Drilon Has GOT IT WRONG: It's REMOVING Economic Protectionism, NOT Political Dynasties, To Dismantle Oligarchy
It's really something when nobody bloggers or nobodies, in general, get it right and politicians get it wrong, right? What's so STUPID to read is that Senate Minorty Leader Franklin Drilon's argument to President Rodrigo R. Duterte is that it's all about political dynasties to end oligarchy. Why is this argument STUPID based on a COMMON SENSE point of view? What do political dynasties have to do with the oligarchy? They may have something to do with it but the BIGGER cause is NOT them but the ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM provision.
How did the oligarchy rise anyway? I'm not going to solely blame the 1987 Constitution. Before that, we had Carlos P. Garcia's "Filipino First" policy. Then we had the Marcos Years where economic protectionism allowed the rise of the Marcos Cronies. Remember protectionism shielded the big local businesses of the Philippines from the BADLY NEEDED competition. The result of excessive restrictions against foreign investment only blessed the oligarchs but NOT the Filipino people. Having very little competition allowed Marcos' crony capitalism to flourish. Even if we do get rid of all the Marcoses and the Aquinos but as long as Article XII's protectionist policies remain intact - the oligarch will still exist.
What's the real issue behind the oligarchy? Drilon had it partly right when he said to chase after companies leaving China. However, what's the use of chasing after them if they're told, "Well you can invest in the Philippines but you can only own 40% with a local Filipino partner." It's as absurd as renting a space and you're only allowed to own 40% of your business in that establishment. Obviously, I wouldn't lease that space if I'm required to be business partners with my landlord in the permit rather than be required to pay monthly rental. Did Drilon ever do his homework or is he too concerned about political dynasties?
Political dynasties aren't really an issue. For example, Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong are both competent leaders. However, having Kris Aquino run as senator because of her brother Noynoy Aquino is a bad idea. Political dynasties are only bad when they're under the popularity-based presidential system and not a credibility-based parliamentary system. We can write all the anti-dynasty laws we want and the oligarchy will still be there. After all, did the anti-political dynasty laws ever remove the excessive restrictions on foreign investors?
How did the oligarchy rise anyway? I'm not going to solely blame the 1987 Constitution. Before that, we had Carlos P. Garcia's "Filipino First" policy. Then we had the Marcos Years where economic protectionism allowed the rise of the Marcos Cronies. Remember protectionism shielded the big local businesses of the Philippines from the BADLY NEEDED competition. The result of excessive restrictions against foreign investment only blessed the oligarchs but NOT the Filipino people. Having very little competition allowed Marcos' crony capitalism to flourish. Even if we do get rid of all the Marcoses and the Aquinos but as long as Article XII's protectionist policies remain intact - the oligarch will still exist.
What's the real issue behind the oligarchy? Drilon had it partly right when he said to chase after companies leaving China. However, what's the use of chasing after them if they're told, "Well you can invest in the Philippines but you can only own 40% with a local Filipino partner." It's as absurd as renting a space and you're only allowed to own 40% of your business in that establishment. Obviously, I wouldn't lease that space if I'm required to be business partners with my landlord in the permit rather than be required to pay monthly rental. Did Drilon ever do his homework or is he too concerned about political dynasties?
Political dynasties aren't really an issue. For example, Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong are both competent leaders. However, having Kris Aquino run as senator because of her brother Noynoy Aquino is a bad idea. Political dynasties are only bad when they're under the popularity-based presidential system and not a credibility-based parliamentary system. We can write all the anti-dynasty laws we want and the oligarchy will still be there. After all, did the anti-political dynasty laws ever remove the excessive restrictions on foreign investors?
Comments
Post a Comment