Last Friday I assisted your reporter Louella D. Desidero with a quote for the article she was writing.
She quoted me correctly, using my entire text message and built a story around it. Fair enough.
My quote was: “We haven’t seen an official document but we hope the government would consult with investors before changing established tax practices regarding CIT (corporate income tax) and VAT (value-added tax).”
However, in the second paragraph Ms. Desidero writes that I said the government “must” hold discussions, when I used the verb “hope.” There is a big difference in meaning between the two verbs. In our advocacy work we are careful not to tell other stakeholders what they “must” do but what we “urge” or “suggest” or “hope” that they “should” or “will” do.
But the insult added to this injury came from your headline writer who must have not read my quote or imagined something I did not even say. “AmCham warns of investment losses over plans to remove mining perks.”
I would greatly appreciate if your reporter and headline writers could do a better job of sticking to the facts.
Best regards,
John D. Forbes
AmCham