Why Poverty?
Idul Fitri is a time of joy for the Muslim communities the world over, not unlike the Chinese New Year for the Chinese. All of a sudden, the hustling and bustling town of Jakarta quiets down a great deal, with the dead-ending traffic easing up a whole lot. People have dispersed away from town in all directions and distance, internationally and domestically, taking holidays. It is a nice break for all.
Almost at the same time, the under-privileged, below-poverty-line street vagabonds or, simply put, the have-nots, have swamped in by God-knows-what means of transport, and God knows where from, forming a deplorable scene of human suffering – whole families of all forms and sizes, babies, geriatric and crippled, all tattered and filthy, pleading for the mercy of drivers and by-passers for a few small coins or notes.
I was wrong in suggesting earlier that street outlook is a non-issue for the municipalities in Jakarta. They have been trying to clear people and their businesses away from the streets, but simply in vain. There are just too many people to take care of, let alone the miserable beggars.
The average person should have no difficulty relating to the empathetic sentiment of the legendary Indian prince who purportedly founded Buddhism - ie, why were there so many sufferings in the world while the privileged few sang, danced and indulged in festivities. Nowadays, of course, the majority of population in many parts of the world, all kinds of economies included – at least from the middle class upwards, ie, not only the aristocrats or the obscene rich - can comfortably afford to sing, dance and indulge in festivities. But abject poverty is still everywhere.
The world has too many mouths to feed and too few messiahs like Warren Buffet, Bill Gate, Bono or the newly recognized Bangladesh noble prize laureate Yunus. But if we take the world as whole for one moment and reflect on all the resources available, should there really be poverty? Perhaps, it is just not high up enough an agenda on the priority of the ruling classes the world over, despite all propaganda of serious effort prior to election times - although there are success stories of countries having emerged from poverty to modest affluence in the course of a few decades (naming two, China and South Korea).
For those in power who are serious and whole-hearted enough to fight it, there should be ample best practices around for reference. Starting with the common sense, birth control is one major pre-requisite to the success of any poverty-fighting initiatives. It is tragic, if not sinful, to leave babies and kids lying hungrily and loitering aimlessly on the street. Poor people’s copulatory pleasure, no doubt one major recreational pastime affordable given an environment of privacy, needs not be deprived if condoms and other effective means of contraception are supplied conveniently and sufficiently, of course with adequate education. China’s one-child policy once upon a time worked real wonder, until perhaps the problem of aging population and therefore economic succession becomes more of an issue than over-crowding. Today although it is still the most populous country on earth, its population would arguably have exceeded 1.3 billion, had it not been for the one-child policy.
Almost at the same time, the under-privileged, below-poverty-line street vagabonds or, simply put, the have-nots, have swamped in by God-knows-what means of transport, and God knows where from, forming a deplorable scene of human suffering – whole families of all forms and sizes, babies, geriatric and crippled, all tattered and filthy, pleading for the mercy of drivers and by-passers for a few small coins or notes.
I was wrong in suggesting earlier that street outlook is a non-issue for the municipalities in Jakarta. They have been trying to clear people and their businesses away from the streets, but simply in vain. There are just too many people to take care of, let alone the miserable beggars.
The average person should have no difficulty relating to the empathetic sentiment of the legendary Indian prince who purportedly founded Buddhism - ie, why were there so many sufferings in the world while the privileged few sang, danced and indulged in festivities. Nowadays, of course, the majority of population in many parts of the world, all kinds of economies included – at least from the middle class upwards, ie, not only the aristocrats or the obscene rich - can comfortably afford to sing, dance and indulge in festivities. But abject poverty is still everywhere.
The world has too many mouths to feed and too few messiahs like Warren Buffet, Bill Gate, Bono or the newly recognized Bangladesh noble prize laureate Yunus. But if we take the world as whole for one moment and reflect on all the resources available, should there really be poverty? Perhaps, it is just not high up enough an agenda on the priority of the ruling classes the world over, despite all propaganda of serious effort prior to election times - although there are success stories of countries having emerged from poverty to modest affluence in the course of a few decades (naming two, China and South Korea).
For those in power who are serious and whole-hearted enough to fight it, there should be ample best practices around for reference. Starting with the common sense, birth control is one major pre-requisite to the success of any poverty-fighting initiatives. It is tragic, if not sinful, to leave babies and kids lying hungrily and loitering aimlessly on the street. Poor people’s copulatory pleasure, no doubt one major recreational pastime affordable given an environment of privacy, needs not be deprived if condoms and other effective means of contraception are supplied conveniently and sufficiently, of course with adequate education. China’s one-child policy once upon a time worked real wonder, until perhaps the problem of aging population and therefore economic succession becomes more of an issue than over-crowding. Today although it is still the most populous country on earth, its population would arguably have exceeded 1.3 billion, had it not been for the one-child policy.
The mass production of economical housing estates for the poor since the 70s in Hong Kong is another miraculous phenomenon for ready imitation. It is a miracle in the sense that a large number of people who would otherwise turned homeless, starting from those victims of burned-down wooden huts, got sheltered with independent accommodation within a short span of time. Housing estates, with improved infrastructure, facilities and quality, along with more sophisticated town planning over time, remain very much a lively feature of the capitalistic enclave today, accommodating not just the poor but some reasonably affluent middle-class households. Any country on earth with a like-minded ruling party could afford to produce housing estates in abundance, with far more land than is available than the tiny spot of Hong Kong on the world map.
If budget for the poverty agenda in general becomes an issue of contention, everybody the world over who works and earns beyond some income threshold is liable to pay tax in one form or another. I don’t mind at all if a part of what I pay is earmarked specifically for the funding of any known charity institutions, not necessarily of my choice, as long as their works with proven results are known to be solid and sound.
In the long run, the creation of enough wage-paying jobs and, therefore, the sustenance of incomes for the population at large, is of course the major issue and challenge. Although I am no economist or politician, I am convicted that if everybody cares a little bit more about the next individual and the ruling parties care a lot more about their communities at large, there should be no poverty.
Comments