When goodness kills

A debate is ongoing in Western political circles whether or not it is better to open sweatshops in Africa. The poor in that continent desperately need jobs to end the poverty there. At the center of the debate is an article written by NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof who says "any job" is better than no job at all." Africa does not only need jobs it also needs schools and clinics.

Such a theory will not fly in American universities because there is a large following in the US against sweatshops. While it is true that sweatshops alone will not solve poverty, there is sense (if you are the person concerned) in saying that any job is better than no job at all. Ideally it is better to have decent wages.

But as Paul Krugman put it "... as long as you have no realistic alternative to industrialization based on low wages, to oppose it means that you are willing to deny desperately poor people the best chance they have of progress..." The best example for this is China. This is not an easy question to resolve and one we encounter in our own society often enough with a developing economy.

One labor leader confessed to me he is hard put to support ‘legislated wage hikes’ because he knows it is a choice between increased wages for workers with jobs and losing jobs when factories close down. I don’t have the statistics to hand but there may be a case for measuring just how many people are shut out from earning anything because of this campaign for higher wages for those at work. I hate to say it but we have here a paradox of how goodness can kill.

The painful dilemma here is that the problem is not solved by glibness from those who think that ‘goodness’ in this case giving higher wages is all that good. Which is not to favor sweatshops but simply to ask: what is the way out? The debate has stimulated the search for strategies to help the poor. I would credit Kristof for putting an unorthodox view forward rather than be silenced by goody-goodies who generally claim they have the answers to all the questions.

* * *

That is also true with sex education which sadly has been suspended because the Church has opposed it. Is it better for the young to know or not to know the implications of sex? Until the bishops can put on the shoes of parents and their children, they are not the best moral arbiter for this dilemma. I hope that the dialogue between the government and the CBCP will bring this out. Many young people would have been better off had they known just what sex is about. I am not talking about unwanted births. There is also the question of health and well-being, chiefly the threat of HIV virus.

The Church’s concern as it is also the concern of parents and teachers about the moral aspect of premarital sex is well-taken. But I do not believe that not knowing the implications of premarital sex would make the young more moral. It only means that they are more ignorant and therefore unable to make a choice between following their instincts and the discipline which comes with knowing what to do in a difficult and emotionally intense situation.

Here again it is the poor that lose out. The bagets from colegios with all their worldly exposure know what to do whether or not there is sex education in their schools. It is the poor, and not only the young but the old as well who can learn a thing or two if they have the benefit of sex education. Admittedly I have not seen the module but this is a case yet again for a deeper understanding than simply to condemn sex or any knowledge of it among our youth. It depends on how the issue is presented. Certainly a debate on its merits will help resolve the issue. That is the democratic way and it would be curious how it is finally resolved. Again think of the many lives that will be affected by glib moralizing. Sex education is a matter of knowing and not knowing. In my books it is better to know than not to know because a choice is intelligently made. Not so when it is merely a moral code from authorities who are not even privy to their most intimate emotions. I hope education authorities will not be cowed and instead be guided by what I consider a more elementary rule of decency – to make knowledge open to all, sex or otherwise. In the foreword of the module, Hidalgo explained that "information and services should be made available to adolescents to help them understand their sexuality and protect them from unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and subsequent risk of infertility." She must remain faithful to these words when she meets up with the bishops.

Let us look in other parts of the world equally threatened by this lack of sexual education. The New York Times featured HIV/AIDS Advocate Florent Morellet as a hero for demystifying and deconstructing AIDS." Morellet, who owns a French restaurant in New York City, learned he was HIV-positive 20 years ago. Instead of hiding lest he be condemned for his ‘immorality’, he went public and has since helped other HIV victims by simply posting his cell count on a bulletin board in his restaurant alongside the daily specials. Imagine the number of people who eat in his restaurant who would be more careful about sex. Morellet also works with Compassion and Choices, an organization that helps terminally ill people.

This early, the political cauldron boils but the stew has a different flavor. Sorry folks but it is parliamentarian not presidential. ULAP sa TOP (Tao at Organisasyon sa Pagbabago) named the following as potential prime minister: incoming Senate President Manuel Villar, Sen. Franklin Drilon, Speaker JDV as well as Senators Edgardo Angara, Panfilo Lacson, Sergio Osmena III, Aquilino Pimentel Jr. and Mar Roxas. Hmm. Something wrong here. Parliamentary government is not about personalities, it is about party politics. Unless would-be prime ministers have a party and a program that can be voted upon, then we will just have more of personal politics except the top dog is called a prime minister.

Of the above there are only two who can be said to be strong from this point of view, Speaker JDV of Lakas CMD and Sen. Edgardo Angara of LDP both of whom are directing their energies to party building. Recently I met with Angara who said the LDP now holds regular meetings with party members. The former UP president is banking on two issues: political reform and economic liberalization. He is also strongly in favor of self-autonomy leading to federalism. He told LDP members "the Political Party Development and Campaign Finance Reform Act (Senate Bill 1051), is the centerpiece of the party’s efforts to stamp out patronage politics as part of its drive to implement reforms in governance. LDP supports Charter change.

LDP will work to make political parties ideology-based organizations. He said this lack of a genuine party system is what feeds corruption. "We are politically unstable since we have not strengthened democratic institutions that characterize a true democracy, like a strong party system, an independent press and judiciary and a neutral military," Angara said. Good. Amen to that.

* * *

My e-mail is [email protected]