THIS POST, ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON JULY 25, WILL STAY ON TOP UNTIL AUGUST 1, 2012. NEWER POSTS BELOW!
(Update 7/28/12: the entire article has been published by the website of the Office of the President of the Philippines.)
On July 24, 2012 the Wall Street Journal published an article on economic reform in the Philippines with the title Keeping the Philippine Dream Alive. This article is currently available only to subscribers. However, I've been able to read the whole article and, incredibly, it contains the following put-down of the RH bill (emphases mine):
Mr. Aquino still hasn't found a way to overcome political opposition to more mining investments, a problem given the contribution the country's mineral wealth could make to growth if it could be extracted. And his promotion of a "reproductive health" bill is jarring because it would put the Philippines in danger of following China's path into middle-income development followed by a demographic trap of too few workers. The Philippines doesn't have too many people, it has too few pro-growth policies.
As the pro-life side has been saying all along, the problem is not the number of people, but economic and social policies.
I read this article on print (right on the WSJ itself) the day after the SONA. What's funny is that the editorial was published right after the SONA, when PNOY's mention of "responsible parenthood" received a rather enthusiastic ovation from the audience.
ReplyDeleteChina instituted a "one child policy". Please show me where EXACTLY this is stated in the RH Bill.
ReplyDeleteThe Anti-Women's Health, Anti-Responsible Parenthood, Anti-RH bill people have completely ran out of valid arguments and have resorted to fear mongering.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteNeither this blog nor the WSJ article declare that the RH Bill will institute a one-child policy. The WSJ is simply pointing out that drastically reducing the birth rate (which is what is already beginning to happen in the Philippines, and which will certainly accelerate with an RH bill) will produce a demographic catastrophe for which China is the prime example.
Noting a similarity of results from different policies does not necessarily imply that the policies are the same.
I suggest that you brush up on your reading comprehension skills.
Yeah, the Wall Street Journal published that article. In the OPINION section.
ReplyDeleteRPJA:
ReplyDeleteObviously. That's why the title of this post refers to the article as an "op-ed". However, if you'll dismiss it out of hand simply because it's in the Opinion section, then why not be fair and also dismiss out of hand the many pro-RH op-eds that have been published in Philippine newspapers?
"will produce a demographic catastrophe..."? I think being one of todays world super-power is not catastrophic.
ReplyDeleteTo the last anonymous:
ReplyDeleteChina's millions of abortions turned it into a superpower? Is this the kind of logic that is taught in pro-RH circles?
China is currently a great power. (Only the USA can be considered a 'superpower', as that status requires the global projection and presence of one's military and economic power. China has the latter but not the former.) However, their demographic catastrophe -- abundantly illustrated in numerous studies and articles present in the Internet -- will begin to undermine this within this decade.
IMHO, our growth rate is still unhealthy. Reducing it a little with the help of RH bill wouldn't result to a demographic catastrophe which you are so worried about.
ReplyDeleteThen please Oh please look at India. Its demographic dividend is so unhealthy that large population is the only thing keeping it alive. The fact that more than half its population or about 900 million of ITS population is mired in poverty is unsettling. Power outages, consumption problems, a demographic ticking time-bomb that when GDP growth is insufficient the Indian nation will turn upside-down. I don't know about you but I'd rather be a China than the gasping Indian elephant.
ReplyDeleteis poverty really caused by the number of people in a country? If there are more growth policies, less corruption, more and better education system and medical facilities..wouldn't that solve poverty? just asking. I mean, the government always says that the budget for education is not enough...so why budget 3 million for condoms and contraceptives alone?
ReplyDeletemy only fear is that every country that passed the RH Bill has moved on to legalizing abortion. and what does "access to full range of modern family planning methods?" mean? morning after pills? where does it stop?
i've spent time with abandoned babies and street children and never, not once (after you see their smiles and their potential) did I wish that they should not have been born. If only more people (not only the government) would share their blessings to help, then they would not be considered a "problem"
My challenge to people is that instead of seeing these people, these BLESSINGS as problems, we should see them as having the potential to do great things. All we need to do is to help! Our government should not be alone in helping the poor. It is OUR responsibility to help each other. If we ALL lift a hand to help, there would be no need for abortions. EVERYONE would benefit! Imagine, with the number of people we have... if we see in them the potential to service our country and WE (not only the government) will ACT on that potential.. what a POWERHOUSE Philippines will become!
ReplyDeletePEOPLE are a country's greatest resource. you can see PEOPLE as problems or as BLESSINGS. It's up to you!