Population, Stop at Two Flashcards
Describe how Singapore’s population growth was unsustainable.
Following World War IIs end in 1945, the growth of Singapore’s population was assessed to be unsustainable for its economic prospects; there were about 1 million people born between the years of 1957 and 1964, with total live birth rate increasing by 58%.
Why was Singapore’s trend of population growth perceived as a threat to “political instability and living standards.”?
During the period of 1957 and 1964, the natural increase rate was 4.4%.
This trend would lead to overcrowding, especially when Singapore’s average person per building density was 18.2 in 1947.
When was the “Stop at Two” policy implemented and by whom?
The leader of the People’s Action Party, Lee Kuan Yew implemented the “Stop at Two” policy which was adopted by the SFPPB between 1972 and 1987 which encouraged and benefited two-children families and subsequent sterilisation.
What did the government gradually increase between 1968 and 1973?
Explain this further.
The government also added a gradually increasing array of incentives and disincentives between 1968 and 1973, penalising parents for having more than two children.
For instance, in 1968 with the employment bill, female employees were not allowed to receive maternity leave for their fourth child or any subsequent children.
However, children whose parents who had been sterilised before the age of 40 would have access to higher quality primary schools.
Explain how Lee Kuan Yews “Stop at Two” policy was successful in reducing the natural increase rate.
From 1972 to 1986, the crude birth rate dropped from 23.1 to 14.8 per 1000 residents.
This in turn, caused the natural increase rate to
fall to 1.43 in 1986.
This reduction in natural increase allowed Singapore to achieve the “demographic gift”. The “demographic gift” describes a large increase in the number of working age individuals in the population, relative to young and old dependents. This lead to increases in income, a reduced burden on education and healthcare.
Furthermore, the role of women in the workforce were strongly correlated to levels of low population growth. This is because of lower fertility rates which contributed to an increase female labour force participation (women spent less time on childcare).
What is a good way to summarise, the good impacts of Singapore’s “Stop at Two” policy?
The “Stop at Two” policy allowed Singapore to achieve a more equitable distribution of resources, thereby improving the standard of living. In parallel, the policy prevented Singapore from experiencing the risks associated with population (e.g. environmental degradation, heightened unemployment).
Why could it be argued that the “Stop at Two” policy was not successful from a human rights perspective?
The policy favoured Chinese over minority races; Malays and Indians were stereotyped to have higher birth rates and bigger families than the Chinese, leading to accusations of eugenics.
Why could it be argued that the “Stop at Two” policy negatively effected Singapore’s natural increase in the long term?
In 1986 the natural increase rate was 1.43, this was well below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1. This led to an increase in the proportion of elderly dependents (the citizen old-age support ratio decreased from 13.5 in 1970 to 4.7 in 2016). Therefore, creating greater financial pressure on services such as geriatric care and nursing homes.
Furthermore, studies show the economic penalties and disincentives had a limited effect on families from the low-income class who tended to have large families as “children may prove their main security in the future.”
A lower rate of natural increase led to deliberate shift in policy by the Singaporean government to allow more foreigners to live and work in the country, net migration increased in the 1980-1990 period to nearly 200,000.
What was the problem of this?
The rapid pace of immigration since the 1990s has lead to a resurgence of xenophobia, especially after events such as the 2013 Little India Riot which involved mobs of migrant labourers from South Asia attacking public transport and emergency service. Some Singaporeans express the concern that immigrants dilute Singapore’s cultural identity. However, this is a weaker argument as Singapore has always been a migrant city.
