RH Bill: The missing piece of the poverty puzzle

Poverty puzzle can be interpreted in many ways. In India, what puzzle them are the conflicting figures and poverty-related statistics given by their government’s line agencies. For one, they can’t agree on the appropriate poverty line. Consequently, some agencies claimed that they have slowly reduced poverty incidences while others opined that it has worsened. The real issue though is, when the poverty line is lowered, the statistics would show that poverty incidences have reduced. If poverty line is raised, poverty incidences will more likely appear to have worsened. Clearly, therefore, what puzzles them is the determination of the appropriate poverty line.

In us, poverty puzzle could mean differently. With its prevalence, establishing the appropriate poverty line should not even be a big deal. What’s puzzling is, this government has had several poverty alleviation programs, and yet, it (poverty) has grown in absolute number and in percentage to our total population.

To recall, one of the more popular solutions pressed by the catholic church and some politicians had always been the “land for the landless” program or land reform. This program is anchored on the belief that if the landless will be given lands to till, their lives will dramatically improve. This program is precariously viewed as a panacea that guarantees a 360-degree turnaround. 

Historically, this solution showed nothing but promised bounty. Just lofty promises oftentimes repeated by political aspirants every election year. As term ends and another one begins, presidents paid lip service to this initiative and vowed to bring in every worker’s lap deliverance from bondage. So far, our beneficiaries have nothing but crumbs.

Recently, we hear a lot of noise about this program. It is again in the forefront of discussions whether in barbershop talks or organized forum. Church leaders, politicians, ideologues, etc. clamored in unison for the speedy implementation of the CARP’s extension. The principal reason was that over a million hectares of agricultural lands, mostly those devoted to sugarcane, are still undistributed. 

However, before we are again drawn into another debate over its speedy implementation, let us first look deeper into what had transpired since President Magsaysay broached the idea several decades ago. Before most of us learned to breath, sizeable areas had already been transferred to the beneficiaries. Decades passed and we are seeing a few that are tilled while some are left in total neglect.  

To those who abandoned, they might have pursued a different approach in emancipating themselves. On the other hand, the few who are left tilling the land are starting to realize that what they have are just too little should the coming generation demand for their rightful share.  As the finale has always been, the original beneficiaries and their descendants end up either abandoning their land or selling them.

Moreover, PNoy’s government launched the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) Program. Dubbed as 4Ps or “Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program”, it is a five-year-long conditional cash transfer program that is envisioned to break the country’s cycle of poverty. Reportedly, in other countries that first implemented a similar program, increases in school enrollment and attendance were noted and a significant improvement in health and nutrition were felt. Notably, however, it was only felt in the short term as household income was increased by the dole-out and, consequently, consumption in poor families raised as well. True enough, this fact was recently confirmed by the latest survey which revealed that the country’s hunger incidences have again increased. Why? As the program limits subsidies only to four (4) kids, logically, those with half or a dozen will still continue to starve. 

Therefore, it starts with the right family size. The appropriate size that is very much within the family’s resources or income. With this mindset prevailing, right thinking couples/individuals will tend to limit their number kids so they can responsibly and comfortably raise their families. On the other hand, some couples/individuals simply have different mindsets. They look at kids as income producing properties. So that, they dwell purely on a very stupid equation, the more kids = more hands to earn for them. Worst, they even try figure out earning more with very little investment. They just let the mothers breastfeed the kids until they can walk, then, send them to the streets to beg or to the dumpsite to collect recyclable garbage.

What makes matters worst is, this bunch of couples/individuals truly felt that what they have decided to do have sound backing from the so-called pro-life advocates. The same pro-life advocates or anti-contraceptive backers who have entertained the thought that there is no need to curb population because some countries that are bigger than us (population-wise, like the USA) are, obviously, enjoying better lives. Therefore, they alleged, that being plenty has no direct correlation with poverty. To some extent, it sounds right. However, knowing fully well that USA’s land area is many times bigger than ours, logically, their population should be bigger.  

Likewise, if density or the level of congestion in a country is a principal barometer on poverty incidence, then, Monaco and Singapore, the most densely populated countries should have higher incidences in this regard. But no, they are among the world’s richest countries too. 

Frankly, most of us have wrong perceptions. The, fact is, bigger number of inhabitants and the higher level of congestion do not directly connote poverty incidences. What truly relates to poverty incidences is family size. Truth to tell, despite the level of congestion in countries like Monaco or Singapore, the average number of children per family in these countries is just about two. More often, some are just happy with one kid. Due to limited space, they are living in world-class tenements even comparable to what we popularly referred to us “high-end condominiums”.   Clearly, in these progressive countries, the common denominator isn’t their sheer number of residents or the density factor of their population. Apparently, these countries have kept their family sizes at manageable levels. 

Learning from these countries’ experiences isn’t difficult. Understanding their ways of managing their families isn’t incomprehensible too. Having manageable sizes of families simply bring about positive consequences. Obviously, taking care of dozen children is so different from taking care of just two. In a very manageable family size, the wives or mothers benefit the most. They can find jobs or do more productive chores apart from taking care of the kids. With all these preoccupations, women will try to space their pregnancy or most probably just be contended of having a few. With both parents doing productive undertakings, families’ needs would be handily and responsibly taken cared off.

Clearly, therefore, having the right family size is a matter of fiscal responsibility. If one is a billionaire, then he can be like Solomon because he can afford to give better lives to a hundred children. On the other hand, if he is a pauper, for heaven sake, he must not think of having more kids to have more hands to soon bail him out of poverty.

The problem, therefore, is in our problem-solving ways. We are not wanting in ideas in this regard. The RH Bill, which offers both natural and artificial methods, could be a good start to finally solve these debilitating poverty incidences.

Henceforth, cause oriented groups, church leaders and politicians alike should stop taking advantage on the impoverish situations our poverty-stricken brothers are in today. Paying lip service into it will certainly not work. They should reconsider their propensity to focus on poverty at face value not its roots. 

Indeed, if our government leaders will not favorably act on this bill, we can only surmise that all their actions are deliberate and are just orchestrated. The possibility that our government leaders (a.k.a. traditional politicians) are not seriously considering any solution to free them (the poor) from bondage would, in fact, even be a big truth. After all, having poverty makes it handy for politicians to have a platform in every election – poverty alleviation.

For your comments and suggestions, please email to [email protected].