opposition Leader has his own set of appointees to compete against Duterte's set of appointees. Roxas wouldn't resolve to theatrics or wait until elections to prove himself. He will have EVERY WEEK to prove himself better than Duterte in a fair debate. If Roxas manages to prove himself EVERY WEEK then he can become Prime Minister in the next parliamentary elections. If not, he's automatically removed by a vote of no confidence. 

In this environment, Duterte as the prime minister must answer to Roxas as the opposition leader and vice versa. We can imagine that Roxas would have to prove Duterte wrong and right in many areas. Roxas' role is not just to criticize Duterte but also to give useful alternatives. Also, in a parliamentary, there would be no need to vote straight for #OtsoDiretsoSaSenado because Otso Diretso would already be in the Opposition if the Liberal Party is on that side of the fence. That means Otso Diretso will have their platform with everyone in the Liberal Party as the Opposition. Everyone in Duterte's party will be there without having to shade all the dots either. That means when you vote for PDP-Laban you vote for Duterte and EVERYONE in it. The same applies to all parties to make sure that there's tandem. The recent problem is that Leni Loud is a vice president from the opposition rather than working as a deputy opposition leader. Just imagine if Roxas and Leni Loud were in tandem on the Opposition while Duterte and Cayetano were in a tandem in the government. Truly, that kind of environment is for winners because winners win and lose gracefully in the face of REAL competition.