Are you rich or poor? How do you know you are one of either?
For that question, I got one answer from a journalist. In his speech, Tongues on Fire, delivered before the French Business Association of the Philippines last April 24, 2001 ( and documented in the book 20 Speeches That Moved A Nation), Conrado De Quiros pointed out the fundamental difference between the haves and the have-nots.
In the speech, he mentions two events that utterly described "what being poor really meant-or conversely, what being rich really meant." The first event talks about a meeting between various parties, from the NGO to the academe down to the bankers and the experts, which was convened for the sole purpose of putting up a foundation which aimed to strengthen local government units. Everyone in the whole group was optimistic about their proposed endeavor. Each problem was quickly addressed by someone in the group who had ties to someone who could help or endorse. Clearly, every problem had a solution; nothing was insurmountable.
De Quiros contrasted this with a story of a man who murdered his entire family. This man had labored long and hard to get food on the table, doing every job possible for his family to survive. And finally, when everything just didn't go his way, he found a way to end his suffering and his family's.
As what De Quiros points out later in the speech, "To be rich is to be replete with possibility. To be rich is to know that nothing is impossible. To be rich is to know that you can go around any obstacle, go under or over any obstacle, go through any obstacle. It is to know that when you want money, you can lay your hands on it. It is to know that when you need people, you can get in touch with them. It is to know that when you want something done, you can get it done."
On the other hand, he says, "To be poor...is to be assailed by impossibility. It is to be thwarted at every turn by the improvident hand of man or God-or fate. It is to have obstacle after obstacle put in your path until you no longer see the goal, until you no longer know there is a goal, until you learn only to toil to get past the obstacle you wake up to each day at the crack of dawn. It is quite literally to have no one to turn to."
In alleviating poverty in the country, the natural response would be, of course, to help the poor get back on their feet. This starts from the feeding programs and progresses to a housing initiative organized by the public sector then finally to the projects devoted to finding and developing sustainable livelihood programs for the beneficiaries.
But the greater challenge in all this would be to let the poor dream again, to bestow to someone the ability to be optimistic of one's future. Being rich, after all, as what De Quiros points out, doesn't start with one's material possessions, but is, in fact, a state of the mind. Unfortunately, that's something that doesn't have clear solutions to begin with. To bestow and nurture that mentality among the poor - to dream of a better life and to expand someone's reality - continues to be the main task of any self-proclaimed philanthropist.
For that question, I got one answer from a journalist. In his speech, Tongues on Fire, delivered before the French Business Association of the Philippines last April 24, 2001 ( and documented in the book 20 Speeches That Moved A Nation), Conrado De Quiros pointed out the fundamental difference between the haves and the have-nots.
In the speech, he mentions two events that utterly described "what being poor really meant-or conversely, what being rich really meant." The first event talks about a meeting between various parties, from the NGO to the academe down to the bankers and the experts, which was convened for the sole purpose of putting up a foundation which aimed to strengthen local government units. Everyone in the whole group was optimistic about their proposed endeavor. Each problem was quickly addressed by someone in the group who had ties to someone who could help or endorse. Clearly, every problem had a solution; nothing was insurmountable.
De Quiros contrasted this with a story of a man who murdered his entire family. This man had labored long and hard to get food on the table, doing every job possible for his family to survive. And finally, when everything just didn't go his way, he found a way to end his suffering and his family's.
As what De Quiros points out later in the speech, "To be rich is to be replete with possibility. To be rich is to know that nothing is impossible. To be rich is to know that you can go around any obstacle, go under or over any obstacle, go through any obstacle. It is to know that when you want money, you can lay your hands on it. It is to know that when you need people, you can get in touch with them. It is to know that when you want something done, you can get it done."
On the other hand, he says, "To be poor...is to be assailed by impossibility. It is to be thwarted at every turn by the improvident hand of man or God-or fate. It is to have obstacle after obstacle put in your path until you no longer see the goal, until you no longer know there is a goal, until you learn only to toil to get past the obstacle you wake up to each day at the crack of dawn. It is quite literally to have no one to turn to."
In alleviating poverty in the country, the natural response would be, of course, to help the poor get back on their feet. This starts from the feeding programs and progresses to a housing initiative organized by the public sector then finally to the projects devoted to finding and developing sustainable livelihood programs for the beneficiaries.
But the greater challenge in all this would be to let the poor dream again, to bestow to someone the ability to be optimistic of one's future. Being rich, after all, as what De Quiros points out, doesn't start with one's material possessions, but is, in fact, a state of the mind. Unfortunately, that's something that doesn't have clear solutions to begin with. To bestow and nurture that mentality among the poor - to dream of a better life and to expand someone's reality - continues to be the main task of any self-proclaimed philanthropist.
No comments:
Post a Comment