LKY's response to Phd student would have been sexual harrasment in the west?

Confuseous

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
12,730
Points
113
LKY should remember that he should answer questions like a statesman. His answers are not only condescending, it shows he lacks depth. The question was about fostering social cohesiveness but he talks about Singapore's fertility rate. His answer even seems to imply that she should make babies instead of studying for her PhD.

Again, note how condescending LKY is. Even talks about the woman's biological clock and makes inference about her body. If you are a woman, and if someone said that to you, don't you feel violated?

- http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2011/09/phd-student-should-reply-to-lky-i-have.html
 
He, of all people should know that generally, a woman's childbirth rate is inversely proportional with her level of education. He was the one who "imposed" the STOP AT TWO policy in Sg's early years. And the graduate marriage idea.

He seems incoherent. But the ST's refuses to see this.

Cheers!

LKY should remember that he should answer questions like a statesman. His answers are not only condescending, it shows he lacks depth. The question was about fostering social cohesiveness but he talks about Singapore's fertility rate. His answer even seems to imply that she should make babies instead of studying for her PhD.

Again, note how condescending LKY is. Even talks about the woman's biological clock and makes inference about her body. If you are a woman, and if someone said that to you, don't you feel violated?

- http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2011/09/phd-student-should-reply-to-lky-i-have.html
 
LKY will never admit to the stop at 2 policy. It was not a mistake and only ignorant people will think that it was a mistake and he is right. The stop at 2 policy was aimed at reducing the muslim population which was going at a faster rate. LKY at that time always mentioned that we are surrounded by muslims. It was a racial balance initiative. Have you ever heard him mention even that? Have the PAP not been having secret agendas that it feels caanot be told as the general are too stupid to understand?
 
red amoeba. Better to confirm his sexual orientation before you bestow him with prospective marital committment regardless of political advantage
 
LKY will never admit to the stop at 2 policy. It was not a mistake and only ignorant people will think that it was a mistake and he is right. The stop at 2 policy was aimed at reducing the muslim population which was gooing at a faster rate. LKY at that time always mentioned that we are surrounded by muslims. It was a racial balance in tiative. Have you ever heard him mention even n? Have the PAP not been having secret agendas that it feels caanot be told as the general are too stupid to understand?


The muslim vs. general ipopulation growth was only realized sometime after the policy was in place. The stop at two policy was introduced due to other fears - inadequate facilities/resources to meet a rapidly expanding population. See below (and talk to educated people in their fifties, sixties, and seventies):-

http://www.photius.com/countries/singapore/society/singapore_society_population_control_p~11008.html


Since the mid-1960s, Singapore's government has attempted to control the country's rate of population growth with a mixture of publicity, exhortation, and material incentives and disincentives. Falling death rates, continued high birth rates, and immigration from peninsular Malaya during the decade from 1947 to 1957 produced an annual growth rate of 4.4 percent, of which 3.4 percent represented natural increase and 1.0 percent immigration. The crude birth rate peaked in 1957 at 42.7 per thousand. Beginning in 1949, family planning services were offered by the private Singapore Family Planning Association, which by 1960 was receiving some government funds and assistance. By 1965 the crude birth rate was 29.5 per 1,000 and the annual rate of natural increase had been reduced to 2.5 percent. Singapore's government saw rapid population growth as a threat to living standards and political stability, as large numbers of children and young people threatened to overwhelm the schools, the medical services, and the ability of the economy to generate employment for them all. In the atmosphere of crisis after the 1965 separation from Malaysia, the government in 1966 established the Family Planning and Population Board, which was responsible for providing clinical services and public education on family planning.
Birth rates fell from 1957 to 1970, but then began to rise as women of the postwar baby boom reached child-bearing years. The government responded with policies intended to further reduce the birth rate. Abortion and voluntary sterilization were legalized in 1970. Between 1969 and 1972, a set of policies known as "population disincentives" were instituted to raise the costs of bearing third, fourth, and subsequent children. Civil servants received no paid maternity leave for third and subsequent children; maternity hospitals charged progressively higher fees for each additional birth; and income tax deductions for all but the first two children were eliminated. Large families received no extra consideration in public housing assignments, and top priority in the competition for enrollment in the most desirable primary schools was given to only children and to children whose parents had been sterilized before the age of forty. Voluntary sterilization was rewarded by seven days of paid sick leave and by priority in the allocation of such public goods as housing and education. The policies were accompanied by publicity campaigns urging parents to "Stop at Two" and arguing that large families threatened parents' present livelihood and future security. The penalties weighed more heavily on the poor, and were justified by the authorities as a means of encouraging the poor to concentrate their limited resources on adequately nurturing a few children who would be equipped to rise from poverty and become productive citizens.
Fertility declined throughout the 1970s, reaching the replacement level of 1.006 in 1975, and thereafter declining below that level. With fertility below the replacement level, the population would after some fifty years begin to decline unless supplemented by immigration. In a manner familiar to demographers, Singapore's demographic transition to low levels of population growth accompanied increases in income, education, women's participation in paid employment, and control of infectious diseases. It was impossible to separate the effects of government policies from the broader socioeconomic forces promoting later marriage and smaller families, but it was clear that in Singapore all the factors affecting population growth worked in the same direction. The government's policies and publicity campaigns thus probably hastened or reinforced fertility trends that stemmed from changes in economic and educational structures. By the 1980s, Singapore's vital statistics resembled those of other countries with comparable income levels but without Singapore's publicity campaigns and elaborate array of administrative incentives.
By the 1980s, the government had become concerned with the low rate of population growth and with the relative failure of the most highly educated citizens to have children. The failure of female university graduates to marry and bear children, attributed in part to the apparent preference of male university graduates for less highly educated wives, was singled out by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in 1983 as a serious social problem. In 1984 the government acted to give preferential school admission to children whose mothers were university graduates, while offering grants of S$10,000 (for value of the Singapore dollar--see Glossary) to less educated women who agreed to be sterilized after the birth of their second child. The government also established a Social Development Unit to act as matchmaker for unmarried university graduates. The policies, especially those affecting placement of children in the highly competitive Singapore schools, proved controversial and generally unpopular. In 1985 they were abandoned or modified on the grounds that they had not been effective at increasing the fecundity of educated women.
 
Good to know. But didn't the A team at that time study the trends in the more developed countries at that time and realise the trend of falling birthrates for more educated women and better educated couples? Were we not encouraging education of Singapore women and that they would go out to work thereafter? Yes, from hindsight but expected better from the glorified A team. Oh! Believe the LKY was the A team head honcho at that time. What's done is done, let address more relevant issues like LKY recent verbal vomit.
 
LKY is a man. A lucky man, smart, well-connected, all the plusses. But the local media places him at the apex - all the time. He can do no wrong. Repeatedly doing so brainwashes the masses.

If LKY makes some mistakes, fine. It is only human. But the ST spins or hides them. And Sgns do not have any other "official" news source.

I do not hate the government, nor am I anti. It is the ST that needs to polish herself up.

Cheers!
 
Back
Top