Many have raised voices and even screamed to death in opposition to the RH Bill that the Philippines does not have an overpopulation. They reasoned out that how could a country of 7,107 islands with total land area of 300,000 km² be over populated with only 88,574,614 people as of 2007 census and 92,226,600 as estimated 2009 population. Certainly, the vastness of 300,000 km² Philippine land area could obviously accommodate all Filipino populace and can even allow them to play hide and seek without anyone seeing each other. They are correct in their claims that we are not overly populated in terms of land area against the number of Filipinos but lets try to give a look on how overpopulation is defined. Meriam-webster dictionary define overpopulation as the condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash. While Wikipedia would say that overpopulation does not depend only on the size or density of the population, but on the ratio of population to available sustainable resources.
Entirely true that in terms of land area against our present number, the Philippines is definitely not over populated. But many have failed to consider the other factors of overpopulation which is the condition of quality of life and the ratio to available sustainable resources. It is beyond doubt that majority of the Filipino's quality of life is way below decency. A handful can not eat thrice a day, can not finish a college degree, and the list continues. Arguably there is so much vast resources in the country. Raw resources that can feed more than what we have. Unfortunately, again they failed to consider that these resources are still raw. No matter how much there is, still it is not available yet. There is a clear disproportion between the number of Filipinos and its available sustainable resources. By available I am referring to resources that is ready to use for consumption, not those resources buried under the wars of Mindanao, the mountains of Cordilleras, and many others. Some would then be temped to say, so the right thing to do is to tap those raw resources and then problem solved. Yes, it could be but this solution is much more complicated than what we have right now. Let us be reminded that aiming two things at the same time would surely make us miss one of our target, if not both. Several other individuals will further argue that the problem is not overpopulation which they incorrectly defined but the congestion in urban areas due to migration of people from rural areas. If only that these people coming from rural areas are self-sufficient they need not migrate.
Faulty conclusion can lead to faulty resolution. The effects of over population is poverty and poverty leads to corruption not the other way around.
Lets take a look how faulty our approach in curving corruption is. The current approach model is to curve corruption from top to bottom and this I dare say that it is completely wrong. The most efficient and effective way to curve and eliminate corruption is from bottom to top or from grassroots to the highly honorable politicians. Lets say for example from the family level receptiveness to corruption is eliminated. This would goes to say that corruption in the barangay, up to the regional and national level will effectively die a natural death. There is no way corruption flourishes if grassroots will not patronize the corrupt higher elites.
Who would patronize a barangay captain? Its poor constituents, the masses, the father of many children who has not enough earnings to give his family a decent meal. A meager earner barangay tanod who works overnight with so much risks of physical harm and danger to take, a pregnant mother with four children scavenging fastfoods left-over to pacify hungry stomachs, and the heart-breaking stories goes on and on. Who would patronize the mayor? Its corrupt barangay captains. The same barangay captains who exploited the poor. Who would patronize national officials? Its corrupt mayors, and so on. If the lay and the poor is empowered by sufficiency there is no way politicians and evil elites will be able to manipulate them. If politicians can not manipulate voters, they will have no choice but to lead and govern the right way. Corruption prospers because of the inability of the people to feed themselves. Survival instincts dictate people to patronize individuals who can provide them.
One way of empowering the lay and the poor is to make available to them the necessary information through appropriate education on how they would want their family size to be. An informed decision and conscientious choice could make our present family system to a higher leap. Wherein the earnings of a family can buy decent foods to eat, clothes to wear, and homes for shelter. This does not need a brilliant mind to grasp that a small family will enjoy more financial flexibility than a larger one. Having a small family size does not just give the household the opportunity to share bigger pies it also gave them the chance to eat quality pies. By small family size, I am referring to the number of family members proportionate to its income generating capacity. On the other hand, we can not ask the politicians and evil elites to make us self-sufficient. This is our task, our own battle to fight. To fight against the crooked Philippine political system with the full might of self-sufficient families unreceptive to corrupt acts and practices.
The RH bill is not talking about population control. Parents can choose to have children as many as they want. The RH bill is only giving them the chance and opportunity to see the bigger perspective of building a family and avail the alternative choice of family planning if they wishes to. Gone where the days that a dozen of children considered grace, for how can that large be full of grace if they can not eat three times a day, clothe decently, and can not own a shelter to fend themselves off from the daily storms and rains of life. There is nothing more noble than to build a family responsibly where income is proportionate to its needs, abundant love, and companionship unchallenged by the evils of financial miseries.
Likewise, “Do we want our children to think that they came out of bamboo trees until the age of 21?”1
This is another aspect of our culture that has long been overdue for change. A Filipino mythical belief that Man came out from the bamboo trees is a clear evidence how our present family system is incapable of teaching our children, the youth of tomorrow, the right and equally moral information about how each and every one of us came to life. Would not it be too shameful that our children is taught we came from bamboo trees while their early realities teach them that puppies came from two mating dogs?
There is more to this bill, not just overpopulation that many have chosen to define incorrectly. This is more of an opportunity to build a healthy, decent, and sufficient lives capable of resisting corrupt acts and practices. And more importantly, this is about changing one's systems of beliefs heading for a competitive and competent culture. Gone were the myths of bamboo trees, it is time to face that we too are like dogs mating conspicuously in the streets. Although, we are not just ordinary dogs, we are responsible ones.
1Sen. Pia Cayetano on her sponsorship speech of the RH Bill
No comments:
Post a Comment