Lowering Age Of Criminal Liability Is Just Part Of The Solution, What About Economic Policies To Reduce Poverty?

Is it me or is the Philippines just too fond of band aid solutions and messed up priorities? The current news is that the House of Representatives has currently approved the current measurement. Though there has to be some considerations on how to treat minors who are guilty of crime or used by adults in the process. According to Senate President Vicente Sotto III -- minors who are criminally liable will not be jailed but rehabilitated instead. I guess the same should go that Joaquin "Bullyit" Montes Jr. should be sent to a rehabilitation center. 

Why is crime so rampant in the Philippines and other third world countries? Though one can mention crime is now more rampant in the U.S. but it has nothing to do with economic policies. In the case of the Philippines -- there's too many Filipinos seeking jobs and too few Filipinos who can provide jobs. The answer for unemployment or generating employment is not in cash transfer programs. If the economy is so bad then it's very easy for crime to breed. If there's so much poverty then it's a good breeding ground for crime. Whether it's the father who is forced to steal to feed his family or a child used by one's parents to do crimes -- it's all rooted on poverty. While some can argue that cash transfer programs do work (though I'd like to dig more on it) -- however if the cash transfer program ends when the child finishes high school then what's the use of finishing the program if said child can't find a job to pay for one's tuition fees?

We can do a study of other countries that went from third world to first world to learn how to reduce crime. My favorite examples are Singapore and China (though China's government is a douche TBH). I heard of how bad crime was during the times of Mao Ze Dong because of the rampant poverty. Singapore was also a crime-ridden city. Both Lee Kuan Yew and Deng Xiao Ping started to execute economic policies that would provide more Chinese and Singaporeans. Although Deng maintained the defective presidential system (and China is still unitary) -- he did dismantle Mao's state protectionism. Lee brought in badly needed investments which provided jobs for Singapore. It's not just about discipline -- it's also about having good economic policies to go along with it.

What the Philippines needs right now is to really open up the economy to foreign investment by removing 60/40 completely. While foreign investors aren't a panacea or cure-all for economic woes but it doesn't mean we can neglect it. There's already local businesses and it's businesses (whether local or foreign) that create jobs -- not cash transfer programs! Also, to argue that foreign investors won't arrive until spending increases then they need to consider that both Singapore and China were once poorer than the Philippines. Foreign investors don't necessarily arrive to sell -- some of them arrive in order to recruit labor force or build a factory. They may make their products in the Philippines while selling to other countries for a start. People who are employed should be paid accordingly to Philippine laws then spending increases compared to cash transfer programs that only provide aide. Even if cash transfer programs do teach people how to fish (ex. doing community service in exchange for cash) but the question is are they enough to really establish jobs?