This commie hippie Thomas van Beersum must be deported

If I were present during their protest, I would have to throw him with glass jar and expose his communist sympathies.

If I were present during their protest, I would have to throw him with glass jar and expose his communist sympathies.

This morning when I opened my Facebook account after more than 24 hours of resting, I was bombarded with postings and comments from my friends about this viral photo of this Dutch communist hippie Thomas van Beersum berating an ordinary policeman named PO1 Joselito Sevilla.

This man from Netherlands was undiplomatic enough by saying “You are the ones that are hurting us! You started this conflict! Why are you doing this?” to PO1 Sevilla.

And yet this same person justified his actions through his Facebook account and encouraging the policeman to join their cause in next year’s State of the Nation Address or SONA.

You are wrong, Mr. Thomas van Beersum. The ideology you are fighting for has been shunned by the rest of the world including China, who adopted capitalist free-market system. You are naive enough to say that coercive collectivism like communism is the answer of our economic, political, and social shortcomings. I think you need to open your eyes that the world you are living with is imperfect and total equality of outcome that your bankrupt cause has been fighting for many years. You didn’t even search when you were in Netherlands that your benefactor, Jose Maria Sison, fled to your country to escape criminal liabilities that he has been doing for many years like killing one of my distant relatives, former NPA commander Rolly Kintanar.

Mr. Thomas van Beersum, you have to realize that Filipino people will not going to tolerate anyone who wants to overthrow a corrupt democratic government and replace it with more corrupt and genocidal communist government, no wonder Jose Maria Sison and his cohorts in the mountains and in the Congress, failed to convince the silent conservative majority Filipinos to support your bankrupt cause, let alone of taking over the government. The ideology that you are fighting for to be imposed in our country has claimed several lives not just in the Philippines, but also in Cambodia, China, Cuba, Eastern Europe, Laos, North Korea, Russia, and Vietnam, no wonder many of these countries already abhorred that ideology or if not, they had to change their economic strategies to the extent similar to free market capitalism than to central planning communism. Fighting for an utopian communism is like fighting for a dystopian Nazism.

Our law way back the Commonwealth days states that like you who is not a Filipino citizen, cannot interfere in our internal political affairs like joining protest march with the end-goal of overthrowing our flawed democratic government and replacing it with more corrupt and repressive communist government run by few Politburos. Violating of that provision will result to your deportation. You should have well-versed enough not just to our laws, but also to our political, economic, and cultural attitudes of our compatriots who fortunately, never share your cause.

If I were you, you have to leave the country to save your face or else, a proper authority like the Bureau of Immigration will deport you and never return to the Philippines.

Jose Maria "Joma" Sison (left), founder of the Communist Party of the Philippines with Thomas van Beersum (right). This photo is a proof that he is associated to that criminal commie who should have been deported and tried for his offenses he committed for many years of fighting to have communist rule in the Philippines. (SOURCE: Van Beersum's FB account)

Jose Maria “Joma” Sison (left), founder of the Communist Party of the Philippines with Thomas van Beersum (right). This photo is a proof that he is associated to that criminal commie who should have been deported and tried for his offenses he committed for many years of fighting to have communist rule in the Philippines. (SOURCE: Van Beersum’s FB account)

President Noynoy Aquino’s 4th SONA: No transformative changes

President Benigno Aquino III addresses before the Congress, 22 July 2013.

President Benigno Aquino III addresses before the Congress, 22 July 2013. (Courtesy of Rappler)

President Benigno Aquino III delivered his State of the Nation address for the fourth time in his presidency. His SONA was significant in the first place as his administration is passing the midway of its term that is scheduled to end on 30 June 2016 and also, it was the opening of the new 16th Congress.

Since it is in the midpoint of his 6-year term, the people or boss in his own words, have been expecting a lot of transformative changes in our country for the past three years under his watch. Ordinary people may have different opinions in his policies, but there’s a common thing which is whether he delivered or not.

As I watched his State of the Nation Address at the Law Building of the University of San Carlos amidst of my asthmatic condition right now, there might be phrases that the president uttered that really made sense like saying that he cannot transform the country within his six-year term, which is impossible as far as our economic and political climate are concerned, but just like in his three previous SONAs, I cannot avoid to criticize his manner of blaming some of his shortcomings in his administration to his predecessor, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. I think for the past three years of his term, any shortcomings of his administration are now the fault of him and his team, not the predecessor one.

As I expected, he never mentioned any drastic and yet, long-term transformative changes for our country like revising our 1987 constitution to cure our economic and political systems shortfalls that are no longer compatible to our fast-evolving globalized world as he has to pander the interests of few business and political elites who brought his mother and him to the presidency. Though he mentioned some initiatives to be tacked in his administration like crafting a Basic Law for the proposed Bangamoro, amending the SSS pension scheme system, passing the Cabotage Law, Fiscal Incentives Rationalization Bill, Land Administration Reform Bill, P2.268-trillion National Budget for 2014, addressing chronic power shortage in Mindanao, dividing his family-owned Hacienda Luisita to beneficiaries by September, and many more, but those initiatives that the administration want to address are insufficient at its best to achieve of what he want, transformative changes.

What I would like to advise to our president is that he should capitalize his political advantage at this point of time to initiate structural changes to our economic and political system that would have positive impact to the lives of our future Filipinos and have him to stop listening leftist and oligarch lobbies of preserving the current status-quo that has not uplift the lives of our people from poverty while this people kept complaining whosoever in power and profiting the semi-monopolistic economic system thanks to the 1987 constitution. I hope the president will read and listen to my advice and if not, history will judge you.

Comparing Philippine FDI law with Brazil

Foreign direct investment law by selected countries surveyed by the World Bank in 2010 (table 1).

Foreign direct investment law by selected countries surveyed by the World Bank in 2010 (table 1).

oreign direct investment law by selected countries surveyed by the World Bank in 2010 (table 2 with the Philippines highlighted in red box).

Foreign direct investment law by selected countries surveyed by the World Bank in 2010 (table 2 with the Philippines highlighted with red box). (Click the complete report in PDF)

It’s been 10 days after the 16th Congress of the Philippines started its 3-year term and as usual like the previous congresses, legislators have to pass their bills the moment a congress term starts and with the newly-opened Congress, House of Representative Speaker Feliciano “Sonny” Belmonte filed the first House resolution of the Congress calling to amend the restrictive protectionist but anachronistic economic provisions in the 1987 constitution especially the forced 60/40 forced equity sharing in favor of Filipino individuals or corporations in extracting natural resources, setting-up domestic corporations, public utilities, media, and advertising.

I am a bit disappointed with the content of the resolution wherein the 60/40 forced equity sharing will not really be scrapped, instead, Speaker Belmonte covered the 60/40 forced equity sharing with “UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW”, which means the current provision may be kept in constitutional paper but there would be more flexibility for the Congress to enact 100% foreign investment participation in mining, oil and gas extraction, manufacturing, agriculture, public utilities, media, advertising, land, and many more without too much explicit constitutional contradictions compared today. But, I think this is better with this gradual manner than none in order to silence anti foreign investment liberalization while not hampering the efforts to amend those provisions in the 1987 constitution, that is really needed for our country in order to have more inclusive and meaningful job generation and improving our dilapidated infrastructure in order for our country to move forward in this globalized economic order of today.

(Here’s the resolution of Speaker Belmonte to amend the 1987 constitution).

Foreign investors want to invest 100% then control what they invest because in the first place, the capital, technology, and ideas are theirs and also to anchor themselves from different notorious business practices all across the world including the Philippines like using dummies just to circumvent foreign investment restrictions and later on, the money will be swindled by these dummies and foreign investors cannot take the money back to them because law prohibits them from investing in particular economic sectors, thus the government will not going to protect them.

Yet, some legislators like Neri Colmenares of Bayan Muna are opposing Belmonte’s move to amend the protectionist economic provisions of the 1987 constitution for the reason that other countries have the same foreign equity ownership restrictions as ours. He even cited Brazil as one of the examples that have “strict” foreign direct investment laws than us where as far as I remember when he spoke during the public hearing about this issue, he said that Brazil only allows 25% foreign investment participation in businesses which is wrong as Brazil allows 100% foreign investment participation at MOST including mining, oil and gas extraction, manufacturing, agriculture, and public utilities, look the table below from World Bank’s Investing Across Borders 2010. (Click the complete detail)

Foreign investors can invest 100% in Brazil than in the Philippines.

Foreign investors can invest 100% in Brazil than in the Philippines.

See, Neri Colmenares has been lying to many people several times regarding this issue in whether to amend the protectionist economic provisions or not just to support his party-list agenda that he represent just to have their political survival assured in the face of increasingly globalized economic integrated, which makes their economic platform of “national industrialization” anachronistic as to set-up capital and labor intensive businesses like mining, oil and gas extraction, manufacturing, and public utilities need economic of scale to be operational that existing local conglomerates cannot fulfill nor the government as what these outdated left-leaning people have been advocating for many years.

The very point of Sonny Belmonte and many FDI liberalization advocates is this:

There should no constitutional constricts on foreign investments especially foreign investment participation. Our foreign direct investment laws should attune with the economic necessities in relative to global economic order. Putting any restrictions on foreign direct investments in the constitution especially in the 1987 constitution for the Philippine’s case, deprive any flexibility by the executive and the legislative branches of the government to adjust our FDI laws attune with a particular time without too much political noises from vested interests. Lesser or no constitutional debates in crafting FDI laws in the future mean that any investors especially foreign, will not going to have an anxiety on whether to continue invest in our economy or not.