Chromatography was used because of its powerful technique in separating mixtures. In this experiment the Chili pepper pigments was extracted using DCM, the extract was then introduced into the column….
Charter Change in the Philippines
Summarize the article — Before summarizing the article:CHACHA needed for inclusive growth. I would like you to know that some sentences below are taken from the article. Thus, I do not account any ownership on some other lines. The article is about Charter change (CHA-CHA) must be pushed in the Philippines. It sites that our Constitution, is not welcoming foreign investors to our mass media and advertising, public utilities, educational institutions, land ownership, and exploitation of natural resources.
The good news is, letting foreign investors to invest only in our stock market, not in actual capital goods and fixed investments. Moreover, our president compared our country to China who can afford to be restrictive of land ownership. This proves that we can also have a growing rate. However, the government of China is more efficient than ours in implementing infrastructure projects. On the other hand, changing our constitution can be very simple, according to Feliciano Belmonte, “What the legislators can do is to append the phrase “except when otherwise provided by law” to all the restrictive economic provisions.”
Though, it sounded simple, As the critics say, any unlimited ability to buy land could enable the rich Arabs or the Chinese to buy all the 7,100 islands of the Archipelago. Also, Bernardo M. Villegas suggest that the new Foreign Investments Act should allow a 49 percent foreign ownership also to assure the preservation of certain national values that could be endangered in the hands of foreigners who may espouse such counter values as abortion, divorce and gay marriages.
All in all, the massive entry of foreign investors – regulated by the Foreign Investments Act – can do much to make all the sectors of the Philippine economy more competitive, with the resulting benefits to consumers in the form of lower prices, higher quality of goods or services and greater productivity from the technology that foreigners will bring with them. Explain why you agree or disagree. Discuss your reaction — At first, I disagree to Charter change or also known as CHA-CHA. We all might be interested to inclusive growth, increase investment in infrastructure and GDP.
But let us try look to on the other side. Like, what are the possible consequences we may face? We all know that allowing CHACHA means letting foreigners/outsiders to take advantage on us. Allowing them to buy and be part of our mass media and advertising, public utilities, educational institutions, land ownership, and exploitation of natural resources. In short, we are giving them a chance to rule over our country. However, I tried to read more about CHA-CHA. As I have been reading, I realized that I am over thinking of national security.
And so, I started to agree with CHA-CHA. Basically right from the start, we are allowing ourselves to be part of CHA-CHA. The question is how? According to the website I have read at “Technology and globalization have also rendered those Constitutional prohibitions meaningless. In the age of the Internet, satellite television and social media, Filipinos are consuming their media content from sources all over. We can listen to a radio, watch movies, and read newspapers without even going through a “Filipino-controlled” media outfit.
Moreover, people can even attend lectures and get a degree from a foreign university online. Therefore, these Constitutional prohibitions are such anachronisms and must be removed. ” This affected me very much, I realized that CHA-CHA is not so bad at all. With this, we can modernize our political and economic institutions. All in all, I agree and disagree at the same time. Why is there a need for charter change? – After reading articles on the internet, I have understood that: Charter change (CHA-CHA) will improve and revise our constitution.
It is to reform some law and Article. I am not saying that some Article is wrong, but what I’m trying to say is that our constitution will be better if Charter change (CHA-CHA) will be pushed. Moreover, here are some laws and Article that needs to be pushed/made: (1) in our 1987 Constitution, there is no Anti-Trust law that prohibits monopoly and encourages competition between businesses. (2) Article XII: Protectionism, which makes the Philippines most restrictive in foreign investment. (3) Federalization, this will spread the economic wealth throughout the country.
The reason why the Manila is very congested, is because of the unhealthy spread economic wealth, this is because there aren’t much jobs offered in some regions and so most country men are forced to migrate in Manila which is becoming more congested. And those are the three laws and Article that I want to push through. Furthermore, I believe that with Charter change (CHA-CHA ) our country will improve its education, infrastructures, public utilities, and exploitation of natural resources. With these we will be able to increase our inclusive growth, increase investment in infrastructure and GDP.
And so I believe that we need to push through Charter change (CHA-CHA ). How can such change jumpstart the economy? Charter change will be very helpful to improve our economy. Charter change (CHA-CHA ) attracts foreign investors, with these we will be able to increase our inclusive growth, increase investment in infrastructure and GDP. But the question is how? Like I said before, CHA-CHA will increase our foreign investors. These foreign investors will create businesses here that will need workers. And those workers will be us. Other than an increase in our investment it will also be a job opportunity for every Filipino.
If there are job oppurtunities in our country, then it means that there will be a decrease of OFW. The 100-percent ownership requirement for media companies, including similar restrictions on the advertising industry, easily come to mind. Such prohibitions deny our media companies the chance to get foreign capital they need to be world class. I recall that those restrictions were imposed out of fear that our people will be subjected to unwanted foreign media influence. Well, in the age of satellite communications and cable television, that objective will not be met anyway.
They just beam their programs to us from Hong Kong and Singapore, with both benefiting from their investments. We are simply a market that outflows dollar payments to them. The 60/40 limitation on ownership of public utility companies is another outdated mandate. Given the enormity of investments needed in these types of companies that are impossible to raise in this country, a properly regulated 100-percent foreign ownership should be beneficial to our consumers. Indeed, it is the only way to provide effective competition to home-grown monopolies.
I also have no problems with liberalized citizenship rules. We are now a nation in diaspora, pretty much like the Jews. We are scattered all over the world not because we want to, but because we have to earn a li-ving somehow. A piece of paper does not define who a Filipino is. The sense of being Filipino is in the heart. Since overseas Pinoys also have economic clout, they could play a key role in raising needed capital for our economic development. Jews in America enjoy dual citizenship and they contribute greatly to Israel’s economy.
Why not similarly tap our Fil-Am brothers and sisters and all Pinoys elsewhere by allowing them dual citizenship? They are real Pinoys by blood and sentiment. On the form of government, I am ready to try a real parliamentary system. The semi-parliamentary experiment of Mr. Marcos does not count since the government system then was essentially dictatorial. I initially thought we need a Senate for the sense of statesmanship needed to temper our legislature. But electing a statesman to the Senate has become difficult these days. We have showbiz personalities being elected more out of popularity than ability.
And with the cost of getting elected nationally now out of hand, the Senate as a concept no longer works. Let’s have a unicameral body that will at least save us time and money. A parliament working under the leadership of a Prime Minister will have full responsibility for running the government and passing the needed legislative measures. Hopefully, there will be no more buck passing. Failure is failure and the Prime Minister and his government must take full responsibility. A good Prime Minister can serve beyond the six-year presidential term.
A bad one can be thrown out into the streets in a month without having to do another People Power event on EDSA. We can still elect a basically symbolic President who is the head of state. This will allow the masa to still directly vote for Fernando Poe Jr. or even Dolphy and do little damage to the functioning of government. With the President’s function limited to such ceremonies as accepting the credentials of ambassadors and hosting visiting dignitaries in state dinners, even a charming moron who has the minimum ability to read a ghost written speech can be President.
That way, the country need not worry about an Erap disaster, i. e. , bestowing enormous responsibility on a total incompetent, happening again. A constituent assembly composed of the present members of Congress should do just fine. I don’t believe a specially elected constitutional assembly would be better or any different. We will only spend good money to elect the relatives and friends of the current members of Congress simply because that’s the power structure nationwide. Besides, a constitutional convention will likely prolong its job and will want to rewrite the entire Constitution.
The last thing we need is another deliberative body and endless debates. Talk, contrary to popular belief, is not cheap. We only need a few key amendments. We only have to give the constituent assembly a narrow mandate in the joint resolution to amend specific provisions and nothing more. Let us also stop this nonsense of accusing GMA or JDV of wanting charter change so they can be Prime ministers. They have both said they are not interested. Even if they are, so what? It is a new ball game and maybe with new rules, they can be more effective. For now, let’s take their word for it so we can move on.
I will concede that it would be better if our political parties are ideologically different from each other. But we just have to get started now or we will never get there. Maybe, eventually we can have a real choice of party ideologies. In the meantime, we need the new basic rules and the political stability of not having to worry about another EDSA toppling a president. Even if we have to change Prime Ministers every month in the beginning, that would be less stressful to investors than the EDSA system which involves the armed services in an extremely painful process of leadership change.
Let us not complicate this charter change business with extraneous baggage. We need some changes just so we can be economically competitive. While none of these changes constitute a cure-all and none is as good as a radical change of attitude in every Filipino’s heart, a few well chosen amendments can give the economy a jump start. We don’t have the luxury of time to debate these vital changes to death. Let’s get moving fast before things really get out of hand as in Joma returning home and not necessarily in hand cuffs.