Before I answer
the question, let me first define what I mean by “leftists.” I refer to the advocates
of nationalist democracy (NatDem) and socialist democracy (SocDem), who
knowingly or unknowingly, may have been influenced by teachings of the
communist movement, specifically the Communist International (Comintern) of
1919-1943.[i]
The Comintern was
an international organization that advocated world communism.[ii] It was determined to
"struggle by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow
of the international bourgeoisie and the creation of an international Soviet (i.e.
council) republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the
state."[iii]
Comintern “accepted the revolutionary potential of nationalism in the colonial
world.”[iv]
Notably, the
communist ideology was rooted in Marxism and similar schools of thought, that concerned
itself only with the poor worker class, the rich capitalist class, the conflict
between the social classes, the inevitable social revolution, and the goal of
common ownership of the means of production.[v] In other words, it was NOT
concerned with nationalities, ethnicity or race.
Nonetheless, in
order for the ideology to penetrate the colonial world (then ruled by the
capitalist powers of Western Europe and North America), the Comintern adopted
the strategy of agitating the colonized to rise up against the colonizer under
the banner of “nationalism.”
Thus, their
adherents were indoctrinated about the “evils” of foreign owned businesses (which
were mostly from the Western capitalist powers), and thereafter sent on global
missions to uproot and destroy them. Once the Western colonizers were weakened
if not defeated, the pure communist ideologues can come in to establish a new
world order.
Looking back at my
law school days, where I joined a SocDem group called Sandata, that was
affiliated with a larger coalition called Bandila, I guess I was among
those indoctrinated with ideas of “nationalism” that was basically
anti-foreign. In fact, in our course on constitutional law, we were made to
believe that limitations and restrictions on foreign investors under the
Filipino First policy, was “nationalist” and therefore patriotic.
Today, the
communist movement for global hegemony has dissipated, but its anti-foreign doctrine
lingers on among “leftists” of different shades. I guess they have forgotten,
or maybe they never got to know, that the anti-foreign doctrine was merely a
strategy to penetrate the colonial world for the eventual entry communism.
I for one no
longer believe that foreign investors are almost always predators, who are
simply out to exploit the country and its people. Rather, I see them as simply businessmen,
like any other, who are willing to invest capital and buckle down to work, in
exchange for reasonable profits.
If we take a
survey of workers or employees in the country now, I guess many if not most of
them, will prefer to work for a multinational company (owned by foreign
investors), instead of a purely local company (without any international
exposure). This is because from what I have seen, multinational companies
generally offer higher salaries and benefits.
Just to be clear
on this point, this is not because these foreign investors are benevolent. It
is simply because their foreign owners and management are used to much higher
salaries and benefits in their home country. On the other hand, if we look at
the local investors who are used to hardship, I guess it follows why they are
also hard about salaries and benefits.
As
I look now at the Filipino First policy, that by law restricts or limits the
entry of foreign investors into the country (thereby creating a captive local
market), I see that it makes the fundamentally wrong assumption that the
profits earned by Filipino businessmen, will “trickle down” to the Filipino
workers and consumers.
On
the contrary, economic experience shows that enterprise owners on one hand,
have contradictory interests in relation to enterprise employees and customers
on the other hand. See Theory of the
Firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure, by Jensen and
Meckling (1976). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304405X7690026X. Law of Supply
and Demand, by Chappelow (2019). https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/law-of-supply-demand.asp.
The
enterprise owners will simply flow as much profits to themselves, unless or
until the enterprise employees and customers push back, whenever they can. The
same motivation for profit of course applies, regardless of the foreign or
local ownership of the enterprise.
Today,
the biggest dollar earners of the country are the OFWs (overseas Filipino
workers) who work for foreign employers overseas, and the BPOs (business
process outsourcing) that are generally owned by foreign investors.
Ironically,
industries dominated by enterprises majority or wholly owned by Filipino
businessmen, have the worst performance. We have the highest power cost (i.e.
power distribution), slowest internet (i.e. telecommunication), expensive
transport costs (i.e. mass transportation), unpredictable water supply (i.e.
water distribution), highly politicized mass media, and largely untapped
mineral and energy resources.
As
I see it now, the Filipino First policy is nothing but a Businessmen First
policy, where the Filipino workers and consumers are last priority. They will need
to get jobs overseas if they want better pay. Otherwise, they will have to swallow
the high domestic consumer prices, because there’s no other choice locally.
Notably, some associations
of big businessmen join hands with the indoctrinated “leftists” to block the
entry of foreign investors that they fear will challenge their monopoly or
oligopoly of the local market. I guess their motivation is obvious, and there’s
no need to write another article about it. They simply seek to perpetuate their
stranglehold of the local market, legalized by no less than the constitution
and the laws, and maintain their artificially high market prices, without having
to worry about new players that will force them to compete like hell.
Atty. Dindo B. Donato, General
Counsel
Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem), Inc.
16 July 2020.
Makati City, Philippines.
Disclaimer: The views and
opinions expressed in this material are those of the author
and do not necessarily
reflect the official policy or position of TanDem.
