"From Dimasalang to Balsac: When Secrecy and History Becomes an Excuse"

"From Dimasalang to Balsac: When Secrecy and History Becomes an Excuse"

A public controversy can begin with a laugh and end with a constitutional question. A name may sound improbable, a receipt may appear suspicious, and a coincidence may seem so extravagant that it belongs in satire. But when such a name appears in documents used to liquidate public funds, the issue is no longer merely amusing. It becomes a matter of accountability.

That is why the exchange in the Senate impeachment court between Robin Padilla, prosecution counsel Mae Divinagracia, and Bam Aquino deserves more than the amusement it naturally produced.

Padilla invoked history. He reminded the prosecution that Filipino heroes used aliases: Dimasalang, Siling Labuyo, Tikbalang, and the many noms de guerre by which revolutionaries concealed themselves from the colonial police. He later invoked the alias “Marcial Bonifacio,” used by Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr. when he returned to the Philippines in 1983. Padilla’s argument was essentially that aliases have a legitimate place in dangerous and confidential work, and that even the armed insurgency of the present era furnishes examples of people operating under assumed names. (Inquirer.net)

Bam Aquino did not dispute the history. He merely restored the missing context.

Ninoy Aquino did use Marcial Bonifacio, he said, but Ninoy had no confidential funds, and his alias did not appear among the acknowledgment receipts now before the impeachment court. (GMA Network)

It was a humorous intervention, but beneath the humor lay a serious distinction that the Senate would do well to preserve. An alias adopted by a revolutionary to escape an occupying authority is one thing. An alias supposedly attached to the receipt of taxpayers’ money is another. Jose Rizal was not submitting Dimasalang to the Commission on Audit. Andres Bonifacio did not ask the Treasury to liquidate a government cash advance payable to Maypagasa. Ninoy Aquino used Marcial Bonifacio because he was attempting to return to a country ruled by a government that had imprisoned him, sentenced him to death, and driven him into exile. These historical circumstances cannot simply be transplanted into the accounting system of a constitutional republic.

Indeed, there is an additional oddity. The prosecution clarified after Padilla’s questioning that it had not asserted that the questionable names in the receipts were aliases, and that the defense itself had not established such a proposition either. (Inquirer.net) The result is a risk of constructing an elaborate historical defense of an explanation that has yet to be proved.

And this controversy did not begin yesterday.

The woman who could not be found

Mary Grace Piattos entered the national imagination in 2024, when her name appeared on acknowledgment receipts connected with confidential expenditures of the Office of the Vice President. The name immediately acquired an almost folkloric quality because it appeared to combine the name of a well-known restaurant with that of a familiar snack. But Congress did not merely laugh. It asked whether the person existed.

The Philippine Statistics Authority subsequently certified that its Civil Registry System contained no birth, marriage, or death record under the name Mary Grace Piattos. The PSA prudently added that a more extensive search could be conducted if additional identifying information—parents’ names, dates, or places of vital events—were supplied. That qualification is important. A negative database search is evidence deserving inquiry; it is not, standing alone, metaphysical proof that no human being could ever have borne the name. (GMA Network)

But what began as one bizarre name did not remain one bizarre name.

When the impeachment trial reached the confidential-fund records this August, Mary Grace Piattos returned, this time before the Senate itself. Former COA auditor Roderick Wamil identified her receipt as among the 845 acknowledgment receipts he examined in relation to the OVP’s ₱125-million confidential fund for the closing days of 2022. (Philippine News Agency)

Then came the procession. The selected receipts presented in court included Mary Grace Piattos for ₱70,000, Renan Piattos for ₱110,000, Mico Harina for ₱295,000, Patty Ting for ₱150,000, Andy Lim for ₱50,000, and Sisfrunio Balsac for ₱70,000, among others. (DZRH News) The names by themselves prove neither fraud nor guilt. There are Filipinos with unusual names, unfortunate names, amusing names, and names whose parents displayed an imagination that no civil registrar could restrain. The law cannot convict a person because a surname happens to resemble lunch.

But government accounting does not operate on the presumption that the more ridiculous a coincidence becomes, the less necessary it is to explain.

In subsequent proceedings, still more curious names appeared in selected 2023 receipts: Miggy Mango, Jay Kamote, Matthew Keso, Ralph Josh Bacon, and others whose collective effect caused the evidentiary record to resemble, at moments, less the supporting documents of an intelligence operation than the inventory of a grocery basket. (Philippine News Agency)

This is where ridicule becomes dangerous, because ridicule can distract from the larger issue. The republic is not prosecuting a menu. It is examining money.

Confidential is not synonymous with unknowable

There is a legitimate case for confidential funds. Every serious government recognizes that intelligence work cannot be conducted entirely in public. Informants may have to be protected. Operations may fail if their objects, participants, or methods are disclosed prematurely. A state that cannot keep a secret will soon discover that its adversaries can.

But this principle produces the opposite conclusion from the one sometimes drawn from it.

Precisely because confidential expenditure is hidden from ordinary public inspection, the internal mechanisms of accountability must be stronger, not weaker. The taxpayer may properly be denied the identity of an intelligence source. It does not follow that the state itself may be unable to establish that the source exists.

Wamil put the distinction with admirable simplicity during his testimony. What is confidential, he said, is the purpose or operation; that does not automatically render the identity of an ordinary supplier confidential. The OVP, he testified, was still expected to produce the appropriate supporting documentation for purchases. (Philippine News Agency)

That distinction is the heart of the controversy.

A secure government audit system can know what the public must not know. It can assign codes, restrict access, seal records, and protect sources while retaining a verifiable chain between the pseudonym and the real individual. Otherwise, “confidential” ceases to describe information protected from public disclosure and begins instead to describe information incapable of verification.

An alias may protect an informant, but the government must still be capable of proving, to the officials legally authorized to know, that there was an informant to protect.

That is why the argument cannot end with the discovery that aliases have been used by heroes, rebels, spies, journalists, actors, and revolutionaries. Of course they have. The question is not whether aliases exist. The question is whether an alias written on a government acknowledgment receipt corresponds to a real person, whether that person actually received the stated amount, whether the expenditure served an authorized confidential purpose, and whether an auditable record exists somewhere within the state establishing those facts.

These are accounting questions before they are historical questions.

The danger of making heroes into bookkeepers

Padilla’s historical excursion also illustrates a recurring Philippine weakness: public officials sometimes invoke national heroes where ordinary administrative competence would suffice.

Rizal and Bonifacio belong to the history of a people deprived of their own sovereign state. Their secrecy was directed against a colonial state they sought to overthrow. The officials now before the impeachment court operate inside the Philippine state, exercise powers created by its Constitution, and spend revenues collected under its laws.

The difference is not semantic. It is the difference between conspiracy against colonial authority and fiduciary responsibility under republican authority.

The Katipunan kept secrets from the Guardia Civil because discovery could mean imprisonment or execution. A constitutional office keeps certain intelligence information from public circulation because disclosure could compromise legitimate operations. But that office remains accountable to the republic whose money it spends.

The romance of revolutionary secrecy therefore requires caution. Taken too far, it converts a principle of resistance into a theory of public administration.

Almost anything could be justified by that method. Revolutionaries met secretly; therefore government meetings need no minutes. Revolutionaries concealed their finances; therefore government expenditures need no audit. Revolutionaries used assumed identities; therefore names on official liquidation papers need never be traceable. The absurdity becomes apparent as soon as the analogy is completed.

The heroes of the Revolution used secrecy because they had no republic of their own.

The officials of the present republic have no such excuse.

The receipts themselves must answer

There are other facts that make the demand for explanation more serious. Wamil testified that the liquidation of the initial ₱125 million was marked by deficiencies in supporting documents. He also described as “unusual” a pattern in which 111 transactions totaling about ₱17 million were recorded in a single day, with the amounts appearing in round figures. (GMA Network) COA has separately affirmed a notice of disallowance covering roughly ₱73.28 million in 2022 confidential expenditures, although questions of ultimate liability and the legal effect of the audit findings remain matters subject to the proper processes. (GMA Network)

None of these facts authorizes anyone to skip the trial and pronounce a verdict from a newspaper column. The Vice President is entitled to a defense. Her lawyers are entitled to challenge the prosecution’s interpretation of the documents, the auditors’ conclusions, the provenance of the receipts, and the inferences being drawn from unusual names. Impeachment, however political in character, must not become conviction by meme.

But neither can accountability become acquittal by euphemism.

Calling Mary Grace Piattos an “alias” does not answer who used the alias. Calling Patty Ting an “alias” does not establish the real person behind Patty Ting. Calling Sisfrunio Balsac an “alias”—however valiantly one may attempt to pronounce the name with a straight face—does not demonstrate that ₱70,000 reached a legitimate recipient for a legitimate confidential purpose.

The alias theory, if the defense eventually adopts it, creates a new question rather than answering the old one: alias of whom?

And somewhere in a functioning government there must be an answer.

The answer need not be announced from the Senate gallery. It need not be televised. It need not be printed tomorrow morning beside the name of an intelligence operation. There are legitimate secrets that a mature republic should be mature enough to keep.

But secrecy from the public and secrecy from accountability are not the same thing.

The fillers in a trial that is supposed to be swift

Meanwhile, supporters of Padilla’s position appear to be treating the issue as little more than filler in a trial that is supposed to be swift and speedy. Some seem to have been carried away by the phrase “confidential alias,” as though the mere invocation of secrecy were enough to settle the matter.

One apologist even responded by citing history:“Be careful about calling people stupid, because even lawyers can be stupid, especially when it comes to history. We are all ignorant about different things...Always remember the lessons of the Katipunan so that you will not be deceived by people who are small-minded, as you see them…”

The translation is clear enough, but so is the irony. The statement warns against intellectual arrogance while using history as a rhetorical shield rather than engaging the central accounting question. It invokes the Katipunan, but does not explain how revolutionary aliases establish the identity of people who received public money. It cautions others against being “small-minded,” yet treats a demand for documentary verification as though it were an insult to history.

A trial intended to be swift and speedy should not be burdened by arguments irrelevant to the actual issue. The question is not whether lawyers can be foolish, whether critics can be arrogant, or whether the Katipunan taught Filipinos to distrust people of poor character. The question is whether the receipts identify real recipients, whether the money was actually disbursed to them, and whether the expenditures were lawful and properly documented.

Historical references may illuminate a legal argument. They cannot substitute for one.

The Senate should be especially wary of allowing such diversions to consume time. A proceeding that is supposed to determine constitutional accountability cannot afford to become a contest of patriotic quotations, personal insults, and improvised lessons in revolutionary history. If the defense has evidence that the names were aliases, it should present the evidence. If it has a secure record identifying the persons behind those aliases, it should explain how that record satisfies the requirements of confidential auditing. If it does not, then the invocation of history remains precisely what it appears to be: a distraction.

What Bam Aquino actually exposed

This is why Bam Aquino’s remark worked. Its effectiveness did not lie merely in political wit or family history. It exposed the category error in Padilla’s comparison.

Yes, Ninoy Aquino used an alias. But Marcial Bonifacio was not offered as a receipt for public money.

No auditor had to ask whether the government gave Marcial Bonifacio ₱70,000, ₱150,000, or ₱295,000. No liquidation report depended upon proving that Marcial Bonifacio bought information for the Office of the Vice President. No constitutional officer asked the republic to accept his assumed identity as documentary support for an expenditure.

Ninoy was hiding himself from the state. The persons behind these receipts, if aliases they truly are, were receiving money from the state. That distinction is everything.

The Senate should therefore resist both temptations now competing for attention. It should not convict because the names are funny. And it should not cease asking questions because someone has remembered that Bonifacio, Rizal, the Katipunan, Ninoy Aquino, and the NPA also used aliases.

The republic can tolerate an alias. What it cannot safely tolerate is an expenditure without an accountable human being behind it.

Mary Grace Piattos may someday be identified. Patty Ting may prove to be somebody. Sisfrunio Balsac may yet emerge from the documentary shadows with an identity, an explanation, and a perfectly legitimate story. If so, the evidence should establish it, and fairness should acknowledge it.

But until the receipts can be connected to real persons and lawful purposes through a credible and protected audit trail, invoking the heroes of the Revolution does not elevate these documents.

It merely reminds observers how far the country has traveled from Dimasalang to Piattos—and how dangerous it would be if, somewhere along the journey, the Philippine government began mistaking secrecy for accountability.

 

The Trouble With a Witness Who Remembers Too Selectively

The Trouble With a Witness Who Remembers Too Selectively

There is an old courtroom difficulty which no amount of legal polish can completely conceal: a witness may answer every question put to her and yet leave the public knowing less than when the questioning began. That, in substance, was the complaint raised by members of the prosecution panel after the testimony of Gina Acosta, former special disbursing officer of the Office of the Vice President, concerning the handling of roughly ₱500 million in confidential funds.

Acosta’s answer, repeated often enough to become the most memorable feature of the proceedings, was that the money had been turned over to Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, former head of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group. There is, of course, nothing inherently suspicious about repeating an answer if that answer happens to be true. A witness should not be expected to invent a new version merely to satisfy the impatience of counsel. But repetition acquires a different character when distinct questions, directed at different portions of a financial transaction, seem always to arrive at precisely the same terminus.

This was what irritated the prosecution.

Lorna Kapunan called the testimony a “broken record,” or plakang sira. Amando Virgil Ligutan used another familiar expression: de kahon. “Many questions, one answer,” he observed. Joel Chua dispensed even with those qualifications and said the answers appeared “coached.” “Her answer is obviously scripted,” Chua said. Whatever was asked, he complained, the direction of the answer remained Lachica.

These are serious criticisms, and they should not casually be converted into findings of fact. To say that testimony sounds rehearsed is not to prove that somebody rehearsed it. To say that a witness appears coached is not proof that a lawyer supplied the answers. The distinction matters, particularly in an impeachment proceeding where partisan conclusions tend to form long before evidentiary ones.

But the prosecution’s point deserves more than a shrug precisely because its concern was not confined to one repeated name. What caught its attention was the apparent pattern of recollection surrounding that name.

Ligutan questioned Acosta about her earlier work as special disbursing officer when Sara Duterte was mayor of Davao City. On several details, Acosta said she could no longer remember. Yet, according to Ligutan, when the defense pursued a similar period of her service, her recollection appeared considerably less troubled. “You said you could no longer remember when you were in Davao,” he told her, before pointing to answers concerning the years 2018 to 2022 that he believed had come with greater ease.

Thus entered into the proceedings that wonderfully diplomatic courtroom phrase: “selective memory.”

Selective memory is an accusation frequently made and rarely easy to prove. Human recollection is not an accounting ledger. A person may remember an office procedure and forget an amount; remember the existence of an audit document and forget the date on which a transaction was made. Acosta herself offered essentially this explanation. She said she could remember that no Commission on Audit memoranda had been issued concerning certain matters, while being unable to recall the exact amounts of confidential funds from Duterte’s years as Davao mayor.

That explanation is possible. It is also precisely the kind of explanation that becomes more difficult for a witness when the contrast in memory appears to correspond too neatly with the identity of the questioner.

Benjamin Tolosa made this the prosecution’s practical complaint. When prosecution lawyers were asking, he said, Acosta sometimes seemed to have difficulty answering or understanding. When defense counsel took over, he observed, comprehension appeared faster and the responses more immediate. Chua’s conclusion was harsher: de kahon. Kapunan supplied the imagery of the defective phonograph. Ligutan, more cautiously, left judgment to those watching.

One need not endorse every prosecutorial flourish to recognize why this matters.

Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo on Monday raised doubts about Acosta’s supposed difficulty speaking in Filipino or English at the Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

Acosta, a former special disbursing officer of the Office of the Vice President and currently a member of its staff, answered questions in Bisaya on Monday morning, prompting the Senate impeachment court to try to find a translator.

Describing the apparent language barrier as “deception,” Tulfo asked the court to compel Acosta to respond in Filipino.

“I know, Ms. Witness, that you can understand Tagalog and that you can speak Tagalog because this is several pages long,” he said, holding up a transcript of the 2024 House hearing.

He noted that Acosta had also responded in English to questions asked in English.

“Why does it seem that you are having such a hard time now, that your answers have to be translated from Tagalog into Bisaya? We will take a year here, Mr. President,” Tulfo said.

Tulfo’s intervention added a new dimension to the prosecution’s concern. The issue was no longer only whether Acosta remembered selectively or repeated a prepared answer. It was also whether the witness was presenting a language difficulty that did not appear consistently across the proceedings.

That, too, requires caution. A witness may be more comfortable speaking in one language when discussing technical or unfamiliar matters. She may understand a question in Filipino or English but prefer to answer in Bisaya, particularly under the pressure of a public trial. Language preference is not, by itself, evidence of deception.

Still, the contrast noted by Tulfo was not trivial. If Acosta could understand Tagalog, speak it in prior proceedings and answer English questions in English, the court was entitled to ask why a translator had suddenly become necessary. The answer may be innocent. But the court should not be expected to ignore a change in communicative ability when that change affects the pace and substance of testimony.

The problem of confidential funds has always been that secrecy, though sometimes justified by the nature of intelligence work, creates an extraordinary burden of institutional trust. Ordinary government expenditure travels under the discipline of invoices, contracts, names, quantities and deliverables. Confidential expenditure necessarily removes some of these things from public inspection. Precisely because the usual windows are shuttered, the remaining mechanisms of accountability must be stronger, not weaker.

When hundreds of millions of pesos pass through an office under a regime of confidentiality, “I turned it over” cannot automatically become the end of institutional inquiry. It may be the beginning of the answer, but it is not the whole answer. Turned over under whose authority? By what procedure? With what documentation? Who thereafter assumed responsibility for custody, disbursement and liquidation? What did the disbursing officer understand her duty to be before and after the transfer?

Those are not necessarily accusations of theft. They are the ordinary questions that follow public money.

This is why Acosta’s repeated reference to Lachica became so important to prosecutors. The issue was not merely whether she named the same man several times. It was whether the repetition functioned, intentionally or otherwise, as a wall beyond which the questioning could not travel. A bureaucracy cannot permit responsibility to dissolve simply by moving money from one official hand to another. If Officer A says the money went to Officer B, and Officer B points elsewhere, public accountability can rapidly become a children’s game of pass-the-parcel, except that the parcel contains taxpayers’ money.

The prosecution acquired another reason for suspicion when Acosta acknowledged meeting Lindon Bacquel, one of Duterte’s defense lawyers, roughly two weeks before she took the witness stand. Bacquel subsequently conducted her cross-examination. Acosta said she had merely asked about Senate procedure and what to expect in the proceedings. She denied being supplied questions or answers.

Michael Poa, speaking for the defense, said the lawyers had been careful in dealing with potential witnesses, especially after subpoenas had been issued. Discussions, he said, would be limited to broad procedural matters and would avoid the substance of testimony for ethical reasons. He also said he had no personal knowledge of what transpired between Bacquel and Acosta because he was not present.

Again, a meeting is not proof of coaching. Lawyers routinely explain procedure to people who must enter intimidating legal proceedings. It would be irresponsible to leap from acquaintance to conspiracy. Chua’s “coached” should therefore be understood for what it was: the conclusion of a prosecutor observing the witness, not yet an independently established fact.

But neither can appearances simply be declared irrelevant. Impeachment is a constitutional proceeding conducted partly in the language of law and partly in the language of public confidence. A witness who meets a defense lawyer shortly before testimony, then appears markedly more fluent under defense questioning than under prosecution questioning, inevitably invites scrutiny. That scrutiny may ultimately prove unfair. The way to dispel it, however, is not indignation but clarity.

There is something almost quaintly bureaucratic about the phrase de kahon. It belongs to an older Filipino vocabulary of suspicion, reserved for statements that emerge too perfectly formed, too conveniently uniform, like papers produced from the same government stencil. Perhaps Acosta’s answers were simply consistent because the underlying events were simple. Perhaps she really did transfer the funds to Lachica and genuinely knows little of what followed. If so, further testimony and documentary evidence should establish that without difficulty.

Perhaps, too, her use of Bisaya was simply a matter of comfort rather than strategy. But if a witness can speak and understand Filipino or English in some portions of the record and then appears unable to proceed without translation in others, the court is entitled to examine that inconsistency with the same care it applies to inconsistencies in financial testimony.

But if a public officer entrusted with hundreds of millions can describe her responsibility principally by saying that she handed the money to somebody else, the impeachment court has stumbled upon a problem larger than the credibility of one witness.

It has stumbled upon the old Philippine problem of administrative responsibility: everybody participated in the process, yet at the crucial moment nobody seems to possess the whole story.

Kapunan called it a broken record. Ligutan called it de kahon. Chua called it coached. Tulfo called the apparent language barrier deception. The prosecution may eventually prove too suspicious, or it may prove prescient. For the moment, the more important question is simpler.

Five hundred million pesos should leave behind something more substantial than an echo.

 

A "Pax Silica" Without "Filipino Viribus"?

A "Pax Silica" Without "Filipino Viribus"?

 Why a Silicon Strategy Without Filipino First Risks Modernizing Dependency 

The Philippines is once again being invited to imagine industrial destiny through the language of advanced technology. The vocabulary has changed. Earlier generations spoke of foreign-exchange controls, import substitution, infant industries, and economic decolonization. Today, the dominant terms are semiconductors, artificial intelligence, critical minerals, secure supply chains, advanced manufacturing, data infrastructure, and strategic technological partnerships.

Pax Silica, particularly as it is envisioned around New Clark City, is therefore being presented as more than an investment program. It is being framed as an opportunity to reposition the Philippines within the commanding industries of the twenty-first century.

That ambition deserves serious support. The Philippines needs manufacturing, foreign capital, advanced machinery, research partnerships, modern infrastructure, and technically sophisticated employment. It also needs access to technologies that domestic industry cannot yet reproduce at scale. Economic nationalism that rejects foreign knowledge merely because it is foreign would not be a program of national advancement. It would be an exercise in self-imposed backwardness.

Yet from the perspective associated with Filipino First tradition, the proposal also warrants profound skepticism. The decisive question is not simply whether billions of dollars will enter the country, whether advanced factories will stand on Philippine soil, or whether tens of thousands of Filipinos will be employed inside them. The more important question is what Filipino productive strength will exist after those investments have matured.

Pax Silica must therefore be judged not merely by the amount of silicon it brings into the Philippines, but by the amount of Filipino viribus—Filipino strength, capacity, and economic power—it leaves behind.

If the arrangement requires the Philippines to provide land, electricity, water, infrastructure, labor, tax incentives, and political accommodation while the decisive machinery, software, intellectual property, financing, and industrial command remain foreign, then the country may construct something technologically impressive without becoming technologically sovereign.

That would not be industrialization in the fullest sense. It would be the modernization of dependency.

Filipino First Was Never Simply Filipino Only

Garcia’s Filipino First Policy is often caricatured as an attempt to exclude foreign capital and reserve business exclusively for Filipinos. That interpretation is historically incomplete and economically superficial.

The deeper concern behind Filipino First was the imbalance between political independence and economic control. The Philippines had achieved sovereignty in constitutional terms, yet much of the commanding economy remained dependent upon foreign capital, foreign trading networks, foreign technology, and inherited colonial commercial structures. Filipino First therefore sought to increase Filipino participation in the national economy, particularly in sectors where domestic capital had remained subordinate.

The policy had serious flaws. Foreign-exchange allocation and protection could be manipulated by politically connected interests. Protected businesses could become complacent. Nationality could substitute for efficiency, while political access became more valuable than technical improvement. A Filipino-owned firm that survived indefinitely through government favoritism while refusing to innovate contributed little to genuine industrial power.

Those defects should not be romanticized. Neither, however, should they be used to dismiss the central problem that Filipino First attempted to confront. The failure of some nationalist policies does not prove that economic nationalism is unnecessary. It proves that nationalism without discipline can become rent-seeking.

The proper lesson is therefore not Filipino First in its crudest form, but Filipino capability first.

Ownership matters because ownership determines where profits accumulate. Profits determine who possesses capital for the next generation of investment. Yet ownership alone is insufficient. A meaningful national industrial policy must also develop technological competence, managerial expertise, financing capacity, engineering institutions, industrial suppliers, research organizations, and firms capable of competing beyond the protection of the state.

The twenty-first-century form of Filipino First should neither expel foreign capital nor kneel before it. It should use foreign capital to expand Filipino power.

When the Philippines Learned to Host Industry

One of the central problems in Philippine economic development is that the country became considerably better at hosting industrial production than at possessing industrial systems.

The export-processing-zone model demonstrated this distinction. Industrial estates could attract multinational firms, employ Filipino workers, generate foreign exchange, and produce goods counted among Philippine exports. Electronics became one of the country’s most important export industries. The Philippines acquired considerable competence in assembly, testing, packaging, manufacturing services, and related operations.

These achievements should not be dismissed. They created employment, generated income, developed technical skills, and connected the country to global production networks. But they should not be confused with control over the commanding heights of technological production.

A semiconductor may be processed or assembled in the Philippines while its architecture is designed elsewhere. The machinery may be imported, the production software may be proprietary, the specialized chemicals may come from foreign suppliers, the financing may originate in international capital markets, and the patents may belong to an overseas corporation. Strategic decisions may be taken in California, Tokyo, Seoul, Taipei, Amsterdam, or another commercial center.

The finished product can legitimately carry the label “Made in the Philippines,” yet most of the highest-value decisions surrounding that product may remain outside Philippine ownership. This is the distinction between participation in a production network and command over productive capacity.

The Philippines has often treated the first as though it automatically produces the second. It does not.

The country may possess a large electronics-export sector and still lack a dense ecosystem of Filipino semiconductor-design companies, precision-equipment manufacturers, specialty-chemical firms, industrial-software developers, robotics companies, machine-tool producers, power-electronics firms, and advanced-material suppliers.

This is the “hollow middle” that has repeatedly characterized Philippine industrial development. At one end stand large conglomerates and multinational corporations. At the other are millions of small enterprises. What remains insufficiently developed is the thick middle layer of technically capable domestic firms that make industrial economies resilient.

Germany has its specialized Mittelstand manufacturers. Japan possesses extensive networks of component and precision suppliers. Taiwan did not become a semiconductor power merely by hosting foreign factories; it developed domestic institutions and firms capable of mastering increasingly sophisticated stages of production. South Korea gradually transformed itself from a licensee and assembler into a producer of internationally competitive industrial corporations.

The Philippines cannot expect Pax Silica to produce the same outcome merely because foreign factories occupy Philippine land.

The Cold Law of Transaction

The most uncomfortable principle must be stated plainly: foreign investors will not arrive in the Philippines to complete Philippine economic independence. They will arrive to conduct business.

There is nothing immoral about this. It is the cold law of transaction.

A corporation that has spent decades and billions of dollars developing a technological advantage does not ordinarily transfer the entirety of that advantage to a customer so that the customer may eventually cease purchasing from it. The corporation will sell the machine, the license, the software required to operate the system, and the replacement components. It will provide technical support and may train Filipino engineers and technicians extensively enough to operate the system efficiently.

But it possesses no inherent commercial obligation to teach the Philippines everything necessary to eliminate future dependence upon the supplier.

The seller wants a customer. The developing nation should eventually want to become a producer. Those interests are not identical.

This is why promises of “technology transfer” must be treated with care. Technical instruction is not necessarily technological independence. A Filipino engineer may learn how to operate a machine without learning how to design one. A Filipino technician may become highly skilled in maintaining a proprietary production line while remaining dependent upon foreign components and software. A multinational corporation may establish an engineering center in the Philippines while keeping its most valuable research and intellectual property abroad. A foreign semiconductor producer may employ thousands of Filipinos while retaining architectural, financial, and commercial control of the product.

None of these arrangements is necessarily undesirable. They may represent meaningful progress. But none should be mistaken for sovereignty.

The proper industrial question is therefore not whether foreign companies will voluntarily give the Philippines their most valuable technologies. They generally will not. The question is whether Philippine institutions are strong enough to learn from the technologies that enter the country, develop complementary capabilities, finance domestic competitors, and reduce dependence over time.

A country does not become technologically capable by expecting generosity from the seller. It becomes capable by learning faster than the seller expects.

They Will Keep Filipinos Working for Them Until the Contract Ends

Employment is another area in which shallow measures of success can obscure deeper dependency.

Foreign firms will employ Filipino workers because Filipino workers are useful to production. They will train them because trained employees increase productivity. They will retain them as long as operating in the Philippines makes commercial sense.

The Philippines should welcome those jobs. They can raise household incomes, develop technical skills, and provide workers with experience that would otherwise be unavailable. But employment itself does not constitute national industrial strength.

Contracts expire. Technologies change. Factories relocate. Automation reduces labor requirements. Tax incentives end. Supply chains shift. Geopolitical relationships change. A multinational corporation that finds better commercial conditions elsewhere is not bound by sentimental obligation to remain in the Philippines.

If the investor leaves after twenty years and the entire productive activity disappears with it, the country did not truly possess the industry. It rented it.

If the machines are removed and production stops, the Philippines possessed employment but not productive command. If the software license expires and domestic firms cannot reproduce the process, the country used technology without mastering it. If a foreign supplier withholds a critical component and Filipino industry cannot manufacture or substitute it, the country’s apparent industrial sophistication is revealed as dependence.

Employment should therefore be regarded as the beginning of industrial development, not its culmination. The real measure is what Filipino workers become capable of creating independently after acquiring experience. Will technicians become engineers? Will engineers become entrepreneurs? Will those entrepreneurs establish specialized suppliers? Will some suppliers progress into designers? Will Filipino firms eventually develop products, patents, machinery, and export markets of their own?

If not, labor has been deployed without being converted into national productive power.

The Manufacture of Shallow Pride

There is an additional political danger in the rhetoric surrounding foreign-led industrialization: the manufacture of national pride without the manufacture of national control.

There will undoubtedly be photographs of Filipino technicians wearing clean-room suits, Philippine flags placed beside semiconductor wafers, statements celebrating “Filipino-made chips,” and speeches praising Filipino talent while declaring that the country has joined the technological future.

Much of this pride will be sincere. Some of it will also be shallow.

What exactly constitutes a Filipino-made microchip? Is it a chip designed by a Filipino company, financed by Filipino capital, based on intellectual property substantially developed in the Philippines, fabricated using technologies over which Filipino enterprises possess meaningful control even studied abroad just to enrich it, and sold into international markets by a Filipino firm?

Or is it a foreign-owned chip manufactured with Filipino hands, using foreign machinery and licensed processes, perhaps incorporated into a Chinese-manufactured cellular telephone operating under intellectual-property licenses from a corporation headquartered in California?

The latter product can legitimately be described as manufactured in the Philippines. But it is not evidence that the Philippines commands the productive system.

The Filipino worker may perform an advanced and valuable operation. The country’s export statistics may rise. Employment may improve. Technical competence may increase. All are genuine achievements.

Yet the Filipino hand touching a product does not automatically make the surrounding industrial structure Filipino. The critical distinction is between made by Filipino hands and made through Filipino power.

A nation can manufacture sophisticated components without owning the designs. It can assemble world-class products without controlling the machinery. It can export high-technology goods while importing most of the technology that makes those goods high technology. It can become indispensable to another country’s supply chain without possessing a complete supply chain of its own.

The danger is not that the Philippines begins in these subordinate stages. Many successful industrial nations did. The danger is that it remains there permanently while congratulating itself for having already arrived.

Shallow pride tells the country that participation is ownership. A serious industrial policy insists that participation must become a staircase toward ownership.

Technology Transfer Must Be Measured

If Pax Silica is genuinely intended to strengthen Philippine industry, technology transfer cannot remain a ceremonial phrase. It must become measurable public policy.

The government should be able to answer concrete questions. How many Filipino engineers will receive advanced technical training? How many Filipino researchers will participate in commercially meaningful research and development? How much Research and Development expenditure will occur inside the Philippines? How many Filipino firms will become qualified suppliers? How much local technological content will be achieved after five, ten, and fifteen years?

The government should also measure how many Filipino managers reach technical decision-making positions, how many patents involve Filipino inventors, and how many domestic companies eventually export products independently of the multinational firms that first trained them.

These indicators should be treated with the same seriousness as investment figures and employment targets. A government that proudly announces US$50 billion of investment while remaining unable to quantify the domestic technological capability created by that investment has reported only one side of the transaction. The other side, however, is national power.

Foreign Investment Should Be a School, Not a Permanent Condition

The proper role of foreign investment in a developing economy is transitional in one important sense. Foreign corporations need not disappear, but domestic dependence upon them should gradually diminish.

Foreign investment should function as a school. The investor brings advanced machinery, production methods, capital, management systems, supplier standards, and access to international markets. The state should ensure that Filipino firms learn from this presence and progress through increasingly sophisticated stages of production.

A local supplier should move from simple components to sophisticated ones. Maintenance should progress toward machine design. Testing should progress toward testing-equipment production. Assembly should progress toward fabrication. Fabrication should progress toward design. Design should produce intellectual property. Intellectual property should support Filipino corporations capable of selling beyond the Philippines.

The objective is not national purity. It is cumulative capability.

Japan imported technology. South Korea licensed it. Taiwan learned through foreign partnerships and built domestic institutions. China opened itself selectively to foreign capital while simultaneously constructing enormous domestic technological and industrial capacity.

None of these countries became industrial powers by assuming that foreign corporations would spontaneously manufacture their future competitors. They used foreign investment while creating institutions capable of eventually challenging the investors themselves.

The Philippines must do the same. It should not reject buying foreign technology. It should reject buying the same technology forever.

Land, Power, Water, and Labor Are Philippine Capital

Another weakness in Philippine investment policy is the tendency to regard foreign capital as the only meaningful capital in the transaction.

This is incorrect. Land is capital. Electricity is capital. Water is capital. Roads are capital. Ports are capital. Tax exemptions are capital. Public guarantees are capital. Political stability is capital. An educated labor force is capital. Communities that accept environmental and land-use changes are contributing something of economic value.

If the Philippines provides these resources to strategic investors, it is not begging for development. It is participating in an exchange. That means it has every right to demand developmental returns.

If investors obtain preferential access to land, fiscal incentives, infrastructure, and strategically important locations, the Philippines should seek commitments in technology, supplier development, research, workforce progression, local procurement, and domestic capital formation.

The negotiation should not begin only with the question, “What more must the Philippines offer so that investors will come?” It should also ask, “What must investors leave behind so that the Philippines becomes stronger?”

That is the bargaining posture of an independent country.

There Must Be Filipino Capital Behind Filipino Capability

Technological development cannot occur without finance. Pax Silica should therefore include an explicit strategy for creating Filipino industrial capital.

Government financial institutions should provide patient but disciplined financing to domestic firms capable of entering advanced manufacturing. Pension funds and institutional investors should be permitted, under prudent rules, to participate in productive infrastructure and qualified industrial ventures. Universities should become partners in commercialization rather than merely recruitment pools for multinational corporations.

Filipino engineering graduates should have pathways not only into salaried employment but also into entrepreneurship. The financial system should support hardware, industrial software, semiconductor design, precision manufacturing, materials science, robotics, machine tools, and other capital-intensive fields whose development periods are longer than those of consumer applications.

The Republic should be able to identify not only the multinational companies expected to enter Pax Silica but also the Filipino firms expected to emerge from it.

Where is the future Filipino semiconductor-design company? Where is the Filipino industrial-equipment manufacturer? Where is the Filipino power-electronics firm? Where is the Filipino specialty-materials company? Where is the Filipino company that enters the ecosystem as a subcontractor and, twenty years later, competes internationally?

If no pathway exists toward such firms, Pax Silica remains an industrial-estate policy rather than a national industrial strategy.

Protection Must Be Disciplined

The answer is not a return to indiscriminate protection. The establishment's interpretation of "Filipino First" itself provides the warning.

Protection without performance becomes cronyism. A Filipino corporation that receives preferential financing but does not raise productivity is not advancing nationalism. A domestic company that benefits from procurement preferences while refusing to meet international quality standards is not serving economic sovereignty. A firm that survives because of political connections rather than technical competence is merely replacing foreign dependency with domestic oligarchy.

Support must therefore be conditional. Credit should require productivity targets. Tax privileges should require investment and training. Procurement preferences should require quality and delivery standards. Technology grants should require research outcomes. Protection should contain milestones and sunset provisions.

The Filipino entrepreneur may deserve assistance while learning. He does not deserve protection from the obligation to learn.

This is where the old nationalist state and the modern developmental state must differ. Nationality may justify attention. Performance must justify continuation.

Nor Should Liberalization Become Surrender

Yet the opposite doctrine has also failed. For decades, Philippine policy frequently assumed that openness itself would generate development. Liberalize trade, reduce restrictions, invite foreign investors, expand exports, join global value chains, and industrial upgrading would supposedly follow.

But the market has no patriotic obligation to create Filipino technological sovereignty. A multinational corporation will allocate production according to efficiency, risk, profitability, and corporate strategy—not according to the developmental needs of the Philippine Republic.

The Philippines may remain indefinitely within the labor-intensive or lower-value portions of the chain if no national policy forces upward movement.

This is why the debate cannot be reduced to protectionism versus liberalization. Both can fail. Protection without discipline creates inefficient oligopoly. Liberalization without industrial strategy creates hollow openness.

The necessary alternative is conditional openness directed toward national capability. Foreign capital should enter, but Filipino capacity must rise with it.

The Geopolitical Dimension

Pax Silica is inseparable from geopolitical competition. Semiconductors, artificial intelligence, critical minerals, data infrastructure, and advanced manufacturing are now treated by major powers as elements of national security.

The United States has its interests. China has its interests. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, and Europe have theirs. The Philippines should have its own.

There is nothing objectionable about participating in an American-led technological framework if Philippine and American interests substantially coincide. But economic cooperation must not be confused with strategic guardianship.

An allied power will naturally design supply chains that strengthen its own economic security. The Philippines must simultaneously ask what strengthens Philippine economic security. Those objectives may overlap, but they are not synonymous.

The Philippines should therefore avoid exchanging one dependency for another. A genuinely Filipino First interpretation of Pax Silica would cooperate with the United States where useful, with Japan where advantageous, with Taiwan and South Korea where complementary, with Europe and India where beneficial, and with China where national security and legitimate economic interests permit.

Strategic autonomy does not mean equidistance for its own sake. It means possessing the capacity to determine Philippine policy according to Philippine interests.

No foreign country, however friendly, carries the primary responsibility for building Filipino industrial strength. That task belongs to the Philippines.

The Test Is What Happens When the Supplier Says No

Ultimately, the most revealing test of any industrial strategy is not what happens while international markets are functioning smoothly. It is what happens when access is interrupted.

If spare parts are unavailable, can Philippine firms produce substitutes? If a software license is withdrawn, are local alternatives possible? If export controls are imposed, can Filipino engineers redesign part of the process? If a geopolitical conflict interrupts a critical supply chain, can production continue?

If the answer is always that Manila must telephone another capital and request permission to purchase what Philippine industry requires, then strategic autonomy does not yet exist.

The dependency is simply administered through contracts, licensing agreements, and invoices rather than colonial decrees. That may still represent progress compared with the past. But the Republic should be intellectually honest about the difference between progress and completion.

A Filipino Pax Silica Must Produce Filipino Viribus

The Philippines does not need silicon without sovereignty. Nor does it need sovereignty without silicon. It needs both.

Pax Silica should therefore be judged twenty years after its inauguration, not merely at the moment investors sign agreements. Are Filipino firms designing chips? Are Filipino companies manufacturing advanced industrial components? Do Philippine universities produce commercially significant semiconductor and materials research? Can domestic companies maintain and increasingly manufacture production equipment? Have Filipino firms accumulated enough capital to invest abroad? Have local suppliers progressed beyond labor contracting and basic services toward technologically sophisticated production? Has infrastructure built for Pax Silica reduced industrial costs throughout the wider Philippine economy? Have capabilities diffused beyond Clark into other regions?

If so, Pax Silica will have served its purpose. If not, the country may awaken one day to discover that it possessed world-class factories but not world-class industrial power.

It supplied the land, the electricity, the water, the workers, and the fiscal incentives. Foreign firms supplied the decisive technology. The Republic then celebrated the resulting products as Filipino because Filipino hands happened to manufacture them.

That pride would be understandable. It would also be incomplete.

The proper question is not whether Filipinos helped manufacture the future. It is whether Filipinos acquired enough productive power to shape that future themselves.

This is the meaning that Filipino First can still offer an age of semiconductors and artificial intelligence. It need not mean Filipino isolation, nor hostility toward foreign capital. It means that every foreign investment should enlarge the space within which Filipino capital, knowledge, ownership, and technological competence can eventually stand on their own.

Foreign investors will transact according to their interests. They will sell what the Philippines is willing to buy. They will employ Filipinos while the contract remains commercially useful. They will transfer enough knowledge to operate their investments efficiently. They will not voluntarily surrender every advantage that keeps the Philippines dependent upon their products.

That is neither conspiracy nor betrayal. It is the cold law of transaction.

The responsibility therefore rests with the Filipino state to transform every transaction into an opportunity for accumulation, learning, and eventual independence.

The Philippines should accept the factories, the capital, the machines, and the technology. It should cooperate with its allies and welcome the opportunities that Pax Silica can create. But it must also bargain, learn, finance, design, manufacture, improve, own, and eventually compete.

The ultimate purpose of industrial policy is not to make the Filipino indispensable as somebody else’s worker. It is to make Filipino industry capable of standing without permanent dependence upon somebody else’s contract.

A “Filipino-made microchip” can be an impressive beginning. But the Republic should never confuse the beginning with the destination.

The final ambition must be more demanding: not merely a foreign-owned microchip made with Filipino hands, but an industrial system in which Filipino hands are joined by Filipino capital, Filipino engineering, Filipino intellectual property, Filipino firms, and Filipino strategic command.

Only then would Pax Silica become more than an enclave of modern technology. Only then would it possess Filipino viribus.

 

Beyond Practicalism: Pax Silica, Functional Extraterritoriality, and the Struggle for Philippine Industrial Sovereignty

Beyond Practicalism: Pax Silica, Functional Extraterritoriality,

and the Struggle for Philippine Industrial Sovereignty

The proposed Pax Silica Industrial Hub has been presented as a historic opportunity to position the Philippines within the emerging global value chains of artificial intelligence, semiconductors, critical minerals, advanced manufacturing, and digital infrastructure. Its defenders argue that the country cannot afford to reject a time-bound geopolitical opening, particularly when neighboring Southeast Asian states are competing for the same investments. Opposition is consequently characterized as economic “doomsaying,” anti-American reflex, or “anachronistic Leftism.”

This argument confuses pragmatism with what may be called practicalism: the acceptance of the immediately available arrangement without first establishing the principles, institutional safeguards, and long-term national objectives by which that arrangement should be judged. The practicalist position begins with real Philippine weaknesses—limited industrial depth, expensive electricity, inadequate research capacity, fiscal constraints, and dependence on foreign technology—but turns those weaknesses into reasons for preserving the structures that produced them.

Pax Silica should therefore be evaluated not merely according to projected investments or employment, but according to its consequences for domestic ownership, technological learning, environmental sustainability, data sovereignty, regulatory autonomy, and Philippine bargaining power. The central question is not whether advanced industrial facilities will be geographically located in the Philippines. It is whether the resulting industrial system will become meaningfully Philippine.

The Official Promise

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. placed Pax Silica at the center of his administration’s industrial and technological agenda during his fifth State of the Nation Address on July 27, 2026. He declared that the proposed hub would “bring quality jobs to our people, accelerate our industrial competitiveness, and revitalize our economy.” He further described it as an advanced manufacturing and logistics center integrated into the global artificial-intelligence and technology value chain. (Philippine News Agency)

The scale of the proposal is correspondingly ambitious. The planned development covers approximately 1,620 hectares, or about 4,000 acres, within New Clark City. The Bases Conversion and Development Authority has projected that the hub could attract between US$40 billion and US$70 billion in investments and eventually generate more than 130,000 skilled jobs. The planned industries include semiconductor manufacturing, critical-mineral processing, advanced electronics, artificial-intelligence infrastructure, logistics, and supporting research facilities. (Philippine Information Agency)

These promises deserve serious consideration. The Philippines requires productive investment, higher-value employment, industrial infrastructure, technical education, and opportunities capable of reversing the persistent migration of engineers, scientists, and other highly trained workers. It would be unserious to dismiss these needs merely because the initiative is American-led or because large corporations will profit from it.

The issue is not whether foreign investors will receive benefits. Investment necessarily involves returns. Nor is the issue whether environmental and social costs can be eliminated completely. Every large industrial transformation imposes costs that must be identified, distributed, mitigated, and regulated.

The issue is whether the sacrifices demanded from the Philippines will produce a proportionate accumulation of Philippine productive capacity—or merely secure another country’s supply chains.

Practicalism Without Principle

Supporters of Pax Silica commonly present themselves as pragmatists standing between ideological opposition and economic necessity. In their telling, critics exaggerate hypothetical dangers while ignoring the country’s immediate need for jobs, technology, infrastructure, and foreign capital.

One formulation of this defense states: “This is a once-in-a-lifetime economic opportunity. It could create development even if it meant sacrifices. If this will not push through here, it will simply go to other ASEAN countries.”

Another insists: “It is just too expensive at the moment to pursue domestic-based development. Given the time-bound nature of the current Cold War, technological mastery is hard to pursue without being cornered.”

A further geopolitical justification argues: “Our neighbors are currently more interested in joining the Chinese sphere of influence than creating their own bloc. ASEAN is also shaken by the Thai-Cambodian border disputes and the Burmese Civil War.”

These arguments identify genuine constraints. Domestic semiconductor fabrication, metallurgical processing, industrial power, machine-tool production, artificial-intelligence infrastructure, and advanced research facilities require immense capital and institutional coordination. The Philippines cannot simply declare technological sovereignty and expect a fully integrated industrial system to appear.

Nevertheless, the practicalist conclusion does not necessarily follow from the practicalist diagnosis. The practicalists assume that they are pragmatic because they accept what is immediately possible. In reality, they are often merely “practical” in a way that justifies an unprincipled stance. Their practicality consists of rationalizing the arrangement already preferred by the economic and foreign-policy establishment.

They defend Pax Silica on grounds ranging from the absence of domestic industry to the preservation of the Philippines’ longstanding relations with the United States. Because the country lacks technological capacity, it supposedly must accept foreign technological leadership. Because it depends on American security cooperation, it should avoid imposing conditions that might inconvenience Washington. Because ASEAN is divided, regional strategic autonomy must be postponed. Because the investment may relocate elsewhere, Manila should negotiate as though it has no leverage.

Every weakness is transformed into an argument for preserving that weakness. The Philippines lacks an integrated industrial base; therefore, it supposedly cannot require measures intended to create one. It remains dependent on foreign technology; therefore, it should avoid policies that might offend the owners of that technology. It possesses limited bargaining power; therefore, it should begin negotiations by behaving as though it possesses none.

This is not pragmatism in the serious political sense. Pragmatism recognizes existing limitations while asking how they can be overcome. It distinguishes a temporary compromise from a permanent condition. It asks whether an arrangement contributes to a defined long-term objective.

Practicalism without principle merely asks whether an arrangement can be made to proceed. A principled policy may accept foreign investment, but it specifies what capabilities must result from that investment. It may enter a strategic partnership, but it defines limits beyond which the partnership cannot pass. It may recognize fiscal and technological constraints, but it refuses to elevate those constraints into a permanent constitution for Philippine economic life.

The practicalist position is therefore not ideologically neutral. It embodies its own ideology: the belief that the realistic role of the Philippines is to adapt itself to plans formulated elsewhere.

Sacrifice for Whom?

The assertion that “sacrifices are necessary” is politically incomplete. It does not identify who will make the sacrifices, who will receive the benefits, or who will decide when the balance has become unacceptable.

An aggregate cost-benefit calculation can conceal profound inequalities. A project may generate substantial national income while imposing concentrated environmental costs on particular communities. It may create thousands of technical jobs while transferring land, electricity, water, mineral resources, and fiscal privileges to a relatively small number of corporations. It may increase exports without substantially increasing Filipino ownership or technological authority.

The statement that “the benefits outweigh the risks” therefore cannot be accepted without examining distribution. Whose benefits? Whose risks? Whose water is consumed, whose land is converted, whose electricity system is reorganized, and whose public funds finance the supporting infrastructure? Who owns the resulting patents, fabrication processes, industrial software, logistics networks, and research outputs?

BCDA has stated that the project’s estimated water requirement could range from 65 million to 90 million liters per day. It proposes a surface-water harvesting facility initially capable of supplying as much as 120 million liters daily, with possible expansion to 300 million liters. BCDA maintains that the system would rely on collected surface water and rainwater rather than groundwater and could potentially share surpluses with surrounding communities. These are important assurances, but they remain proposals that must be subjected to independent hydrological, environmental, and social evaluation. (Philippine Information Agency)

The Department of Energy has likewise acknowledged that the hub may require very substantial generating capacity and is preparing measures to meet future demand. Energy officials have stressed that supplying Pax Silica must not place the rest of the country at a disadvantage. That qualification is crucial: the relevant question is not simply whether enough electricity can technically be produced, but whether the cost of new generation, transmission, and distribution will be transferred to ordinary consumers or publicly financed for the benefit of privileged industrial locators. (Philippine News Agency)

Sacrifice cannot be treated as an abstract patriotic duty when its burdens are socially concentrated and its returns are privately appropriated.

There are also certain values that cannot be reduced neatly to monetary compensation. Effective sovereignty, constitutional authority, indigenous rights, environmental security, and democratic accountability are not merely expenses in an investment ledger. A sufficiently large projected investment cannot automatically cancel them.

The practicalist calculus becomes dangerous when every concern can be answered with the same formula: the benefits are greater, the opportunity is rare, and sacrifices are necessary. Such reasoning possesses no internal limit. It can justify almost any concession, provided the promised investment is large enough.

What Pax Silica Actually Is

Pax Silica is not simply a conventional investment-promotion program. Its founding declaration explicitly joins industrial cooperation to economic and national security.

The declaration describes reliable supply chains as indispensable to mutual economic security. It envisions cooperation across what it calls the strategic “stack” of the technology economy: software platforms, artificial-intelligence models, network infrastructure, computing, semiconductors, advanced manufacturing, logistics, mineral refining, and energy. It also calls for coordinated enforcement of policies intended to protect sensitive technologies and critical infrastructure from “undue access, influence, or control.” (Industry.gov.au)

The initiative therefore represents more than the construction of factories. It is an attempt to reorganize strategic production around states and corporations considered trustworthy by the United States and its partners.

Its conceptual vocabulary is revealing. It speaks not merely of trade but of investment security; not merely of supply but of trusted suppliers; not merely of competitiveness but of protection against undesirable access and control. It seeks an “economic security order” based on trust, technological complementarity, and shared interests. (Industry.gov.au)

This framework may provide genuine benefits to participating states. Diversifying supply chains can reduce exposure to coercion, disruption, monopolistic pricing, and political instability. Philippine participation may attract investments that would otherwise have gone elsewhere and may provide access to research networks, industrial demand, and advanced technical systems.

But the strategic interests of the organizing power and those of the host country are not automatically identical. A supply chain can become more secure for the United States without becoming more sovereign for the Philippines. A Philippine facility may help reduce American dependence on Chinese mineral processing or semiconductor production while leaving Manila dependent on American technology, software, standards, financing, and export-control decisions.

Security for one participant may coexist with dependence for another. The central issue is therefore not whether Pax Silica is geopolitical. Its own declaration establishes that it is. The issue is whether the Philippines will participate as an industrial partner with independently defined objectives or as a strategically useful location within an externally designed system.

“Accept It or It Goes Elsewhere”

The warning that the project will relocate to another ASEAN country is one of the strongest arguments advanced by supporters. It is also one of the most intellectually limiting.

The statement is plausible. Capital is mobile, governments compete for high-technology investments, and corporations compare land prices, taxes, energy costs, regulatory conditions, labor pools, infrastructure, and political risk. An investor dissatisfied with Philippine conditions may indeed choose Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, or another location.

Yet this possibility does not settle the question of what conditions the Philippines should accept. The “it will go elsewhere” argument transforms industrial development into an auction in which the winning state is the one that demands the least from capital. Governments are encouraged to offer cheaper land, lower taxes, subsidized utilities, fewer performance requirements, and more accommodating regulation because another government may offer even more.

This creates a race not toward industrial sophistication but toward state-sponsored investor convenience. Successful industrialization in East Asia did not result simply from indiscriminate openness. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan employed varying combinations of directed credit, import discipline, export requirements, government procurement, research support, licensing, public enterprises, technology acquisition, and selective protection. Their institutions were imperfect and their strategies differed, but they treated foreign capital as an instrument of national development rather than allowing national development to be defined as the attraction of foreign capital (Amsden, 1989; Wade, 1990).

The relevant question is therefore not merely whether an investment arrives. It is what the host economy learns, owns, and retains. Foreign investment can provide capital, technical knowledge, export markets, training, and supplier opportunities. Its developmental effects, however, depend heavily on domestic absorptive capacity, institutional quality, linkages with local enterprises, and the ability of local firms to acquire and use new knowledge. Research on foreign-investment spillovers consistently shows that benefits are not automatic; they are conditioned by the technological capabilities of domestic firms and by public policies strengthening supplier linkages and learning. (World Bank)

The Philippines should therefore ask what will remain after the investment has been depreciated, the tax incentives have expired, and geopolitical priorities have changed. Will Filipino firms enter the supply chain as substantive producers rather than service contractors? Will universities acquire laboratories and continuing research programs? Will engineers gain access to design, fabrication, equipment maintenance, process development, and materials research? Will the state obtain equity, licensing rights, or strategic influence over infrastructure financed partly by public resources? Or will the Philippines merely provide the site on which somebody else’s industrial sovereignty is constructed?

A country that accepts every condition for fear of losing an investment does not necessarily acquire development. It may acquire little more than occupancy.

The Semiprocessing Problem

The Philippine semiconductor sector is not starting from nothing. The country is the world’s ninth-largest chip exporter, and electronics remain its largest merchandise-export category. The industry has operated in the Philippines since the 1970s, when companies such as Fairchild, Intel, and Texas Instruments established back-end manufacturing facilities. Domestic firms have since emerged in assembly, testing, packaging, electronics manufacturing, and, to a more limited degree, integrated-circuit design. (OECD)

This history demonstrates that the Philippines possesses a genuine industrial foundation. Assembly, testing, and packaging are not fictitious activities. They require quality control, process engineering, technical workers, logistics, specialized equipment, and integration with demanding international clients.

The problem is not that the industry performs no valuable work. The problem is that decades of participation have not automatically produced movement into the commanding portions of the value chain.

The OECD’s assessment describes a mixed record. Semiconductors remain a major Philippine export, but the sector has struggled to sustain growth, improve labor productivity, attract substantial new greenfield investment, and strengthen its position within global value chains. Electricity and logistics remain expensive, research capacity is limited, and the industry is concentrated heavily in downstream assembly, testing, and packaging. (OECD)

The semiconductor value chain includes design, wafer production, fabrication, assembly, packaging, testing, equipment, materials, and specialized software. These segments differ substantially in capital requirements, technological complexity, profitability, and strategic importance. Design and intellectual property can capture immense value without requiring the same physical capital as a frontier fabrication plant. Fabrication requires extraordinary investment and process mastery. Equipment and materials industries possess their own technological chokepoints. Assembly and testing remain necessary but generally operate within more competitive and externally directed markets. (OECD)

Pax Silica could become a means of moving beyond the existing pattern. It could expand integrated-circuit design, advanced packaging, photonics, power semiconductors, sensors, printed circuit boards, industrial software, materials engineering, equipment maintenance, and mineral refining.

It could also reproduce the same structure on a larger scale. Semiprocessing is not inherently undesirable. It becomes a problem when it is presented as the completion of industrialization rather than one stage within it. A country can refine minerals, assemble components, package semiconductors, and operate foreign-owned machinery while remaining dependent on imported equipment, foreign patents, proprietary software, external orders, and decisions made at overseas corporate headquarters.

Production may occur in Philippine territory without transferring strategic authority to Philippine institutions.

The practicalist answer is often that some processing is better than no processing. That is true but insufficient. The proper comparison is not between Pax Silica and absolute inactivity. It is between an enclave-oriented form of processing and a cumulative program designed to transform processing into technological ownership.

The question is whether semiprocessing becomes a ladder or a ceiling.

The Export Enclave Reappears

Philippine development policy has repeatedly treated geographical concentration of investment as a substitute for national industrial integration. Export-processing zones, special economic zones, logistics parks, and industrial estates may produce impressive export figures while remaining weakly connected to domestic firms, agriculture, infrastructure, and consumer industries.

The enclave is not defined only by fences. It is defined by economic relationships.

An industrial estate becomes enclave-like when it imports most of its machinery and intermediate inputs, exports most of its output, relies on foreign corporate strategy, enjoys exceptional fiscal treatment, and purchases relatively little from domestically controlled producers.

Pax Silica risks becoming a technologically advanced version of this structure: an export-processing zone dressed in the language of artificial intelligence and economic security.

Its activities may be more sophisticated than garments or basic assembly. Its factories may process critical minerals, package advanced chips, host cloud infrastructure, or manufacture components for artificial-intelligence systems. Yet technological sophistication within the enclave does not necessarily produce structural transformation outside it.

A genuine industrial system requires vertical and horizontal linkages. Mineral processing should connect to machinery, chemicals, transport equipment, energy systems, construction materials, electronics, and domestic capital-goods industries. Semiconductor production should connect to telecommunications, medical equipment, agricultural machinery, transport systems, energy management, public infrastructure, and local consumer electronics.

The purpose should not be merely to increase the value of exports before they leave the country. It should be to deepen the productive relationships within the country.

If the Philippine economy remains divided between a highly modern foreign-controlled enclave and a weak domestic productive sector, the technological appearance of the enclave cannot conceal the persistence of underdevelopment.

Industrialization is not the importation of modern factories. It is the diffusion of productive capability through society.

Is Domestic-First Development Too Expensive?

The claim that domestic-oriented industrialization is “too expensive at the moment” is attractive because it appears fiscally responsible. But it obscures the enormous public costs required to sustain the foreign-led alternative.

Pax Silica will require land preparation, transport links, electricity, water systems, telecommunications, regulatory administration, security, technical education, and possibly extensive fiscal incentives. These are forms of state intervention regardless of whether the participating corporations remain privately owned.

The state will intervene either way. The question is on whose behalf it intervenes and what assets its intervention creates.

There is a contradiction in declaring that the Philippines cannot afford domestic industrial policy while preparing public infrastructure for an externally directed industrial ecosystem. If the state can finance roads, water facilities, energy connections, research support, and workforce programs for foreign firms, it can require that those expenditures produce domestic supplier networks, publicly accessible laboratories, Filipino equity, and technological learning.

The OECD has recommended precisely the creation of a coherent long-term national semiconductor strategy. It calls for increased research and development, sustainable access to technological infrastructure, stronger industry-academic cooperation, improved logistics and electricity, and demand-driven workforce development. It also emphasizes that publicly funded facilities must be linked to actual ecosystem requirements and provided with durable financing. (OECD)

Domestic-first industrialization does not require the immediate construction of a fully Filipino-owned frontier fabrication plant. Such a project might be financially and technologically premature.

A realistic program could begin where barriers to entry are lower and existing capabilities are stronger:

• integrated-circuit and systems design;
• analog and mixed-signal devices;
• power semiconductors;
• sensors and industrial controls;
• printed circuit boards;
• photonics;
• advanced packaging;
• testing equipment;
• semiconductor materials;
• equipment maintenance and refurbishment;
• industrial software;
• agricultural, medical, energy, and transport electronics.

These sectors can be supported through development-bank credit, public procurement, university laboratories, Filipino private capital, diaspora recruitment, foreign joint ventures, and long-term research agreements.

Industrial policy exists precisely because strategic activities are expensive, risky, and difficult for private domestic firms to undertake independently. Rodrik (2004) argues that industrial policy should be understood as a process of discovering and coordinating productive opportunities rather than as the indiscriminate selection of corporate favorites. The solution to uncertainty is disciplined experimentation, transparent evaluation, and institutional learning—not government passivity. (Harvard Kennedy School)

To say that an industry is too expensive is not, by itself, an argument against industrial policy. It is often the reason industrial policy is necessary.

What Kind of Cold War Is This?

The practicalist invocation of a new Cold War also requires scrutiny. The phrase recalls the twentieth-century conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union: two superpowers claiming to represent different social systems, leading opposing military alliances, and competing through ideology, armed intervention, economic aid, propaganda, and nuclear deterrence.

The contemporary United States-China rivalry is not simply a revival of that structure. It contains ideological rhetoric and carries genuine military danger, particularly in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. But many of its principal instruments are economic and technological: tariffs, subsidies, sanctions, patents, investment screening, industrial standards, export controls, critical minerals, shipping networks, semiconductors, cloud infrastructure, and control over technological chokepoints.

To use the deliberately irreverent formulation raised in the debate, this is not merely “ideological shitposting coupled with guns.” It is economic warfare conducted through deeply interconnected markets.

Mao Zedong is increasingly treated as Sun Tzu by businessmen. The phrase is rhetorical, but it captures an important transformation. Revolutionary and socialist vocabulary is interpreted through corporate strategy, national competitiveness, market access, industrial capacity, and supply-chain control.

China remains governed by a communist party, but its geopolitical power rests heavily on manufacturing, trade, technology, infrastructure financing, private and state capital, mineral processing, and participation in global markets. The United States, in turn, does not oppose China merely because Beijing retains communist symbols. Washington is primarily concerned that Chinese industrial and technological capabilities may weaken American economic and military primacy.

Farrell and Newman (2019) call the resulting condition weaponized interdependence. States occupying central positions in global networks can use those networks to obtain information, deny access, impose sanctions, and pressure rivals. The infrastructure of globalization becomes an infrastructure of coercion. (MIT Press Direct)

American semiconductor restrictions illustrate this logic. U.S. export controls cover specified advanced chips, high-bandwidth memory, semiconductor-manufacturing equipment, software, end users, and certain foreign-produced items connected to American technology through foreign-direct-product rules. These measures operate beyond the straightforward territorial export of American goods because technological networks themselves create jurisdictional leverage. (Bureau of Industry and Security)

Pax Silica belongs within this geoeconomic conflict. It is an effort to construct a trusted technological system less vulnerable to Chinese control over minerals, processing, manufacturing, infrastructure, or markets.

This does not make the initiative inherently illegitimate. China also pursues industrial self-reliance, supply-chain influence, and strategic advantage. The Philippines must understand that both great powers are acting according to their own national interests.

The mistake would be to imagine that participating in one power’s strategy automatically constitutes a Philippine strategy.

China Is Not the Soviet Union

Cold War nostalgia simplifies the conflict into a moral map inherited from another era. China is placed where the Soviet Union once stood; every dispute becomes a front in a worldwide confrontation with communism; and smaller states are expected to demonstrate loyalty to one of two supposedly coherent blocs.

This analogy obscures more than it explains. Contemporary China combines the political supremacy of the Communist Party with markets, global trade, private accumulation, foreign investment, industrial subsidies, corporate competition, and enormous integration into international production networks. Its system cannot be understood simply as Soviet central planning reproduced on a larger scale.

Nor is the current conflict primarily about the worldwide expansion of communist revolution.

Beijing seeks access to markets, control over strategic technologies, greater influence over international institutions, protection of its political regime, military power in its near seas, and what it describes as national rejuvenation. These objectives may conflict sharply with Philippine interests. They may involve coercion, excessive maritime claims, and pressure against neighboring states. But they are predominantly nationalist, strategic, and economic.

The distinction is important because inaccurate diagnosis produces inaccurate policy. Treating every Chinese action as ideological communist expansion allows policymakers to substitute Cold War slogans for analysis. Conversely, recognizing the economic and nationalist content of Chinese power does not excuse coercion or require political sympathy for Beijing.

It simply means that the Philippines must respond to China as China exists, not as a nostalgic reconstruction of the Soviet Union.

Taiwan and the Unfinished Civil War

The Taiwan question further exposes the limitations of simplistic Cold War language.

The government of the People’s Republic of China presents Taiwan as the unfinished product of the Chinese Civil War and describes reunification as a historic mission connected to national rejuvenation. Beijing’s 2022 white paper explicitly places the division across the Taiwan Strait within the history of civil war, foreign intervention, territorial unity, and Communist Party leadership. (State Council of China)

That is Beijing’s official interpretation, not an uncontested legal or historical conclusion. Taiwan has its own government, military, courts, political parties, elections, and democratic population. Its people cannot ethically be reduced to an object within another government’s historical mission.

Recognizing Beijing’s framing does not validate military coercion. It does, however, demonstrate why the Taiwan dispute cannot be explained adequately as a simple attempt to spread communism. The People’s Republic frames the issue through nationalism, territorial integrity, regime legitimacy, civil-war history, and strategic geography.

Whether one accepts or rejects Beijing’s claims, the dispute is not equivalent to a Soviet attempt to establish a communist government in an unrelated foreign country.

Cold War nostalgists frequently complain about “communism” without addressing this distinction. Their rhetoric converts an extremely complex conflict over sovereignty, identity, deterrence, nationalism, and strategic power into a comforting ideological replay. The result is not clarity. It is historical daydreaming.

The Vietnam Problem for Cold War Nostalgia

Vietnam presents one of the clearest contradictions in the attempt to interpret contemporary Asia through the ideological categories of the twentieth-century Cold War. The country remains governed by the Communist Party of Vietnam and formally defines itself as a socialist republic. It also maintains extensive party-to-party, state-to-state, commercial, and institutional relations with the People’s Republic of China. In April 2026, Hanoi and Beijing reaffirmed their comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership, expanded political coordination, and signed agreements covering party relations, trade, infrastructure, science, technology, education, and other areas of bilateral cooperation.

These close relations, however, have never eliminated the structural tensions between the two states. Vietnam continues to contest Chinese maritime claims and actions in the South China Sea, which Hanoi calls the East Sea. It asserts sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands, defends the rights of Vietnamese fishermen, and insists that maritime disputes be resolved in accordance with international law, particularly the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In May 2026, the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs again called on China to respect the lawful activities of Vietnamese fishermen and to refrain from actions that could further complicate the regional situation.

Vietnam therefore combines cooperation with resistance. China is simultaneously a major trading partner, a fellow socialist state, an important political interlocutor, and the principal external power against which Vietnam must defend its maritime claims and strategic autonomy. Party solidarity does not erase territorial rivalry, historical memory, asymmetry of power, or conflicting national interests.

At the same time, Vietnam has substantially expanded its relationship with the United States. In September 2023, Hanoi and Washington elevated their relations to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. Their joint statement identified semiconductors, digital infrastructure, science, technology, innovation, education, resilient supply chains, climate policy, trade, and investment as major fields of cooperation. The United States explicitly recognized Vietnam’s different political system, while Vietnam accepted closer economic and strategic cooperation without renouncing socialism or entering a formal American alliance.

The partnership has remained active. In July 2026, the American and Vietnamese foreign ministers reaffirmed their commitment to deepening cooperation under the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. Vietnam has also pursued advanced-technology relations with Japan, the European Union, South Korea, and other partners. This is consistent with Hanoi’s declared policy of independence, self-reliance, multilateralization, and diversification rather than exclusive alignment with a single great power.

Vietnam is consequently socialist, commercially interdependent with China, politically connected to China, territorially opposed to China in important areas, and strategically cooperative with the United States. It maintains relations with rival powers without allowing any one relationship to define the totality of its foreign policy.

This is not necessarily an ideological contradiction. It is an expression of national strategy. Vietnamese foreign policy formally places the preservation of national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, regime continuity, and economic development above automatic participation in great-power blocs. Its official doctrine emphasizes “independence, self-reliance, multilateralisation and diversification,” while its frequently invoked metaphor of “bamboo diplomacy” combines firm strategic roots with flexible external relations. Vietnamese leaders describe the objective as cooperating broadly while avoiding confrontation, isolation, or dependence.

Its defense policy reinforces this orientation. Vietnam’s “Four No’s” reject membership in military alliances, alignment with one country against another, foreign military bases or the use of Vietnamese territory against another state, and the use or threat of force in international relations. Although the practical application of these principles necessarily responds to changing circumstances, they demonstrate that closer cooperation with Washington is not officially understood in Hanoi as enlistment in an American containment bloc.

This presents a serious problem for Cold War nostalgia. If the present international struggle were fundamentally a renewed ideological crusade against communism, then the Socialist Republic of Vietnam should logically be classified as an adversary. It remains governed by a communist party, rejects multiparty liberal democracy, maintains close relations with Beijing, and explicitly connects national independence with the preservation of its socialist system.

Yet Cold War nostalgists often praise Vietnam when it resists Chinese maritime pressure, attracts manufacturing away from China, cooperates with American semiconductor firms, or contributes indirectly to the strategic balancing of Chinese power. Vietnam’s communist character is temporarily overlooked whenever Vietnamese national interests coincide with those of Washington.

The inconsistency is revealing. Vietnam is treated as communist when its domestic political system is criticized, but as a strategic partner when its geography, economy, and maritime disputes make it useful to the United States. The categories are applied selectively according to strategic convenience.

This does not mean that criticism of Vietnam’s political system, human-rights record, or restrictions on political activity is necessarily illegitimate. Nor does it mean that American engagement with Vietnamese civil society amounts automatically to a conspiracy against the Vietnamese state. A serious analysis must distinguish principled criticism of government conduct from the continued ideological refusal to recognize the historical and political reality of contemporary Vietnam.

The inconsistency becomes more pronounced among those who continue to romanticize the former Republic of Vietnam as the only politically legitimate Vietnamese state. In this interpretation, the fall of Saigon in 1975 is treated not as the conclusion of a particular war and state division but as an ideological wound that should never be considered historically settled. The existing Socialist Republic is reduced to an illegitimate continuation of the victorious North, while the former Saigon government is preserved as the authentic Vietnam in exile.

Such a position substitutes Cold War memory for analysis of the existing Vietnamese state. It says little about Hanoi’s contemporary diplomacy, industrial policy, relations with China, or changing position within the regional economy. Instead, it imagines that present-day Vietnam can be understood only through the political legitimacy disputed during the war.

The legacy of the former Republic of Vietnam remains especially important within sections of the Vietnamese-American community. Symbols such as the former South Vietnamese flag have acquired meanings extending beyond the defunct state itself, including refugee memory, anti-communism, community identity, and commemoration of those who fought or fled after 1975. Congressional initiatives have periodically sought to recognize that flag as a symbol of Vietnamese-American heritage and political freedom.

This symbolic persistence should not be confused with official American support for restoring the former Saigon regime. The United States normalized diplomatic relations with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in 1995 and now officially describes the two countries as trusted partners. Washington recognizes and conducts diplomacy with the government in Hanoi, not with a South Vietnamese government in exile.

Nevertheless, American domestic politics sometimes allows residual Cold War narratives to coexist uneasily with strategic rapprochement. Members of Congress may support closer security and economic relations with Hanoi while also endorsing former South Vietnamese symbols or introducing legislation pressuring the Vietnamese government over human rights and political freedoms. Recent congressional proposals have explicitly combined recognition of the growing strategic relationship with demands for stronger American action concerning political prisoners, religious freedom, labor rights, and civil society.

This produces a dual political language. Official diplomacy treats the Socialist Republic of Vietnam as an increasingly important partner in the Indo-Pacific, while certain domestic constituencies continue to interpret Vietnam through the historical memory of Saigon, communist victory, exile, and lost legitimacy.

Washington does not consistently seek to resurrect the former regime, but it sometimes accommodates, invokes, or politically instrumentalizes the unresolved memories surrounding it. The memory of South Vietnam can serve community recognition, legitimate human-rights advocacy, partisan mobilization, or renewed anti-communist rhetoric. These purposes should not be treated as identical, yet together they preserve a Cold War vocabulary that sits awkwardly beside the strategic partnership with Hanoi.

The result is an uneasy duality. Vietnam is accepted as the sovereign state with which the United States must cooperate, while the political memory of the defeated southern state remains symbolically present in sections of American public life. Hanoi is treated as a useful partner in the present, but its historical victory and political legitimacy remain contested within certain ideological communities.

This duality does not necessarily make American policy incoherent. States frequently cooperate with governments whose domestic systems they criticize. What becomes incoherent is the attempt to portray the wider United States–China rivalry as a consistent ideological struggle against communism while simultaneously cultivating communist Vietnam as an economic and strategic partner.

Should Vietnam be considered an enemy of an imagined “new American century” because it remains socialist? Or should it be regarded as a friend because it opposes Chinese maritime pressure? Must Washington accept the legitimacy of the existing Vietnamese state, or should it continue to behave as though Saigon represents an unfinished political alternative?

These questions expose the inadequacy of the framework rather than any inherent inconsistency in Vietnamese conduct. Vietnam does not resist China because it has ceased to be socialist. Its disputes with Beijing arise from geography, territorial sovereignty, historical experience, asymmetry of power, maritime resources, and the requirements of national security. Nor does Hanoi cooperate with Washington because it has embraced the political legacy of the former Republic of Vietnam. It cooperates because American technology, markets, education, investment, and diplomatic weight can contribute to Vietnamese development and help prevent excessive dependence on China.

The country’s strategic behavior is therefore better understood as a continuous effort to preserve autonomy under conditions of unequal power. Hanoi seeks Chinese commerce without accepting Chinese primacy, American technology without becoming an American client, and international integration without formally relinquishing its socialist system.

This does not mean Vietnam has achieved complete autonomy. Its economy remains substantially exposed to Chinese trade and intermediate goods, while its growing relations with the United States and other developed economies introduce new dependencies and political pressures. Strategic multiplicity is not the elimination of dependence; it is an effort to prevent any one dependence from becoming absolute.

Vietnam nevertheless demonstrates that national interest, geography, historical memory, territorial conflict, economic requirements, and regime security cannot be reduced to a capitalism-versus-communism binary. Its conduct is not evidence that ideology has disappeared entirely. The Communist Party’s survival and socialist legitimacy remain central objectives of the Vietnamese state. But ideology operates within, rather than above, the requirements of national power and state survival.

The Philippines should draw a careful lesson from this experience. Strategic autonomy does not require mechanical equidistance from every power, neutrality on every dispute, or refusal to form meaningful partnerships. It requires the institutional and political capacity to cooperate selectively without allowing cooperation to become subordination.

Vietnam engages China without conceding every Chinese claim. It engages the United States without becoming an anti-communist client state. It cultivates relations with Japan, Europe, India, Russia, South Korea, and ASEAN while officially rejecting exclusive military alignment.

Its political system differs fundamentally from that of the Philippines, and its successes should not be romanticized. But its diplomatic behavior illustrates the possibility of strategic multiplicity: the deliberate use of several external relationships to protect national autonomy, acquire technology, expand markets, and reduce dependence on any single patron.

The contradiction lies less in Vietnam than in the Cold War categories imposed upon it. Those categories demand that a socialist state behave as China’s natural subordinate or America’s permanent enemy. Vietnam’s actual conduct refuses both assignments.

ASEAN’s Weakness and the Wrong Conclusion

The practicalists are correct that ASEAN is under serious strain. The continuing conflict in Myanmar has exposed the limitations of the Five-Point Consensus and ASEAN’s ability to produce compliance from a member state. ASEAN leaders have repeatedly acknowledged the persistence of violence and the difficulty of achieving a comprehensive political settlement. (ASEAN Main Portal)

The Thailand-Cambodia border conflict has likewise required ceasefire appeals, diplomatic intervention, and proposals for ASEAN observation. ASEAN foreign ministers called for restraint and an immediate ceasefire, while regional diplomacy involved not only ASEAN but also participation from the United States and China. (ASEAN Main Portal)

These developments demonstrate institutional weakness. They do not demonstrate that Southeast Asian states are simply entering a Chinese sphere of influence. ASEAN members maintain different combinations of trade with China, security relations with the United States, investment partnerships with Japan and South Korea, institutional links with Europe, and independent national policies. Their behavior is more accurately described as hedging, diversification, and selective alignment than as unified bloc membership.

Regional fragmentation does not make national industrial strategy unnecessary. It makes it more urgent. The Philippines does not need to wait for ASEAN to become a centralized strategic bloc before developing independent productive capability. Nor does it have to choose between an unrealistically unified ASEAN and total dependence on a great power.

Cooperation can proceed through narrower arrangements:

• joint semiconductor research;
• regional training and faculty exchanges;
• common technical standards;
• complementary industrial specialization;
• coordinated infrastructure;
• development financing;
• shared testing facilities;
• supply-chain information systems;
• bilateral and plurilateral joint ventures.

Thailand’s own contribution to an ASEAN semiconductor roadmap demonstrates that regional cooperation remains possible even amid political division. Thai policy institutions have proposed clearer collective targets, high-skill workforce exchanges, joint research, photonics and printed-circuit-board development, and common institutional mechanisms. (Nxpo)

ASEAN’s weakness is therefore not an argument for Philippine dependence. It is an argument for building the national capacities without which regional autonomy will remain rhetorical.

The Extraterritorial Temptation

Supporters of Pax Silica may reasonably believe that remaining disagreements can be resolved through negotiations, that the benefits will outweigh the risks, and that appropriate safeguards can be inserted into final agreements.

But this confidence raises a deeper question: how much effective sovereignty are they prepared to compromise before the initiative begins to operate like an extraterritorial enclave?

The presently available public record does not establish that the proposed hub will possess formal diplomatic immunity, territorial exemption, or independence from Philippine law.

BCDA has expressly stated that the project will be “purely commercial,” will not be used for defense-related activities, and will remain subject to Philippine law, including the BCDA Charter and the Investors’ Lease Act. It has also stated that project components will be required to secure environmental compliance certificates and undergo continuing DENR oversight. (Philippine Information Agency)

Those assurances must be acknowledged. A scholarly critique should not transform a potential risk into a proven legal fact.

Formal jurisdiction, however, is not identical to effective sovereign control. A project may remain formally within Philippine territory while becoming politically exceptional because of its importance to a treaty ally, its integration into foreign economic-security arrangements, its control over essential technology, or the host state’s fear of losing investment.

This article uses functional extraterritoriality as an analytical term rather than as a settled legal conclusion. It describes a condition in which Philippine law continues to apply formally but its effective enforcement becomes constrained by asymmetric power, technical dependence, contractual restrictions, diplomatic pressure, or regulatory self-restraint.

Environmental rules may remain legally binding while violations are downplayed to avoid disturbing a strategic investor. Labor protections may continue to exist while enforcement is moderated because a facility is considered indispensable. Competition rules may be applied leniently because a corporation controls essential technology. Data-protection investigations may be delayed because enforcement is characterized as a threat to cybersecurity cooperation or alliance relations.

No treaty provision needs to abolish Philippine jurisdiction for such a condition to arise. Sovereignty can be narrowed gradually through exemptions, confidential arrangements, investor privileges, technical opacity, dependence, and the accumulation of issues that regulators are discouraged from touching.

Krasner (1999) described sovereignty as “organized hypocrisy,” emphasizing the distance between formal juridical equality and the actual operation of international power. Strange (1988) similarly argued that structural power arises through control over security, production, finance, and knowledge—not merely through possession of territory.

In this sense, the language of “lord and vassal” should be understood as a metaphor for asymmetric strategic dependence, not a literal description of the legal relationship. The weaker state retains the ceremonies of jurisdiction but increasingly hesitates to exercise its authority whenever enforcement conflicts with the stronger partner’s preferences.

The danger is not necessarily that Philippine law will disappear. The danger is that Philippine institutions will be trained not to use it.

When Every Microchip Becomes National Security

The sovereignty question becomes particularly serious because the boundary between commercial technology and national security has become increasingly porous. Semiconductors are used in consumer goods, medical systems, power infrastructure, communications, industrial machinery, artificial intelligence, surveillance systems, and weapons. Data centers host ordinary commercial services but may also contain information relevant to cybersecurity, law enforcement, intelligence, financial regulation, or critical infrastructure. Artificial-intelligence systems may be developed for civilian purposes but classified later as dual-use technologies.

Pax Silica itself treats minerals, energy, semiconductors, network infrastructure, artificial intelligence, communications, software, and data centers as interconnected components of economic security. It calls for cooperation in protecting critical technologies and infrastructure from undesirable access or control. (Industry.gov.au)

This does not prove that every microchip or every item of stored data in New Clark City will be commandeered for foreign national-security purposes. Such a claim would be too absolute. The concern is that the category of national security has become broad enough to encompass nearly every major component of the digital economy.

Promises that the initiative will remain “purely commercial” may be sincere when made. But commercial facilities can later become subject to export controls, sanctions, cybersecurity directives, end-use restrictions, intelligence requests, foreign court orders, or new strategic requirements.

American export controls already demonstrate how legal authority can travel through technology. Specified foreign-produced items may become subject to U.S. controls because they are produced using American software, equipment, or technology, or because they are intended for particular end users. (Bureau of Industry and Security)

Cross-border data governance creates similar complexity. The U.S. CLOUD Act establishes procedures under which service providers subject to American jurisdiction may be compelled through lawful process to produce electronic evidence within their possession, custody, or control, including in circumstances involving data stored abroad. The law also creates mechanisms for bilateral agreements governing cross-border access to electronic evidence. (Department of Justice)

This does not authorize arbitrary seizure of all foreign data. Legal process, jurisdiction, privacy safeguards, and opportunities to contest orders remain relevant. But it demonstrates that the physical location of a server does not by itself determine which state may assert legal authority over the data it contains.

Philippine law also possesses extraterritorial features. The Data Privacy Act may apply to processing conducted abroad when the information concerns Philippine citizens or residents and the entity has relevant links with the Philippines. Philippine authorities have also developed model contractual clauses and mechanisms for cross-border data transfers and enforcement cooperation. (National Privacy Commission)

The resulting problem is therefore not simple foreign lawlessness but overlapping jurisdiction. A company operating within Pax Silica could be subject simultaneously to Philippine law, foreign corporate obligations, export controls, cybersecurity requirements, contractual restrictions, and lawful foreign demands.

This is why broad verbal assurances are insufficient. If every microchip, server, communications network, algorithm, or dataset can potentially be described as relevant to national security, then the promise that the initiative will not be used for security-related ventures may become fragile. It can be narrowed, reinterpreted, or superseded when geopolitical circumstances change.

Without enforceable limits, the promise risks becoming a hollow phrase—affirmed while the investment is being negotiated and disregarded once infrastructure and dependence make refusal costly.

Sovereignty Must Be Operational

It is not enough for an agreement to declare that Philippine law applies. Philippine institutions must possess the practical capacity to enforce it.

A regulator cannot exercise sovereignty over a system it does not understand. Formal inspection powers mean little if government agencies lack qualified engineers, cybersecurity experts, environmental scientists, auditors, and legal specialists capable of evaluating proprietary industrial systems.

Operational sovereignty requires:

• access to relevant technical information;
• independent inspection rights;
• authority to audit data flows;
• knowledge of ownership and subcontracting structures;
• power to review foreign-government requests;
• capacity to test environmental and cybersecurity claims;
• authority to suspend operations;
• public and legislative oversight.

The state should not be dependent entirely on information supplied by the regulated corporations themselves.

Confidential commercial information may require protection, but confidentiality cannot become a means of excluding Philippine authorities from systems operating in Philippine territory.

Any final agreement should specify that Philippine constitutional and judicial authority cannot be displaced by undisclosed contractual provisions. Investor-state or private arbitration arrangements should not prevent the enforcement of labor, environmental, competition, privacy, taxation, and national-security laws.

Foreign legal demands involving Philippine facilities or data should be reported to designated Philippine authorities, subject to narrowly drawn exceptions. Requests should be reviewed under Philippine law, relevant treaties, and principles of due process rather than complied with automatically.

The state must retain the right to refuse. Sovereignty that cannot produce refusal is merely ceremonial.

Thailand’s Siam Silica Alternative

Thailand provides a useful comparison because it is not rejecting foreign capital, international partnerships, or semiconductor supply chains. It is attempting to incorporate them into a national framework.

The Siam Silica Framework identifies specific areas in which Thailand intends to build capability: photonics fabrication, advanced packaging, silicon design, quantum photonics, and power devices. It links these priorities to research, innovation, workforce development, international cooperation, investment attraction, and technology transfer. (Nxpo)

The framework includes concrete targets for 2030:

• eight integrated-circuit design operations;
• one fabrication facility;
• two advanced-packaging facilities;
• 152 additional university instructors;
• 950 researchers, specialists, and senior engineers;
• 553 skilled engineers;
• 1,330 technicians.

Thai agencies have been assigned particular responsibilities involving research grants, international partnerships, training facilities, startup incubation, graduate programs, industrial research, workforce planning, and conditions linking investment incentives to human-capital development and technology transfer. (Nxpo)

Thailand’s broader semiconductor strategy focuses on sectors compatible with its existing economic structure and prospective domestic demand, including power semiconductors, sensors, photonics, discrete devices, and analog chips. Its declared aim is to move toward a fuller national value chain rather than merely attract isolated production facilities. (Board of Investment)

Siam Silica does not represent autarky. Thailand is actively pursuing partnerships with foreign research centers and industries, including institutions in the Netherlands and Belgium.

The difference is authorship. Thailand begins by identifying the capabilities it wants and then seeks external partners to help develop them.

Pax Silica begins as an external economic-security architecture into which the Philippines is being inserted.

These approaches are not necessarily incompatible. The Philippines could participate in Pax Silica while developing its own nationally authored semiconductor and advanced-industries framework. But without such a framework, Pax Silica becomes the Philippine strategy by default.

That is the critical distinction. Siam Silica is Thailand’s initiative, designed around Thai targets, Thai institutions, Thai workforce requirements, and Thai industrial priorities.

It is not merely somebody else’s agenda established on Thai soil and afterward described as Thai industrialization.

Lessons from Europe and the Developed States

The practicalist argument often implies that deliberate national industrial policy is too expensive or outdated for the Philippines. Yet the states that preach openness most loudly are themselves returning to strategic industrial intervention.

The European Union’s Chips Act was designed explicitly to strengthen technological sovereignty, secure semiconductor supplies, increase research and manufacturing capacity, and reduce dependence on foreign supply chains. The EU has mobilized tens of billions of euros in public and policy-driven investment and, in 2026, proposed further measures under Chips Act 2.0 to strengthen advanced production and reduce strategic dependencies. (Digital Strategy Europe)

Europe has not concluded that domestic capability is too expensive. It has concluded that dependence is too dangerous.

Japan has likewise committed major public resources to semiconductor production, materials, research, artificial intelligence, and supply-chain security. Its support includes direct subsidies, investment financing, government-backed research, and policies intended to ensure that semiconductor investment strengthens national industrial competitiveness. (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry)

South Korea has combined private conglomerate investment with state-supported infrastructure, policy financing, testing facilities, research support, and semiconductor-cluster development. (Ministry of Trade and Industry)

The United States itself has rediscovered industrial policy through semiconductor subsidies, procurement, export controls, research funding, defense-linked innovation, and infrastructure support.

None of these states waits passively for foreign investment to define its technological future.

The lesson is not that the Philippines can match their expenditure immediately. The lesson is that national capability is considered legitimate when powerful states pursue it but dismissed as unrealistic when developing states propose the same objective.

The Philippines is told that it cannot afford strategic industrial policy precisely when its partners are spending enormous sums on their own. This asymmetry should be rejected.

A Principled Philippine Alternative

A principled alternative to Pax Silica as presently framed does not require hostility toward the United States, exclusion of foreign firms, or withdrawal from global value chains.

It requires that Philippine participation be subordinated to a Philippine industrial program.

The first step should be the publication of a national semiconductor, critical-minerals, data-infrastructure, and advanced-manufacturing strategy before binding long-term commitments are concluded. The strategy should identify specific capabilities, institutions, timelines, ownership targets, environmental limits, and domestic applications.

It should answer several basic questions:

1. Which technologies must the Philippines be able to design, produce, maintain, and modify within five, ten, and twenty years?
2. Which industries can realistically be developed through Filipino ownership, joint ventures, public corporations, or mixed enterprises?
3. Which mineral-processing activities should be linked to domestic manufacturing rather than organized exclusively for export?
4. How will semiconductor development serve Philippine energy, agriculture, transport, housing, health, communications, and defense?
5. How will public expenditures generate public or Filipino-controlled assets?
6. What measurable technological transfers must investors provide?
7. What environmental and resource limits cannot be negotiated away?

A domestic-first program should not attempt to produce every component immediately. It should select strategic areas in which existing capabilities, domestic demand, public procurement, and attainable technologies can reinforce one another.

The country could prioritize power electronics for renewable energy and transport; sensors and controllers for agriculture and disaster management; medical electronics; telecommunications equipment; printed circuit boards; advanced packaging; industrial automation; and semiconductor design.

Domestic demand matters. An industry oriented exclusively toward export orders remains vulnerable to decisions made abroad. Government procurement in transport, power, telecommunications, health, agriculture, and public infrastructure can provide stable markets for Filipino-designed products.

This was central to the development of many successful industrial economies: the state was not merely a regulator but an early customer, financier, coordinator, and source of technological demand.

Conditions for Participation

At minimum, Philippine participation in Pax Silica should be conditioned upon the following:

1. Philippine industrial authorship
   Pax Silica projects must operate under a published Philippine industrial strategy rather than substitute for one.
   
   
2. Domestic equity
   Strategic infrastructure should include meaningful Philippine private, cooperative, public, or development-finance equity. Where public resources create value, the public should possess a corresponding claim upon that value.
   
   
3. Supplier development
   Investors should be required to publish and implement programs enabling Filipino firms to meet procurement, certification, quality, and technological standards.
   
   
4. Technology transfer
   Incentives should be linked to licensing, joint research, faculty development, engineer training, equipment access, and measurable technological upgrading.
   
   
5. Research institutions
   A portion of project revenues or fiscal incentives should fund Philippine laboratories, universities, and shared technology facilities available to domestic firms.
   
   
6. Workforce progression
   Employment targets should not be limited to the number of jobs. They should include the movement of Filipinos into senior technical, research, design, and managerial positions.
   
   
7. Environmental limits
   Water, electricity, mineral, chemical, emissions, and waste requirements must be independently assessed and disclosed. Environmental approvals should be facility-specific rather than granted through generalized promises.
   
   
8. Data sovereignty
   Cross-border data transfers, foreign legal demands, cybersecurity access, and government requests should be governed by transparent procedures consistent with Philippine law.
   
   
9. Prohibition of undisclosed security use
   Any military, surveillance, intelligence, or dual-use activity outside the publicly approved purpose of the project should require separate Philippine authorization.
   
   
10. Regulatory supremacy
    Philippine agencies and courts must retain authority over labor, competition, environment, taxation, land, privacy, and criminal law.
    
    
11. Transparency
    Long-term leases, fiscal incentives, infrastructure commitments, ownership arrangements, and government guarantees should be disclosed to Congress and subjected to audit.
    
    
12. Periodic developmental review
    The project should be reviewed according to domestic value added, technology acquisition, Filipino ownership, supplier growth, environmental performance, and research output—not merely gross investment or export figures.
    
    
13. Sunset and termination clauses
    The government should retain the right to withdraw incentives, revise agreements, or terminate operations when investors fail to satisfy developmental or legal obligations.
    
    
14. Diversified partnerships
    
    
    The Philippines should retain the freedom to cooperate with the United States, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Europe, China, India, and ASEAN partners where such cooperation is consistent with Philippine law and interest. 

These conditions are not anti-investment. They define why investment is being accepted.

Neither American Enclave nor Chinese Extraction Zone 

The alternative to a Chinese-centered extractive economy is not an American-centered export enclave.

China has benefited from the export of Philippine minerals and from its dominance in downstream processing and manufacturing. Replacing Chinese firms with American or allied firms does not automatically transform the developmental structure.

The nationality of the foreign beneficiary matters geopolitically, but it does not by itself determine whether the arrangement develops Philippine capacity.

A mine owned by one foreign power and a processing zone controlled by another may still leave the Philippines in a subordinate position.

The country should cooperate with all major economies while refusing the monopolization of strategic sectors by any one of them.

This is not equidistance for its own sake. Different powers pose different risks and offer different opportunities. The United States is a treaty ally; China is a major economic partner and a maritime adversary; Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Europe possess distinct technologies and interests.

Philippine policy should distinguish among them intelligently. But the organizing principle must remain Philippine sovereignty, not sentimental loyalty.

A longstanding relationship with the United States is not a substitute for contractual safeguards. Historical alliance does not eliminate conflicting economic interests. Friendship between states remains compatible with hard negotiation.

Indeed, a relationship that cannot withstand Philippine bargaining is not a partnership worthy of preservation.

Beyond the “New American Century”

The practicalist defense sometimes rests upon a broader belief that Philippine security and development should be anchored permanently in American leadership.

This belief confuses familiarity with inevitability. The Philippines shares important defense, economic, cultural, and institutional relations with the United States. Those relations should not be discarded carelessly. But neither should the country organize its entire industrial future around the expectation of a new American century.

Great-power policy changes with administrations, economic crises, domestic politics, and strategic priorities. Technologies considered shareable today may become restricted tomorrow. Markets promised today may be closed through tariffs or national-security rules later.

The same warning applies to China. Chinese capital, infrastructure, and markets may be useful, but they do not justify political silence, maritime concessions, extractive dependence, or technological subordination.

A Philippine strategy must survive changes in Washington and Beijing. The lesson of Vietnam is strategic multiplicity. The lesson of Thailand is national authorship. The lesson of Europe, Japan, and South Korea is that international cooperation does not require abandoning national industrial planning.

The Philippines should deal with every power while becoming the possession of none.

Conclusion

The practicalist case for Pax Silica begins from an understandable anxiety. The Philippines has missed industrial opportunities. It remains concentrated in services, overseas labor, consumption supported by remittances, mineral extraction, and selected stages of export manufacturing. It faces expensive power, inadequate infrastructure, weak research expenditure, limited industrial finance, and persistent policy discontinuity.

Neighboring states compete aggressively. The technological rivalry between the United States and China is reorganizing supply chains. Investment opportunities may not remain open forever.

But anxiety is not a strategy. To accept Pax Silica merely because it is available, because another ASEAN country may receive the investment, or because the United States is a longstanding partner is not pragmatism. It is practicalism: the elevation of immediate convenience over long-term national purpose.

The contemporary great-power rivalry is not simply the ideological Cold War reborn. It is an economic and technological conflict conducted through tariffs, subsidies, sanctions, infrastructure, standards, data, minerals, export controls, and supply chains.

China cannot be understood merely as a reincarnated Soviet Union. Nor can every American initiative be understood automatically as the defense of Philippine freedom.

Socialist Vietnam’s resistance to Chinese maritime pressure demonstrates that national interest is not reducible to ideological labels. Thailand’s Siam Silica Framework demonstrates that foreign cooperation can be organized under a national plan rather than allowed to replace one. Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, and the United States themselves demonstrate that industrial sovereignty is not an obsolete Leftist fantasy but a central policy objective of every serious technological power.

The Philippines therefore does not face a choice between Pax Silica and isolation. It faces a choice between accepting Pax Silica as an externally authored economic-security framework and subordinating it to a Philippine industrial strategy.

The decisive question is not whether semiconductors will be assembled, packaged, or processed within Philippine territory. It is whether Filipino institutions will acquire the knowledge, machinery, capital, research capacity, firms, and legal authority necessary to direct the industry on Philippine terms.

An industrial estate can be located in the Philippines. An industrial system must belong to the Philippines.

***

References

Amsden, A. H. (1989). Asia’s next giant: South Korea and late industrialization. Oxford University Press.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations. (2025a). ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ statement on the Thailand–Cambodia border dispute. ASEAN Secretariat.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations. (2025b). ASEAN leaders’ review and decision on the implementation of the Five-Point Consensus. ASEAN Secretariat.

Bases Conversion and Development Authority. (2026). New Clark City to serve as AI hub under the US-led Pax Silica initiative. Government of the Philippines.

Bureau of Industry and Security. (2024). Commerce strengthens export controls to restrict China’s capability to produce advanced semiconductors for military applications. U.S. Department of Commerce.

Bureau of Industry and Security. (2026). Revised license-review policy for semiconductors exported to China. U.S. Department of Commerce.

Chang, H.-J. (2002). Kicking away the ladder: Development strategy in historical perspective. Anthem Press.

Department of Industry, Science and Resources. (2025). The Pax Silica Declaration by countries attending the Pax Silica Summit, 12 December 2025. Australian Government.

European Commission. (2026). European Chips Act and Chips Act 2.0. European Union.

Evans, P. (1995). Embedded autonomy: States and industrial transformation. Princeton University Press.

Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion. International Security, 44(1), 42–79.

Government of Viet Nam. (2023, September 11). Joint leaders’ statement on elevating Viet Nam–United States relations to a comprehensive strategic partnership.

Government of Viet Nam. (2026, April 17). Viet Nam and China issue joint statement on deepening the comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership in the new era.

Krasner, S. D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized hypocrisy. Princeton University Press.

Lall, S. (2004). Reinventing industrial strategy: The role of government policy in building industrial competitiveness (G-24 Discussion Paper Series No. 28). United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

Marcos, F. R., Jr. (2026, July 27). Fifth State of the Nation Address. Office of the President of the Philippines.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. (2026a, May 5). Viet Nam calls on China to respect sovereignty over Hoang Sa.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. (2026b). Official stresses proactive implementation of the 14th Party Congress Resolution in foreign affairs.

Ministry of National Defence of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. (2019). Vietnam national defence white paper.

National Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation Policy Council Office. (2026). Siam Silica Framework and the development of Thailand’s semiconductor and advanced-electronics workforce. Government of Thailand.

National Privacy Commission. (2012). Republic Act No. 10173: Data Privacy Act of 2012. Government of the Philippines.

National Privacy Commission. (2024). Model contractual clauses for cross-border transfers of personal data. Government of the Philippines.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). Promoting the growth of the semiconductor ecosystem in the Philippines. OECD Publishing.

Rodrik, D. (2004). Industrial policy for the twenty-first century. Harvard University.

State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China. (2022). The Taiwan question and China’s reunification in the new era. Government of the People’s Republic of China.

Strange, S. (1988). States and markets. Pinter Publishers.

Thailand Board of Investment. (2026). Thailand maps long-term semiconductor strategy, pushes toward full value chain. Government of Thailand.

United States Congress. (2023). H. Res. 560: Recognizing the Vietnamese Heritage and Freedom Flag as the official symbol of the Vietnamese-American community in the United States.

United States Congress. (2025). H.R. 3122: Vietnam Human Rights Act.

United States Department of Justice. (2019). The purpose and impact of the CLOUD Act. Government of the United States.

United States Department of State. (2025). U.S. relations with Vietnam.

Wade, R. (1990). Governing the market: Economic theory and the role of government in East Asian industrialization. Princeton University Press.

World Bank. (2013). Does FDI work for Africa? Assessing local spillovers in a world of global value chains. World Bank Group.

World Bank. (2023). Foreign direct investment, backward linkages, and productivity spillovers: What governments can do to strengthen linkages and their impact. World Bank Group.