REALITY BITES: HK Textbook Depicts Filipinos as Maids

The story about a primary school textbook in Hong Kong that depicts Filipinos as “maids” is now going viral on Facebook and other social network sites. Here’s a snapshot of the controversial textbook:

5thVUOp (1)

This is fill-in-the-blank task entitled ‘racial harmony’.

Offensive? Learn to deal with it, folks.

I am a Filipino and I am not offended. Like they say, reality bites.

My complaint about this issue is not ‘racism’ or ‘ethnic’ or ‘racial discrimination. In my personal opinion, this ‘racial harmony’ task has nothing to do with racism or race. It has something to do with a Hong Kong student’s personal perception of foreigners (e.g., Filipinos, Indians, British and Chinese) based on what they do in Hong Kong.

However, I believe I must make haste to clarify my position that I don’t agree with this academic task or subject for it cheapens the purpose of education and it weakens the ability of young students to think properly, objectively, and independently. The purpose of ethnic or racial studies in schools, according to its race-obsessed, left-leaning proponents and advocates, is to teach students the importance of racial harmony and multiculturalism. The image above shows why this academic strategy won’t work. Ethnic or racial studies will only make young people more obsessed about their race and see themselves as either superior or inferior to other races. Race is merely a social construct, because biologically (not politically or intellectually) speaking, we all have the same biological and physiological attributes under the skin. The best way to combat racism and racial discrimination is to stop talking and being obsessed about race!

Yet politically, the question that popped up in my mind is: What the hell went wrong?

Didn’t we ban foreign professionals and foreigners from buying and owning lands– and didn’t we limit foreign participation in business through our 60-40 ownership law?

Our draconian, anti-economics protectionist laws are supposed to benefit Filipinos and protect our industries against destructive foreign competition. This is what our political geniuses and intellectuals, most of whom are UP alumni, have been telling us for decades! What went wrong here in the Philippines and what went right in Hong Kong and other economically freer countries?

For instance, the Court of Appeals recently ruled that international forwarding firm FedEx should cease operating in the country because its presence is detrimental to the interest of local competitors and the country’s economy as a whole. This decision will certainly benefit local forwarding firms that actually don’t pay well and can’t compete.

Despite our protectionist laws, why did most Filipinos end up working as maids or domestic helpers in countries that are economically freer than the Philippines?

The logic (or lack of it) behind our Filipino First policies and protectionism is to make Filipinos the masters of their own domain. Instead, our Protectionism has been, for decades, forcing millions of jobless and ambitious Filipinos to work abroad due of lack of jobs and opportunities here. Instead, our Protectionism only benefits the oligarchs (some of them became filthy rich through subsidies, government loans, grants, etc.) and politically connected cronies due to lack of economic competition.

We have very expensive electricity and Internet services today because of lack of competition, government taxation, and intrusive regulations. Yes, apart from taxation, regulations cost companies billions.

Our failing economy is a product of voodoo economics. Like the science-spouting Marxists who believe that punishing the rich would benefit the poor, the Filipino protectionists, past and present, believed that banning and limiting foreign participation would make our country more prosperous than the OFW destination countries that embraced economic openness.

What happened to countries that opened their economies to foreigners? Well, all of these non-protectionist or economically freer countries are now OFW destinations such as Hong Kong, Singapore, United States, Canada, UAE and Japan.

So, instead of getting butt-hurt and accuse Hong Kong nationals of racism, Filipinos should reflect upon the failed economic policies and protectionism of their government and economic planners. The people in Hong Kong are not racist, and this is proven by Hong Kong’s openness to trade and foreign participation. In fact, the bigoted anti-Filipino groups in Hong Kong and in Singapore simply share the anti-trade, protectionist mentality of Filipino leftists, nationalists and protectionists. It is our protectionist policies and laws that are actually ‘racist’ and discriminatory.

PHILIPPINES-FREERIDER

BLOG-PIC1

SEE RELATED BLOGS:

The Real Reason Internet Access in PH is Slow and Expensive

A Free Power Industry for Cheaper Electricity

Why Hong Kong, U.S., and Other Freer Economies Can Justifiably Ban/Restrict Free-Riding RP in the Name of Reciprocity

Destroying the ‘Filipino First’ Mindset

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “REALITY BITES: HK Textbook Depicts Filipinos as Maids

  1. Except, you know, China is a corrupt authoritarian dictatorship–I’ve contracted with companies there, and it is a nightmare; it is no free market paradise. As for supposed free markets and globalization, I recommend that you read Bad Samaritans by the always insightful international economist Ha-Joon Chang, and generally check out the free market liberals at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. You seem to have a stereotype of what a modern liberal is. It isn’t 1970 anymore. Conservatives are some of the biggest protectionists around. Also you can check out Dean Baker’s The End of Loser Liberalism, in which I think you will find a great deal to think about and agree with. (The ebook is free.)

    • China is certainly not a free-market paradise. In terms of its political structure, China is a single-party dictatorship. But in terms of its economic policies, China is economically freer than the Philippines. Walmart-China is majority owned. Walmart cannot operate in the Philippines due to our 60-40 business equity restriction that favors Filipinos. Plus, foreigners are not allowed to buy and own land in the country since the Parity Rights between USA and RP expired in 1974. Walmart can only operate here through licensing and franchising.

      “You seem to have a stereotype of what a modern liberal is. It isn’t 1970 anymore. Conservatives are some of the biggest protectionists around.”

      — You clearly don’t know my stand on that particular matter. Of course I know the history of the Liberal left. Before there were the CLASSICAL LIBERALS who were pro-capitalism and pro-individual rights. But then the leftists and communists kept changing their names. They used the terms progressives and then liberals. Here in the Philippines, one notorious Filipino leftist (he was part of the Communist Party and then became a lawmaker) once used the term “Neo-Liberal” to describe his fellow revolutionaries.

      If you read some of my previous blogs, you’d know my views on the Conservatives. I am not a Conservative. The Conservatives are as statist as the Liberals. Both groups are for social control. The Conservatives are actually not pro-capitalism. Like Reagan, they’re pro-Mixed Economy.

      You better read the works of Ludwig Von Mises and the non-fiction works of Ayn Rand, particularly her “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” and “For the New Intellectual”.

    • Please don’t lump business in Hong Kong with business in China. The laws controlling trade and business conduct are very different. Personally, Milton Friedman is my economist of choice and I shall quote that he describes Hong Kong as an example of the free market system.

      • I didn’t. I was comparing China’s economic policies to PH economic policies. Don’t ever forget that HK remains part of China and some of its political policies are controlled, perhaps indirectly by Beijing. Like I said, China is economically freer than the Philippines.

  2. This will be my last comment. If you had ever taken the time to actually read the comments of mine that you attacked, you would know a few things. First, you would know that I’ve read quite a lot of this blog. Second, you would know that I have read everything that Rand ever published in book form and also quite a lot of the stuff in her newsletter. I was especially fond of Leonard Peikoff, who was and is a far better writer than she was. The two tiny introductions that you mention I probably read before you were born. I have not read as much of Ludwig Von Mises, but I am well read on the Austrian school of economics, which is heavy on ideology and light on economics. At the time, I guess it was a big deal that communism was a really poor economic system, but the fact that people continue to find it relevant amazes me.

    I am not talking about the history of “classical liberalism.” I am talking about what actual living economists have been doing since the 1970s. One of your commenters says he follows Milton Friedman (whose best work was done in the late 1950s). Well, that quote was probably before 1997, when Hong Kong went back to the Chinese. But given that I worked in the region for many years before and after that, I can say that the whole of southern China was fairly free economically–in the sense that you could bribe your way into a business and then attract what was effectively a slave labor force.

    Most people who quote Friedman, don’t know anything about his economics. They tend to quote from “Free to Choose.” In his economics, he was far more interventionist. Or at least he was regarding the US economy. He didn’t mind screwing with the economy of Chile under the leadership of that great lover of freedom Augusto Pinochet.

    All you’ve done here is wall yourself up in a little box where only the stupidest of liberal thought comes in–primarily ridiculous 1960s radicalism that was more about fashion than anything. Dean Baker’s work is all about making markets actually free. Most libertarians are in favor of all kinds of things that are anti-free market (eg patents, corporations, legal system), because they never talk to anyone who disagrees with them. So what do you do? Turn on Rachel Maddow and think that proves that the left has no ideas? Your comment about “classical liberalism” shows you don’t begin to see the great big world of ideas out there.

    You have the links. Read if you want, or go and see if you can find more wisdom in another reading of Anthem. It’s up to you. You seem like a smart young man, but you are woefully ignorant–so ignorant, you don’t even begin to see what you don’t know. The world is not as simple as Ayn Rand made it out. I wish it were. And I wish you luck in your studies.

  3. I smell dishonesty here. First off, I did not attack you reply. You’re either thinking too much or paranoid.

    You said: “First, you would know that I’ve read quite a lot of this blog.”

    — Really? Then why are you so clueless about my stand on Conservatism and Libertarianism? You even told me I “have a stereotype of what a modern liberal is”. What stereotype are you talking about? What modern liberal are you talking about? Again: FALSE ASSUMPTIONS. Read my blogs.

    You said: “Second, you would know that I have read everything that Rand ever published in book form and also quite a lot of the stuff in her newsletter.”

    — I don’t think so. I’m reminded of your reply to my comment on your blog. My position on the Native Indians is exactly what Ayn Rand said. Again, read her books, particularly Ayn Rand Answers. — http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=-2D6VqMXfFIC&pg=PT95&dq=%22ayn+rand%22+%22cultural+genocide+of+native+americans%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZGGHU_GHOMOMqAavoYKoAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22ayn%20rand%22%20%22cultural%20genocide%20of%20native%20americans%22&f=false

    Plus, if you read Rand, you’d not have misrepresented her ideas. Why don’t you read and review your own blog?

    “I have not read as much of Ludwig Von Mises, but I am well read on the Austrian school of economics, which is heavy on ideology and light on economics.”

    Good to know.

    “I guess it was a big deal that communism was a really poor economic system, but the fact that people continue to find it relevant amazes me.”

    Perhaps it’s because your grasp of politics is not that strong and well-developed.

    “I am not talking about the history of “classical liberalism.” “

    So what the hell are you talking about? Oh my…

    If I misunderstood what you’re trying to say, I think it’s your own fault. You should have explained your “modern liberalism”. I’m still waiting for your clarification/explanation. But I think it’s good that I told you how the Left hijacked the term liberalism and how they kept changing their names. By the way, Mises, Hazlitt and other free market thinkers in the past considered themselves not only libertarians (small “l”, not Libertarian), but also “classical liberals”.

    Related blog — https://vincenton.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/the-roots-of-americas-great-depression-big-government-and-the-federal-reserve-system/

    ” I am talking about what actual living economists have been doing since the 1970s.”

    What the heck is that? LOL! How is that related to your “modern liberalism”? Are you crazy?

    “Well, that quote was probably before 1997, when Hong Kong went back to the Chinese.”

    CORRECTION: In and after 1997, not before.

    By the way, there’s a big difference between “political liberalism” (at least in America) and “liberal” or “liberalized economy”. The first refers to left-leaning or even leftist liberals, while the second refers to the result of free market policies/reforms.

    “Most people who quote Friedman, don’t know anything about his economics.”

    Perhaps you’re one of these “most people”. Friedman was a monetarist. I talked about Friedman who was once in favor of anti-trust law here— https://vincenton.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/competition-is-good-regulation-is-evil/

    So, who are these “most people” who don’t know anything about his economics? You may know what I though about Friedman by simply searching his name on this blogsite.

    “All you’ve done here is wall yourself up in a little box where only the stupidest of liberal thought comes in–primarily ridiculous 1960s radicalism that was more about fashion than anything.”

    What the heck are you talking about? Again, you didn’t even tell me how you used the term “modern liberalism”. And because of that you’re not just clueless but arrogantly stupid as well. I don’t even know what you’re trying to attack. You must be suffering from dementia or some kind of mental problem. 😉

    1960s? Well, that’s when the left-leaning liberals started to grand grow and infect institutions, particularly universities like the Columbia University. So, what the hell are you trying to say here?

    Why don’t you speak clearly and tell me directly what you’re trying to say? It seems to me you’re trying to sound intelligent with your cryptic, nonsensical gibberish. 😉

    “Dean Baker’s work is all about making markets actually free. ”

    What kind drug are you on, dude?

    You said: “Most libertarians are in favor of all kinds of things that are anti-free market (eg patents, corporations, legal system), because they never talk to anyone who disagrees with them. “

    See? This proves you’re dishonest and lying. If you actually read my blogs, you’d have found out I AM NOT A LIBERTARIAN. In fact I posted a number of blogs ATTACKING LIBERTARIANISM, you fool!

    “Turn on Rachel Maddow and think that proves that the left has no ideas?”

    LOL! What the heck is wrong with you? That’s hilarious, man!

    “Your comment about “classical liberalism” shows you don’t begin to see the great big world of ideas out there.”

    It’s because your comment seems to talk about nothing in particular. LOL! Don’t you understand that? You’re indeed a special kind of stupid.

    Here’s what your hilarious comments tell me about you: SCATTERBRAIN.

  4. There are lots of butthuft pinoys on Facebook.

    By the way, interesting discussion. However, I still don’t know what Frank Moraes is trying to say. I’d also like to know what he meant by this- “You seem to have a stereotype of what a modern liberal is.” He seems to talk too much without explaining what he meant by modern liberal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s