I’m in Manila and will visit my favorite Filipino city, Cebu, next week.
Manila, also a port city, is busy, always congested, and always interesting.
While Cebu retains vestiges of royal elegance through its wise millionaire king/mayor Tommy Osmeña, Manila is the city where business
rules all and world powers collide.
A quick history lesson: about 575 years ago, the Philippines was a Muslim country
doing most of its business with China, thanks to Zheng He’s maritime
prowess.
 |
| Chinese Participation in Philippine Culture and Economy, Edited by Dr. Shubert S.C. Liao (1964) |
The answer, again, is trade, which requires military investment to ensure safe delivery of products and extra-judicial enforcement of trade agreements when necessary. Military investment not subservient to trade lubrication guarantees decline. Indebted Italy, former Roman Empire and modern-day mafia state, is still one of the world’s largest military spenders, a sign old habits die hard.
But let’s get back to Manila. The U.S. military’s regional choice of Singapore’s port over the Philippines' isn't the only alteration to the status quo. Filipino grocery stores now accept WeChat Pay, China’s solution to the stranglehold of American dollar dominance, as well as GrabPay, Singapore’s fintech app. (Japan's Softbank is also in the mix with GCash.)
 |
| In SM Cebu City mall |
Even if you know governments disfavor cash, you may still wonder why fintech is so important. If an essential commodity can only be priced in one currency, such as the USD, that currency’s owner can use its leverage to set up payment mechanisms such as SWIFT and insurance policies/costs favorable to its own delivery routes--and domestic industries. Oil is currently the world’s most traded product, with coffee coming in second, but natural gas/LNG is moving quickly up the ranks. All three require the purchase of shipping insurance, a specialty product, which presumes a stable banking sector. Today, the stability of a country’s banking sector depends on technology geared towards tracking and security functions, which also assists central banks’ data needs. Fintech, blockchain, and quantum computing are all shorthand for banking stability. Moreover, in future trade or drone wars, blockades can be virtual once physical delivery commingles with financial and legal requirements. In short, physical blockades are out, virtual ones are in.
Most Filipinos, oblivious to the international jousting taking place in their homeland, were refreshingly optimistic two years ago. They proudly elected Rodrigo Duterte and his allies on a platform of anti-corruption. When he deployed police officers, Punisher-style, to eliminate foreign drug cartels, everyone not a suit-wearing Manilan jumped for joy. When he removed Supreme Court chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, citing nondisclosure of assets and unauthorized expense reimbursements—easily maligned when abused by government employees—the message was unmistakable: federalism rules the roost, and the strong executive is back in vogue, not just in America and Eastern Europe, but in ASEAN.
Unfortunately, hope driven by personality tends to create flimsy long-term foundations, as America’s Barack Obama voters have surely realized. Two years later, optimism in Manila isn’t gone, but its unifying impact has dissolved. I no longer see the formerly ubiquitous bracelets supporting Duterte. Newspapers and magazines don’t carry images of spry athlete Manny Pacquiao and septuagenarian barangay politicians posing with the “Duterte fist.” What I see now are articles indicating President Duterte feels “forced” to run his own children as mayors in other districts, creating a political dynasty reminiscent of the American Bushes. I see my VPNs no longer connecting seamlessly, a common occurrence in any country with large foreign technological investment. (One employee in a Hanoi, Vietnamese telecommunications store wanted my passport and a photo on his device for a local SIM card.) I see five private security guards in the local grocery store when two sufficed before.
 |
| Manila, October 2018. A uniformed supervisor was nearby but not pictured. |
On the upside/downside, the Philippines’ political marketing teams, like America's, learn quickly and
have co-opted progressive ideas in order to twist them for their own
purposes.
For example, environmentalism has increased corporate profits (smaller packaging
sizes, sale of recycled rather than natural water, etc.) while distracting voters concerned with plastic from focusing on more major and profitable pollutants. Yet, even flawless marketing campaigns need ballast for long-term impact, and if
such ballast exists, I have not seen it in Manila. Any fool can see
banning plastic straws while maintaining soda sales will create higher
rates of tooth decay, an arguably larger problem than tiny straws piling up
in a Chinese landfill. Or that an idiotic attempt to reduce traffic
congestion by banning some car usage one day a week means governments are openly disrespecting individual property rights while signaling
their reluctance to spend taxpayer money on adequate public transportation. (When I first heard Manila’s plans to reduce traffic, my first reaction was “fake
news,” and even after seeing multiple reports from credible sources, I
still don’t believe it.)
It’s as if world leaders decided to play chess, but only one move at a time for simplicity’s sake when everyone knows you can’t succeed in any complex endeavor unless you plan at least three moves ahead. (Public or private debt restricts making too many moves in advance, a fact one doesn’t need a chess or economics background to understand.) Have governments run out of ideas and decided to greenlight any cockamamie idea in order to signal magnanimity, lest residents think the king has no clothes and revolt (or worse, not pay their interest-laden bills)?
Yes, yes, a trillion times yes. Unsustainable security spending minus commensurate trade opportunities for developing nations has muddled political brains worldwide. The result? Every politician in power thinks first about repaying debt and rolling over loans, and second about livability--another way of saying corporate and banking influence have overwhelmed governments failing to properly utilize sovereign wealth funds to harness technological innovation.
Contrast
such attitudes with this Prague, Oklahoman resident in 1971: “Don’t like
meters… or taxes. We don’t need them. This is a real thrifty town. Our
treasury’s got a surplus of about $334,000. We pay off a bond issue by
adding $1.50 each month to everybody’s water bill.” (National Geographic,
August 1971)
How many high school graduates in any country today could explain the advantages and disadvantages in the Oklahoman’s thinking while realizing such an approach is impossible today given the long-term fiscal obligations—not just pensions—local governments have drawn?
Such limited maneuvering creates a depressing deluge of sameness, especially shopping
malls, because developers bring tax revenue, improve job numbers, and ameliorate blighted
neighborhoods, and traffic congestion is a smaller price to pay than bond
default and investor flight.
(Understandably, no politician wants to re-live Indonesia’s
currency and economic crash post-Dutch banking flight.) In a myopic political landscape, public transportation and other
quality of life programs are destined to be superficial because they’re costs, not revenue
generators. Meanwhile, residents literally yearning to breathe free (from
pollution) are victims to Dick Cheney’s “deficits don’t matter” thinking in
a world soaked in more debt than prior to 2008’s financial meltdown.
Amidst all these increasingly complex changes, few educated citizens realize
the link between deficit spending and maintenance of security agreements,
which are linked to trade agreements, all of which are now suspect in a
post-China-driven world that has no interest in maintaining U.S. dollar or naval supremacy.
Even apart from its tendency to funnel money to the least nuanced members of society, security spending is troubling because of its social costs. Most interesting people do not follow rules, and two paths occur if a country has too many rules: 1) the most creative, who are often the best and brightest, leave; and/or 2) most residents stop respecting authority or go through the motions of rule-following, a cultural shift that guarantees less safety and more corruption. (e.g., no one with an IQ over 75 actually believes America’s post-9/11 airport security employees make flying safer; meanwhile, affluent Abu Dhabi allows foreigners entry through three purely technological checkpoints and a single employee.)
Some of you know Peter Thiel’s reference to PayPal’s founders being teenage
bombmakers, but have you considered your movie studios? Almost every famous
British-born actor and musician despised school and authority—on principle.
Peter Sellers, when starting out in London, did an eat-and-dash at a
restaurant. Sean Connery dropped out of school and the military,
indicating the worst rulebreakers of all are more likely to become James
Bond, while the ones who follow rules more likely to become insurance
salesmen, lawyers, real estate agents, and police officers—if we’re lucky.
In a police state needing to show results, Sellers gets arrested and ends
up with a permanent criminal record before he can audition for acting school; Al Pacino gets prosecuted, not just arrested, for possession
of a concealed weapon; John Lennon gets deported from North America before writing
“Give Peace a Chance”; Albert Finney gets court-martialed for faking an
illness to gain a military discharge; Connery gets placed on several
watchlists and blacklisted from employment; Robert Capa goes to jail before
he can arrive in America; and an overly suspicious police officer doesn’t recruit a young Cassius Clay to boxing. (Note: even before the NSA’s
technological capabilities, America’s security apparatus was far-reaching.
Muhammad Ali’s trainer, Angelo Dundee, was an FBI informant.)
In some ways, a security state is worse than terrorism, because of the two, only a security state snuffs out creativity or expels it to other lands that nurture it. It’s why America captured Britain’s best talent, creating Hollywood, not Londonwood. It’s why China has billions of dollars in movie investments but no consistently bankable writers, actors, or directors (Jackie Chan, Wong Kar-wai, and John Woo are from Hong Kong). It’s one reason India, despite having a billion people and perfect English speakers, continues to make Bollywood films lacking originality while sparsely populated Australia won awards for India-based Lion (2016). It’s why the Philippines have Anne Curtis and Bea Alonzo while India and China, so-called superpowers, have no one as multiculturally adept on screen.
A security state, even if it doesn’t siphon away a country’s finances as it did in the Soviet Union and as it is doing in America, makes people afraid and less mobile, and people who are afraid and less mobile do not take risks. They stay behind the wall in East Berlin, they listen politely to their teachers, and they do not discuss becoming “bricks in the wall” because such language won’t be created in their world, in their language, or in their culture. The absence of such language creates a gap filled by others, and depending on the times, they’re called avant-garde, iconoclasts, bon vivants, Young Turks, rabble-rousers, or rebels. They’re the ones who facilitate cross-border cultural adoption, who serve as physical reminders that this place has freedom and that place does not.
You don’t have to be a Netflix investor to realize original content matters—and drives the core of any attempt to supplant existing networks in a peaceful, sustainable manner. If content matters, then so does language, and without incentives to learn another country’s language, it is easier to miscommunicate, to be at the mercy of foreign media, and to retreat into the safety of familiarity. In contrast, a country that can convince others to learn its language removes the single most difficult barrier to its cultural invasion, and freethinkers and troublemakers, the ones who generate original content, are the weapons that lead the way yet cost nothing but decency and tolerance. In sum, it’s exactly like Pacino’s epiphany in Scarface: “For countries to project power, they gotta get the content first. Then when they get the language, they get the currency, then the power.” Original content allowed me to write the last line, allows us to replace no longer functioning ideologies with better ones, and thus forms the ballast that secures us from an unthinking security state.
If, on the other hand, debt-driven security spending makes a place safer, it will attract investment, because investors, not just banks, want political and consumer stability, and stability requires safety. Attracting predictable and reasonable investment terms is not an easy task—any government, not just Greece, that borrowed from American or European banks between 2004 and 2008 can commiserate—and the shortcut seems to be assuring foreign investors of safety no matter the social cost.
To be fair, if you are a developing country, you do not control your destiny because you typically depend on oil and other imports, which means you’ve borrowed in dollars but your currency can depreciate, making domestic budgets and therefore job creation unpredictable. Most governments just keep borrowing, but once borrowing as a basis for job creation becomes the norm, the source and terms of capital injections become less scrutinized. Whatever worked in the past, including the teams involved, gets the green light, resulting in homogeneity and fragile systems multiplying flaws once contained locally. When too much money competes for too few ideas, distortions occur, some predictable, some unpredictable. Former USA Vice President Dick Cheney was wrong. Deficits do matter. They just matter less when a country has most of its debt in its own currency, a privileged position available to no developing nation.
America became beloved—and rich—by inventing and marketing products that increased freedom and mobility. It couldn’t have done it without stealing other countries' troublemakers and using them to generate original content. Today, the most original show on American-owned Netflix is British-made Black Mirror. Are we seeing a reversal of fortunes? I couldn’t tell you, but the more important question is, “What environments foster enduring original content?” It’s a question you should be asking whenever you see too many armed guards at the airport, at the shopping mall, and at the supermarket; politicians creating familial dynasties; and residents unable to tell you the last time their local government ran a surplus.
© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2018)
Bonus I: re: social costs, increasing security spending creates more security jobs but less common sense. One example of dysfunction: SM Cebu City Mall's theaters are running a promotion of 199 pesos for an all-day movie pass, but apparently no one told the guards. To get past a movie turnstile, I had to go through one security guard and one mall/theater employee. The security guards have decided they're the ones in charge, so the mall employees sit apathetically unless an issue arises, in which case they revert to working the way they did before the security guard's presence. The all-day pass comes with a large rectangular stamp on the buyer's wrist and a torn-off stub signifying the 199 pesos payment. One security guard decided the wrist stamp--only given to people who purchase the pass--wasn't enough and took my ticket stub to the main counter and asked the employee to generate an individual ticket. The line to the movie wasn't affected because the regular theater employee jumped into action, but the main ticket line slowed as the employee had to deal with the unnecessary request.
In matters of security, more human beings doesn't mean better. It often means each individual employee decides to create his or her own arbitrary rules out of a genuine desire not to feel useless, thus increasing private sector inefficiency. In most cases, the long-term results of more security spending are more jobs for people connected with the police or military--regardless of utility--and fear-based propaganda to encourage continued funding.
Such jobs are not only direct. Police departments can use budget increases to fund organizations like P.A.L. that sponsor or advertise other groups, leading to more jobs and more economic power within an expanding circle that becomes increasingly hostile to outsiders over time. This phenomenon is difficult to see in the abstract because taxpayer money is funneled under the guise of public service or social welfare projects--but without any requirement to meet strict benchmarks. As long as the purpose is benign, governments have a hard time stopping the tax dollars once they start flowing and once employees are hired.
Nothing is inherently wrong with government entities utilizing nonprofits. None other than Muhammad Ali was taken to a boxing gym under the aegis of Louisville police (though one wonders about the course of history had the young boy's name been Ali instead of Clay). Competent police departments make a habit of knowing their residents as well as their local businesses, or they'll soon discover criminals eager to become primary sources of information.
Yet, only when I saw a strange police meeting in Cebu did I finally connect the dots. Take a look at this photo.
It's a church choir singing at a police event supporting President Duterte's war on drugs. They don't actually call it a war on drugs, but anyone can see it's the same as President Ronald Reagan's American strategy plus more overt religion (one attendee held a sign with the words, "Drugs lead to slavery, Jesus leads to freedom"). Incredibly, people have forgotten that America's billion dollar war against drugs failed. Today, there are more drugs--and people in jail--in America than before the government's intervention.
That's when it hit me. The entire show is a marketing strategy to increase security spending at the expense of all other "buckets" like public transportation, job training, and social welfare. For the past forty years, American voters have been inundated with images of dangerous crack addicts and uniformed "heroes" to convince them to transfer their tax dollars from projects improving community relations to projects increasing segregation and police influence. The result? America is the sole developed nation in the world that lacks public transportation and affordable healthcare.
More drugs exist in America today than before 1981, but churches--often the beneficiaries of public grants designed to replace funding that would have otherwise reached social workers--police, and the military are stronger than they've ever been.
In the United States, one of the few nations able to run massive deficits, salvation in the form of a policy u-turn is possible. Unfortunately, the Philippines, already saturated with South Korean investment (and thus ownership), cannot run deficits without even more foreign ownership of private industries and land. One can already see negative repercussions in Manila, which has more toll roads than I've seen in any other country, including two within four minutes of each other. In sum, a continued bet on President Duterte means Filipino voters have faith their federal government, lacking both the technology and budgeting options of the United States, will succeed where America failed. Let's pray 40 years of recent history will convince voters worldwide to reject America's recycled marketing. Not everything ought to be resurrected.
Bonus II: Fear-based marketing (or how to enshrine a security state in just twenty years) is maintained by changing the scourge du jour every two to four years (human beings have finite attention spans, after all). Drugs are an easy mark; then come diseases, real or imagined; then, depending on the economy, immigration; then minorities and/or foreign elements. America started with drugs in the '80s, moved onto AIDs, then gays, then illegal immigrants, and then Muslims, with Ebola and Zika making intermittent appearances. It is now at the "foreign elements" stage.
Bonus III: President of the Philippines Carlos P. Garcia (1960),
It’s as if world leaders decided to play chess, but only one move at a time for simplicity’s sake when everyone knows you can’t succeed in any complex endeavor unless you plan at least three moves ahead. (Public or private debt restricts making too many moves in advance, a fact one doesn’t need a chess or economics background to understand.) Have governments run out of ideas and decided to greenlight any cockamamie idea in order to signal magnanimity, lest residents think the king has no clothes and revolt (or worse, not pay their interest-laden bills)?
Yes, yes, a trillion times yes. Unsustainable security spending minus commensurate trade opportunities for developing nations has muddled political brains worldwide. The result? Every politician in power thinks first about repaying debt and rolling over loans, and second about livability--another way of saying corporate and banking influence have overwhelmed governments failing to properly utilize sovereign wealth funds to harness technological innovation.
How many high school graduates in any country today could explain the advantages and disadvantages in the Oklahoman’s thinking while realizing such an approach is impossible today given the long-term fiscal obligations—not just pensions—local governments have drawn?
 |
| Manila neighborhood about one mile from a major shopping mall. How about another shopping mall? Who else will invest? |
Even apart from its tendency to funnel money to the least nuanced members of society, security spending is troubling because of its social costs. Most interesting people do not follow rules, and two paths occur if a country has too many rules: 1) the most creative, who are often the best and brightest, leave; and/or 2) most residents stop respecting authority or go through the motions of rule-following, a cultural shift that guarantees less safety and more corruption. (e.g., no one with an IQ over 75 actually believes America’s post-9/11 airport security employees make flying safer; meanwhile, affluent Abu Dhabi allows foreigners entry through three purely technological checkpoints and a single employee.)
 |
| From Deborah Fallows' Dreaming in Chinese (2010) |
 |
| From Robert Sellers' Don't Let the Bastards Grind You Down (2011) |
In some ways, a security state is worse than terrorism, because of the two, only a security state snuffs out creativity or expels it to other lands that nurture it. It’s why America captured Britain’s best talent, creating Hollywood, not Londonwood. It’s why China has billions of dollars in movie investments but no consistently bankable writers, actors, or directors (Jackie Chan, Wong Kar-wai, and John Woo are from Hong Kong). It’s one reason India, despite having a billion people and perfect English speakers, continues to make Bollywood films lacking originality while sparsely populated Australia won awards for India-based Lion (2016). It’s why the Philippines have Anne Curtis and Bea Alonzo while India and China, so-called superpowers, have no one as multiculturally adept on screen.
A security state, even if it doesn’t siphon away a country’s finances as it did in the Soviet Union and as it is doing in America, makes people afraid and less mobile, and people who are afraid and less mobile do not take risks. They stay behind the wall in East Berlin, they listen politely to their teachers, and they do not discuss becoming “bricks in the wall” because such language won’t be created in their world, in their language, or in their culture. The absence of such language creates a gap filled by others, and depending on the times, they’re called avant-garde, iconoclasts, bon vivants, Young Turks, rabble-rousers, or rebels. They’re the ones who facilitate cross-border cultural adoption, who serve as physical reminders that this place has freedom and that place does not.
You don’t have to be a Netflix investor to realize original content matters—and drives the core of any attempt to supplant existing networks in a peaceful, sustainable manner. If content matters, then so does language, and without incentives to learn another country’s language, it is easier to miscommunicate, to be at the mercy of foreign media, and to retreat into the safety of familiarity. In contrast, a country that can convince others to learn its language removes the single most difficult barrier to its cultural invasion, and freethinkers and troublemakers, the ones who generate original content, are the weapons that lead the way yet cost nothing but decency and tolerance. In sum, it’s exactly like Pacino’s epiphany in Scarface: “For countries to project power, they gotta get the content first. Then when they get the language, they get the currency, then the power.” Original content allowed me to write the last line, allows us to replace no longer functioning ideologies with better ones, and thus forms the ballast that secures us from an unthinking security state.
If, on the other hand, debt-driven security spending makes a place safer, it will attract investment, because investors, not just banks, want political and consumer stability, and stability requires safety. Attracting predictable and reasonable investment terms is not an easy task—any government, not just Greece, that borrowed from American or European banks between 2004 and 2008 can commiserate—and the shortcut seems to be assuring foreign investors of safety no matter the social cost.
To be fair, if you are a developing country, you do not control your destiny because you typically depend on oil and other imports, which means you’ve borrowed in dollars but your currency can depreciate, making domestic budgets and therefore job creation unpredictable. Most governments just keep borrowing, but once borrowing as a basis for job creation becomes the norm, the source and terms of capital injections become less scrutinized. Whatever worked in the past, including the teams involved, gets the green light, resulting in homogeneity and fragile systems multiplying flaws once contained locally. When too much money competes for too few ideas, distortions occur, some predictable, some unpredictable. Former USA Vice President Dick Cheney was wrong. Deficits do matter. They just matter less when a country has most of its debt in its own currency, a privileged position available to no developing nation.
America became beloved—and rich—by inventing and marketing products that increased freedom and mobility. It couldn’t have done it without stealing other countries' troublemakers and using them to generate original content. Today, the most original show on American-owned Netflix is British-made Black Mirror. Are we seeing a reversal of fortunes? I couldn’t tell you, but the more important question is, “What environments foster enduring original content?” It’s a question you should be asking whenever you see too many armed guards at the airport, at the shopping mall, and at the supermarket; politicians creating familial dynasties; and residents unable to tell you the last time their local government ran a surplus.
© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2018)
Bonus I: re: social costs, increasing security spending creates more security jobs but less common sense. One example of dysfunction: SM Cebu City Mall's theaters are running a promotion of 199 pesos for an all-day movie pass, but apparently no one told the guards. To get past a movie turnstile, I had to go through one security guard and one mall/theater employee. The security guards have decided they're the ones in charge, so the mall employees sit apathetically unless an issue arises, in which case they revert to working the way they did before the security guard's presence. The all-day pass comes with a large rectangular stamp on the buyer's wrist and a torn-off stub signifying the 199 pesos payment. One security guard decided the wrist stamp--only given to people who purchase the pass--wasn't enough and took my ticket stub to the main counter and asked the employee to generate an individual ticket. The line to the movie wasn't affected because the regular theater employee jumped into action, but the main ticket line slowed as the employee had to deal with the unnecessary request.
In matters of security, more human beings doesn't mean better. It often means each individual employee decides to create his or her own arbitrary rules out of a genuine desire not to feel useless, thus increasing private sector inefficiency. In most cases, the long-term results of more security spending are more jobs for people connected with the police or military--regardless of utility--and fear-based propaganda to encourage continued funding.
Such jobs are not only direct. Police departments can use budget increases to fund organizations like P.A.L. that sponsor or advertise other groups, leading to more jobs and more economic power within an expanding circle that becomes increasingly hostile to outsiders over time. This phenomenon is difficult to see in the abstract because taxpayer money is funneled under the guise of public service or social welfare projects--but without any requirement to meet strict benchmarks. As long as the purpose is benign, governments have a hard time stopping the tax dollars once they start flowing and once employees are hired.
Nothing is inherently wrong with government entities utilizing nonprofits. None other than Muhammad Ali was taken to a boxing gym under the aegis of Louisville police (though one wonders about the course of history had the young boy's name been Ali instead of Clay). Competent police departments make a habit of knowing their residents as well as their local businesses, or they'll soon discover criminals eager to become primary sources of information.
Yet, only when I saw a strange police meeting in Cebu did I finally connect the dots. Take a look at this photo.
That's when it hit me. The entire show is a marketing strategy to increase security spending at the expense of all other "buckets" like public transportation, job training, and social welfare. For the past forty years, American voters have been inundated with images of dangerous crack addicts and uniformed "heroes" to convince them to transfer their tax dollars from projects improving community relations to projects increasing segregation and police influence. The result? America is the sole developed nation in the world that lacks public transportation and affordable healthcare.
More drugs exist in America today than before 1981, but churches--often the beneficiaries of public grants designed to replace funding that would have otherwise reached social workers--police, and the military are stronger than they've ever been.
In the United States, one of the few nations able to run massive deficits, salvation in the form of a policy u-turn is possible. Unfortunately, the Philippines, already saturated with South Korean investment (and thus ownership), cannot run deficits without even more foreign ownership of private industries and land. One can already see negative repercussions in Manila, which has more toll roads than I've seen in any other country, including two within four minutes of each other. In sum, a continued bet on President Duterte means Filipino voters have faith their federal government, lacking both the technology and budgeting options of the United States, will succeed where America failed. Let's pray 40 years of recent history will convince voters worldwide to reject America's recycled marketing. Not everything ought to be resurrected.
Bonus II: Fear-based marketing (or how to enshrine a security state in just twenty years) is maintained by changing the scourge du jour every two to four years (human beings have finite attention spans, after all). Drugs are an easy mark; then come diseases, real or imagined; then, depending on the economy, immigration; then minorities and/or foreign elements. America started with drugs in the '80s, moved onto AIDs, then gays, then illegal immigrants, and then Muslims, with Ebola and Zika making intermittent appearances. It is now at the "foreign elements" stage.
Bonus III: President of the Philippines Carlos P. Garcia (1960),
"Politically we became independent since 1946, but economically we are still semi-colonial. This is especially true in our foreign trade. This [Filipino First] policy is therefore designed to regain economic independence. It is a national effort to the end that Filipinos obtain major and dominant participation in their own national economy. This we will achieve with malice towards none and with fairness to all."
No comments:
Post a Comment