By Nimfa Estrellado Straight Talk February 22, 2020 DUTERTE: the control and management of mass media be limited to 100 % ownership by ...
Straight Talk
February 22, 2020
DUTERTE: the control and management of mass media be limited to 100 % ownership by Filipinos
ALSO DUTERTE: full foreign ownership in power , transport , communication
***
Someone once told me that:
"This present government is no doubt the real traitor to Filipino people starting from the president. I see no principle and reasoning with this decision. Vow down when it involves China. I seriously can't wait for the next election."
and that hit me hard.
***
President Rodrigo "Rody" Roa Duterte orders the shutdown of Rappler and ABS-CBN as far as anyone knows for remote proprietorship, ends the Visiting Forces Agreement to as far as anyone knows declare national power—yet kowtows to the impulses of neo-liberalism in railroading the foreign ownership of privatized public utilities.
I’ve been trying to read up on this and it’s become very clear to me, Senate approves public services may now have full foreign ownership? While ABS-CBN is being pressed for allegedly having partial foreign ownership?
Isn't ABS-CBN under the communications sector? Therefore now the Quo Warranto has no basis?
All things considered, it's official. The Philippines is for SALE. Not amazed however profoundly frustrated.
What does "House Approves Full Foreign Ownership in Communications, Power, and Transport" mean?
House Approves Full Foreign Ownership in Communications, Power, and Transport is a measure amending the Public Service Act, an 84-year-old law that bars full foreign ownership in the public service sector, including the transportation, communications and power industries, was approved by the House of Representatives on February 18, according to a report by the Philippine Star.
Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution states that at least 60 per cent of the Filipinos ' capital is owned in public utilities. The Constitution also states that all Filipinos must be the executive and managing officers of organizations which operate public utilities.
___ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW___
The House Plenary approved House Bill 78 on second reading, which aims to classify transportation, communications and electricity as public services rather than public utilities. The bill restricts "public utilities" to power generation and storage, operation of water pipes, and pipeline sewerage systems.
Under House Bill 78, public services are defined as “common carrier, railroad, street railway, subway motor vehicle, ice refrigeration plant, irrigation system, marine railways, wire or wireless communications systems; wire or wireless broadcasting stations; freight or carrier services, steam boats ferries and war craft engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight, gas, electric light, heat and power water supply and power, petroleum and sewerage system, among others.”
Sharon Garin, deputy speaker, clarifies that, whenever went into law, the bill will open the Philippine market to rivalry and advantage Filipino shoppers.
She said, "Rivalry and outside speculation are hindered on the grounds that constraints that should just apply to the activity of an open utility are applied to every single open assistance".
As indicated by Garin, opening up the open administrations industry to outside challenge redound to a more beneficial economy as lower costs and improved nature of administrations.
We should demand international protection for civilians. Nobody will help If we don't ask.
This is a proceeding with walk of neo-liberal financial aspects to full privatization.
There are hard exercises learned by countries who strolled this way of limit building.
In the USA drove by then President Ronald Reagan, his walking orders was - "Don't simply remain there, fix something."
___ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW___
A focal precept of the "fixing" has been the privatization of government resources and administrations.
While privatization may expand national salary for the time being, this development of privatization has not, obviously, gone uncontested. Pundits of far reaching privatization battle that private proprietorship doesn't really convert into improved productivity. Progressively significant, they contend, private division directors may have no contrition about receiving benefit making techniques or corporate practices that make fundamental administrations unreasonably expensive or inaccessible to enormous sections of the populace.
A benefit looking for activity may not, for instance, decide to give medicinal services to the penniless or stretch out training to poor or learning-incapacitated youngsters. Endeavors to make such exercises productive would very likely mean the reintroduction of government mediation—sometime later. The outcome might be less engaging than if the legislature had essentially kept on offering the types of assistance in any case.
Viewpoints FROM GOVERNMENT OWNED ENTITIES THAT MAY BE SOLD TO FOREIGNERS:
Past government laborers will be moved to the private area. All day laborers will lose all privileges winding up as legally binding specialists. Certainly awful news to changeless staff.
Administration PERSPECTIVES:
Lasting government incomes will stop. The legislature will have less control on cost with administration expenses unregulated. The regularly expanding water and force charges are away from of deregulation.
Directing private substances is an extreme activity. At the point when things turn sour, government intercession returns.
In general, this is awful news taking note of that the world is living in a moving economy. No measure of sugar can improve an economy who sees better sugar elsewhere.
Was there ever a business case exhibited to show up at this choice?
I’ve been trying to read up on this and it’s become very clear to me, Senate approves public services may now have full foreign ownership? While ABS-CBN is being pressed for allegedly having partial foreign ownership?
Isn't ABS-CBN under the communications sector? Therefore now the Quo Warranto has no basis?
All things considered, it's official. The Philippines is for SALE. Not amazed however profoundly frustrated.
What does "House Approves Full Foreign Ownership in Communications, Power, and Transport" mean?
House Approves Full Foreign Ownership in Communications, Power, and Transport is a measure amending the Public Service Act, an 84-year-old law that bars full foreign ownership in the public service sector, including the transportation, communications and power industries, was approved by the House of Representatives on February 18, according to a report by the Philippine Star.
Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution states that at least 60 per cent of the Filipinos ' capital is owned in public utilities. The Constitution also states that all Filipinos must be the executive and managing officers of organizations which operate public utilities.
The House Plenary approved House Bill 78 on second reading, which aims to classify transportation, communications and electricity as public services rather than public utilities. The bill restricts "public utilities" to power generation and storage, operation of water pipes, and pipeline sewerage systems.
Under House Bill 78, public services are defined as “common carrier, railroad, street railway, subway motor vehicle, ice refrigeration plant, irrigation system, marine railways, wire or wireless communications systems; wire or wireless broadcasting stations; freight or carrier services, steam boats ferries and war craft engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight, gas, electric light, heat and power water supply and power, petroleum and sewerage system, among others.”
Sharon Garin, deputy speaker, clarifies that, whenever went into law, the bill will open the Philippine market to rivalry and advantage Filipino shoppers.
She said, "Rivalry and outside speculation are hindered on the grounds that constraints that should just apply to the activity of an open utility are applied to every single open assistance".
As indicated by Garin, opening up the open administrations industry to outside challenge redound to a more beneficial economy as lower costs and improved nature of administrations.
We should demand international protection for civilians. Nobody will help If we don't ask.
This is a proceeding with walk of neo-liberal financial aspects to full privatization.
There are hard exercises learned by countries who strolled this way of limit building.
In the USA drove by then President Ronald Reagan, his walking orders was - "Don't simply remain there, fix something."
A focal precept of the "fixing" has been the privatization of government resources and administrations.
While privatization may expand national salary for the time being, this development of privatization has not, obviously, gone uncontested. Pundits of far reaching privatization battle that private proprietorship doesn't really convert into improved productivity. Progressively significant, they contend, private division directors may have no contrition about receiving benefit making techniques or corporate practices that make fundamental administrations unreasonably expensive or inaccessible to enormous sections of the populace.
A benefit looking for activity may not, for instance, decide to give medicinal services to the penniless or stretch out training to poor or learning-incapacitated youngsters. Endeavors to make such exercises productive would very likely mean the reintroduction of government mediation—sometime later. The outcome might be less engaging than if the legislature had essentially kept on offering the types of assistance in any case.
Viewpoints FROM GOVERNMENT OWNED ENTITIES THAT MAY BE SOLD TO FOREIGNERS:
Past government laborers will be moved to the private area. All day laborers will lose all privileges winding up as legally binding specialists. Certainly awful news to changeless staff.
Administration PERSPECTIVES:
Lasting government incomes will stop. The legislature will have less control on cost with administration expenses unregulated. The regularly expanding water and force charges are away from of deregulation.
Directing private substances is an extreme activity. At the point when things turn sour, government intercession returns.
In general, this is awful news taking note of that the world is living in a moving economy. No measure of sugar can improve an economy who sees better sugar elsewhere.
Was there ever a business case exhibited to show up at this choice?
No comments