By Estanislao Albano, Jr.
To differing degrees, letter writer Reginald Tamayo (“Strategies to help the poor,” 7/13/18) and columnist Cielito Habito (“Are the poor too lazy?”, 7/6/18) deny the fact that Filipinos could rise above poverty on their own. Habito’s piece is actually an apology for Juan Tamad while Tamayo’s letter implies that the poor need outside help to shake off their miserable existence.
I find Habito’s idea of viewing laziness as an effect rather than as a cause utterly ridiculous. It is like suggesting to people that when they find a poisonous snake in their house, instead of grabbing the first thing they could to kill or drive away the intruder, they stand right there to figure out how the snake got in the house. Just like in the case of the snake, whatever its causes may be, indolence has no place in the life of the sane. And besides, of what good is knowing the cause of the illness if you do not take the medicine for the malady? Even if Habito could write a thick book that proves laziness of Filipinos is indeed the outcome of many circumstances, the Juan Tamads will never improve their condition unless they shake off their laziness.
If Habito’s reason in dwelling on laziness as an effect is to help address the causes thereof, what if the solutions take a long time to come or, worse, will never do? Is it justified for Juan Tamad to remain under the guava tree fantasizing about the better life but refusing to work until the dawning of the day when the conditions in the country become truly conducive to toil?
The downward trend in the poverty incidence – the National Statistics Coordinating Board says it was 44.2 percent in 1985, 35.5 percent in 1994 and 33.7 percent in 2000 and 26.3 in the first semester of 2015 – puts to question Habito’s claim that “underlying factors and failures of our government and society” have something to do with Filipino laziness. If he alleges that there was a vast improvement in the treatment of government and society of the least fortunate sector during the intervening years to account for the significant reduction of poverty incidence during the period, how come he said in his column that failed agricultural policies have made agriculture an unattractive occupation?
Relative to agriculture, I could not understand why at all Habito thought his encounter where he thought an uncultivated land was a manifestation of the lack of initiative and laziness of the residents but would later find to be owned by a corporation material to his piece. There are thousands upon thousands of Filipinos who own lands that are overgrown with weeds and who buy their vegetable needs from the market. The irony is that the people who, despite the overwhelming evidence, cannot accept that if Juan Tamad sudden acquires love for work, poverty in the country would be sharply reduced and thereby appoint themselves as his apologists, are not as slothful as he is when defending him.
While it is true there are external factors obtaining in this country which perpetuate poverty, experience has shown that they are not impenetrable to those who dare. Habito’s efforts against poverty would therefore avail more if instead of defending Juan Tamad by seeking explanations for his indolence and of all things, sharing the findings with him, he looks into the formulas of Filipinos who were able to dig themselves out of squalor and disseminate the same to the poor challenging them that if other Filipinos can, then there is no reason they cannot.
On the other hand, all the government services meant to improve the situation of the poor enumerated by Tamayo in his reaction to the column of Habito would fail unless the poor respond properly the foremost means of which is to work hard.
I am certain that Habito and Tamayo would not deny they know of many dirt poor Filipinos who have attained better life despite all the obstacles thrown in their paths with practically no helping hand from government and society. Poverty is not a fixed destiny for people fired up by the ambition for a better tomorrow and are willing to sweat it out to attain it. As for Juan Tamad, he does not deserve a better life. Among Ilocanos, there is the expression that even if the heavens rain down gold, the lazybones will not get rich because they will be too lazy to exert the effort to gather the windfall. Such is the reality of indolence no matter the brilliant excuses Habito and his ilk have invented. Its relations to poverty is perfectly encapsulated in the following wisdom of King Solomon: “A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich.” (Proverbs 10:4).**
