TWO MEANINGFUL WORDS that have become rallying points for people in government and in the church have lately been hogging the headlines. The two: good governance and reproductive health.

        There is one common denominator between the two. Both have developed similar approaches to their respective problems. Each has divided its concern into smaller sections, thus a solution for one sector one could be said to be good enough for all. When we speak of reproductive health, we just don’t focus our attention to the use of contraceptives and of artificial birth control methods. We must look at the health of human life in the whole ---- from conception to resurrection, so to speak.

        But as things are, all talks about reproductive health are centered on the prevention of birth, as if there is no life before one’s birth or after one has matured and grown old. Our popular understanding and overview of life are based on birth not on conception. It seems that life starts with birth and ends with death. We seem to exclude the period from the moment life is conceived up to the moment when a human being is born.

        Even our records, be they of the church or of the state, do not bear out this symbiotic view of human life. Thus our computation of man’s life starts at his birth, not at the moment of his conception. In this manner life is clearly broken into components ---with the exclusion of the period of conception and the months of gestation as an importance part of human life. It is understandable then why the contraceptive methods could be made acceptable since there is no life prevented or killed before one is born. Remember that life starts at birth, not at conception

        So when the Church speaks of reproductive health it in a way compartmentalizes life. It does not view life as a whole. It concentrates on life before birth, which is highly commendable. It, however, surprises us that the Church has lately been concentrating on contraception when there are more people who are alive and who need the attention and care of the Church: the poor, the orphan, the aged, the ignorant, the sick and the dying, the victims of war, of oppression, of terrorism, of extrajudicial killings, of outrageous laws? Why is there too much attention given to reproductive health when other sectors of the Church deserve as much, if not more attention from the church on matters of health?

        In a similar manner, when we divide governance into components, we lose the essence of public service, which is what good governance is.

        When we speak of governance we do not simply refer to the imposition of higher taxes or just to the enactment of ordinances to make the city attractive to the entry of investors. We must not sing just one note but the whole gamut of governance --- the people and their circumstances --- to come up with a good composition.

        All programs of any local government ---- including those of Naga City ---- shall have for its utmost concern the good of its people --- from the young to the senior citizens, from those who have less in life to those who have problems on how to spend what they have in life. So what can we say of a government which has been given recognition for excellence in governance when we can still see street children roam around, hawk at pedestrians and commuters --- where is good governance there? So what can we say when we see local heritage, culture, and historical constructions left to the elements and made to rot ---- where is good governance there? So what can we say when the people of this city – despite their objections --- are made to pay higher real property taxes if only to raise funds to finance the projects of the city officials, like the Naga City coliseum, which is a losing venture in terms of return of investments --- where is good governance there?

        Good governance is not thinking small. It is thinking big --- big enough to consider the good of the community, of its people, and of all the circumstances that affect the community and its people.