“How did we get to where we are?” asks University of Asia and the Pacific economist Bernardo Villegas. He says poverty in the Philippines is a result of many factors. To his mind, however, a large population is not one of them.
I find this explanation laughable especially during these times when the only countries in Asia that are posting positive GDP growth rates are the countries with huge populations, and therefore have sizable domestic markets which partly immunize them from collapsing export markets.
Villegas implies that huge populations are what cushioned countries such as China and India from the 2008 collapse of financial markets. He attributes continued GDP growth to large domestic markets.
This claim is problematic on two accounts.
First, China was able to escape the worst of the financial crisis because of its over one trillion dollar reserve – a result of its export surplus to major economies since it joined the global trade regime in 2000. The Chinese financial system also has limited exposure to global financial markets – a policy initiative of the one-party state that has little changed for the last decade. What the Chinese save in export earnings, they funnel back in domestic banks to pursue its national developmental projects. It is wrong, therefore, to attribute China’s survival to the size of its population.
Second, more people does not necessarily mean more consumers. While there is a nascent middle class in major urban cities, the hinterland peasants still far outnumber the estimated 100 to 350 million of them living along the east coast. Also, domestic markets account for only 20 percent of the Chinese GDP.
The Philippines has a shrinking middle class, down to 19.1 percent as of 2006. The NSCB defines middle-income families as among those earning at least P250,000. Villegas might argue that consumer spending in the country is fueled by OFW money anyway, so a small domestic consumer base should not be an issue. Does this mean we should not be worried about our population growth rate?
It takes over two decades for a Filipino to become a viable domestic income earner, perhaps a bit longer to become a “transnational income earner” to be exported to labor markets in North America, Europe and the Middle East. In those two decades, this Filipino will have to be fed, clothed, housed and educated – using domestic resources. We invest in our people to become fully productive overseas then to send money back to the Philippines. Whether this model is sustainable depends on two factors – an ever-expanding labor markets overseas and hospitable migrant work policies of these receiving countries. These factors, the Philippines has ZERO control over. And yet we have been banking on this model for the last decade or so.
Should we worry about population growth? Should the Philippines continue down the path of being the world’s breeder of cheap migrant labor?
Villegas then makes a claim that the world’s emerging superpowers all have populations more than fifty million.
If one takes a look at the so-called emerging markets that are forecasted to dominate the global economy in the next 20 years, they have a common denominator: they all have at least 50 million people, i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Korea, Indonesia, Pakistan, Mexico, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, etc. Large and young populations have two advantages: they provide low-labor costs and attractive consumer markets.
I do not know what Villegas has been reading lately, but the list of projected economic powerhouses, dubbed B.R.I.C.S, only includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Maybe he was confused with South Korea – which officially joined the rich country club (OECD) back in the 1990s. Slyly, he includes the Philippines in this so-called dominators of the global economy in twenty years. I do not know what his indicators are in making this projection.
Among the countries he mentioned a population of over fifty million perhaps is the only thing they have in common. They are in various stages of economic development, with different domestic economy features. BRICS are all rapidly industrializing countries – exporting low to mid-value export goods and commodities overseas. The Philippines, as we have established, exports people.
A large and young people is only desirable if it is a healthy, educated and trained population. Foreign investors will forgo “quantity” over “quality.” The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report, a survey of the world’s biggest companies, does not usually include “cheap labor” among desirable factors for a profitable investment climate. And besides, as cheap labor goes – low-skilled labor in the Philippines is still more expensive than their Chinese equivalent. Filipinas will have to pop out a billion more babies to compete!
Next week the Reproductive Health bill will be up for debate in the House of Representatives. Advocates hope to have a vote finally called before the end of the session in October.
This is probably Villegas’ last ditch effort to mount a credible defense against the population and development aspect of this legislation. Sadly, his position is indefensible.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Sparks
Villegas is spouting the classic Opus Dei type of non-sequiturs. China was cushioned from the financial crisis partly due to its labour being undercompensated. Now does Catholic social teaching from Rerum Novarum to Caritas in Veritate that I believe Villegas subscribes to say that that is moral?
Knock knock Bernie Villagas? how are you?
Hey Sparky, Chinas gross exports are in the vicinity of $1.45 Trillion +. That is the gross amount.
They have a total GDP of $4. trillion. That would mean they have a net export contribution to GDP no more than 15-20%. The rest is their domestic market contribution to GDP.
Except for China which imposed a one child policy no other state in the globe has a government run population control program. The Chinese have had to reverse the one child policy in certain key areas of the country.
The financial crisis has deeply affected the unemployment picture in China. However the rural areas still are a measure of the family safety net. Hence the brunt was felt by the huge migrant labor force. I cannot understand what the phrase means under-compensated.
Chinas rapid industrialization process was built on the backs of keeping food prices down and keeping incomes in the rural areas low. That lead to the huge unofficial labor migration that fueled the cheap labor arbitrage between regular employees and irregular employees. Similar to the use of contractuals in the Philippines but on a massive scale. The Chinese have been able to turnaround from being a net importer of food to a net food exporter.
The Chinese government is now ready to experiment with freeing the trading of land use rights amongst landholders in the rural areas to increase incomes.
The natural rate of population will adjust with economic development.
Bernie Villegas is a fraud as an economist but in his views of population he is correct. It should be left to the choices of couples.
Keeping the poor pregnant and barefoot on the farm is a throwback to the feudal system. Even before Chinas one child policy rapid economic development dropped the child rate per woman from 6 to 3.
The process of substituting social safety nets from the family to the state is part and parcel of the modernizing process of society. If not for the liberal immigration policies in the U.S. and the advanced white societies in Europe together with Japan all have declining populations. They are clearly going to have a demographic winter and will slowly liberalize their immigration policies.
The more serious crisis is still unequal distribution of factor endowments, unsustainable farming practices, the end of cheap easy oil and climate change which will change rainfall patterns in a some of the most agricultural rain dependent areas of the world.
It is not population stupid…
Bernie once suggested that Pinay women marry Japs to help increase their birth rate to repopulate their country.
The Philippines has a very low disposable income based consumer base. All 90 million who live on these islands are consumers. A huge portion of them consume what they produce or find in garbage cans. Even pickpockets produce the income necessary to consume.
The family is still the social safety net…
Capitalism survives on inflation hence a single income breadwinner in the family is no longer possible.
Women have had to join the work force and thus child bearing will eventually suffer. Couples will make their own choices.
J_ag,
I think couples could make their own choices more efficiently if education and birth control methods were available or not held off the market by a morality that sees Mr. Villegas as a wise.
Joe
Putting oneself in the shoes of the peasantry or the urban peasantry for Dollar Joe would be extremely hard to do…
The natural evolutionary process of human development has been interrupted by historical forces.
The natural tendency of human expansion can only be determined by free rational choice. Peasant and urban peasant women are not free to make choices.
They are treated no better than pieces of chattel.. There is no ban on the sale of birth control devices in the country. Access to information and supply is hindered by extreme poverty and not by morality. Just go the Africa and India and visit the rural based communities. They have no Church’s telling them to have many kids. AIDS is a major problem in both areas…
So why blame the church almost exclusively? The Church in the Philippines predominantly ruled still by pre-copernican ideas are steeped in witchcraft and shamanism… Villegas is to this day anti-science.. The man has been selling snake oil and what is tragic is the fact that he has been brainwashing an influential group in Philippine society.
He and the rest of the so called practitioners of what they call the science of equilibrium economics are largely responsible for the country being where it is situated.
These men to include, Paderanga, Mondsod, Estanislao, Habito and many others must be tarred and feathered and drummed into oblivion..
This country need more of a national libertarian movement than anything else to lead a major revolution. We need to unleash the power of the productive forces of this country. We need the follow the precepts of an agrarian revolution along the lines of Adam Smith.
It is still the economy stupid and not those funny man with strange hats.
J_ag
The Church is the only organized (but very powerful) lobby against the passage of the RH bill.
Yes, they go to Congress and petition congressmen. They also send lay representatives.
When the RH bill made it past the committee level, 6 bishops jointly held a mass in the North wing lobby of the House!
Villegas is celibate! There is a disconnect when a celibate promotes having many children.
Jag,
This news report early this year says exports account for 2/3 of the GDP in 2008. You want to share your data reference?
First, the RH bill is not a population control program comparable to the Chinese one-child policy. Filipinos have the choice of having a dozen kids if they want. That is fine. The bill does not aim to control how many kids are born. Basically, it gives women who are unable to purchase family planning commodities (bills, condoms etc) a choice to get them for free from public funding. The NSO stats indicate we have a 17 percent “unmet need” which means that these women have expressed wanting only X amount of children but end up having more because they are unable to plan or space their children properly.
Second, many, many countries have policies similar to the RH bill. They usually call them a ‘national population policy.’ Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Laos etc. have them. Please check the UNFPA website to check!
Bernie Villegas does not want to give couples choices at all! The Opus Dei are advocating natural family planning methods only.
The National Demographic and Health Survey shows less than 1 percent of women of reproductive age actually use NFP! More than 1/3 use modern family planning methods. The rest don’t use any at all! Because middle class women are able to purchase these anyway, it is the poorest women who are left to tend 11 children.
I comprehend why during the French revolution the poor went on a screaming vengeful manhunt against all aristocrats. They failed to distinguish between good and bad because so many of those wearing “good” hats were, beneath the disguise, wicked.
Joe
Robespierre comes to mind.
Another comment on this article, it’s probably another “let’s focus on the cure rather than look for the source” argument. It probably hopes to deflect focus from population issues to anti-GMA movements.
And it’s not just the size of population that’s the problem, but the capability of the population to sustain itself, which is poor, considering how many children are not supported by their parents, and how many parents just have sex and bear children without thinking of how to support them. This is still linked to culture.
I mean Villegas as the one who is going like, “let’s focus on the cure rather than look for the source.” Population is a source. In other words, Villegas for me wants to focus on the cure than prevention. Reverse wisdom.
@sparks
good arguments re: domestic market size.
in china, the sheer size of the population, and the fact that her savings rate is so high (greater than 30%, i forget the figures) means there is alot of room for domestic consumption to rise.
the arguments u raise tells us that the same cannot be said of the philippines.
small middle class, small savings rate nationally.
Poverty is caused by the political set up placed by the Spanish
colonialists. Look at Mexico. The Spanish colonialist established
“Haciendas” to perpetuate feudalism. The Mexican natives worked as
“hacienda” workers. While the indolent Spanish colonialist take
the fruits of their labor. Mexican revolution came to promote land
reform removed this at the begining of the century. We are still
in the “Hacienda-Feudalism” stage.
Same as in the American South during the middle of the 18th century.
Plantations were established by the White Plantation Owners. They kidnapped Black Slaves in Africa to work their land. This was removed after the American civil war.
I am not urging for civil war in the Philippines. Let us implement
the CARP to make land reform a reality. Feudalism has been out
one and a half centuries ago.
“Among the countries he mentioned a population of over fifty million perhaps is the only thing they have in common. They are in various stages of economic development, with different domestic economy features. BRICS are all rapidly industrializing countries – exporting low to mid-value export goods and commodities overseas. The Philippines, as we have established, exports people.”
this is the key point of difference between you and villegas.
for villegas, the problem is POLICY. if the problem is low quality of exports, education, health, etc — then attack the policy problem directly.
for the other side, population may be a direct factor for short-term growth; its also low hanging fruit and is easily implementable. Huge policy changes are very difficult, and therefore, impractical; EVEN IF its better in the long-run.
RH advocates do not claim that population causes poverty. Nobody does. There are many, many reasons why we are poor.
But population is the underlying element we have to deal with anyway. This is the public argument.
The private argument goes essentially to what a family wants and how this can be translated to reality. Also, it has something to do with how a woman can have a say as to what happens to her body. Is she ready to get pregnant now? Is her family ready to have more kids?
Simple household economics – how do you properly care for and raise X number of kids given Y amount of income and resources?
“Simple household economics – how do you properly care for and raise X number of kids given Y amount of income and resources?”
Many people just looooooove living beyond their means in this country. One way to do that is to have an huge number of kids for a small salary. I guess they just want to prove something.
You do what you gotta do to survive. Mothers today drop off their daughters where they work as GRO’s… Humans will do whatever is necessary to survive. Why do people of means live behind guarded enclaves? In economics man also can become the prey and not simply the predator…
Which comes first income or kids? Are people born into an economic system or not? What are their choices? That is the definition of poverty . The lack of choices. I am sure Sparky that if you do not wish to be be with a man you could simply turn to your pocket rocket. Your economic standing gives you the choices.
How do you explain to the members of the Aeta hunter and gathering community the need to stop having more children when having more means more hands to survive by. The government has given them their own reservation…
Just heard Coach Jerry Sloan on TV relating his personal history. One of ten kids born in a farm in Illinois. He went to school in a one school classroom for grade 1 till 8.
He is still at present the coach of the Utah Jazz professional basketball team..
The number of farmer owned family farms is almost negligible today in the U.S.. They depend on huge migrant families who sell their services on a seasonal basis. There are still some labor functions that cannot be mechanized …
They depend on these migrant farm labor made up of large families.
Now Sparky as you may not know there is a new universe unfolding as far as economic development is concerned. The digital revolution. Algorithms (software)
The means of production today are all based on algorithms…They are slowly permeating every sector of the economy. They are being turned inside out. Plus through these algorithms humanity has discovered Gods own algorithms that control nature. Genetics.
Tell me Sparky how do you bridge that technological divide? Unfortunately our so called equilibrium scientists have constructed algorithms that do not take into account the different universes wherein people reside. They have simply one homogenous model for human rationality. That is totally erroneous.
You wanna educate women on their reproductive rights go ahead and do it. But first you educate them to empower themselves on an economic level. They are the stronger sex. The rest will follow. Passing out pocket rockets could also help…
Sparks,
re: “RH advocates do not claim that population causes poverty. Nobody does.“
I do. Population growth in excess of the economy’s ability to create higher personal income will contribute to a reduction of average personal income. The number of people is the denominator of the calculation. In a country already stretched to the poverty limits, continued unfettered birthing will create many many more hungry mouths. To detach poverty from birth rate is extraordinarily irresponsible.
You can argue, as the church does, that government’s ineffectiveness and building the economy is the reason the numerator of the calculation is low, and I would argue a responsible country works both parts of the equation, and the church view is narrow, backward about a century, and extraordinarily irresponsible.
RH advocates most likely want to avoid the population issue because it makes them vulnerable to the abortion outcry. It is an irrational outcry, but it carries weight in the sound-bite, thin thinking age we live in.
It is not necessary to pass laws to control population. It is essential to provide education and birth control counseling and methods at reasonable cost. Abortion can remain illegal.
Tour the poor sections of town. It is not unusual to find families of 7, 8, 9, or 10 hungry mouths. I know people who have turned to thievery as a profession because they can’t get work and income. Rice shortages, gas shortages, water shortages, the impending rising seas.
Ants ye be, and ants ye shall perish.
Population and poverty, no connection? You have to be kidding me. Have you disconnected them and descended into nonsense for practical political reasons? Or what is the basis of your current lunacy? (I like you, so don’t fret the words scribed for effect.)
Joe
Joe,
I didn’t say there was no connection. I said there is no direct correlation between poverty and population.
Ernesto Pernia and Alejandro Herrin, economists who specialize on population, will agree.
About abortion, you’re right. As much as possible we don’t like to bring up the word. And the RH bill expressly says it will remain illegal. But some feminists unabashedly think it is a shame abortion isn’t included. That includes me. But hey, one step at a time.
In countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, both staunch Muslim countries, abortion may be had in special cases – rape or when the child is deformed. In enlightened Philippines, a woman has no recourse to it under any circumstance.
i’m very much interested in your thinking about abortion.
maybe in another blogpost, you can spell it out :)
Sparks,
Thanks for the link to the UP paper. I drew off the following pertinent excerpts:
“The current debate on the population issue has become unnecessarily muddled by conceptual and factual distortions. Some groups, including the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and other “pro-life” groups, vehemently oppose the RH Bill because they claim that it is pro-abortion and is anti-life. A studious reading of the bill, however, shows that these are clearly erroneous claims. In the first place, there is an obvious definitional and scientific difference between contraception, which occurs before conception, and abortion, which occurs after5.”
“A notable weakness of the bill, however, is that it fails to explicitly identify the poor and the uneducated as its target population, which could have implications for the cost-effectiveness of the program.”
“The current administration has sadly also contributed to the confusion. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo at the General Assembly of the United Nations in its 60th session on 15 September 2005 asserted that natural family planning technology was found “effective compared to artificial contraceptives” by the World Health Organization. She added that: “the Population Council of New York has found that artificial contraception contributes only 2.0% to the decline of birth rates while the combination of improving the economic condition of the family, urbanization, and breastfeeding contributes 98%”. When asked for their reactions, however, both the WHO and the Population Council categorically disavowed President Arroyo’s statements.”
Finally, go Gabby D’s question about abortion, I would offer my own perspective that if a woman is pregnant by rape, or if the fetus is known to be severely damaged, it is a rather cruel person who would impose lifetime suffering on the woman by forcing her to give birth.
Joe
Sparks, the underlying reason for the persistent poverty is not the big population but the inability of the government to raise revenues due to corruption within the government itself. We are also lacking in effective redistribution policies that will enable the poor segment of the population to uplift themselves from poverty with less direct help from government. Number of kids is not an issue for as long as we have money to spend for food, education, health and other needs. Government has no money for social services not because the Filipinos are too many, but because it could not raise its income. We are losing 400 billion from corruption and tax evation, 300 billion from smuggling, and another 300 billion from legalize corruption. What do I mean by legalized corruption, these are laws which exempts big business families from paying taxes and duties. They are big families who can afford to bribe members of Congress to enact laws that favors their interest. Imagine if this money is added to our annual budget. We will have more school buildings, better hospitals, we can afford to pay doctors, we can invest in massive infrastructure program that will provide jobs to the the head of the 50 million families suffferring from involuntary hunger.
Most importantly, our population is not exploding to be a source of concern. Our population growth rate base from NSCB figures is 1.9 percent in the last decade, 2000-2010. This will further decline in the next decade to 1 percent. Our young dependent population has been in the decline for the last decade will continue to do so in the next 40 years. Our old dependendent population on the otherhand has been on the rise and will continue to increase in the next 40 years.
What is beutiful in our population projection is that the productive population 19y/o-64y/o will continue to increase in the next 40 years.
I may not agree with Villegas in saying that RH bill is a dead issue but I agree with him that the administration need not give much focus on this.
One of the most critical of Marxist theories that still permeates today world is the issue of over production. Automation, mechanization and rapid advances in the sciences have all but erased the mode of production argument and have made the human being the mode or production.
That has given rise to a new class of consumer only after the last Great War. . The struggle for improvements in the human condition across a broad swath of earthlings happened only after the last great war followed by smaller wars. Globalization has produced wealth for many..
However that crisis of over production has led many to look at the improvements in the human condition in a different light. The sustainability of physical resources to maintain the human condition in an ever increasing number.
Before the mechanization and automation process began children were additions to the need for a larger labor force on the farms.
But that is precisely the problem.. The vast majority of people in emerging markets still live on the farms or are migrant workers moving back and forth between urban areas and countryside.
It is more a clash of universes and we have to find the means to bridge that arbitrage as the natural markets already adjust naturally. Hence the surplus labor force will chase capital. For women in the Philippines becoming P. Burgos Divas become an option.
That brings in the “Dollar Joes”. Not related to our dollar Joe.
We should actually remove restrictions on the flows of capital into the country and either go to full convertibility or a hard peg to a basket of currencies that we trade in. (Like Singapore) Our semi slaves in the country actually prefer foreign semi-slave owners than Pinoys.
We could formalize the huge informal economy. Remove bank secrecy laws for fiscal authorities every individual should have a TIN number that will be tied to their bank accounts. Bring income taxes down for corporations to 20% and institute a progressive income tax rate with tax breaks for deferred consumption.
You cannot force a people to love a country they are not vested in… Economic power will have to be diffused. This economic policy planning of measured capacity building decided by technocrats cannot be sustained any longer. Most of these guys have never earned an honest buck in their lives producing anything. I have heard many of the so called academics in the University of Asia and Pacific, U.P. and other institutions of learning.
They all are positioning themselves to get jobs with multilateral institutions to get paid in dollars.
They all would like to become “Dollar Joes”
Pinay women should get smart and use their bodies and brains to gain economic power.. Look at our Broadcast Divas.
Look at Loren Legarda. When she speaks on policy issues you can almost hear the echo in her head.
But she parlayed her body and brain into a home in Forbes. Rise up women of the Philippines.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/opinion/28brooks.html
J_ag,
“Pinay women should get smart and use their bodies and brains to gain economic power.”
Ahahahaha, like my wife did.
By the way, do you read and recite this stuff or make it up from the collection of readings you have done? I enjoy the posts, whichever . . .
Joe
Is the global laboratory for drug cartel under construction?
the RH-bill is a copy-paste document of existing responsibilities of the government. The only new things presented there are to increase bureaucracy (over the choices of the people), and to desensitize consciences (in preparation for the next step – abortion).
Bernie Villegas’ article was so infuriating I had to write the Inquirer’s editors. I hope they publish it.
Since most of the comments here have discussed Bernie’s Opus Dei-inspired musings on population and economic development, I will just say something about his other advocacy — agriculture modernization.
What really got to me was his citation of Thailand as an agribusiness superpower. Turns out we actually have higher rice productivity than Thailand since the 1990s! I know because I googled it. Thailand’s a rice exporter because they have a smaller population and larger arable land per capita. The man’s a fraud alright.
oh, one question on the RH bill sparks:
is it true that the employer must provide RH services to its employees at no cost to the employees?
why is this an important part of the bill? why should private firms dole out reproductive health products?
Gab,
It is true, should the female employees ask for them. The bill will not force employees to use them, only that they are available if needed.
Probably a little known fact is that the labor code already has family planning provisions. The RH bill, only points this out.
From the Labor Code:
ART. 134. Family planning services; incentives for family planning. – (a) Establishments which are required by law to maintain a clinic or infirmary shall provide free family planning services to their employees which shall include, but not be limited to, the application or use of contraceptive pills and intrauterine devices.
(b) In coordination with other agencies of the government engaged in the promotion of family planning, the Department of Labor and Employment shall develop and prescribe incentive bonus schemes to encourage family planning among female workers in any establishment or enterprise.
interesting…
if family planning/contraceptives are already in the labor code, why have a separate RH bill?
Gab,
Why should family planning services be included? Here it is recognized that FP is part of the employees’ health plan – like maternity and paternity leaves.
thanks for the link.
interestingly, the law limits the number of pregancies paid for by firms to 4:
“(c) The maternity leave provided in this Article shall be paid by the employer only for the first four (4) deliveries by a woman employee after the effectivity of this Code.”
The same can be said for PhilHealth members I think, I mean, the number of times they can have access to a certain kind of medical procedure.
But I get what you mean. Is this an indirect way to discourage families from having too many children? It can certainly be framed that way.
At the same time, you can say there is a limit to how much individuals can draw from the collective public funds of the people. You can only expect your fellow Filipino to pay for your individual welfare an X amount of time. It is only fair is it not? Is this not fiscal responsibility?
sparks,
now that the catholic church is putting it’s foot down re:rh bill, do we expect a turn around from Noynoy? he is not just a co-sponsor but a co-author of this bill.
now that’s a problem… we better hear a concrete stand from him re: this issue.
No to RH bill.
Population is not the issue. It is the wealth distribution. Overpopulation is just a red herring to shift blame from the rich classes (as always-greed).
Everyone can observe that few people are stuffed with so much and many people are left with so few. Where the hell does population come into place in that scenario? I advocate to the saying “Earth can provide to every one’s need but not to everone’s greed”.
More people more labor force…as long as we don’t treat them as commodities to be exported. We should resist globalist/capitalist influence/psywar of self-deprecation and hoplessness which promotes migration/cheap labor and remind ourselves to serve our country and crucify selfishness.
Strange, it seems the Church doesn’t understand the concept of Sustainability. Stranger still is that they invest in monetary instruments and think environmentalism is a Religious duty.
Coming from an opus dei school, its strange that even this bit of number fudging is found in a Business School (that bars women from certain courses). Not exactly *Cough*rational*Cough* a good thing.
This RH Bill was being implemented before or during Marcos regime.
we are being alarmed with a 65 million of our population. and
majority of population are finanacialy corrupt.I would say be-
cause lack of financial family planning.”GOD” said Be Multiply
but be Responsible. Faith with out action is dead.and”JESUS” said
Be aware before generation, many religeous righteous or false
prophet will come, many will be corrupt,or many will be decieve.
they will condem many by my sake, and many will suffer.they will
try to figure ME out with their oun understanding.they appear to
be beautiful outward, but inside they sre full of dead mens-
bones. If 90 percent of our population dont have GODLY Moral
Principle, then 90 percent will be corrupt.If you think the
religeous righteous, the political power,and the people power
will save the world, you must be corrupt. depart from HIM our
worse enemy live inside us. History is”GOD”story.Hindi tayo
humuhinga sa mundong ito nang dahil sa ating dangal.Pride,Ego,
popularity,Dinasty,self righteousness,etcs. this are the greatest
sin in the Bible.By Grace we are Save,not because of your own
good work,or your own goodness.but i prayed for our country
that He will restore our nation in GODLY Way.I believe MR.Noynoy
Aquino,and MR Mar Rojas is the best candidate. they have GODLY
Moral Responsibility to lead our coutry.
There are good things about this bill. But, there are also bad things in it. However, the
bad things prevails–that is the reason why I will present the bad things. You need to
have a copy of the RH Bill on sight for you to be guided accordingly.
Here are the irregularities of the RH Bill. Please read this carefully so that you may be
aware of this:
Section 2. First paragraph: “…respect for life in conformity with internationally
recognized human rights standards.”
–> Why not in conformity with the Philippine standards? Why international? Do we need to follow other countries way of population control and reproductive health? Or are we undermined or enslaved by the first world countries? Philippines is known for its good and kind people like being hospitable, which other countries are seeking to learn. We have our own standards.
Section 2. Third paragraph: “…sustainable human development is better assured with a manageable population of healthy, educated and productive citizens.”
–> If you love our country, or if you love other people, you will see that this
statement may promote euthanasia, divorce, etc. If you don’t see it, seek more of its
meaning. It lies beneath the underneath. There will be an unequal distribution of wealth. Don’t you see it?
Section 3. (a): “In the promotion of reproductive health, there should be no bias for
either modern of natural methods of family planning;”
–> Nothing in this bill that promotes the natural family planning.
Section 3. (e): “The limited resources of the country cannot be suffered to be spread so thinly to service a burgeoning multitude that makes the allocations grossly inadequate and effectively meaningless.”
–> Whoa, more money for the rich! If you look at this bill only on its presented
purpose and overlooking its effects, then we have a problem. You see? This promotes more wealth for the rich.
Section 3. (f): “Freedom of informed choice, which is…”
–> What is meant by informed choice? Does it mean everyone is free to watch x-rated films? How about the kids? How about a demonstration in class? Oh, it’s our choice! We are free to be informed of it. Really?
Section 3. (g): “While the number and spacing of children are left to the sound judgement of parents and couples based on their personal conviction and religious beliefs…”
–> This statement is contradicted by Section 10.
Continued: “…such concerned parents and couples, INCLUDING UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS, should be granted…”
–> This includes minors, and lovers not capable of being a parent. This promotes
pre-marital sex, non-marital sex, abortion, promiscuity, fornication, incest, etc.
Anyway, we are free to do it!
Continued: “…and should be guided by qualified State workers and professional private practitioners;”
–> Why are church leaders not included? Why do priests, bishops, nuns, etc not
involved?
Section 3. (j): “Development…that seek to uplift the quality of life of the people,
more particularly the poor, the needy and the marginalized;”
–> What assurance will the poor benefits? Please reflect on this. Is it really for the
quality of life?
Section 3. (l): “Respect for, PROTECTION and FULFILLMENT of REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH RIGHTS…not only the rights and welfare of adult individuals and couples BUT THOSE OF
ADOLESCENTS’ AND CHILDREN’S AS WELL;…”
–> What reproductive health rights for the adolescents and children? Children are
included, whose mind are not yet mature enough! This may promote a dirty knowledge about this to the children. Parents will be responsible for this.
Section 3. (m): “…as abortion remains a crime and is punishable, the government shall ensure the women seeking care for POST-ABORTION COMPLICATIONS shall be treated…and compassionate manner.”
–> This is again contradicted in Section 10. The bill doesn’t only contradicts the Law
of Nature but violates the bill itself as well. Post-abortion complications in this
statement is only an admission that abortion really has complications.
Section 4. “Definition of Terms”
–> This may not be that heavy but redefining the common understanding of everyone does not need to be defined.
Section 4. (b): “…which enables couples and INDIVIDUALS to decide freely and
responsibly the NUMBER and SPACING OF THEIR CHILDREN…”
–> “Individuals.” Does this mean that unmarried couples have the right to have
children? I’m using my common sense here. You should use yours also.
Section 4. (c): “Reproductive Health – refers to the state of physical, mental and social
well-being…”
–> Why spiritual and moral well-being not included here?
Continued: “This implies that PEOPLE are able to have a SATISFYING and SAFE SEX LIFE, that they have the CAPABILITY TO REPRODUCE and the freedom to DECIDE if, WHEN AND HOW OFTEN TO DO SO, provided that these are not against the law.”
–> Take note of the phrases that are in UPPERCASE. People to have satisfaction includes the youth, unmarried, homosexual, etc. And, they may decide when and how often to do so? How about teenagers doing it every minute on the grassland? It is not against the law as long as no one saw them.
Section 4. (d): “Reproductive Health Rights – refers to the rights of INDIVIDUALS and
couples to DECIDE FREELY AND RESPONSIBLY the number, spacing and timing of their
children.”
–> Again, the ‘individual’ word. Does this bill really promotes population control in
which I can decide freely and responsibly the number of children? Suppose I receive great pay, I can raise about 15 children. What a population control! This bill is too vague.
Section 4. (g): “10. Male involvement and participation in reproductive health.”
–> Number 1 to 8 of this section may be considered okay. But on 10, how will I be
involved and participate with reproductive health? Isn’t it obvious that this refers to
sex? Take note that on Section 4 (c) doesn’t include the spiritual well-being.
Section 4. (h): “…relevant information on all matters relating to the reproductive
system its functions and processes and human sexuality…”
–> This may promote promiscuity in education.
Continued: “…developing NECESSARY SKILLS to be able to distinguish between facts and myths on sex and sexuality…”
–> How? Doing actual sexual intercourse in class? What necessary skills? Does it mean the techniques, the positions and the likes? Does it mean the class will have a film showing on pornographic films?
Section 10: “Contraceptives as ESSENTIAL MEDICINES – hormonal contraceptives,
intrauterine devices, injectables and other allied reproductive health products…shall
be considered under the category of ESSENTIAL MEDICINES…”
–> This is the most interesting part. Contraceptives are now considered as ESSENTIAL MEDICINES–not only an ordinary medicine but an ESSENTIAL medicine. We can buy condoms the same way we buy Biogesic. Teenagers can buy those too at an affordable price. Better advertise it so that small children will learn too and if possible imitate it through experiments and practice for better reproductive health learning and to master the NECESSARY SKILLS as depicted in Section 4, h.
Section 12. (g): “Abstinence before marriage”
–> How can this be promoted when the unmarried are allowed to have sex and reproduction (See Section 4)?
Sections 22 – 27:
–> If this become a law, people like me who loves humanity will have no choice to obey it. One reason for peoples immorality may be from this law.
I know you are tired of reading my sharing. That only proves that this Bill has many
irregularities. Erase all those above mentioned parts on the Bill, and the Bill may
become better for the people and will be logical too.
Give thanks to you for yet an additional outstanding weblog. Wherever different may I get this sort of info composed in these varieties of an incite well-rounded way? I’ve been looking for it sort of info