Skip to content

Sotto is Right, ‘Overpopulation’ in PH is a MYTH!

September 6, 2012

Anti-Reproductive Health bill SenatorT ito Sotto’s latest privileged speech quickly drew flak from staunch supporters of the proposed population control measure not because of his religion-based arguments, but

Sen.Tito Sotto

Sen.Tito Sotto

because of his strong denial that the country is “overpopulated”.

“Is the Philippines overpopulated?” the senator, who has been the most favorite target of pro-RH bias and hypocrisy, asked, as he strongly rejected the proposed measure designed to curb the country’s population because pro-RH claims simply  “lack bases and are weakly founded”.

Figures from the National Statistics Office (NSO) show that the country’s  total population in 2010 was 92.34 million, up from 88.57 million in in 2007.

From this Yahoo article:

Sotto pointed to data which show a drop in fertility rates to 3.19 births per woman in 2011 from 3.48 in 2000.

“Napakalaki ng ibinaba nito mula sa 7 noong 1960 (This is a significant decline from 7 in 1960),” Sotto said.

He added that population growth decreased to 1.9 percent in 2010, adding that this is lower than 1948’s 2.07 percent.

Experts have also said that areas in the Philippines remain thinly populated, even as the number of persons in urban areas grow, Sotto said.

“Wala po itong kinalaman sa pagtaas o pagbaba ng fertility rate sa bansa (This is not related to the rise or fall in the country’s fertility rates),” he added.

Quoting economist Bernardo Villegas, Sotto instead attributed the problem of overly populated areas in the country to “at least three decades of erroneous policy of utterly neglecting countryside and rural development.”

Sotto went on to say that controlling the Philippine population may even be detrimental as it may weaken the country’s workforce.

He urged the government “learn from the mistakes of other countries” which he claimed now experience the negative effects of an “aging population.”

This is due to these countries’ “aggressive campaign to control the population and their support for contraceptive use,” he said.

I agree with Sen. Sotto. This country is NOT overpopulated. Many stupid pro-RH creatures think this country is “overpopulated” because it is poor! But this country is impoverished not because of so-called “overpopulation”, but because of its failed, repressive economic policies.

Here’s a question for those who naively, stupidly support the RH bill: What’s the ideal population size for this failing country?

According to NEDA chief Arsenio Balisacan, the country’s fertility rate must be below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1 percent. But the country’s TFR has been declining over the past decades.

In his appearance before the Senate to brief the senators on the Aquino regime’s proposed annual budget of P2.006 trillion for 2013, Balisacan said that “the Philippines must manage its population and decrease its dependency rates.”

A strong advocate of population control, the neo-Malthusian economist claimed the country’s problem “has more to do with the fertility rate. About a third of economic growth in Asia is due to population management.”

But there is no correlation between economic growth and poverty reduction, or between overpopulation and poverty. Such an alleged correlation is a fallacy. But there exists a correlation between poverty and repressive economic policies, as shown by the ranking of Doing Business and Economic Freedom Index. For instance, top ten countries with the highest fertility rate are Niger, Uganda, Mali, Somalia, Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Ethiopia, and Republic of Congo. What do these countries have in common? They’re all poor. But why are they so poor? They’re poor because of their failed, repressive economic policies.

From the Yahoo article:

As for the RH bill in the Philippines, Sotto said: “[A]ng kalalabasan ay ang paggamit ng birth control bilang instrumento para paliitin ang populasyon (The outcome will  be the use of birth control as an instrument to lower the population).”

“[H]indi tayo makabubuo ng ang isang situwasyon kung saan tatapyasin ang laki ng mga pamilya nang hindi pinaliliit ang populasyon ng bansa (We cannot create a situation where the size of the family is reduced without reducing the country’s population),” Sotto added.

Contraception use, like religion, should be a strictly private matter. In socialist countries like China, governments aggressively impose population control measures and laws that violate the rights of their own people. In China, contraception is part of their daily survival. Chinese men and women need to use contraceptives so as not to violate their socialist government’s one-child policy. Government-sponsored crimes in China like forced abortions are prevalent because of its draconian law.

The difference between socialist countries and freer nations is that the former vigorously implement their population control measures. In freer countries like the United States, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia, people are free to practice family planning even without aggressive population control laws. For example, Japan now experiences declining birth rate because of its very low employment rate. The Japanese government announced this week that the nation’s unemployment rate hit 4.3 percent last month down from 4.4 percent in May. In fact, the Japanese government encourages its young adults to date and marry.

The reality is: there is high fertility rate in poor countries because of poverty caused by poor economic freedom/openness and failed economic policies, while developed countries have been experiencing declining birth rates.

RELATED BLOGS:

RH Bill’s Fallacy of Overpopulation-Poverty Connection

Filipino People Need Jobs, Not RH!

PNoy’s Malthusian/Marxist Economist: ‘PH must manage its population and decrease its dependency rates’

Understanding the President’s Economic Czar

To NEDA Chief Balisacan: Demographic Transition Follows Economic Growth, Not the Other Way Around

About these ads
17 Comments leave one →
  1. champola permalink
    September 16, 2012 3:38

    We who support the RH bill do not support it because it is a way of lessening the poverty rate. We support it because it can help in sustaining human development by having a manageable population. By having a manageable population means it is a population that matches with the resources of the government. So how can you say that we are not overpopulated when it is clear that our total number has already exceeded so much that our finite resources can no longer handle it?

    • September 16, 2012 3:38

      The people need JOBS — and to be independent– NOT condoms and government welfare! http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/filipino-people-need-jobs-not-rh/

      • champola permalink
        September 19, 2012 3:38

        You did not answer my question. And besides, what your source says is that pro-rh bill will be the tool for elimination of poverty. This is not what we are aiming for. The use of rh bill is to lessen, if not eliminate, the number of unwanted pregnancies. Oh and another thing, how can the country provide jobs if a lot of its people are not qualified to have one. This is because they were born with too many siblings that their parents have to look upon too. Having to much children can be burdensome to the the family because it cannot match to their resources and managerial capabilities of the parents. In effect, this leads to smaller or even no investment to their education which is an essential element in getting a job. Now if you put it together with all the families who are suffering the same situation, this can be a serious problem because the government has to stretch its limited budget in order to fill the gap that the parents failed to provide.http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2012/07/30/based-on-serious-evidence-rhbill-is-pro-poor-and-authentically-pro-life-pro-family-up-economics-professors/

      • September 19, 2012 3:38

        If you want to know the answer, just read more of my blogs.

        You know, Champola, that really shows the intellectual bankruptcy and dishonesty of the pro-RH camp.

        I will try to explain to you why people like you are either too politically clueless or useful idiots. You’re simply supporting a measure you clearly do not understand…

        First, a lot of public officials explicitly said ‘overpopulation’ in the Philippines is a problem. None other than the president’s economic chief, NEDA head Arsenio Balisacan, said the government must “must manage its population and decrease its dependency rates”. Balisacan wants TFR that is below the replacement rate of 2.1. ——–>>> http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/pnoys-malthusianmarxist-economist-ph-must-manage-its-population-and-decrease-its-dependency-rates/

        Second, many academics, particularly some UP professors, said the RH bill is about combating poverty in the country. In fact, this paper published by a group of UP professors was promoted and cheered by the pro-RH freaks. —– http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/up-economists-rh-paper-emotionalism-plus-anti-intellectualism/

        Third, Fr. Bernas, one of those who drafted the 1987 Charter, said the bill is about helping women and poor people. http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/fr-bernas-more-of-a-pro-rh-statist-than-religionist/

        Fourth, Sen. Miriam Santiago said the measure is about empowering women. — http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/sen-miriam-defensor-santiagos-rh-bill-illogic/

        Fifth, Rep. Edsel Lagman said it’s about addressing the undeniable link between overpopulation and poverty. —– http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/rh-bills-fallacy/

        And many others…

        “The use of rh bill is to lessen, if not eliminate, the number of unwanted pregnancies.”

        — HOW?

        Any private companies and NGOs can perform the information dissemination campaign to achieve that STUPID objective. Just how will the RH bill lessen cases of “unwanted pregnancy”?

        And what is an “unwanted pregnancy”? What makes a pregnancy unwanted? Are unwanted pregnancies the responsibility of the women involved, or their parents or families? Just how do you propose to LEGISLATE unwanted pregnancies?

        If you really want to lessen “unwanted pregnancies”, passing the RH bill is NOT the solution. There are many government departments and instrumentalities that our government may activate to perform that job.

        And if reducing cases of unwanted pregnancy is all you want, then:

        1. Why do you need to force employers to violate their freedom of conscience and to shoulder the RH expenses of their employees?

        2. Why do you need to force health care providers (e.g. doctors) to violate their freedom of conscience?

        3. Why do you need to force doctors to render 48-hour “pro bono” services?

        4. Why do you need to criminalize what the bill calls “malicious disinformation”?

        5. Why do you need to penalize anyone who fails or refuses to follow or abide by the bill’s provisions?

  2. asdf permalink
    September 20, 2012 3:38

    Poverty is an economic problem!
    Fertility rates, abortion and the likes are MORAL problem.

    • champola permalink
      September 21, 2012 3:38

      This is a reply yo Mr. Vinceton and not to asdf. I cant find the reply button on vinceton’s comment so I’ll just put it here.

      The chances of reducing poverty as claimed by one of your sources is just an effect of eliminating the main problem which is the growing number of unwanted pregnancies.A country cannot have progress if its resources are limited while the number of its consumers are rapidly increasing. It will just make their efforts inadequate and ineffective.

      1. Why do you need to force employers to violate their freedom of conscience and to shoulder the RH expenses of their employees?
      The purpose of the provision was already existing in the labor code article 134 so it has been deleted in the current bill.

      2. Why do you need to force health care providers (e.g. doctors) to violate their freedom of conscience?
      Where is the violation there??? Tell me what provision in the rh bill that makes you say that.

      3. Why do you need to force doctors to render 48-hour “pro bono” services?
      Force? Again what provision makes you say that eh??? I never saw one provision that says that.They are only encouraged, not compelled.

      4. Why do you need to criminalize what the bill calls “malicious disinformation”?
      That has already been deleted.

      5. Why do you need to penalize anyone who fails or refuses to follow or abide by the bill’s provisions?
      ………uhm what were you thinking when you made this question? If it becomes a law, its obvious that violators must be liable because it is the law, is it not?

    • September 21, 2012 3:38

      champola,

      Your latest reply makes me think you didn’t read the bill. And if you did, you simply did not understand it.

      You said: “The chances of reducing poverty as claimed by one of your sources is just an effect of eliminating the main problem which is the growing number of unwanted pregnancies.”

      Read again my reply. If you really want to lessen “unwanted pregnancies”, passing the RH bill is NOT the solution. There are many government departments and instrumentalities that our government may activate to perform that job.

      By the way, what sources are you talking about? What are your sources?

      You said: “A country cannot have progress if its resources are limited while the number of its consumers are rapidly increasing.”

      You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. The solution to what you said is economics. Resources are limited in this country simply because of the government’s failed economic policies. Scrap protectionism and adopt free market reforms- this is the only solution to poverty problem. Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea did not achieve economic success by passing anti-unwanted pregnancy law. They achieved success by means of embracing free market reforms.

      1. “The purpose of the provision was already existing in the labor code article 134 so it has been deleted in the current bill.”

      ANSWER: How does that relate to your claim that the RH bill is all about curbing unwanted pregnancy? Like I said, if the bill is all about unwanted pregnancies, then why do you need to force employers to violate their freedom of conscience and to shoulder the RH expenses of their employees? Why not simply focus on solving unwanted pregnancies?

      2. ” Tell me what provision in the rh bill that makes you say that.”

      ANSWER: Did you read the bill? Read Section 22 on Pro Bono Services for Indigent Women. Read Section 28 on prohibited acts. Again, if the bill is all about unwanted pregnancies, then why do you need to force health care providers (e.g. doctors) to violate their freedom of conscience? Why not simply focus on solving unwanted pregnancies?

      3. “Force? Again what provision makes you say that eh??? I never saw one provision that says that.They are only encouraged, not compelled.”

      ANSWER: LMAO! Encourage? Did you read the bill? The bill uses the word “MANDATED”, stupid. Here what Section 22 states: “Pro Bono Services for Indigent Women. – Private and non-government reproductive health care service providers, including but not limited to gynecologists and obstetricians, are mandated to provide at least forty-eight (48) hours annually of reproductive health services, ranging from providing information and education to rendering medical services, free of charge to indigent and low income patients, especially to pregnant adolescents. The forty-eight (48) hours annual pro bono services shall be included as pre-requisite in the accreditation under the PhilHealth.”

      What will happen to “private and non-government reproductive health care service providers” who fail or refuse to render pro bono services?

      Again, if the bill is all about unwanted pregnancies, then why do you need to force health care providers to render “pro bono” services? A pro bono service should be undertaken VOLUNTARILY, not mandated.

      4. “That has already been deleted.”

      ANSWER: LMAO again! You’re not really updated with what’s going on with this bill. Section 28(e) on “malicious disinformation” was reinstated. http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/the-rh-bills-latest-version-a-must-read/

      5. “what were you thinking when you made this question? If it becomes a law, its obvious that violators must be liable because it is the law, is it not?”

      ANSWER: What were you thinking when you said above that the bill is about lessening or eliminating unwanted pregnancies. Here’s what you said: “This is not what we are aiming for. The use of rh bill is to lessen, if not eliminate, the number of unwanted pregnancies.”

      What I am trying to tell you here is that, if you really want to eliminate unwanted pregnancies, then focus only on measures that would specifically achieve that goal without criminalizing certain acts or forcing people to do acts that are violative of their freedom of conscience. Do you understand?

      Here’s an honest question for you: DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THE BILL SIMPLY AIMS TO ELIMINATE UNWANTED PREGNANCIES?

      • qdr permalink
        September 25, 2012 3:38

        BOOM! :D

  3. Anti-RH permalink
    September 21, 2012 3:38

    From champola: “This is not what we are aiming for. The use of rh bill is to lessen, if not eliminate, the number of unwanted pregnancies.”

    Why not name the bill “Anti-Wanted Pregnancies Bill” and not Reproductive Health bill or Responsible Parenthood bill?

    The point here is, if this bill is all about lessening or eliminating unwanted pregnancies, then doon ka lang mag-focus. Bakit kaylangang puwersahin ang mga doctors at ibang tao? Bakit kaylangang mandohan ang mga doctor na mag-provide ng 48-hour pro bono services? Yun ang punto.

  4. monk permalink
    November 16, 2012 3:38

    Overpopulation is not based on birth rate trends but on resource consumption vs. biocapacity.

  5. December 3, 2012 3:38

    Actually the pro-RH morons are laughable. I can say that they are of different factions. They read the same bill, but they understand it in different ways. This is based from my debates with pro-RH freaks on some forums.

    Faction 1: This group of pro-RH think that this country is overpopulated and we need RH bill to curb it.

    I asked them if this country is overpopulated, then what is the ideal population then. They said that overpopulation is not about population vs land size (population density), it’s about capacity of our resources to sustain the population. I asked them, where is the scientific study that shows that our resources can no longer sustain our current population. These people just showed us the environment problems that they link with population. Good gracious! Those people don’t know logic at ALL. And they can’t detect logical fallacy even if it’s under their nose.

    Classic Textbook example of faulty logic:

    It rained, hence the road is wet.
    The road is wet
    Therefore it rained

    Santisima. This is how these clueless guys put it:

    Overpopulation can cause destruction to environment.
    We can see destruction to environment.
    Therefore we have overpopulation.

    Good gracious! Even if we accept that overpopulation can cause destruction to environment, we cannot just merely say that it was caused by overpopulation. Haha.

  6. December 3, 2012 3:38

    Faction 2: Pro-RH freaks who believe that we have unbridled population growth rate. Edcel Lagman belongs here, one of the proponents of RH Bill.

    Data from National Statistics Coordination Board shows that our population growth rate has been declining the past years without any intervention from the government. Where is the unbridled population growth rate there? Don’t get me started with the correlation of poverty with population growth rate.

    And these guys don’t even know the dictum that correlation is not causation. Good heaven!

  7. December 3, 2012 3:38

    Related to the Faction 2, data from NSCB also showed that Total Fertility Rate has been declining the past years without any government intervention. Eat that pro-RH freaks!

    So why allot government resources on something that has been declining already?
    Haha.

    Instead of allotting budget to a myopic bill like RH BILL, we should be striving for better education for ALL instead. Make the poor people educated.

    Study showed that educated women tend to be less fertile, and this is being supported by the data from NSCB.

    Educated people tend to make good choices and be responsible parents. They can plan their family well. They can think of ways to alleviate poverty they are into, of course with the help from the government.

    Make economic policies that will help people!

  8. December 3, 2012 3:38

    I would like to ask the pro-RH freaks out there the following:

    It has been mentioned in the position paper by UP professors that this RH bill is not a population control measure.

    Isn’t it a big fat lie? or the proponents of the bill are lying? or the ignorant pro-RH people are lying?

    Haha.

    I have seen pro-RH freaks who claim that RH bill aims to control or manage our population growth rate.

    I have heard pro-RH lawmakers who would like to curb the unbridled population growth rate.

    If their goal is not population control, then I don’t know what is.

    Of course, there are people who would just say that it is just management of population, not control… yeah, yeah, as if we were born yesterday.

    Granted that this is not a population control measure, how could you possibly curb the unbridled population growth rate (which I have already shown as a myth), if the only goal of this bill is to offer choices to people?

    Huh?

    You offer choices to people, then BOOM, the population growth rate will start to decrease?
    As if every pro-RH freak is certain that every Juan and Juana will opt to use contraceptives. yeah, yeah. As if they were not old enough to have developed certain stimulus during sex. And I know a lot of guys who don’t enjoy sex using condoms.

    Laughable!

    Just because you offer choices to people, it doesn’t mean that people will use them.
    What will the government do if the people do not use contraceptives then? Remember, the state cannot force people to use contraceptives. Haha.

    So the pro-RH freaks are back to square one, this RH bill is not a population control measure. It just offers choice.

    Do we really need to legislate these choices?

    Do we really need to allot certain portion of 14B pesos for contraceptives which the state cannot force people to use?

    Damned pro-RH freaks.

    Quota na ako sa ad hominems. Haha

Trackbacks

  1. When UAAP Meets RH Bill: It Means More Than ‘Academic’ Tension! « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. Taming the Tamer « THE VINCENTON POST
  3. Did Anti-RH Bishop Garcera Actually Use the Word “Overpopulation”? « THE VINCENTON POST

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 246 other followers

%d bloggers like this: