Having fun yet?

Newspaper society pages are full of stories and pictures of men and women who come from buena familias; who graduate from the best universities in the country and abroad; who earn good money working in top positions in multi-national companies or in their own successful start-ups; who drive the latest cars; and who party at the most popular bars and resto's almost every night. These are the privileged; the intelligentsia, the literati, and the glitterati; the people that a majority of the population can only look up to in envy, wondering how they got to be so lucky in life.

But these are not just mindless hedonists. These people also have a very acute sense of social responsibility. They rail against the graft and corruption in government, notwithstanding the fact that among their closest family friends and godfathers/ godmothers are elected officials from whom they receive gifts, fruits of graft and corruption. They worry about the environment, though they drive their gas-guzzling vehicles to the latest party places, 2 to 3 hours drive away from where they currently are. They fight ferociously for their freedom of choice without considering the lack of choices available to others. And they are deeply bothered about the poverty in our country.

Unfortunately, their facile, painless solution to poverty is to reduce the number of poor people through birth control. They support the RH Bill to provide free and ready access to contraceptives and abortion services so the poor can limit the number of children they have.

They want to minimize the number of deaths during maternity and childbirth, simply by reducing the number of women who get pregnant. Improving health services to minimize these deaths does not seem to be in their menu of solutions.

They want to limit the number of beneficiaries of free education and social services in order to reduce the expenses of government. Then, there would be more resources for the living, among whom would be themselves.

They are quick to provide solutions to poverty without any proof that they have acquired any knowledge of the real problems of the poor they wish to help. When do they get to associate with the poor other than during their infrequent outreach programs? Do they visit the homes of the poor to eat what they eat, to drink what the poor drink, and to talk with them about what their lives are all about? Are they familiar with the problems, dreams and aspirations of the poor their hearts bleed for? Who are they to recommend how to alleviate lives lived in poverty? Do they know the face of poverty?

A few months ago, there was a great outcry because of the postings of a coed from an exclusive school located near the boundary between Quezon City and Marikina in her Facebook account, She wrote of her experiences in an immersion program of her school where they had to live with the poor in a remote village. She decried the deplorable conditions she had to live in, their lack of sanitary hygiene, the blandness of the food they ate, the insects she had to endure.

The lesson she took home was extreme thankfulness for her status in life and the resolve to live her lifestyle to the fullest, because she never wanted to experience such poverty ever again. No mention of lessons learned about the poor themselves and the help they need.

Just eating and speaking with squatter families during vigils for their dead, or the wedding celebrations of young couples, or the baptisms of their children; chugging drinks from the same glass during their drinking sessions late into the night and joining in their drunken carousing; there is one lesson one will quickly learn – these people love their families. They have a special regard for children, no matter how poor they are, no matter what difficulties they have to overcome in raising them.

That old joke about the poor having a lot of children because they have nothing better to do at night, doesn't apply to the urban poor. They watch TV in their shanties. They have DVD players. They play games on their celphones. But they also choose to make love in their crowded shanties, lying right beside their children, or parents, or in-laws. Teenagers play out their lives in parked jeepneys late at night. And they choose to bear the children they beget.

There is a young widow who raises her four children by scavenging in trash bins around the city. There are elderly grandfathers who work as gravediggers who willingly take on the responsibility of taking care of their grandchildren because their children cannot assume the burden.

There are teenagers who earn a few hundred pesos driving tricycles or pedicabs during the day, and who get their girlfriends pregnant by night. Whether or not they eventually wed, these couples do not have the pregnancies aborted. The boys revel in the round bellies of their girlfriends. When the babies are born, the fathers coo and coodle their babies, whether or not they legally carry their fathers' surnames. They stand out in the streets sunning their newborn infants, with happiness and pride on their faces. Will they have enough to eat next mealtime? Who knows? They are content with their children.

The educated illuminati say the poor need easy access to free contraceptives or abortion that the RH Bill will bring. The poor already have access to these; maybe not free, but very close to it. They can afford cigarettes and alcohol; they can easily afford available contraceptives. Not in drugstores or 24-hour convenience stores, but visit Quiapo or Baclaran or any large-sized church and there will be peddlers offering natural contraceptives.

Who needs a licensed medical abortionist when the neighborhood hilot already has the experience, and the success rate to prove it? The poor are aware of these affordable remedies, but they choose not to use them simply because they love children. They enjoy seeing them running and playing in the streets. They love watching them grow from crying babies to sniffling toddlers to cavorting children to strutting teenagers to under-aged mothers and fathers. Then they can watch some more as their grandchildren are born.

They may shout often at their kids; even curse at them and call them dirty names. But the concern and love are ever present. Let no harm or injury come to their children for they will wage war against the world.

They may be deprived of luxuries by the number of their children, but what little there is, is freely shared by all.

While we eat at 5-star restaurants where the price of an entree is the cost of an entire family's meal, they make do with some rice, a little bit of vegetables, and a piece of meat, divided between 5 or 6 of them. While we travel abroad for our vacations, for a few measly pesos they treat the kids to fishball, or share a bowl of street-vendor lugao with them. While we post our intellectual musings on solving poverty on our blogs, or on Facebook, or on Tweeter, they talk about where the best pickings among the trash sites are, where there are metal scraps or copper wires ready to be “picked up” for free, or which politician or church is running a feeding program for kids.

We pride ourselves in bemoaning their condition, but will not share our meals with them. We think about the difficulty of their conditions, but will not bother to find out what they need. In our intellectual superiority, we already know what is good for them. We pity them, but do not show compassion.

The poor need their children to give their lives meaning, because their posterity is defined by their children; they have nothing else. Their children offer them hope because they may grow up and to make something of themselves and extract their families from poverty. They find faith in their children because they are able to give thanks for every day they are alive and are together. For the poor, children are not burdens in their lives; they are the hope-filled future.

And this is what we want to take away from them. Hey! Are we having fun yet helping them out?

Recognizing the future

The advocates of the reproductive health bill usually cite micro economics and quality of life to support their views. Their logic goes this way: the less children a family has, the more disposable resources they have to go around for the family; and this in turn, enhances the quality of their lives because they're better off financially.

Naturally, with a smaller population, macro economics is also served because the government has more resources to serve the population, thus benefiting the whole country. On the surface, everything's very simple and logical, and should easily be understood even by us, pro-life neanderthals.

Their economic argument is founded mainly in the Malthusian Theory that says a geometrically increasing population will completely devour an arithmetically
increasing food supply, thus leading to the obliteration of the human race.

As evidence of the success of imposed population control on the wealth of a nation, RH'ers hold up the evidence of countries such as Japan, (West) Germany, Singapore.

Actually, the Malthusian Theory has been effectively disproved for decades because Robert Malthus failed to include in his equations technological advancements which increase the supply of food and other resources available to the populace. Man's own ingenuity and talent, with the support of a benevolent God, whose existence Malthus affirmed, developed the solutions to the problems of an increasing population. The 17th century scientists developed a plethora of innovations that effectively staved off Famine, the third horseman of the Apocalypse.

Economics, in the simplest terms, is the exchange of goods and services; the greater the goods and services available to the public, the stronger the economy. Obviously, goods and services are produced by people. Today in the setting of a 2nd Great Depression, the most vibrant economies that are leading world economic recovery are countries with huge populations, primarily China and India; populations that are able to produce, and consume, resources.

The countries that RH bill supporters hold up for emulation were worthy examples two or three decades ago. Today, they are precisely the countries that are starting to suffer from the population controls they instituted to enable them to become world economic powers.

The Aug 31, 2009 issue of Time magazine contained a Commentary article on the economy of Japan by Mikka Pineda, titled 'A New Deal'. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1917634,00.html)

In the article, the author states: “It's no secret that the root of all of these problems is demographics. An aging population is shrinking Japan's labor force and consumer market.” It is a very interesting and informative read.

While Japan is knocking itself out trying to find ways out of the morass it is in, our own mavens are trying hard to lead us into the same swamp. We are following in the footsteps of Japan 30 years later, into the same pit, instead of blazing our own way that avoids it entirely. So, 30 years hence, will we look to them again to show us the way out of the pit we're heading for today?

So much for the economic foresight of the RH'ers. As for their vaunted concern for the quality of life, listen to a 31-year old Japanese lady, Setsuko Kanzaki. In the same Time issue, “They want to be heard”, the cover story states, “Kanzaki criticizes Japan's postwar goals for having favored a race for middle-class comfort over the promotion of family values. "Concentrating on making money destroyed community and family relationships," she says. "We make money. So what? We feel empty."

Let us, by all means, learn from the successes of those who have gone before us. But also, let us not ignore the lessons of their mistakes.

On automated elections

In any computerization effort, the range of possible solutions is almost limitless, from the simplest and cheapest solution to the very sophisticated and almost impractically expensive. The implementation time is directly proportional to the simplicity of the solution; the simpler it is, the sooner it is implemented, and the more complicated it is, the longer it takes.

The simplest automated election systems started with the use of the telephone, over which election results tabulated in the election precincts were communicated to a central office which consolidated all the tabulations. If I remember correctly, this was used by political parties even before the Marcos years to keep tabs on how they were doing.

Then during the snap elections called by Pres Marcos, computers were used to tabulate election returns from around the country. That was when 30 data entry clerks walked out because of what they claimed was government tampering with the election results. That was the first time computers were used in an attempt to speed up election results. It was also the first time that electronic cheating was resorted to in elections.

The system used then, is basically the same system being proposed by TransparentElection for the 2010 elections, updated for technological advancements. In 1986, ballots were counted and tabulated in the election precincts. Then, the results were phoned in to the central tabulating office in the PICC, where they were entered into the computer system. And that was where the data entry clerks claimed the results were being manipulated.

The Open Election System (OES) of TransparentElection will also rely on tabulated results from the election precincts. This time because of improved data communications capability, the OES will relay the results from the precincts to a secure website via a PC located in the voting precinct, and data communication lines. Once the precincts votes have been tabulated, the results can be transmitted over the data lines in seconds.

TransparentElection's safeguard against tampering is the fact that the results will be posted immediately in a secure website for all to see as soon as the results are emailed to the site. Once there, any tampering will be very apparent.

Yesterday, the COMELEC issued an invitation to anyone to try and crack the source codes of the programs to be used in the Optical Mark Reader (OMR) system it proposes. COMELEC says they will make available the source codes. They also invite anyone to hack into the computer system to be used during the elections.

TransparentElections has basically offered the same thing. Their source codes are available to anyone who wishes to inspect them. I'm sure they will also invite the general public to try and hack into the communications systems and secure website of their OES.

But there is a truism any thief knows – there is no lock that can't be opened, even without the key. No matter what safeguards are placed, given unlimited time and resources, the lock can always be cracked open. So, the idea of challenges is an empty boast. Any system can always be hacked.

The idea of inspecting source codes sounds good. But once the program is inside the computer, who knows whether the source codes that were inspected are the ones that are running in production mode?

If you want a failure of elections, you don't have to hack the computer system. Just bring the system down for a few minutes, enough to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of everyone who is concerned with the outcome. It doesn't have to be the administration who would do this. The opposition could do it too, just to disrupt the elections.

What reason would the opposition have in doing that, assuming the voting goes their way? Several reasons actually - to destroy the credibility of the elections itself and of future elections, to claim that the administration did it, to create chaos and foment civil disturbance. Just because people oppose an evil administration doesn't make them angels.

But after the temporary break down of the system, the original ballots are still available and can be recounted. Both proposed systems have this feature. The only problem will be the delay in the proclamation of winners, but as everyone knows, delays allow unwanted miracles to happen.

Another thing. Both the OES and the OMR systems assume that the voters' list is clean and valid, and that the voters can be accurately verified in this list before they are allowed to vote. Big assumption! In the computer world, another truism is: 'Garbage in, garbage out.”

So what is the conclusion then? That automated elections are an impossibility and should not be pursued? No, I'm just saying much more thought, and work, has to be brought to bear on the problem. 

Is there enough time before May 2010? Yes, if everyone - the COMELEC, TransparentElections, the political parties, and other concerned parties – can come together, for an honest and open discussion about the matter. A solution can be found in time for the next elections. It won't be state-of-the-art, and may not be 'pretty', but it will work to the satisfaction of the majority, and preserve the integrity of the elections.

Some of the parties will participate in the discussion in good faith, with the noblest intentions. Others will not be as noble. If there is overpricing in government purchases of goods and services, it's because someone needs to receive a portion of the overpricing. If someone is waiting for his/her portion, it's because he/she is powerful enough to influence the outcome of the purchasing process. If he/she doesn't get what is expected, the process is sabotaged.

Thus, one of the things that must be threshed out is how to prevent the process from getting sabotaged. One solution is of course, to pay the piper. Another is to make sure the process is sabotage-proof.

So many problems. Are there enough courageous men of integrity in the Philippines to solve them?

Cynicism and HOPE

CYNICISM ...

Cynicism – a scornful or jaded negativity; a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others, or of the effectiveness of their plans and strategies.”
We have become a nation cynical of the integrity, and effectiveness of our leaders, in politics, business, religion, academe, and media. We have lost faith in our leaders, in our future, and worst of all, in ourselves.

Everyday, officials of the executive branch and/or their spouses, are accused of graft and corruption. They are featured in scams, in contract-selling, in bribes, in illegal transportation of indecently huge amounts of money, in deal-fixing, in murders of former henchmen and allies. They all claim innocence; they are all mere targets of malicious lies and envious opponents. So they say.

We call our congressmen, “tong-gressmen”. And less the ladies cry “Gender equality!”, also “tong-gresswomen”. Our senators are “sena-tongs”. They ride in luxury vehicles and live in affluent gated villages. They wear expensive clothes and patronize high-class cosmetic surgeons. They definitely have to look good when they spend taxpayer money investigating this or that anomaly, “in aid of legislation”, although no legislation seems forthcoming. They claim to do all these in the service of the country. So they say.

Some politicians resist being called, “trapos”, because they love the poor and vow do everything in their power to help them. They trumpet their honesty and integrity but unless they back these up with tangible benefits to the poor, they are as useless as, and cost as much as, the trapos. They say they are sincere, generous, and self-sacrificing. So they say.
In the justice system, judges and justices sell their decisions for millions. Lawyers of accused perpetrators draft release resolutions for the Secretary of Justice, and get caught, or sometimes not. Who knows? These purveyors of justice claim the are fair, unbiased, and just. So they say.

Respectable captains of industry want to appear socially responsible in securing the employment of their workers, in judiciously investing the hard-earned savings of people, and tenaciously guarding our deposits which we entrust to them. We trust them not only with our money, but with our retirement future and the educational future of our children. In the end, they look only to their own future, with utter disregard of everyone else, except their friends and cronies. They lay the blame on bad luck, unforeseen circumstances, the greed of others. So they say.

The contractors who build roads that are washed away after the first real storm, or 2-lane bridges on 4-lane roads, or public school buildings in areas where there are no children. The businessmen who hoard rice or oil and watch the public suffer, for the sake of increasing their profits. The middle-men who sell books pockmarked with inaccuracies to the educational system, or fertilizers to cities without farms, or over-priced or expired medical supplies to the healthcare system. All done in cahoots with government officials and congressmen and senators. All of them pledge they are providing the very best services to the people. So they say.

With the fiascos in government, we turn to religion. But what is there for us there? Catholic priests disregarding their vows of chastity and having families of their own; who break their vows of poverty to have a taste of “the good life”; and who forget their vows of obedience to espouse their own ideas and causes totally disregarding the wisdom of the ages.

Pastors of other sects or religions spout sermons full of hatred and bias, promoting their own interests, and collecting tithes and love offerings from their constituents to build their palatial mansions.

These men of the cloth say they know God's will and that therefore we should obey them. Yet they are unable to show us how such divine wisdom can be translated to the fulfillment of the promise of heaven here on earth. They preach that they are God's anointed, come to save us from our sins. So they say.

We entrust our children to teachers in schools, where educators take advantage of the special trust of their students to sexually molest them; or where grades are brazenly sold off for money or sexual favors. Teachers are often without teaching skills, lack knowledge in the subjects they handle, and are without the commitment required of those who mold the youth. They announce the sacrifices they make to nurture and educate their students. So they say.

Our youth are concerned mainly with instant gratification – easy money, quick pleasures, facile answers to life's problems. Drugs, video games, You tube, Facebook, and Multiply, some sex on the side, beer will do, too. Is this Jose Rizal's hope of the fatherland? They look with disdain at their elders and believe they have the answers that will change the world for the better. So they say.

Our morally ascendant, highly intelligent, and exceptionally gifted media love to criticize, berate, and insult those in authority, but they themselves are accountable to no one. If they accuse someone of a crime, which later is proven a mistake, do they retract their statements? Media people announce scams and exposes about personalities, then suddenly, the exposes fizzle out. What's that they call it? “Envelopmental journalism”? Yet, they are the bastions of liberty and fair play, protecting the rights of the small people. So they say.

The media defend their boorishness and absence of good manner by arguing that the public has a right to know. I for one, hereby waive my right to know, if the information, or what they claim to be information, comes from the likes of them.

And how about us? Are we above being the objects of cynicism? Have we honestly paid our taxes, or have we used the excuse of the corruption of our government officials to avoid paying what we should? Have we elected the officials we believe can lead our country, or have we chosen those we have connections to in hopes that we can curry favors from them in the future? Do we vote according to our conscience or according to how much we are paid for our votes? Do we even bother to obey traffic rules?

Do we listen to the sermons and homilies of our spiritual pastors and live out the teachings they offer, or do we sit in our pews in semi-slumber and later, leave to act in our own selfish interests? Do we strive to learn what we need to know, or do we simply flop down in front of our TV screens, sopping up whatever inanities the talking heads spout? We like to claim we are well-informed, impartial, and fearless. So we say.

We are cynical, because we look deeply into ourselves and realize that the people we rail against are ourselves. We are the object and the subject of our cynicism.

...and HOPE

Our world does look bleak, yet we are a resilient people. We claim the pliancy of the bamboo as a national trait. Whatever happens, we find a way to make it through. In the darkest of situations, we manage to hold on to the merest glimmer of hope. We use our wits, our humor, our strength, our cultural roots.

We may have grown accustomed to graft and corruption, dishonesty, lies, and bickering, but we strive for a better nation. We are disappointed with the way things are, we are angry at our leaders and with each other. But this is because we love the Philippines, and we treasure the blood that makes us Filipinos.

Disgusting as our politicos are, there exists a few shining examples of what public servants should be. There is Grace Padaca, the physically disabled woman governor of Isabela who ran a campaign without funds, and relied only on courage and the support of a well-meaning populace to oust the political dynasty that had a stranglehold on her province for decades.

There is “Among” Ed Panlilio, the governor in Central Luzon, who temporarily laid aside his priest's frock to lead a province that was devastated by the Mt. Pinatubo explosion, ravaged by corrupt officials, and oppressed by gambling lords and political dynasties.

There is Jesse Robredo, the mayor of Naga City, who transformed a sleepy 3rd-class municipality, into one of the most vibrant commercial centers in the regions.

These politicians are not only clean and honest, they are effective providers of much-needed services to their people.

Former Chief Justice Rolando Puno of the Supreme Court is a shining example of honesty and courage in the courts of law. He is only one of a few nameless judges in small towns around the country who dispense justice with wisdom, equality, and courage.

I have met public school teachers in the provinces who unselfishly give of their time and their personal resources to improve their teaching skills and knowledge to provide better education to the children in their classes. These educators pride in the work they do, and really care about the students they teach.

There are priests and pastors who cling to the teachings of God and are able to guide their parishioners along the straight and narrow pathways.

There are businessmen who not only run profitable businesses but are socially engaged as well.

I tip my hat off to Ninoy Aquino, Chino Roces, Amando Doronilla, and other heroic journalists who wrote for truth, freedom and justice. Their successors write the unbiased truth; who criticize the mistakes and deliberate wrongdoings of the powerful, but who offer solutions along with the problems.

There are many men and women of integrity in our country who quietly go about their work effectively, without need of praise or rewards. They are the ones who keep the dimming fires of hope alive. One day, God willing, they will fan these flickering flames into flames of hope that will breathe life into the people of our country.

A few years ago, a small group of such men and women put together a loose organization and called it, “Movement for Good Governance” (MGG). At that time, my cynicism prevented me from giving even the most cursory glance at its objectives and structure.

Now and then, MGG would be mentioned in the papers in connection with elections or in the company of so-called “honest” politicians. I must admit I never bothered to read the news items because I didn't believe they would come to any good or achieve anything worthwhile.

Then, a couple of weeks ago, I attended a morning talk of a group called, “Movement for HOPE”, and which is affiliated with the Movement for Good Governance. What the Movement for HOPE is specifically targeting is the atmosphere of despair and cynicism that prevents us from doing anything about the many wrongs in our society. Because of our cynicism, we have simply accepted the graft and corruption in government, the dishonesty of ordinary citizens, the breakdown of law and order everywhere.

But the Movement for HOPE defiantly and perhaps, a bit quixotically, stands against this despair and hopelessness. The group believes we as a united people can make things happen to save our country and ourselves. We need only to believe in ourselves and in our God, in whatever guise we conceive Him to be. The answer to our problems is hope, and the foundation of hope is faith.

The Movement of HOPE is still young and not fully developed. There are no concrete answers to difficult questions. There are no well-planned strategies for progress and prosperity. There are no brilliant solutions to the problems our nation faces. Neither are there billions of pesos to ensure that things will get done. At this stage, there is only a small group of people who have taken the first baby steps towards what they hope is a better future for the Philippines.

The speaker during that morning talk said that with all the organizations now affiliated with Movement for Good Governance, they now have about 1 million registered members. Not bad for a bunch of people who don't have power or wealth or fame on their side; simply a belief that they can make a difference for a better future.

Why not check out these groups – Movement for Good Governance, Kaya Natin, Movement for HOPE? And decide whether you still want to be part of the cynical problem or part of the hopeful solution.

A conversation on RH 5043 #6

Booby: “O, last na. Yung women's rights naman. Saan pumapasok yun?”

MJ: “Well, pati ako, I have to admit I'm not very clear on this topic. What the women say, they have total rights over their bodies. No one can make paki-alam what they do with their bodies.”

Booby: “Eh, mabubuntis ba sila pag hindi natin pinaki-alaman ang bodies nila?”

MJ: “That's the fist intelligent thing you've said all morning, saging. But that's what they want in the bill; no one should tell them what to do with their bodies.”

Booby: “Teka, pa'no naman yung mga babies? Pa'no naman yung rights nila?”

MJ: “As long as the person can't vote, they have no rights.”

Booby: “Oo nga naman. Ang gagaling ng mga nag-isip ng RH bill, no?”

MJ: “That's why we voted for them to Congress and the Senate. Imagine, legal luminaries and intellectual giants such as the very honorable Edcel Lagman, Jeanette Garin, Narciso Santiago III, Mark Llandro Mendoza, Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel, and Leandro Jesus Madrona are sponsors of the Bill. In the Senate, Rodolfo Biazon, Ping Lacson, Chiz...Teka! Halos lahat sila pro-RH Bill. Only Manong Nene Pimentel is really against the Bill.

 With minds like those leading the country, where else do you expect the Philippines to end up?

Booby: “Gotcha, curacha!”

THE END

A conversation on RH 5043 #5

Booby: “Ok's naman pala ang RH bill, eh. Saan naman makakakuha ng libreng condom, IUD, at pills, kung sakali.”

MJ: “They will be available in public health centers and government hospitals. They're even budgetting for roving mobile health centers to distribute the contraceptives. Sabay na rin yung training on how to use them.”

Booby: “Galing! So, lahat makakakuha na ng condom at IUD at pills na walang kahirap-hirap. Mahirap man o mayaman, may libre ng condom.”

MJ: “You're so malabo, tabo. Nakakita ka na ba ng mayamang pumupunta sa health center o nagpapagamot sa public hospital? Have you noticed Benzes and BMW's parked in those places?”

Booby: “Oo nga, ano? Eh saan sila kukuha ng libreng condom at pills?”

MJ: “And what makes you think the rich need free condoms and pills? They have enough money to buy the best condoms – ribbed or studded, and in different flavors. They can buy the most expensive and effective pills on the market. They can go to Hong Kong or the States or anywhere for their abortions. It's the poor that need these freebies, bigwis.”

Booby: “Oh. So, ang mahihirap lang talaga ang may libreng condom, IUD, at pills. Lahat ng gagastusin na...P3 billion ba yun? Mahihirap lang ang makikinabang?”

MJ: “Well, when the population of the poor have been reduced, then the rich will have more for themselves, don't you know, sago?”

Booby: “Gano'n pala yon. May isa ka pang nabanggit; yung sa mga namamatay na mga nanganganak na nanay at mga bagong silang na sanggol. Pa'no naman sila?”

MJ: “Use your brain, metro train. If the number of poor have been reduced because of population control, then definitely, the number of mothers and infants dying during childbirth will be reduced?”

Booby: “Ah, oo nga naman. Talagang mababawasan ang mga namamatay kasi hindi na sila nabuhay. Pero, sabi nila hindi naman daw sila pabor sa abortion.”

MJ: “Riiight! In Section 3, Guiding Principles, of the Bill, they even want to ensure treatment for post-abortion complications. But of course, if you had an abortion, that's still a crime under the present Constitution, so you're technically a criminal. Maybe, in the future, they will join the ChaCha movement to change the Constitution.”

Booby: “Dapat lang! Kung may krimeng nakasaad sa Konstitusyon, na ayaw na ng mga mambabatas, dapat lang nilang palitan yun. Kung may bagay na hindi krimen sa Konstitusyon na nais nilang gawing krimen, eh di, palitan! Gaya niyan. Bawal sa Konstitusyon ang aborsyon at gusto nilang pahintulutan na ang pagpatay sa mga sanggol sa pamamagitan ng aborsyon, logical lang na palitan nila yun.”

MJ: “Exactamente, kuryente!”

TO BE CONTINUED

A conversation on RH 5043 #4

Booby: “May sex education pa daw sa RH bill? Para saan naman yun?”

MJ: “Kasi, if you really want population control to be effective for the general population, dapat the education should start while they are still young. They must be taught how to avoid pregnancy even if they're sexually active or promiscuous, by using contraceptives. So, from Grade 5, uumpisahan na ang sex education.”

Booby: “Ahh, grade 5. Teka, yung bunso naming utol, girl, grade 5 na yun. 11 years old lang, tuturuan na siya ng sex education?”

MJ: “Dude! They will teach sex, not 'sex education'. So that they will learn that the IUD is forever, hindi minsan lang ang gamit.”

Booby: (sheepisly)“Hehehe. Sori. So, hanggang kelan ang sex education.”

MJ: “Until 4th year high school.”

Booby: “Grade 5 hanggang 4th year high? Six years yun, a. Talo pa ang college. Ang galing! Pagkatapos ng high school, master in sex na rin sila!”

TO BE CONTINUED