The Philippines is the most restrictive country for foreign investment, according to OECD (yes, even more than China or Saudi Arabia)
stats.oecd.org
Duterte's congress is moving swiftly to "liberalize" or allow more foreigners to do business in the country with less restrictions, allow telecommunications, technology, mining, and practicing foreign professions here.
Will you do business in the Philippines?
yes mr 4chinner will do big business dealings in the state of philippines
thank you sirs
I'll be in Cebu for my vacation in October for a few weeks. Can't wait to take a look around. If the reviews are half of what I've heard from my European friends, I'll love it.
>Coconut wine
Tax here is bullshit and the processing of business permits in some cities and municipalities is so primitive that everything takes more than a day just to register or renew your business. Also, businessmen here need to consider the chance of a socialist or Communist labor groups ruining their whole business because they are demanding 'to be treated right' and asks for salary increase without justifications but you can't do anything about it because it is illegal to lay off a worker that is beyond 6 months.
The law here is stupid and most people should realize that what we need is a tax reform, because our taxes never goes straight to the development of the Philippines but only to the fat wallets of politicians.
Too much propaganda about constitutional prevention on 60/40's fault.
The constitution limits very few industries.
As specified by negative list:
sec.gov.(ph)
No foreign equity: Mass Media, Practice of Law, utilization of EEZ, small scale natural resources, nuclear weapons
30% foreign equity : advertising
40% foreign equity : exploration of natural resources, education (these are the only items qualified for 60/40 rule meaning 40% foreign ownership limitation in the Constitution)
The rest of the negative list with RA are the fault of Congress. For example RA 8762 retail ownership no foreign ownership unless capital is greater than $200,000. The constitution does not say Retail not allowed foreign ownership but the RA does(which is the fault of Congress).
Tell me which country became richer or wealthy due to 100% foreign ownership of Mass Media, advertising, practice of law, natural resources, nuclear weapons.
Awesome.
The constitution limits public land, utilities (which as defined by the court is broad), mass media, education.
They will pass three laws to loosen these up.
This. The major industries restricted are businesses where you generally don't want foreigners in charge of the major companies and is threat to National Security. Imagine the Chinese government buying up ABS-CBN & GMA and PTV.
Most other things are pretty much free to foreigners.
The 60-40 rule is restrictive in some cases, but most people (including a lot of people in this thread, frankly) don't seem to actually understand what it actually restricts.
>Most other things are pretty much free to foreigners.
Imagine having an opinion this ignorant
>limits public land
as it should
Sorry but land aint a barrier for foreign investments. Even multinational corporations who are in the Philippines rent their space.
The land ownership becomes a problem if the only way to make money for that foreign investor is to buy and sell land.
Land ownership wasnt a barrier for the Foreign investment in countries that have high foreign investments but no foreign land ownership like China. Only propaganda says that is barrier and people who believe the propaganda.
True, it isn't a barrier. But land ownership is an incentive, not so much as a barrier.
Many countries allow full ownership, with restrictions.
Well, the constitution is interpreted in a way that basically is wide in scope, what "public service" means and what "public utilities" are. congress is trying to fix that without amending the constitution.
>interepted that way
Starting in 1991, with the enactment of the Foreign Investments Act (FIA), investments have been substantially liberalized. The few restrictions that remain generally arise because of constitutional limitations and health and security reasons. Under the FIA, foreign ownership in a domestic corporation is allowed up to the extent of 100 percent, provided that the corporation is not engaged in an area of economic activity falling under the Foreign Investment Negative List (FINL). The FINL enumerates specific areas of economic activity that are reserved only to Philippine nationals, as well as those where foreign equity or participation is allowed but limited to a certain percentageIn particular, BPO services are not included in the FINL(Foreign Investment Negative List) and can thus be wholly foreign-owned, subject to minimum capitalization requirements on domestic market enterprises.
Any law which permits foreign ownership of land in the Philippines is disasterous. Stay away from that because if something like that was ever permitted the Chinese would move in and you'll find your country owned by China.
you can kind of smell the foul stench this ""reform"" is truly aming at.
You're sidestepping, and it shows your ignorance.
FIA does not interpret the meaning of a utility, and of public service. The courts do. The FIA is a restriction, but it does not define anything.
That is why people are pushing for amending the constitution. It eliminates all interpretation. It opens up investment to transportation, airlines, power, and infrastructure beyond the limitation, and to some extent makes it flexible to invest.
I don't know why a literal who thinks he knows his shit, and I sense you're a person who tends to answer by putting out buzzwords everywhere.
I don't know what you nerds are talking about but it seems next level. Why don't you faggots just get a position inside the government?
Duterte hates the West so I wouldn't feel any investment in the Philippines is secure.
I'm applying in the DFA one of these days. Seems like their exams are hard as hell though
>Even multinational corporations who are in the Philippines rent their space.
>The land ownership becomes a problem if the only way to make money for that foreign investor is to buy and sell land.
This.
Its only a problem if you want to buy and sell land if you are a investor that finds incentive in land ownership then you cannot the trusted
It means its up to the court and not our restrictions
It's not even the main problem. High energy costs, high logistics costs, and high wages relative to labor productivity are a lot more important than land ownership incentive. Also very relevant: a long history of political instability.
with very few qualified individuals for some specific or technical expertise
>transportation, airlines, power, and infrastructure
There is a reason why this are restricted its because it can threaten our national security
Call me a nationalist but some restrictions must be made unless you want China to legally buy Bohol
There's little to no money working as a DFA teller, and even if there is, you'd increase your chances getting assassinated by some disgruntled person either because you unintentionally fucked him in the ass, you one up'd him in his job, some cunt winding off or etc.
There is a very good reason why the constitution requires that certain industries fall under the 60/40 rule: to protect the country. Will it be ok for us if ABS-CBN and GMA7 is owned by the Chinese, of if all the water and electricity companies are owned by say, an American company?
PLDT and Globe currently has this problem: the former is controlled by the Malaysians and the Japanese, the later I think, by a Singapore telco. Scary.
And yet the rest of the world doesn't have any issues dealing business with China. The Chinese government has a controlling stake in foreign companies with factories in their country.
>PLDT and Globe currently has this problem: the former is controlled by the Malaysians and the Japanese, the later I think, by a Singapore telco. Scary.
Not really. They don't have a voting stake on the company. They can't make decisions.
>There is a very good reason why the constitution requires that certain industries fall under the 60/40 rule: to protect the country.
It's about national security vs jobs, and I think that there are people guarding these transactions, to see if they are against national security or not.
There are a lot of people, certainly not big companies... But still foreign nationals; that fully own businesses here. They just have a Filipino register it under their name. Tada!~ Such is being done by Koreans who have stores here.
But you will always have a cloud over you, that you aren't legal.
At one point they can take all that away and ask you to pay a huge fee, not to mention deportation.
That's what happened here when the Koreans started setting up illegal businesses and people started to notice. They were all closed and deported. Now there are only a few Korean businesses here, partnered with filipinos.
My city's number of Korean businesses is growing. Also we now have a Mainland Chinese exclave (((sad))) "call-center" bruh that's their online gambiling hoolabaloo...
As long as they're legal with legal partners it's fine. If they aren't, hopefully they get closed down. People should report that shit.
Foreign workers are getting clamped down lately, but sadly we are a 3rd world country, so we aren't so good at enforcement.
The chinks meanwhile need to be controlled.