By: Lito Atienza, former mayor of Manila
August 25, 2012 1:21 PM
August 25, 2012 1:21 PM
"Population control and the size of the family are not the problems. Good governance is the challenge. Spending so much time and effort to cause a reduction, and to intrude in the life of families will merely destroy the values – primary of which is the valuing of life – which will merely serve as a band-aid solution.
They say an RH bill is needed to stem the rise of maternal mortality, but do not wonder why the numbers are increasing, with all the billions thrown in past years for artificial contraception and not enough for healthcenters, training and hiring of qualified midwives and birthing attendants.
Focusing the solution on just reducing the number of people will result in long-term damage in the minds of our young, which will, in turn, destroy our nation's future.
Haven't we learned enough from the examples of those who sought the easy resort to population control as a means for economic prosperity?
I challenge the professors to study the economic histories of China, India, Europe, America and the western world – their economies grew by leaps and bounds when their population increased. At the same time, please look at the problematic state of Japan, Singapore, Taipei, Germany and Italy, which are all suffering from total demographic collapse.
Population control damages people's thinking by permanently accepting the distorted notion that pregnancy is a problem to be avoided. Materialism has overtaken values in today’s world. The young are taught that they can engage in sex as long as they do not get pregnant. This is exactly the unwritten message, the signal if you will, of the RH bill you are supporting." - Former Manila Mayor Lito Atienza
The full content of Mayor Lito Atienza's letter:
They effectively say that, despite the billions yearly provided for contraceptives under the maternal health program of the DOH, an RH bill is necessary precisely to override the actions of local government units that might not be in keeping with their interpretation of the constitutional mandate giving families freedom to plan responsibly but at the same time protecting the rights of the woman and the unborn child.
Specifically, the Ateneo faculty members took issue with my official actions as mayor of Manila, a position I held for three terms, during which the long-neglected capital city enjoyed unparalleled economic growth and fiscal health, alongside human development.
While the faculty members of the Ateneo have, in fairness, pointed out that they do not speak for the university, I wish to make it clear I neither profess to be able to represent perfectly what my alma mater stands for; after all, such has been eloquently re-stated in the August 20, 2012 "Memo: To the University Community" issued by Ateneo's president, Fr. Jett Villarin, on the House Bill 4244. For my part I only wish to stress that all my life, I have sought, though not always succeeded, in living out all that Ateneo and my parents have taught me, with "Lux in Domino" as a compass in navigating the often complex challenges thrown by our public roles.
To the teachers who singled me out by name, I wish to say I am closely related to the institution where you are teaching. Despite their modest means, my parents strove to send me to the best school – Ateneo de Manila University. I received my basic education, from grade school to high school in this great institution, where I was honed in my religious and social convictions, besides getting the rigid academic discipline.
I grew up firm in my belief that everyone should be given a right to pursue his ideals of love for God and country.
I was very fortunate for having been given the opportunity, through three terms, to take over the reins of government in Manila, imbued with what I have learned from my Ateneo professors, foremost of which is respect for life. This strengthened what I have also been taught by my parents at home.
I dispute your claim that my Executive Order in 2000 violated people’s rights and may have "deprived thousands of poor women for whom natural family planning was not feasible". Contrary to these obviously misinformed and biased views, that policy direction was in pursuit of the constitutional mandate for everyone to respect human life from conception to its natural end. I believed that such respect for life dictated that before defaulting to the cop-out policy that having more people around will mean more poverty, the State—the city government in my case—should first strive to provide for a better, progressive city, by: shoring up the city coffers with a revenue collection system that is transparent, efficient and fair; and making best use of such improved resource levels by applying them to vital infrastructure need to make businesses and other institutions run well at all times while giving priority to human-welfare services like education and health. That was our approach from the start, and the record of what we accomplished in nine years vindicates this.
You believe that our policy of not allowing the distribution of contraceptive pills, condoms, IUDs and ligation of mothers in city-run public hospitals was contrary to law. I was positive in my and my lawyers’ definition of the Constitution, proof of which is the fact that no one dared to question us in court or questioned my decision. Instead of using population as an alibi for failure, we strove to give Manilans a better life. We improved the local economy by a very successful, transparent regulatory and fiscal regime for business transactions, thus shoring up the city coffers with resources that allowed us to provide for a better city to live in.
We took the positive route by providing opportunities for our impoverished sector by giving them decent livelihood, employment and other means of income generation. Even the lowliest sidewalk vendors were given a share of these opportunities by accepting their role as productive individuals and not as mere pests that are swatted away every now and then, and occasionally milked of their hard-earned money by crooked city hall or police officials or criminal syndicates. We legalized their business enterprises by providing them with confidence and the full realization of their value as Filipinos, contributing to efforts to lifting Manila from the cesspool of poverty. This policy deviated from the direction of previous administrations which deprived the poor of opportunities to engage in productive activities. Our positive organized vending program provided this particular sector – the long-oppressed Manilans - with an honest source of income.
Please look well at the histories of Hong Kong, Singapore, Taipei, Japan, and key cities in America which handled similar situations starting from organized vending – they have all geometrically progressed into healthy, active entrepreneurs in a healthy economy. This is just one example of what we should all be doing to provide our common aspirations through equitable opportunities in the economy.
Likewise, we promoted an aggressive urban renewal and development program, which saw Manila's transformation from a dark, dangerous, and decaying metropolis into a colorful, vibrant and progressive city.
Our slogan, "Buhayin ang Maynila", caused excitement among Manilans and the business sector and in a short period of time, the city was on its way to prosperity. We inherited a P2-billion budget and successfully steered the city to a point that the public revenues rose to almost P7-billion annually, and we had a surplus of P2.3-billion which we left in the city coffers after our nine-year term.
Of course, all of these government actions were anchored on good governance. We addressed corruption squarely and minimized it. The prices of books, medicines, supplies and public works were all brought down, which redounded to the best interest of the city; meanwhile educating our poor was a priority we pursued. Even those who failed in their efforts at studying were given an alternative learning program to complete their basic education. Our school-feeding and nutrition programs for schoolchildren consistently won awards.
When I look back, I still believe we had the correct approach to governing, i.e.,. that people are part of progress, and having more of the should not be automatically seen as obstacles to such progress.
Population control and the size of the family are not the problems. Good governance is the challenge. Spending so much time and effort to cause a reduction, and to intrude in the life of families will merely destroy the values – primary of which is the valuing of life – which will merely serve as a band-aid solution.
They say an RH bill is needed to stem the rise of maternal mortality, but do not wonder why the numbers are increasing, with all the billions thrown in past years for artificial contraception and not enough for healthcenters, training and hiring of qualified midwives and birthing attendants.
Focusing the solution on just reducing the number of people will result in long-term damage in the minds of our young, which will, in turn, destroy our nation's future.
Haven't we learned enough from the examples of those who sought the easy resort to population control as a means for economic prosperity?
I challenge the professors to study the economic histories of China, India, Europe, America and the western world – their economies grew by leaps and bounds when their population increased. At the same time, please look at the problematic state of Japan, Singapore, Taipei, Germany and Italy, which are all suffering from total demographic collapse.
Population control damages people's thinking by permanently accepting the distorted notion that pregnancy is a problem to be avoided. Materialism has overtaken values in today’s world. The young are taught that they can engage in sex as long as they do not get pregnant. This is exactly the unwritten message, the signal if you will, of the RH bill you are supporting.
May your children and grandchildren be spared from this destructive thinking.
I, for one, am committed to promoting the positive and not the negative. So do all Filipinos who understand what the RH bill will cause to our nation's future.
God has given us abundant natural wealth and extra gifts in the field of arts and culture, and has blessed us with beauty, intelligence, industry and a natural empathy for people. These elements provide the economic emancipation that are wrongly presented as the automatic end-result of an RH bill.
I believe all of Filipinos who say we love our country and its people will be united and inspired into action by good and effective leadership. Instead of dividing our nation over this foreign-crafted and imposed program, we should stand up as one to reject it as it violates rather than promotes God’s will.
Again, as a young boy trained and educated and whose values were shaped by my Jesuit professors, I must differ totally with your wrong assumptions and conclusions.
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/41389/open-letter--lito-atienza-responds-to-ateneos-pro-rh-bill-professors
Comments