Population Size/Density/Growth Rate, Ease of Doing Business or Why the RH Bill is a Scam

The latest data on population size, population density, and population growth rate do not support Lagman, Santiago, and the pro-RH lobby. The empirical data did not support the pro-RH then, the data still does not support the pro-RH now.

In the following line charts – one which any five grader can make – four countries were compared. These countries are: Singapore, Japan, Philippines and North Korea.

What I found out is that:

1. There is a country which has higher population than the Philippines and is richer than the Philippines.

2. There is a country which has lower population than the Philippines and is poorer than the Philippines.

3. There are countries which have higher population density than the Philippines and are richer than the Philippines.

4. There is a country which has lower population density than the Philippines and is poorer than the Philippines.

5. There are countries which have lower population growth rate than the Philippines and are richer than the Philippines.

6. There is a country which has a higher population growth rate than the Philippines and is richer than the Philippines.

7. There is a country which has lower population growth rate than the Philippines and is poorer than the Philippines.

8. Countries which made it hard to do business or were closed to business were poor.

9. Countries where it was easy to do business were rich.

What this all adds up to is that poverty is not caused by population size, population density, or population growth rate for that matter. However, countries which made it easy to do business definitely were richer and had less poverty than those which which were not business friendly.

So why are we spending on a program that is not supported by empirical data?

It’s one big scam.

****

I shared the above charts in one of the Facebook groups. One of the discussants said that Singapore had a population control program.

True, Singapore had a population control program. However, he or she did not read the entire article and neglected to point out that

In 1986 the government had recognised that falling birth rates were a serious problem and began to reverse its past policy of Stop at Two, encouraging higher birth rates instead. By 30 June of that year, the government had abolished the Family Planning and Population Board,[19] and by 1987, the total fertility rate had dropped to 1.44.

That year, Goh Chok Tong announced a new slogan: Have Three or More (if you can afford it), announcing that the government now promoted a larger family size of three or more children for married couples who could afford them, and promoted “the joys of marriage and parenthood”.[5] The new policy took into account Singapore’s falling fertility rate and its increased proportion of the elderly, but was still concerned with the “disproportionate procreation” of the educated versus the uneducated, and discouraged having more than two children if the couple did not have sufficient income, in order to minimise the amount of welfare aid spent on such families.[13] The government also relaxed its immigration policies.

In October 1987, future Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, then a young Brigadier General, exhorted Singaporeans to procreate rather than “passively watch ourselves going extinct”.[20] United Press International noted the “baffled” reaction of parents, many who had grown up in an era where they were told that having more than two children was “antisocial”.

One parent commented, “are we being told to have more children for the sake of the country or for ourselves?”[21] Goh Chok Tong, despite the skepticism, remained optimistic that the population rate would restored to the replacement rate by 1995.

An NUS sociologist however, observed that Singapore had “a new breed of women” — one “involved in their careers [and] used to a certain amount of leisure and more material possessions” — and hence would not be as receptive to financial incentives like previous women of the 1960s and the 1970s. As of 2011, Singapore’s birth rate has not yet been restored to replacement level.

Goh Chok Tong’s comment of “going extinct” is the same concern now being faced by Japan.

These “going extinct” notion however is being laughed at by Filipinos thinking it can never happen to us. The Philippines and Filipinos don’t have the capacity to learn from the lessons of history and are therefore doomed to keep repeating it. Though of course – by going extinct, nature ensures that Filipinos will not be around to commit the same mistake.

*****

Government is the problem – not the solution

Another ridiculously annoying thing is that:

1. Government restricts jobs and lower costing goods and commodities from coming into the Philippines thereby.

2. Lack of jobs means lack of income, leading to widespread poverty and hardship.

3. Instead of removing the policy which keeps jobs out so that poverty can be effectively reduced – the government would rather hand out “free lunch” – “free” condoms, “free” hospitalization, “free” doctor’s visits, “free” seminars?

Taxation and Liberty

Why would I pay for the RH of someone I never got pregnant – nor even get intimate with? Go after the father of the child – not another father who has a child of his own to take care of.

But the more revealing aspect of the RH Bill is that a lot of Filipinos believe they are properties of government – whose role is to pay taxes so that government may “help the poor”. Yeah right – the only thing government is good at is helping itself.

The RH Bill is but a mote in the ocean of waste generated by big government. But we gotta start somewhere. We oughta be repealing welfare legislation instead of expanding. What makes the Philippines think that it will not be hit by economic implosion if it takes the path of unsustainable welfare spending of Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain. And before someone mentions the Nordic model – remember that the Swedish crisis of the 1990s led to a restructuring of the Nordic welfare states towards austerity.

The thing is – the RH Bill scam will not flourish if there is no demand for it. Where’s the demand coming from? From Filipinos who have given up on their lives and have been suckered into surrendering their liberties to government.

What Priorities?

P.S. The recent floods were just due to moonsoon rains.

There’s more coming – don’t worry – who cares about floods as long as Aquino has the RH bill.

The rumblings of Mt Mayon? There’s lots of condoms that one can put on one’s head in the event of volcanic ash falls.

Situation Normal – All Effed Up.

About the Author

BongV has written 417 stories on this site.