THERE was once this world famous character named “Henry K.”—an American professional politician and a perceived technocrat who said in many ways and provided different means in order to accomplish three very selfish and highly detestable societal realities: One, to assure that the number of population in Third World countries was well within tolerable count—according to him. Two, to guarantee that with the deflation of population growth in the said countries, the people therein would not consume practically their natural resources—according to him. Three, to ascertain wherefore that the people of First World countries, especially the Americans, could continue benefiting from the said foreign resources provided by nature—according to him. Crystal clear—according to him.
Thus were deliberately born, definitely promoted and accordingly funded the anti-baby realities of institutional “Birth Control”, open or public “Abortion”, “Population Control”. All these are the gross precursors of the now so fondly yet deceitfully called “Reproductive Health Bill”.
And who are very happy about the socio-ethical maxim that says: “The lesser the population, the better the people.”? Who else? The U.S.A., Europe as a whole, the multinational pharmaceuticals in particular that are very profitably producing contraceptives in various shapes, sizes and colors—plus the present Malacañang occupant. In fact, quite recently, this glaring news came to fore: “EU OFFICIALS TO GIVE 35 MILLION EURO FOR RH”. And this is but an “initial fund”. Pray, what for? Of course: To help “poor Filipinos gain free access to contraceptives and strongly back the controversial Reproductive Health Bill …” Neat!
This is a great amount of money “cantante y sonante”—singing and sounding— according to a Spanish saying. In other words, these are billions, man! They are coming and they are arriving but for a start, man! Don’t tell me you do not want to get your hands on them, man! And don’t you dare not avidly support the RH bill, man! What is right or wrong? Who cares? What is proper or unethical? What for?
As usual, in such a connivance among States, the standard scapegoats are the “poor”—who in the Philippines have been long since poor, continue to be poor, and in fact are now becoming even poorer notwithstanding all the glorious pronouncements of the previous administration and the grandiose promises of the present one. Question: Must the Philippines be always a Third World country? Should Filipinos be condemned to poverty and misery? Would the nation ever have a redeeming national leadership? Just thinking. Just asking.
6 May 2011