The newspapers and airwaves the other day were filled with the saddening news of an 11-year-old killing herself over poverty in Davao City:
Using a thin nylon rope, 12-year-old Mariannet Amper hanged herself in the afternoon of November 2. She was a sixth grader at the Maa Central Elementary School.
…
Along with her diary, the Ampers also discovered a letter Mariannet wrote for the GMA 7 television program “Wish Ko Lang [I just Wish].”
“Gusto ko po sana magkaroon ng bagong sapatos at bag at hanapbuhay para sa nanay at tatay ko. Wala kasing hanapbuhay ang tatay at nagpa-extra extra lamang ang aking nanay sa paglalaba,” she said in her “Wish Ko Lang” letter. [I wish for new shoes, a bag and jobs for my mother and father. My dad does not have a job and my mom just gets laundry jobs.]
“Gusto ko na makatapos ako sa pag-aaral at gustong-gusto ko na makabili ng bagong bike,” she added. [I would like to finish my schooling and I would like very much to buy a new bike.] [Inquirer.net]
What is more unfortunate, however, is that a lot of sectors have taken the death as an opportunity to engage in a blame game, and preach the Gospel of Hopelessness once more.
On my way to work the other day, I took a cab that was tuned to an AM radio station (I failed to figure out which) who had two commentators (who I also failed to get the names of, my bad) who were reading text messages from listeners and making comments themselves. Almost everyone was blaming Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for the child’s death, even insinuating that it is yet another evidence for her failure and yet another reason for her to step down. All the while, the commentators continue gloating in agreement, one of them even professing her desire to leave this “hopeless” country because it would be sheer “stupidity” to decide to stay.
In her blog entry about Mariannet’s suicide, Salve Duplito points out Archbishop Oscar Cruz’s comment that “we are all to blame” for Mariannet’s death. Her entry also points out the Senate probe on cash gifts, and an article that mulls over the current state of the middle class in the Philippines, as a “primer” of sorts regarding the nation’s poverty situation.
While I am shocked and aghast with what had happened, I am just as irritated with how people try to use the incident as yet another fault of the GMA administration, nay, the government. As preventable as the incident was, it makes no sense to blame anybody in the suicide. Mariannet was a minor, and one can argue that she does not know what she’s doing, sure, but I do think what she did was the result of misguided thinking.
In the end, it was her and her decision alone to take her own life.
What is more disturbing, I think, is this Gospel of Hopelessness being preached by the media to our people recently. I do not know if this “gospel” reached Mariannet, but I am pretty sure that Mariannet’s death is being treated as a holy sacrifice at its altar. This gospel, has four main edicts, which I will discuss here:
Buti pa sila
First is the phrase buti pa sila; they’re fortunate or they’re better off than us, as embodied by the phrase “the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer”.
I understand deeply the difficulty and frustration the poor face when, with their meager, unchanging income, inflation eats more and more into their salaries while their salaries fail to catch up. What I do not understand is why “the rich are getting richer” is supposed to be a bad thing, when it is based on a very simple principle. When a person earns money, they could invest it in a business or a financial instrument that will earn money, reinvest it again in either to earn even more money, and it reaches a point that the growth of their money is not linear, but exponential. It is very, very clear that there is nothing evil about this, but people always tend to treat it as though it were black magic.
Of course there are “evil” ways of getting rich; illegal activities like drug peddling is one, another would be employee abuse and exploitation: long hours, delayed salaries, workload inappropriate to job descriptions or disproportionate to pay etc. But not every business does this, and I hope I am correct in assuming that majority of businesses do not employ such acts to be able to raise profits. However, to lump rich people who earned their wealth through hard work and perseverance with rich people who committed crimes and exploited others is simply myopic and utterly unfair.
The phrase “the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer” clearly assumes that the rich get rich because they exploit the poor, and thus becomes the root, or foundation, for more negative beliefs about the rich, about being rich, and about how to attain those riches.
Hindi nila kami tinutulungan
Second is the widespread belief that the rich are purposefully doing nothing to leave the poor as poor. Hindi nila kami tinutulunga“; they are not helping us.
When there were reported gains in the country’s GDP, the reduced public deficit, and the strengthening peso versus the dollar, journalists couldn’t help but ask the question “are the economic gains trickling down to the masses?” This infuriated Gloria so much that she lashed back at the reporters, in a press release a few months back.
I do not approve of GMA’s temperament, sure, but neither do I see the question as a valid one. Trickling down to the masses, on the first month of an improved economy? Give me an electric fan in a large, humid warehouse, put it at one end and turn it on, and stay at the far end. Will the improvement in the ambient temperature of the warehouse be different there? Of course not. You have to go near the fan.
The “economic gains failing to trickle down to the masses” mantra has a better analogy, one that comes from Filipino folklore. It is the story of a boy who would sleep in a hammock under a guava tree, mouth wide open, waiting for the fruit to fall. The fruit fell alright, but he wouldn’t be able to catch it while sleeping, of course. We all know who Juan Tamad is, don’t we? And we all know why the guava won’t “trickle” into his mouth.
Too many people seem to think that by griping and complaining, some magical force will elevate them up that tree, in the way that they think rich people got their wealth through evil, magical means, but in reality many of them started at the bottom of the tree, and just started climbing.
If you want to get your share of those economic gains, you have to go and reach out to it. You still have to open doors when opportunity knocks. You still have to climb a tree to get its fruit.
Inaapi nila ako, kawawa naman ako
The roots of the Gospel of Hopelessness has the victim mentality, with this mantra in mind:
Inaapi nila ako, kawawa naman ako! I am being stepped on, I am being put down, woe and pity me!
As emo and drama this mantra sounds, I hear it all the time, even from seven year olds. Whenever we would attend mass in the Our Lady of Manaoag Shrine in Pangasinan, there would always be kids selling stampitas — cards that have the image of a saint or the Blessed Virgin on one side and a prayer on the other — constantly egging you to buy them.
There’s nothing wrong with their persistence in selling, of course. Their dialog, however, goes like “bilin niyo na po Sir, para may pangkain kami mamaya” (”please buy this so we may have something to eat later”). Between those lines you could almost hear them say “if we go starving later today, it’s your fault for not buying our wares”. What kind of sales tactic is that?
I could just imagine Mariannet saying the same thing about herself while she’s pondering to take her life.
Kasalanan nila ang lahat
Unfortunately this kind of thinking is widespread among the poor and those who think that they are poor, who say that every day, in the streets, on TV, on the way to work while you’re taking public transport, in the eateries where you take your lunch. Everyone is saying “I’m so poor, I’m so pitiful, but nobody’s helping me.” Worse, after all their rambling, they then turn to how bad the government is, how corrupt politicians are, and how much better their lives would be if only the government were different.
As if that would really change anything in their lives.
Archbishop Cruz’s elegy that “we are all to blame for Mariannet’s death” is no different. I don’t think we could keep anyone from killing themselves if they really really believed that their lives are worth for naught. Let’s just thank God it’s not anything like in supposedly prosperous Western countries where the suicidal take up arms and go on a shooting spree before they take their own lives.
In the end, however, the deaths, the suicides, the shootings, is the sole decision of the person. The students that took up arms to shoot other students were usually victims of rejection and bullying, sure, but there are a lot of other people who are bullied who do not kill other people over it. Mariannet may have had a depressing situation, sure, but how many people have been in her situation only to become successful and prosperous later in their lives?
How many people have decided that they are sick and tired of being poor, and they will do everything legal and righteous to become rich?
Too few, I think. Too few.
It is time to shed this depressing gospel, especially if we believe it
There are things that can be done to give hope and genuine help to the Mariannets around us; unfortunately too few people realize that that hope and help are not only the responsibility of the government. Yes it may be a responsibility we have towards others, but it is likewise, a responsibility we have towards ourselves. Unless we accept that responsibility, even if we have all the tools to get up and climb the tree of prosperity to pick and enjoy its fruits, we won’t get it until we start climbing.
However, for those who already know this responsibility, or who have prospered to the point where they have the ability to help others, they’ll need to remember where they came from, and educate those who are not aware of the ways to attain financial success.
Salve Duplito’s parting shot on her blog entry is spot on:
It makes sense for everyone’s financial future to wipe out poverty — even the ruling elite’s financial future. Even politicians’ financial future. As you prepare this day to make more money, save more and invest more, please do two things: look around you for someone like Mariannet and do something about it. Then continue to make your dreams for financial independence come true so you can help more like her. [Money Smarts]
It’s time for us to get up and help ourselves. It’s time to change our negative attitudes towards the rich and being rich. It’s time to shed the cultural beliefs that keep us poor. It’s time for us to stop complaining, and start doing. It’s time for us to rise up and help others find ways to help themselves, so that they will not feel Mariannet Amper’s desperation.
It is time for us to stop preaching the Gospel of Hopelessness, and perhaps, replace it with a Gospel of Prosperity.
OT: Do you want to hear the Gospel of Prosperity instead?
If you want to learn some ways on how to obtain economic prosperity without selling your souls to the devil, you might want to look at the Think Rich Pinoy Seminar, conducted by Larry Gamboa, which discusses about the psychology of money, and ways to earn money in real estate.
You can also come to the How to Become Truly Rich Seminar conducted by Bo Sanchez, a seminar for Christians (Catholics, especially) who want to shed their dangerous religious beliefs about money.
I have attended both seminars and learned an immense deal of knowledge and wisdom, which I am slowly trying to apply to my life.
Just for the record, neither have paid me to promote these seminars in this blog. 
26 responses so far ↓
1 salve // Nov 10, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Jon, I like the “Gospel of Prosperity” part. I still think “we are all in this together” (sorry, i’m up to my ears with Disney Channel’s High School Musical because of my 12-year old daughter.) From a macro perspective, while the individual has the power to reach the kind of economic status he should have, the government still has a role to play in equitable distribution of money, especially in areas where the “free market” is not effective — like social services and education. But the thing is, we can’t change the government overnight. That battle, while worthwhile, takes a long time. What we can immediately do, however, is live the gospel of prosperity NOW, not tomorrow. Keep on preaching that gospel, Jon. I’m with you on that
As a good economist friend emailed me the other day, it hurt to read Mariannet’s story because it showed that Filipinos have lost faith in themselves. He told of how he always felt that the way people drive, in the halls of Congress and government offices, and the baranggay side streets. We HAVE let the gospel of hopelessness kill our drive. We have to stop it, somehow.
2 Jon Limjap // Nov 11, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Salve,
Thanks. I understand what you’re driving at… Perhaps the difference in our opinion is as simple as your emphasis on the power of groups, while mine is an emphasis on the power of the individual, which can later actually be banded together to achieve a formidable groups. So I think while the approach is different we’re just pushing towards the same direction anyway.
Thanks for dropping by.
3 The Ca t // Nov 11, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Very well written, Jon.
Galing mo talagang mag-analyze.
4 Jon Limjap // Nov 11, 2007 at 7:35 pm
The Ca t,
Ngek. Hehe, salamat.
These are things that have been swimming in my head long before Mariannet’s suicide, and I guess her death just set the stage for me to finally write my thoughts down.
5 Ato Kenny // Nov 11, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Jon,
It is our nature to be happy, healthy, and rich. Yet, many of us are lonely, ill, and poor. Why? Because many of us thought that it is OK to be lonely, ill, and poor because ang lahat ng ito ay kaloob sa atin ng Dyos at ang pagtiti-is natin ngayon ay gagantimpalaan ng walang hanggang kaligayahan sa kabilang buhay. Para sa akin, they are looking at the wrong god. The God that I know “loves me with an everlasting love” and wouldn’t want me to suffer. How can we let nature take its course to make us happy, healthy, and rich as nature intended us to be? I don’t know, but I know that someone out there has the answer.
Ato
6 Jon Limjap // Nov 12, 2007 at 5:03 am
Ato,
Unfortunately, too many people believe in that wrong god. I think they like that version of god, because it is the version with the least responsibilities, and thus, the least perceived difficulty despite the futility of the situation they dwell upon.
7 noemi // Nov 12, 2007 at 10:42 am
Great to see your views on this matter that is not bandwagon. Even the rich die of suicide. So poverty is not the issue alone. Anyway, I just want to add something more. I believe suicide is a preventable public health problem. There are many unreported suicide cases because of taboo. I have first hand experience with suicide survivors and their families and know their peculiar problems. Because of this, I’ve contacted senators to help push the Student Suicide Prevention Bill which was pending in the last 13th congress. Hopefully, it will be approved in the 14th Congress. Suicide should no longer be considered a taboo topic, and that through raising awareness and educating the public, we can SAVE lives especially young kids.
8 RD Cimafranca // Nov 12, 2007 at 10:50 am
Hi Jon,
I agree, a lot of people would rather take the route with less, much less, responsibilities, and point fingers. The wrong way to go.
A general truth that everone fails to agree with… Everything that happens in your own life is of your own doing. No one leads you by the neck unless you want them to, kung baga walang BI BI dito, ikaw lang ang may kasalanan. Everything in life is dictated by you, everything in your control that is.
I remember seeing this on TV. a man blaming a black cat for every misfortune that has happened in his life. Made me laugh.
9 Andre // Nov 12, 2007 at 12:18 pm
the “rich getting richer, poor getting poorer” thing is NOT good for the simple reason that there has to be something done to empower the poor to get out of this rut. ok sana kung “rich getting richer, poor getting richer” kaso alam naman natin na in real life hindi madalas nangyayari yan.
many of the poor are poor and stay poor simply because they do not have the capability to get out of that rut. many of the rags-to-riches stories we hear and feel good about are those that happened years ago, like after WW2. do we still hear those stories today? today’s society and economy makes it much harder to duplicate those stories even on a much smaller scale.
the government should take it upon itself to help reduce the income gap between the rich and the poor by empowering the poor to help themselves. after that, it’s up to the poor if they want to remain poor or not. so how can the poor be empowered? education is one step… unfortunately we all know how much our country spends for education.
the government can only do so much, yet in the end it still boils down to a personal decision if one wants to remain poor or not. hopefully we can get a government that has a genuine desire to help the poor, and a people with a genuine desire to overcome poverty thru S&T (sikap n tiyaga).
10 Jon Limjap // Nov 12, 2007 at 12:44 pm
noemi,
Thanks for reminding me about suicide being a psychological disorder.
Suicide is a psychological problem (that is, in cultures where it is not inculcated as an act of honor, which excludes Japan) among the pre-adolescent to adults that should be identified and addressed.
I’ve heard from rumors (unconfirmed, unfortunately) that Mariannet was supposedly suicidal even a few years back, so this might be a case of a psychological problem that was not addressed properly. I’ll check if I could find material online that confirms the rumor.
RD,
Unfortunately, too many people are just that - superstitious. I think being superstitious in itself came from that culture of blame — you form superstitions so that you will have something to blame for misfortunes, instead of conceding that it is a combination of your own mistakes — or sheer unfavorable coincidences, that caused your own problems.
11 Jon Limjap // Nov 12, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Andre,
Now, bushing, that’s where you get it wrong. It is impossible to tell you of a rags to riches story that is quite recent, for the simple reason that it takes a LOT of work and time to get rich!
I mean tell me about the Sys and the Gokongweis in 1960, and I would probably laugh them off as nuveau-rich wannabes!
You want something relatively recent? Tony Tancaktiong started Jollibee the year I was born, in 1980.
Not recent enough? I’m not sure if he became your student but, Richard Sanz, a classmate of mine in ECE (I do think he was my classmate and we were under you in ELCITWO). During his fifth year he got his girlfriend pregnant and got married. His family refused to support him financially. Out of getting bored and frustrated with the low pay ub his engineering job, he conceived The Tea Square, a food kiosk type of business selling different flavors of iced tea.
He’s not yet THAT big, but he’s already earned his first million, and I admire him a lot of that. Do remember that our batch graduated merely 5 years ago, and he put up his business around the time when the dollar was hitting 56.
Even if government threw all of its money on education, I’m sure the people who choose to remain poor will still blame it for not helping them enough.
Well, no contest to this, but I do recognize that there’s not much (beyond voting, which almost feels futile as well) we can do to affect change in the government. This is why the current thrust of my blog entries have leaned towards self-empowerment. Let’s fix the “me” and “us” part first. And then when enough people are self-empowered, maybe that’s the time that they can “infect” the government to become a better one later on.
12 Andre // Nov 12, 2007 at 1:21 pm
well yes i remember Richard (tisoy di ba), student ko rin sya gaya mo noon. but he’s nowhere near rags-to-riches. maybe rich-to-richer
same goes with Mr. Jollibee. (kelan kaya ulit magpu-put up ng Jollibee dito sa Singapore, miss ko na ah)
i guess we all agree on the part about helping others help themselves, and that’s what this is all about. if we can have a helpful people and a helpful government, hey we wouldn’t have anything to complain about.
as such we will only have to content ourselves with the knowledge that personally we are only doing our share to help make this world a better place.
13 Jon Limjap // Nov 12, 2007 at 1:37 pm
It’s so easy to say that bushing, but, look at him, look at yourself, and look at me. Are we, two, anywhere near him in terms of financial capability? Are we, two, equipped to duplicate what he has done in such a short period of time, with certainty and confidence? Have you even had the experience of earning your first million pesos already?
Him being already rich is just another excuse, bushing Andre, especially with us who have exactly the same credentials and even graduated in the same university as he did. And that’s the same excuse other people will use if WE, either of us, succeed. Sasabihin nila, ah, mayaman na yang mga yan, naka-graduate yan ng La Salle.
But does it mean anything in terms of our ability to succeed the way Sanz did? Hell no! Because if it did, why aren’t we as rich as he is now?
You can NOT deny that what he did is a feat, bushing Andre.
14 Andre // Nov 12, 2007 at 2:17 pm
i did not say that to demean his efforts — that is indeed remarkable, how he turned things around in his life. tapos Tea Square pa, ENG na ENG ang dating.
what made him successful was his perseverance and his creativity.
what i meant in my post was — things would be so much more difficult for a working-class (e.g. laborer) person…someone who did not have access to a DLSU education. it would take them many many years longer than, say, Richard to be able to put up enough capital. and even then they would likely go through mistakes and failures like most of us. so the bar to entry for the likes of them is much higher than for us.
15 Jon Limjap // Nov 12, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Andre,
But of course! It really is more difficult, in the same virtue that when you are in Laguna, it takes a lot more time to reach Baguio than if you’re in Tarlac already.
Was it different in the past? Perhaps — but only because World War 2 just ended, and EVERYBODY was poor. But using the same reasoning, why isn’t everybody rich today? What went wrong after the war?
Besides, when did these tycoons become big? They were well into their 60s and 70s when they were recognized. Again, if we were in the late 70s or early 80s, and then I told you about Henry Sy, you would probably say “hindi naman bigtime yan eh, malaki lang tindahan niya ng sapatos sa Carriedo”.
My point is, if it’s harder and it’s more difficult and more treacherous, it doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing. All the more that it is important that this thrust is encouraged earlier in one’s life, so that they may start working on it before they build families, so that it would be easier for them to educate their children who in turn will have the “head start” that is necessary to finally achieve financial success.
16 Andre // Nov 12, 2007 at 5:21 pm
i think it it’s because the standard of living in the past is dramatically different from that of today. dati, ok lang yun magtanim ka ng gulay sa bakuran; pag wala kang pagkain yun ang kainin. ngayon di na pupuwede yan, unless sa probinsya.
17 Jon Limjap // Nov 12, 2007 at 5:35 pm
And THAT gives a totally different dimension to the argument, one which involves the concept of a “daily basket of goods”, which I am not qualified to elaborate upon.
Thing is, kung pagkain-sa-pagkain din lang, mas mahirap ba talagang makahanap ng pagkain ngayon kaysa noon?
Barring technological complexities and development, mas mahirap ba talagang mag-negosyo at yumaman ngayon, kaysa noon?
I wonder.
18 Ato Kenny // Nov 13, 2007 at 8:09 am
“For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” Matthew 13:12. Does this sound like, “the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer?” It does and it seems unfair for us who are poor. But if we understand that the “saying” is an expression of the universal law of abundance, it gives us, the poor, the courage to “get off our butts and do something to get our share from God’s abundant kingdom.” Hey, you know what? I just made that up and I thought that it actually sounds good. I think I’ll take my advice. Bwaahahaha!
19 Jon Limjap // Nov 13, 2007 at 10:19 am
Ah, Ato, but it was clear that Jesus wasn’t talking about money then, he was talking about the wisdom He was imparting amongst his disciples:
10The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
11He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
” ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’[a] 16But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
Matthew 13:10-16
20 Sidney // Nov 13, 2007 at 7:49 pm
I disagree. You should read Newsweek’s November 12, 2007 issue (Mike Bloomberg is on the cover).
“Why the rich are getting richer”. It is not the same story as yours…
Some quotes:
“There is an increasing worrisome global paradox. In the sixth year of synchronous growth, the global economic pie has expanded at an unprecedented rate. But the rich are eating most of the new slices. What’s more, they’re using their power to ensure the baker keeps delivering the pies to their gilt-edged doors before venturing into poorer neighborhoods.”
“The list of global billionaires is now filled with resource magnates who were effectively anointed by the state. Less progressive tax regimes, privatization policies that have funneled public resources into private hands and a lack of basic protection for labor have helped tilt the balance in favor of the wealthy.”
“When it comes to issues like free trade, the taxation of wealth, the protection of workers and the necessity of redistribution and social welfare, the center has moved to the right - in the United States and globally.”
“Rather than using the tools that we have to counteract the forces, moneyed interests really grabbed US politics in the last 20 years and exacerbated these trends. And so the tax structure became less fair, and the public expenditure side became even less fair. In the last several years, the Bush administration and the Republican Congress slashed and cut taxes on capital gains, dividends and estates- all of which have massively benefited the already wealthy.” “Elsewhere tax regimes are similarly friendly to concentration of wealth;”
Or you might want to buy Joe Studwell’s book: Asian Godfathers: Money and Power in Hong Kong and Southeast Asia.
“Despite now bullish stock markets in the region, the billionaires—with their lousy corporate governance and manipulation of local banks to provide cheap and easy alternative sources of credit—also have contributed to the worst long-term emerging-market-equity performance in the world.”
“For working- and middle-class Asians, the past 10 years are mainly defined by rising and palpable inequality. The two wealthy city-states, Hong Kong and Singapore, today boast inequality as measured by the international Gini benchmark that is on par with urban Argentina. Post crisis, the proportion of people in the Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia living on less than the World Bank’s $2-a-day measure of poverty and near poverty is greater than in Latin America. Today, it seems all too possible that the region’s coddled political and economic elites will allow their states to slide into a Latin American morass, as they continue to live high on the hog while the dreams of ordinary people go down the tubes. “
“After the financial crisis in Southeast Asia, in state after state, taxpayers picked up the tab, tycoons picked up the pieces and life went on as before. The lesson of the past decade has been that the relationship between political and economic elites in Southeast Asia is more enduring than almost anyone imagined.”
“Throughout the region, businessmen have been pushing deeper into politics, and Thaksin Shinawatra took this trend to its logical conclusion in Thailand. Backed by other key tycoon families—such as the Chearavanonts of CP Group and the Sophonpanichs, who control Bangkok Bank—he formed a political party and won election as prime minister. As had happened long before in the Philippines, the businessmen overran the political system, blurring the traditional distinction between political and economic elites.”
I CHALLENGE YOU!! Let’s go together to Payatas and show me who has any chance to get out of his circle of poverty.
http://brommel.blogspot.com/2007/10/smokey-mountain-divine-comedy.html
21 Sidney // Nov 13, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Before my challenge there is a sentence missing:
And I am sure you don’t believe that a kid like Mariannete Amper had any chance to rise out of poverty…
What were her odds?
22 Jon Limjap // Nov 13, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Sidney,
A challenge, huh? Sweet!
I’ll get to need my hands on that issue of Newsweek first, though.
Great to see you’re back.
23 Lester Cavestany // Nov 21, 2007 at 10:18 pm
yes, it was her decision but she made it based on her perception of reality - a reality that many of our impoverished countrymen share with her.
We cannot deny that the government has the power, the resources, and the duty to alleviate poverty! That’s why we are tempted to point the finger at our government. What are they in power for?
24 Ang Kape Ni LaTtEX » Blog Archive » Can everyone rise up to the challenge of poverty? // Jan 10, 2008 at 6:13 am
[...] Around a month ago Sidney Snoeck posed a challenge to my blog entry Mariannet Amper and the Gospel of Hopelessness. [...]
25 orly andico // Jan 10, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Ironically, my in-laws are from Maa, Davao City.
And the local scuttlebutt there is that dear dad was sexually abusing Mariannet, and that, not crushing poverty, is what drove her to take her own life.
26 Jon Limjap // Jan 10, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Yeah, I heard about that. Mentioned it in my latest post too.
Leave a Comment